supaflash wrote:I'm talking systems other then the triangle. The Spurs had a run with an inside out style, but won more on defense and the talent of their guys. Houston won playing inside out with Hakeem and shooters. Other then the tri there really hasn't been any one system that's been more successful than another. It comes down to the right fit for the players and 90% of the time a superstar that can take the team over the top when the system breaks down and the pressure is on.
If we're talking systems other than the triangle, every other system combined has won less championships then the triangle offense over the last 20 years.
Seriously.
So you are probably thinking well that makes my argument right there... but to me it was never the triangle that won. The triangle was brutal at times to watch, both for the Bulls and the Lakers and I watched all of those Bulls runs. It's a good offense that works with good smart players and good pieces but if it's so end all why has no one else ever been successful with it? Because they didn't have Jordan or Kobe and Shaq, Pip, Pau, etc.
But the Lakers DO have those players. Dwight would have went ape s*** in the triangle. Nash doesn't need the triangle to be productive, and the misconception about Phil is that he ran the triangle 100% of the time. That's just not true. Nash is smarter than MB in that he wouldn't try to force the triangle down their throats. There were be plenty of opportunities for Nash's free flowing style, and I think Nash would have been fine. Where the triangle would have helped is in June, when we're trying to grind out wins against the Heat, and the games aren't so free flowing. I understand Dantoni's offense is supposed to be a half court offense, but with the triangle, you are prepared for all situations. The players read and react rather than force play's A, B, or C.
If you want proof, all you have to do is look at the Lakers / Suns matchups over the last 7 years. Phil damn near knocked the Suns out with Kobe, Kwame, Smush and Luke. In the Lakers championship years, other than Kobe and Pau, everyone else were just role players. That includes Odom, and Bynum. When it gets hairy, when you need a score, the triangle is the go to offense when done right.
In theory what Mike runs is not all that far removed from the Tri in that they are both a flowing read and react system, they just cater to a different style and set of players. The tri is also not hugely far off from the Princeton and we saw how well that was going... Both the Tri and the Princeton are more deliberate systems designed to get guys in specific spots and create cuts and reads based largely on high and low post sets to force the defense to pick it's poison. D'antoni on the other hand creates shots based on pick and rolls and spacing, utilizing player's strengths. And I'm in total agreement with him that when you have this much talent that needs the ball you create more possessions to more effectively use each talent more fully and minimize the effect of mistakes.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. There was nothing deliberate about the triangle other than starting from the inside. After the entry pass, and not necessarily always from the block, the triangle was an unpredictable, combustible explosion of creativity, that when mastered, turned everyone on the floor into a threat. MB's Princeton was either a post up or a high screen pick and roll. That's all you got. Dantoni's offense is chaos on the floor and very effective, but susceptible to streakiness and can be bottled up in the playoffs. The triangle shows you how to get out of the bottle.
If it were just Kobe and Dwight I'd say yeah, the Tri would be better. Slow the game down and minimize possessions, depend on the defense, so the reliance on just those two ala Kobe Shaq becomes more significant and less on the other players, but with these guys we need to spread the ball around.
I'm not so sure. I guess we'll see in June. Hope you're right.
