PG & C are the toughest positions to fill. The beauty of the triangle is that you don't need a star pg. The triangle might make the most out of this current roster. The triangle might be a blessing in getting the most from this group.

gunsnewing wrote:I hope Phil goes with the Shump/JR Backcourt. JR drives is crazy but Phil can get the best out of him like he did with Kobe and Artest. Shump needs to do less lifting and work on his quickness instead. He needs to keep hitting the corner 3 and hopefully he finishes better at the rim and his knee problems become a thing of the past. One thing is for sure we know Phil likes big guards who are ball hawks. Love how Shumpert stopped playing out of position at SF the second Phil was about to take over. No more small ball b.s.

PG & C are the toughest positions to fill. The beauty of the triangle is that you don't need a star pg. The triangle might make the most out of this current roster. The triangle might be a blessing in getting the most from this group.

I also think he might have been encouraged by PJax's presence and commitment to him as a player. Don't know what was the issue before, but I think he'll have a renewed confidence this year. It's a good thing he wasn't traded. There's too much talent there to give up on him so soon. I think he fits what Phil wants to do and will be much better in this system.

So how 'bout that? Why can't Darren Collison or Patty Mills cut it in the triangle? Let's hear it. Remember we're also talking about adding a Darren Collison WHILE KEEPING Iman Shumpert, now that Collison's a FA. Slightly more favorable scenario than the one presented at the trading deadline where we would've had to surrender Shump to get DC (and subsequently have to overpay to keep DC now that we traded Shump for him to ensure we didn't trade Shump for nothing). Definitely a much more favorable situation overall this time around. Point is if they wanted DC before you gotta definitely believe they make a run at him now. Someone tell me why that's not a good idea.

BigDaddyG wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Yeah Crush is right -- I think Phil was already very much on our radar when we almost pulled the trigger on Collison and filler for Shumpert. Was he consulted before that move was almost made? I dunno, maybe, maybe not. But I betcha it was discussed internally as in, 'would Phil like a guy like Collison? Could a guy like that work in the triangle'? Speaking of Collison, can somebody explain to me why a prototypical PG can't perform well in a triangle offense? To me Collison and Patty Mills are our best options to upgrade the position when you take into account the most bang for our limited buck. I would very much like to see the club target either guy this offseason regardless of system. With all the pro triangle talk, I've yet to hear a real honest to goodness thought-out argument on why the prototypical PG can't function within that system. Just because teams that ran it before never really had (or needed) that type of player? Or is it because they're not big enough at only 6'? Is that it?? Can either guy move the ball to open men? Yes. Can either guy shoot it well from behind the arc? Yes, both guys are pretty efficient shooters. Can both guys offer at least acceptable defense? Yes (Collison probably a little more than Mills, whereas Mills might have slightly more offensive potential). Both guys would actually match up well against other 6' type PGs on other teams too btw, something to consider...What else is needed? Ok, neither guy is 6'6" but not many PGs are...Is that it? Is that all we're really looking for in a "triangle PG" -- someone 6'3" or better that can pass the ball to his left, right or into the post and shoot the ball? Nothing more? I'd personally like to see a little more versatility out the 1 spot myself -- if there are guys out there that can do all that PLUS push the ball for some transition scores when that's there, break down guys off the dribble and get into the paint when that's needed, take their man and make something happen when plays break down etc., that's the guy I want. Pete Myers couldn't do that...The fact of the matter is Phil Jackson had the best players in the sport on two different teams (and probably also the best 2nd tier players) during all his success -- not saying I don't believe in Phil or his system so don't misconstrue -- I'm a believer and a believer in structure and discipline in general so I'm really ready to give Phil and his philosophy a legit shot here. All I'm saying is that maybe it was Jordan/Pippen and Bryant that had a lot to do with not needing a truer PG over the system itself not calling for it. Come on man -- you can't tell me that those guys in there heyday weren't 'gimmie the ball and get the F outta my way' type of guys half the time.

