Alex KennedyVerified account
@AlexKennedyNBA
As @PeterVecsey1 stated on podcast: Phil Jackson wanted to deal Kristaps Porzingis for #1 pick to draft Lonzo Ball.
FWIW, it's Peter Vecsey. According to him, Fultz would have gone to the Lakers, Porky to the Celtics, and Lonzo to the Knicks.
Interesting. Maybe Phil learned some things about direction of NBA into fast paced ball movement. RIP #triangleoffense
Huh? Lonzo's like the perfect Triangle PG, and the system has nothing to do with transition pace.
I predicted Phil wanted Lonzo. In terms of basketball it was too much of a fit. He might have had a chance if Boston didn't trade with Philly.
Triangle offense is dead imo. It's just too inefficient in the modern NBA game.
Lonzo is going to run, run, run in transition. When it's half court possessions, there will be a lot of passing guys open, cuts, screens, etc. in a nutshell a lot of Ball movement.
The triangle offense would be effective if it's a quick decision making with sharp shooters, but honestly today's NBA is about all 5 guys contributing. Triangle and Iso ball won't get you far imo.
That makes no sense. Both the Spurs and Dubs' offense are influenced by the Triangle. Triangle and ISO ball are nowhere near synonymous. What you described as all 5 guys contributing, ball movement, quick cuts and screens is the Triangle.
I think you might have it in your head that the Triangle is walking the ball up court, standing in one spot trying to get the ball into Shaq for 15 seconds or Kobe/Jordan going ISO. That's not what it is at all.
Agree to disagree. GSW/Spurs use elements of the triangle and it generally incorporates all 5 guys. Phil's triangle generally focused on a 2-3 man game. Phil also never really had any PG the caliber of what Lonzo is. He relied on decision making kobe/Jordan and tall point forward types like Pippen.
Lonzo is tall but he plays a different type of game more in line with what today's NBA is.
Of course, there will always be elements of the triangle offense or ISO ball in the NBA. It's basketball 101. However, today's game is all about ball movement and efficiency and all 5 guys better be able to move, shoot and shoot with range i.e., stretching the floor.
Lonzo's game fits the new age. If phil's triangle offense was still the way, all teams (not just the knicks) would use it as the primary style. Instead, it is still used from time to time but the game is different today and most successful teams operate with 5 man units.
If the triangle was still the gold standard, Phil would still have a job and you wouldn't have heard knicks players (bleep) about being forced to play the triangle.
Stephen Zimmerman has a 7-foot-3 wingspan and averaged 13.4 points and 8.9 rebounds in the D League last year.
The kid has potential; another year or two in college would have worked wonders for this kid. Fortunately he is still young enough to salvage his career.
IMO in a year or two he could develop into a serviceable big man.
Stephen Zimmerman has a 7-foot-3 wingspan and averaged 13.4 points and 8.9 rebounds in the D League last year.
The kid has potential; another year or two in college would have worked wonders for this kid. Fortunately he is still young enough to salvage his career.
IMO in a year or two he could develop into a serviceable big man.
Thanks for the info Pio2u, I'm curious has to why we decided to add a big man with a pretty good potential especially since we already have Zu and Bryant in the fold... gonna be interesting to see the battle in Training camp.
Stephen Zimmerman has a 7-foot-3 wingspan and averaged 13.4 points and 8.9 rebounds in the D League last year.
The kid has potential; another year or two in college would have worked wonders for this kid. Fortunately he is still young enough to salvage his career.
IMO in a year or two he could develop into a serviceable big man.
Thanks for the info Pio2u, I'm curious has to why we decided to add a big man with a pretty good potential especially since we already have Zu and Bryant in the fold... gonna be interesting to see the battle in Training camp.
Dude is just a body for the other players to go against.
Stephen Zimmerman has a 7-foot-3 wingspan and averaged 13.4 points and 8.9 rebounds in the D League last year.
The kid has potential; another year or two in college would have worked wonders for this kid. Fortunately he is still young enough to salvage his career.
IMO in a year or two he could develop into a serviceable big man.
Thanks for the info Pio2u, I'm curious has to why we decided to add a big man with a pretty good potential especially since we already have Zu and Bryant in the fold... gonna be interesting to see the battle in Training camp.
Zim probably won't make the final cut but will be a good addition to the South Bay Lakers. He's a work in progress.
I'm glad he has an opportunity to pursue his dream. You never know, he may turn out okay in the long run somehow, somewhere.
Alex KennedyVerified account
@AlexKennedyNBA
As @PeterVecsey1 stated on podcast: Phil Jackson wanted to deal Kristaps Porzingis for #1 pick to draft Lonzo Ball.
FWIW, it's Peter Vecsey. According to him, Fultz would have gone to the Lakers, Porky to the Celtics, and Lonzo to the Knicks.
Interesting. Maybe Phil learned some things about direction of NBA into fast paced ball movement. RIP #triangleoffense
Huh? Lonzo's like the perfect Triangle PG, and the system has nothing to do with transition pace.
I predicted Phil wanted Lonzo. In terms of basketball it was too much of a fit. He might have had a chance if Boston didn't trade with Philly.
