mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

That's right. I'm watching Westbrook and Durant struggle to close this game against the Clips as they keep running a very high post up to Durant and everyone else standing and watching either Westbrook or Durant go against the entire Clips defense. THIS is the folly of ISO style and even simple PnR without involving the entire group in your plays. Sure you need individual greatness but if you start your sets with everyone being an option it makes it harder to give help on your star players and they are more successful.

The trick is that if you get a lead you want to be able to maintain it. The Thunder lost their lead when they went ISO. They needed to trust the offense and run good sets, but they didn't. They actually made it harder for their best players to score by going away from running high % plays.

You are not concerned that the triangle does not have PnR's?

All the top teams are PnR heavy teams. Its is proven with all diff personel.

The OKC ISO ball was awful at the end.

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

That's right. I'm watching Westbrook and Durant struggle to close this game against the Clips as they keep running a very high post up to Durant and everyone else standing and watching either Westbrook or Durant go against the entire Clips defense. THIS is the folly of ISO style and even simple PnR without involving the entire group in your plays. Sure you need individual greatness but if you start your sets with everyone being an option it makes it harder to give help on your star players and they are more successful.

The trick is that if you get a lead you want to be able to maintain it. The Thunder lost their lead when they went ISO. They needed to trust the offense and run good sets, but they didn't. They actually made it harder for their best players to score by going away from running high % plays.

You are not concerned that the triangle does not have PnR's?

All the top teams are PnR heavy teams. Its is proven with all diff personel.

The OKC ISO ball was awful at the end.

11 rings tell me that we shouldn't be terribly concerned, lol.

Not really concerned, just curious if the triangle is better than PnR without MJ or Kobe/Shaq. We will find out.

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

That's right. I'm watching Westbrook and Durant struggle to close this game against the Clips as they keep running a very high post up to Durant and everyone else standing and watching either Westbrook or Durant go against the entire Clips defense. THIS is the folly of ISO style and even simple PnR without involving the entire group in your plays. Sure you need individual greatness but if you start your sets with everyone being an option it makes it harder to give help on your star players and they are more successful.

The trick is that if you get a lead you want to be able to maintain it. The Thunder lost their lead when they went ISO. They needed to trust the offense and run good sets, but they didn't. They actually made it harder for their best players to score by going away from running high % plays.

You are not concerned that the triangle does not have PnR's?

All the top teams are PnR heavy teams. Its is proven with all diff personel.

The OKC ISO ball was awful at the end.

11 rings tell me that we shouldn't be terribly concerned, lol.

Not really concerned, just curious if the triangle is better than PnR without MJ or Kobe/Shaq. We will find out.

Phil took the Bulls to the semi-conference finals and nearly the conference finals without MJ in 1994. He also had the Lakers playing playoff basketball in 2007 with Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and a 3rd forgettable scrub as starters. As a matter of fact, that Laker squad was a few minutes in game 5 of knocking off the number one seeded Suns. The triangle has made it's due with and without star-power.

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

That's right. I'm watching Westbrook and Durant struggle to close this game against the Clips as they keep running a very high post up to Durant and everyone else standing and watching either Westbrook or Durant go against the entire Clips defense. THIS is the folly of ISO style and even simple PnR without involving the entire group in your plays. Sure you need individual greatness but if you start your sets with everyone being an option it makes it harder to give help on your star players and they are more successful.

The trick is that if you get a lead you want to be able to maintain it. The Thunder lost their lead when they went ISO. They needed to trust the offense and run good sets, but they didn't. They actually made it harder for their best players to score by going away from running high % plays.

You are not concerned that the triangle does not have PnR's?

All the top teams are PnR heavy teams. Its is proven with all diff personel.

The OKC ISO ball was awful at the end.

11 rings tell me that we shouldn't be terribly concerned, lol.

Not really concerned, just curious if the triangle is better than PnR without MJ or Kobe/Shaq. We will find out.

Phil took the Bulls to the semi-conference finals and nearly the conference finals without MJ in 1994. He also had the Lakers playing playoff basketball in 2007 with Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and a 3rd forgettable scrub as starters. As a matter of fact, that Laker squad was a few minutes in game 5 of knocking off the number one seeded Suns. The triangle has made it's due with and without star-power.

Yes ... good point.

I thought his best coaching job was the year that Hugh Hollins blessed our knicks with a bad call.

BigDaddyG wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

NardDogNation wrote:

mreinman wrote:I saw this one - good video.

