Nalod wrote:Mreinman,

Fish, and its been repeated by phil in his books that it takes time to get it. Your suggesting the players picked for their Triangle'ness are are not so equipped and we should implement something else and that would yield a better result?

And that is? GSW uptempo run and gun? not with out shooters. We don't have that.

35 games is not nearly enough time. It might not happen at all this season. It happens. We are one win away from our win total from last year. Other than KP and Grant we don't have any bluechip additions. Rolo is very tradable in time if need be.

Basically Knicks might be just fine with being patient and only bringing in certain players who can potentially fill a need rather than talent upgrades because they are talent upgrades. The longer term prospective is what might drive decisions, not short term win totals. Really, if we give up the 7th pick, or the 10th pick does it really matter as Toronto has our pick? Is it not more important that we stick to a long term perspective of roster construction and teach it the right way? If we can really get Dwilliams to play "right", can he not be a valuable type Kwai Leonard type player for us???

the bolded was amusing

The win total from last year is irrelevant. Melo is back and we made other upgrades. Most picked 30-35 just based on the above. Anything more is a good job by fisher and team.

I do think that we may be better off implement something that is easier to grasp, a fit for more players, already proven (as well) to create the most efficient shots.

I am in no rush and I am not impatient. I would like to see a system in place that makes the most sense long term.

I do not dismiss the triangle, I question it and would like to see how this plays out? Perhaps we get limited penetration because we don't have good penetrators and perhaps it is a spacing issue which makes it not as easy to penetrate. We do know that it is easy to drive with a PnR and 4 out.

Why are some here so sold on this? I would assume that most NBA pro's are not sure if will be successful here. If it will be successful without Phil coaching and without Michael/Kobe/Pippen/Shaq/(gasol)

What we can definitely see so far is that the spacing is absolutely terrible.

I don't care if Nix still calls it the triangle but I would like to soo much more PnR with 4 out (triangle) and less side triangle.

Also, now we get rid of some players who are not good triangle players and bring in new PG's/players who have to start from scratch and learn the triangle? Players don't stay with the same teams like they used to.

WaltLongmire wrote:I just want an offensive system that is effective, flexible, and adaptable... and of course you need a roster of players who can do this.

When I was a hockey fan while living on Long Island, I got root for the Islanders, and what made their dynasty teams special is that they managed to find a balance between the high flying finesse teams like Montreal and the more brutish roughneck teams like Boston and the Flyers...they could play either type of game given the situation. I want a Knicks version of this type of team.

I think we are a few players away (This includes the development of KP and Grant.)from having a pretty flexible offense that will be able play power ball or small ball depending upon an opponent's lineup.

You saw the leeway Fisher seemed to give Shved later in the season...which makes me think the issue is a personnel one, and not one relating to a "system."

I still remember a quote from Jackson last year where he said that (post Anthony shut-down) they stuck more to the Triangle because they did not have the players to do other things. I don't think he would be upset with divergence from the Triangle if we had the players to do it.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the Triangle, but it seems to offer some flexibility and opportunity to players who are willing to take advantage of it... as long as all the players on the court are on the same page.

I believe people are foolish if they think GS can serve as a model for any team to emulate. That team has a unique cast of players.

I don't see any trend toward a GS type offense in looking at a list of the NBA champions for the last 15 years, and a pure MDA style offense has never won a title...or am I wrong about this?

I really do believe that if KP and Grant were playing the way I expect them to be playing 3 years down the road, we would be looking a team with about 22 wins or more at this point, and we wouldn't be having discussions about offensive philosophy.

How about Cleveland? They run a very spread offense. Its not just GS. Its where most of the league is heading. I love how charlotte modified their offense this year.

mreinman wrote:I do think that we may be better off implement something that is easier to grasp, a fit for more players, already proven (as well) to create the most efficient shots.

I am in no rush and I am not impatient. I would like to see a system in place that makes the most sense long term.

Those 2 sentences back-to-back do not make sense. You are either patient and would like to see how things pan out or your are not and would like things to change. Pick one.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.

So I think this is an over-generalization that can be said about any team at some point, unless you are strictly a 2-man game team like LeBron in the Finals. You advocating a iso, 2-man PnR system?

When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)

Point?

When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.

So this can be said of any system. The one thing about the Triangle is it makes smart players who are not often dominant talent-wise or physically into better players. Also, just because most teams don't run something doesn't make it right. Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.

Phil is not the coach, he is GM, so he is going to find more players that fit his system while upgrading talent in that system, that's the big picture takeaway.

One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.

Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.

Realistically, this is year 1 of the Triangle, you can't expect it to be perfect. Expect more Triangle next year, run more efficiently and with better talent.

the most dominant coach with the most dominant players won with it. That means something but there are too many variables that we don't have which renders this a bit meaningless until proven otherwise.

SA runs a system that fits their two hall of famers that can't shoot from distance and are not young. Who is copying them? Budenholzer left and what did he do in Atlanta? Can't get more spread and PnR dominant then them. Why did he not implement the SA system? Instead he turned Horford and Milsap into 3 point shooters. Look what he has done with no stars? Maybe that is the correct model.

SA is running a system based on their current personnel who are holdovers and who have been there forever. Makes sense for them. They are as much of an exception as GS.

I am sure that the longer that we run it the better it will look that does not make it the best option.

