RealGM

If what we suspect to be true actually ends up being true this might come in handy:

http://thetriangleoffense.blogspot.com.au/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_offense

http://www.coachesclipboard.net/TriangleOffense.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ7QMNUFqMw

That would be crazy if the Pistons ran a triangle offense...If it helps us win, I'm down for whatever!..

Thought I'd copy and paste the last Bulls championship roster and the Lakers last championship roster in here (from the Coaching search thread):

Last Chicago Bulls Championship Roster =

Longley, Rodman, Pippen, Jordan, Harper

Guards off the bench = Randy Brown, Steve Kerr

Swingmen = Jud Buechler, Toni Kukoc

Bigs = Jason Caffey, James Edwards, John Salley Dickey Simpkins, Bill Wennington

Last Laker championship team Phil coached =

Bynum, Gasol, Artest, Kobe, Fisher

Guards = Shannon Brown, Jordan Farmer, Sasha Vujacic

Swingmen = Adam Morrison, Luke Walton,

"Bigs" = Lamar Odom, Powell and Mbenga

Why would anybody say that Drummond doesn't fit the triangle? I bet they have a reason in mind, but I don't know what it is.

Perdue/Longley/Wennington did it as a 3-headed "beast". And the bigs listed for Chicago's 2nd 3peat don't scream offensive skill. Gasol and Odom have mad skill for the last Laker champs to run the triangle, but at least Monroe would have offensive skill for us. Drummond can beast-dunk better than any big listed in the Bulls/Lakers champs and that should be an asset for any type of offense, especially for those possessions when they aren't running a play.

So anywho....anything really stopping us from being a triangle team? The starting wings sound like the main concern. We have good back-up wings already imo if we just leave them alone (English/Middleton/Singler and some Knight during 2 pg sets).

I think the Triangle could work here but the key is getting the right players to run it.

With Phil and Shaw here that helps...

Maybe the Triangle is the "something different" Phil spoke about?

I doubt Gores & Dumars would have the patience to let Shaw install the triangle offense...players need years to understand and execute it perfectly.

Knight t PG
Monroe at PF
Drummond at C

All are good fits for the triangle. Just need 1 slasher to open up Knight for open shots. A motivated Stuckey might work....but we've been there, done that with him.

the triangle offense gets way too much hype. Jackson's teams still ran a ton of pick and rolls with Gasol and Bynum. Also, in both of Jackson's instances, he had the best perimeter scorer in the entirety of the league playing for him.

ImHeisenberg wrote:the triangle offense gets way too much hype. Jackson's teams still ran a ton of pick and rolls with Gasol and Bynum. Also, in both of Jackson's instances, he had the best perimeter scorer in the entirety of the league playing for him.

But who better to mold Monroe than the guy who's worked with Duncan for years and years??

Piston Pete wrote:Knight t PG
Monroe at PF
Drummond at C

All are good fits for the triangle. Just need 1 slasher to open up Knight for open shots. A motivated Stuckey might work....but we've been there, done that with him.

Evans would fit that role perfect. The guy is almost unstoppable getting to the rim.

Piston Pete wrote:

ImHeisenberg wrote:the triangle offense gets way too much hype. Jackson's teams still ran a ton of pick and rolls with Gasol and Bynum. Also, in both of Jackson's instances, he had the best perimeter scorer in the entirety of the league playing for him.

But who better to mold Monroe than the guy who's worked with Duncan for years and years??

So.....we're shifting to Budenholzer now?

Tim Duncan was a beast the moment he stepped into the NBA (and won a title his rookie season). He's certainly improved portions of his game, but he was damn near complete when he was drafted. It was simply Popovich and the Spurs job to put players around him that worked.

I would be more interested in Budenholzer for his experience, and what potential team culture changes he could bring.

ImHeisenberg wrote:Tim Duncan was a beast the moment he stepped into the NBA (and won a title his rookie season).

No, he didn't win a title as a rookie.

ImHeisenberg wrote:

Piston Pete wrote:

ImHeisenberg wrote:the triangle offense gets way too much hype. Jackson's teams still ran a ton of pick and rolls with Gasol and Bynum. Also, in both of Jackson's instances, he had the best perimeter scorer in the entirety of the league playing for him.

But who better to mold Monroe than the guy who's worked with Duncan for years and years??

So.....we're shifting to Budenholzer now?

Tim Duncan was a beast the moment he stepped into the NBA (and won a title his rookie season). He's certainly improved portions of his game, but he was damn near complete when he was drafted. It was simply Popovich and the Spurs job to put players around him that worked.

I would be more interested in Budenholzer for his experience, and what potential team culture changes he could bring.

Either way, Budenholzer's worked with Duncan for what, like 15 years? I would feel comfortable in his knowing how to handle/groom Monroe moving forward.

Goldtop wrote:

Piston Pete wrote:Knight t PG
Monroe at PF
Drummond at C

All are good fits for the triangle. Just need 1 slasher to open up Knight for open shots. A motivated Stuckey might work....but we've been there, done that with him.

Evans would fit that role perfect. The guy is almost unstoppable getting to the rim.

