Nalod wrote:

CrushAlot wrote:

Nalod wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

fishmike wrote:

crzymdups wrote:I think it'd be possible to design an offensive system where Rose could have a plus contribution. If we're sticking with the Triangle, I'm not sure I see it working.

Also, I've been really disappointed at what bad court vision he has for passing. He just rarely looks to pass. He's found Willy a few times on the pick and roll, but otherwise, he barely moves the ball. He clearly doesn't understand the Triangle and would be better in a pick and roll offense.

That said, I had no idea he'd be so lethargic and terrible on D. It's like he has no bball IQ for defense, or just doesn't give a damn. I've seen so many plays where he starts to close out on a shooter, then seems to realize it's not his man, so he literally just stops closing out.

His complete lack of effort on D and the AWOL incident would make me extremely nervous about re-signing him. I'd prefer to just move on.

he's not a system guy, he's not a guy who makes other's better. He was very good being the only scorer on a team full of guys set up to defend and play roles. His prior MVP success is similar to Iverson, who essentially had a team tailored around his scoring. Considering how good Rose was it was an understandable direction to take the team on. Now for a team adding Rose? No... I am hearing Rondo type offers.. 2 years and $35mm give or take.

There are several roles Rose would look great in, none of them make sense for the Knicks. Including a bench scorer... Is Rose resigning here to be a bench scorer? No. Its going to have to be one of those "just move on" scenarios. A S&T would be great if we can get something back. Not holding my breath.

I actually agree with most of what you said. I just don't see a whole lot of better options, even the PG's in the draft, like none of them are playing in anything close to a triangle offense. you can't just throw any talented player in this system and think it's going to wrk, clearly this yr was evident of that

What is so unusual for a player to:

Play off the ball well.
Make good cuts.
Shoot from the outside.

What is so mystical about the triangle that there are no players who can do this?

I don't even think you need a pg. Phils teams had some, but they could shoot a long ball. You do need a guy who can handle a full court press from time to time.
Craig Hodges could shoot, not a great PG. BJ armstrong? Kerr? Paxton?
These were PHils pg's in Chicago.
He had Fish in LA.
Damn that Phil who keeps trying to build around an ambitious system!!!

I guess start with the top or second best two guard of all time, add one or two hofs and then get role players that fit with them.

Thats right, But he was not GOAT until he got Triangle! Look it up. Jordan was a great scoring guard with attitude. Kobe 3 years punk Jordan wannabe and very hard to coach.
Yes, great coaches need great players to run their system. Lots of teams over the years had great players and not win. They get to blame the coach. AKA, Gary Payton/Sean Kemp great Sonics team and George Karl. Utah did well with Sloan, but could not beat Bulls. Long list in history.

But never give Phil due being the all time winningist coach. Not on your agenda!

Stop it, man...MJ was putting up insane numbers and was a great defensive player WITHOUT the Triangle...MJ averaged 28 per in his rookie year and 37 per in his third year after he broke his leg in his second year..MJ took on the great Celtics in the playoffs and scored 63 in what was termed the Greatest Game ever BEFORE the Triangle...