nixluva wrote:Lebron is a singularly ALL TIME GREAT player and you can't use his team as a reference for anything. We aren't likely to add a plyaer like Lebron who is a generational great. It's also hard to duplicate exactly what the Warriors have. You can hope but it's really hard to be that fortunate to gather that kind of talent. The Knicks have to follow their own path to building a Contender. That path isn't as easy to see at this stage but hopefully it becomes clearer as we move along in this process of building a new team. We have young Core players that we have to allow time to fully develop. There's no cheating on that.
To contend team needs structure in the first place. Whatever it is.
Prepare the puzzle and then place the pieces in one by one for as long as it takes.
Instead Knicks 20 years throwing the darts and shuffling the deck gambling time and fans patience away.
Time to stop gambling and start working. Boring... I know.
But nothing great or even good can be done without hard work and taking time.
arkrud wrote:nixluva wrote:Lebron is a singularly ALL TIME GREAT player and you can't use his team as a reference for anything. We aren't likely to add a plyaer like Lebron who is a generational great. It's also hard to duplicate exactly what the Warriors have. You can hope but it's really hard to be that fortunate to gather that kind of talent. The Knicks have to follow their own path to building a Contender. That path isn't as easy to see at this stage but hopefully it becomes clearer as we move along in this process of building a new team. We have young Core players that we have to allow time to fully develop. There's no cheating on that.
To contend team needs structure in the first place. Whatever it is.
Prepare the puzzle and then place the pieces in one by one for as long as it takes.
Instead Knicks 20 years throwing the darts and shuffling the deck gambling time and fans patience away.
Time to stop gambling and start working. Boring... I know.
But nothing great or even good can be done without hard work and taking time.
In the cavs case, three #1 overall picks in a 4 year span helped a little.
CrushAlot wrote:arkrud wrote:nixluva wrote:Lebron is a singularly ALL TIME GREAT player and you can't use his team as a reference for anything. We aren't likely to add a plyaer like Lebron who is a generational great. It's also hard to duplicate exactly what the Warriors have. You can hope but it's really hard to be that fortunate to gather that kind of talent. The Knicks have to follow their own path to building a Contender. That path isn't as easy to see at this stage but hopefully it becomes clearer as we move along in this process of building a new team. We have young Core players that we have to allow time to fully develop. There's no cheating on that.
To contend team needs structure in the first place. Whatever it is.
Prepare the puzzle and then place the pieces in one by one for as long as it takes.
Instead Knicks 20 years throwing the darts and shuffling the deck gambling time and fans patience away.
Time to stop gambling and start working. Boring... I know.
But nothing great or even good can be done without hard work and taking time.
In the cavs case, three #1 overall picks in a 4 year span helped a little.
The time when NBA team was able to build the contender without scouting, D-league, and draft is long gone.
All of it and more is needed to build a winning product.
Knicks are at the bottom of the mountain and hopefully it will not turn into the hill again this time.
BRIGGS wrote:there is no defense in the nBA that can handle their respective offenses. Either score more or hope they miss. Thats why you cant build a team centered around defense.
You win NBA playoff basketball by
1) Be healthy
2) Win matchup battles ( the Heat could not stop JJ Barea of the Mavericks, you don't have to be an All Star to cause a matchup havoc)
3) Rim protection
4) Elite wing defense
5) Ball security
6) Maximizing each possession with efficiency
7) Hit the 3 point shot at an above average rate
8) Ability to convert the last 5-3 seconds of the shot clock into a score consistently
9) Not having the refs job you and your team because the marketing "narrative" dictates that the league wants some other team to win more than you
Team building is a script that nearly writes itself in the modern NBA if you follow basic marketplace convention. Meaning you take best player available and only when you are in a situation like the Warriors do you draft for need ( i.e. grabbing someone like McCaw in the draft)
When you take BPA, you play to your strengths on your roster.
If the best "value" is to get defenders and that's the best roster you can assemble, then you roll with that.
It's not like the Warriors said, our blueprint is lets get a historic level long range shooter. They drafted, they took the guy they thought was best on the board and rolled with it.
This is NOT the NFL and not MLB, the talent pool is way way too thin and there are too few personnel moves relatively to have teams openly dictate a specific kind of path to team building. Yes, if you hold to market convention and "value", then the decision almost make themselves. But that's less about making a specific direction versus simply taking the path that garners the best odds in the current marketplace.
At the Sloan Sports Conference in Houston, someone was interviewed and laughed when the "OKC team building" model was discussed. The response was do you think OKC could mapped or planned any of that out?
This is where the criticism of the Triangle takes full measure. The talent pool is too thin to be dogmatic about any system ( The Warriors run a hybrid offensive style - the only tenet that they hold to is moving the ball and taking what the defense gives you)
Until the league adopts widespread and general non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap, team building is rarely about choices and more about taking the path of least resistance.