I am still not sold that this system is so much better than heavy PnR systems like SA, Miami and LAC (and most teams).

It seems that if you have the right players then PnR's are almost indefensible.

The problem is that there is a direct, positive correlation between the quality of your PG and the efficacy of the play. What happens if you don't have an elite PG?

The beauty about the triangle is that it has very few preconditions, which allows teams to succeed with whatever talent they already have. Remember that the Bulls were a perimeter team while the Lakers had a completely different make-up, favoring an inside-out dynamic. Come playoff time, qualities like that and the fact that defenses can not stop/disrupt a team by focusing in on their PG, are invaluable.

That's right. I'm watching Westbrook and Durant struggle to close this game against the Clips as they keep running a very high post up to Durant and everyone else standing and watching either Westbrook or Durant go against the entire Clips defense. THIS is the folly of ISO style and even simple PnR without involving the entire group in your plays. Sure you need individual greatness but if you start your sets with everyone being an option it makes it harder to give help on your star players and they are more successful.

The trick is that if you get a lead you want to be able to maintain it. The Thunder lost their lead when they went ISO. They needed to trust the offense and run good sets, but they didn't. They actually made it harder for their best players to score by going away from running high % plays.

You are not concerned that the triangle does not have PnR's?

All the top teams are PnR heavy teams. Its is proven with all diff personel.

The OKC ISO ball was awful at the end.

Phil's offenses have integrated the pick and roll s in the past. It shouldn't be that much concern. The biggest problem for us now is that we don't have PG on the new roster who can run the PnR effectively on a consistent basis.

I sure hope that we will not go into this season with Felton and our starting PG.

Hopefully we can get someone like collison.

nixluva wrote:No one can guarantee a Title, but what you can do is lay the foundation for a winning team. Phil is trying to do that and I agree with his principles in terms of a system of Team Ball as the core of the teams foundation rather than just gathering top talent and hoping it all works. The system is there for the role players and to help the star not have to struggle to get off when the other teams focus is on stopping him.

Woodson didn't do Melo any favors with his ISO Melo offense. Sure Melo scored but he forced his way thru walls in order to do it and he is breaking down playing that way. Much better to have a system in place that makes things easier and maximizes the skills of the role players on the team. People hate on MDA but the entire point of what he tries to do is to maximize everyone on the team not just the stars of the team. He made things easy for his star players. Now Phil does the same but he also wants to do the same on the defensive end and his offense helps to lead to better defense because you're not taking wild or poor shots when the floor is off balance.

The Triangle creates options as the video highlights. The thing I was most annoyed with was Woodson let the team run plays that only had one option and if that didn't work there was nothing else. That's HORRID BB. With the Triangle it allow the team to just flow cuz there's no need to call a play. You just run your sets and the plays are self evident in the motion and how the defense responds. The more your team plays in the Triangle the more intuitive it becomes and they move faster and faster.

The passing is the key and hopefully they drill that over and over and also Phil will look to add players who are ball movers. You just need that forward who can pass ie Pippen or Odom types that have good overall skills and make the whole thing work. We have guys that can post and guards that can shoot or drive. I think This is why Phil wanted to give Odom a look. That Point Forward is a huge plus in the Triangle.

Great post, man. What you said is exactly why I'm pretty excited about us running the triangle. Back in 2012, I was hoping we'd hire Brian Shaw as an assistant to do exactly that. Having Phil Jackson controlling personnel matters and with Steve Kerr waiting in the cut is more than I could ask for as a fan. We do need to find our point-forward though. Do you have any player that comes to mind that could fill that role?

BigDaddyG wrote:

skeng wrote:Good points nix as always.. Which point forwards are available though? Hedo Turkoglue? Mirotic would be a pretty nice consolation prize if Melo was leaving. If Josh Smith had a brain, he'd be a pretty nice point forward to have in the triangle.. Shyt, Melo with a little more willingness to pass and actually move without the ball consistently would be the perfect guy to pencil in at your 3 and 4.

Terrence Williams is available after getting waived from the Puerto Rican league. He's a project, but so is Odom at this point. I'd invite him to summer league and a training camp if things go well.

I've always wanted us to acquire Andre Igoudala. Getting the poor man's version of him wouldn't be a bad option. I am concerned about the status of his game though, if he's been relegated to playing in Puerto Rico. I can't think of very many options that can fill that role though. Evan Turner keeps coming to mind but I suspect that Indiana won't let him walk for cheap and we can't sign and trade for him.