Triangle offense is dead imo. It's just too inefficient in the modern NBA game.
Lonzo is going to run, run, run in transition. When it's half court possessions, there will be a lot of passing guys open, cuts, screens, etc. in a nutshell a lot of Ball movement.
The triangle offense would be effective if it's a quick decision making with sharp shooters, but honestly today's NBA is about all 5 guys contributing. Triangle and Iso ball won't get you far imo.
That makes no sense. Both the Spurs and Dubs' offense are influenced by the Triangle. Triangle and ISO ball are nowhere near synonymous. What you described as all 5 guys contributing, ball movement, quick cuts and screens is the Triangle.
I think you might have it in your head that the Triangle is walking the ball up court, standing in one spot trying to get the ball into Shaq for 15 seconds or Kobe/Jordan going ISO. That's not what it is at all.
Agree to disagree. GSW/Spurs use elements of the triangle and it generally incorporates all 5 guys. Phil's triangle generally focused on a 2-3 man game. Phil also never really had any PG the caliber of what Lonzo is. He relied on decision making kobe/Jordan and tall point forward types like Pippen.
Lonzo is tall but he plays a different type of game more in line with what today's NBA is.
Of course, there will always be elements of the triangle offense or ISO ball in the NBA. It's basketball 101. However, today's game is all about ball movement and efficiency and all 5 guys better be able to move, shoot and shoot with range i.e., stretching the floor.
Lonzo's game fits the new age. If phil's triangle offense was still the way, all teams (not just the knicks) would use it as the primary style. Instead, it is still used from time to time but the game is different today and most successful teams operate with 5 man units.
If the triangle was still the gold standard, Phil would still have a job and you wouldn't have heard knicks players (bleep) about being forced to play the triangle.
That's because he used the talents of the players he had on his teams, and altered the Triangle to the tune of that talent. Unlike a certain coach up in Houston that can only play one way. Jordan, Kobe and Shaq are arguably the three most dominant ISO players in NBA history, of course he was going to tailor his offenses to suit that talent. As any good coach would do. And considering the personalities of those players, it's certainly something he had to do. But the Triangle in its essence is about ball movement, player movement. And it's extremely flexible, meaning you can use it as a base and make tweaks.
I disagree with your final take. The Triangle, as with any system, needs talent to run. And it needs players to buy in. If you don't have both, you don't have success. The Knicks had neither of those things. You think if the Knicks suddenly decided to run what GS runs they would have had more success under Phil? I'm not sure they were even running the Triangle. Whenever I watched them Melo dominated the ball, Kristaps launched pick and pop threes, and Rose put his head down and barreled into the paint. Didn't look like the Triangle to me. _________________ A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
Alex KennedyVerified account
@AlexKennedyNBA
As @PeterVecsey1 stated on podcast: Phil Jackson wanted to deal Kristaps Porzingis for #1 pick to draft Lonzo Ball.
FWIW, it's Peter Vecsey. According to him, Fultz would have gone to the Lakers, Porky to the Celtics, and Lonzo to the Knicks.
Interesting. Maybe Phil learned some things about direction of NBA into fast paced ball movement. RIP #triangleoffense
Huh? Lonzo's like the perfect Triangle PG, and the system has nothing to do with transition pace.
I predicted Phil wanted Lonzo. In terms of basketball it was too much of a fit. He might have had a chance if Boston didn't trade with Philly.
Triangle offense is dead imo. It's just too inefficient in the modern NBA game.
Lonzo is going to run, run, run in transition. When it's half court possessions, there will be a lot of passing guys open, cuts, screens, etc. in a nutshell a lot of Ball movement.
The triangle offense would be effective if it's a quick decision making with sharp shooters, but honestly today's NBA is about all 5 guys contributing. Triangle and Iso ball won't get you far imo.
That makes no sense. Both the Spurs and Dubs' offense are influenced by the Triangle. Triangle and ISO ball are nowhere near synonymous. What you described as all 5 guys contributing, ball movement, quick cuts and screens is the Triangle.
I think you might have it in your head that the Triangle is walking the ball up court, standing in one spot trying to get the ball into Shaq for 15 seconds or Kobe/Jordan going ISO. That's not what it is at all.
Agree to disagree. GSW/Spurs use elements of the triangle and it generally incorporates all 5 guys. Phil's triangle generally focused on a 2-3 man game. Phil also never really had any PG the caliber of what Lonzo is. He relied on decision making kobe/Jordan and tall point forward types like Pippen.
Lonzo is tall but he plays a different type of game more in line with what today's NBA is.
Of course, there will always be elements of the triangle offense or ISO ball in the NBA. It's basketball 101. However, today's game is all about ball movement and efficiency and all 5 guys better be able to move, shoot and shoot with range i.e., stretching the floor.
Lonzo's game fits the new age. If phil's triangle offense was still the way, all teams (not just the knicks) would use it as the primary style. Instead, it is still used from time to time but the game is different today and most successful teams operate with 5 man units.
If the triangle was still the gold standard, Phil would still have a job and you wouldn't have heard knicks players (bleep) about being forced to play the triangle.
