This is just my opinion, but I think in 99.9999% of the time in pro sports, the term "great coach" translates into "has great players". End of story. How many times have we seen this? In all sports. Pat Riley is one example. How about K.C. Jones? Won titles with the Celtics when the holy trinity was still playing. Then went to Seattle with almost nobody and did nothing.
Mike Ditka was a genius in Chicago, but then went to New Orleans with NO talent and couldn't win a set of Mardi Gras beads. Then, realizing that he actually needed great talent, he traded his entire draft for Ricky Williams.
In baseball, possibly the best recent example is Jim Leyland. When the Pirates had Bonds and Bonilla, among some other notable names, and a very good staff of pitchers (including Tim Wakefield
), the Pirates went to the NLCS 3 years in a row. Leyland was revered. Then Bonds left, the pitching staff thinned and the Pirates had a hard time winning 70 games. So Leyland left for Florida where the owners ponied up money for lots of quality free agents, stocking the pitching staff and getting accused of "buying" a World Series victory. Again, Leyland was highly praised. But then there was the fire sale, Florida had no major league talent and Leyland couldn't bring home even 60 wins.
Coaching certainly isn't irrelevant, but it is overrated, at the pro level. If you have great players, you usually win. (Of course, it is possible to have great players, but alienate them so they don't want to perform for you.) If you don't have great players, you don't win.
Again, just my opinion
Chuck