Good call on Evans. He would fit well next to Knight in the triangle.

Piston Pete wrote:

Goldtop wrote:

Piston Pete wrote:Knight t PG
Monroe at PF
Drummond at C

All are good fits for the triangle. Just need 1 slasher to open up Knight for open shots. A motivated Stuckey might work....but we've been there, done that with him.

Evans would fit that role perfect. The guy is almost unstoppable getting to the rim.

Good call on Evans. He would fit well next to Knight in the triangle.

Plus he would give us that oversized PG too that would allow Knight to switch to SG on occasion on offense, because Evans can guard SGs, so Knight would be able to guard PGs still on defense. And it would also help because Knight wouldn't need to be the primary ball-handler/offense orchestrator, as Evans would be running the offense a lot.

Joe Asberry wrote:I doubt Gores & Dumars would have the patience to let Shaw install the triangle offense...players need years to understand and execute it perfectly.

This is the single biggest problem. It takes most players a full 2-years to acclimate and you need the right sort of personal. With a restructured CBA that has reduced contract lengths roster turnover is going to be even higher than it's been in the past.

In fact, during Phils 2nd stint with the Lakers there was a noticeable decline in Triangle sets. They struggled with it in '04 when they brought in Malone/Payton and Kobe was off doing his own thing and during their last Championship run in '10 they only ran the Triangle offense about 50% of the time, breaking off in favor of more traditional pick n'roll sets the remainder of the time.

It's also worth noting that Phil had an MVP caliber player, who was capable of either initiating the Triangle out of the post or swinging to the weak side of the floor in the 2-man game.

The Triangle is virtually impossible to defend when executed correctly because it's a reactive system that is predicated on the openings in the defense. If it takes 2+ years to learn, you can't expect a defense to adapt to it in a 7-game series.

However, as I've said before I personally believe a Princeton style offense is FAR more appealing. It's easier to learn and can be more easily integrated with more traditional sets. You still gain much of the benefit from playing in a flex-style offense that is predicated on spacing and ball movement, without all the complexity. You still run out of the post, with lots of back-door cuts and can run a 2-guard front or non-traditional PG.

Flip's Flex offense was actually a derivation of the Princeton, that in principle was a good system. The problem was he tolerated, and even encouraged too many "open" jumpers at the expense of exploiting mismatches and a complete neglect of the benefits to going inside occasionally. We did however see how effective the system could be with Adlemans Kings and to a lesser extend Eddie Jordans Wizards.

^Princeton offense is beautiful to watch. However its never won anything in the NBA that I can think of. In fact, Frank ran parts of the Princeton offense here the last two yrs already, and obviously didn't do much for us.

The Princeton offense was successful in SAC, up until they went against the Triangle in LA.

The Triangle is proven the most effective system. If it takes 2 yrs to implement, so be it. Its not like we have an old team here. The fact that our core is young makes it more appealing because they're a blank canvas and also very smart kids who are very quick learners. I think they could learn the Triangle. Even if it takes a few years to master, that doesn't mean they can't still win games in the meantime. Besides, if you look at McMillans track record, it takes his teams 3-5 yrs to learn his system and start winning. Ill take learning the Triangle in 2 yrs vs learning McMillans' system (whatever that is) in 3-5 yrs.

Goldtop wrote:^Princeton offense is beautiful to watch. However its never won anything in the NBA that I can think of. In fact, Frank ran parts of the Princeton offense here the last two yrs already, and obviously didn't do much for us.

The Princeton offense was successful in SAC, up until they went against the Triangle in LA.

The Triangle is proven the most effective system. If it takes 2 yrs to implement, so be it. Its not like we have an old team here. The fact that our core is young makes it more appealing because they're a blank canvas and also very smart kids who are very quick learners. I think they could learn the Triangle. Even if it takes a few years to master, that doesn't mean they can't still win games in the meantime. Besides, if you look at McMillans track record, it takes his teams 3-5 yrs to learn his system and start winning. Ill take learning the Triangle in 2 yrs vs learning McMillans' system (whatever that is) in 3-5 yrs.

They beat that triangle. They got robbed.

ComboGuardCity wrote:

Goldtop wrote:^Princeton offense is beautiful to watch. However its never won anything in the NBA that I can think of. In fact, Frank ran parts of the Princeton offense here the last two yrs already, and obviously didn't do much for us.

The Princeton offense was successful in SAC, up until they went against the Triangle in LA.

The Triangle is proven the most effective system. If it takes 2 yrs to implement, so be it. Its not like we have an old team here. The fact that our core is young makes it more appealing because they're a blank canvas and also very smart kids who are very quick learners. I think they could learn the Triangle. Even if it takes a few years to master, that doesn't mean they can't still win games in the meantime. Besides, if you look at McMillans track record, it takes his teams 3-5 yrs to learn his system and start winning. Ill take learning the Triangle in 2 yrs vs learning McMillans' system (whatever that is) in 3-5 yrs.

They beat that triangle. They got robbed.

Well, the history books say the Lakers won. So if Phil can bring some of those league favors here, I'll gladly take it. Better than being on the other end of biased officiating like we always are.