Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

except the Spurs who run the most efficient and slowest offense in the league. As you use the phrase "every other top pro" so often maybe you should add an asterik to say this comment excludes the Spurs

the spurs run loads of PnR and 4 out as well. And yes, the spurs run this offense because they have some old and slow (but still good) personnel. They adjusted to their personnel which is great.

JVG had a great take on this as to why they run the offense that they run (interview with zach lowe).

You certainly have to adjust to your personnel if they are worth adjusting for. Al Jefferson was not good enough for Charlotte to stay with this slow and crowded offense. So they basically ditched it and ditched Al and they were miles better off.

Memphis is also not stuck in no mans land where they slow bigs are no longer good enough to overcome they lack of spacing and spread.

fishmike wrote:Memphis has been a pretty damn good team last 5 years playing slow.

You love to run Al Jefferson's name out there as "the old way doesnt work" posterboy. I dont really get it. There are more ways to win NBA games than spreading 4 and taking 25 threes a game.

Hows Aldridge looking?

Im enjoying watching Harden struggle as nobody has a most disgusting game than he does... maybe he can be a great FIBA soccer player but his basketball is not watchable. I would rather watch the 90s KNicks grind out 90 ppg.

its not about what you find enjoyable and as I said, not every system is for everyone. There are exception based on personnel but they better be damn well worth it. There are not going to be many San Antonios going forward.

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.

Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.

Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?

Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.

The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.

It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.

Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.

Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.

mreinman wrote:

fishmike wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

except the Spurs who run the most efficient and slowest offense in the league. As you use the phrase "every other top pro" so often maybe you should add an asterik to say this comment excludes the Spurs

the spurs run loads of PnR and 4 out as well. And yes, the spurs run this offense because they have some old and slow (but still good) personnel. They adjusted to their personnel which is great.

JVG had a great take on this as to why they run the offense that they run (interview with zach lowe).

You certainly have to adjust to your personnel if they are worth adjusting for. Al Jefferson was not good enough for Charlotte to stay with this slow and crowded offense. So they basically ditched it and ditched Al and they were miles better off.

Memphis is also not stuck in no mans land where they slow bigs are no longer good enough to overcome they lack of spacing and spread.

Seems to make a difference.

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

mreinman wrote:

martin wrote:

mreinman wrote:

Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.

Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.

So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?

I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.

http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/lords-of-the-rings-phil-jackson-brings-championship-expertise-to-new-regime-1.9556951

we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.

So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.

Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?

Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.

The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.

It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.

Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.

Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.

This is not an adequate explanation, especially the bolded and unless you mistyped, it seems that you don't understand the triangle enough to make the comparison. Triangle is at least 3 in and 2 out? Here is the typical triangle formation:

I don't see 3 in and I see lots of space.

mreinman wrote:sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.

So I think this is an over-generalization that can be said about any team at some point, unless you are strictly a 2-man game team like LeBron in the Finals. You advocating a iso, 2-man PnR system?

When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)

Point?

When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.

So this can be said of any system. The one thing about the Triangle is it makes smart players who are not often dominant talent-wise or physically into better players. Also, just because most teams don't run something doesn't make it right. Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.

Phil is not the coach, he is GM, so he is going to find more players that fit his system while upgrading talent in that system, that's the big picture takeaway.

One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.

Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?

Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.

Realistically, this is year 1 of the Triangle, you can't expect it to be perfect. Expect more Triangle next year, run more efficiently and with better talent.