nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:Part of the thing with the Warriors is the kind of talent they have. It's important that you have a high amount of players who can move, shoot, handle the ball and make excellent passes. Not every roster will be successful running the stuff they do. Teams like Atlanta were able to approximate what they do, but not very many teams are really as free flowing as the Warriors and for good reason. On top of this you have to have enough 2 way players to defend adequately.

Just look at the way GS flows on offense. You can't do this with clumsy players that lack ball handling or agility, not to mention shooting ability.

The Spurs are slower but doing similar things. They're much closer to the Knicks style of play but with much better talent so it works at a higher level. With the right talent NY could approximate what the Spurs do, playing at a slower pace.

so remove the spurs and GS from the equation since they are the extremes.

The knicks trying to emulate SA is just plain silly.

Why? Let's put Melo aside, maybe he is with the team long term, maybe he gets traded; mostly I want to put him aside so as to not distract from the line of thinking.

SAS is built with post guys, perimeter guys and Tony Parker running around with the ball. Ball movement, player movement. Defense.

The Knicks are light years away from being a championship team. They are also light years away from being completely built, it's a work in progress. Their new draft picks are KP, Grant, Willy, Thanasis, Early. Their long term contracts are Rolo, KOQ, Melo.

SAS is a very solid comparison of what the Knicks are likely to do since they also have post players like we do but they have the guards to make it work. The plays I posted above are the Spurs version of the triangle. It's the same spacing but they have Parker and Duncan in the 2 man and more dangerous shooters on the Triangle side. So yeah... talent makes a huge difference in how the same play looks.

Did you forget Kawhi Leonard? Perhaps the 2nd best player in the league?

So perhaps we can get pop to coach, draft Tim Duncan, Tony Parker and have the little known Kawhi Leonard as a consolation prize.

If we can do all that and of course wait until our timmy is old so that we need to slow down the offense then yes, we would be a good comp.

But hey .... still so much fun to speak in 1/1000000000 shots.

Is your contention that there's no combination of OTHER players that the Knicks could get besides Parker and Kawhi in order to build a winning team? The Knicks already have Melo, RoLo and KP. KP being a rookie it's too early for him to be the full impact player that he will be. I think you're making a very weak point here. There are enough similarities to make it a valid argument. As I demonstrated above the Spurs run sets very similar to what we run.

By the way NO ONE is suggesting that we'd be exactly the equal of the Spurs. That seems to be what you are implying. All Time great teams are always hard to duplicate. How many GS Warriors like teams are their? If someone wanted to try and emulate that type of team they aren't assuming that the end result will be exactly the same.

you are missing the point. In todays game, chances of success are or at least seem to be much better running a modern system. SA runs a system that works for them and they need to run it for a number of reasons at this point. That is not the system that teams are all trying to copy right now. There are definitely elements of it that can be extrapolated from it that are even considered modern and I am sure that once Duncan and Parker are gone, they will run a diff style.

Again, look at the percentages.

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

mreinman wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

Phoenix had an incredible amount of talent. Amare, Marion, Nash were pretty amazing. How many hofs do you need to be not competing with less?

that is 1 HOF er right? and he was bit of a product of the PnR.

the nba's "solution" was the introduction of zone defenses.

outside of these "minor developments" it was introduction of the 3-point line that has contributed most to the strategies behind the "modern offense," even though it has taken 35 years for that change to influence the game to what we see now.

the price you pay is a perimeter-oriented game with very few post up big men and more oh-so-boring drive and kick stuff, with most driving and kicking based on the aforementioned loosening of the rules about palming, traveling, and moving picks-- combined with the abolishment of the hand check. it's hard to watch this sort of basketball when there's so much league-sanctioned cheating going on, and it is mind boggling that the league (under stern) adapted these changes in the first place.

and to think this mess all started with magic and jordan.

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

Phoenix had an incredible amount of talent. Amare, Marion, Nash were pretty amazing. How many hofs do you need to be not competing with less?

that is 1 HOF er right? and he was bit of a product of the PnR.

I don't know if Marion makes it but espn had an article out last year when he retired giving all of the reasons why they think he should be in. I also think Amare probably gets in despite being hobbled by injuries since leaving the Suns.

Vmart wrote:It's still basketball. New basketball has an implementation of SSOL. That is what GS is playing triangle with SSOL.

The biggest problem I had with SSOL in NY was its implementation. I thought it might work in NY, after seeing it at work in Phoenix. The one major difference I saw in NY was that many players werent waiting for good looks at the rim, they were just jacking up shots left and right like there was no tommorow. I dont see that in GS. Sure, some of that has to do with Curry never missing, but the ball movement is better, they arent shooting just to check a box like they looked too often in NY. Also thought that SSOL's reliance on man D was managable if we had the right defenders. We didnt.

