blkexec wrote:This is a good read for those of us (like me) who still doesn't understand the value or need of the triangle offense, regardless of the numerous videos and clips Nix post.

Here's a clip of the article that (to me) explains the real value of the offense. It's not about the stars, but the role players....Stars will excel in any system.......But the triangle gives Phil the flexibility to build around his star players, with marginal role players (and high IQ to read and react to defenses in real time). You only need 2 stars at a minimum (MJ/Pipen, Kobe/Shaq). Below is a quote from Phil Jackson:

"The real advantage of the Triangle is what it does for players with less ability. Most NBA sets are static; they require perimeter players to create their own shot, usually off the dribble. The Triangle’s relentless off-the-ball movement allows standing jump shooters to contribute within their own preexisting skill set. This is why it worked so well for John Paxson and Steve Kerr, and even for guys like Sasha Vujacic and Luke Walton. You don’t need four or five athletic scorers to make the Triangle work. Two is plenty, because it amplifies the value of role players."

That comment about most NBA sets are static could be the reason why he hired Hornacek, due to his known ability to run open spaced motion offense! That philosophy is a great compliment to the Triangle.

http://grantland.com/features/chuck-klosterman-phil-jackson-tex-winter-death-triangle-offense/

Jeff may have really impressed Phil with his approach and perhaps explaining how he could apply it even to what Phil is already doing. Who knows. What I can imagine is that Phil is not easily impressed and Blatt and Vogel are both top coaches in terms of their knowledge, but maybe Jeff was impressive in other areas not just X's and O's.

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great read. He was wrong about a 3pt shooting team winning a championship but the road to the Chip for GSW was thru teams whose guards got hurt and teams that were not dominant in the post.
in 2012 he could not have forseen the evolution of Curry and paired with Thompson formed perhaps the best back court in NBA history.
He was correct to describe PHX inability to win it all, and of course HIS LAKERS with Pau and Bynum had great success against PHX. That was his perspective and that was 2012 it was written.

We'll see if Hornacek will implement the triangle. I suppose if Kurt is back on the bench with Cleamons it will be telling.

I think the key phrase is static.....Most teams that are static usually don't win. Green said it best after GS won last night. He said we are at our best when everybody touches the ball, and we have balance scoring. And he said he was the key player to help get that ball movement going. When Green scores or takes 20 plus shots, they don't win......But in his own words, when he's facilitating more and shooting less, they win more. Thats all the triangle is trying to do, create more touches and prevent players from being stagnant. GS may or may not run the triangle, but I know they are not static. OKC's problem for years was too much KD and Westbrook on offense, which made others just stand around and watch.....Melo's iso ball was great for Melo, but made others stand around and watch. That might win a few games, but it doesn't win championships. There are other systems that creates movement, but Phil knows the triangle more than any other system. This new coach promotes ball and people movement as well, which fits perfect in Phil Triangle philosophy.

blkexec wrote:

nixluva wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great read. He was wrong about a 3pt shooting team winning a championship but the road to the Chip for GSW was thru teams whose guards got hurt and teams that were not dominant in the post.
in 2012 he could not have forseen the evolution of Curry and paired with Thompson formed perhaps the best back court in NBA history.
He was correct to describe PHX inability to win it all, and of course HIS LAKERS with Pau and Bynum had great success against PHX. That was his perspective and that was 2012 it was written.

We'll see if Hornacek will implement the triangle. I suppose if Kurt is back on the bench with Cleamons it will be telling.

I think the key phrase is static.....Most teams that are static usually don't win. Green said it best after GS won last night. He said we are at our best when everybody touches the ball, and we have balance scoring. And he said he was the key player to help get that ball movement going. When Green scores or takes 20 plus shots, they don't win......But in his own words, when he's facilitating more and shooting less, they win more. Thats all the triangle is trying to do, create more touches and prevent players from being stagnant. GS may or may not run the triangle, but I know they are not static. OKC's problem for years was too much KD and Westbrook on offense, which made others just stand around and watch.....Melo's iso ball was great for Melo, but made others stand around and watch. That might win a few games, but it doesn't win championships. There are other systems that creates movement, but Phil knows the triangle more than any other system. This new coach promotes ball and people movement as well, which fits perfect in Phil Triangle philosophy.

YUP! This is why Phil said it doesn't have to be the Triangle as long as it's a system of ball and player movement. It's going to be very interesting to see how they decide to proceed. Will it be Triangle or a mix or Jeff's system alone? Either way Jeff and Phil will be on the same page or else I doubt Jeff gets the job. He can't have another Fish deal where he thought they were on the same page but Fish actually had other ideas.

