# Rose confirms it is KRAUSE that insists on the TRIANGLE



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

"To be honest with you, no matter who the coach is, this team will run the triangle as long as Jerry Krause is here," Rose says. "That's something that I found out when I got here. When you go to the Bulls, you will run the triangle on offense."

"If they decided to try a different system, I wouldn't be against it at all," says team captain Jalen.

"We're a team that starts three second-year guys and one rookie. If they have to think so much about where to go and what to do next, it creates hesitancy and doesn't always play to their strengths."

"Our system has no diversion," Eddie Robinson says. "You have to run it thoroughly to get anything out of it, but we can't be patient when we're down by a lot of points. We need another offense that gets us quick-hitters."

"Could this team run and be successful?" Rose says. "Definitely."


http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/dssports/pro/211sd7.htm


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> "To be honest with you, no matter who the coach is, this team will run the triangle as long as Jerry Krause is here," Rose says. "That's something that I found out when I got here. When you go to the Bulls, you will run the triangle on offense."
> 
> "If they decided to try a different system, I wouldn't be against it at all," says team captain Jalen.
> ...


That article is such BS. Rose should be flogged for adding to the discord of the team. The triangle is an offensive scheme guys, it can't be an excuse for poor play. If you want to run then PLEASE do it. You can run all you want in transition! I don't know what the hell they're talking about! You set the triangle up AFTER you run. Sheesh, for guys who play basketball for a living you would think they would have AT LEAST figured that much out by now.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

Maybe Rose wants an uptempo offense to generate an uptempo game instead of the deliberate one the Bulls run. There is a difference and when jalen says he wants to run that is what he wants.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> Maybe Rose wants an uptempo offense to generate an uptempo game instead of the deliberate one the Bulls run. There is a difference and when jalen says he wants to run that is what he wants.



Hmmm.. What "uptempo" offense would you suggest they run out of the half court?


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

I do think we should run more and use more pick and roll. But there would be a problem to this as well. How good would our transition defense be if we ran alot more. True we could score more, but would we be able to stop them from running.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Rose confirms it is KRAUSE that insists on the TRIANGLE*



> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Rose should be flogged for adding to the discord of the team.


Agreed.

And thats the only thing we should be discussing on this thread. You don't give an idiots ideas credence by discussing them.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Sucky article (not well written).. but does raise another point about the triangle offense. Jalen is our best player and his word carries more weight than others on the team.

I know the peanut gallery here is split about keeping/trashing the triangle. I'm in favor of dumping it, and here's why... the ingredients of a successful triangle offense

1) Personnel; 1-2 All-Stars with established careers and well rounded games offensively (passing, shooting, moving w/o ball,etc.)

2) 'Bailout' guy to take shots in final seconds of shot-clock <i>(MJ, Kobe/Shaq)</i>

3) Low post threat to score consistently and pass well out of double teams <i>(think Shaq, MJ) </i>

4) A consistent 3 point shooter on the floor to keep defenses honest and spaced <i>(Pax/BJ, Horry/Fischer)</i>


I know this argument has been recycled through many threads... but in my humble opinion the triangle offense is not the best system for our current Bulls team. Too many young players trying to find their games and place in the NBA, while at the same time trying to tackle an offense that doesn't play to their strengths.



VD


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I think Rose has a point. I have yet to hear one player claim they like running the triangle. Jordan hated it. Kobe hates it. Jalen hates it. 

We can talk until we're blue in the face about how it should work but none of us are in the NBA and there are things that we simply don't know about the professional game.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,COC-BBV-28296.html


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Sucky article (not well written).. but does raise another point about the triangle offense. Jalen is our best player and his word carries more weight than others on the team.
> 
> I know the peanut gallery here is split about keeping/trashing the triangle. I'm in favor of dumping it, and here's why... the ingredients of a successful triangle offense
> ...


