crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

You just posted fluff. Nothing, Nada.

Give me facts and not just what you think is or should be happening. Here is 3pt attempts per 100 possessions and how they rank. It's obvious that the Triangle, as compared to the rest of the league, was a leader in shooting 3pointers as a portion of their offense. I've posted this before:

Phil's Lakers teams shot a larger portion of 3pt shots than most teams in the league at the time.
2006-07: 5th http://on.nba.com/2kNttQw
2007-08: 7th http://on.nba.com/2maGyoi
2008-09: 15th http://on.nba.com/2maIf51
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2kNlZwW
2010-11: 12th http://on.nba.com/2kNnJ9l

Pop's team over the past 3 seasons has shot a diminishing portion of 3pt shots than the rest of the league. This past year they are 25th. DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ANALYTICS OR MODERN BASKETBALL IS?!?!?!?!
2013-14: 15th http://on.nba.com/2lgsvJT
2014-15: 15th http://on.nba.com/2kNm8kb
2015-16: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kNuXKu
2016-17: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kzInG4

You can start here:
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=FG3A&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions

So the other part of advanced/modern stats tell us that Points in the Paint SHOULD be another emphasis with team offenses, right:

2014-15: http://on.nba.com/2jnZ0Iy SA #11th, GS #14, CLE #25
2015-16: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #16th, GS #25, CLE #23
2016-17: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #27th, GS #21, CLE #29

Lakers:
2006-07: 14th http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru
2007-08: 14th http://on.nba.com/2nH79s2
2008-09: 3rd http://on.nba.com/2ptNKd3
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2pu865Z

Let me know what your gut is telling you.

My gut is telling me we already had this exact conversation, Martin. And I looked up the numbers and refuted what you posted then. I'm not gonna do it again.

I missed it. Post it again. Cause I don't see it.

It's not in this thread. In this thread is a highly damning article which you are ignoring. I don't care about what Phil did as coach of some of the greatest players of all time. I care what he's doing to the Knicks, which is utter chaos that is destroying the team.

If you want to spew out fluff, have at it.

so you have absolutely no defense of Phil the executive? Didn't think so.

My response was in particular to yours and its claim about the Triangle, nothing more. If you want to try to sidetrack, have at it.

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

You just posted fluff. Nothing, Nada.

Give me facts and not just what you think is or should be happening. Here is 3pt attempts per 100 possessions and how they rank. It's obvious that the Triangle, as compared to the rest of the league, was a leader in shooting 3pointers as a portion of their offense. I've posted this before:

Phil's Lakers teams shot a larger portion of 3pt shots than most teams in the league at the time.
2006-07: 5th http://on.nba.com/2kNttQw
2007-08: 7th http://on.nba.com/2maGyoi
2008-09: 15th http://on.nba.com/2maIf51
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2kNlZwW
2010-11: 12th http://on.nba.com/2kNnJ9l

Pop's team over the past 3 seasons has shot a diminishing portion of 3pt shots than the rest of the league. This past year they are 25th. DOES HE NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ANALYTICS OR MODERN BASKETBALL IS?!?!?!?!
2013-14: 15th http://on.nba.com/2lgsvJT
2014-15: 15th http://on.nba.com/2kNm8kb
2015-16: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kNuXKu
2016-17: 25th http://on.nba.com/2kzInG4

You can start here:
http://stats.nba.com/teams/traditional/#!?sort=FG3A&dir=-1&Season=2016-17&SeasonType=Regular%20Season&PerMode=Per100Possessions

So the other part of advanced/modern stats tell us that Points in the Paint SHOULD be another emphasis with team offenses, right:

2014-15: http://on.nba.com/2jnZ0Iy SA #11th, GS #14, CLE #25
2015-16: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #16th, GS #25, CLE #23
2016-17: http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru SA #27th, GS #21, CLE #29

Lakers:
2006-07: 14th http://on.nba.com/2pu3Jru
2007-08: 14th http://on.nba.com/2nH79s2
2008-09: 3rd http://on.nba.com/2ptNKd3
2009-10: 11th http://on.nba.com/2pu865Z

Let me know what your gut is telling you.

My gut is telling me we already had this exact conversation, Martin. And I looked up the numbers and refuted what you posted then. I'm not gonna do it again.

I missed it. Post it again. Cause I don't see it.

