Guys, Phil Jackson might be kind of dumb.

It's difficult not to reach such a conclusion after reading this article from yesterday's New York Times, in which Harvey Araton talks to Jackson about everything that's gone wrong for the Knicks this season. Naturally, much of their conversation focuses on the triangle offense, and Jackson's disastrous attempt to install the system in New York. The good news is that Jackson acknowledges what a failure his experiment has been thus far—"So far, my experiment has fallen flat on its face."—but the bad news is that Jackson doesn't give much indication that he's going to stop humping his archaic system anytime soon.

There are quite a few moments here that should worry Knicks fans. For instance:

But as to skepticism about whether he can make the triangle work in a league in which no one else plays it, Jackson said: "I'm not daunted by the number of people who have commented that this way of playing is arcane, that the game has moved on. The game has moved on."

He also believes that the game, stylistically, moves in mysterious ways.

"I think it's still debatable about how basketball is going to be played, what's going to win out," he said, leaving no doubt of his disdain for the point-guard-dominated concept of "screen-and-roll, break down, pass, and two or three players standing in spots, not participating in the offense."
It's nice that Jackson acknowledges that the game—now dominated by offenses that value ball movement, spacing, and the three-point shot—has evolved from the state it was in when Jackson's triangle-heavy teams dominated, but that bit about the game moving in "mysterious" ways is exactly the kind of philosopher-as-basketball-coach bull**** that makes Jackson ill-suited to construct a modern NBA roster.

Leave aside the fact that Jackson's successful triangle teams always featured at least one all-time superstar in his prime (and usually two). Leave aside the fact that he seems to fundamentally misunderstand how a screen-and-roll offense works—if he really believes that Klay Thompson isn't "participating" in the offense while he waits for the kick-out pass in the corner, or that the best versions of those offenses don't rely on an enormous amount of synchronized off-the-ball motion, then the Knicks are really in trouble—and consider that Jackson seems to be more concerned with directing the "mysterious" movements of NBA offensive trends in a direction that suits his legacy and ego. For instance:

In disclaiming the quick fix, Jackson said that it would take that long to render judgment on his methods and that Dolan had asked him to "set up something that would be long-lasting, that may go beyond my being here." He continued, "That was exactly what I'd been thinking of, building a foundation, a way of playing basketball, getting a bunch of guys that can do it. If I'm not here four or five years down the road, then I have a young coach I believe in who will complete it."
This is damning. This is an admission that Jackson isn't so much trying to build a good team as he is trying to validate a set of dusty philosophies in the modern era, and build an infrastructure of teet-suckling dunces who will propagate a version of basketball in Phil's own image after he retires. This is a man cloning himself so he can better suck his own dick. "Building a foundation" that will dictate "a way of playing basketball" for the future is the rhetoric of a Silicon Valley TED-talker, only this one is trying to convince us that fax machines are the future of the "digital landscape."

No move has exposed this particular inadequacy more than Jackson's decision to trade Tyson Chandler, who was probably the Knicks' best player last season, in the offseason. Even with Chandler thriving in Dallas, Jackson still believes he made the right move:

He nonetheless expressed no misgivings — "not one moment"— over trading Chandler, whose defensive presence would have helped this season but who, in Jackson's view, did not have the matching skills to play in the triangle going forward.
GMs make bad trades all the time, usually because of financial restrictions or poor talent evaluation. But here's Phil Jackson admitting that he dealt away his team's only good defensive player not because he thought Chandler was bad or on the verge of breaking down, but because he didn't fit into an arbitrary system—a system that was itself designed, supposedly, to best allow a roster's most talented players to maneuver. That's madness! It's the kind of thing that any other GM in the league, one who does not possess Jackson's aura of respectability, would be run out of town for.

Maybe the Knicks, armed with a shiny new draft pick and a new all-star to fill their cap space, will have a shot at actually being good next year. Or maybe they'll crash and burn again, proving once and for all that the triangle is a dead system that has no place in today's NBA. Either way, Phil Jackson will probably be more concerned with whatever's coming five years down the line.

Funny that this guy calls it an Archaic System, exactly what we have nicknamed it here.

I would love Phil Jackson here if he left the triangle at home ... but that is not who Phil jackson is.

smackeddog wrote:Pick a system and build a team based on it. It doesn't really matter what the system is. The last decade we've either had no system or a system with players who don't fit it. The triangle will do fine.

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Pick a system and build a team based on it. It doesn't really matter what the system is. The last decade we've either had no system or a system with players who don't fit it. The triangle will do fine.

But 80% of this roster is players Phil picked for this system.

And they're doing fine now he's got rid of jr and shump. There's also no use in pretending phil had much to get the players of his choosing. He had a 1 year MLE (whose looking okay at the moment) and the d league.

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Pick a system and build a team based on it. It doesn't really matter what the system is. The last decade we've either had no system or a system with players who don't fit it. The triangle will do fine.

But 80% of this roster is players Phil picked for this system.

You make it seem like he had the pick of the litter. Lance Thomas, Lou, and Acy were picked off the scrap heap.

mreinman wrote:I don't think that he wants these guys (yes the Tyson trade looks pretty bad), he just wants hard working blue collar guys who are willing to submit to the triangle.

I have more of a problem with the system that most brilliant basket minds dont believe in and find it "archaic".

To play devils advocate, Phil is also a brilliant mind who believes it can still work...Let's let it play out...Bottom line is, this is a players league. You can win with most systems, so long as you have buy-in and Elite Talent.