VD, you could make the argument that almost ANY offense needs those sorts of players to be succesful in the NBA. I don't see the Bulls switching offenses and suddenly being able to play an "uptempo" game. I think they should run in transition if thats what they want. Personally I'm not really familiar with any way to run "uptempo" out of a half court set! Sure, some schemes use more motion than others but thats hardly playing "uptempo" IMHO.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> VD, you could make the argument that almost ANY offense needs those sorts of players to be succesful in the NBA. I don't see the Bulls switching offenses and suddenly being able to play an "uptempo" game. I think they should run in transition if thats what they want. Personally I'm not really familiar with any way to run "uptempo" out of a half court set! Sure, some schemes use more motion than others but thats hardly playing "uptempo" IMHO.


See my previous post ;-)

http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,COC-BBV-28296.html


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> http://www.onlinesports.com/pages/I,COC-BBV-28296.html


Hmmm..interesting, I'mnot buying the video though. IMO, a "fast break"offense simply means run the floor, fill the lanes, try to score in transition before setting up a half court scheme. If you can run a "fast break" offensive scheme out of the half court...I'd sure like to see it.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm.. What "uptempo" offense would you suggest they run out of the half court?


There are plenty of more uptempo, quick look offenses, that do not have to run through a progression dictated by the defense, to get a look.

You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that, and my telling you it is fact, does not give you that knowledge either. 

A quicker tempo in the half court will create a quicker paced game. This may be more suitable to the young Bulls than a deliberate, reactionary offense like the triangle.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmmm..interesting, I'mnot buying the video though. IMO, a "fast break"offense simply means run the floor, fill the lanes, try to score in transition before setting up a half court scheme. If you can run a "fast break" offensive scheme out of the half court...I'd sure like to see it.


You absolutely can run a fast break offensive scheme.

Westhead's teams in college and the pros routinely scored in the 110+ ppg range. Other teams scored highly against them - that was the downside... But looking at the Bulls' current situation, this kind of scheme may make sense. 

The Bulls have youth and depth. Run, run, run. Wear down the other team. Beat them at the end. The Bulls are poor defenders... Who cares about defense! ;-)

Here's another URL:

http://mypages.allcanadiansport.ca/basketballmb/52936.asp

Loyola Marymount coach Paul Westhead leads you through his offensive philosophies by introducing different forms of fast-breaking. His program keys on running off of every situation, trying to wear down the opponent near the end of the game. Westhead offers a number of different plays and sets designed to push the ball up as quickly as possible. He is one of the innovators of the "run and gun" game plan, using both on court and diagram examples.


And one that is VERY relevent to this discussion:

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/columns/aldridge_david/1392640.html


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> VD, you could make the argument that almost ANY offense needs those sorts of players to be succesful in the NBA. I don't see the Bulls switching offenses and suddenly being able to play an "uptempo" game. I think they should run in transition if thats what they want. Personally I'm not really familiar with any way to run "uptempo" out of a half court set! Sure, some schemes use more motion than others but thats hardly playing "uptempo" IMHO.


Agreed.

Like many others here, I would like the Bulls to run more set plays and yes... pick and roll near the top of the key. As well, I have yet to see the Bulls effectively set a down screen near the baseline to get a player a pass right under the basket (though teams do this ALL THE TIME against us). Lastly, trying to run an 'isolation' for Jalen is plain sick in the triangle. The other players are so concerned w/ spacing that their man winds up double teamming Jalen, creating a turnover or poor shot from Jalen. In other words, like last night.. if you're gonna run an 'iso' the 4 players should be way the heck on the other side of the court. Eesh.

The triangle is here to say I think. I simply don't think its the best system for 'developing' NBA players. It seems the limited success offensively this season has come from scrapping the triangle temporarily and running more motion offense and pick-and-roll.



VD


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmmm..interesting, I'mnot buying the video though. IMO, a "fast break"offense simply means run the floor, fill the lanes, try to score in transition before setting up a half court scheme. If you can run a "fast break" offensive scheme out of the half court...I'd sure like to see it.


there needs to be commitment to running. There needs to be a coomitment to attempting to score in transition, on the primary or secondary break, there needs to be a commitment to getting quick, good looks.

There is no comitment from the Bulls to do any of this, and it all comes from the scheme the Bulls run and the restriction placed on the players to "run" the triangle, for the most part.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2002/columns/aldridge_david/1392640.html

I don't want this URL to get lost in my previous post about Westhead, as it has nothing to do with Westhead...