It's not in this thread. In this thread is a highly damning article which you are ignoring. I don't care about what Phil did as coach of some of the greatest players of all time. I care what he's doing to the Knicks, which is utter chaos that is destroying the team.

If you want to spew out fluff, have at it.

so you have absolutely no defense of Phil the executive? Didn't think so.

My response was in particular to yours and its claim about the Triangle, nothing more. If you want to try to sidetrack, have at it.

I don't remember the thread honestly, but I remember we had this discussion about Pace and Three point shooting as it related to the 08-11 Lakers and for some reason you keep mentioning the Spurs? But we compared the two. It took me a while to compile and I don't have time now. If I can find the post, I will. We just did this like a month ago though. Maybe two months. It was probably when they announced they were re-focusing on the Triangle.

Phil never tore down a team, nor built one. So really what should the expectations have been? Is that the problem? Expectations?
Its new york, its starphuch city. WE bought in Melo to be a savior and we did with Phil.
One is a player, one is an exec. Phil has a history of saying arrogant awful things.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/10-of-phil-jacksons-most-famous-insults.html/?a=viewall

And most of it is true. Its rude. Phil might be a bit on the spectrum. Successful people are not always nice.

nyk4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

Woj didn't just pull this out of thin air. He confirmed what a lot of us have been saying about the coaching mess all year. KP skipping the interview with Phil confirmed some of that too.

Martin started a thread about the functionality of the triangle, I added my thoughts on how it leads to inefficient shot selection there. It's called archaic by teams that practice analytics, not just me and Woj. Teams that practice analytics like the Spurs, Warriors, and Rockets. No coincidence those are three of the best run teams in the sport. The Warriors and Spurs have combined for five rings in the past fifteen years to Phil's two. Warriors look like the favorite this year too. I'd say they have a better handle on where basketball is going than Phil does.

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

Woj didn't just pull this out of thin air. He confirmed what a lot of us have been saying about the coaching mess all year. KP skipping the interview with Phil confirmed some of that too.

Martin started a thread about the functionality of the triangle, I added my thoughts on how it leads to inefficient shot selection there. It's called archaic by teams that practice analytics, not just me and Woj. Teams that practice analytics like the Spurs, Warriors, and Rockets. No coincidence those are three of the best run teams in the sport. The Warriors and Spurs have combined for five rings in the past fifteen years to Phil's two. Warriors look like the favorite this year too. I'd say they have a better handle on where basketball is going than Phil does.

Woj reports, he does not validate the current science of the NBA.
The 1980's teams scored more than the 1990's. Zone Defense opened up the game as well.
The current trend might continue, or it might change. Spurs bloodied the Spurs and sent Nash to the scorers table and took them out at the peak of their powers.
Last year GSW damn near ran the table but tough guy Draymond slapped to many testicles, and Bogurt went down. Cav's were bigger and tougher. This year Durant adds a lot to GSW, but can they afford to keep their three or trade Klay Thompson who is not as effective?
Pop is there to win, and If they play GSW i'd try to beat the snot out of them. GSW is a finesse team. I'd burn some fouls early and push them around and try to get them out of rhythm.
My point, the "Trend" can change.
My point is why play to every other teams strenghts when you can start fresh and build new. I do agree you live by the three and die by the three. All great teams have great shooters on them. The question is the intangibles.

As for Woj about the knicks and the mutiny? Didn't exactly pinpoint the root of the problems. Its a bit conceptual. But its not a good thing and that we can agree on.
Have to admit, you did kind of get super happy when the players association "Validated" by complaining. Then you jumped that Silver would intervene and then, and then, the "Might force dolan to fire Phil" orgasmic conclusion!!!!!

crzymdups wrote:

Nalod wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

Woj didn't just pull this out of thin air. He confirmed what a lot of us have been saying about the coaching mess all year. KP skipping the interview with Phil confirmed some of that too.

Martin started a thread about the functionality of the triangle, I added my thoughts on how it leads to inefficient shot selection there. It's called archaic by teams that practice analytics, not just me and Woj. Teams that practice analytics like the Spurs, Warriors, and Rockets. No coincidence those are three of the best run teams in the sport. The Warriors and Spurs have combined for five rings in the past fifteen years to Phil's two. Warriors look like the favorite this year too. I'd say they have a better handle on where basketball is going than Phil does.

