[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

Coach Hornacek press conference
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
Malcolm
Posts: 21469
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/10/2015
Member: #6131
6/3/2016  2:00 PM
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.
AUTOADVERT
Nalod
Posts: 72117
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
6/3/2016  2:04 PM
Reality is its another coach and no matter how you throw the triangle, it always lands as a triangle!!!
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
6/3/2016  2:04 PM
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

¿ △ ?
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
6/3/2016  2:08 PM
This is the absolute best Phil Jackson quote of all time.

¿ △ ?
Nalod
Posts: 72117
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
6/3/2016  2:10 PM
Phil does not install the triangle, the triangle installs him!
The Triangle is a system of instinctive movement with out the ball. If your in a contract year and want touch's, then its not gonna work.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/3/2016  2:15 PM
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.


Nothing wrong with trying!!! You make the attempt but after you've had enough time to see how it goes then you are free to make adjustments. Phil is making an adjustment in how he is approaching this team's development. It's not the end of the Triangle but rather a possible improvement in how it's being applied. There's literally NOTHING in the Triangle that is against uptempo or PnR. So really there's no reason to be upset about the shift in focus. You can choose what to prioritize in the Triangle in terms of whether you run more Pinch Post initially or if you move your Center out of the Pivot and come set a screen or a PnR. It's really not anti Triangle to do this.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/3/2016  2:24 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

The point I made above is the more salient part of the question. If you have lots of High BB IQ players as well as just really talented players who don't need a system, then you can win as quickly as the Bulls did or the Lakers in Phil's 1st year there. If you don't have that level of talent or high BB IQ and skilled players then it can take longer to win. This can be the case with ANY SYSTEM. Can't run SSOL without a PnR PG or Big. We saw that first hand.

Also as you say there is no pure Triangle in that there's only one way to do it. It's a flexible system that can incorporate many different points of focus depending on your talent. If you wanted to, you could run the system and never use the Side Triangle Post entry. You could totally focus on the many other aspects of the offense and be just fine. It's up to the coach what his team focuses on. JH will likely look to use aspects of the offense that fit his view of how he wants to play.
martin
Posts: 80092
Alba Posts: 108
Joined: 7/24/2001
Member: #2
USA
6/3/2016  2:27 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

Why isn't this a self-evident thing that you can answer for yourself? You just compared a roster and talent level of a championship quality team that was together for a couple of years. And? And you can't figure out why they gell'ed and learned so quick? Versus a rookie who started, a C who was new to being part of the offense, a backcourt who on paper sucks, a bench of rookie and vet min players.

Why can't you answer why the learning curve would be greater for one team over another?

Official sponsor of the PURE KNICKS LOVE Program
Malcolm
Posts: 21469
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/10/2015
Member: #6131
6/3/2016  2:28 PM
nixluva wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.


Nothing wrong with trying!!! You make the attempt but after you've had enough time to see how it goes then you are free to make adjustments. Phil is making an adjustment in how he is approaching this team's development. It's not the end of the Triangle but rather a possible improvement in how it's being applied. There's literally NOTHING in the Triangle that is against uptempo or PnR. So really there's no reason to be upset about the shift in focus. You can choose what to prioritize in the Triangle in terms of whether you run more Pinch Post initially or if you move your Center out of the Pivot and come set a screen or a PnR. It's really not anti Triangle to do this.
Sorry . . . but once again you're not making distinction between Triangle Offense and Triangle Culture.

And how confidence in the two is inter-related.

What message does this send to the players about cultivating Triangle Culture (?)

Big Mistake.
Malcolm
Posts: 21469
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/10/2015
Member: #6131
6/3/2016  2:29 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

Why isn't this a self-evident thing that you can answer for yourself? You just compared a roster and talent level of a championship quality team that was together for a couple of years. And? And you can't figure out why they gell'ed and learned so quick? Versus a rookie who started, a C who was new to being part of the offense, a backcourt who on paper sucks, a bench of rookie and vet min players.

