Given the right coaching, NBA teams can start to showcase a pretty solid Triple Post in about 5-6 weeks. For instance, the spacing that this year's Laker team has had over the last week or so was as good as anything they pulled off from 1999-2004. The key to the offense is penetration, whether it's with a pass to the pinch post, a drive off a dribble, a shot, or a missed shot (and offensive rebound). The offense is designed to take advantage of defensive pressure on the strong side, using the activity to the defense's detriment. Besides the penetration, you need someone who is able to make decisions with the ball from the pinch or low post. Yao could probably be that guy, but Tracy would be ideal. It's an interesting concept, but JVG would have none of it. Because the offense doesn't actually employ set plays, he would chafe at the loss of control on offense and his own insecurities would get the best of him. I'm squarely on the "Jeff Van Gundy Is a Damn Good Coach" side of things, but he's too nervous to give his players the control of the offensive action.
KD - If you genuinely say it is so, I'll believe it. However, taking it at face value, the "spacing" may be there but the results sure aren't. And they won't be until the "reads" are learned. And that is way down stream because of the difficulty. The fact that the triangle has been around for 40+ years and has only found major success under Tex Winter and only with MJ and Shaq speaks volumes about how difficult and unique it is from a teaching and learning aspect. I'd gladly modify my opinion if you can present any other examples of success.
Of course I agree - the triangle is perfect for Yao and Tmac. It's not so complicated. Here's some flash : http://www.bbhighway.com/Talk/Coaching_Box/Clinics/Triangle/triangle_intro.asp Now, if we run Tmac at the 2 , he can iso in the 2-man game with Swift. That does not require so much thinking for Swift, and for Tmac it's just iso. On Yao's side, he gets Luther Head and another shooter or strong post feed - Barry or a tall 3 that can pass over, depending on the circumstances. It's not brain surgery. The ball goes into the post with the triangle or reverses to the 2-man game. Yao or Tmac - can't guard both. The complications come from trying to list all the possible ball and player movements and counters. They don't need to be enumerated. It will flow. Also, on defense, we need to attack - like PJ's Bulls. We're not doing ourselves any favors just packing it in.
The triangle is equivalent to football's run-and-shoot. It is player-controlled and depends on reads and on-the-spot decision making. It's difficult and it makes coaches nervous. It certainly makes conventional thinking nervous. It takes the right kind of talents and it takes time to perfect. Most managements don't have the patience to wait for it's success. I still believe that the run-and-shoot could be successful. The Oilers had the perfect QB in Moon to run it. And they assembled the perfect receiver crew and offensive line to do it. They almost got to the Superbowl if not for that Buffalo debacle. And when they lost that game, conventional people jumped in to say, "See? A conventional offense would never lose a lead like that." And the management scratched it. GATER is right. It takes too much time for the triangle to succeed. And by the time it does, the coach that employs it has already long gone. pasox, it's not complicated in concept but is in execution. That's why slow thinking guys like Swift can't do it right. Guys like TMac and Barry are perfect for it.
Just as I blame modern coaches for telling players to flop whenever possible, telling point guards to call plays on every possession (and sometimes after offensive rebounds), for milking the clock down to 20 seconds before shooting, for making offense a 2-on-2 slogfest -- for making the NBA as a whole less and less interesting to watch -- I blame them for not implementing the Triangle. You'd like to think that coaches would want to win, period, and they'd shove their pride aside and use a system that has won 9 of the last 15 NBA championships. They won't. They don't want to teach players to think on their own, to play and react to what the defense gives them, and they don't want to look like they're slavishly copying Phil Jackson (whom most coaches openly loathe). Coaches would rather exploit seeming "mismatches" (ooh, they switched on our elbow-extended screen roll, and their point guard is guarding our small forward! Clear out and post him up! Awesome!), and force the DEFENSE to react to the supposed genius plays the coaches have been up all night putting together. Play-a-day guys work, they're able to minimize mistakes and pinpoint the players who aren't getting it. But Jeff, Doug Collins, Brian Hill, and Mike Fratello haven't won a damn thing. Larry Brown won his first ring because Gary Payton couldn't guard Chauncey Billups with a tranquilizer gun and Shaq and Kobe hated each other. What was the biggest story of 2004-05? The Suns running up and down the court and winning with an aesthetically please brand of ball. D'Antoni playing his BEST FIVE players regardless