It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!
In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
No! The starters didn't fit or buy in to the Team Concept. However, the younger players did buy in and actually showed they could execute the offense. Now Phil can move forward and add Frontline talent to the mix. The majority of the team will be Triangle capable and young enough to build for the future.
It's going to be very important to make the right decisions from here on. Phil is pretty clear on what he's looking for. He's going to key on 2 Way players with Frontline Talent.
“I like the backbone of what we have,’’ Jackson added later in the session. “You can see what we’ve got. Guys like Ron [Baker] and Chasson [Randle] and Willy Hernangomez, and the kids we’re bringing into this organization have a certain sense of how to play in the structure, the way we want to play.“I think we’re moving in that direction. It’s not fast enough, obviously to carry the day, but I think we’re going to get there.’’
What fans should expect to see out of the Knicks next season: “Playing hard like we played the last five, six games. Guys getting up into people, playing hard, pick up full court at times. You know, ball movement, activity instead of standing. Those type of things. That’s what they’re going to see more of.’’
knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
Like you trolling to make posts into anti Triangle dot connects?
Jesus Briggs - some of your posts are just odd. You are talking about to 2 top teams in the league and comparing them to our bottom feeding, dysfunctional group of misfits who were lead by a ball hogging, no D playing, no movement, no passing washed up star.
I mean come on man -- it will be 3 years minimum until we can even think about comparing the Knicks to any elite teams.
Everything in basketball is connected...when you can't stop the other team it makes your offense harder to come by against set defenses...when your offense sucks it stresses your D.
Bottom line the Knicks should not be compared to anybody until we remove the cancer and get some young talent in the door.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:there is no defense in the nBA that can handle their respective offenses. Either score more or hope they miss. Thats why you cant build a team centered around defense.
You win NBA playoff basketball by
1) Be healthy
2) Win matchup battles ( the Heat could not stop JJ Barea of the Mavericks, you don't have to be an All Star to cause a matchup havoc)
3) Rim protection
4) Elite wing defense
5) Ball security
6) Maximizing each possession with efficiency
7) Hit the 3 point shot at an above average rate
8) Ability to convert the last 5-3 seconds of the shot clock into a score consistently
9) Not having the refs job you and your team because the marketing "narrative" dictates that the league wants some other team to win more than you
Team building is a script that nearly writes itself in the modern NBA if you follow basic marketplace convention. Meaning you take best player available and only when you are in a situation like the Warriors do you draft for need ( i.e. grabbing someone like McCaw in the draft)
When you take BPA, you play to your strengths on your roster.
If the best "value" is to get defenders and that's the best roster you can assemble, then you roll with that.
It's not like the Warriors said, our blueprint is lets get a historic level long range shooter. They drafted, they took the guy they thought was best on the board and rolled with it.
This is NOT the NFL and not MLB, the talent pool is way way too thin and there are too few personnel moves relatively to have teams openly dictate a specific kind of path to team building. Yes, if you hold to market convention and "value", then the decision almost make themselves. But that's less about making a specific direction versus simply taking the path that garners the best odds in the current marketplace.
At the Sloan Sports Conference in Houston, someone was interviewed and laughed when the "OKC team building" model was discussed. The response was do you think OKC could mapped or planned any of that out?
This is where the criticism of the Triangle takes full measure. The talent pool is too thin to be dogmatic about any system ( The Warriors run a hybrid offensive style - the only tenet that they hold to is moving the ball and taking what the defense gives you)
Until the league adopts widespread and general non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap, team building is rarely about choices and more about taking the path of least resistance.
You win NBA playoff basketball by
Scoring above 115 points--period. Everything else is jibber.
BRIGGS wrote:Scoring above 115 points--period. Everything else is jibber.
It's jibber to you because you are ignorant regarding the actual NBA marketplace environment.
There is nothing wrong with "being ignorant". Lots of people just don't know things about lots of subjects.
There is something wrong with "staying ignorant" You dismiss things you don't like or don't understand. I guess it's tolerated because you create discussion, or maybe you just buy a lot of free beers for the right people at the right times, I don't know.
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Like nixluva, you'd actually learn something if you shut up more and listened instead of just waiting to validate yourself.
The context in which a team scores is just as important as the final scoreboard and stats involved. Of course that's using logic and reason and you don't care about any of that, you care about how it makes you feel. Newsflash Briggs, when you demand the Knicks trade away their future picks for some random guy who had a good stretch of 2 games in college, that's all just about validating how you feel at the time and place, until the next time you feel something different.
There's an entire group that behaves like this all the time. They are called women.
Being ignorant is a part of life.
Staying ignorant is actually pretty tragic if you think about it
Acting like a woman is just pathetic
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Actually try to answer that in the context of the actual NBA marketplace environment and then maybe you'd actually learn something.