Why can't you answer why the learning curve would be greater for one team over another?

Obvious.
crzymdups
Posts: 52018
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/1/2004
Member: #671
USA
6/3/2016  2:31 PM
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

Why isn't this a self-evident thing that you can answer for yourself? You just compared a roster and talent level of a championship quality team that was together for a couple of years. And? And you can't figure out why they gell'ed and learned so quick? Versus a rookie who started, a C who was new to being part of the offense, a backcourt who on paper sucks, a bench of rookie and vet min players.

Why can't you answer why the learning curve would be greater for one team over another?

It wasn't a question I needed answered for myself. It's my rebuttal to Malcolm saying Rambis needed more time.

I think Rambis was a terrible coach and he was the problem, not the Triangle.

I think a smart coach such as Hornacek already sees how to tweak and use the Triangle to suit the personnel he has here.

¿ △ ?
GustavBahler
Posts: 42864
Alba Posts: 15
Joined: 7/12/2010
Member: #3186
6/3/2016  2:43 PM    LAST EDITED: 6/3/2016  2:44 PM
Didn't catch the press conference, but the espn crawl said that Hornacek said that they would have a "significant" amount of pick and roll, with elements of the triangle. No complaints here.
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/3/2016  2:52 PM
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.


Nothing wrong with trying!!! You make the attempt but after you've had enough time to see how it goes then you are free to make adjustments. Phil is making an adjustment in how he is approaching this team's development. It's not the end of the Triangle but rather a possible improvement in how it's being applied. There's literally NOTHING in the Triangle that is against uptempo or PnR. So really there's no reason to be upset about the shift in focus. You can choose what to prioritize in the Triangle in terms of whether you run more Pinch Post initially or if you move your Center out of the Pivot and come set a screen or a PnR. It's really not anti Triangle to do this.
Sorry . . . but once again you're not making distinction between Triangle Offense and Triangle Culture.

And how confidence in the two is inter-related.

What message does this send to the players about cultivating Triangle Culture (?)

Big Mistake.


I think you're completely missing the point. Phil had the same views on Triangle Culture before he adopted the Triangle. You seem to think that it's all tied together when really the Triangle Offense was a means to helping to develop the Team Mentality and Unselfishness Phil always believed in from his days under Holzman.

You're fixated on this "Triangle Culture" aspect but for now the team needs to be able to function well enough to win games. This will not devolve into selfish basketball. That's not what JH or Phil are about. The so called Triangle Culture will remain and Phil has never suggested that it's not at the core of what he wants this team to be. i'd love to hear from you how it is that you think hiring JH will somehow destroy the Triangle Culture.
knicks1248
Posts: 42059
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 2/3/2004
Member: #582
6/3/2016  3:00 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.


Are you comparing the current knick squad to any squad Jackson had that won him 11 rings.you replace afflalo and kp for Jordan and pippen and we would be in the finals right now

ES
Nalod
Posts: 72117
Alba Posts: 155
Joined: 12/24/2003
Member: #508
USA
6/3/2016  3:00 PM
Jordan and Kobe. Chicken or the egg. What came first? Championships or Phil?
newyorker4ever
Posts: 26515
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/19/2014
Member: #5816
6/3/2016  3:11 PM
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

You already know the answer to that....M.Jordan, Kobe and Shaq
newyorker4ever
Posts: 26515
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 5/19/2014
Member: #5816
6/3/2016  3:24 PM
JH concedes Knicks need upgrade at PG.


https://t.co/iuOnETFNYk
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/3/2016  3:26 PM
Here are some comments from Phil that are really relevant to understanding how he's thinking behind Hornacek and why he went with Fisher to begin with.

Jackson apparently forgot about inheriting Mike Woodson as coach when he was hired at the end of the 2014 season. Woodson was not retained and was replaced by Derek Fisher, who was fired — in part because of a failure to communicate with Jackson — in the middle of this season and replaced by Rambis on an interim basis.

