possibly the worst offense ever created. What is the benefit to it? So that you have scrubs like Madsen touching the ball at the top of the key? The triangle gets a lot of hype, but I don't think it really had anything to do with the Bulls and Lakers titles. If anything, I think the triangle hinders an offense. When you have only 24 seconds for a possesion, why waste precious 5-6 seconds by having scrubs passing the ball around to each other? Throw the ball into Shaq ASAP. And give it to him inside. Why in the hell is Shaq getting half of his touches at the top of the key? Obviously, I'm a big Laker/Phil fan, but the triangle makes me scratch my head on every possesion.
Is it not the spacing of the triangle that gives Horry, Fox and George wide open looks? I'm no expert, but IMO "dumping" into Shaq is a two man game with 3 players weakside. Because the triangle has 3 players strong side and spaced well, it takes away many of the effective weakside doubles. At least that is how I understand the theory behind it. Having 3 players strong side also increases effective post entry passing angles.
Triangle does promote spacing somewhat. However, I think spacing can be achieved without giving the ball to Madsen, Shaw, etc. The triangle doesn't create open shots, as Shaq would get double teamed no matter what. My main beef is that the triangle puts the ball in the hands of guys who should never touch it. I also think that Kobe is the type of player who is much better suited in an isolation based offense, rather than a structured one. IMO, the Lakers should just use the Rockets vanilla offense from their title years. It might be plain, but at least Olajuwon got his touches every time. The triangle phases out Shaq too much.
kr8 - I can see where you could come to that conclusion of the Rockets/Dream offense but think about this. One of the aspects which made it effective was the number of moves and the mobility Olajuwon had in the post. Do you feel that at this point in his career Shaq is mobile enough? Shaq's best moves are power moves as opposed to fadeaway J's and baseline turnarounds. From a non-Laker fan, I think a lack of touches by Shaq is more due to Kobe ISO's as opposed to Madsen touches.
Actually Shaq also benefits a lot from the triangle offense. Apart from better spacing, the offense creates great entry passing angles to Shaq in the post, and lots of variation of three players' movement on the strong side helps to reset the post. The triangle offense is center-based and good for Shaq, and Shaq is the man.
There are too many possesions the Lakers waste when it takes them FOREVER to throw it inside to Shaq, because guys like Fox, Fisher, Horry, Madsen, hold onto the ball for way too long. Ideally, I would think Fisher or Kobe bring the ball up and dump it into Shaq with 13-15 seconds on the clock, rather than 6 or so. Too many of the Lakers possesions get stalled because of overpassing. By overpassing, I mean swinging the ball around to guys who aren't open, and not named Kobe or Shaq.
I think its funny how they call Phil Jackson the "Zen Master" when he has always had Tex Winters next to him.
I disagree. You have to give touches to the role players to get them into the game and prompt them to rebound and play defense. Lakers' role players lack ability to create their own shots. They need the triangle offense to give them shots. In the triangle offense, it almost creates a good and open shot every time. It's really a great offensive scheme. I also read that triangle offense actually helps the transition defense. That's why Lakers' role players could get away their slowness sometimes even when playing against great fastbreak teams of Mavs and Kings.
The prime benefit for a motion offense it that it tends to minimize how much guys stand around and wait for the guy with the ball to do something. I don't disagree with your analysis of the faults of the triangle. It would probably make more sense for a team with a bull like Shaq to run more of a traditional low post offense. I think it would make more sense for a team like the Rockets who have 'skill' big guys for the most part who can move and pass, and who might be more apt to capitalize on the positioning benifits caused by additional movement and activity. The bottom line, however, is that there is benifit to forcing movement in order to eliminate a passive mindset, at least in some cases. I agree that Phil Jackson is a pontificating putz. Walk into any artsy coffee shop near westheimer and montrose and you can see half a dozen self-importiant idiots pretending to think deep thoughts while stroking their goatees. The difference here is that most people in the NBA haven't spent alot of time around said coffee shops and so haven't figured out how full of hot air most of them are.
I fail to see how the triangle itself, gives open shots to the role players. Now, if you mean Kobe and Shaq drawing double teams, then yes. However, Kobe and Shaq will draw double teams no matter what offense you run. I don't think it's worth wasting 1/3rd to 1/2 of your possesions to get your role players "involved" by simply passing the ball to them, so that they can EVENTUALLY pass it down to Shaq or Kobe, with the shot clock running low.
What makes you think he's a putz? He's a master manipulator of refs and players. Coaching in the NBA is more manipulation than X's and O's, imo. Phil knows his limits, and that is why he lets his assistant coaches handle the X's and O's. If Phil was as egotistical as people say, he probably wouldn't have brought along most of the same staff he had in Chicago, just so he could prove that he is a one-man show.
I think the whole point of using the Triangle Offense is to promote ball movement and player movement (word to the Rockets). If you're going to dump it down low everytime, then what's the point in having role players around you? Of course, Shaq and Kobe can't be out there 48 mins, and if you're loaded with scrubs, the Tri-Off is the best chance you get to look for lapses in the defence for a possible cut to the hoop or screen for an open shot. kr8, the triangle gives players open looks on the basis that the defence MIGHT collapse onto either Shaq or Kobe with the double team, leaving a cutter on the strongside baseline, or freeing up someone (either SG or PF) at the top of the key. (I think I've remember that rotation correctly) It's better to let the scrubs get touches, get some time off the clock, let them feel involved in the game so that they would be compelled to at least rebound should your high % shooters (as in higher chance of scoring), i.e. Kobe or Shaq miss. Rather than, ball goes to shaq, scrubs feel left out - less desire to rebound, miss shot, defensive rebound --> opportunity for opposition to score comes earlier.
I guess that's where we disagree. I personally think the Lakers role players would STILL hustle, rebound, defend, etc even if they didn't get their "touches". Role players STILL have a role offensively, if the Lakers employed a Rockets' style offense from the days of Olajuwon. Teams would still double team Shaq right? Meaning there will be open shooters anyhow. Again, defenses would STILL double team Shaq and Kobe no matter what offense you ran. It's not like the triangle is the sole reason why teams double Shaq. I think the triangle should be scaled down a bit. The concept of it is good, IF you have 5 guys worth a damn on the court. Does Samaki Walker or Mark Madsen have ANY use touching the ball 20 feet from the basket offensively? If anything, that plays into the defense's hands, when you have the role players touching the ball as much if not more than Shaq or Kobe. The triangle phases Shaq out for too long of a strech IMO. There is no excuse to not give Shaq the ball on every possesion at least once.
The trianglr offense is in essence a passing offense. This offense was brought in by Jackson along with winters because during the bulls pre-title era, the entire team would just throw it to Jordan and watch him. This offense was also designed out of necessity because of the lack of a traditional pg by the bulls. I really like the triangle and I really like the way Jackson has modified it to tailor Shaq and kobe. The triangle the lakers run is a little different than the one of the bulls. It doesn't waste time and the good thing about it is gives movement and touches. The touches about the other role players gives them a sense of being into the game as opposed to just staying out of the way. The lakers used to run the regular dump it in offense when they had Jones,Campbell and NVE, but last I checked, that got them swept out of the playoffs. I could really imagine how much better Francis would do if he didn't have to make all the decisions and didn't have to break everyone down. I could imagine how many more fast break chances this team would get if it didn't have to look t the sideline after every play. I could only imagine how many more asst Ming would get with players moving and cutting around him. I think it would be a ideal offense fopr the Rockets personally.
A-Train - I respectfully disagree. While there are now frequent elements of ISO and two man games, you can still see three players strongside (with related cuts) over half of the time.
