To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.
Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
except the Spurs who run the most efficient and slowest offense in the league. As you use the phrase "every other top pro" so often maybe you should add an asterik to say this comment excludes the Spurs
fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
except the Spurs who run the most efficient and slowest offense in the league. As you use the phrase "every other top pro" so often maybe you should add an asterik to say this comment excludes the Spurs
the spurs run loads of PnR and 4 out as well. And yes, the spurs run this offense because they have some old and slow (but still good) personnel. They adjusted to their personnel which is great.
JVG had a great take on this as to why they run the offense that they run (interview with zach lowe).
You certainly have to adjust to your personnel if they are worth adjusting for. Al Jefferson was not good enough for Charlotte to stay with this slow and crowded offense. So they basically ditched it and ditched Al and they were miles better off.
Memphis is also not stuck in no mans land where they slow bigs are no longer good enough to overcome they lack of spacing and spread.
Memphis has been a pretty damn good team last 5 years playing slow.
You love to run Al Jefferson's name out there as "the old way doesnt work" posterboy. I dont really get it. There are more ways to win NBA games than spreading 4 and taking 25 threes a game.
Hows Aldridge looking?
Im enjoying watching Harden struggle as nobody has a most disgusting game than he does... maybe he can be a great FIBA soccer player but his basketball is not watchable. I would rather watch the 90s KNicks grind out 90 ppg.
fishmike wrote:Memphis has been a pretty damn good team last 5 years playing slow.You love to run Al Jefferson's name out there as "the old way doesnt work" posterboy. I dont really get it. There are more ways to win NBA games than spreading 4 and taking 25 threes a game.
Hows Aldridge looking?
Im enjoying watching Harden struggle as nobody has a most disgusting game than he does... maybe he can be a great FIBA soccer player but his basketball is not watchable. I would rather watch the 90s KNicks grind out 90 ppg.
its not about what you find enjoyable and as I said, not every system is for everyone. There are exception based on personnel but they better be damn well worth it. There are not going to be many San Antonios going forward.
mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Memphis has been a pretty damn good team last 5 years playing slow.You love to run Al Jefferson's name out there as "the old way doesnt work" posterboy. I dont really get it. There are more ways to win NBA games than spreading 4 and taking 25 threes a game.
Hows Aldridge looking?
Im enjoying watching Harden struggle as nobody has a most disgusting game than he does... maybe he can be a great FIBA soccer player but his basketball is not watchable. I would rather watch the 90s KNicks grind out 90 ppg.
its not about what you find enjoyable and as I said, not every system is for everyone. There are exception based on personnel but they better be damn well worth it. There are not going to be many San Antonios going forward.
Nor will there be many GS teams either. Spurs are an elite team and have been for like 30 years. Both teams are elite and have an established core.
The change in the league is easy to see. If you have a skilled big than good for you. Super athletic guys who are 6'10 and taller are very rare. However 6'5 guys are more common. Because the talent pool for smaller players is so much larger you can get more better players. When MDA played Boris Diaw at center folks scoffed. When they won 50+ (with no Amare) something changed... teams stopped forcing themselves to match size over talent and shifted to talent over size.
That being said quality is quality.. Marc Gasol is a great NBA player having a down year. Al Jefferson is not a great NBA and never has been. He's good. Some nights he can destroy you and others he will be lost. Its matchups. Talent still trumps, and talent with size REALLY trumps.
mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.
Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?
fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:Memphis has been a pretty damn good team last 5 years playing slow.You love to run Al Jefferson's name out there as "the old way doesnt work" posterboy. I dont really get it. There are more ways to win NBA games than spreading 4 and taking 25 threes a game.
Hows Aldridge looking?
Im enjoying watching Harden struggle as nobody has a most disgusting game than he does... maybe he can be a great FIBA soccer player but his basketball is not watchable. I would rather watch the 90s KNicks grind out 90 ppg.
its not about what you find enjoyable and as I said, not every system is for everyone. There are exception based on personnel but they better be damn well worth it. There are not going to be many San Antonios going forward.