Woj reports, he does not validate the current science of the NBA.
The 1980's teams scored more than the 1990's. Zone Defense opened up the game as well.
The current trend might continue, or it might change. Spurs bloodied the Spurs and sent Nash to the scorers table and took them out at the peak of their powers.
Last year GSW damn near ran the table but tough guy Draymond slapped to many testicles, and Bogurt went down. Cav's were bigger and tougher. This year Durant adds a lot to GSW, but can they afford to keep their three or trade Klay Thompson who is not as effective?
Pop is there to win, and If they play GSW i'd try to beat the snot out of them. GSW is a finesse team. I'd burn some fouls early and push them around and try to get them out of rhythm.
My point, the "Trend" can change.
My point is why play to every other teams strenghts when you can start fresh and build new. I do agree you live by the three and die by the three. All great teams have great shooters on them. The question is the intangibles.

As for Woj about the knicks and the mutiny? Didn't exactly pinpoint the root of the problems. Its a bit conceptual. But its not a good thing and that we can agree on.
Have to admit, you did kind of get super happy when the players association "Validated" by complaining. Then you jumped that Silver would intervene and then, and then, the "Might force dolan to fire Phil" orgasmic conclusion!!!!!

I don't need to fire Phil, I'm just as afraid as anyone else what happens when Dolan has to pick a name to replace him.

I like the idea of rebuilding and drafting some young talent. I'm thrilled about that. Honestly I am. I've wanted to do that since 2002. I was horrified by the Nene and Camby for McDyess trade - that seemed like it sent us on our downward spiral that never stopped.

BUT, there needs to be a clear message from the coaching staff. And look at the last two years - can we really say that forcing the Triangle down people's throats has worked? It's pissed off the whole damn team, it cost us a good young coach in Fisher and now Hornacek is looking like he's on the ropes. And KP is mad enough he didn't do an exit interview, saying this team is a mess from the top to bottom.

So, team building questions -

1 - Rebuild with young draft picks? I say FINALLY! Thank god! Yes!

2 - Move on from Melo? Okay, I agree it's time. I don't think we should treat him like **** on the way out the door. I think he's been a good soldier for the team. And honestly if he wanted to stay here and accept a reduced role, a mentor role, I would be okay with that and I don't see why that's a problem. He has a no trade clause by the way, so prepare for this possibility.

3 - Be smart about signing two-way players in free agency. Hallelujah!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

4 - Install the Triangle against the coaches and player's wishes? WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT? It'll be gone in two years. WHY.

IMHO, #4 has given Phil all his problems here. From players, to coaches, to fans, to free agents, etc. From Melo, to KP, to Fisher, etc.

The Triangle is the root of his problems, yet he's obsessed with proving it works. To the detriment of the entire team. Isn't there a name for that sort of obsession that becomes your undoing? That's what Phil has with the Triangle. He's obsessed with it to the point where it will be the thing that brings him down.

MAN! You are so wrong that it's sad. So many fans and Media have the same wrong thinking. The Triangle is not a Problem. Only unskilled, low BB IQ, selfish and resistant players are the problem!!!

Do you even know what the Knicks are doing on Offense??? I seriously doubt it. I don't think most fans or media have really paid enough attention to what the Knicks are actually doing on Offense or Defense. Especially once the resistant vets were out of the picture. Only then do we see the Ball and Player movement.

Knicks have been running tons of Early Offense and Spread PnR looks. Lots of motion. I think if you weren't so convinced the Triangle was bad you'd see this.

KnicksFE wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Nalod wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

Woj didn't just pull this out of thin air. He confirmed what a lot of us have been saying about the coaching mess all year. KP skipping the interview with Phil confirmed some of that too.

Martin started a thread about the functionality of the triangle, I added my thoughts on how it leads to inefficient shot selection there. It's called archaic by teams that practice analytics, not just me and Woj. Teams that practice analytics like the Spurs, Warriors, and Rockets. No coincidence those are three of the best run teams in the sport. The Warriors and Spurs have combined for five rings in the past fifteen years to Phil's two. Warriors look like the favorite this year too. I'd say they have a better handle on where basketball is going than Phil does.