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Scoring above 115 points--period. Everything else is jibber.
It's jibber to you because you are ignorant regarding the actual NBA marketplace environment.
There is nothing wrong with "being ignorant". Lots of people just don't know things about lots of subjects.
There is something wrong with "staying ignorant" You dismiss things you don't like or don't understand. I guess it's tolerated because you create discussion, or maybe you just buy a lot of free beers for the right people at the right times, I don't know.
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Like nixluva, you'd actually learn something if you shut up more and listened instead of just waiting to validate yourself.
The context in which a team scores is just as important as the final scoreboard and stats involved. Of course that's using logic and reason and you don't care about any of that, you care about how it makes you feel. Newsflash Briggs, when you demand the Knicks trade away their future picks for some random guy who had a good stretch of 2 games in college, that's all just about validating how you feel at the time and place, until the next time you feel something different.
There's an entire group that behaves like this all the time. They are called women.
Being ignorant is a part of life.
Staying ignorant is actually pretty tragic if you think about it
Acting like a woman is just pathetic
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Actually try to answer that in the context of the actual NBA marketplace environment and then maybe you'd actually learn something.
Numbers aren't ignorant--they state fact.
There has been 15 games played in the semi finals. 11 of those wins constitutde a team scoring atleast 115 points and the average point total of all 15 games is 117.1. The differentials are off the charts in almost every game--there has been ONE close game in 15 of them--all others are huge differential. These games have not been close. The winning number avg in rd one was 109.6 which is still a BIG number but I like the semi final stats better--best teams with a good distributed sample size. There is absolutely undeniable evidence--if you dont score 115 on avg--you do not win.
The Utah Jazz--the top defensive team in the NBA held team under 97 a game all year. Theyve been able to hold GS to an avg of 108 BUT they cant score the 110-115 in order to WIN. Numbers dont lie--you're not going to avg 98-106 points and win 4 games in 4 series. You have to be abel to get that number 10% higher at a MINIMUM. Thr 98-106 is what the LOSING team scores
TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Scoring above 115 points--period. Everything else is jibber.
It's jibber to you because you are ignorant regarding the actual NBA marketplace environment.
There is nothing wrong with "being ignorant". Lots of people just don't know things about lots of subjects.
There is something wrong with "staying ignorant" You dismiss things you don't like or don't understand. I guess it's tolerated because you create discussion, or maybe you just buy a lot of free beers for the right people at the right times, I don't know.
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Like nixluva, you'd actually learn something if you shut up more and listened instead of just waiting to validate yourself.
The context in which a team scores is just as important as the final scoreboard and stats involved. Of course that's using logic and reason and you don't care about any of that, you care about how it makes you feel. Newsflash Briggs, when you demand the Knicks trade away their future picks for some random guy who had a good stretch of 2 games in college, that's all just about validating how you feel at the time and place, until the next time you feel something different.
There's an entire group that behaves like this all the time. They are called women.
Being ignorant is a part of life.
Staying ignorant is actually pretty tragic if you think about it
Acting like a woman is just pathetic
What happens when your mythical team scores 115 points but gives up 130 to the other team on the floor?
Actually try to answer that in the context of the actual NBA marketplace environment and then maybe you'd actually learn something.
But Briggs, our team was capable of scoring 115. We're in the lottery because we couldn't stop anyone.
I don't think you can say, just be able to score 115 a nite - I bet the Nets did that too.
I think I'm missing your point entirely.
TripleThreat wrote:
Like nixluva, you'd actually learn something if you shut up more and listened instead of just waiting to validate yourself.
This is the kind of crap that makes people get into nasty fights. I don't see you responding to anything specific that I said so why are you insulting me for no reason? You seem to think your points are infallible but they aren't. Everyone has their view on things and the discussions of ideas is how we argue our points. This kind of random attack on me simply wasn't called for. You add a lot to the conversation on this forum but you really don't need make unwarranted comments like this to further your points.
I think the point that Briggs is trying to make and failing :) is that we need our team to score 115 points but still play solid D, doesn't have to be top notch. but top 10 would be nice.
Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
Like you trolling to make posts into anti Triangle dot connects?
look dude this is not trolling, I would say the same thing if this was MDA system and rose was his pg..not a good fit
knicks1248 wrote:Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
Like you trolling to make posts into anti Triangle dot connects?
look dude this is not trolling, I would say the same thing if this was MDA system and rose was his pg..not a good fit
When has any team succeeded without the right kind of talent playing any type of ball?
BRIGGS wrote:TripleThreat wrote:BRIGGS wrote:there is no defense in the nBA that can handle their respective offenses. Either score more or hope they miss. Thats why you cant build a team centered around defense.