Nor will there be many GS teams either. Spurs are an elite team and have been for like 30 years. Both teams are elite and have an established core.The change in the league is easy to see. If you have a skilled big than good for you. Super athletic guys who are 6'10 and taller are very rare. However 6'5 guys are more common. Because the talent pool for smaller players is so much larger you can get more better players. When MDA played Boris Diaw at center folks scoffed. When they won 50+ (with no Amare) something changed... teams stopped forcing themselves to match size over talent and shifted to talent over size.
That being said quality is quality.. Marc Gasol is a great NBA player having a down year. Al Jefferson is not a great NBA and never has been. He's good. Some nights he can destroy you and others he will be lost. Its matchups. Talent still trumps, and talent with size REALLY trumps.
there are many 6 10 stretch players already and they are all now being groomed this way. Gonna be more rare going forward to have bigs who can't stretch the floor.
DJordan's will still have great value but if you are that type of player you better be dominating.
GS has their PF running point. The game has changed with bigs. Look at the way Milsap and Horford now play.
Again, you are arguing about something that has happened already. If you don't agree with it, that is your right.
I do think that your system should be based on the personnel that you have and not the other way around.
martin wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.
Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?
Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.
The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.
It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.
Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.
Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.
By this same logic, we should've just hired 7 time champion Robert Horry as head coach instead Barnes bit...I mean Derek Fisher.
mreinman wrote:fishmike wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
except the Spurs who run the most efficient and slowest offense in the league. As you use the phrase "every other top pro" so often maybe you should add an asterik to say this comment excludes the Spurs
the spurs run loads of PnR and 4 out as well. And yes, the spurs run this offense because they have some old and slow (but still good) personnel. They adjusted to their personnel which is great.
JVG had a great take on this as to why they run the offense that they run (interview with zach lowe).
You certainly have to adjust to your personnel if they are worth adjusting for. Al Jefferson was not good enough for Charlotte to stay with this slow and crowded offense. So they basically ditched it and ditched Al and they were miles better off.
Memphis is also not stuck in no mans land where they slow bigs are no longer good enough to overcome they lack of spacing and spread.
Is that "not" or "now?"
Seems to make a difference.
Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
Good thread and unfortunately we actually do have some people on here that think they're smarter than the names you mentioned which is not only hilarious but absolutely ridiculous. Those guys have more basketball knowledge in their little pinkie finger than people on here does and in this case that's not just a saying but it's actually true. Hahahaha
We have a 7-3 dude that can spread the floor and do all these "modern" things.
Still need guys who can bang.
Did the "triangle" hamper the Lakers when Phil was coaching?
That Pau Gasol guy was pretty darn good. KP might be even better than him.
If some of you think this team is contending if we played a modern system that's laughable.
This is a team that is a work in progress, I expect a more ambitious schematic as the season prolongs, and thus "Failure at a higher level" is possible until the team starts to gel even more.
What does that mean, It means more effort and breakdown when fatigued trying to do something not done before as they master other things. Two steps backward taking 10 forward.
And all this while our back court is not that good. RoPez is not the reason we are not a top 4 team. In fact he would be a great off the bench player as would AA but the fact is we don't have better talent.
Im sure among the Bling Ring they are well aware of the trends in the league. Winning cultures know how to adapt, but they also know you need to have the fundamentals down and the talent to execute it.
mreinman wrote:martin wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.
Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?
Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.
The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.
It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.
Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.
Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.
This is not an adequate explanation, especially the bolded and unless you mistyped, it seems that you don't understand the triangle enough to make the comparison. Triangle is at least 3 in and 2 out? Here is the typical triangle formation:
I don't see 3 in and I see lots of space.
mreinman wrote:martin wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.
Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?
Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.
The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.
It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.
Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.
Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.
BTW, the best team over the past couple of decades - the Spurs - have a system that they fit players into. And the best coach over the past decades - Phil Jackson - did the same.
winning rings as a player doesn't necessarily translate to winning rings as a coach or even being a winning coach for that matter.
coaching is a different ball game from playing. just like preaching is different from coaching.
martin wrote:mreinman wrote:martin wrote:mreinman wrote:Nalod wrote:
To those who think they are smarter than Phil, Fish, Rambis and Cleamons remember the total for those four men have 36 rings among them.Phil has 13, one as a player, one as an injured player and 11 as a coach.
Cleamons has one as a player, 9 as assistant coach
Rambis has 4 as a player, and 4 as assistant coach.
