Phil believes the talent here can play much better and I agree. He's gonna likely add some key players who can be glue players that make things work better. We saw how losing Kidd made such a huge difference. It's so important to have a good BB mind on the floor to get that instant good decision making. Every coach needs that. We didn't have one guy with that kind of savvy on the floor this year. Who can they get to bring things together this coming season? They don't have to be stars just a smart player that can be the coach on the floor.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:The entire point of PJax being here is to establish and define the new culture here. He's such a huge personality that he can be the umbrella over the team and block out the negative impact of Dolan. Once PJax has his coaches and other staff in place and starts to work with the players it's gonna create a positive atmosphere and that direct contact will be the dominant influence and not anything Dolan is thinking or doing on the outside of that relationship.

Phil believes the talent here can play much better and I agree. He's gonna likely add some key players who can be glue players that make things work better. We saw how losing Kidd made such a huge difference. It's so important to have a good BB mind on the floor to get that instant good decision making. Every coach needs that. We didn't have one guy with that kind of savvy on the floor this year. Who can they get to bring things together this coming season? They don't have to be stars just a smart player that can be the coach on the floor.

How do you think the team would have done this year if we traded for Lowry instead of Bargs? Having an efficient floor leader is everything. We could have been better than 54w.

Yeah I was actually in favor of the trade. Now it's not as much of an issue. Phil's use of the Triangle actually minimizes the need for a high level PG. All of his PG's were mostly ball movers and 3 pt shooters. The best option is a long and great defensive guard who can enhance the defense and still be functional on offense. The example being Ron Harper. IMO Murry and Shump fit that kind of role. They need to improve their 3pt shooting, but I actually think that's less of a problem given their defensive strength. I already saw improvement in Murry's shooting at the end of the season. He's a better player than we've seen so far. With more training he can be a good role player in a Triangle system.

Ron Harper

      TM  GP  GS  MIN  FGM-A    FG%   3PM-A    3P%   FTM-A   FT%   OR  DR  REB  AST  BLK  STL  PF  TO  PTS
94-95 CHI 77  53  19.9 2.7-6.4  .426  0.4-1.4  .282  1.1-1.7 .618  0.7 1.7 2.3  2.0  0.4  1.3  1.7 1.3 6.9
95-96 CHI 80  80  23.6 2.9-6.3	.467  0.4-1.3  .269  1.2-1.7 .705  0.9 1.7 2.7	2.6  0.4  1.3  1.7 0.9 7.4
96-97 CHI 76  74  22.9 2.3-5.3	.436  0.9-2.5  .362  0.8-1.1 .707  0.6 1.9 2.5	2.5  0.5  1.1  1.8 0.7 6.3
97-98 CHI 82  82  27.9 3.6-8.1	.441  0.2-1.0  .190  2.0-2.6 .750  1.3 2.2 3.5	2.9  0.6  1.3  2.2 1.1 9.3
98-99 CHI 35  35  31.6 4.2-11.1	.377  0.8-2.4  .318  2.0-2.9 .703  1.4 3.7 5.1	3.3  1.0  1.7  2.3 1.9 11.2
99-00 LAL 80  78  25.5 2.7-6.6	.399  0.4-1.3  .311  1.3-1.8 .680  1.2 3.0 4.2	3.4  0.5  1.1  2.1 1.7 7.0
00-01 LAL 47  46  24.2 2.7-5.8	.469  0.4-1.5  .264  0.7-1.0 .708  1.0 2.6 3.5	2.4  0.5  0.8  1.5 1.3 6.5

If this is somewhat of a prototype guard for Phil then we don't have to wonder if he can get it done with the kind of guards we already have.

Of course Phil also had 3pt shooting guards and yet those guards weren't great PG's overall. They were smart and steady players who could shoot the 3, but you didn't see a lot of spectacular play from them.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:The entire point of PJax being here is to establish and define the new culture here. He's such a huge personality that he can be the umbrella over the team and block out the negative impact of Dolan. Once PJax has his coaches and other staff in place and starts to work with the players it's gonna create a positive atmosphere and that direct contact will be the dominant influence and not anything Dolan is thinking or doing on the outside of that relationship.

