What are the opinions here on Pat Riley's comments about the officials?

Here is a link for the uninformed.

http://espn.go.com/nba/news/2002/1214/1477169.html

I used to have a lot of respect for Pat Riley, I lost a lot of respect for Pat Riley. The reason his team is not getting calls, because his team is not talented. Usually the team that has good fundamentals and has talent, get foul calls. My question would be for him, when he was on top, did he think the officials called the game purposely in his favor? But now when he is at the bottom and does not have many good players, it is the official's personal vendetta to go after Pat Riley. I guess it is easier to blame others for you abilities.

Peace

L-O-S-E-R. How far he has tumbled. I guess he doesn't know that he could have maintained some pride and class even if he had more L's than W's.

Z

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

I think you understate the value of good coach at the pro level a bit, but not much. Think about the Lakers -- couldn't do a lot until Jackson got them to play well together. The best coach is not going to win with bad players, but will push the best players over the top, or squeeze wins out of lesser teams. (Don Nelson always seemed to me to do a good job of squeezing wins out of lesser teams.) And look at the Raiders, they just fell apart without John Gruden . . .

Did anyone stop to consider what the implications are if Mr. Riley is telling the truth?

I don't know that it will ever be established if the refs were out of line, due to the "he said, she said" part of the story, but remember, silence cannot be misquoted!

Call me crazy but aren't we human and allowed to make mistakes???