crzymdups wrote:What if the Triangle is win pct neutral and our win pct comes down to the talent on the roster?

Bold theory, I know.

GustavBahler wrote:You're not talking about an offense you're talking about a religion. How is anyone supposed to pin Nix or you down on any specific aspect of the Triangle, when the Triangle is all and all is the Triangle?

Well, the Triangle is different . . . for the reasons I'm suggesting.

If you have a question about a specific aspect . . . why not think about it from the perspective I'm offering (?)

If it's a question about a book . . . it'll have a book answer.
If it's a question about the library . . . it'll have a library answer.

I just speak for myself -- Nixluva can speak for himself.

We're all Knicks fans now. The Triangle is what the Knicks are running.

If it's different than what most people are used to . . . then it may be necessary to think differently about it.

Malcolm wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:You're not talking about an offense you're talking about a religion. How is anyone supposed to pin Nix or you down on any specific aspect of the Triangle, when the Triangle is all and all is the Triangle?

Well, the Triangle is different . . . for the reasons I'm suggesting.

If you have a question about a specific aspect . . . why not think about it from the perspective I'm offering (?)

If it's a question about the book . . . it'll have a book answer.
If it's a question about the library . . . it'll have a library answer.

I just speak for myself -- Nixluva can speak for himself.

We're all Knicks fans now. The Triangle is what the Knicks are running.

If it's different than what most people are used to . . . then it may be necessary to think differently about it.

Its real easy to deflect any criticism away from the implementation of the Triangle offense when its so all encompassing that there are no alternatives. Sounds like a lot of caca to me.

Malcolm wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Its real easy to deflect any criticism away from the implementation of the Triangle offense when its so all encompassing that there are no alternatives.

Criticize all you want -- please (!)

There are alternatives to the Triangle System -- 29 teams run them.
And there are alternatives to the Triangle Set within the Triangle System (run at the appropriate time within the system).

But it's pointless to criticize the Triangle System in NYC because that's what we're running.

Best is to criticize when and how well anything is run within the System -- including the Triangle Set.

It's a work in progress, to say the least . . .

Not according to Nix, and thats the debate you walked into.

Its pointless to tell people not to suggest alternatives, thats what we do here. You arent a player, coach, GM, owner, so why offer an opinion on anything related to the Knicks? Why? Because you're an opinionated Knicks fan like the rest of us.

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Its real easy to deflect any criticism away from the implementation of the Triangle offense when its so all encompassing that there are no alternatives.

Criticize all you want -- please (!)

There are alternatives to the Triangle System -- 29 teams run them.
And there are alternatives to the Triangle Set within the Triangle System (run at the appropriate time within the system).

But it's pointless to criticize the Triangle System in NYC because that's what we're running.

Best is to criticize when and how well anything is run within the System -- including the Triangle Set.

It's a work in progress, to say the least . . .

Not according to Nix, and thats the debate you walked into.

Its pointless to tell people not to suggest alternatives, thats what we do here. You arent a player, coach, GM, owner, so why offer an opinion on anything related to the Knicks? Why? Because you're an opinionated Knicks fan like the rest of us.

I like what Phil and Fish are trying to teach these players. It's more than just the X's and O's of the Triangle. It's about the Mental approach that leads to winning. They're learning unselfishness, focus and pride. None of the aspects of what they're trying to instill in these players are negative. I see progress and growth even if they still have a long way to go.

Regarding the X's and O's of this offense, all i've tried to do is add to this forum's understanding of the X's and O's of this offense since it's clear that for most it isn't clear. Many have stated that they don't really know the offense past the basics. At this point i've done my part and I could care less what some people think of my efforts. I know that i've contributed a lot to the conversation and hopefully it was helpful to some. I'm no expert but i'm always open to try and help someone with any questions they might have on the subject

Help yourself answer what part of what you see being run by another team that isnt part of the Triangle? Should be very easy for someone so willing to guide us through the complexities of this offense.

nixluva wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

NYStateOfMind wrote:

nixluva wrote:Things get real easy for any coach when starters are playing well. There's less of a reason to extend the rotation when your top rotation players are giving you what you need. Basically most teams win with solid contributions from their top 6-7 players most nights. Your starters plus 1 to 2 more guys have to be fairly consistent. We haven't gotten that and it makes things a bit tougher. Today you got good play from the starters and no one got into any serious foul trouble, so there wasn't a need to put in an extra guy.

Today the offensive execution was better and they had a hot shooter and kept feeding him for a change. They have to find more consistency in what they were able to do today. They kept things moving and put pressure on the defense with more aggressive ball and player movement. They still very much ran the Triangle today despite what most think was going on. They just used more of the always available options rather than trying to force one predictable aspect of the side Triangle. The execution was simply better and they were more aggressive in working off the drag screens which makes people think they weren't running Triangle but it wasn't really anything new. They just did it better.

