crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Nixluva, didn't Fisher try to modify the Triangle and get fired because of that? He tried to add some pick and roll, which was actually successful, and he got fired. Rambis was elevated to install the "pure triangle". Their record was much worse with him, but hey at least the principals were pure.

I would have no problem with Phil if he was open to adapting or updating the Triangle. He's not. He's said this and proven this time and again.

I understood that to be a flat no.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/kurt-rambis-derek-fisher-gave-triangle-quickly-article-1.2593475

“We didn’t fully immerse ourselves into practicing (the triangle while Fisher was coach), developing it, learning how to work with it, going through the breakdown drills to execute it properly,” Rambis said. “We kind of skirted over things. So the real learning process of it didn’t have enough time to take place. We also didn’t allow the players the kind of time that it needs to allow them to get comfortable with it.”

...

Issues over Fisher’s triangle straying went as far back as Summer League of last year, according to sources, when Jackson took notice. Fisher then declared in training camp that too much emphasis on the system was a sabotaging factor during the 17-win disaster of last season, prompting him to adopt a different philosophy with more offensive freedom and fewer triangle lessons.

Rambis said Friday that hurt the team’s development. Asked about Fisher’s recent comments that teaching the triangle is too time-consuming, Rambis defended the precious system.

“First off, it’s not difficult. It’s like learning anything new. You have to open up your mind and be receptive to learning something new and that’s a huge part of it,” said Rambis, who owns a 9-17 record as interim coach. “And Phil and (triangle originator) Tex (Winter) have always felt it takes players a good year or so in terms of really understanding it and the nuances of it. Would I say it’s difficult? No. You just have to be receptive to learning it.”

...

Regarding the Knicks, Rambis explained Friday that Fisher deviated from the traditional two-guard set of the triangle. During that time, according to Jackson, Fisher resisted help from older assistants Rambis and Jim Cleamons.

“We were constantly wavering back-and-forth (between a two-guard set and a one-guard set in the triangle). So our players almost treat it like plays now instead of a real sequence of actions, a system that you work under,” said Rambis, who was Fisher’s lead assistant but hasn’t spoken to the 41-year-old since he was fired. “A coach has to do what he feels is right.”

There were a whole range of issues, your above reference points to one of them. It's not the only one.

Of course the Barnes incident was not pretty, but from everything we've heard from Phil and Rambis, it was about Fisher not running the Triangle enough and not talking to Phil about the Triangle enough. There were rumors as far back as the beginning of January that Fisher was not safe - from Zack Lowe specifically.

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Nixluva, didn't Fisher try to modify the Triangle and get fired because of that? He tried to add some pick and roll, which was actually successful, and he got fired. Rambis was elevated to install the "pure triangle". Their record was much worse with him, but hey at least the principals were pure.

I would have no problem with Phil if he was open to adapting or updating the Triangle. He's not. He's said this and proven this time and again.

I understood that to be a flat no.

you are just all in? You are not at all skeptical about this triangle agenda and the tiny coaching pool that it forces us into?

I see a president trying to put continuity into the organization, one that focuses on a system, structure, long term moves, all things that have plagued the organization over the past 15 years. Phil is one of the greatest coaches out there and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a reasonable time period. He gave the 2013-14 team 3 months to show what they got, it stunk and he tore it down. When you do so, you gotta sacrifice another year or 2 or 3 before tangible results are manifested in the standings. We have 1 player from the 2013 team, to me that indicates a full tear down and rebuild; everyone has their own definition of rebuild but I feel this is one of them. The tear down was a success as it yielded franchise potential player - UNICORN PLAYER, potential league changing type player - and a PG. Of all the things that are most important in building up a team, it's finding that franchise potential player and then growing it. Growing the team and the player are manifested many different ways - win/loss, individual player development, team development.

Phil's first choice for coach was Kerr. He seemed to have a very good eye on that one, even in his narrow coaching pool. After that Fisher; Fish seemed to have some broad authority about what to do and tripped over his own follies and mismanagement of communication, coaching staff, personal failures, yo-yo'ing of players, etc. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how Phil makes comments about availing himself to the coaching staff and Fish and then Fish not taking advantage of that.

So, do you hire a new coach and staff and need to turn the roster over again to find the players that are more fitting to new coach and system? Re-start the coaching staff in the D-League? The scouting staff? Summer League plans?

The Knicks are not winning next year. Player development and continuity is of utmost importance. If keeping Rambis means that Phil will hold secret mini camps and be actively involved with Summer League and Training camp and beyond, why the **** not? I would say that Phil and probably Pop (and Riley) are the foremost of player, system, culture development? Why would I want to have Thibs who immediately would turn things over again and probably create a barrier between coaching staff and management? There is a possibility that they would work together, but why wouldn't Phil hone in on exactly who and what he wants to work with?

crzymdups wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:It is in the other Phil thread. I think it is great that Phil is getting involved in coaching. I am concerned that Jose is there and that Jose was mentioned specifically by Phil as one of 'their' favorite players. It seems to be mainly the back court guys.