So how 'bout that? Why can't Darren Collison or Patty Mills cut it in the triangle? Let's hear it. Remember we're also talking about adding a Darren Collison WHILE KEEPING Iman Shumpert, now that Collison's a FA. Slightly more favorable scenario than the one presented at the trading deadline where we would've had to surrender Shump to get DC (and subsequently have to overpay to keep DC now that we traded Shump for him to ensure we didn't trade Shump for nothing). Definitely a much more favorable situation overall this time around. Point is if they wanted DC before you gotta definitely believe they make a run at him now. Someone tell me why that's not a good idea.

BJ Armstrong, John Paxson and Derek Fisher aren't that tall and they were able to thrive in the triangle. I think Phil has been very flexible in the use of his players over the years.

Good point.

gunsnewing wrote:Fisher is 6'4 and strong as a bull. He may not prefer size but he knows how to use it to his advantage

Saying fisher is 6'4 is like saying Chris Paul is 6'1. Fisher has usually been listed at 6'1 maybe 6'2 but he is strong and while I think he has been overrated throughout his career. That is Shump best case to be a pg. I will say playing with Jordan and Pippen or Shaq and Kobe helped some of the lesser players play under phil despite their shortcomings.

Finestrg wrote:Yeah Crush is right -- I think Phil was already very much on our radar when we almost pulled the trigger on Collison and filler for Shumpert. Was he consulted before that move was almost made? I dunno, maybe, maybe not. But I betcha it was discussed internally as in, 'would Phil like a guy like Collison? Could a guy like that work in the triangle'? Speaking of Collison, can somebody explain to me why a prototypical PG can't perform well in a triangle offense? To me Collison and Patty Mills are our best options to upgrade the position when you take into account the most bang for our limited buck. I would very much like to see the club target either guy this offseason regardless of system. With all the pro triangle talk, I've yet to hear a real honest to goodness thought-out argument on why the prototypical PG can't function within that system. Just because teams that ran it before never really had (or needed) that type of player? Or is it because they're not big enough at only 6'? Is that it?? Can either guy move the ball to open men? Yes. Can either guy shoot it well from behind the arc? Yes, both guys are pretty efficient shooters. Can both guys offer at least acceptable defense? Yes (Collison probably a little more than Mills, whereas Mills might have slightly more offensive potential). Both guys would actually match up well against other 6' type PGs on other teams too btw, something to consider...What else is needed? Ok, neither guy is 6'6" but not many PGs are...Is that it? Is that all we're really looking for in a "triangle PG" -- someone 6'3" or better that can pass the ball to his left, right or into the post and shoot the ball? Nothing more? I'd personally like to see a little more versatility out the 1 spot myself -- if there are guys out there that can do all that PLUS push the ball for some transition scores when that's there, break down guys off the dribble and get into the paint when that's needed, take their man and make something happen when plays break down etc., that's the guy I want. Pete Myers couldn't do that...The fact of the matter is Phil Jackson had the best players in the sport on two different teams (and probably also the best 2nd tier players) during all his success -- not saying I don't believe in Phil or his system so don't misconstrue -- I'm a believer and a believer in structure and discipline in general so I'm really ready to give Phil and his philosophy a legit shot here. All I'm saying is that maybe it was Jordan/Pippen and Bryant that had a lot to do with not needing a truer PG over the system itself not calling for it. Come on man -- you can't tell me that those guys in there heyday weren't 'gimmie the ball and get the F outta my way' type of guys half the time.

So how 'bout that? Why can't Darren Collison or Patty Mills cut it in the triangle? Let's hear it. Remember we're also talking about adding a Darren Collison WHILE KEEPING Iman Shumpert, now that Collison's a FA. Slightly more favorable scenario than the one presented at the trading deadline where we would've had to surrender Shump to get DC (and subsequently have to overpay to keep DC now that we traded Shump for him to ensure we didn't trade Shump for nothing). Definitely a much more favorable situation overall this time around. Point is if they wanted DC before you gotta definitely believe they make a run at him now. Someone tell me why that's not a good idea.

a prototypical point guard in the triangle would be a squandering of a set of skills that are not required in the triangle. money could be better used on a different position.

point guard in the triangle requires hitting corner threes, threes from anywhere at the top of the key, and the ability to get back on defense.

