Loser mentality is to not try to install the triangle because its hard. Fans critical of it because "You need stars" to make it work. Yes, all good teams needed talent.
Take away the Triangle, you still need talent!
Winner mentality is "I want to win and would embrace the challenge of the triangle and elevate to make it work!!!"
Does Vogel or Blatt see it as their boss being problematic, or do they see that "I will succeed where others have failed"? Do they want the challenge?
Or "Others could not do it because they did not have ownerships full support and patience to see a rebuild thru".
and "Phuch the media inducing the fans into ignorant rants!
Im fine with Rambis and Im fine with whom ever PHil wants. Im not fine with dumb ass media snipping away at making fans angry with ignorance.
Im loving that Phil is doing things on his own terms. A successful man has his methods even if its not coaching.
If this does not work, Im fine with the concept and the effort to build a culture. We can always go back to starphuching.
Until then, Im fine with what we are doing. This is fun.

http://www.postingandtoasting.com/2016/5/17/11691146/rejoice-knicks-fans-tuesdays-draft-lottery-brings-us-ever-closer-to

franco12 wrote:isn't the thread title the exact reason we shouldn't be trying to run the triangle? Its maybe like asking my kids to grow up and be like Einstein. They're going to be miserable.

The man who succeeded is the man attempting to orchestrate the construction of a culture that promotes the development of players to execute the Triangle and its variations of the theme. Start from the top and work thru to the players.

Who has done that? Lets even go further and say the most successful team in professional sports did this in some form. The spurs know what they are and what they are trying to do. GSW did this and its how it got its players. How many years did that take? I think ownership took over in 2010. They had some decent assets already in place (like draft picks, some players, etc)and took 5 years until its first title in this era. SAS exercises patience in many forms with its draft picks and player development.

Two years into this era and we are handicapped by not having a draft pick this year. Year one was a tear down and year two the first phase. WE started with little as we the Melo trade depleted assets, and a lack of draft picks for years also handicapped us. Eddy cost us two high no. 1 picks. They could have been used not just on productive players, but play them, then make trades as well. This is why we are sad, not just Phil botching one coaching move or not able to rape teams for the Tyson/Felton deal.

fishmike wrote:

franco12 wrote:isn't the thread title the exact reason we shouldn't be trying to run the triangle? Its maybe like asking my kids to grow up and be like Einstein. They're going to be miserable.

Gary Larson, oh man, miss his stuff

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I think Phil has had success with it because of his people skills and getting individuals to sacrifice personal satisifaction for the common good. I think the system itself might need an update. If you ran cover 2 in the NFL 15 or 20 years ago, you probably had one of the best defenses in football. Now? You would get crushed. What I do like about the triangle though is it uses players that are multifaceted and I think more NBA prospects have a greater skillset now. I think the triangle is a perfect place for guys that can do a bit of everything.

I never understood the line of thinking that Phil and/of the Triangle implementation wouldn't be able to adjust to either the NBA as a whole or players on a team in particular.

It was run over 2 decades using all sorts of different players. First it was Thug ball against Detroit. Kobe and Pau and Bynum lead the march 5 years ago in a very different era that what the Triangle first saw.

I'm basing this off of player commentary. Truthfully, it seems like a lot of players are scared of it. The triangle is vastly different than what most players have experienced. The NBA is shifting towards "efficient three pointers" and away from "mid range jumpshots." I think they can adapt it to the times and hell it already seems as though they are. I am fascinated by the triangle and am glad it is here. That said, it's reputation is one of an antiquated system and I think perception matters

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I think Phil has had success with it because of his people skills and getting individuals to sacrifice personal satisifaction for the common good. I think the system itself might need an update. If you ran cover 2 in the NFL 15 or 20 years ago, you probably had one of the best defenses in football. Now? You would get crushed. What I do like about the triangle though is it uses players that are multifaceted and I think more NBA prospects have a greater skillset now. I think the triangle is a perfect place for guys that can do a bit of everything.

I never understood the line of thinking that Phil and/of the Triangle implementation wouldn't be able to adjust to either the NBA as a whole or players on a team in particular.

It was run over 2 decades using all sorts of different players. First it was Thug ball against Detroit. Kobe and Pau and Bynum lead the march 5 years ago in a very different era that what the Triangle first saw.

If this is a system that gets all 5 guys involved, why did MJ and KObe avg roughly 32 shots per game, and why did they lean on them so much.

Give me 2 players not name MJ or Kobe, that ran more ISO's. I'll never forget one of phils reason for chasing melo, was that the system would not work with out a top scorer, a guy that they can lean on when things get stale, which we seen all to often down the stretch in the 4th qtr.

The triangle is a great offense when you have top flight high IQ players, if those cuts are sharp, and the ball handler is on point, it's defenseless. If you have sub par players that don't react quick enough, don't cut fast enough, it's one of the worse systems on the plane, it's super predictable and slower then a turtles crawl..

why run it if you don't have what it takes to run it, just for he sake of running it.

knicks1248 wrote:

martin wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I think Phil has had success with it because of his people skills and getting individuals to sacrifice personal satisifaction for the common good. I think the system itself might need an update. If you ran cover 2 in the NFL 15 or 20 years ago, you probably had one of the best defenses in football. Now? You would get crushed. What I do like about the triangle though is it uses players that are multifaceted and I think more NBA prospects have a greater skillset now. I think the triangle is a perfect place for guys that can do a bit of everything.

I never understood the line of thinking that Phil and/of the Triangle implementation wouldn't be able to adjust to either the NBA as a whole or players on a team in particular.

It was run over 2 decades using all sorts of different players. First it was Thug ball against Detroit. Kobe and Pau and Bynum lead the march 5 years ago in a very different era that what the Triangle first saw.

If this is a system that gets all 5 guys involved, why did MJ and KObe avg roughly 32 shots per game, and why did they lean on them so much.

Give me 2 players not name MJ or Kobe, that ran more ISO's. I'll never forget one of phils reason for chasing melo, was that the system would not work with out a top scorer, a guy that they can lean on when things get stale, which we seen all to often down the stretch in the 4th qtr.

The triangle is a great offense when you have top flight high IQ players, if those cuts are sharp, and the ball handler is on point, it's defenseless. If you have sub par players that don't react quick enough, don't cut fast enough, it's one of the worse systems on the plane, it's super predictable and slower then a turtles crawl..

why run it if you don't have what it takes to run it, just for he sake of running it.

You said it yourself, it cant be defended. Its the system we run. Its the system (various flavors) that won 11 titles.

Nalod wrote:Until then, Im fine with what we are doing. This is fun.