Is this even legal at this point in the season? I've never heard of this ever - a non-playoffs team having a mini-camp AFTER the season ends???

I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but I despair that it means Rambis will be back.

Were doomed for the for-see-able future, I never even heard of a president running his own mini camp, on a team that doesn't have a HEAD COACH.

All i keep thinking is that the lakers picked MDA over phil, base on the triangle, even though he got them 3 championships. Then after getting six rings with the bulls, they failed to give Phil what he wanted and forced him out.

Dolan is going to eventually fire phil jackson if he keeps this up.

knicks1248 wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:It is in the other Phil thread. I think it is great that Phil is getting involved in coaching. I am concerned that Jose is there and that Jose was mentioned specifically by Phil as one of 'their' favorite players. It seems to be mainly the back court guys.

Is this even legal at this point in the season? I've never heard of this ever - a non-playoffs team having a mini-camp AFTER the season ends???

I'm not opposed to the idea in general, but I despair that it means Rambis will be back.

Were doomed for the for-see-able future, I never even heard of a president running his own mini camp, on a team that doesn't have a HEAD COACH.

All i keep thinking is that the lakers picked MDA over phil, base on the triangle, even though he got them 3 championships. Then after getting six rings with the bulls, they failed to give Phil what he wanted and forced him out.

Dolan is going to eventually fire phil jackson if he keeps this up.

and those franchises have won nada since nor have they returned to the finals. Seems like they made poor decisions.

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Nixluva, didn't Fisher try to modify the Triangle and get fired because of that? He tried to add some pick and roll, which was actually successful, and he got fired. Rambis was elevated to install the "pure triangle". Their record was much worse with him, but hey at least the principals were pure.

I would have no problem with Phil if he was open to adapting or updating the Triangle. He's not. He's said this and proven this time and again.

I understood that to be a flat no.

you are just all in? You are not at all skeptical about this triangle agenda and the tiny coaching pool that it forces us into?

I see a president trying to put continuity into the organization, one that focuses on a system, structure, long term moves, all things that have plagued the organization over the past 15 years. Phil is one of the greatest coaches out there and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for a reasonable time period. He gave the 2013-14 team 3 months to show what they got, it stunk and he tore it down. When you do so, you gotta sacrifice another year or 2 or 3 before tangible results are manifested in the standings. We have 1 player from the 2013 team, to me that indicates a full tear down and rebuild; everyone has their own definition of rebuild but I feel this is one of them. The tear down was a success as it yielded franchise potential player - UNICORN PLAYER, potential league changing type player - and a PG. Of all the things that are most important in building up a team, it's finding that franchise potential player and then growing it. Growing the team and the player are manifested many different ways - win/loss, individual player development, team development.

Phil's first choice for coach was Kerr. He seemed to have a very good eye on that one, even in his narrow coaching pool. After that Fisher; Fish seemed to have some broad authority about what to do and tripped over his own follies and mismanagement of communication, coaching staff, personal failures, yo-yo'ing of players, etc. I'm scratching my head trying to figure out how Phil makes comments about availing himself to the coaching staff and Fish and then Fish not taking advantage of that.

So, do you hire a new coach and staff and need to turn the roster over again to find the players that are more fitting to new coach and system? Re-start the coaching staff in the D-League? The scouting staff? Summer League plans?

The Knicks are not winning next year. Player development and continuity is of utmost importance. If keeping Rambis means that Phil will hold secret mini camps and be actively involved with Summer League and Training camp and beyond, why the **** not? I would say that Phil and probably Pop (and Riley) are the foremost of player, system, culture development? Why would I want to have Thibs who immediately would turn things over again and probably create a barrier between coaching staff and management? There is a possibility that they would work together, but why wouldn't Phil hone in on exactly who and what he wants to work with?

He lowballed kerr and that may have costed him.

he many terrible moves out of the gate and should have traded tyson and maybe melo by the deadline of that season while they still had value.

He "cleaned house" though did it pretty badly.

He failed to communicate with his coach and that is partly on him, no?

He now has a dumb dinosaur as his top choice who is just a puppet with no mind of his own.

He was off on Afflalo, Seph, KOQ (puke contract). He signed Dwil but with no option so that is a bit bitter sweet. Rolo was a good move and he has brought him along pretty well though his start was horrendous.

Why can't he find a young up and comer like brad stevens or over KENNY ATKINSON?

I agree that Thibs won't work here but does that mean that mean that Phil is hindering us? I love what SVG is doing in detroit with all that power. Would not mind JVG here in the same roll.

We may have starphucked for phil especially that he brought along his his slinky triangle lil friend.

He has gotten a D so far with room to turn it around.

mreinman wrote:He lowballed kerr and that may have costed him.

mreinman, you are about as obsessed with the notion that Kerr was lowballed as BRIGGS is with Pau Gasol, Curry, Bazemore and Valentine. It's kind of pathetic that you cling so heavily in the face of so many other aspects of what was going at the time, all of them very reasonable. In the end, Phil didn't get his guy and maybe if he gave Kerr more $ upfront, maybe he signs and then the Knicks media would have had 2 guys to constantly promote and equate the $ angle and agendas with wins.