gunsnewing wrote:Shump posted a video of him shooting 10 3's from each spot beyond the arc. His form looked good. I'm sure That during the exit interviews Phil let Shump know exactly what he wanted him to work on. I'm sure he told every single player on the roster the same thing. When Phil speaks you listen

Yeah I'm positive Phil has a plan for Shump. Also sure he gave Shump clear marching orders for this summer. When Shump is energized this team is much better. As I posted earlier Phil told him that.

dk7th wrote:

Finestrg wrote:Yeah Crush is right -- I think Phil was already very much on our radar when we almost pulled the trigger on Collison and filler for Shumpert. Was he consulted before that move was almost made? I dunno, maybe, maybe not. But I betcha it was discussed internally as in, 'would Phil like a guy like Collison? Could a guy like that work in the triangle'? Speaking of Collison, can somebody explain to me why a prototypical PG can't perform well in a triangle offense? To me Collison and Patty Mills are our best options to upgrade the position when you take into account the most bang for our limited buck. I would very much like to see the club target either guy this offseason regardless of system. With all the pro triangle talk, I've yet to hear a real honest to goodness thought-out argument on why the prototypical PG can't function within that system. Just because teams that ran it before never really had (or needed) that type of player? Or is it because they're not big enough at only 6'? Is that it?? Can either guy move the ball to open men? Yes. Can either guy shoot it well from behind the arc? Yes, both guys are pretty efficient shooters. Can both guys offer at least acceptable defense? Yes (Collison probably a little more than Mills, whereas Mills might have slightly more offensive potential). Both guys would actually match up well against other 6' type PGs on other teams too btw, something to consider...What else is needed? Ok, neither guy is 6'6" but not many PGs are...Is that it? Is that all we're really looking for in a "triangle PG" -- someone 6'3" or better that can pass the ball to his left, right or into the post and shoot the ball? Nothing more? I'd personally like to see a little more versatility out the 1 spot myself -- if there are guys out there that can do all that PLUS push the ball for some transition scores when that's there, break down guys off the dribble and get into the paint when that's needed, take their man and make something happen when plays break down etc., that's the guy I want. Pete Myers couldn't do that...The fact of the matter is Phil Jackson had the best players in the sport on two different teams (and probably also the best 2nd tier players) during all his success -- not saying I don't believe in Phil or his system so don't misconstrue -- I'm a believer and a believer in structure and discipline in general so I'm really ready to give Phil and his philosophy a legit shot here. All I'm saying is that maybe it was Jordan/Pippen and Bryant that had a lot to do with not needing a truer PG over the system itself not calling for it. Come on man -- you can't tell me that those guys in there heyday weren't 'gimmie the ball and get the F outta my way' type of guys half the time.

So how 'bout that? Why can't Darren Collison or Patty Mills cut it in the triangle? Let's hear it. Remember we're also talking about adding a Darren Collison WHILE KEEPING Iman Shumpert, now that Collison's a FA. Slightly more favorable scenario than the one presented at the trading deadline where we would've had to surrender Shump to get DC (and subsequently have to overpay to keep DC now that we traded Shump for him to ensure we didn't trade Shump for nothing). Definitely a much more favorable situation overall this time around. Point is if they wanted DC before you gotta definitely believe they make a run at him now. Someone tell me why that's not a good idea.

a prototypical point guard in the triangle would be a squandering of a set of skills that are not required in the triangle. money could be better used on a different position.

point guard in the triangle requires hitting corner threes, threes from anywhere at the top of the key, and the ability to get back on defense.

SMH, I still don't get it. Regarding Collison and Mills (again with no draft picks and a limited amount of money to spend in FA, these are our best choices to upgrade the point imo):

• Hitting corner 3s? Check.
• Hitting 3s from anywhere? Check.
• Ability to get back on defense? Check.

Again I ask anyone saying 'no prototypical PG': Is that it? Is that all some of you are looking for in a PG? Those 3 things only? I don't get it at all -- is the argument that Collison and Mills are too good for the system Phil and whatever coach plan on using? Huh??

Look, these two guys can do all of that and then some. THEY CAN ALSO go one on one when it's there (plays break down all the time, shot clocks run down, maybe the guy has it going/hot hand, etc.); they can break guys down off the dribble when that's required (a quicker PG could drive & set up Amar'e or any other post player we can come up with for easy buckets inside or can set up Chandler at the rim for lobs off quick pentration, etc.) and they can get out and run when those opportunities present themselves as well (you can't tell me any of Phil's teams NEVER scored any buckets in transition -- I'd like to get more of those, at least a handful a game. We need more team speed overall to make that happen, esp. at the point). Wouldn't you guys want a more well-rounded point that's capable of doing all of those things, not just some of them?!? I know I would. Sorry, I just don't buy this point of view. Now if the argument is not to overspend on a Kyle Lowry to supply these intangibles, then I agree. Been arguing for weeks that Collison or Mills could probably provide a lot of the same things Lowry gave the Raptors this year if given the same amount of PT, offensive touches and overall responsibility. To me either guy would be a great buy for the limited tax-paying MLE. Hey, maybe each of these guys ask for much more than that. I dunno--maybe both want Lowry money. Who knows...If they do, then we pass and look elsewhere. I doubt that though. I happen to think if we offered our max MLE coupled with the promise of a starting gig, there's a good chance we could get either guy. Unless anyone offers up a better argument than this, nothing has changed my mind here -- either guy would be a sizable upgrade over Felton/Pablo and could absolutely execute within the triangle offense if not thrive in it. No doubt in my mind..

nixluva wrote:No one has a problem with adding a talent like Collison. The point is in the Triangle you can get by with less at the same time put your assets into another position that is more important in the Triangle.

On the contrary -- a few of you guys seem to have a problem with the idea which is why I finally decided to speak out on this. And yeah, dk7th mentioned the same thing, about using money for other things..By saying "put your assets into another position that is more important in the triangle" I assume that's what you're talking about. My question is who out there is more worth a contract in the $3-4mm range over 3-4 years? And that's assuming you have one particular guy(s) in mind because if we divvy up our limited MLE, we're basically looking at league minimum guys, guys that we can exceed the cap to get anyway. No point in even doing that...Give us a few guys that you'd rather see for this amount of money (the limited tax-paying MLE) over Collison or Mills. And then if your answer is to not use the MLE this off-season, tell me who the PG is next year...Shumpert? No way. Still has good potential I feel -- I actually like him more than most on this board, I just don't want him as one of my primary offensive initiators. I said earlier in this thread what I think his role should be. And I definitely don't want to see Felton in that role anymore (apparently neither does Phil as there were reports out there that he told Ray he would try to move him this offseason). Bottom line for me -- I think Collison or Mills on a deal in the neighborhood of 4 years/$16mm give or take is good value w/o overpaying. And who knows, maybe we could get one of these guys for less than that. If we did that, brought back Cole Aldrich and added some more promising league minimum-type talent to the mix, maybe God-willing found a way to obtain a draft pick in this draft, regardless of what we decide to do with Melo and Chandler (2 separate conversations), I'm good. I mean what else can we really expect to do being over the cap and w/o any picks in this draft? Anything else is gravy but to me, these are the couple of sensible smaller moves we need to make.

DeAndre Kane in my opinion would be a complete steal that might not be even drafted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1m8kqHXXfI

Spencer Dwinwiddie could fall as well because he is recovering from a torn ACL and needs to work on his upper body strength but he can be compared to George Hill
And he has very good shooting mechanics as well, possibly becoming a George Hill/Billups type of PG/SG as a high ceiling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_8FX6VbbNw

I like Burton as well, though he is more of a scoring combo guard that has lottery type potential/talent in him that could last to late 1st rounder to early 2nd rounder

Regardless, I think we need to get Ron Harper as an assistant or development coach to help the PG understand the role in the Triangle

Now if we were to use the MLE, in no order

Darren Collison

Sessions
Bayless

Livingston and another player, I would not give him the full 3.2m MLE because of his knee injury concerns, possibly using some of it on an undrafted for a 3 year team option deal

With the 5m MLE, there are many combinations of players to target to use on 2 players or possible get to come for less with Phil Jacksons relationship with Ariza and Gasol