Sports Dynasties.. Is It.. The Players.. The Coach/Manager.. Or Both..

[Mitchell]

I didn't see this topic posted, so I thought I would start the discussion.

For.. the Sports Dynasties.. both.. modern. say.. last.. 30 years, and.. before that.. do forum members think it is..the players.. or the manager/coach, or.. a little of both.

In modern sports.. three topics come to mind.

1. Phil Jackson's teams. He won eleven NBA championships between 1991 and 2010. He took over teams that were.. mediocre.. and sometimes had to push them.. or get a piece or two here or there, but.. he got six titles out of the 1990s Bulls, and five more with the Lakers from 2000-2010, two coming even after Shaq left the Lakers.

2. The Yankees. 1996-2009. Five Championships in that time. Four under Joe Torre in five years from 1996 to 2000, and then the other one with Joe Girardi in 2009. Was Torre that good, or did he win because he had Mariano Rivera as his closer, the best closer of all time, and Derek Jeter, a guy who has over 3000 hits, two, clean, sure fire Hall of Famers.

3. The Braves from 1991 to 2005. Yes, they won "Only" one World Series, but they won five NL Pennants from 1991 to 1999, and fourteen straight division titles. Was it, Bobby Cox.. or.. did he succeed so well, because he had.,,.. Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and John Smoltz, three clean, certain, Hall of Famers, mostly following each other in the rotation three out of five days a week. Of course, they won six of those titles when such was not even the case. As baseball fans know, Smoltz missed the entire 2000 season with Tommy John Surgery, and was in the bullpen for four years from 2001 to 2004. Tom Glavine left the Braves after 2002, and Greg Maddux left after 2003, and the Braves still won divisions for years after that until 2005.

Maybe the answer is different for all these scenarios. This is my view, although I know I'm more versed in baseball, as opposed to basketball, even though I do follow the NBA, and have read some of Phil Jackson's books, and will be getting his recently released book, Eleven Rings.

In the case of Phil Jackson..

With the Bulls, it could be argued that Michael Jordan was the best player ever to play in the NBA. During the seasons he sat out.. the Bulls were "Good", but not championship caliber.

The Lakers: They had Shaq O Neal and Kobe Bryant before Phil Jackson ever came to the Lakers.. yet didn't win a title until Phil's first season there. I think.. Jackson did his most remarkable work, along with Bryant, in getting titles out of the Lakers in 2009 and 2010.

The Yankees: Yes, it was Rivera and Jeter's contributions.. but.. Torre also had to contend with owner George Steinbrenner for twelve years.

In the Braves case: I feel like they should be mentioned, because, in spite of "Only" the one World Series.. Five World Series appearances in eight years between 1991 and 1999, excluding the strike no World Series year of 1994, and fourteen straight division titles. Yes, Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz were great pitchers, and should all be Hall of Famers, but.. Cox also won many division titles in years he had lesser pieces.. or injuries, like when Smoltz missed the 2000 season, and they still won the division for the ninth year in a row.

Anyhow, those are the Dynasties I'm starting with. and any others that come to mind, feel free to add them.

 

[RealisticSwitch]

I think it has to be the players that take more credit for a dynasty than the coach. As you alluded to, when the players are gone (MJ sitting out), the team wasn't as successful. If the coach was the reason for the dynasty, Chicago still should have contended.

 

[milagros317]

The golden age of the Dodgers was 1947 to 1966, inclusive.

In those 20 years, the Dodgers won 10 National League pennants (1947, 1949, 1952, 1953, 1955*, 1956, 1959*, 1963*, 1965*, and 1966). The four years marked with an asterisk, they went on to win the World Series.

It is NOT an accident that this period began with the rookie year of Jackie Robinson and ended with the retirement of Sandy Koufax.

Thus my answer to your question is: It is the players.

 

[Mitchell]

Thanks, guys.

Yes, Realistic, I agree what you said about MJ's hiatus with the Bulls. Jackson was still the coach, but the Bulls were just "Good". They didn't win the other titles, until MJ came back.

Also true what mils said about the Dodgers. Walter Alston was the manager for.. thirteen years.. I believe,. of the "Golden Era of the Dodgers" mils mentions, but he did have a lot of wonderful players. Drysdale/Koufax.

Even a coach like Jackson, as successful as he was in Chicago, might win five more titles as he did, if he had.. Kobe Bryant as his best player for over a decade, as Jackson did in LA. Bryant has a chance, if his injury heals, to perhaps end up as the leading total points scorer of all time in the NBA. The guy is a superstar player.

 

[SouthernGent]

Another dynasty that comes to mind is the late 80's-90's Florida State Seminoles. From 1987-2000, the Noles went 152-19-1, with 11 of the 19 loses being by 7 points or less and had a 56 game home winning streak, one of the longest in college football history. Simply put, if you played at Doak Campbell Stadium in the 90's, you lost. In those 14 years, they played in 5 national title games, winning 2 (1993 & 1999). And more impressively, in those 14 years, they had at least 10 wins in every season and never finished lower than 5th in the final AP poll.

With regards to coaches vs players, from 1987-2000, FSU had 2 Heisman Trophy winners, 27 AP 1st Team All-Americans, and more other, minor awards than I care to count. But with that being said, their coach was Bobby Bowden, the all time winningest coach in major college football (and it pains me to say that because I have the utmost respect for Joe Paterno. One mistake, no matter how vile, shouldn't define a man's legacy. But that is a discussion for another day.) and one of the best recruiters of all time. Which is why, with regards to college football anyway, I'm gonna have to say that the coaches are more important. And the reason being, not only are the coaches responsible for the game planning and play calling of all the games, but the recruitment of players. They put together a list of players they want and need and go out and try to get them and should they fail, they lose weapons in their game planning.

 

[RealisticSwitch]

When it comes to college sports, I place much more importance on the coaches, as they are responsible for recruiting. Considering college players do not (officially) get paid for being an athlete (and they should), many make their decisions based on the coach. Geno Auriemma and Pat Summitt are two stellar examples in the world of women's NCAA basketball.

Once you start factoring in multi-million dollar contracts, though, the impact of a coach lessens. You might occasionally hear about a player taking a minor pay cut or a hometown discount in order to work with a specific coach, but when push comes to shove, they almost always take the money.

 

[Heeko]

I totally agree with the other posts in that college sports rely more heavily on the coaches.

In pro sports, I think it fair to say it's a good balance between the two. You can have the best materials in the world, but if you don't have the right blueprints your house will still look like crap. However, combine the two, great materials with great blueprints and you get success.

 

[Aphion]

Just to explore a different angle, there have been some dynasties in football, particularly in Europe, that are worth mentioning.

Liverpool FC: 1959-1990
Manchester Utd: 1986-2013
FC Barcelona: 2009-2013

The common theme is that all three teams had, and still have, fantastic players. But for me, the most important thing is that the coach, manager, or head man, understands the mentality of the fans, and also can relate to them.