That's because he used the talents of the players he had on his teams, and altered the Triangle to the tune of that talent. Unlike a certain coach up in Houston that can only play one way. Jordan, Kobe and Shaq are arguably the three most dominant ISO players in NBA history, of course he was going to tailor his offenses to suit that talent. As any good coach would do. And considering the personalities of those players, it's certainly something he had to do. But the Triangle in its essence is about ball movement, player movement. And it's extremely flexible, meaning you can use it as a base and make tweaks.
I disagree with your final take. The Triangle, as with any system, needs talent to run. And it needs players to buy in. If you don't have both, you don't have success. The Knicks had neither of those things. You think if the Knicks suddenly decided to run what GS runs they would have had more success under Phil? I'm not sure they were even running the Triangle. Whenever I watched them Melo dominated the ball, Kristaps launched PnR threes, and Rose put his head down and barreled into the paint. Didn't look like the Triangle to me.
Like I said, we can agree to disagree and it's cool
Everyone has their own take/view of the game. The triangle imo was great for its time, who wouldn't want to have Jordan/Kobe/Shaq dominating from the post and taking advantage.
I just think the game is all about efficiency now. You can have KD, Lebron, Curry on the same team...the trend I see is having spacing, playing up tempo and having everyone be able to shoot 3s...at least 4 of the 5.
I really do wonder what kind of role someone like Patrick Ewing or Karl Malone would have in today's game. Those types have been replaced by guys like Draymond.
Actually, Pau Gasol imo is a perfect example of how the game has changed. He has evolved into a true 3 point shooting threat because he has to. He gets taken out quite frequently when Spurs go to small ball. Even Randle and Nance see the writing on the wall and are trying to develop their 3 point shooting.
As for the knicks players, I'm sure they had no issues just doing what they wanted. That organization is a circus.
Anyway I digress, bottom line is it's fine if we don't agree.
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
There are a number of options, good, bad and in-between.
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Then both sides constantly go back and forth trying to convince the other to adopt their position before eventually succumbing to exhaustion and exiting this earth.
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Alternative is ongoing bickering for several pages in a forum or non stop arguing at a bar for an hour or two until one sides just gets tired and walks away...
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Then both sides constantly go back and forth trying to convince the other to adopt their position before eventually succumbing to exhaustion and exiting this earth.
I was just about to post the same thing.
LG could stand a few more agree to disagrees. _________________ A banana is killed every time a terrible thread or post is made. Save the bananas. Stop creating terrible posts!
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Alternative is ongoing bickering for several pages in a forum or non stop arguing at a bar for an hour or two until both sides get too drunk and pass out!
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Then both sides constantly go back and forth trying to convince the other to adopt their position before eventually succumbing to exhaustion and exiting this earth.
Nah, that's exactly what is avoidable. 99.9% of the time on a message board, you will not get someone to change their opinion. So more than exhaustion, it's pretty pointless to go on and on for pages. After a couple of posts, the opinions are out there
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Then both sides constantly go back and forth trying to convince the other to adopt their position before eventually succumbing to exhaustion and exiting this earth.
I never understood, "agree to disagree." What's the alternative, disagreeing to agree to disagree? Or what if someone doesn't agree to disagree? What happens then?
Then both sides constantly go back and forth trying to convince the other to adopt their position before eventually succumbing to exhaustion and exiting this earth.
I disagree to agree with you on the point that we previously agreed to disagree upon. _________________ one dog goes that way the other dog goes the other way
With NY and Houston seeking a 3rd team, we should try to get back Ariza.
They are looking for a third team to take on Ryan Anderson not Trevor Ariza.
Good luck with that at $20mil per for 3 seasons.
Supposedly they found a 3rd team to take him prior to the new GM killing the deal. I don't think someone taking Anderson is the holdup. He's not bad. The holdup is what the 3rd team is sending NY and them thinking they can beat that package even though Melo has restricted the market. These leaks only show me that they are playing a game of chicken. NY thinks they can get Melo to open up his list of teams if they sit on him. They seem to forget that Melo has no issue collecting checks in NY (now that Phil is gone).
Houston is not really in the drivers seat considering they want Melo.
We want him instead of Anderson. The team is still a contender with Anderson.
rock0100 wrote:
In New Yorks mind, I would imagine they would rather lose Melo for nothing next summer than to get saddled with Ryan Anderson's contract for 3 years.
If Melo isn't traded he's not opting out of his 27M deal next summer. No contending team will be able to pay him that and you could argue that no team would pay him that period.
Houston is not really in the drivers seat considering they want Melo.
We want him instead of Anderson. The team is still a contender with Anderson.
rock0100 wrote:
In New Yorks mind, I would imagine they would rather lose Melo for nothing next summer than to get saddled with Ryan Anderson's contract for 3 years.
If Melo isn't traded he's not opting out of his 27M deal next summer. No contending team will be able to pay him that and you could argue that no team would pay him that period.
Well Houston doesn't care what we want that's the first we need to understand.
Julyan Stone To Sign With Hornets
Sixers’ Mathias Lessort To Play In Serbia
Knicks Exercise Kristaps Porzingis’ 2018/19 Option
Hollis Thompson To Play In Greece
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum