PDA

View Full Version : can someone explain the intricacies of the triangle offense to me?



mlh1981
11-19-2007, 07:41 PM
I have heard so much about this Tex Winters/Phil Jackson led style of offense. Can someone break it down step-by-step how it can work successfully, what makes it so hard to learn, and the pros/cons of using it? Also, does anyone have any video of an old Bulls or Lakers team running the triangle offense to perfection? I have a basic understanding of what the triangle offense involves, but don't know the nuts and bolts of it.

bk33
11-19-2007, 07:49 PM
well, i can't do it, but try this (http://espn.go.com/ncb/2003/0128/1499926.html).

JalenRawley
11-19-2007, 07:53 PM
I have heard so much about this Tex Winters/Phil Jackson led style of offense. Can someone break it down step-by-step how it can work successfully, what makes it so hard to learn, and the pros/cons of using it? Also, does anyone have any video of an old Bulls or Lakers team running the triangle offense to perfection? I have a basic understanding of what the triangle offense involves, but don't know the nuts and bolts of it.


Google is your friend.

mlh1981
11-19-2007, 07:55 PM
Google is your friend.

Yeah, I know, but I like hearing the different interpretations from ISH posters as well.

Richie2k6
11-19-2007, 08:02 PM
I want to learn more about it, too. If someone could explain it would be appreciated.

I found videos on Youtube about it, though. Straight from Phil Jackson's mouth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3MGu7zB_6XU
The other parts are on the right side of the video under "related videos".

gts
11-19-2007, 08:07 PM
I have heard so much about this Tex Winters/Phil Jackson led style of offense. Can someone break it down step-by-step how it can work successfully, what makes it so hard to learn, and the pros/cons of using it? Also, does anyone have any video of an old Bulls or Lakers team running the triangle offense to perfection? I have a basic understanding of what the triangle offense involves, but don't know the nuts and bolts of it.try this bro

http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/triangle.asp

geeWiz15
11-19-2007, 08:08 PM
basically as far as what I know the point of the triangle is to give the post up player the easiest time scoring it. option 1 is the 1 dribbles it up and gives it to a wing and then goes to the corner. this creates a triangle with the center and the wing who has the ball. it optimizes feeding the post because there's no way the other team's center can deny the ball- if he fronts the Center, it's an easy lob, if he plays weak side the wing can swing to the 1 who passes it to the C and he's got an easy baseline move to the hoop, or, as usually happens, the 3 gets the easiest post feed ever.

another thing is it isn't always the center who posts up, sometimes other guys do it too.

that's why it's called the triangle. but after that everything gets subjective and it's an organic offense. depending on how the defense plays it, there are a variety of cuts and motions. but the essence of it is optimizing organized post play. if that sounds obvious and common it really isn't, as most NBA teams go with a pick and roll offense and some go with a motion and some (Cavs) don't have any offense at all. I guess it makes sense most teams don't use it, as it minimizes the role of the PG and maximizes post play, and most teams have much better point guard play than they have post play. it also requires 5 guys, 4 at the very least, who absolutely know what they're doing out there, or it won't work as well because it requires judgment and basketball IQ, and hardest of all, off-ball awareness.

mlh1981
11-19-2007, 08:09 PM
I want to learn more about it, too. If someone could explain it would be appreciated.

I found videos on Youtube about it, though. Straight from Phil Jackson's mouth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=3MGu7zB_6XU
The other parts are on the right side of the video under "related videos".


funny. just got done watching that same video and VOILA, your reply shows up :lol:

mlh1981
11-19-2007, 08:15 PM
basically as far as what I know the point of the triangle is to give the post up player the easiest time scoring it. option 1 is the 1 dribbles it up and gives it to a wing and then goes to the corner. this creates a triangle with the center and the wing who has the ball. it optimizes feeding the post because there's no way the other team's center can deny the ball- if he fronts the Center, it's an easy lob, if he plays weak side the wing can swing to the 1 who passes it to the C and he's got an easy baseline move to the hoop, or, as usually happens, the 3 gets the easiest post feed ever.

another thing is it isn't always the center who posts up, sometimes other guys do it too.

that's why it's called the triangle. but after that everything gets subjective and it's an organic offense. depending on how the defense plays it, there are a variety of cuts and motions. but the essence of it is optimizing organized post play. if that sounds obvious and common it really isn't, as most NBA teams go with a pick and roll offense and some go with a motion and some (Cavs) don't have any offense at all. I guess it makes sense most teams don't use it, as it minimizes the role of the PG and maximizes post play, and most teams have much better point guard play than they have post play. it also requires 5 guys, 4 at the very least, who absolutely know what they're doing out there, or it won't work as well because it requires judgment and basketball IQ, and hardest of all, off-ball awareness.

Our offense is, "get the ball to LeBron 30 feet outside the basket and make him absorb as much contact as humanly possible as he drives to the lane, which will therefore make him peak at 26 years of age because of the constant pounding" or something like that.

Our ball movement has been decent at times, but Mike Brown will never be confused for Tex Winters.

JalenRawley
11-19-2007, 09:44 PM
Yeah, I know, but I like hearing the different interpretations from ISH posters as well.

"Different interpretations" from ISH posters is another way of saying you're trying to get a consensus from a bunch of kids who have very little factual information on a subject... -any- subject. :D

If you want to know what the triangle offense is, seriously, go look it up. Research it. If you want to know what people think of it, that's another story.
Look for interviews with Tex Winters, those are the best things for it. Being up here in Chicago the whole time through the Jordan years, seeing Jim Cleamons go to Dallas and trying to run it there and failing miserably, seeing other teams run elements of it, we always got a lot of information on it. In school, the kids who played would always ask the coaches about it because we heard so much about it.

The primary function of the triangle offense is to react to what your opponent takes away. A defense cannot take away every element of your offense. He can take away your drive by packing the paint, but that opens up the perimeter and the posts. He can front the post, but that opens up the lane for cutters and interior screens to get free. He can tighten up on your perimeter, but that leaves your drive open. It's all about initiating the offense, seeing how the defense reacts, and attacking whatever the defense leaves for you.

The reason why it's the "triangle" offense is because you're using three players spaced apart from each other in a triangle pattern. In the original triangle offense, they were the guard, the wing and the center, with the guard initiating, the wing cutting, and the center posting. However, anyone can play any position, so you basically have the initiator, the cutter and the post player. The two remaining players on the weak side are essentially spot up shooters, but different sets allow them to cut, screen or draw the defense away from the triangle.

If you have a lot of versatile players on your team, like the Bulls and Lakers did, you can continually shift the offense and capitalize on matchups. For example, anyone who can hit an outside shot, generally a long two or a three, is capable of being the initiator. Anyone with a post-up game can be the post player, and anyone who can move well without the ball can be a cutter. So players like Jordan, Pippen, Kobe, Odom, etc. could and would play all three positions, depending on who was defending them. For example, if Kobe is being played by a defender that has slower footspeed than him, but is larger or stronger, therefore giving him more trouble in the post, putting Kobe in the initiator or cutter's position would give him an advantage as the defense is essentially taking away his ability to be the post player. If he's playing against a smaller, quicker defender, he'll have the advantage in the post.

And that, in a nutshell, is the triangle offense. There are tons of sets, and once you know the sets, you can improvise around them as you react to the defense. The key lies in knowing the sets, and not straying -too- far from them, so your teammates have some idea where the cutters and shooters will be. Because it's such a flexible offense, you can tailor it specifically to any players involved. It's also why you don't need a traditional point guard, and why Jackson and Winters like having taller point guards, and forwards with ballhandling skills and shooting range because they present more matchup problems to the defense by being able to play all of the positions of the triangle.

mlh1981
11-19-2007, 09:50 PM
thanks man. I know there are lots of kids on this site, but to get a good answer like that from you is definately something beneficial. Mixed in with the children, there are guys like yourself, kblaze, loki, dejordan, etc who know their stuff.

I saw some youtube videos and def. know more about it than I did before. Interesting to learn about basketball from an X's/O's point of view, which is a weakness I'm trying to shore up.

Basketball can be better appreciated when you have an understanding of the plays that are being run/executed. Gives you something to watch for on TV besides dunks and 3-pointers.

dejordan
11-19-2007, 10:54 PM
nope. it's an offense that takes professional players multiple years to master. i read something by phil saying that the options in the triangle increase exponentially as the team's understanding of it grows. i can't remember which team he thought knew the most permutations, but he was big on one over the others. i feel like it was either the second bulls dynasty or the lakers. not the younger chicago team.

the main thing to realize about the triangle is that it's an offense that involves everyone reading the defense and reacting to ball movement. everyone has to get it because it's a fluid reaction based offense. not a set offense. and the reads begin when the ball hits one of the post spots - which can be both scoring and passing nodes, and that is where the defense loses integrity and offense takes off.

RidonKs
11-19-2007, 10:56 PM
Oh god, Thorpe made one of the best posts I've ever read in a thread exactly like this one a while ago. Probably a good half year. I'll try to find it.

RidonKs
11-19-2007, 11:17 PM
Also, does anyone have any video of an old Bulls or Lakers team running the triangle offense to perfection?
Perfect example of the triangle offense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqcgy6xLrEM&feature=related)


Couldn't find Thorpe's post. Looked for a while using the new search function, but nothing came up. Too bad too, it was really good.

ExpatSunsFan
11-19-2007, 11:19 PM
From what I remember, the point to the triangle is that you can run a motion offense without disrupting your spacing, because (for the most part) the players all stay 10-15 feet away from each other. Ideally, everybody moves and reacts off each other along pre-set patterns, everybody touches the ball, and the offense capitalizes on easy opportunities early, then sets up a favorable matchup in isolation (at the low block or the opposite elbow) as the clock runs down. The big advantage is that you don't need a true PG to run the offense--your best player(s) can focus on scoring while the other guys chip in with a bit of everything else.

The first problem is, you need five guys who know each other and the offense better than the defenders do. Even the dynasty Bulls and Lakers had a lot of sequences where the offensive players ran around in circles with their heads down while the defense jammed all the cuts, followed by a quick iso play by MJ or Kobe that wound up with a 'bad shot' as the shot clock ran out (which still had a decent chance of going in, because of the player involved). Obviously, the offense isn't nearly as effective if your bail-out guy is Jim Jackson or Jamal Mashburn, and the Mavericks and Jim Cleamons found that out first-hand.

Second problem is, you need role players who can run a motion offense, read and react off the ball, and spread the floor with their shooting. This is actually less demanding than most offenses for a PG, and Phil Jackson has never had much of a problem filling that spot, but it's a tall order for front-line players (much more rare because of their size), and as a result Triangle teams have often tried to 'make do' with big-man role players who lack size and/or athleticism and are mediocre defenders as a result.

Because the simple pick & roll is so powerful nowadays, I doubt you'll see anybody run the Triangle after Phil Jax retires; the offense's focus was always isolations, not picks, so you don't gain much from being allowed to move on screens. The offense is suited more to an environment where you can be very physical away from the ball--you don't need to run 15 seconds of motion to set up an isolation at the elbow nowadays, for one thing, and the offense's cherished 'triangle players' are sitting ducks on defense, since they're less able to compensate for lack of athleticism by bashing their men away from scoring position.


For the Cavs specifically, I don't think they could run the Triangle with Drew Gooden on the floor. Also, even if they brought in Phil Jax and handed the PF spot over to Varejao and Donyell Marshall, they'd probably still wind up with a ton of LeBron isos; they'd just be 20 feet from the basket instead of 30 feet.

IMO it would be easier for the Cavs to simply acquire a decent PG and run a conventional offense. Not that they're necessarily capable of doing that, but they won't be learning the Tri either, so it's kind of an academic question, right?

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 12:23 AM
Because the simple pick & roll is so powerful nowadays, I doubt you'll see anybody run the Triangle after Phil Jax retires;

For the Cavs specifically, I don't think they could run the Triangle with Drew Gooden on the floor. Also, even if they brought in Phil Jax and handed the PF spot over to Varejao and Donyell Marshall, they'd probably still wind up with a ton of LeBron isos; they'd just be 20 feet from the basket instead of 30 feet.


It has nothing to do with Phil Jackson, it's -all- about Tex Winters. While Phil Jackson definitely understands the offense and realizes its potential, Tex Winters is the one who designed the current "NBA" version of it. He got it from his coach, and while there have been a lot of assistant coaches who understand the offense, once Winters finally calls it a day and doesn't even operate in a consultant role, you'll see the triangle offense disappear in the NBA.

dejordan
11-20-2007, 01:15 AM
From what I remember, the point to the triangle is that you can run a motion offense without disrupting your spacing, because (for the most part) the players all stay 10-15 feet away from each other.

just real quick want to note the difference between a motion offense and a read offense. a motion offense like the princeton, has a number of option cuts and passes at each position that the ball comes to. but basically it is a sequence of set plays that lead from one to the next. a read offense like the triangle is different in that the motion that the players take is linked to what the initiator does with the ball and how the defense adjusts when the ball hits the post. as you say the spacing remains strong because the players move with the ball. the variations in the triangle are almost limitless because the players can make so many decisions and read each other to adjust. it's just a matter of familiarity with the system and each other. it's also true that when players fall out of synch it helps a lot to have a great bail out one on one scorer.

jalenrawley nailed it in his long post on page one.

ExpatSunsFan
11-20-2007, 03:12 AM
just real quick want to note the difference between a motion offense and a read offense. a motion offense like the princeton, has a number of option cuts and passes at each position that the ball comes to. but basically it is a sequence of set plays that lead from one to the next.
So is the Triangle. They're both "motion offenses"--a small number of set plays, each with 'limitless' variations because they're run from different spots on the floor, with the players off the ball making reads and adjusting on the fly.

The biggest difference between the Triangle and the Princeton (both unusual among motion offenses in that they don't use screens) is emphasis--Princeton cuts are supposed to create easy shots, and if they fail the offense has to be reset; while Triangle cuts (while they might create easy shots if the defense is weak) are primarily intended to occupy defenders while the offense achieves favorable geometry and spacing for an isolation play. As you might imagine, there's far less pressure on the initiator in the Triangle, since he's not forced to make critical or risky decisions.

ExpatSunsFan
11-20-2007, 03:25 AM
It has nothing to do with Phil Jackson, it's -all- about Tex Winters. While Phil Jackson definitely understands the offense and realizes its potential, Tex Winters is the one who designed the current "NBA" version of it. He got it from his coach, and while there have been a lot of assistant coaches who understand the offense, once Winters finally calls it a day and doesn't even operate in a consultant role, you'll see the triangle offense disappear in the NBA.
Uh, no.


The problem with the Triangle is that Winters is trying to run it in Los Angeles right now, and the Dallas Mavericks got better results from similar players last year with a base offense that consisted of posting guys up at the FT line extended.