Phil believes the talent here can play much better and I agree. He's gonna likely add some key players who can be glue players that make things work better. We saw how losing Kidd made such a huge difference. It's so important to have a good BB mind on the floor to get that instant good decision making. Every coach needs that. We didn't have one guy with that kind of savvy on the floor this year. Who can they get to bring things together this coming season? They don't have to be stars just a smart player that can be the coach on the floor.

How do you think the team would have done this year if we traded for Lowry instead of Bargs? Having an efficient floor leader is everything. We could have been better than 54w.

Yeah I was actually in favor of the trade. Now it's not as much of an issue. Phil's use of the Triangle actually minimizes the need for a high level PG. All of his PG's were mostly ball movers and 3 pt shooters. The best option is a long and great defensive guard who can enhance the defense and still be functional on offense. The example being Ron Harper. IMO Murry and Shump fit that kind of role. They need to improve their 3pt shooting, but I actually think that's less of a problem given their defensive strength. I already saw improvement in Murry's shooting at the end of the season. He's a better player than we've seen so far. With more training he can be a good role player in a Triangle system.

Ron Harper

      TM  GP  GS  MIN  FGM-A    FG%   3PM-A    3P%   FTM-A   FT%   OR  DR  REB  AST  BLK  STL  PF  TO  PTS
94-95 CHI 77  53  19.9 2.7-6.4  .426  0.4-1.4  .282  1.1-1.7 .618  0.7 1.7 2.3  2.0  0.4  1.3  1.7 1.3 6.9
95-96 CHI 80  80  23.6 2.9-6.3	.467  0.4-1.3  .269  1.2-1.7 .705  0.9 1.7 2.7	2.6  0.4  1.3  1.7 0.9 7.4
96-97 CHI 76  74  22.9 2.3-5.3	.436  0.9-2.5  .362  0.8-1.1 .707  0.6 1.9 2.5	2.5  0.5  1.1  1.8 0.7 6.3
97-98 CHI 82  82  27.9 3.6-8.1	.441  0.2-1.0  .190  2.0-2.6 .750  1.3 2.2 3.5	2.9  0.6  1.3  2.2 1.1 9.3
98-99 CHI 35  35  31.6 4.2-11.1	.377  0.8-2.4  .318  2.0-2.9 .703  1.4 3.7 5.1	3.3  1.0  1.7  2.3 1.9 11.2
99-00 LAL 80  78  25.5 2.7-6.6	.399  0.4-1.3  .311  1.3-1.8 .680  1.2 3.0 4.2	3.4  0.5  1.1  2.1 1.7 7.0
00-01 LAL 47  46  24.2 2.7-5.8	.469  0.4-1.5  .264  0.7-1.0 .708  1.0 2.6 3.5	2.4  0.5  0.8  1.5 1.3 6.5

If this is somewhat of a prototype guard for Phil then we don't have to wonder if he can get it done with the kind of guards we already have.

Of course Phil also had 3pt shooting guards and yet those guards weren't great PG's overall. They were smart and steady players who could shoot the 3, but you didn't see a lot of spectacular play from them.

People keep saying that Phil does not need a top PG in the triangle but perhaps that is because he had MJ and Kobe who were essentially PG's and creators.

We may not need a 8-10 assist PG but we need a PG or a SG who is very good at initiating offense. A Billups or Harden type.

Can the triangle be successful without one of the leagues top guards? Or at least a very good one? Or a point forward type like Scotty Pippen?

This video does a great job of explaining how the Triangle actually works and why you don't need a great PG for it to be effective. The only advantage Kobe and MJ bring to the Triangle or any offense for that matter is individual creativity when nothing else worked. That's simply the biggest reason any team wants a top tier talent. That ability to make something out of nothing, but it isn't the reason for the system working or not. That greatness is outside of the system.

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:The entire point of PJax being here is to establish and define the new culture here. He's such a huge personality that he can be the umbrella over the team and block out the negative impact of Dolan. Once PJax has his coaches and other staff in place and starts to work with the players it's gonna create a positive atmosphere and that direct contact will be the dominant influence and not anything Dolan is thinking or doing on the outside of that relationship.

Phil believes the talent here can play much better and I agree. He's gonna likely add some key players who can be glue players that make things work better. We saw how losing Kidd made such a huge difference. It's so important to have a good BB mind on the floor to get that instant good decision making. Every coach needs that. We didn't have one guy with that kind of savvy on the floor this year. Who can they get to bring things together this coming season? They don't have to be stars just a smart player that can be the coach on the floor.