Maybe we haven't gotten that because he plays too many players in games with inconsistent minutes and roles. One game Williams is a major factor, next he is in the doghouse and plays 7 minutes. The game last night showed you play a smaller rotation, say 8 to 9 players. 5 starters and 3 to 4 replacements. I like always having a starter or 2 on the court, it is smart basketball. The rest of the bench is for garbage time or to cover injuries/foul trouble. It isn't rocket science. If a player fails in their consistent role, then replace them.

Do you guys understand that the reason he was able to only play 9 guys was because those 9 guys were actually making their shots and doing what was needed from them on defense?? Please tell me you do know why we only needed those 9 guys and you do understand that the reason he's been playing 12/13 guys or however many he played in other games was because nobody was making shots and weren't giving what was needed on defense?? It's really quite simple. If you have a 9 man rotation that's working and winning then he'll never have any need to play more but our players are so inconsistent that there will be times when he's gonna have to go deeper in the bench. I'm pretty sure it's this way with most if not all teams.

Dude, Fisher is a situational roach. He likes to throw things on the walls to see what will stick. In basketball, as you should know, for a team to be consistent, the rotation too must be consistent. If you are constantly changing the rotation, you will get inconsistent result; which is the state of our beloved team.

Williams, KO, and even young Grant can't provide consistent production because they are not getting consistent minutes. Playing them one day 5 minutes and 25 another day is simply asinine.

I think MOST people understand how important it can be for a player to get consistent minutes. I also think it's clear that it's not always that simple to establish a set rotation when you are talking about a completely new roster that has a number of players who have not established that they are consistent NBA performers. Add to that slumping players and you can imagine that it can really make the job harder. Guys were slumping regardless of minutes played.

Jose started off slumping. Melo had his stretch of poor play. RoLo has had his stretch of poor play. You can say this about many of the players on the team. It's not all because they didn't get consistent minutes. This is an oversimplification of what really has gone on. Sure Fish has had his issues but also guys just flat out missing shots, executing poorly or playing without energy etc. isn't always summed up by how many minutes they played.

Most do understand that players need CONSISTENT minutes to be CONSISTENT, but Nalod and newyork4ever. I don't see why it is perceived to be difficult to establish a set rotation with a new roster. You simply have to pick 10 guys and run them for a period of 5 games to see how they fit; you take that sample and make adjustments if there is a need. Once you figure out the most potent/cohesive 9 or 10 players, you ride it.

A line up requires: guys who can defend, stretch the floor and score; guys who are agile and can put the ball on the floor and create. You further need rebounders and guys who can operate in the post.

My ideal 10: Grant, Afflalo, Carmelo, KP, and Lopez now that he is playing with more passion
Galloway, Nose, Williams, Lance, and KO

Seraphin, Lou, and Sasha need to be practice guys. They should only see the floor for mop-up period or when a guy gets injured.

Knicks1969 wrote:

nixluva wrote:

Knicks1969 wrote:

newyorker4ever wrote:

NYStateOfMind wrote:

nixluva wrote:Things get real easy for any coach when starters are playing well. There's less of a reason to extend the rotation when your top rotation players are giving you what you need. Basically most teams win with solid contributions from their top 6-7 players most nights. Your starters plus 1 to 2 more guys have to be fairly consistent. We haven't gotten that and it makes things a bit tougher. Today you got good play from the starters and no one got into any serious foul trouble, so there wasn't a need to put in an extra guy.

Today the offensive execution was better and they had a hot shooter and kept feeding him for a change. They have to find more consistency in what they were able to do today. They kept things moving and put pressure on the defense with more aggressive ball and player movement. They still very much ran the Triangle today despite what most think was going on. They just used more of the always available options rather than trying to force one predictable aspect of the side Triangle. The execution was simply better and they were more aggressive in working off the drag screens which makes people think they weren't running Triangle but it wasn't really anything new. They just did it better.

Maybe we haven't gotten that because he plays too many players in games with inconsistent minutes and roles. One game Williams is a major factor, next he is in the doghouse and plays 7 minutes. The game last night showed you play a smaller rotation, say 8 to 9 players. 5 starters and 3 to 4 replacements. I like always having a starter or 2 on the court, it is smart basketball. The rest of the bench is for garbage time or to cover injuries/foul trouble. It isn't rocket science. If a player fails in their consistent role, then replace them.

Do you guys understand that the reason he was able to only play 9 guys was because those 9 guys were actually making their shots and doing what was needed from them on defense?? Please tell me you do know why we only needed those 9 guys and you do understand that the reason he's been playing 12/13 guys or however many he played in other games was because nobody was making shots and weren't giving what was needed on defense?? It's really quite simple. If you have a 9 man rotation that's working and winning then he'll never have any need to play more but our players are so inconsistent that there will be times when he's gonna have to go deeper in the bench. I'm pretty sure it's this way with most if not all teams.

Dude, Fisher is a situational roach. He likes to throw things on the walls to see what will stick. In basketball, as you should know, for a team to be consistent, the rotation too must be consistent. If you are constantly changing the rotation, you will get inconsistent result; which is the state of our beloved team.

