anrst wrote:this ranks up there with the larry brown roadside press conferneces

newyorker4ever wrote:

knicks1248 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nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated.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 we don't have the players to run the system effectively, It's that simple

just imagine if we had kurt Thomas, kidd, camby, rasheed, prigioni, fatty felton, and we had a coach that insisted on a system that had those guys running like a track meet, you would look at him like an idiot. Like why would he think these older veterans have the stamina to run up and down the court.

Get the players and coach that can run your system effectively, get a coach that can run the system, but also has the brains to other things. Phil just seems to be doing everything backwards, hoping for the best

Exactly right, we don't have the players. It's like people just seem to forget that we are in the middle of a rebuild and that this was Phil's first year of making additions. We are cap strapped and have been since Phil got the job so there's zero way to do a complete rebuild in one season and is why i keep saying that with two more off seasons to make more additions with we will have a team that's ready to compete but some of you expect it to happen by snapping your fingers and it just doesn't work like that.

Once Phil gets this team back to where we're winning games again we'll be back to being that New York Knicks team that free agents will want to come play for. Every player loves playing in the Garden and they say it all the time with Derozan being the most recent big name to say it, the only problem for us is that as of now they like being the visiting team to come play in the Garden but when we get this team back to where we want it and KP is playing like a all star players are gonna want to come and play with him.

PATIENCE PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

newyorknewyork wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

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nyk4ever wrote:i find it strange that people try and say any system in basketball is outdated.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. If Steve Kerr went to Golden State with Monta Ellis and Jason Richardson as his two starting guards and told them "no shot is a bad shot", he'd be laughed out of the league. Get the talent first. Then build the system to suit the talent.

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 and Westbrook and Durant and Ibaka, 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.

Phil's Triangle system has won with all sorts of different types of talents - high level talent no doubt - across decades and with multiple teams and different types of guys. Seems to me is all you need is the high level of talent, which every NBA championship team needs.

I am pretty sure he tweaked the Triangle to fit the players.

Jordan never won anything before Triangle. Neither did Shaq or Kobe.

What's the problem with having KP and Melo and other badly needed high level talent immerse themselves?

No problem at all. Except we haven't heard Melo is a part of this camp, which also seems odd.

I guess the issue I have is that we weren't told we were doing a full rebuild. We had a team that won 54 games, was blown apart after a down season and then all of the sudden we're winning 17 games with no young talent and no 2016 draft pick and free agents avoiding this place like the plague last summer.

Like I said, I get some of the logic. But if the idea was to acquire talent first, I would've liked to get a lot more in return for Tyson, Shump, Felton, JR, Amare, Hardaway, etc. Those players were essentially given away for very little return. The way Phil was talking heading into the 14-15 season, he treated it as if playoffs were a given. Go back and look - he was talking playoffs. This strip it all down and rebuild from "Year Zero" was a story they came up with after the fact. They got KP, at least, and hopefully Grant pans out, but the process so far has been rocky and I think anyone would have to admit - this is not how Phil envisioned the process going.

Is part of the issue the Triangle? Shump and JR seemed to intimate that. Free agents have seemed to intimate that. Even Melo is starting to talk about it, after being a pretty damn good team player this season. And now the Triangle is dictating the coaching search and severely limiting our options.

At some point you have to question the Triangle. Or at least, at this point, I am questioning the Triangle.

He def should have gotten more out of Tyson deal. He overvalued Jose. And he ended up firing Fisher so that was a whif. Other then that his moves have been solid.

Everyone was saying that there's no way we'd be able to trade Tyson cause he was way over paid for what he gave us so we were never gonna get much for him at that time and Jose was still playing good basketball at that time.

fishmike wrote:Every team every season should start the year looking to win, make the playoffs and advance. To suggest otherwise is a disservice to those who fund the business (advertisers, ticket holders, TV contracts). That's a no brainer and shouldn't be debated. This is the pros, and that is part of the game you play. What the GM does is what dictates if a franchise is good or not. Do you spend assets to generate a few more wins and "appear" to be trying? Or do you accept reality and show you are willing to take two steps backward for more steps forward?

Having watched trades and transactions over recent years nothing tells me that JR/Shump should have yielded a great package. There are some teams that get picks but its not a given. Many factors. We got a pick for Tim Hardaway and we have seen Phil commit to developing young players so I think its fair to say he values the draft.

