Where does Red, the coach, rate all time?

[Moranis]

Red is without question the greatest GM/President/Executive/Whatever you want to call that position in NBA history (Jerry West is the only guy even close to him), but I think people often put some of that GM skill on his actual coaching.  So how good a coach was he actually?  And yes, I'm well aware of the 9 titles he won as a coach, but I will say this, Bill Russell was so easy to coach to championships that Bill Russell coached himself to his last 2 titles.  If Bill can not only play, but also coach and win championships, doesn't that diminish the perceived coaching prowess of Red a great deal?  Red was obviously a good coach, but I think many people think he is a top 2 or 3 coach all time, and I'm really not sure that he was.  If you had 1 season and needed a coach (who could not alter a roster at all), where would Red rank on that list?

[SHAQATTACK]

He is my number one .  He wore every hat and was successful at the highest level.

[liam]

#1

[Roy H.]

1st

Russell wouldn’t have been coaching the team to titles without the system Red implemented.

[td450]

How many coaches at any level back in the 50's would have had the strength of character to accept and helped foster just how great Russell was as a leader and strategist? A thousand  guys in a row would have messed that up back then. He didn't.

[18isGREATERthan72]

I never got to watch in person any of the teams coached by Red (I'm 32)

The league was different back then, so trying to compare coaching now to then is tough.  What I do know is that the Celtics often times had to play against the most dominant player in the history of the game (Wilt Chamberlain) and always came out on top.  A lot of that had to do with Bill Russell of course, but the Celtics of that era seemed like a team that was greater than the sum of its parts, and I think that is a by product of coaching.

[Birdman]

Didn’t have that many teams in 50’s & 60’s plus very different rules & players didn’t make much money or any say so..mute point

[Moranis]

Red's playoff record before Russell was 8-15 and he never coached after Russell.  And he was coaching several HOFers in their prime so it wasn't like the team was devoid of talent.  Also, Russell the coach without Russell the player coached 5 seasons making the playoffs twice and sporting a 6-9 record in those playoffs.  It certainly seems to me that Russell the player is what made Red and Russell the coaches so successful, which is why I brought this question up.  I think many of us often equate Red, the GM, with Red, the coach, and they aren't the same thing.

[Big333223]

1st

Russell wouldn’t have been coaching the team to titles without the system Red implemented.

Adding to this: the story I read is that Red asked Heinsohn (already retired) who the next coach should be and would he like to do it and Heinsohn's answer was, The only man who could coach Bill Russell is Bill Russell, and that's why Russell became his own head coach. This seems to fly in the face of the OP's idea that Russell was "easy to coach."

Anyway, Red is on the coaching Mt. Rushmore with Riley, Jackson, and Pop.

[Moranis]

1st

Russell wouldn’t have been coaching the team to titles without the system Red implemented.

Adding to this: the story I read is that Red asked Heinsohn (already retired) who the next coach should be and would he like to do it and Heinsohn's answer was, The only man who could coach Bill Russell is Bill Russell, and that's why Russell became his own head coach. This seems to fly in the face of the OP's idea that Russell was "easy to coach."

Anyway, Red is on the coaching Mt. Rushmore with Riley, Jackson, and Pop.

easy to coach to championships is not necessarily the same thing as easy to coach.  Red went from winning about a third of his playoff games with 3 HOFers in their prime, to winning 9 championships the second Bill Russell set foot on the floor. 

But that quote actually goes the opposite way.  If true that Bill was such a problem and only he could coach himself, then Red certainly wasn't coaching him and should get less credit for winning championships with him.

[Big333223]

1st

Russell wouldn’t have been coaching the team to titles without the system Red implemented.

Adding to this: the story I read is that Red asked Heinsohn (already retired) who the next coach should be and would he like to do it and Heinsohn's answer was, The only man who could coach Bill Russell is Bill Russell, and that's why Russell became his own head coach. This seems to fly in the face of the OP's idea that Russell was "easy to coach."

Anyway, Red is on the coaching Mt. Rushmore with Riley, Jackson, and Pop.

easy to coach to championships is not necessarily the same thing as easy to coach.  Red went from winning about a third of his playoff games with 3 HOFers in their prime, to winning 9 championships the second Bill Russell set foot on the floor. 

But that quote actually goes the opposite way.  If true that Bill was such a problem and only he could coach himself, then Red certainly wasn't coaching him and should get less credit for winning championships with him.

If that was true, then anyone could've taken the helm of the Celtics and won championships. But Heinsohn seemed to think that no one, other than Red, could've.

[Moranis]

1st

Russell wouldn’t have been coaching the team to titles without the system Red implemented.

Adding to this: the story I read is that Red asked Heinsohn (already retired) who the next coach should be and would he like to do it and Heinsohn's answer was, The only man who could coach Bill Russell is Bill Russell, and that's why Russell became his own head coach. This seems to fly in the face of the OP's idea that Russell was "easy to coach."

Anyway, Red is on the coaching Mt. Rushmore with Riley, Jackson, and Pop.

easy to coach to championships is not necessarily the same thing as easy to coach.  Red went from winning about a third of his playoff games with 3 HOFers in their prime, to winning 9 championships the second Bill Russell set foot on the floor. 

But that quote actually goes the opposite way.  If true that Bill was such a problem and only he could coach himself, then Red certainly wasn't coaching him and should get less credit for winning championships with him.

If that was true, then anyone could've taken the helm of the Celtics and won championships. But Heinsohn seemed to think that no one, other than Red, could've.

And yet Bill was able to do it while playing.

[hpantazo]

Easily #1. Do you ever hear about problems managing egos on a roster full of HOF players? Or sharing the ball or maximizing their talents or failing to develop players? Or overcoming one of the most dominant offensive talents ever as an opponent?

He also implemented the fist all black starting 5 in NBA history and chose the first black head coach to succeed him. The list can go on and on,  and none of those things were at all easy in that era. Red's accomplishments as coach are unmatched.

[smokeablount]

Red's playoff record before Russell was 8-15 and he never coached after Russell.  And he was coaching several HOFers in their prime so it wasn't like the team was devoid of talent.  Also, Russell the coach without Russell the player coached 5 seasons making the playoffs twice and sporting a 6-9 record in those playoffs.  It certainly seems to me that Russell the player is what made Red and Russell the coaches so successful, which is why I brought this question up.  I think many of us often equate Red, the GM, with Red, the coach, and they aren't the same thing.

Who is he competing with?

Phil Jackson, who didn’t ever do anything without having the most talented rosters in the league, including one team with the GOAT and one team with 2 top 15 all time players?

Pop, who has been thoroughly mediocre without top 10 all timer Tim Duncan flanked by 2 other Hall of Famers?

Pat Riley, whose most recent championship was fixed and who beyond that didn’t win anything without 2 top 5-6 all time players?

Spo, who hasn’t done anything without a top 3 all time player flanked by 2 other Hall of Famers including a top 3 all time SG?

Based on your argument against Red, there is no #1 all time coach.

[86MaxwellSmart]

Popovich is SOOOOO Overrated. Ping Pong Balls in 1997 gave him his entire coaching career. He even blew a Championship to Miami by having Duncan on the bench, NOT getting the 2 rebounds that would have secured a title.


Red is #1....certainly not Phil Jackson either--who could only coach Stacked teams in place, ready to win---was a complete failure as GM of the Knicks too.