MDA made some adjustments, but without the right players (sound familiar?) this system just looked good on paper. Thought D'Antoni was a better theorist (a very good one) than a coach. Just because you're a great shipbuilder, doesnt necessarily mean that you're a great ship's captain. Thought Nash had that role in Phoenix.

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:It's still basketball. New basketball has an implementation of SSOL. That is what GS is playing triangle with SSOL.

The biggest problem I had with SSOL in NY was its implementation. I thought it might work in NY, after seeing it at work in Phoenix. The one major difference I saw in NY was that many players werent waiting for good looks at the rim, they were just jacking up shots left and right like there was no tommorow. I dont see that in GS. Sure, some of that has to do with Curry never missing, but the ball movement is better, they arent shooting just to check a box like they looked too often in NY. Also thought that SSOL's reliance on man D was managable if we had the right defenders. We didnt.

MDA made some adjustments, but without the right players (sound familiar?) this system just looked good on paper. Thought D'Antoni was a better theorist (a very good one) than a coach. Just because you're a great shipbuilder, doesnt necessarily mean that you're a great ship's captain. Thought Nash had that role in Phoenix.

I agree with you the quality of shots under MDA was horrific. But his system needed a PG to lead and he never really had one.

Regardless of what system you play the main thing that is necessary is talent and a proper system to get the most out of the talent. Phil's system gets the most out of talent his system got great players over the top.

My problem with SSOL is that you needed a PG with a skill set that is very hard to come by. Fortunately thats not the case with the Triangle. You're right that any system needs talent to thrive, but finding the right talent for that system in a timely fashion isnt always possible.

Thats when I believe its time to start looking for a system that gives a team the best chance of finding the necessary talent to run a productive system. If we pass three years and we still cant make the playoffs with the talent we have now, then its time to start looking for winning coaches who have won with their system.

nyknickzingis wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

I'm not sure if you grasped the post I made - there was no reference to the Shaq/Kobe team. The years I was talking about were the most recent Phil Jackson teams that won which were in the Lakers. They had to go through the same D'Antoni type of Suns teams, the Nuggets with a prime Melo running a very modern offense with George Karl, a younger Thunder team with Durant/Westbrook, and many others like that. They went against Dwight Howard in his peak as a player with 3 point shooters all around Dwight. Stan Van Gundy runs a very modern offense, and got spanked by those Laker teams in the Finals. I'm not a Laker fan so I don't recall the exact details, but I do remember how well they played with size and talent like they had running the Triangle offense. Andrew Bynum was with them, Lamar Odom, Pau Gasol and Derek Fisher. They won a few rings. This was very recent.

With Lopez, Porzingis, Melo, DWill - Phil Jackson is putting together a very good and talented front court similar to what he had in LA. Long guys with athleticism and a high skill level. He needs an athletic wing, as Cleanthony or Thanasis aren't really NBA level. They're pretty set. Where the problems arise are the backcourt. No physical defensively tough point guard. No all-star guard. We need 2 major changes in the backcourt. If we can balance our talent like we have up front with backcourt players, we'll be in top 5-10 in the league running the same offense we are today. However so long as we have Jose/Afflalo, it simply puts us in too big a hole talent wise. Phil knows this, that's why he's not committed longterm dollars to backcourt players. When the right talent is available, Phil will go all in to get that talent.

Grant is a player I like because he's strong, phsyical and can move his feet on defense and has some traditional point guard skills. He can get in to the paint. If he can give us 10 points/4 assists and 30 minutes a night, the Knicks are a DeMar DeRozan type of guard away from being a very good team. It's all about upgrading in the backcourt. It can happen two ways. One through internal development from Grant, Wroten and Gallo (only 1 of them really have to become starting caliber with low expectations 10/4 type of starter) and the other through a major free agent signing either this summer or next (DeRozan this summer or someone of all-star level guard next summer).

If you have kobe OR shaq on your team then you are probably better than everyone else. If you have kobe and shaq, its plain unfair. If you have kobe and Gasol then its still extremely unfair (and lets not forget how great Gasol was for them) and then throw in phil jackson as a coach?

The triangle will be proven when a team that does not have Kobe and/or Shaq/Gasol overachieves and it is run by someone other than phil jackson.

