mreinman wrote:

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)

Why do you keep bring up pace when you respond to my posts, I have not mentioned that once as an arguement.

Also, you keep mentioning PnR as if the Triangle does not incorporate that, it does, just not all it does. If you are going to argue against something, you best know about it first.

Also, if you are advocating for a modern offense - YOU were the one advocating change - best you offer something to support it, and mentioning Budenholzer's name repeatedly in the face of Phil Jackson and 11 rings and Spurs and their continued success spanning multiple decades is not it. Budenholzer had 1 great season and a not overly impressive playoff run.

Argue that Miami, GS, Dallas and Boston were purely PnR with spread offense and that no other system like the Spurs or Triangle can compete against them and then maybe you'll change some minds.

fishmike wrote:

fishmike 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.

which brings the topic to full circle... you have a better option than the guys with the 36 rings? Are they all just too biased to see the game has passed them and their outdated system by?

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?

anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

your point? Seems like circular logic but maybe I am missing something.

You tell me why nobody else ran it and it was only tried (and failed) by phil kids?

You smarter than every else or have a better option to suggest to them? You think that Pat Riley is dumb? Maybe the best coach of all time and a pretty damn good GM. He ran the best systems that made sense for his personnel.

Phil was a great coach and the triangle seems like an advanced system that won with uber great players. That does not make it the right system regardless of era and parameters.

GS ain't stupid either and neither is Cleveland who went to the finals without their 2nd and 3rd best players.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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)

Why do you keep bring up pace when you respond to my posts, I have not mentioned that once as an arguement.

Also, you keep mentioning PnR as if the Triangle does not incorporate that, it does, just not all it does. If you are going to argue against something, you best know about it first.

Also, if you are advocating for a modern offense - YOU were the one advocating change - best you offer something to support it, and mentioning Budenholzer's name repeatedly in the face of Phil Jackson and 11 rings and Spurs and their continued success spanning multiple decades is not it. Budenholzer had 1 great season and a not overly impressive playoff run.

Argue that Miami, GS, Dallas and Boston were purely PnR with spread offense and that no other system like the Spurs or Triangle can compete against them and then maybe you'll change some minds.

We run some PnR but very little compared to other teams. You are arguing for the triangle? Do you know that much about it?

I mention budenholzer because he is a Pop disciple and a prized one that implemented a system that fit his personnel. That does not mean that he is smarter then Pop but perhaps he is doing what Pop would do too if he had different personnel?

Also, SA running a system has nothing to do with what we are doing. Pop is working with what he has and running loads of PnR. Same with Dallas and pretty much every successful team.

And I am not saying that I am right and that I know everything but as fans, we have the right to question especially when its a common view.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

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)

Why do you keep bring up pace when you respond to my posts, I have not mentioned that once as an arguement.

Also, you keep mentioning PnR as if the Triangle does not incorporate that, it does, just not all it does. If you are going to argue against something, you best know about it first.

Also, if you are advocating for a modern offense - YOU were the one advocating change - best you offer something to support it, and mentioning Budenholzer's name repeatedly in the face of Phil Jackson and 11 rings and Spurs and their continued success spanning multiple decades is not it. Budenholzer had 1 great season and a not overly impressive playoff run.

Argue that Miami, GS, Dallas and Boston were purely PnR with spread offense and that no other system like the Spurs or Triangle can compete against them and then maybe you'll change some minds.

We run some PnR but very little compared to other teams. You are arguing for the triangle? Do you know that much about it?

I mention budenholzer because he is a Pop disciple and a prized one that implemented a system that fit his personnel. That does not mean that he is smarter then Pop but perhaps he is doing what Pop would do too if he had different personnel?

Also, SA running a system has nothing to do with what we are doing. Pop is working with what he has and running loads of PnR. Same with Dallas and pretty much every successful team.

And I am not saying that I am right and that I know everything but as fans, we have the right to question especially when its a common view.

Oh for sure. Question away but you are also advocating moving towards something else. This is the premise of your argument:

but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game

I am concerned that he is trying to cement his legacy by proving this system and perhaps this is not the best system to run (here/now).

I was concerned last year that we led the league in long 2's by a lot. The losing did not bother me.

I am hoping that Phil is willing to adjust and modify previous versions of the system.

Phil is brilliant but if he said that he did not believe in analytics, would that bother you? He doesn't like the way lebron plays and tweeted how is it goink ... he is a purist. That is not always good even if you are brilliant.

Again, I am putting forth some doubts that IMHO are valid

mreinman wrote:

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.

I thought the offense they ran after Irving got hurt in the finals was run as much out of desperation as any belief that it was a superior offense.

Have not watched the Cavs recently, though.

Don't think James' Miami teams ran that kind of offense.

Things do change a bit with Love in the lineup, I suppose.

mreinman wrote:I am concerned that he is trying to cement his legacy by proving this system and perhaps this is not the best system to run (here/now).

So this is kind of funny to me. The only way Phil cements his legacy is by winning a championship... but you are concerned about that?

Also, I don't understand why you would put the "(here/now)" at the tail end there. If you want to build something, especially a team, you start right now and right here, and it is a long process, a multi year process. I think we all understand that player and team familiarity needs to grow, so that's why you implement a system and stick to its plan. Otherwise (the opposite) is just shuffling players in and out and coaches and GM's and you get what the Knicks were for the last decade or so. There are growing pains and it is understood up front. It is imperfect for a long time.

I was concerned last year that we led the league in long 2's by a lot. The losing did not bother me.

I am hoping that Phil is willing to adjust and modify previous versions of the system.

You keep wanting to take meaning out of a very bad team, last year's team. So, where do you find team/league stats for long 2's and has this changed since last year?

I do know that last year the Knicks were the worst at guarding the 3point line and this year they are near the top if not the best. I guess adjustments in their system has been made.

Phil is brilliant but if he said that he did not believe in analytics, would that bother you?

Did Phil say that he did not believe in analytics or did he question some aspects of it? Big difference. I think this is the article that best describes his stance:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/04/sports/basketball/phil-jackson-is-out-to-prove-that-his-signature-offense-still-fits.html

He questioned the staying power of statistics-based offensive trends emphasizing spacing and 3-point shooting. "I think it's still debatable about how basketball is going to be played, what's going to win out," the Zen Master said in defense of the triangle offense, which encourages the more traditional type of play Jackson admires.

He doesn't like the way lebron plays and tweeted how is it goink ... he is a purist. That is not always good even if you are brilliant.

Again, I am putting forth some doubts that IMHO are valid

IMHO the goink tweet was brilliant because it's so damn funny. I don't like the way LeBron play in the last playoffs. I don't like the Iso-Melo ball. Neither of those was team play. I am down for some 70's style Knicks basketball; teamwork to the hilt.