One of Jackson’s few revealing moments came when he discussed the decision to hire Fisher. The 11-time NBA champion (nine as a coach) explained that he followed the “Larry Bird model,” which meant surrounding the straight-from-his-playing-days Fisher with assistants who had head-coaching experience. In Fisher’s case that was Jim Cleamons and Rambis, but Jackson sees Hornacek as a coach who can do it all.

“This is entirely different,” Jackson said of Hornacek, who spent two and a half seasons as the Suns head coach. “This is a coach who knows how to run practices, and has that experience, and has reflected on his past with a variety of systems. That’s a different model, obviously.

“The team that was featured here, had come off a decent season four seasons ago where they won 50 games [and it] was a collection of older players. … We’ve started all over again, cleaned our roster, garnered money and space and changed the context of what this team is. This is a coach who can teach, and also knows what kind of practice he wants to run and how he wants to conduct business.”

http://nypost.com/2016/06/03/phil-jackson-plays-bizarre-killjoy-on-knicks-banner-day/

These comments really wrap it all up clearly. I'm done talking about Fish. This is about Hornacek and the future of this team now. Hornacek clearly has the needed skills to help a team win. He'll be involved in the player selections from here on and has been working with Phil already in workouts. GO KNICKS!!!
nixluva
Posts: 56258
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 10/5/2004
Member: #758
USA
6/3/2016  4:24 PM
The Michael Kay interview with Hornacek is really good. Much better questions and fuller answers.

JH said that he spent 5-6 hrs in initial interview, then another 5-6 on the plane and then the next interview. There was a LOT of time together talking.

JH said that he believes he can explain to the players how to run the Triangle and his stuff in a way that will be easier for them to understand.

JH Sounds like he's MOSTLY gonna run his system and that Phil was cool with his SYSTEM as opposed to being forced to run Triangle only. Confident he can blend to 2 systems.

JH talked about how the players already know a lot of the Triangle and that his tweaks will be relatively easy to implement.

He wants them to push hard, maybe even too fast at the start and then he'll back them off. He feels that will help the players learn the right speed to play at.

He's gonna be involved in reshaping the roster, which he knows isn't the same as his PHX roster. Looking towards FA.

He thinks that he can win and get to a Finals with Melo in the mix.
fishmike
Posts: 53902
Alba Posts: 1
Joined: 7/19/2002
Member: #298
USA
6/3/2016  4:32 PM
crzymdups wrote:
martin wrote:
crzymdups wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
nixluva wrote:The time it would take to bring in players with BBIQ high enough to master the Triangle is prohibitive.
Then why start at all (?)

Either do it 100% . . . or don't do it at all.

If it takes so long to master why did the 2000 Lakers win 67 games and a championship in their first season using it?

The Bulls made the conference finals their first year using it and won a championship in their second season using it.

There's no reason not to update it.

There's no pure Triangle. The Lakers and Bulls played very different versions of the system.

Why isn't this a self-evident thing that you can answer for yourself? You just compared a roster and talent level of a championship quality team that was together for a couple of years. And? And you can't figure out why they gell'ed and learned so quick? Versus a rookie who started, a C who was new to being part of the offense, a backcourt who on paper sucks, a bench of rookie and vet min players.

Why can't you answer why the learning curve would be greater for one team over another?

It wasn't a question I needed answered for myself. It's my rebuttal to Malcolm saying Rambis needed more time.

I think Rambis was a terrible coach and he was the problem, not the Triangle.

I think a smart coach such as Hornacek already sees how to tweak and use the Triangle to suit the personnel he has here.

yea I heard you. Knicks problem was talent first and some bad luck next. They were 20-20 and their best player went down. They lose the next 9. That was the season. Other guys got hurt after, their 2nd best player hit the rookie wall and thems the breaks. Last season wasn't a triangle problem, and we had a lot of guys play very well. Backcourt killed us. Plain and simple
"winning is more fun... then fun is fun" -Thibs
Page 2 of 3 ‹ Previous 1  2  3 Next ›
« Reply To Topic
Coach Hornacek press conference
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy