nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

Because they love the nonsense more than the team success.

Because right now, it's a embarrassing circus that's going to prevent guys from coming here. The offense seems archaic to the bystander and potential free agent. You can't be a smug ******* unless your popovich right now. it just doesn't work when you haven't coached in years

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

the league goes through phases. i think anyone would agree with everything you're saying but just because the league has moved towards smaller lineups, doesn't mean everyone has to and clearly phil doesn't think so. i'm not saying i agree or disagree with it, but not EVERYONE has to move towards the flavor of the month. in the nfl, the wildcat was the hottest thing going for 2 seasons, guys like RG3, kapernick were on top of the world because of the system. i remember people saying that the dual-threat QB was going to be the way the game was played from now on. it's a good thing not everyone decided to draft a wildcat QB because it's all but gone now and the dropback QB is still king.

now i know before you tell me it's apples and oranges because it's two different sports, i agree. but there is some validity to it. im not saying smallball is going anywhere, but if phil has won 11 rings and believes the triangle can still work in the league, i gotta go along for the ride. in the end, if you have guys that can make shots and play defense, you're going to be just fine. smallball lineups have created some nice advantages for the small rosters, so its up to phil to find a way to create some matchup advantages with his big guys in the triangle.

crzymdups wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

EnySpree wrote:This is a piece of shot article?

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

Yeah cuz it's a bad thing having the greatest coach teach his players. SMH. This kind of thing can only help. I've never heard of a team doing this but I do remember Phil and Rambis doing seminars before. Perhaps this is allowed if it's not mandatory.

I thought you said the key was upgrading the backcourt?

What's the point of a two day seminar with mediocre guards?

Phil should be exploring ways to upgrade the roster. He's not the coach, he's the President. If he's gonna coach, he should coach.

He should be searching for a coach.

Instead he is running an ego workshop while the TWolves lock down Thibs. Wolves will have a better record than the Knicks next year.

If Phil's job is President of the team, I'm not sure I see how this helps anything. He's already settled on Rambis without having a single in person interview with another candidate.

Phil doesn't have that many candidates to interview that can run his triangle so he has plenty of time.

This is my issue exactly. The fact that he won't even interview a non-Triangle candidate is a bad sign to me.

It's like those friends from high school who only ever hang out with each other. Arrested development. For a supposedly open minded zen dude, Phil seems pretty close-minded.

Phil is married to and whole heartedly believes in the triangle and this is the offense that he wants ran so why would he interview any coach that doesn't run it?? I understand that some fans don't trust the triangle but i can't figure how by now those fans haven't figured out that Phil's mind is set on running the triangle and he doesn't care what the media or fans think about that so for me i've decided that i'm gonna trust what Phil is doing here and i don't think he's done that bad of a job so far.

I say Phil has done enough to deserve the chance to get this team built the way he wants it built and i think in two years we'll have a team that's not only a playoff team but a team that will make some noise in the playoffs. With one good piece at the guard spot this off season i think we'll make the playoffs next year but i'm committed to giving Phil two more years. One good piece this off season and another good piece the following off season along with our 1st round pick and i think people will be changing the way they see what Phil's doing with this team.

nixluva wrote:

EnySpree wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

Because they love the nonsense more than the team success.

I've already provided evidence that the Pure Triangle Teams Phil had in LA were just as efficient as any team today save for the Warriors! His team's were never the #1 offensive team but they were balanced teams that won Titles. All he's doing is putting this franchise on a course for sustainable success. Unlike most media and some fans Phil actually knows first hand what it takes to win a Title. He deserves a chance to finish the job.

This was the first year of this new roster and at least we now know some answers and what needs to be improved. Going into this offseason there is far less that is needed to improve than last year and that's progress.

Exactly. The cream is rising and you can see who doesn't belong. It's clear what the Knicks need to improve. We could not have gotten here without Phil coming in and tearing it down. We're at the same place Donnie Walsh had us before Dolan interfered. We gotta let Phil do his thing. I wish fans would see that so they can enjoy the ride

tj23 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

tj23 wrote:All the triangle is is a system of different actions. Just because another team uses one or two of the same actions doesn't mean they are running the triangle. Most other teams primary option isn't dumping the ball to their Center who possesses zero passing skills.

We could have more talent, execute it better also but I still believe the traditional triangle is s bit outdated. We are also too rigid with it because we are a very slow team and can't beat pressure off the ball or turn the corner on PNR.

Our down screens are set very sloppy. We never hit the back cutter on our corner screen and roll. So many failed options. I can go on and on. I'm honestly surprised we won as many games as we did.

I think the offense itself is fine but players today aren't used to playing that style and it's just a huge learning curve. Grant, Sasha, Thomas, KOQ, Lou, and KP are the only guys I saw grasp it. And half of them aren't talented enough to play. The rest did not get it and kinda stuck to their own game imo. It's a passing offense. You have to make reads and be able to make all the passes and it involves more cutting than dribbling. I just believe in today's game those players are harder to find.

You need a 5 who can score and pass, and Robin has showed a solid hook shot but he can't pass. KOQ can pass but can't score. Seraphin just looks to shoot every time he touches it.

You need effective PNR guards who can also play off the ball. It's hard enough to find penetrators for us but now we need to find guys who can do it all.

We fail to execute and then we go Iso anyway to Melo, AA, or Rolo. It's just all very frustrating...

The upside of it working is tremendous and puts you in championship contention due to it not being guard able. And its what Phil Jackson specialty is in terms of what he is looking for in players as our president. So why wouldn't it be worth attempting to build it up over the yrs and see if we can hit on a style that has won 11 championships?

Because there is and will be too much roster turnover in the amount of time it'll take to get this offense working smoothly. 2 years in and there has been very minimal progress with it. Its nice in theory, but like i said earlier, you are talking about changing the way a lot of players have played their entire lives. The art of passing is dead.

Now players are accustomed to more quick screens and lots of spacing to drive and kick/PNR. If it was a far superior system and/or we had the talent in place I could see it being more feasible but there are other offenses that are equally as good that are much easier to pick up and don't require such unique players to this era. I don't believe its unguardable but it is a good offense.

Fact is, no offense is going to look good or work well if there aren't some better ball handlers and athletes added to this roster. You want to get to the rim to get high percentage shots and open up other options, no matter what offense you're running and most of our players fail to do that on any consistent basis. Good teams get a good mix of easy baskets and open jumpers, free points at the line. We don't do any of this because we are arguably the slowest team in the league and we rely on heavily contested jumpshots falling.

what you are describing is exactly what a rebuild amounts to. Having a system, not yet having all the players and talent, needing to find more players, needing young kids to grow.

You say that in 2 years there has been minimal progress, but that first year was a tear down to that we could get KP and Grant and cap space and future cap space. The core group of guys have been together for a year.

When GSW drafted Curry, it took them 3 years to get to 47 wins - tank year they won 29, then 26 (first year with Curry), 36, 23 and then finally 47.

When OKC drafted Durant, they had lost 31. His first 2 years the team won 20 and then 23 and then 50.

KP's first year was 32 wins after a 17 season.

Minnesota has had like 2 #1 overall and several other high level picks and still are an under 30 win team this past year and for the last decade.

Washington after John Wall? 3 consecutive 20 win season and then 44.

Philly, puke.

New Orleans the year they drafted Anthony Davis were 21 wins. And then 27 wins, 34 wins and finally 45 followed by 30 this year.

So pretty much we are almost in line with some other teams that started from scratch? Just need patience.

nyknickzingis wrote:

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?

Post of the century.
Bravo, Martin.

totally agree. there is such a negative energy among knick fans. it's incredible. if we had GS team we'd be complaining about the 9 losses

stopstandthere wrote:Why Phil is so obsessed with Triangle?

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated. if the warriors were running the triangle, they'd be just as good as they are currently. any and all systems need good players to perform well and when we have good players, everyone will say the triangle works wonders. why do some people get so caught up in nonsense?

It's about floor balance and spacing. Spacing in the league has changed because some teams have acknowledged smaller lineups, spreading the floor with the three point shot, taking advantage of the role of the point guard in the offense because of the new hand check rules that have become even more lax in recent years, lax illegal screen rules, the role the illegal defense rules play has changed, etc.

The rules have evolved, the game has evolved, the league has evolved.

I have no problem with the Triangle as a base system. It's that Phil is so rigid about the EXACT nature of how it MUST work. Aka he wants two traditional big men on the floor for "floor balance"... though floor balance in the league now almost dictates you only have one big man. Phil thinks the three point shot is not a good shot and that long mid-range jumpers are higher percentage shots. There's all sorts of math that proves that this is not true. Etc.

If Phil were willing to UPDATE the Triangle, it'd be one thing. But it sure seems like he is not. One of the reasons Fisher was let go was supposedly because he wouldn't run the Triangle the way Phil thought it should be run and he tried to mix in other things.

Do you understand Offensive Efficiency and Pace stats? Cuz they prove that Phil's teams running the Triangle were just as efficient as the best teams today. The only team better is the Warriors. How hard do you think it would be to build a team to match the Warriors?

Is there a handy grid you could post that would illustrate this?

Those teams two Lakers teams you keep pointing to had Pau Gasol, a hall of famer, and Kobe Bryant, a top five all-time shooting guard. That'll help your efficiency.

I guess that could be said ad nauseum though, right? The GWS's modern offense only will work if you have Curry and Thompson and Green, that'll help their efficiency. Miami only had 2 of the 3 top players in the league and that helped their efficiency. Do we question that Pop may not really be that good and his offense/defense may not be that good cause he happened to have Tim Duncan on his team? We could stretch the analogy to say that the Spurs defensive scheme wouldn't be that good since they had Tim and now Khawai?

Sure, it comes down to talent in this league, as always. You can have your talent in the wrong system though. Look at OKC. Two top 7 players in this league, possibly top 5 players and they win 55 games?

