nixluva wrote:Way to cherry pick one season. Not sure why this needed its own thread! Overall his Lakers teams were highly efficient. It's not about just one season. Besides my points still stand. You can't dismiss the success of Phil's teams and the positive impact of his players having their most efficient seasons when they were playing in the Triangle.

If the Triangle had a negative impact on a team's efficiency then it would not be possible for them to be as efficient as many top teams today.

cherry pick? weak!!!

I picked the last season that the triangle was executed alongside success.

The team won because they played solid defense and killed on the boards.

I would say that the triangle may not have killed their chances to win.

nixluva wrote:

mreinman wrote:

nixluva wrote:Way to cherry pick one season. Not sure why this needed its own thread! Overall his Lakers teams were highly efficient. It's not about just one season. Besides my points still stand. You can't dismiss the success of Phil's teams and the positive impact of his players having their most efficient seasons when they were playing in the Triangle.

If the Triangle had a negative impact on a team's efficiency then it would not be possible for them to be as efficient as many top teams today.

cherry pick? weak!!!

I picked the last season that the triangle was executed alongside success.

The team won because they played solid defense and killed on the boards.

I would say that the triangle may not have killed their chances to win.

WOW! You are something else. What about the other seasons in that run? You think one season demonstrates some kind of proof of your theory??? It just so happens that you can get that kind of variance from one season to the next with many teams. In the end at their best the Lakers under Phil had some very good offensive teams. They never had the #1 offense but they were very good. There's no reason why you can't win in the NBA running Triangle and a good defense. That's all Phil is trying to do with this Knicks team, but he needs more time to develop and build up the talent on the roster.

if he could only be less than average with that team then I am sure that he will be super efficient with the sh1tty knicks squad that he is building.

The triangle is not why they won, they won because they have had GOAT(SSSSSSSS) and a great coach.

The triangle is an old creaky short shorts offense that needs to be canned immediately or Golden Stated.

nyk4ever wrote:what is this ****? who the **** cares whether or not the lakers were efficient in their last run? a pissing contest between rainman and nixluva deserves its own topic? and rainman gets on briggs about starting to many threads...

kid is a clown..and this proves it...again. I will never understand why people here bother.

Bonn1997 wrote:

EnySpree wrote:I can't believe this thread

LOL. Mreinman isn't the only one who does it but I'm not a big fan of threads addressed to one poster.

well I am a fan so nana nana poo poo

The reason I defend the Triangle is because I see that teams can be efficient using it. It's not THE most efficient offense but it's perfect for playoff Ball where you face top defense that will take away simple PnR n Space and won't let you just get out and run. Playoff ball tends to be half court, intense ball. So if you run Triangle you don't have to change anything since you already play a slower half court game.

Also you can play with 2 bigs in this style and it minimizes the need for a great PG. it's more important to have dynamic Combo guards and passing forwards and Center.

Phil knows this system best and so when he's building it makes it easier for him to target certain types of players. The same kind of players that the Spurs go after. Skilled, smart and versatile players. It's not gonna happen overnight so a certain amount of patience is needed.