That being the case, what head coach is going to commit to running this needlessly complicated offense, at the expense of his team's defense and his players' sanity? The only answer is Phil Jackson, and his reason is that it's part of his snake oil box, along with his championship rings and autographed Michael Jordan memorabilia.

Winters could put his resume out for the next decade, and he wouldn't get a nibble from anybody but Phil.

Loki
11-20-2007, 10:13 AM
The biggest difference between the Triangle and the Princeton (both unusual among motion offenses in that they don't use screens)

The triangle uses down screens (primarily by bigs) on the weakside so players can pop out from the baseline for open looks, and also ball/hand-off/brush screens on the strong side on their "guard around" option. You're right that it's not predicated on screens by any means, however.

Thorpesaurous
11-20-2007, 11:12 AM
Just an aside, because I've posted many times on the triangle, and I'm at work now, so I can't really get into it, but the Celtics have aligned in what's sometimes called the crossed triangle, which I've never seen before, but heard about.

It's run with the post option on the block, and the two primary options across the court. Tex talked about it with Walton, because he liked to turn and face from the mid post, a lot like Garnett, and he was tall enough to see over and pass cross court. Tex says it's ideal, because the only effective double on a face up post guy comes from across the court, which frees up one of the primary scorers. If that skip pass is made quickly, your essentially playing two on two with your two best players, and the only help that can come is from the primary post guy, leaving him open for inside passes and lobs, and since he lines up in a further post than normal, he's got some way to come. It especially helps if those two weakside guys are good shooters. I haven't seen the Celtics use it enough to decide weather or not it's concious, or if they're just accidently aligning that way out of transition. But it's a very interesting take on this arrangement that's at best very rare.

Da KO King
11-20-2007, 12:02 PM
....but the Celtics have aligned in what's sometimes called the crossed triangle, which I've never seen before, but heard about.

It's run with the post option on the block, and the two primary options across the court. Tex talked about it with Walton, because he liked to turn and face from the mid post, a lot like Garnett, and he was tall enough to see over and pass cross court. Tex says it's ideal, because the only effective double on a face up post guy comes from across the court, which frees up one of the primary scorers. If that skip pass is made quickly, your essentially playing two on two with your two best players, and the only help that can come is from the primary post guy, leaving him open for inside passes and lobs, and since he lines up in a further post than normal, he's got some way to come. It especially helps if those two weakside guys are good shooters. I haven't seen the Celtics use it enough to decide weather or not it's concious, or if they're just accidently aligning that way out of transition. But it's a very interesting take on this arrangement that's at best very rare.
First, that's Doc Rivers greatest weakness on display right there. Rivers has no basketball personality of his own. He takes plays and concepts from so many different people that his offense become a jumbled mess after a while.

Second, I didn't realize that Triangle option was a cognizant thing. I thought it was just an alignment that Triangle teams fell bass ackward into. It's a ridiculously easy alignment to get into now that I think about it. Don't know why I never realized it was intentional.


just real quick want to note the difference between a motion offense and a read offense.

I think the fact we are talking about NBA teams and offenses is clouding the

Thorpesaurous
11-20-2007, 01:38 PM
Second, I didn't realize that Triangle option was a cognizant thing. I thought it was just an alignment that Triangle teams fell bass ackward into. It's a ridiculously easy alignment to get into now that I think about it. Don't know why I never realized it was intentional.

It's just odd that there would be an intentional set where two of your three best players are set on the weakside. I truly doubt it happened out of a call, I think it was more of a secondary break situation.

Good Old Willy
11-20-2007, 01:43 PM
Great thread / posts. Thanks for the reading.

dejordan
11-20-2007, 02:01 PM
[QUOTE=Da KO King]
I think the fact we are talking about NBA teams and offenses is clouding the

Da KO King
11-20-2007, 02:08 PM
It's just odd that there would be an intentional set where two of your three best players are set on the weakside. I truly doubt it happened out of a call, I think it was more of a secondary break situation.
I'm not so sure. It

Thorpesaurous
11-20-2007, 03:42 PM
The thing about the cross court alignment is that it isolates the two help side defenders as far from the action as possible, and in as useless a position as possible.

You'd get into it with a high screen between Rondo and Perkins, then move Garnett to the strong block with a cross screen, most likely from Pierce. Or use Garnett as the high screener, then back screen him to the short corner with Perkins, a screen the screener action. That should get Garnett the ball, mid post, and Rondo corner, Perkins high makes up the usual triangle.
The thing is, Garnett is going to instinctually inside pivot and face up. That renders doubles from Rondo's guy useless, because he's on his back. Doubling off of Perkins is only going to cover the top.
That creates the triangle between Garnett, and Allen/Pierce on the weakside. Any action off the ball on the weakside, like a cross between the two, should be enough to open them up a little.
The help is less likely to be too agressive off of those two, plus it's got less size, otherwise there'd be iso problems against either one. Should the ball get skipped, you have Pierce and Allen in a two on two situation, with the help coming off of Garnett having to cover more ground, because of the distance Garnett plays off the block. And the help would coming off of Garnett, which is a good thing.
You're asking him to make a difficult pass across the middle of the floor, but Garnett's length makes him one of the few people I could imagine pulling it off. Winter has talked about it with regard to Walton. Shaq's post position is much deeper, making that cross court pass less impactfull. And Jordan would have a more difficult time because he's shorter, plus he's playing one of the two spots you'd want that iso on the weakside for.