You win NBA playoff basketball by
1) Be healthy
2) Win matchup battles ( the Heat could not stop JJ Barea of the Mavericks, you don't have to be an All Star to cause a matchup havoc)
3) Rim protection
4) Elite wing defense
5) Ball security
6) Maximizing each possession with efficiency
7) Hit the 3 point shot at an above average rate
8) Ability to convert the last 5-3 seconds of the shot clock into a score consistently
9) Not having the refs job you and your team because the marketing "narrative" dictates that the league wants some other team to win more than you
Team building is a script that nearly writes itself in the modern NBA if you follow basic marketplace convention. Meaning you take best player available and only when you are in a situation like the Warriors do you draft for need ( i.e. grabbing someone like McCaw in the draft)
When you take BPA, you play to your strengths on your roster.
If the best "value" is to get defenders and that's the best roster you can assemble, then you roll with that.
It's not like the Warriors said, our blueprint is lets get a historic level long range shooter. They drafted, they took the guy they thought was best on the board and rolled with it.
This is NOT the NFL and not MLB, the talent pool is way way too thin and there are too few personnel moves relatively to have teams openly dictate a specific kind of path to team building. Yes, if you hold to market convention and "value", then the decision almost make themselves. But that's less about making a specific direction versus simply taking the path that garners the best odds in the current marketplace.
At the Sloan Sports Conference in Houston, someone was interviewed and laughed when the "OKC team building" model was discussed. The response was do you think OKC could mapped or planned any of that out?
This is where the criticism of the Triangle takes full measure. The talent pool is too thin to be dogmatic about any system ( The Warriors run a hybrid offensive style - the only tenet that they hold to is moving the ball and taking what the defense gives you)
Until the league adopts widespread and general non guaranteed contracts and a hard cap, team building is rarely about choices and more about taking the path of least resistance.
You win NBA playoff basketball by
Scoring above 115 points--period. Everything else is jibber.
So if you score 115 and the other team scores 116, you still win.
Wonderful.
Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
Like you trolling to make posts into anti Triangle dot connects?
look dude this is not trolling, I would say the same thing if this was MDA system and rose was his pg..not a good fit
When has any team succeeded without the right kind of talent playing any type of ball?
yeah but do you continue to run it with out the right personnel.. A good coach would make some adjustments according to what he has to work with..
knicks1248 wrote:Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Nalod wrote:knicks1248 wrote:nixluva wrote:It's a Chicken or Egg type argument. If you build towards a set of Principles ie High BBIQ, Team Oriented 2Way players then you will be building a roster that can function playing just about any winning style of basketball. Phil ran the Triangle with so many different rosters and basically forced it onto the players he inherited. Of Course he made adjustments to how he ran the system in order to take advantage of his talent so IMO this argument that you can't build with the Triangle or any system in mind is not a proven fact!!!In point of fact MANY NBA teams are trying to shoehorn their rosters into playing a style they are not equipped to play. Evidence is that many teams are trying to play Modern Styled offense predicated on 3's and at the basket scoring but they don't really have the talent to win that way. 5 of the top 10 3 point attempt teams are not playoff teams. Should they be trying to force this style on a roster ill equipped to win playing that way? It seems to me that you could make an argument that MANY NBA teams are in fact doing just what Phil is doing only they are running with the pack in the current FAD style of play.
Rk Team G MP FG FGA FG% 3P 3PA▼ 3P%
1 Houston Rockets* 82 241.2 40.3 87.2 .462 14.4 40.3 .357
2 Cleveland Cavaliers* 82 242.4 39.9 84.9 .470 13.0 33.9 .384
3 Boston Celtics* 82 240.9 38.6 85.1 .454 12.0 33.4 .359
4 Brooklyn Nets 82 240.9 37.8 85.2 .444 10.7 31.6 .338
5 Golden State Warriors* 82 241.2 43.1 87.1 .495 12.0 31.3 .383
6 Dallas Mavericks 82 241.2 36.2 82.3 .440 10.7 30.2 .355
7 Philadelphia 76ers 82 241.8 37.7 85.3 .442 10.1 29.8 .340
8 Denver Nuggets 82 240.9 41.2 87.7 .469 10.6 28.8 .368
9 Charlotte Hornets 82 241.8 37.7 85.4 .442 10.0 28.6 .351
10 Portland Trail Blazers* 82 243.0 39.5 86.1 .459 10.4 27.7 .375
Like the knicks the knicks trying to play the triangle with the right kind of talent
Like you trolling to make posts into anti Triangle dot connects?
look dude this is not trolling, I would say the same thing if this was MDA system and rose was his pg..not a good fit
When has any team succeeded without the right kind of talent playing any type of ball?
yeah but do you continue to run it with out the right personnel.. A good coach would make some adjustments according to what he has to work with..
Jeff tried to make adjustments but in the end he had more success reaching the kids. Jeff is NOT the problem. Give him some quality 2 Way perimeter players and Jeff will make it work.