of position and letting them make their own decisions. Players like Nash and Amare helped, but as we've seen this year, the Suns are nearly as effective with Eddie House and Barbosa and Boris Diaw initiating the attack - with Shawn Marion filling in the holes. And yet, this should be the hippest new way to coach, a way that wins games and wins you the coach of the year award, and how many coaches are letting their players run like that? Last year's other offensive monster, the SuperSonics, called plays every time down court. They put up major points, but they were also the third-slowest team in the league last year. No other coach has faith enough in their players and in their own image among the coaching fraternity to roll the ball out and see what happens. And don't bring up Don Nelson, because there is no greater example of the mismatch-exploiting coach then him. He may have had unorthodox lineups, but he still dominated the play calling. Also, to run the triangle, you need the GM to be on board with you. Phil's GM has no idea how to draft/sign for the Triangle, but it's starting to work. Cook can hit jumpers, Walton can play CFG-rover, Smush is getting big minutes, Sasha spreads the floor. Phil is turning Kupchak's lemons into lemonade, and they've discovered which cuts to make off the ball and away from Kobe, where to spot up in Kobe/Lamar's sightlines, how not to stray for offensive rebounds -- they've figured it out, I can tell, and it's December 10th. Other coaches have tried the Triangle and failed. Cotton Fitzsimmons literally gave it up after the second game of the 1996-97 season, one that saw the Suns start 0 and 13 before trading Cassell. He reverted back to pick and roll stuff in the second week of the season, and the Suns took an even bigger step back, one that led to losses 3-13. Who knows where that team would have been on December 10th if they would have stuck with the Triple Post, but I'm guessing that anything would have been better than 0-13. Quinn Buckner didn't need or want a head coaching job, so he felt confident enough to try the Triangle in Dallas. Unfortunatly, he couldn't draft/sign for himself, the guys who were drafted didn't show up, and Jason Kidd wouldn't give the ball up. Not gunna work. Jimmy Clemons tried it in Dallas a few years later, and got to call the shots until January of his first year. Real nice. The three Js were traded away in three months, Don Nelson initiated the biggest trade in NBA history (at that time) with the Bradley deal, and Clemons had TWENTY-SEVEN different players on his roster to try and teach the offense to, with Nellie looking over his shoulder the entire time. It's a matter of opinion, but my excuse for the "if it's so great, why does it only work with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip" argument lies in the lack of personal (and not "job") security coaches have, their own stupid egos, and the lack of front office help. Yes, you need the right players to run the Triangle successfully, but that doesn't mean Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip. It means players who know how to think on their feet, disregard instinct, and see the whole court. Sadly, today's NBA coach doesn't think that there are many of those players floating around.
If Shaq and Kobe didn't pick it up that team would have been a disaster no matter how many triangle-saavy veterans Jackson brought in. Those two are the ones that primarily have the ball, they are the ones that have to be in the position at the precise moment to receive passes. And don't forget that the bench picked it up pretty quickly too. Fisher, Fox, and Horry were all ready to start by the next championship year. No one says it's easy to pick up, but it works. And the current Lakers might only be at .500, but the defense is the problem, not the Triangle. They have their first four-game winning streak since the last time Jackson was there and no one thought they'd amount to anything during the offseason anyways. It's a month into the season. Want to judge the rockets by their record too? That's why the the Rox are the ideal fit: we have the personnel for it. I wouldn't recommend the triangle for the Suns. I wouldn't recommend the Nuggets adopt Adelman's Princeton. If Jason Kidd was on the Lakers in 02, I doubt they would've have won the championship. I'm totally serious. The old Rockets might have had a conventional offense, but they were a dominant two-time championship team; one of the few teams to actually win rings during Jackson's tenure with the Bulls. The Hawks have a .500 record against the Lakers during Jackson's time there. I'm not saying Hakeem's rox are like the hawks in any way, but the triangle's effectiveness should be measured by the number off playoff series victories and championships, not regular season games. Alston has enough years to learn it, c'mon. Tmac, Yao, Head, and Swift are all young. Rick Fox was not a spring chicken when he picked it up. Barry, Wesley, DA are all gone next year. Howard is here for three more years anyways, he'll have to do something regardless. The triangle is a one-year project, not a ten year one.