Fish has 5 as a player.
So when you think you know more than them, think again. Its easy to second guess after the fact. Its easy to say what should have been done.
They will make mistakes for sure. All teams, even championship teams make them. This team has gone from laughingstock awful to respectable.
Not much but what does one expect after 35 games and 9 new players?
I can't tell you what they know or don't know, but they know "Winning". Basketball is a team sport and these men were part of organizations that won.
http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball...
we don't know more than Phil (obviously) but perhaps phil does not know better than every other top pro who are mostly running newer / more modern offenses based on todays game.
So I don't completely understand this statement. What is it about this newer, more modern offense that sets it apart from what the rest of the league is doing? Is this an automatic trend that is working for all the best teams or just a style of play that a few teams have latched onto because of their player makeup? Please explain.
Also, what discludes other styles from being dominant as is suggested by the premise?
Modern offenses being much more spread and mostly pg/PnR. A lot of MDA's ideas. This is definitely a trend.
The triangle seems to mostly have at least 3 in and 2 out while the spread is mostly 1 in and 4 out with non stop PnR.
It has more to do with spacing than speed and pace.
Look at all the big men who have started to spread out their game.
Any system can technically work if they have the right personnel for it. The question is what is the best system for most teams and should you be fitting the team into a system or the system into the team.
This is not an adequate explanation, especially the bolded and unless you mistyped, it seems that you don't understand the triangle enough to make the comparison. Triangle is at least 3 in and 2 out? Here is the typical triangle formation:
I don't see 3 in and I see lots of space.
sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.
When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)
When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.
Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.
One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.
Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.
mreinman wrote:sorry I flipped it. I meant 2 in and 3 out. But there is also constant cutting so very often you see 4 in.
So I think this is an over-generalization that can be said about any team at some point, unless you are strictly a 2-man game team like LeBron in the Finals. You advocating a iso, 2-man PnR system?
When we run the triangle, it certainly is much more crowded than it should be. Nix also sees this (see game threads)
Point?
When the triangle is run to perfection and has really dominant players I am sure that it is great. Is that the best system for the current NBA teams/players/skillset? Obviously most teams don't think so.
So this can be said of any system. The one thing about the Triangle is it makes smart players who are not often dominant talent-wise or physically into better players. Also, just because most teams don't run something doesn't make it right. Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?
Now of course Phil is not stupid. He is brilliant but he is also biased. How will he proceed? My guess is that he is going (to be forced) to go more and more PnR's with the PG and less and less with the (side) triangle. He seems to be doing it already and it would be nice to see much more as many are calling for.
Phil is not the coach, he is GM, so he is going to find more players that fit his system while upgrading talent in that system, that's the big picture takeaway.
One thing that is certain is that the triangle is much much harder to learn than the simple spread / pnr offenses that most are running and it still works really well.
Again, the most dominant coach over the past 2 decades ran something and won a crapload. The most dominant team over the past decades run a system and find players that run that system. Maybe all of the other teams need to get with the program?
Interesting that every time Rolo sets a good pick on top for Jose he gets a wide open look that he knocks down. Our personnel seem like bad triangle fits. Would love to see us implement systems and plays that fit our personnel.
Realistically, this is year 1 of the Triangle, you can't expect it to be perfect. Expect more Triangle next year, run more efficiently and with better talent.
Mreinman,
Fish, and its been repeated by phil in his books that it takes time to get it. Your suggesting the players picked for their Triangle'ness are are not so equipped and we should implement something else and that would yield a better result?
And that is? GSW uptempo run and gun? not with out shooters. We don't have that.
35 games is not nearly enough time. It might not happen at all this season. It happens. We are one win away from our win total from last year. Other than KP and Grant we don't have any bluechip additions. Rolo is very tradable in time if need be.
Basically Knicks might be just fine with being patient and only bringing in certain players who can potentially fill a need rather than talent upgrades because they are talent upgrades. The longer term prospective is what might drive decisions, not short term win totals. Really, if we give up the 7th pick, or the 10th pick does it really matter as Toronto has our pick? Is it not more important that we stick to a long term perspective of roster construction and teach it the right way? If we can really get Dwilliams to play "right", can he not be a valuable type Kwai Leonard type player for us???