I don't think Fish was either ready to be a head coach, or maybe he's more of an assistant coach. I think Fisher would be a great assistant or player development coach, where he can concentrate on individual player development rather than the overall system philosophy.

I must say that I never saw that coming and likely Phil didn't either. Fish presented himself in a totally different manner. Dude was fake. Kind of reminds me of a preacher that is pretending to be all upstanding and then you find out he's screwing the young girls in the church and taking money etc. That's the vibe Fish kind of gives me after what went down.

blkexec wrote:

nixluva wrote:

blkexec wrote:

nixluva wrote:

blkexec wrote:

Nalod wrote:Great read. He was wrong about a 3pt shooting team winning a championship but the road to the Chip for GSW was thru teams whose guards got hurt and teams that were not dominant in the post.
in 2012 he could not have forseen the evolution of Curry and paired with Thompson formed perhaps the best back court in NBA history.
He was correct to describe PHX inability to win it all, and of course HIS LAKERS with Pau and Bynum had great success against PHX. That was his perspective and that was 2012 it was written.

We'll see if Hornacek will implement the triangle. I suppose if Kurt is back on the bench with Cleamons it will be telling.

I think the key phrase is static.....Most teams that are static usually don't win. Green said it best after GS won last night. He said we are at our best when everybody touches the ball, and we have balance scoring. And he said he was the key player to help get that ball movement going. When Green scores or takes 20 plus shots, they don't win......But in his own words, when he's facilitating more and shooting less, they win more. Thats all the triangle is trying to do, create more touches and prevent players from being stagnant. GS may or may not run the triangle, but I know they are not static. OKC's problem for years was too much KD and Westbrook on offense, which made others just stand around and watch.....Melo's iso ball was great for Melo, but made others stand around and watch. That might win a few games, but it doesn't win championships. There are other systems that creates movement, but Phil knows the triangle more than any other system. This new coach promotes ball and people movement as well, which fits perfect in Phil Triangle philosophy.

YUP! This is why Phil said it doesn't have to be the Triangle as long as it's a system of ball and player movement. It's going to be very interesting to see how they decide to proceed. Will it be Triangle or a mix or Jeff's system alone? Either way Jeff and Phil will be on the same page or else I doubt Jeff gets the job. He can't have another Fish deal where he thought they were on the same page but Fish actually had other ideas.

I don't think Fish was either ready to be a head coach, or maybe he's more of an assistant coach. I think Fisher would be a great assistant or player development coach, where he can concentrate on individual player development rather than the overall system philosophy.

I actually think his main issue was being self absorbed. He made some really poor choices that smacked of being selfish and somewhat immature, which is strange considering his age. I think Phil had an idea of taking a natural leader and communicator and molding him, but Fish was too KOCKY. That hubris was his downfall. Made him think he could slip away to hook up with his girl at a critical time where he should've been focused on the team. His being dismissive of Phil and the assistants he provided was another sign of this.

I must say that I never saw that coming and likely Phil didn't either. Fish presented himself in a totally different manner. Dude was fake. Kind of reminds me of a preacher that is pretending to be all upstanding and then you find out he's screwing the young girls in the church and taking money etc. That's the vibe Fish kind of gives me after what went down.

I agree for the most part, not sure about the preacher example, but I understand where you're going. I agree, I thought highly of Fisher and said he's a natural leader as well. I also thought highly of Larry Brown and thought he would be the savior, but we all know how that ended.

NY is a tricky place to win these days. You have to be squeaky clean and Fisher clearly had other demons he was wrestling with before he took the Knicks job. But isn't that the case for all human beings? We all have skeletons in the closet. When it comes down to it, if you are not producing immediate wins in NYC, with our long standing history of losing, and high representation of being the MECCA of basketball, NY has a way of chewing you up and spitting you out. So far thats all we've been doing since the Ewing and VanGundy era. Winning is the only cure, from what I can see, regardless of your background or history. If Fisher was winning on the court and winning with the ladies, he would still be the coach of the knicks. Thats just life.....whether it's right or wrong.

Yeah. Phil was willing to put up with Fish as long as the team was doing well. When you act up and you're losing that's not a good combination. I think this time it could be a good match with Jeff. He got a raw deal in PHX IMO. Kind of reminds me of MDA here. They never really gave him a stable situation here in NY with the PG he needed. I believe Jeff will have Phil's FULL support going forward. If they're both on the same page as I suspect this could be a really good turning point for this team.