Since no one here is going to change their opinions, my parting comments... Side by side comparison --- * Rudy T's conventional but very dated ISO offense with the Faker$ = 24-19 * Frank Hamblen (after RT) returning the Faker$ to the triangle = 10 - 29 The "..."if it's so great, why does it only work with Shaq/Kobe/MJ/Pip" argument... --- * It also only worked for teams with dominant centers...Wilt and Kareem. Anyone see a trend here? From Tex Winters' own mouth... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/basketball/nba/news/1999/06/22/nba0628/ Now, if you consider Yao a "dominant" center like Shaq, Wilt, Kareem...go right ahead. Amount of time or intelligence to learn --- *"The Los Angeles Lakers' vaunted triangle offense has been a Bermuda triangle for point guard Gary Payton." http://www.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/playoffs/2004-05-04-payton-triangle_x.htm * "Because the triangle is so difficult to teach, Winter's presence over the past four years has been crucial." http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/marty_burns/news/2003/03/28/burns_insider/ There are enough coaches with tenure and/or respect to coach whatever system they damned well want. Larry Brown, Hubie Brown, Rick Carlisle, Greg Popovic, Flip Saunders...can you pick the triangle coach out? Neither can I. As I said much earlier, there is no "magic bullet" offense. All offenses are as good as the players making wide open shots regardless of how they got wide open. It was the players that made the triangle not the triangle making the players. And even if it were the system, there is only one person on the planet that can teach it. And he's 83+ years old. And in case you forgot (or never knew), Tex Winter coached the Houston Rockets in 1971-72 & part of 72-73 with a record of 51-78. And his roster of players included Rudy, Calvin, Elvin Hayes, Mike Newlin, Jack Marin and Jimmy Walker. Then again, maybe coaches in "the good old days" also had pressure to win now and not in 2 or 3 years.
I just watched an ESPN classic show where they interviewed Phil. In the interview, Jackson said the reason he implemented the triangle was because Jordan was a ball hog (didn't use those exact words). But he needed an offense that got other teammates more involved. That's the point. Tmac and Yao are both excellent passers. Keeping the other teammates involved isn't the issue with this team.
The triangle doesn't depend on a dominate center. It depends on the guys running the offense be able to see the court and make good decision in regard to where his teammates are and the flow of the offense. It comes down to having 5 smart guys play together for a while to get a feel of what other four likes to do, and really move well as a team. IMHO, JVG is never going to do it, because of his own ego and beside he'll never want to do something Phil Jackson did and have great success in.
Phil Jackson will use the Triangle offense if he was given a team including six Steve Nashes and six Boris Diaws. The fact that Jordan didn't involve his teammates just made it seem like it was harder to implement initially -- to crap journalists. One look at game tapes from a homestand the Bulls had during the first week of December in the 89-90 season (Phil's first as coach) shows that the growing pains were bunk. It's not an emergency offense you put in place to solve the problem of "ball-hogs." The versatility of the offense allows it to adapt to any right-thinking player. And Yao has 24 assists on the year. He may be an excellent passer, but he's hardly a chance to showcase this during Van Gundy's reign.
Phil wants to coach the Rockets. I believe he thinks that the cornerstone of Yao and McGrady is good for the Triangle offense, and vice versa.
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to say this. I mean seriously, the team gets plenty of open looks. They are hustling more. The shots are there. not to mention, T-Mac can have a shot anytime he wants by rising up. Too bad his shot was off against portland. But other people still had looks. Difference between last year and this year, main difference... hitting the open shots! Amazing...this complex concept of putting that round thing through that hoopy-ring looking thing and watch your number get bigger on that big scoreboard looking thing.
Phil Jackson and Jordan both said in this interview, right from their own mouths, that Jordan didn't buy into the Triangle until Phil's 2nd year as coach. At this point, Phil has ONLY coached with the Triangle so I don't doubt he'd use it w/ six Steve Nashes. Don't kill the messenger. Phil said the reason he implemented it, was to get Jordan's teammates more involved. Result: It worked. Do you want JVG to scrap his whole coaching philosophy and just go with the Triangle? Professional coaches don't work like that. They stick w/ their own systems. Don't like the system?... get another coach. Agreed but you missed my point. You can hardly call Yao a ball hog. Granted, Yao doesn't get many assists probably because JVG wants Yao to shoot the ball rather than pass. But nobody has ever accused Yao of being a ball hog. TMac isn't a ball hog either since arriving in Houston. TMac clearly trusts his teammates. Jordan, by his own admission, did not trust his teammates which is why he never passed the ball early on. So to recap, Jackson implemented the triangle to encourage Jordan to pass the ball to his teammates. The Rockets don't have the "ball hog" problem. JVG's system worked just fine last season. We just needed more athletic players to matchup against Dallas. Why should we scrap his system? We just need a healthy TMac and get our newly acquired athletic players mixed in. We now won 3 in a row and 4 of our last 5. The ship is starting to right itself now. Don't panic.