One of the problems the C's have with the traditional triangle would be their Centers on the weakside, who generally can't shoot, meaning you get an automatic double team. That's why the Bulls went after guys like Wennington. It's the reason Brian Cook can find a roll on the Laker's when he otherwise may not be in the league.

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 04:09 PM
Uh, no.
The problem with the Triangle is that Winters is trying to run it in Los Angeles right now, and the Dallas Mavericks got better results from similar players last year with a base offense that consisted of posting guys up at the FT line extended.

That being the case, what head coach is going to commit to running this needlessly complicated offense, at the expense of his team's defense and his players' sanity? The only answer is Phil Jackson, and his reason is that it's part of his snake oil box, along with his championship rings and autographed Michael Jordan memorabilia.

Winters could put his resume out for the next decade, and he wouldn't get a nibble from anybody but Phil.

None of this has anything to do with the facts of the situation, which is what I corrected you on. You talk about the triangle offense as if it's Phil's offense, and that anywhere he ended up going, the triangle offense would automatically go with him. Not necessarily so. If he has the personnel, and he brings Tex Winters along to help modify it for the personnel he has, then yes he will run the triangle there, but the equation is not Phil Jackson = Triangle Offense, it's Tex Winters = Triangle Offense. Period. Phil recognizes it's usefulness, he recognizes that you can utilize it to be more successful with a team with a couple skilled players and a handful of role players, but he's not the expert, and he's not the architect. If Winters retired tomorrow, new players coming into the franchise wouldn't have the opportunity to learn the offense from the number one person to teach it, and as players keep coming into the league younger and dumber (in terms of actual basketball knowledge), they need a LOT of instruction in order to run the offense. Jim Cleamons is very experienced and knowledgeable with it, but he's not Tex Winters. Nobody comes close to his level of knowledge and expertise with it, because he's the only one who learned it first hand who is still coaching.

Several other coaches have run the triangle, but none of them have achieved success because they're doing it without Tex Winters around. You can run certain sets of it, but in order to run all of the sets of the offense, and in order to truly teach the players how to read and react to defenses within the scope of the offense, you need Tex Winters. Phil Jackson is not an X's and O's coach; never has been, never will be. So, if Phil goes to New York, and Tex Winters decides that it's time to retire, the Knicks won't be running the triangle the way the Lakers do and the way the Bulls did.

Tex Winters doesn't need to put out his resume anywhere. He's set for the rest of his life. He could do consulting gigs, seminars, camps, etc. once or twice a year if he really wanted to continue teaching the principles of the offense. He's only in LA because Phil wants him there, because Phil wants to run that offense and needs Winters around to adapt and teach it.

Whether or not you like the offense, you agree with it being run, or whether or not you see the benefits of it being run elsewhere are irrelevant. I wasn't correcting your opinion, I was correcting your regarding it as Phil's offense and it goes where he goes. Again, if Phil goes anywhere and Tex doesn't go with, that team will not run the triangle offense. Certain sets, sure, but many teams run similar sets. Many triangle sets are very similar to more common motion sets, just with different spacing. But as far as a team running a large part of their offense through the triangle? That goes with Tex, not Phil.

Da KO King
11-20-2007, 04:19 PM
Sorry Jalen but I disagree, I think Phil Jackson is a one trick pony who will try to force his Triangle peg into any round hole of a coaching job he gets.

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 04:53 PM
Sorry Jalen but I disagree, I think Phil Jackson is a one trick pony who will try to force his Triangle peg into any round hole of a coaching job he gets.

I don't agree at all. Phil's more of a manager than a coach. He's not out there teaching X's and O's, he's not out there hammering the details of the offense down, he's not the expert on the offense, Tex is.

Phil believes in the offense, obviously. He believed he had the personnel to take advantage of it. He believes in the concepts of it, in that you don't run a static offense than another team could learn and react to. Look at his substitutions, look at his coaching style.. it's all about matchups, it's all about creating advantages. That's what the triangle is all about. If he had never heard of the triple post offense before, he'd be running a motion read offense. He believes in the fundamental skill of reading and reacting to a defense.

As Jim Cleamons found out, the triangle doesn't work everywhere. If the Lakers had gotten Jason Kidd, they would've abandoned the triangle more than they do now. They don't run a triangle set -every- time down the floor. The players have the option of waving it off, and just like with the Bulls, they'll run other sets from time to time to shake up the defense and force them into making more mistakes, creating more advantages for the offensive players.

And actually, it's a moot point anyway. Phil's not going to be coaching for very many more years, and Tex definitely isn't. Neither is interested in taking over a crap team and rebuilding, and there aren't any championship teams that need to replace their coaches. It's not like Isiah is going to get fired, Phil is going to go to New York and say, "I think Stephon Marbury and the inside triangle are made for each other like peanut butter and chocolate." In fact, I think of the entire Knicks roster, only Malik Rose has ever been in a strict NBA offense. Marbury, Crawford, Curry, Randolph, Richardson, Robinson; all selfish loose cannons, and that type of play does -not- fit into the triangle, nor into Jackson's motivational and educational coaching agenda. Do you honestly believe if New York hired Jackson today he'd be forcing those meatheads into the triangle? There's no way, not even on their best day. If he was dead set on running the triangle, he'd have to have $5M in players on the floor and $80M of players sitting on the bench.

On second thought, that last bit doesn't sound like a bad idea. :D

mlh1981
11-20-2007, 05:03 PM
I am bookmarking this page for future reading. This is amazing stuff. You can't get back-and-forth discussion like this from google, as I have learned a TON of new info today :rockon:

Da KO King
11-20-2007, 05:10 PM
I am bookmarking this page for future reading. This is amazing stuff. You can't get back-and-forth discussion like this from google, as I have learned a TON of new info today :rockon:
If you want another thread with some pretty good X's & O's stuff check out this one

Shameless self promotion on my part :oldlol: (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44936)

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 05:14 PM
I am bookmarking this page for future reading. This is amazing stuff. You can't get back-and-forth discussion like this from google, as I have learned a TON of new info today :rockon:

Well, this is the way it -should- be around here. Notice, there are plenty of people who aren't agreeing on things, but nobody's saying, "you're a f*cking idiot* or "LOL!!!11 triangles sux!!!11" or "you'd have to be a blind retard to think Jordan was better than Kobe in the triangle" type of crap.

It's really sad that there can't be more topics like this one, but that's the way the ISH cookie crumbles I guess.

Mm... cookies

Da KO King
11-20-2007, 05:18 PM
Well, this is the way it -should- be around here. Notice, there are plenty of people who aren't agreeing on things, but nobody's saying, "you're a f*cking idiot* or "LOL!!!11 triangles sux!!!11" or "you'd have to be a blind retard to think Jordan was better than Kobe in the triangle" type of crap.

It's really sad that there can't be more topics like this one, but that's the way the ISH cookie crumbles I guess.

Mm... cookies
Phil Jackson sux!!!!!!11


:roll:

mlh1981
11-20-2007, 05:22 PM
from reading these replies and watching a youtube video with Tex Winters giving a drill, here's what I gathered:

-there is a "push guard," and the second guard "lags" behind
-all 5 players key off of lag pass (I will have to watch video again to fully understand this)
-spacing is important (about 15 feet apart so that double teaming is hard). If opponent tries to double, ball moves faster than the feet of the defenders
-speed cuts are made, and 1st cutter sets a drop pass
-triangle is ultimately formed by the center, who is in the low post, forward at wing, and guard in corner

Some of these points have probably been mentioned numerous times in this thread, but these seem to be the basics of it. Spacing, passing, and players willing to committ to a system.

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 05:24 PM
Phil Jackson sux!!!!!!11


:roll:

NUH UH11111 U SUX1111

:party: DUUUUUUUUUH :party:

;)

Richie2k6
11-20-2007, 05:24 PM
from reading these replies and watching a youtube video with Tex Winters giving a drill, here's what I gathered:

-there is a "push guard," and the second guard "lags" behind
-all 5 players key off of lag pass (I will have to watch video again to fully understand this)
-spacing is important (about 15 feet apart so that double teaming is hard). If opponent tries to double, ball moves faster than the feet of the defenders
-speed cuts are made, and 1st cutter sets a drop pass
-triangle is ultimately formed by the center, who is in the low post, forward at wing, and guard in corner

Some of these points have probably been mentioned numerous times in this thread, but these seem to be the basics of it. Spacing, passing, and players willing to committ to a system.
And the fact that you need to be constantly aware. If there's a single player in the play that doesn't know what they're doing or bends the play, it could disorganize the entire thing.

gts
11-20-2007, 05:30 PM
from reading these replies and watching a youtube video with Tex Winters giving a drill, here's what I gathered:

-there is a "push guard," and the second guard "lags" behind
-all 5 players key off of lag pass (I will have to watch video again to fully understand this)
-spacing is important (about 15 feet apart so that double teaming is hard). If opponent tries to double, ball moves faster than the feet of the defenders
-speed cuts are made, and 1st cutter sets a drop pass
-triangle is ultimately formed by the center, who is in the low post, forward at wing, and guard in corner

Some of these points have probably been mentioned numerous times in this thread, but these seem to be the basics of it. Spacing, passing, and players willing to committ to a system.yeah that's a good synopsis.. it also shows why tex gets so frustrated with kobe sometimes... kobe (in the past) tends to try and break the double teams by driving instead of passing out of them, which makes the whole system crash, until somebody gets the ball and resets the offense...

applejoe
11-20-2007, 05:33 PM
And the fact that you need to be constantly aware. If there's a single player in the play that doesn't know what they're doing or bends the play, it could disorganize the entire thing.

Kinda like what Kobe does. Seems like the whole point of the triangle for the Lakers is to get Kobe a shot over 2 defenders. At times he goes through the motions just so everyone else can touch the ball too, but rarely do they get the benefits of the movement and spacing created from the offense.

Sharas
11-20-2007, 05:35 PM
Well, this is the way it -should- be around here. Notice, there are plenty of people who aren't agreeing on things, but nobody's saying, "you're a f*cking idiot* or "LOL!!!11 triangles sux!!!11" or "you'd have to be a blind retard to think Jordan was better than Kobe in the triangle" type of crap.

It's really sad that there can't be more topics like this one, but that's the way the ISH cookie crumbles I guess.

Mm... cookies

well, topic like this requires better knowledge of Xs & Os than 98% of ISH posters have. including myself. that's why they're so rare. right now you've got the single digit number of active posters that really could wrote something meaningful on topic like this.

mlh1981
11-20-2007, 05:40 PM
if I were a player, it would make perfect sense to me to follow the teachings of Phil Jackson and Tex Winters, 2 men who have perfected a system to the tune of 9 titles. I would pick their brains for hours on end, study endless video tape, and get my teammates to the gym to practice the different variations of it for hours on end.

Basketball is all about winning. These men WIN. People remember WINNERS. Sadly, many players are too selfish and ego-driven to commit themselves to a system. Noone remembers how much money you make or how many points you average per game. To get 5 guys on the court who are in total harmony just seems like too much to ask these days.

mlh1981
11-20-2007, 05:43 PM
well, topic like this requires better knowledge of Xs & Os than 98% of ISH posters have. including myself. that's why they're so rare. right now you've got the single digit number of active posters that really could wrote something meaningful on topic like this.


Most people are attracted to good storylines, and/or flashy plays. However, as I get older, I am somewhat distancing myself from being the fanboy that I once was. I can only handle so much off the court drama, and while crossover dribbles and slam dunks are fun to watch, I crave for a much deeper understanding of the game.

JalenRawley
11-20-2007, 05:48 PM
well, topic like this requires better knowledge of Xs & Os than 98% of ISH posters have. including myself. that's why they're so rare. right now you've got the single digit number of active posters that really could wrote something meaningful on topic like this.

It's the same for 98% of the subjects as well. So many people consider themselves experts when they can't even be bothered to read the article that they're commenting on, they just comment on a tiny piece of it that someone posts. THAT is the main problem.

It's not that people don't have the knowledge, it's that people don't want to make the effort to gain the knowledge.

Why would you post about something that you know little to nothing about? It's like if people coming in here and posting about the triangle offense, when they really don't know anything about it, what purpose does that serve other than to display their own ignorance? If those people didn't post, you'd have a hell of a lot more posts like this on ISH, with people asking questions about something they honestly wanted to know about, not some uninformed child with an agenda asking questions just to bait someone into an argument so they can tell them why they're wrong.

If more people posted about what they honestly knew about, and didn't post at all in the threads that they honestly don't know about, the internet as a whole would be a better place, and we could all sign Kumbaya around the glow of our monitors :D

Pharmacist
11-20-2007, 05:50 PM
Kinda like what Kobe does. Seems like the whole point of the triangle for the Lakers is to get Kobe a shot over 2 defenders. At times he goes through the motions just so everyone else can touch the ball too, but rarely do they get the benefits of the movement and spacing created from the offense.

No.. Kobe's teammates can't even make open shots, that's why the Triangle doesn't work. Jordan had some of the greatest shooters of all time in their positions on his team (Kerr, Grant), one of the greatest SF of all time, and smart players that know their role in all positions. That's why Jordan could afford to pass the ball and run the Triangle. That's why the Triangle worked to get 6 chips. If Kobe had those teammates, he'd get at least 2 by now.

Juvenile
11-20-2007, 05:59 PM
The thing about the cross court alignment is that it isolates the two help side defenders as far from the action as possible, and in as useless a position as possible.

You'd get into it with a high screen between Rondo and Perkins, then move Garnett to the strong block with a cross screen, most likely from Pierce. Or use Garnett as the high screener, then back screen him to the short corner with Perkins, a screen the screener action. That should get Garnett the ball, mid post, and Rondo corner, Perkins high makes up the usual triangle.
The thing is, Garnett is going to instinctually inside pivot and face up. That renders doubles from Rondo's guy useless, because he's on his back. Doubling off of Perkins is only going to cover the top.
That creates the triangle between Garnett, and Allen/Pierce on the weakside. Any action off the ball on the weakside, like a cross between the two, should be enough to open them up a little.
The help is less likely to be too agressive off of those two, plus it's got less size, otherwise there'd be iso problems against either one. Should the ball get skipped, you have Pierce and Allen in a two on two situation, with the help coming off of Garnett having to cover more ground, because of the distance Garnett plays off the block. And the help would coming off of Garnett, which is a good thing.
You're asking him to make a difficult pass across the middle of the floor, but Garnett's length makes him one of the few people I could imagine pulling it off. Winter has talked about it with regard to Walton. Shaq's post position is much deeper, making that cross court pass less impactfull. And Jordan would have a more difficult time because he's shorter, plus he's playing one of the two spots you'd want that iso on the weakside for.