And to me, Phil is saying that the system is more important than the talent. To me, and as you just illustrated - the best teams always design their system AROUND their talent. Acquire the talent first, then build a system.

Big thing with Phil's past success? He stepped into situations where there had already been massive talent assembled. Both the Bulls and Lakers had two top five players in the league and he imposed his structure on them. Maybe if Phil took the Triangle to OKC, it could help that team turn the corner. He went to teams that were ready to make the leap to true contenders and did a great job.

This is a much different situation and I think it is fair to question the method so far, if not the results.

But that logic is flawed....

you coach the talent you have... ok cool but they suck... you have to upgrade the talent. No matter who was coaching this group would not be a playoff team. When Phil gets better players then what? Do we keep forcing the coach to change things up every year until management gets it right? There still will be plenty to complain about four those that love to complain.

The Knicks ate an embarrassment for 15 years.... we're talking about coaching? Coaching has always been the problem? How many different coaches have we had in 15 years? Most fans are complaining they need to get tweet another coach to fit the players that suck.... it's just mind blowing to me.

Phil comes in and wants to instill structure and build from that..... fans don't want structure. They want chaos and drama. We need structure and continuity. Phil in 2 years has laid that foundation. If Phil continues to chip away like he's been doing the Knicks should be back in business soon....and be able to sustain that with his blueprint for years to come.

martin wrote:

tj23 wrote:

newyorknewyork wrote:

tj23 wrote:All the triangle is is a system of different actions. Just because another team uses one or two of the same actions doesn't mean they are running the triangle. Most other teams primary option isn't dumping the ball to their Center who possesses zero passing skills.

We could have more talent, execute it better also but I still believe the traditional triangle is s bit outdated. We are also too rigid with it because we are a very slow team and can't beat pressure off the ball or turn the corner on PNR.

Our down screens are set very sloppy. We never hit the back cutter on our corner screen and roll. So many failed options. I can go on and on. I'm honestly surprised we won as many games as we did.

I think the offense itself is fine but players today aren't used to playing that style and it's just a huge learning curve. Grant, Sasha, Thomas, KOQ, Lou, and KP are the only guys I saw grasp it. And half of them aren't talented enough to play. The rest did not get it and kinda stuck to their own game imo. It's a passing offense. You have to make reads and be able to make all the passes and it involves more cutting than dribbling. I just believe in today's game those players are harder to find.

You need a 5 who can score and pass, and Robin has showed a solid hook shot but he can't pass. KOQ can pass but can't score. Seraphin just looks to shoot every time he touches it.

You need effective PNR guards who can also play off the ball. It's hard enough to find penetrators for us but now we need to find guys who can do it all.

We fail to execute and then we go Iso anyway to Melo, AA, or Rolo. It's just all very frustrating...

The upside of it working is tremendous and puts you in championship contention due to it not being guard able. And its what Phil Jackson specialty is in terms of what he is looking for in players as our president. So why wouldn't it be worth attempting to build it up over the yrs and see if we can hit on a style that has won 11 championships?

Because there is and will be too much roster turnover in the amount of time it'll take to get this offense working smoothly. 2 years in and there has been very minimal progress with it. Its nice in theory, but like i said earlier, you are talking about changing the way a lot of players have played their entire lives. The art of passing is dead.

Now players are accustomed to more quick screens and lots of spacing to drive and kick/PNR. If it was a far superior system and/or we had the talent in place I could see it being more feasible but there are other offenses that are equally as good that are much easier to pick up and don't require such unique players to this era. I don't believe its unguardable but it is a good offense.

Fact is, no offense is going to look good or work well if there aren't some better ball handlers and athletes added to this roster. You want to get to the rim to get high percentage shots and open up other options, no matter what offense you're running and most of our players fail to do that on any consistent basis. Good teams get a good mix of easy baskets and open jumpers, free points at the line. We don't do any of this because we are arguably the slowest team in the league and we rely on heavily contested jumpshots falling.

what you are describing is exactly what a rebuild amounts to. Having a system, not yet having all the players and talent, needing to find more players, needing young kids to grow.

You say that in 2 years there has been minimal progress, but that first year was a tear down to that we could get KP and Grant and cap space and future cap space. The core group of guys have been together for a year.

When GSW drafted Curry, it took them 3 years to get to 47 wins - tank year they won 29, then 26 (first year with Curry), 36, 23 and then finally 47.

When OKC drafted Durant, they had lost 31. His first 2 years the team won 20 and then 23 and then 50.

KP's first year was 32 wins after a 17 season.

Minnesota has had like 2 #1 overall and several other high level picks and still are an under 30 win team this past year and for the last decade.

Washington after John Wall? 3 consecutive 20 win season and then 44.

Philly, puke.

New Orleans the year they drafted Anthony Davis were 21 wins. And then 27 wins, 34 wins and finally 45 followed by 30 this year.

So pretty much we are almost in line with some other teams that started from scratch? Just need patience.