Uptown wrote:

mreinman wrote:I don't think that he wants these guys (yes the Tyson trade looks pretty bad), he just wants hard working blue collar guys who are willing to submit to the triangle.

I have more of a problem with the system that most brilliant basket minds dont believe in and find it "archaic".

To play devils advocate, Phil is also a brilliant mind who believes it can still work...Let's let it play out...Bottom line is, this is a players league. You can win with most systems, so long as you have buy-in and Elite Talent.

You really can't win with any system, not anymore according to most.

If every team is advancing (no pun intended) in efficient offensive styles, as Mark Cuban stated, you have to go with it and not get left behind. Think about it, if every team is shooting 40 percent from 3 and taking mostly 3's and you are stuck shooting mid range shots at 45%, you are screwed.

Phil is bringing other principles like defense intensity, ball movement, etc ... all great.

Of course we will play it out ...

The other article I posted about shot selection was excellent in pointing out the best case scenario with the triangle (statistically)

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Pick a system and build a team based on it. It doesn't really matter what the system is. The last decade we've either had no system or a system with players who don't fit it. The triangle will do fine.

But 80% of this roster is players Phil picked for this system.

This is not the roster that Phil really intends to be the one to contend with. Can we at least give him a chance to build his roster minus the garbage he was left with? Soon enough this will be a roster fully built by Phil and at that point you can start to really judge him.

The Media has the taste of blood and since Phil was willing to dive on his sword they have all started posting articles like this even more than before. Phil never really says that it's the system over talent. He does feel that having a proven team system is better than not having one. It's important for team development and not every team has been smart enough to really install a system despite what some will tell you. Some coaches are not very good offensively and it's evident when you watch those teams. We just replaced a man that didn't really have a system. Heavy Iso or Run n Gun aren't really systems as much as just simplistic lazy BB.

If you're going to have a system then you need to make sure you have players that can actually run it. If it's a PnR system with a spread floor, you need a PnR PG and some reliable shooters. If it's a motion offense like the Princeton offense you better have some guys who are smart and skilled enough to actually run the motion and move the ball. Each system puts an emphasis on a slightly different aspect of the game even tho most of the basics are the same.

Right now the most successful system is what the Spurs, Warriors and Hawks run.

Gregg Popovich:

"It's a motion offense. It's malleable. It's ever-changing, in the sense that when players are moving and the ball is moving, sometimes things happen on offense that you didn't even plan on, that players just do, and it becomes part of the offense. Other things, coaches may concoct them over in an offense because you watch enough film and you try to manipulate something and it becomes part of the offense. But basically, back in the late 90s, Brett (Brown), Bud (Mike Budenholzer) and I, and coach (Hank) Egan decided how we wanted to play, what kind of offense we wanted to use and we decided on a motion offense and put in the basics. And each year we would tweak it a little bit ourselves, we'd add something we saw the players do. So it evolved and continues to evolve. It doesn't stay exactly the same but the base is always there"

This is a great approach and we need to allow Fish time to do the same with the base Triangle offense. He will learn what works and add things over time and he already has made some tweaks, but 1st we have to give him the players who can actually bring more to the table. Just like with MDA we never ran SSOL, but people killed him as if we were running it. We couldn't run it. We didn't have the players to actually excel in the system. Right now we don't have a high enough talent level to really make use of all the variations on the Triangle.
It's easier to do that with the Spurs, Warriors or Hawks rosters cuz they actually have good talent and some time together.

nyk4ever wrote:it still amazes me that almst all knick fans wanted a full rebuild. so phil comes in, tries to change the culture and rebuild the team and then everyone complains its not working after less than a year and no full draft. everyone likes to say how smart new york sports fans are.. most are dumb as ****

Let's be real..Phil wasn't trying to do a "full rebuild" when he got here..I don't think he is doing a full rebuild now..I think he traded JR. and Shump to buy time because the Garden was chanting fire Fisher in early January of his first year..

BigRedDog wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

smackeddog wrote:Pick a system and build a team based on it. It doesn't really matter what the system is. The last decade we've either had no system or a system with players who don't fit it. The triangle will do fine.

But 80% of this roster is players Phil picked for this system.

What are you talking about? Maybe picked some guys for the short term but really 80%??? Melo and maybe 2 or 3 guys who would be the 10-12th players on his team. C'Mon man you're better than that

Bonn1997 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:it still amazes me that almst all knick fans wanted a full rebuild. so phil comes in, tries to change the culture and rebuild the team and then everyone complains its not working after less than a year and no full draft. everyone likes to say how smart new york sports fans are.. most are dumb as ****

Let's be real..Phil wasn't trying to do a "full rebuild" when he got here..I don't think he is doing a full rebuild now..I think he traded JR. and Shump to buy time because the Garden was chanting fire Fisher in early January of his first year..

Holy cow - Holfresh and I agree. This is obviously not a full rebuild, and there's no such thing as a partial rebuild - that's just re-tooling.

Phil wasn't trying to do a full rebuild. But the Smith & Shump trade wasn't to buy time. Phil made it clear months prior that if they didn't get there acts together by December that he was going to trade them, and he did. Even if he didn't start out full rebuild mode, he still has put himself in position to be able to do so if necessary. He didn't trap himself in, killing our cap health or future first round draft picks trying to retool quickly.

87% of the roster from last season will be turned over. We will have 2 new core players(lotto pick & free agent). A coach in his 2nd yr ever coaching, and probably a couple of new role players sprinkled in. Call it what you want, but we have the flexibility to improve and that's what matters the most.