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nyknickzingis wrote:The offense the Knicks are trying to run is modern. It's the same offense that won championships in 2009, 2010 and 2008. I forget if they won 3 or 2, but they definitely won a few titles. They went through those same Spurs, Suns, Magic teams that currently still run the pace/space offense. We can't look at this as if pace and space, 3 point shooting is something new. It's been going on for 5 years now. Virtually every team now runs it, but the Lakers teams Phil Jackson coached beat every one of them during their best year. The difference is the talent. Phil Jackson's Lakers teams were long and athletic in the front court, just like we are. They were not a power team. They had similar talent to ours. The difference in the backcourt. They had a player in Kobe who was an all time great. The Warriors have another all time great player in Curry. You won't win too many titles without great players. Not just great because Melo on his day can be that, but all time great. It's a different level you can operate as a team when you are fortunate to have Jordan, Kobe or the current Curry.

The big thing for the Knicks will be their talent. Get a capable starting point guard, that adds 1-2 PPG just by being able to push the pace. Get some more reliable outside shooters or shot makers, that's another point or two. KP improving is huge, he only shoots at 42 percent. Running the same offense, with improved talent, improved KP, leads the Knicks to scoring 103-104 points a night. Now here's the major thing. The Knicks defense has to improve far more than their offense if they want to win a championship. Virtually every Phil Jackson team played great defense. They had a couple of ball stoppers on the ball, they had great shotblockers and size inside (which we do) and a very tough physical point guard (like Fisher, who even though not fast, was very tough and physical).

In regards to winning championships this all comes down to Porzingis. It's too much to ask him to be an all time great, but realistically if the Knicks want to get to that level they need him to be that great. To reach the level of Dirk or Durant or Duncan. He hasn't shown that level of skill to me, but he has shown he is that tough mentally and that hard a worker. I don't see him making his jumpshots at good enough a clip for someone who is touted a great shooter. His form is great. His shot making still needs time. If he can become a great scorer, I do believe he has the mind set. Very competitive. Very serious about winning (nothing "melo" about him). As the commentators were saying, when the Knicks lose, regardless of his stats he looks awful. You can see the losses hurt him. That's the competitor you want leading your team. Just not sure if he has the skill and shot making to reach that level.

of course the lakers won and beat teams like phoenix. THEY HAD FREAKIN KOBE AND SHAQ! Don't you think that phoenix did much more with much less?

The game is completely diff now and on top of that we dont have and will never have a kobe/shaq.

Phoenix had an incredible amount of talent. Amare, Marion, Nash were pretty amazing. How many hofs do you need to be not competing with less?

that is 1 HOF er right? and he was bit of a product of the PnR.

I don't know if Marion makes it but espn had an article out last year when he retired giving all of the reasons why they think he should be in. I also think Amare probably gets in despite being hobbled by injuries since leaving the Suns.

I don't think either of them make it and I love marion.

mreinman wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Vmart wrote:It's still basketball. New basketball has an implementation of SSOL. That is what GS is playing triangle with SSOL.

The biggest problem I had with SSOL in NY was its implementation. I thought it might work in NY, after seeing it at work in Phoenix. The one major difference I saw in NY was that many players werent waiting for good looks at the rim, they were just jacking up shots left and right like there was no tommorow. I dont see that in GS. Sure, some of that has to do with Curry never missing, but the ball movement is better, they arent shooting just to check a box like they looked too often in NY. Also thought that SSOL's reliance on man D was managable if we had the right defenders. We didnt.

MDA made some adjustments, but without the right players (sound familiar?) this system just looked good on paper. Thought D'Antoni was a better theorist (a very good one) than a coach. Just because you're a great shipbuilder, doesnt necessarily mean that you're a great ship's captain. Thought Nash had that role in Phoenix.

I agree with you the quality of shots under MDA was horrific. But his system needed a PG to lead and he never really had one.

Regardless of what system you play the main thing that is necessary is talent and a proper system to get the most out of the talent. Phil's system gets the most out of talent his system got great players over the top.

My problem with SSOL is that you needed a PG with a skill set that is very hard to come by. Fortunately thats not the case with the Triangle. You're right that any system needs talent to thrive, but finding the right talent for that system in a timely fashion isnt always possible.

Thats when I believe its time to start looking for a system that gives a team the best chance of finding the necessary talent to run a productive system. If we pass three years and we still cant make the playoffs with the talent we have now, then its time to start looking for winning coaches who have won with their system.

ssol made some really stinky PG's look pretty decent. Can the triangle do that?

did not care for the 7 seconds though. I think that this was put to bed and teams are mostly sticking to its half court principles.

Decent didnt get us more than one first round exit in all that time. They ran half court offense, P&R as well, saw Nash bring up the ball slowly many times in its heydey. I miss the P&R also because of the effect it has on opposing defenses having to run through hard picks all night.