Is This Team Perhaps Better Suited for the Triangle Offense???

[Silver&Black Warrior]

Just a hypothetical that came to me tonight. I was running all sorts of different things that could be done tactically through my mind (strangely enough I was thinking about defense) and I was interested about what kind of feedback the forum would bring to this.

At first glance it would seem that there is the skill set, b-ball IQ, and versatility present that would make this feasible.

We have 1 off-guards who can play the point and can close the game, (Ginobili) and a combo guard (Hill) that obviously can also.

We have a Post Player with superior offensive talent. (Tim)

We have a 4/5 that can shoot. (McDyess)

We have true 3 in Richard Jefferson.

Strangely enough this leaves Tony out, but I think that his speed and relative shooting ability would eventually find a way to just naturally integrate itself.

When Tim would sit, the offense could either be run through Manu or RJ, or it could simply be stopped and returned to the pick n' roll with Tony as the focal point.

Simply put, this inquiry is coming from me as a basketball FAN and CONNOSSIEUR.

This has nothing to do with the Lakers, or Phil Jackson. As a FAN and STUDENT of the game, I really want to know. Besides what else is there to think about with so much uncertainty facing our team and after a very tough and frustrating loss???

I would hope that only objective fans will reply. But as we all know, nothing is ever perfect.

A penny for your insight. Thanks.

[justinandimcool]

Compared to what we heard on TNT Inside Trax, with Pop telling the guys to "just let it fly" in the locker room. Yes. Triangle would be great.

You have good points though. I wonder why most teams don't work on the triangle more often. It has only won like, what, 10 championships? I realize talent is a big part of that, but it would fit the Spurs quite well like you said. Just unrealistic right now.

[Chieflion]

You forgot one extremely important thing. The players playing the triangle have to be smart.

[sabar]

I don't think we have the BB IQ or the time to integrate it on the player or coach level. They're still learning the current system even with the playbook slashed and everyone missing rotations. They need a course in defensive fundamentals really.

[galvatron3000]

And the Lakers have smarter players than the Spurs? Wow

[Chieflion]

And the Lakers have smarter players than the Spurs? Wow
The Lakers are not running the full set of the triangle.

[admiralsnackbar]

You forgot one extremely important thing. The players playing the triangle have to be smart.

No, you just have to be good and run the offense you practice. Nobody ever accused Devean George, Rick Fox, Shaq, Samaki, or Mark Madsen of intelligence and they won 3 rings.

[galvatron3000]

The Lakers are not running the full set of the triangle.

full, half, 3/4 or 1/3 my question still stands

[Chieflion]

full, half, 3/4 or 1/3 my question still stands
The Laker players are smarter overall based on their ability to perform and execute during crunch time. Have I answered your question now?

[galvatron3000]

The Laker players are smarter overall based on their ability to perform and execute during crunch time. Have I answered your question now?

yes but I don't agree with why you think they are smarter you have indeed answered my question. I personally think we have smarter star players, our roles players used to be smart but I don't know now. I think Dyess is. I think chemistry plays a role in execution down the stretch as well as smarts and the Spurs over the years have proven in crunch time to be superior o most but not this season

[Silver&Black Warrior]

Compared to what we heard on TNT Inside Trax, with Pop telling the guys to "just let it fly" in the locker room. Yes. Triangle would be great.

You have good points though. I wonder why most teams don't work on the triangle more often. It has only won like, what, 10 championships? I realize talent is a big part of that, but it would fit the Spurs quite well like you said. Just unrealistic right now.


:toast

[Rogue]

Derek Fisher would be a decent trading target if triangle offense truly works on Spurs field, then Spurs had better bid for him while window is still open no matter what prize the Lakers are going to charge.

[Chieflion]

yes but I don't agree with why you think they are smarter you have indeed answered my question. I personally think we have smarter star players, our roles players used to be smart but I don't know now. I think Dyess is. I think chemistry plays a role in execution down the stretch as well as smarts and the Spurs over the years have proven in crunch time to be superior o most but not this season
I think an example of a team using the triangle is the Timberwolves. Granted they don't have the personnel, I can see they also don't know how to execute the triangle. More often than not, they will fail.

I will rewind back to the 90s Bulls. Another reason the Spurs will not make the triangle work. Not only every player has to have high basketball IQ and creativity, they also have to be good shooters. The 90s Bulls had shooters like Paxson and Kerr playing "point guard". And they don't handle the ball often. The problem is that Parker is a ball-dominant guard who does not hit threes on a consistent basis. The triangle works only because of spacing because of shooting and ball movement, so a ball dominant player would struggle in the triangle.

Granted our star players have high basketball IQ, but if one of our stars do not fit the skillset, the triangle will fail. And our role players don't know what is execution and can't even execute half the playbook, with the triangle, things become complicated.

[galvatron3000]

I think an example of a team using the triangle is the Timberwolves. Granted they don't have the personnel, I can see they also don't know how to execute the triangle. More often than not, they will fail.

I will rewind back to the 90s Bulls. Another reason the Spurs will not make the triangle work. Not only every player has to have high basketball IQ and creativity, they also have to be good shooters. The 90s Bulls had shooters like Paxson and Kerr playing "point guard". And they don't handle the ball often. The problem is that Parker is a ball-dominant guard who does not hit threes on a consistent basis. The triangle works only because of spacing because of shooting and ball movement, so a ball dominant player would struggle in the triangle.

Granted our star players have high basketball IQ, but if one of our stars do not fit the skillset, the triangle will fail.


I completely agree but one thing I always thought, when Brent was here especially, had the Spur ran the triangle with a Manu and Brent backcourt, Horry, Duncan and Bowen we would have beasted and if you are going to run this offense you have to bring in the right players, so some of the players we acquired would not be here and other would. Beno may have actually worked too<<thought I'd throw that in there...:rollin

[VivaPopovich]

I don't think we have the BB IQ or the time to integrate it on the player or coach level. They're still learning the current system even with the playbook slashed and everyone missing rotations. They need a course in defensive fundamentals really.

This is one of the smartest things I have ever read in ST, ever.

Please delete all the complex arguments that went into defending Matt Bonner, because this simple sentence had far more truth to it than that.

[sananspursfan21]

You forgot one extremely important thing. The players playing the triangle have to be smart.

hey, tim duncan had a 4.0 in high school

[Killakobe81]

Tim Manu Hill RJ would benefit Parker would suffer ...

[The Truth #6]

I think an example of a team using the triangle is the Timberwolves. Granted they don't have the personnel, I can see they also don't know how to execute the triangle. More often than not, they will fail.

I will rewind back to the 90s Bulls. Another reason the Spurs will not make the triangle work. Not only every player has to have high basketball IQ and creativity, they also have to be good shooters. The 90s Bulls had shooters like Paxson and Kerr playing "point guard". And they don't handle the ball often. The problem is that Parker is a ball-dominant guard who does not hit threes on a consistent basis. The triangle works only because of spacing because of shooting and ball movement, so a ball dominant player would struggle in the triangle.
Granted our star players have high basketball IQ, but if one of our stars do not fit the skillset, the triangle will fail. And our role players don't know what is execution and can't even execute half the playbook, with the triangle, things become complicated.

I'd say Kobe has done "ok".