How do you think the team would have done this year if we traded for Lowry instead of Bargs? Having an efficient floor leader is everything. We could have been better than 54w.

Yeah I was actually in favor of the trade. Now it's not as much of an issue. Phil's use of the Triangle actually minimizes the need for a high level PG. All of his PG's were mostly ball movers and 3 pt shooters. The best option is a long and great defensive guard who can enhance the defense and still be functional on offense. The example being Ron Harper. IMO Murry and Shump fit that kind of role. They need to improve their 3pt shooting, but I actually think that's less of a problem given their defensive strength. I already saw improvement in Murry's shooting at the end of the season. He's a better player than we've seen so far. With more training he can be a good role player in a Triangle system.

Ron Harper

      TM  GP  GS  MIN  FGM-A    FG%   3PM-A    3P%   FTM-A   FT%   OR  DR  REB  AST  BLK  STL  PF  TO  PTS
94-95 CHI 77  53  19.9 2.7-6.4  .426  0.4-1.4  .282  1.1-1.7 .618  0.7 1.7 2.3  2.0  0.4  1.3  1.7 1.3 6.9
95-96 CHI 80  80  23.6 2.9-6.3	.467  0.4-1.3  .269  1.2-1.7 .705  0.9 1.7 2.7	2.6  0.4  1.3  1.7 0.9 7.4
96-97 CHI 76  74  22.9 2.3-5.3	.436  0.9-2.5  .362  0.8-1.1 .707  0.6 1.9 2.5	2.5  0.5  1.1  1.8 0.7 6.3
97-98 CHI 82  82  27.9 3.6-8.1	.441  0.2-1.0  .190  2.0-2.6 .750  1.3 2.2 3.5	2.9  0.6  1.3  2.2 1.1 9.3
98-99 CHI 35  35  31.6 4.2-11.1	.377  0.8-2.4  .318  2.0-2.9 .703  1.4 3.7 5.1	3.3  1.0  1.7  2.3 1.9 11.2
99-00 LAL 80  78  25.5 2.7-6.6	.399  0.4-1.3  .311  1.3-1.8 .680  1.2 3.0 4.2	3.4  0.5  1.1  2.1 1.7 7.0
00-01 LAL 47  46  24.2 2.7-5.8	.469  0.4-1.5  .264  0.7-1.0 .708  1.0 2.6 3.5	2.4  0.5  0.8  1.5 1.3 6.5

If this is somewhat of a prototype guard for Phil then we don't have to wonder if he can get it done with the kind of guards we already have.

Of course Phil also had 3pt shooting guards and yet those guards weren't great PG's overall. They were smart and steady players who could shoot the 3, but you didn't see a lot of spectacular play from them.

People keep saying that Phil does not need a top PG in the triangle but perhaps that is because he had MJ and Kobe who were essentially PG's and creators.

We may not need a 8-10 assist PG but we need a PG or a SG who is very good at initiating offense. A Billups or Harden type.

Can the triangle be successful without one of the leagues top guards? Or at least a very good one? Or a point forward type like Scotty Pippen?

The PG doesn't really exist in the Triangle. You just have guards. It's not a system that is making use of PnR or a lot of ball dominant PG plays. Even Kobe and MJ didn't have to play like a traditional PG in the offense.

This video does a great job of explaining how the Triangle actually works and why you don't need a great PG for it to be effective. The only advantage Kobe and MJ bring to the Triangle or any offense for that matter is individual creativity when nothing else worked. That's simply the biggest reason any team wants a top tier talent. That ability to make something out of nothing, but it isn't the reason for the system working or not. That greatness is outside of the system.

Great vid Nix.

However, listen to his comment at the end "was the system successful or have Mj and Kobe". Probably both but outside of the success that the bulls had without Jordan, was the triangle ever successful without top stars?

And watching this I was picturing Amare in the film room having heart palpitations.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:Here's another excellent video showing the Triangle against a top defense. See how it creates good shots just off ball and player movement.

I thought there were a lot of terrible shots in this one.

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:Here's another excellent video showing the Triangle against a top defense. See how it creates good shots just off ball and player movement.