Woj reports, he does not validate the current science of the NBA.
The 1980's teams scored more than the 1990's. Zone Defense opened up the game as well.
The current trend might continue, or it might change. Spurs bloodied the Spurs and sent Nash to the scorers table and took them out at the peak of their powers.
Last year GSW damn near ran the table but tough guy Draymond slapped to many testicles, and Bogurt went down. Cav's were bigger and tougher. This year Durant adds a lot to GSW, but can they afford to keep their three or trade Klay Thompson who is not as effective?
Pop is there to win, and If they play GSW i'd try to beat the snot out of them. GSW is a finesse team. I'd burn some fouls early and push them around and try to get them out of rhythm.
My point, the "Trend" can change.
My point is why play to every other teams strenghts when you can start fresh and build new. I do agree you live by the three and die by the three. All great teams have great shooters on them. The question is the intangibles.

As for Woj about the knicks and the mutiny? Didn't exactly pinpoint the root of the problems. Its a bit conceptual. But its not a good thing and that we can agree on.
Have to admit, you did kind of get super happy when the players association "Validated" by complaining. Then you jumped that Silver would intervene and then, and then, the "Might force dolan to fire Phil" orgasmic conclusion!!!!!

I don't need to fire Phil, I'm just as afraid as anyone else what happens when Dolan has to pick a name to replace him.

I like the idea of rebuilding and drafting some young talent. I'm thrilled about that. Honestly I am. I've wanted to do that since 2002. I was horrified by the Nene and Camby for McDyess trade - that seemed like it sent us on our downward spiral that never stopped.

BUT, there needs to be a clear message from the coaching staff. And look at the last two years - can we really say that forcing the Triangle down people's throats has worked? It's pissed off the whole damn team, it cost us a good young coach in Fisher and now Hornacek is looking like he's on the ropes. And KP is mad enough he didn't do an exit interview, saying this team is a mess from the top to bottom.

So, team building questions -

1 - Rebuild with young draft picks? I say FINALLY! Thank god! Yes!

2 - Move on from Melo? Okay, I agree it's time. I don't think we should treat him like **** on the way out the door. I think he's been a good soldier for the team. And honestly if he wanted to stay here and accept a reduced role, a mentor role, I would be okay with that and I don't see why that's a problem. He has a no trade clause by the way, so prepare for this possibility.

3 - Be smart about signing two-way players in free agency. Hallelujah!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

4 - Install the Triangle against the coaches and player's wishes? WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT? It'll be gone in two years. WHY.

IMHO, #4 has given Phil all his problems here. From players, to coaches, to fans, to free agents, etc. From Melo, to KP, to Fisher, etc.

The Triangle is the root of his problems, yet he's obsessed with proving it works. To the detriment of the entire team. Isn't there a name for that sort of obsession that becomes your undoing? That's what Phil has with the Triangle. He's obsessed with it to the point where it will be the thing that brings him down.

MAN! You are so wrong that it's sad. So many fans and Media have the same wrong thinking. The Triangle is not a Problem. Only unskilled, low BB IQ, selfish and resistant players are the problem!!!

Do you even know what the Knicks are doing on Offense??? I seriously doubt it. I don't think most fans or media have really paid enough attention to what the Knicks are actually doing on Offense or Defense. Especially once the resistant vets were out of the picture. Only then do we see the Ball and Player movement.

Knicks have been running tons of Early Offense and Spread PnR looks. Lots of motion. I think if you weren't so convinced the Triangle was bad you'd see this.

Aside from Melo, the rest of those players were Signed / Traded by Phil Jackson, so he still at fault. Phil and Dolan are the creators of this madness.

There's no Madness! Don't buy into the Media Hype! Melo and KP are the only ones going thru some kind of feelings! The Media wants us to think the whole team is in turmoil.

Not ALL the players are Selfish Ball Hoggers! Phil tried to give Melo some Vets to play with but now he's no longer going to cater to Melo's Timeline. This is what the Media and some fans are missing.

Without Melo, Phil can focus on building a team with a better core. A core that fits his vision of Team Ball. More players giving Max Effort on both ends.

nixluva wrote:

KnicksFE wrote:

nixluva wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Nalod wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

nyk4ever wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

martin wrote:

crzymdups wrote:Phil is stuck trying to validate a system designed for another era.

I still don't get this statement. Please substantiate. I literally don't understand what it means that this system is for another era.

What makes this hold water? What is your understanding of the Triangle system such that it is outdated and by extension will not work?

Because it involves very specific spacing that does not account for a three point line, because it was invented before the three point line existed. You act like I'm making this up, but Woj called the system archaic. It also involves very specific personnel to be on the floor for "floor balance" - that was also invented for a different era. What makes it hold water is the way the rest of the league plays.

what does any of your post even mean? so just because woj called the system "archaic" it means it's true? personally, i'm a huge fan of woj but i don't think he has it right when he's talking about phil and the triangle. and i personally think you can do better than to just quote woj saying it's not any good, there should be some sense of backing in it. and no, not just because the knicks have sucked these past few years does it mean that the system is flawed. ANY system can work in the nba, as long as you have the players to buy in and run it. there is not one single way to win a basketball game, such as you believe by shooting 100 3pt shots a game, just because that's the fad for the rest of the league. the beautiful part about phils lakers and bulls teams was he had players (albeit superstars) that played both sides of the ball. both kobe and mj were both 9time 1st team all-defense players. our superstar, melo, plays one side of the ball and one side of the ball only. read closely, im not blaming melo, not at all. but what i am doing is saying that this iteration of the triangle had players that did not buy-in and like with anything in any sports, you need players that buy in. and when the teams all-star and franchise cornerstone didn't buy in, why should the rest of the team? i think the triangle can most definitely work, there's several very successful teams that don't just chuck 3pt shots and still win, the spurs namely.

again, read this closely, none of this is a bash on melo, it's just the truth. melo didn't buy in and neither did the rest of the knicks. phil needs players to buy in. maybe it's not possible without him coaching, im not sure, but to say the triangle won't or can't work is just beyond silly to me.

Woj didn't just pull this out of thin air. He confirmed what a lot of us have been saying about the coaching mess all year. KP skipping the interview with Phil confirmed some of that too.

Martin started a thread about the functionality of the triangle, I added my thoughts on how it leads to inefficient shot selection there. It's called archaic by teams that practice analytics, not just me and Woj. Teams that practice analytics like the Spurs, Warriors, and Rockets. No coincidence those are three of the best run teams in the sport. The Warriors and Spurs have combined for five rings in the past fifteen years to Phil's two. Warriors look like the favorite this year too. I'd say they have a better handle on where basketball is going than Phil does.

Woj reports, he does not validate the current science of the NBA.
The 1980's teams scored more than the 1990's. Zone Defense opened up the game as well.
The current trend might continue, or it might change. Spurs bloodied the Spurs and sent Nash to the scorers table and took them out at the peak of their powers.
Last year GSW damn near ran the table but tough guy Draymond slapped to many testicles, and Bogurt went down. Cav's were bigger and tougher. This year Durant adds a lot to GSW, but can they afford to keep their three or trade Klay Thompson who is not as effective?
Pop is there to win, and If they play GSW i'd try to beat the snot out of them. GSW is a finesse team. I'd burn some fouls early and push them around and try to get them out of rhythm.
My point, the "Trend" can change.
My point is why play to every other teams strenghts when you can start fresh and build new. I do agree you live by the three and die by the three. All great teams have great shooters on them. The question is the intangibles.

As for Woj about the knicks and the mutiny? Didn't exactly pinpoint the root of the problems. Its a bit conceptual. But its not a good thing and that we can agree on.
Have to admit, you did kind of get super happy when the players association "Validated" by complaining. Then you jumped that Silver would intervene and then, and then, the "Might force dolan to fire Phil" orgasmic conclusion!!!!!

I don't need to fire Phil, I'm just as afraid as anyone else what happens when Dolan has to pick a name to replace him.

I like the idea of rebuilding and drafting some young talent. I'm thrilled about that. Honestly I am. I've wanted to do that since 2002. I was horrified by the Nene and Camby for McDyess trade - that seemed like it sent us on our downward spiral that never stopped.

BUT, there needs to be a clear message from the coaching staff. And look at the last two years - can we really say that forcing the Triangle down people's throats has worked? It's pissed off the whole damn team, it cost us a good young coach in Fisher and now Hornacek is looking like he's on the ropes. And KP is mad enough he didn't do an exit interview, saying this team is a mess from the top to bottom.

So, team building questions -

1 - Rebuild with young draft picks? I say FINALLY! Thank god! Yes!

2 - Move on from Melo? Okay, I agree it's time. I don't think we should treat him like **** on the way out the door. I think he's been a good soldier for the team. And honestly if he wanted to stay here and accept a reduced role, a mentor role, I would be okay with that and I don't see why that's a problem. He has a no trade clause by the way, so prepare for this possibility.

3 - Be smart about signing two-way players in free agency. Hallelujah!!!! FINALLY SOMEONE GETS IT!

4 - Install the Triangle against the coaches and player's wishes? WHY? WHAT IS THE POINT? It'll be gone in two years. WHY.

IMHO, #4 has given Phil all his problems here. From players, to coaches, to fans, to free agents, etc. From Melo, to KP, to Fisher, etc.

The Triangle is the root of his problems, yet he's obsessed with proving it works. To the detriment of the entire team. Isn't there a name for that sort of obsession that becomes your undoing? That's what Phil has with the Triangle. He's obsessed with it to the point where it will be the thing that brings him down.

MAN! You are so wrong that it's sad. So many fans and Media have the same wrong thinking. The Triangle is not a Problem. Only unskilled, low BB IQ, selfish and resistant players are the problem!!!

Do you even know what the Knicks are doing on Offense??? I seriously doubt it. I don't think most fans or media have really paid enough attention to what the Knicks are actually doing on Offense or Defense. Especially once the resistant vets were out of the picture. Only then do we see the Ball and Player movement.

Knicks have been running tons of Early Offense and Spread PnR looks. Lots of motion. I think if you weren't so convinced the Triangle was bad you'd see this.

Aside from Melo, the rest of those players were Signed / Traded by Phil Jackson, so he still at fault. Phil and Dolan are the creators of this madness.

There's no Madness! Don't buy into the Media Hype! Melo and KP are the only ones going thru some kind of feelings! The Media wants us to think the whole team is in turmoil.

Not ALL the players are Selfish Ball Hoggers! Phil tried to give Melo some Vets to play with but now he's no longer going to cater to Melo's Timeline. This is what the Media and some fans are missing.

Without Melo, Phil can focus on building a team with a better core. A core that fits his vision of Team Ball. More players giving Max Effort on both ends.

In reality the Media doesn’t have to say anything, the Knicks record do all the talking for them. And it is madness.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/TheVertical/status/854355624703995904

fishmike wrote:

Nalod wrote:

crzymdups wrote:

Nalod wrote:Don't beleive me, then "Ask WOJ"......
WOJ reports, WOJ is not the authority.
Woj is a good reporter, but he does not validate.

Phil never tore down a team, nor built one. So really what should the expectations have been? Is that the problem? Expectations?
Its new york, its starphuch city. WE bought in Melo to be a savior and we did with Phil.
One is a player, one is an exec. Phil has a history of saying arrogant awful things.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/sports/10-of-phil-jacksons-most-famous-insults.html/?a=viewall

And most of it is true. Its rude. Phil might be a bit on the spectrum. Successful people are not always nice.

The problem isn't expectations but results.

But you thought Coach Jeff was going to put a new shine on the offense.
You see what you want, but maybe Phil saw something that was not good even though we were winning. Winning against good teams? were we just a hot shooting team and when that gets cold, then what?
You take some personal elements and interject your own thought. You say pHil was disrupted and disrespected Jeff, but you were not there?
Really, this is a season where defense was not properly executed. A championship coach knows if the fundamentals of a team are not strong, it will unravel.
You or I did not see things. We saw some results. Was it sustainable? In hindsight, I don't know.
Do you like KP taking so many shots 6 feet from the three pt line? Or Melo not moving without the ball? Can PHil trust Fish? He obviously could not. Can he trust Jeff? He hired him. Jeff knew Phil would be coming on the court. If you have a problem with that, then don't sign the contract. Same with Melo. Don't like playing defense or the triangle, then go to Bulls or Lakers.
NTC should have been a lifestyle thing, not leverage to not play the way your employer wants you to.

Fish was caving to puzzy and a god awful first two year win loss record. I did not know the undertones of his personal life, and I was hoping on the court he'd eventually be a good coach!!!

So its all about our expectations. Your points come from your expectations. Your as much uniformed as the rest of us, but far more than most fans.
You got stamina.

the bold. Thats it 100%. Some things you can fix. Others you cant.

What about Derrick Rose who Phil brought in and said the Triangle made no sense and was "random basketball"... is that on Melo? Or is that on Phil for bringing him in? Or is it on Phil for forcing his offense on him?

Look, obviously it's time to move on from Melo. But dear god, there's a lot of other problems here.