Williams, KO, and even young Grant can't provide consistent production because they are not getting consistent minutes. Playing them one day 5 minutes and 25 another day is simply asinine.

I think MOST people understand how important it can be for a player to get consistent minutes. I also think it's clear that it's not always that simple to establish a set rotation when you are talking about a completely new roster that has a number of players who have not established that they are consistent NBA performers. Add to that slumping players and you can imagine that it can really make the job harder. Guys were slumping regardless of minutes played.

Jose started off slumping. Melo had his stretch of poor play. RoLo has had his stretch of poor play. You can say this about many of the players on the team. It's not all because they didn't get consistent minutes. This is an oversimplification of what really has gone on. Sure Fish has had his issues but also guys just flat out missing shots, executing poorly or playing without energy etc. isn't always summed up by how many minutes they played.

Most do understand that players need CONSISTENT minutes to be CONSISTENT, but Nalod and newyork4ever. I don't see why it is perceived to be difficult to establish a set rotation with a new roster. You simply have to pick 10 guys and run them for a period of 5 games to see how they fit; you take that sample and make adjustments if there is a need. Once you figure out the most potent/cohesive 9 or 10 players, you ride it.

A line up requires: guys who can defend, stretch the floor and score; guys who are agile and can put the ball on the floor and create. You further need rebounders and guys who can operate in the post.

My ideal 10: Grant, Afflalo, Carmelo, KP, and Lopez now that he is playing with more passion
Galloway, Nose, Williams, Lance, and KO

Seraphin, Lou, and Sasha need to be practice guys. They should only see the floor for mop-up period or when a guy gets injured.

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

nixluva wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Malcolm wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Its real easy to deflect any criticism away from the implementation of the Triangle offense when its so all encompassing that there are no alternatives.

Criticize all you want -- please (!)

There are alternatives to the Triangle System -- 29 teams run them.
And there are alternatives to the Triangle Set within the Triangle System (run at the appropriate time within the system).

But it's pointless to criticize the Triangle System in NYC because that's what we're running.

Best is to criticize when and how well anything is run within the System -- including the Triangle Set.

It's a work in progress, to say the least . . .

Not according to Nix, and thats the debate you walked into.

Its pointless to tell people not to suggest alternatives, thats what we do here. You arent a player, coach, GM, owner, so why offer an opinion on anything related to the Knicks? Why? Because you're an opinionated Knicks fan like the rest of us.

I like what Phil and Fish are trying to teach these players. It's more than just the X's and O's of the Triangle. It's about the Mental approach that leads to winning. They're learning unselfishness, focus and pride. None of the aspects of what they're trying to instill in these players are negative. I see progress and growth even if they still have a long way to go.

Regarding the X's and O's of this offense, all i've tried to do is add to this forum's understanding of the X's and O's of this offense since it's clear that for most it isn't clear. Many have stated that they don't really know the offense past the basics. At this point i've done my part and I could care less what some people think of my efforts. I know that i've contributed a lot to the conversation and hopefully it was helpful to some. I'm no expert but i'm always open to try and help someone with any questions they might have on the subject

Help yourself answer what part of what you see being run by another team that isnt part of the Triangle? Should be very easy for someone so willing to guide us through the complexities of this offense.

REALLY? It doesn't matter how many common basketball concepts are included in the System. The way in which these basic BBall concepts are all put together is far different. How you get in and out of certain actions is different. The rules of the offense are different.

It's a motion offense with more passing than dribbling. Not really a set of plays that they run but one continuous flow of filling certain spaces on the floor, making reads, Lots of cuts, Lots of Hand Offs, rules for automatic actions and counters depending on what the defense does. You will see more post ups since it is after all the Triple Post Offense.

What you won't get a lot of is ball dominant PG driven PnR plays. You won't see as much Dribble Drive. You won't get a lot of 4 out looks every time down.

Thank you! Thats all I was asking for. Just wanted to make sure that someone could suggest to you an alternative to this system without being told that it was part of the Triangle as well.

Technically I NEVER did say that basically everything is part of the Triangle. I have been very specific in my responses and would never have suggested that a LOT of Ball Dominant Dribble Drive would be part of the Triangle. I have said that PnR is part of the offense and when some suggested that it wasn't I corrected that. There are 4 out, 1 in looks in this offense and 3 out, 2 in looks. There are other Overloads similar to the Side Triangle that never involve forming a side Triangle. There are Full Court Rules for Transition in this offense that allow the team to run but also flow right into the set offense if there's nothing there. I've discussed these things many times.

NYStateOfMind wrote:Let's hope they can keep it simple and repeat the win in Atlanta, but it won't be easy a 2nd time.

It sure didn't end pretty and gave me heartache, but they did it again. 9 man rotation, not because everyone was on fire, but because it works.

Go NY Go NY Go!!!