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.

So I think this is an over-generalization that can be said about any team at some point, unless you are strictly a 2-man game team like LeBron in the Finals. You advocating a iso, 2-man PnR system?

When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)

Point?

When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.

So this can be said of any system. The one thing about the Triangle is it makes smart players who are not often dominant talent-wise or physically into better players. Also, just because most teams don't run something doesn't make it right. Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.

Phil is not the coach, he is GM, so he is going to find more players that fit his system while upgrading talent in that system, that's the big picture takeaway.

One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.

Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.

Realistically, this is year 1 of the Triangle, you can't expect it to be perfect. Expect more Triangle next year, run more efficiently and with better talent.

the most dominant coach with the most dominant players won with it. That means something but there are too many variables that we don't have which renders this a bit meaningless until proven otherwise.

SA runs a system that fits their two hall of famers that can't shoot from distance and are not young. Who is copying them? Budenholzer left and what did he do in Atlanta? Can't get more spread and PnR dominant then them. Why did he not implement the SA system? Instead he turned Horford and Milsap into 3 point shooters. Look what he has done with no stars? Maybe that is the correct model.

SA is running a system based on their current personnel who are holdovers and who have been there forever. Makes sense for them. They are as much of an exception as GS.

I am sure that the longer that we run it the better it will look that does not make it the best option.

You keep bringing up the point that nobody is copying the triangle now as your best arguement against it. How many other teams ran it when the Lakers and Bulls were winning titles?

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:I do think that we may be better off implement something that is easier to grasp, a fit for more players, already proven (as well) to create the most efficient shots.

I am in no rush and I am not impatient. I would like to see a system in place that makes the most sense long term.

Those 2 sentences back-to-back do not make sense. You are either patient and would like to see how things pan out or your are not and would like things to change. Pick one.

They are not contradictory at all. It has nothing to do with patience. I don't want it to be easier to grasp because I am impatient, I want it to be easier to grasp so that in a league with a lot of turnover, players can have an easier time being successful in the shorter term. We don't always have 3-4 years to mold players. What happens when they fail? Do we keep hitting the reset button?

Its great that SA has lifers but is that what you expect going forward? That teams have all their players stay?

I think that is part of what the Knicks are trying to build. Why they signed guys like Rolo and KOQ to 4yr deals.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.

So I think this is an over-generalization that can be said about any team at some point, unless you are strictly a 2-man game team like LeBron in the Finals. You advocating a iso, 2-man PnR system?

When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)

Point?

When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.

So this can be said of any system. The one thing about the Triangle is it makes smart players who are not often dominant talent-wise or physically into better players. Also, just because most teams don't run something doesn't make it right. Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.

Phil is not the coach, he is GM, so he is going to find more players that fit his system while upgrading talent in that system, that's the big picture takeaway.

One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.

Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.

Realistically, this is year 1 of the Triangle, you can't expect it to be perfect. Expect more Triangle next year, run more efficiently and with better talent.

the most dominant coach with the most dominant players won with it. That means something but there are too many variables that we don't have which renders this a bit meaningless until proven otherwise.

SA runs a system that fits their two hall of famers that can't shoot from distance and are not young. Who is copying them? Budenholzer left and what did he do in Atlanta? Can't get more spread and PnR dominant then them. Why did he not implement the SA system? Instead he turned Horford and Milsap into 3 point shooters. Look what he has done with no stars? Maybe that is the correct model.

SA is running a system based on their current personnel who are holdovers and who have been there forever. Makes sense for them. They are as much of an exception as GS.

I am sure that the longer that we run it the better it will look that does not make it the best option.

Wait, you are advocating more of a PnR sytem with spread offense.... I guess I will retort with exactly what you are saying: there may be something there there are too many variables that we don't have which renders this a bit meaningless until proven otherwise.

And on top of that same sentence you used I will follow with my own: Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

You should sell this to all the other teams that are not buying this. Again, budenholzer?

On top of that, SA has parker and duncan who can't shoot from distance and who are way way above average at the long 2. That is an anomaly. Their system gets parker 2-3 on the ball picks per possession. At least Pop gets that this is the most indefensible play in the game.

People seem to be confusing pace (SA) with modern offensive style. Cleveland does not play fast yet they spread the floor, get loads of on ball picks and take loads of 3's.

When the older spurs retire, I expect a much faster pace and an offense that may look more like what budenholzer is doing (IMHO)

crzymdups wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:I do think that we may be better off implement something that is easier to grasp, a fit for more players, already proven (as well) to create the most efficient shots.

I am in no rush and I am not impatient. I would like to see a system in place that makes the most sense long term.

Those 2 sentences back-to-back do not make sense. You are either patient and would like to see how things pan out or your are not and would like things to change. Pick one.

They are not contradictory at all. It has nothing to do with patience. I don't want it to be easier to grasp because I am impatient, I want it to be easier to grasp so that in a league with a lot of turnover, players can have an easier time being successful in the shorter term. We don't always have 3-4 years to mold players. What happens when they fail? Do we keep hitting the reset button?

Its great that SA has lifers but is that what you expect going forward? That teams have all their players stay?

I think that is part of what the Knicks are trying to build. Why they signed guys like Rolo and KOQ to 4yr deals.

and most of this board want Rolo traded because he seems to be more suited for PnR.