When you start rebuilding and the losses mount EVERY system will be questions. After Woody won 54 games the exact same system was questioned the following year.

So far we haven't whiffed on anything because of the triangle. DeAndre Jorden listened and chose to stay with his team. We signed Rolo to a very good contract with cap space. A defensive 26 year old center chose to come here. So did AA who is a decent player, just not what we need. We were still able to add decent talent considering what our options where. This offseason will be telling.

Its still a system based on spacing and that is most certainly "modern" NBA offense.

The 54 team went by the wayside with the Bargs trade. That was the move that was supposed to breath some new talent into that team and sustain what was there. We know how that worked out. What Phil got was a 37 win team on a downward trend, not a 54 win team that had a bad year.

That's all fair. I just don't have a lot of faith in Rambis as the coach to really make the Triangle hum. I'm surprised any of you guys do. But I guess we'll see how it goes.

And the talk of it being a long rebuild - hey, I hope they stay the course. History with Dolan tells us that's unlikely.

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.

no what fisher was doing was saying that they should be running pick and roll earlier in possessions or even starting possessions. nixluva has gone to great lengths to point out that ONCE the triangle has been run through that there is still time to run pick and roll towards the end of possessions, and even go isolation as a LAST resort.

seems to me that the triangle being run from the beginning allows for a better offensve rhythm, and that interfering with it can have the opposite effect.

i didn't see much triangle with fisher at the helm, perhaps only a third of the time. you can't criticize a system if it's being run half-azzed or with half-azzed players.

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:Every team every season should start the year looking to win, make the playoffs and advance. To suggest otherwise is a disservice to those who fund the business (advertisers, ticket holders, TV contracts). That's a no brainer and shouldn't be debated. This is the pros, and that is part of the game you play. What the GM does is what dictates if a franchise is good or not. Do you spend assets to generate a few more wins and "appear" to be trying? Or do you accept reality and show you are willing to take two steps backward for more steps forward?

Having watched trades and transactions over recent years nothing tells me that JR/Shump should have yielded a great package. There are some teams that get picks but its not a given. Many factors. We got a pick for Tim Hardaway and we have seen Phil commit to developing young players so I think its fair to say he values the draft.

When you start rebuilding and the losses mount EVERY system will be questions. After Woody won 54 games the exact same system was questioned the following year.

So far we haven't whiffed on anything because of the triangle. DeAndre Jorden listened and chose to stay with his team. We signed Rolo to a very good contract with cap space. A defensive 26 year old center chose to come here. So did AA who is a decent player, just not what we need. We were still able to add decent talent considering what our options where. This offseason will be telling.

Its still a system based on spacing and that is most certainly "modern" NBA offense.

The 54 team went by the wayside with the Bargs trade. That was the move that was supposed to breath some new talent into that team and sustain what was there. We know how that worked out. What Phil got was a 37 win team on a downward trend, not a 54 win team that had a bad year.

That's all fair. I just don't have a lot of faith in Rambis as the coach to really make the Triangle hum. I'm surprised any of you guys do. But I guess we'll see how it goes.

And the talk of it being a long rebuild - hey, I hope they stay the course. History with Dolan tells us that's unlikely.

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:Every team every season should start the year looking to win, make the playoffs and advance. To suggest otherwise is a disservice to those who fund the business (advertisers, ticket holders, TV contracts). That's a no brainer and shouldn't be debated. This is the pros, and that is part of the game you play. What the GM does is what dictates if a franchise is good or not. Do you spend assets to generate a few more wins and "appear" to be trying? Or do you accept reality and show you are willing to take two steps backward for more steps forward?

Having watched trades and transactions over recent years nothing tells me that JR/Shump should have yielded a great package. There are some teams that get picks but its not a given. Many factors. We got a pick for Tim Hardaway and we have seen Phil commit to developing young players so I think its fair to say he values the draft.

When you start rebuilding and the losses mount EVERY system will be questions. After Woody won 54 games the exact same system was questioned the following year.

So far we haven't whiffed on anything because of the triangle. DeAndre Jorden listened and chose to stay with his team. We signed Rolo to a very good contract with cap space. A defensive 26 year old center chose to come here. So did AA who is a decent player, just not what we need. We were still able to add decent talent considering what our options where. This offseason will be telling.

