knowing our luck, it wouldnt surprise me if the knicks fall from 2nd in the lottery to 4th or 5th. smh
anyway, my question is: do PGs work in the triangle. Right now Russell and Mudiay are considered the best prospects. I love what i see from Russell (besides the fact that he rarely goes right and average defense) and Mudiay (who i cant really comment on sine i havent seen him play - but folks compare him to Westbrook). Lets say they're available for the knicks to pick. Do their strengths benefit the Triangle offense (and vice versa)? The triangle is post (high post and low post) oriented. yes it has some pick and roll action but not alot. other teams use this "pace and space" concept with fast movement and PNRs; yet the knicks are the opposite.
we need to pick a player that is the best player.
we need to forget about Melo and the triangle ... who knows if either is going to be around in 2 years.
i agree wholeheartedly that i dont care about Melo. but the reality is we do run the triangle and phil/fisher seem adamant about keeping it that way
As far as the triangle is concerned, both top PGs are great fits because of their size and skill.
IMO A great player with high BB IQ, skills, talent and the right mentality will be able to be successful in the Triangle. It is true that we don't need a ball dominant PG, but a combo guard that has good passing skills and can shoot and drive is very much a good fit. You really want all of your players to be able to pass at a high level and be willing passers. You want players that can function without the ball. Russell is a better fit IMO mainly because he can catch and shoot as well as pass and move without the ball. Mudiay wouldn't really have the shooting you want but at least he is a strong penetrator and passer. Phil could make it work with either one but I think he'd probably prefer Russell. That's just a guess.
It may not come down to this. It may happen that if we land #3 that maybe Phil trades with Philly to get another pick. I believe Philly wants Russell and that could actually benefit the Knicks if Phil isn't high on Russell and wants to go after a couple of prospects.
we need a guy who can defend both backcourt positions. the idea of the triangle minimizes the type of orchestrating we associate with the term "point guard." if we draft a guy between 6'3" and 6'6" who can defend, is an elite athlete who prizes conditioning then knicks fans should be happy. we need a great defender in the backcourt and a defender in the frontcourt at a minimum.
whatever backcourt players are available in the draft should not be drafted for offense but for defense.
i definitely agree that we need a PG with size IQ, etc etc..my question is: does a prototypical PG fit? i like the term you use "orchestrating" - well the TRIANGLE orchestrates and takes the ball out of their hands. lets say this kid is good (russell or mudiay). the triangle would take the ball out of his hands. and at the very least, melo would demand the ball to be in HIS hands. Phil/fisher dont seem willing to bend or reorganize the offense for more dominant/PNR action
this is my concern with drafting a PG.
callmened wrote:i definitely agree that we need a PG with size IQ, etc etc..my question is: does a prototypical PG fit? i like the term you use "orchestrating" - well the TRIANGLE orchestrates and takes the ball out of their hands. lets say this kid is good (russell or mudiay). the triangle would take the ball out of his hands. and at the very least, melo would demand the ball to be in HIS hands. Phil/fisher dont seem willing to bend or reorganize the offense for more dominant/PNR actionthis is my concern with drafting a PG.
if the Knicks draft in the third spot and pass on Russel or Mudiay because of the triangle Phil should be fired. You draft best available and work your system with what you have.
knickscity wrote:callmened wrote:i definitely agree that we need a PG with size IQ, etc etc..my question is: does a prototypical PG fit? i like the term you use "orchestrating" - well the TRIANGLE orchestrates and takes the ball out of their hands. lets say this kid is good (russell or mudiay). the triangle would take the ball out of his hands. and at the very least, melo would demand the ball to be in HIS hands. Phil/fisher dont seem willing to bend or reorganize the offense for more dominant/PNR actionthis is my concern with drafting a PG.
if the Knicks draft in the third spot and pass on Russel or Mudiay because of the triangle Phil should be fired. You draft best available and work your system with what you have.
LOL. thats fair. and if the knicks ARE put in that situation; nothing should prevent them from taking a PG. my question is would we get THE MOST out of a PG
As i've said many times really what's most required is BB IQ and a willingness to move the ball early so that the offense works as it should which will create openings for that PG or whoever else is on the floor. Being able to be effective without the ball is a huge part of the Triangle, but even with that you still need a player or 2 who can make things happen with the ball in their hands. So it's not strictly a ball and player movement system. There's a component of individual talent you still need when the defense shuts down the Triangle motion and ball movement and the shot clock is running down. That's why Phil kept Melo. Not for Melo to turn into Lebron, but for Melo to be able to make something out of nothing when it's needed.
So if we did have a Pure PG he would still have to move the ball and move himself and the ball would come back to him where he could use his PG skills to create shots for himself and others. You just don't want the Rajon Rondo pound the ball most of the shot clock style of play. It's better to have players who are capable of playing without the ball as well as being able to distribute. A guard that can catch and shoot but also pass and drive is perfect. He doesn't have to be Jason Kidd with the ball or John Stockton.
i concur. do we know that russell and mudiay can play well off the ball? are they PURE PGs? i think theyre more scoring guards that are "willing" to pass; not actually pass first Rondo like PGs. and thats the new trend; these kids want to score first.
again, im not bashing any PG and i have no idea how these kids will do. if russell or mudiay is available as the best talent then you take them. im just raising my concern that a pass first PG or scoring PG might not do (as) well in a non-PNR offense like the triangle. i think its catered to wings and post men. all that past the ball stuff is rare - and thats what makes the warriors, spurs and atlanta so special. these PGs nowadays are ball dominant scoring PGs
dk7th wrote:we need a guy who can defend both backcourt positions. the idea of the triangle minimizes the type of orchestrating we associate with the term "point guard." if we draft a guy between 6'3" and 6'6" who can defend, is an elite athlete who prizes conditioning then knicks fans should be happy. we need a great defender in the backcourt and a defender in the frontcourt at a minimum.whatever backcourt players are available in the draft should not be drafted for offense but for defense.
like shumpert? Or at best Tony Allen?
We need players who have potential to be top offensive players and hopefully we can push them to play some defense.
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:we need a guy who can defend both backcourt positions. the idea of the triangle minimizes the type of orchestrating we associate with the term "point guard." if we draft a guy between 6'3" and 6'6" who can defend, is an elite athlete who prizes conditioning then knicks fans should be happy. we need a great defender in the backcourt and a defender in the frontcourt at a minimum.whatever backcourt players are available in the draft should not be drafted for offense but for defense.
like shumpert? Or at best Tony Allen?
We need players who have potential to be top offensive players and hopefully we can push them to play some defense.
i'd rather we get a jimmy butler sort and that to me is winslow. elite athletes who come to the pro game with a defensive attitude in place. guys who will excel in the playoffs.
dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:we need a guy who can defend both backcourt positions. the idea of the triangle minimizes the type of orchestrating we associate with the term "point guard." if we draft a guy between 6'3" and 6'6" who can defend, is an elite athlete who prizes conditioning then knicks fans should be happy. we need a great defender in the backcourt and a defender in the frontcourt at a minimum.whatever backcourt players are available in the draft should not be drafted for offense but for defense.
like shumpert? Or at best Tony Allen?
We need players who have potential to be top offensive players and hopefully we can push them to play some defense.
i'd rather we get a jimmy butler sort and that to me is winslow. elite athletes who come to the pro game with a defensive attitude in place. guys who will excel in the playoffs.
I would love jimmy butler but at this high, you need to draft for offense first and hope they the player is a decent defender. Not the other way around.
The NBA is different now and you need to be able to score or else you are predictable like the bulls.
If this was the 90's or even 10 years ago I would have agreed with you.
Tony Allens don't go high in the draft.
I like Winslow and maybe he can be that guy ... up to the scouts (scouting for the damn triangle). If it was up to me (who admits to know very little unlike others on this board who know everything about the draft), I would take Winslow at 4.
Are you saying that you would take him before Russell?
mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:mreinman wrote:dk7th wrote:we need a guy who can defend both backcourt positions. the idea of the triangle minimizes the type of orchestrating we associate with the term "point guard." if we draft a guy between 6'3" and 6'6" who can defend, is an elite athlete who prizes conditioning then knicks fans should be happy. we need a great defender in the backcourt and a defender in the frontcourt at a minimum.whatever backcourt players are available in the draft should not be drafted for offense but for defense.
like shumpert? Or at best Tony Allen?
We need players who have potential to be top offensive players and hopefully we can push them to play some defense.
i'd rather we get a jimmy butler sort and that to me is winslow. elite athletes who come to the pro game with a defensive attitude in place. guys who will excel in the playoffs.
I would love jimmy butler but at this high, you need to draft for offense first and hope they the player is a decent defender. Not the other way around.
The NBA is different now and you need to be able to score or else you are predictable like the bulls.
If this was the 90's or even 10 years ago I would have agreed with you.
Tony Allens don't go high in the draft.
I like Winslow and maybe he can be that guy ... up to the scouts (scouting for the damn triangle). If it was up to me (who admits to know very little unlike others on this board who know everything about the draft), I would take Winslow at 4.
Are you saying that you would take him before Russell?
yes. i hear what you say about how the game has changed but the deeper you go into the playoffs the more a team needs guys who can get stops. i am sure i would be in the minority on that point. unlike you i think it is harder to get an offensive-minded player to become a great defender and it is easier for a good defender to develop an adequate offensive game.
it always comes down to a russell-chamberlain dichotomy and i go with russell every time.
You need offensive talent. Poor offensive teams don't fare as well as offensive teams in today's league. You can coach up a good defensive system and get average defenders to commit. You can't make offense appear out of nowhere.
tj23 wrote:You need offensive talent. Poor offensive teams don't fare as well as offensive teams in today's league. You can coach up a good defensive system and get average defenders to commit. You can't make offense appear out of nowhere.
Completely Agree!
Imo, the great thing about Russell is that you can use him like Kobe or Jordan because of his size, length, scoring, and shooting abilities. Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, were also throwing dimes too. Positions are suppose to be interchangeable in the triangle.
Also, Russell is a pretty good on ball defender and plays the passing lane well he just needs someone to hold him accountable.
Ad for Mudiay, a john Wall/Tyreke Evans would be suffocated in the triangle because of the player's inability to space the floor. Fundamentally, the triangle is about spacing
yellowboy90 wrote:Imo, the great thing about Russell is that you can use him like Kobe or Jordan because of his size, length, scoring, and shooting abilities. Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, were also throwing dimes too. Positions are suppose to be interchangeable in the triangle.Also, Russell is a pretty good on ball defender and plays the passing lane well he just needs someone to hold him accountable.
Ad for Mudiay, a john Wall/Tyreke Evans would be suffocated in the triangle because of the player's inability to space the floor. Fundamentally, the triangle is about spacing
Spacing is important i agree, but Phil emphasized the importance of penetration first and foremost. Let's be honest, when chicago had Jordan, Pippen, Harper, Rodman, etc, none of them were great 3-point shooters. I would prefer a shooter, which is why i rate Russell slightly higher than Mudiay, but i can see based on Phil's want of penetration and defensive potential, him preferring Mudiay at the 3rd or 4th spot.