One of the problems the C's have with the traditional triangle would be their Centers on the weakside, who generally can't shoot, meaning you get an automatic double team. That's why the Bulls went after guys like Wennington. It's the reason Brian Cook can find a roll on the Laker's when he otherwise may not be in the league.

Just to get it right. You got the regular triangle on the strong side with the center up top, the PG in the strong side corner and the two swingmen on both wings. The strong side swingman cuts along the baseline, the weakside moves towards the top and if there isnt a viable scoring situation with those moves, the high post player will make a move towards either side and the only viable help is from the former strong side corner or the weakside wing? Is that it? Basically some sort of a triangle morphed into a 2-1-2 situation with two up top, a high post and two corner/wing players?

If that, I see how KG would fit well in there, since he can shoot it well from there, take a long stride towards the basket or pass it out if he gets the double team.

bagelred
11-20-2007, 06:17 PM
http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/offense/triangle/TriangleBasicR.gif

Thorpesaurous
11-20-2007, 06:48 PM
Just to get it right. You got the regular triangle on the strong side with the center up top, the PG in the strong side corner and the two swingmen on both wings. The strong side swingman cuts along the baseline, the weakside moves towards the top and if there isnt a viable scoring situation with those moves, the high post player will make a move towards either side and the only viable help is from the former strong side corner or the weakside wing? Is that it? Basically some sort of a triangle morphed into a 2-1-2 situation with two up top, a high post and two corner/wing players?

If that, I see how KG would fit well in there, since he can shoot it well from there, take a long stride towards the basket or pass it out if he gets the double team.

I'm ending up with my strongside triangle being PG (Rondo) in the corner, my Center (Perkins) at the strong wing, almost in the high post, and my PF (Garnett) on the block. This is awkward, because it requires at least one of my bigs to by a good ball handler, at least in terms of decision making.
There's almost an infinite number of ways to get into that arangement. You can run pick and pop with Pierce and Rondo, then run a flare screen to the weakside from Perkins.

The advantage to this, as opposed to the usual triangle, is that it leaves both wings (Pierce and Ray Allen) on the weakside. This seriously diminishes the quality of help over there, as there isn't going to be much size. It also increases the firepower over there. So much so in fact, that the weak side really becomes the focal point of the offense. That's a really strange idea.

It only works if you have post player who's adapt enough a passer to make those cross court passes, and he has to play a bit off of the box in order to pull help away from those two after the ball gets over there. Shaq sits almost too deep in the post, and Jordan may be too small to ask to consistently make those passes.

Thorpesaurous
11-20-2007, 07:08 PM
The big secret behing the triangle is that it's not rocket science. It's mostly just a set around a post player, that's only real consistent requirement is to get the ball into him. After that, it's just a fill of those spots.

The trouble is that it requires a great deal of feel among the players in it. It rarely has specific call outs. It feeds off of a series of cuts, and off the ball screens, from which the post player essentially runs the offense, while the movement pulls attention away from him. Those cuts aren't called out like a specific play, they're much more instinctive. And that's why it's hard to run. You need at least three guys with some common ideas about how to approach a possession, without speaking. It can be done because the movement is pretty basic. It's mostly a combo of those cross cuts, and some flare screens, with some curl action run on the weakside, or from strong to weak. I ran some triangle in college, and always liked it.

Of the two pro triangle's that most people are used to, they're a little decieving. The Laker triangle fed off of a guy who was nearly impossible to stop at that time in the post. Those Laker teams weren't really displaying the triangle the way it's taught. The post play was much deeper, and the off ball stuff was more stagnant, mostly because of the quickness with which Shaq made plays, because he was so deep. There's not a ton of difference between the Laker triangle at that time, and the 4 out 1 in scheme Rudy T ran with the Rockets.
The Bull triangle was really genius. It was extremely unique in the way it was built. It was obviously built around the fact that Jordan was the best post scorer in basketball at the time. But it was further out than usual. It relied on even more strong side movement than usual, because Jordan was generally going to back out. And the weakside moved less, and was more pure shooter, to keep the help honest. It really required a special big, who could function on the strong side, but not in the post. So he needed to be able to pass, catch, move well, make decisions, and read his teammates, all while being willing to be that good and not have the ego to want those post touches. That's a tough player to find. Without that guy, you get both bigs on the weakside, now they both need to be able to shoot, and even then there's bigger help coming over to double. It's a fascinating lesson in team building.
Part of the Celtic problem with trying to run it like that was that they don't have a center to play the weakside. That big was going to be an automatic double every time. And with both Pierce and Allen on the strong side, you'd leave Rondo on the weakside too, leaving even less shooting.

Da KO King
04-24-2013, 11:17 AM
One of the best pure basketball threads this message board has ever seen

CeltsGarlic
04-24-2013, 11:34 AM
its basically running horns a lot with your best post passer receiving the ball or running diamond with your 2 left players out of triangle. spacing is also very important. so its kind of bad to use it against zone. Real zone.

if you have 2 good, smart post players it can turn into nightmare for defense with all back screens.