I seeBoth proteges of Phil Jackson
Both took jobs in the same season with no head coaching experience.
One took over a fantastic team already with good players.
One took over a bad team with mediocre players.
Kerr went into a situation where a huge amount of groundwork was already laid for him.
Fisher went into a situation that he knew was going to get worse before it ever got better.
The point being, you jagaloon, is that given the advantages that Kerr inherited, the credit bestowed upon him deserves to be taken with a certain degree of salt.

So why are you comparing Fisher to Kerr when the discussion is Kerr v Jackson?