Its still a system based on spacing and that is most certainly "modern" NBA offense.

The 54 team went by the wayside with the Bargs trade. That was the move that was supposed to breath some new talent into that team and sustain what was there. We know how that worked out. What Phil got was a 37 win team on a downward trend, not a 54 win team that had a bad year.

That's all fair. I just don't have a lot of faith in Rambis as the coach to really make the Triangle hum. I'm surprised any of you guys do. But I guess we'll see how it goes.

And the talk of it being a long rebuild - hey, I hope they stay the course. History with Dolan tells us that's unlikely.

Rambis was with Phil for the last Title runs so he clearly is a valued Triangle proponent for Phil. In the end Phil is considered the top coach in terms of impact on his team's performance. The closest to Phil in terms of philosophy is Rambis. If he says Rambis helps him to teach the system to his players who is to question the man's ability? That doesn't mean Rambis is the right man to be the Head Coach but if Phil says he's a valuable assistant I would trust that.

Just because he shares the philosophy and understands the offense doesn't make him a good coach.

He's not a good coach.

No one said he's a good head coach, but he could very well be an excellent assistant. I don't even believe he's going to get the job but if you're stuck on that notion then it's gonna make you upset.

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

fishmike wrote:Every team every season should start the year looking to win, make the playoffs and advance. To suggest otherwise is a disservice to those who fund the business (advertisers, ticket holders, TV contracts). That's a no brainer and shouldn't be debated. This is the pros, and that is part of the game you play. What the GM does is what dictates if a franchise is good or not. Do you spend assets to generate a few more wins and "appear" to be trying? Or do you accept reality and show you are willing to take two steps backward for more steps forward?

Having watched trades and transactions over recent years nothing tells me that JR/Shump should have yielded a great package. There are some teams that get picks but its not a given. Many factors. We got a pick for Tim Hardaway and we have seen Phil commit to developing young players so I think its fair to say he values the draft.

When you start rebuilding and the losses mount EVERY system will be questions. After Woody won 54 games the exact same system was questioned the following year.

So far we haven't whiffed on anything because of the triangle. DeAndre Jorden listened and chose to stay with his team. We signed Rolo to a very good contract with cap space. A defensive 26 year old center chose to come here. So did AA who is a decent player, just not what we need. We were still able to add decent talent considering what our options where. This offseason will be telling.

Its still a system based on spacing and that is most certainly "modern" NBA offense.

The 54 team went by the wayside with the Bargs trade. That was the move that was supposed to breath some new talent into that team and sustain what was there. We know how that worked out. What Phil got was a 37 win team on a downward trend, not a 54 win team that had a bad year.

That's all fair. I just don't have a lot of faith in Rambis as the coach to really make the Triangle hum. I'm surprised any of you guys do. But I guess we'll see how it goes.

And the talk of it being a long rebuild - hey, I hope they stay the course. History with Dolan tells us that's unlikely.

Rambis was with Phil for the last Title runs so he clearly is a valued Triangle proponent for Phil. In the end Phil is considered the top coach in terms of impact on his team's performance. The closest to Phil in terms of philosophy is Rambis. If he says Rambis helps him to teach the system to his players who is to question the man's ability? That doesn't mean Rambis is the right man to be the Head Coach but if Phil says he's a valuable assistant I would trust that.

Just because he shares the philosophy and understands the offense doesn't make him a good coach.

He's not a good coach.

No one said he's a good head coach, but he could very well be an excellent assistant. I don't even believe he's going to get the job but if you're stuck on that notion then it's gonna make you upset.

Well, I have evidence for my notion. It's in the first post of this thread.

Its the same thing with the Shump and Smith trade, the Knicks have away the 2 best players for some garbage because JR was perceived as a bad seed and they needed a change of culture. The Cavs covered Shump though and if they would have kept JR out of the deal they would have had more leverage. In reality they still had leverage because GM Bron wanted both. Phil should have played hardball and if they didn't bite wait until the summer..

Phil's likes quick fixes and misses long term options. The Knicks should of had a 1st from both deals or Reggie Jackson in the 3-team trade but at least they got 3 guys they cut. Lance turned out okay though. Phil best trade was Pablo when he got 2 2nd rd picks. 2 picks for a 3 string of but couldn't get anything more for Tyson, Shump, ad JR. Lol.