I thought there were a lot of terrible shots in this one.

Remember that the Celtics were a TOP defense and it's not easy to get off shots. IMO the Lakers didn't always execute at the highest level. Also I think that a lot of the time teams don't need a superstar to be very good. It's more important to have Team Oriented players with the right skills and who adhere to the principles of team BB and execute at a high level. Now when it comes to winning it all, that may require a superstar, but then again you could have just one like the Mavs or none like the Pistons and still win if you execute at the highest level. That's what Phil is probably thinking about.

Look how many D Fisher contested long 2 chucks there were. And look how many times the celtics double teamed and got burned (you need a star to get doubled (unless you have Woody coaching who doubles everyone)). The fast passes though are awesome.

The pistons had Billups who was grossly underrated and Rip, Prince, Rasheed and Ben Wallace with LB as the defensive guru head coach. That team was great offensively but off the charts defensively. Rare team. The dumbest trade they made was trading Billups+ for Iverson.

Dallas was stacked and deep as well as extremely well coached (as they are this year).

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:Here's another excellent video showing the Triangle against a top defense. See how it creates good shots just off ball and player movement.

I thought there were a lot of terrible shots in this one.

Remember that the Celtics were a TOP defense and it's not easy to get off shots. IMO the Lakers didn't always execute at the highest level. Also I think that a lot of the time teams don't need a superstar to be very good. It's more important to have Team Oriented players with the right skills and who adhere to the principles of team BB and execute at a high level. Now when it comes to winning it all, that may require a superstar, but then again you could have just one like the Mavs or none like the Pistons and still win if you execute at the highest level. That's what Phil is probably thinking about.

Look how many D Fisher contested long 2 chucks there were. And look how many times the celtics double teamed and got burned (you need a star to get doubled (unless you have Woody coaching who doubles everyone)). The fast passes though are awesome.

The pistons had Billups who was grossly underrated and Rip, Prince, Rasheed and Ben Wallace with LB as the defensive guru head coach. That team was great offensively but off the charts defensively. Rare team. The dumbest trade they made was trading Billups+ for Iverson.

Dallas was stacked and deep as well as extremely well coached (as they are this year).

The key tho is that neither the Mavs nor Pistons used that 3 superstar route to win. those are much better examples of what this team can do than say the Heat plan. The Pistons had a lot of really excellent TEAM FIRST players. That's what Phil is looking to build as a culture. The Triangle is simply a means to an end. It forces players that might not otherwise be team oriented to play that way, but imagine if you put actual TEAM FIRST players in that kind of system? Then you really have something. That's the best case scenario, much like the Pistons where.

Right but in a non star system, you don't just need "team" oriented players but you need very efficient ones. That is not Felton, JR and Bargs.

I actually kind of disagree a bit. Bargs is highly efficient as a midrange shooter. In fact he's been consistently near the top of the league when used in the PnP play. Can't say how much better JR might be in a system where he's taking great shots as opposed to the wild game he's been playing most of his career. Felton would at least be relieved of the need to be a real PG and that should actually help him.

In the end we have to find ways to maximize the talents of the players we have and most likely can't get rid of. That's what the Triangle is all about. They will never be perfect, but as long as we have them it's best to have a system that prescribes they take good shots and move the ball.

We have to remember that Phil is going to be constantly looking to improve the roster, but in any scenario it's better to have a system that the lesser players can rely on to help them. If you don't have a great PG then there's almost nothing better than the Triangle for that. It's been proven over many years to be helpful to lesser PG's.

The real important thing is your post players. They have to be able to pass the ball and score effectively. Teaching our post players to run the Triangle will really enhance their skills and effectiveness. If they can't make the very simple passes that are part of the Triangle then you need to replace them.

yellowboy90 wrote:Chicago had a point guard and his name was Scottie Pippen.

This is the good thing about the Triangle in that if you don't have an amazing PG, you can still be effective as long as you have decent passers everywhere else. Not great, but just decent. That's the focus of the Triangle. Your forward is a ball mover too. You want guys who have well rounded skills. If every player on the floor is at least capable of making good passes then you're going to be successful. They don't have to be special, but of course that helps. It think this is why Phil is trying to see if Odom has anything left. His ability to pass and handle the ball is a very helpful skill.