crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:mreinman wrote:crzymdups wrote:martin wrote:crzymdups wrote:nyknickzingis wrote:The two most important aspects in the Triangle are no different than what a team like Golden State would like.Pass and Shoot. Guys like Calderon get hate here, but Calderon was our best guard on offense by far. What are Jose's strengths? He can pass the ball and shoot it well. What we lack now is the same skill level at SG, Center as well. Ideally in the Triangle all 5 players can pass the ball. You look at Golden State, Bogut-Green-Iguodala-Thompson-Curry can all pass.
It's why there is some articles out there about Evan Turner as an option to replace Afflalo at 2. Afflalo was very one dimensional. He rarely looked for the open man. Evan Turner isn't a better scorer than Afflalo, but he will look for the open man, he will look to penetrate the defense and make a pass.
What it comes down to for the Triangle, for the Knicks, we need more talented passers and shooters. It's why I like giving Pau Gasol a 18$M contract for 1 year, if we fail to convince bigger name free agents. Pau can shoot from outside the paint, pass, post up. From the guard/wing spot, there's Batum or Turner. Batum much better, but also likely far more expensive.
I see Phil liking
Centers: Pau Gasol, Al Horford, Joakim Noah (All 3 can pass much better than RoLo)
Wings: Kevin Durant, DeMar DeRozan Nic Batum, Evan Turner
Guards: Mario Chalmers (If he's recovered from that achilles injury)
If D-Will and Afflalo opt out, we may have enough cap room to sign a wing and a big.
What I dislike about focusing on the Triangle is people not focusing on Defense. I think it's a failing of Rambis, too.But you look at the Warriors, Phil's Bulls, Phil's Lakers - those were fantastic defensive teams.
Also, it doesn't really matter if Phil likes Durant and DeRozan - they ain't coming here.
What I'm saying is that rather focus on offensive starphuching, I'd like to find some two-way players for this team.
I'd rather get Mike Conley and Lance Stephenson than swing and miss at DeMar DeRozan or Durant.
I thought that we established that Rambis was the defensive coach for Phil with the Lakers?
Knicks defense improved this year, still not sound.
Yes, but defensive efficiency slipped under Rambis. They were 18th in the league under Fisher and finished the season 21st in the league.
Some of the negatives from his tenure in Minnesota included a team official quoted as saying they'd give up 120pts in a game and he would talk about Triangle offensive execution.
It may be the case that if Rambis is allowed to focus only on defense he's good at it. But might it be the case that he is not capable of implementing the Triangle offense AND focusing on defense? His head coaching record kinda reflects that.
I just don't have faith in him to do both.
Also, Fisher started running teams off the 3 point line / new school approach. I think that old school Rambis went back to clogging the paint and giving up more open 3's.
Stats back this up, too.
Fisher allowed 22.1ppg from the three point line
In 28 games, Rambis let the numbers for the season go up to 22.9ppg
That implies he allowed about 2 more ppg from the 3pt line in his 28 games at coach.
(edit: I did the math - it's actually 24.4ppg from 3 for Rambis, up from 22.1ppg for Fisher)
a 2 point swing in scoring differential in the NBA is huge.
It's the difference between the Toronto Raptors (+4.5) and the Charlotte Hornets (+2.7). It's the difference between the Raptors (+4.5) and the Cavs (+6.0)
Rambis is not a good coach.
If you wanna take a small sample of 30 games and extrapolate, feel free. Also take into account that 2 of the Knicks better defenders in Lance and KP were out.
Was Rambis the defensive coach when Fish was with the Knicks? If not, who?
Coaches don't forget how to coach over night, but have at it.
I'm saying I don't think he's capable of doing the whole job. And Rambis had KP for most of his run.
I'm sorry, I don't get your dogged defense of Rambis. He's a terrible coach and the numbers back this up, the eye test backs this up. Having success as a defensive assistant for Phil Jackson doesn't automatically = him being a good HEAD coach.
And pointing to how much better the team did with Fisher running it while Rambis was on the bench... Phil and Rambis are ON RECORD saying Fisher didn't listen to Rambis enough and that is one of the reasons it wasn't working.
I do not get the defense of Rambis. So I will have at the fact that all the stats got worse under him and the team sucked under him. Rambis coaching the 99 strike Lakers to the second round and had them playing passable ball. Phil came in and that team went 67-15 and is considered one of the most dominant teams of all time. Difference between Rambis coaching and Phil? Unfair? Seems like the only defense of Rambis is that it's unfair to judge all the reasons he's failed at his job. He's never been good.
people will tell you that they are being impartial but they are not. Its like being a democrat or a republican. You are either all in or not. There is no being impartial when you feel connected enough to feel like you need to defend the party.
Rambis and many old schoolers have a diff philosophy when it comes to defense. Old school takes away the middle and penetration while new school runs defenders off the 3 point line.
When Fisher got the job and Rambis was the defensive coach, he probably tried it his way and it was as expected an abomination. We surrendered more threes than anyone. Fisher then in year 2 changed the philosophy, run shooters off the 3 and it worked. He also tried tweaking the offense for a more modern approach with more PnR and less traditional triangle which is what successful teams have done and again, it worked but the purists were not happy with the deviations ...
So expect much less of a modern offensive look and much more 3 point attempts allowed (if rambis is the guy).
so here is what phil is thinking ....