If you want to have a balanced chat about these things you would start to acknowledge and even detail your full thoughts on Kerr and make obvious the other numerous points and supremely valid reasons why Kerr both verbally accepted Phil's offer and then asked to be let go from the verbal commitment because of the unique situation that GSW were offering, both personally and professionally.

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Nixluva, didn't Fisher try to modify the Triangle and get fired because of that? He tried to add some pick and roll, which was actually successful, and he got fired. Rambis was elevated to install the "pure triangle". Their record was much worse with him, but hey at least the principals were pure.

I would have no problem with Phil if he was open to adapting or updating the Triangle. He's not. He's said this and proven this time and again.

I understood that to be a flat no.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/knicks/kurt-rambis-derek-fisher-gave-triangle-quickly-article-1.2593475

“We didn’t fully immerse ourselves into practicing (the triangle while Fisher was coach), developing it, learning how to work with it, going through the breakdown drills to execute it properly,” Rambis said. “We kind of skirted over things. So the real learning process of it didn’t have enough time to take place. We also didn’t allow the players the kind of time that it needs to allow them to get comfortable with it.”

...

Issues over Fisher’s triangle straying went as far back as Summer League of last year, according to sources, when Jackson took notice. Fisher then declared in training camp that too much emphasis on the system was a sabotaging factor during the 17-win disaster of last season, prompting him to adopt a different philosophy with more offensive freedom and fewer triangle lessons.

Rambis said Friday that hurt the team’s development. Asked about Fisher’s recent comments that teaching the triangle is too time-consuming, Rambis defended the precious system.

“First off, it’s not difficult. It’s like learning anything new. You have to open up your mind and be receptive to learning something new and that’s a huge part of it,” said Rambis, who owns a 9-17 record as interim coach. “And Phil and (triangle originator) Tex (Winter) have always felt it takes players a good year or so in terms of really understanding it and the nuances of it. Would I say it’s difficult? No. You just have to be receptive to learning it.”

...

Regarding the Knicks, Rambis explained Friday that Fisher deviated from the traditional two-guard set of the triangle. During that time, according to Jackson, Fisher resisted help from older assistants Rambis and Jim Cleamons.

“We were constantly wavering back-and-forth (between a two-guard set and a one-guard set in the triangle). So our players almost treat it like plays now instead of a real sequence of actions, a system that you work under,” said Rambis, who was Fisher’s lead assistant but hasn’t spoken to the 41-year-old since he was fired. “A coach has to do what he feels is right.”

There were a whole range of issues, your above reference points to one of them. It's not the only one.

the other one was the love triangle which you said was not going to be a distraction and you ridiculed me for saying that it would be. I would have bumped it but you locked it .... hmmmmmmmmmmmm .... payes to be the boss

Even knick sex scandals have to run the triangle these days.

i'm just happy the team has some continuity - we're not going to become contenders overnight, so keeping guys together and having them practice is a very good thing and if they are learning from one of the best coaches of all-time, then even better.

Malcolm wrote:I've been a Phil Jackson admirer.

But the Fisher hiring/firing was very, very bad . . . and Jackson was responsible.

Maybe it was understandable, but it wasn't excusable.

Everything else so far I'd grade as (B) . . . but the Fisher mess pulls it down to (C).

I agree. The Fisher thing was terrible.

And I think hiring Rambis would pull it down further to a C-

CrushAlot wrote:

EnySpree wrote:This is a piece of **** article....

What is the intent here? Just more drama to sell clicks and newspapers

Isola is going off on Phil. The Bannister article, the inaccurate Walton spin, putting in this article that the pressure is getting to Phil, etc. He might have chased Walton off on his own. CBS Sports radio called the Knicks a dumpster fire, PTI called the team something not pleasant and suggested that Walton shouldn't take the job because of the spectre of Isiah, ownership and the fact that Phil could just pack up and go to LA. It will be interesting to see if Phil handles this nonsense as well as Melo has in the past. Not sure why anyone would want to play in NY with this type of coverage.

And the Knicks deserve it. They keep bringing the criticisms on themselves. Fueling the fire with one mis calculation after the next. Next up is Phil bolting for LA and the return of Isiah.

Let me tell you this. There is nothing this franchise has earned more than being run by a triangle of Dolan, Isiah & Melo

Malcolm wrote:

nixluva wrote:It's best to end it if it wasn't working the way Phil wanted.

I'm not complaining that Jackson fired Fisher.

I'm complaining that he hired him in the first place so that he had to fire him later . . .

Phil wanted to mentor Fish cuz he saw leadership qualities in him. I can understand what he was thinking. Take the talented young man and give him experienced assistants. It's a perfectly logical approach. It didn't work but no GM/prez is perfect.