The above article talks about how several other teams, including the Mavericks, tried the triangle, saw it fail for them, and moved on to something else/better.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> I think Rose has a point. I have yet to hear one player claim they like running the triangle. Jordan hated it. Kobe hates it. Jalen hates it.
> 
> We can talk until we're blue in the face about how it should work but none of us are in the NBA and there are things that we simply don't know about the professional game.


If players had their day then the MJ led Bulls wouldn't have used the triangle, nor would the Kobe led Lakers. Players are players and not coaches for a VERY good reason. These guys are paid big money to PLAY the game, the coaching needs to be left to the guys that are paid big money to coach. I've don't think Ihave EVER met a player who didn't "know more than the coach." You can't coddle players, they either buy into the system that you set for the orginization or you send them packing.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> there needs to be commitment to running. There needs to be a coomitment to attempting to score in transition, on the primary or secondary break, there needs to be a commitment to getting quick, good looks.
> ...


I don't understand how the triangle has ANY impact on the transition game. The guys are always encouraged to run & score in transition and only set up a triangle AFTER a transition failure.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

The coach is not always right, and the triangle is not either. That is just the plain simple truth. But you make a point, if the players don't work and you want to run the triangle, then by all means, ship the players out and get guys that want to do it and are able to.

The thing about the triangle is that it is not creative, it is reactionary. You make your cuts, and make the pass depending on what the other team is doing to defend it. Instead of forcing the defense to play a certain way, or creating a tempo, the offense is deliberate in looking for the weakness. So instead of playing to your strengths, you are playing for the other teams weakness. When it comes to crunch time, then you have to create, and with the triangle there has been Jordan and now Kobe. Their work ethic is unquestioned and they were the best at creating for themselves. If the triangle was perfect, there would have never been a need for that part of it, but do not doubt that there is a need.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> 
> 
> You absolutely can run a fast break offensive scheme.
> ...


Yeah, sure you can run a fast break, but you can't do it out of the half court which is what the triangle is run out of...


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> I don't understand how the triangle has ANY impact on the transition game. The guys are always encouraged to run & score in transition and only set up a triangle AFTER a transition failure.


Because they do not control the tempo, and they are not encouraged to score on the break. That is the simple truth of it. Players now what is and is not acceptable, and if the type of shot is not there, then they know they are going to have to transition to the triangle. Think of it as an acceptance meter of shot selection. A deliberate team like the bulls have a rigid value on the acceptance meter, with the preference to run the offense and get a "quality" shot. For other teams it means to push it, and even if it is a little sloppy, as long as they are getting the looks they want from the players they want, they are going to continue to get these "good" looks, without the deliberation.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> Yeah, sure you can run a fast break, but you can't do it out of the half court which is what the triangle is run out of...


Do not take this wrong way ace20004u, but you are not looking at the complete picture, and you are not understanding the players frustration with the system they run.

You are looking for an explanation about running a "fast break" in the half court, without looking at every aspect that makes a team a "running" team versus the deliberate half court team the Bulls are now. If you think it is only about taking a fast break bucket when it is available you are wrong.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> 
> 
> Do not take this wrong way ace20004u, but you are not looking at the complete picture, and you are not understanding the players frustration with the system they run.
> ...


I've watched the Triangle for at least a dozen years now. What I see is a very slow and deliberate offense AND defense system that is tightly integrated. The triangle uses 20 seconds of the 24 second clock just about every posession (where there was no fast break). It's almost a mathematical thing - you can figure out how many points can possibly be scored in 48 minutes if one team is chewing up the clock.

In an uptempo offense, you move the ball up the court fast, every time. New Orleans did this to us and beat us handily. You get off a shot within 12 seconds on the 24 second clock, or even faster.

Players look to shoot first, and then drive and dish. Far less perimeter passing, though you can still drive and kick out to a 3 pt. shooter. And EVERYONE runs ALL the time without the ball.

You can run clearouts for JWill or Rose by putting the other 4 players far out of the way (on the opposite side of the court).


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

This is so overblown IMHO. Nothing is wrong with the triangle offense. It can work great. A team can also play uptempo as well and use the triangle. However, it does take a tremendous commitment from the coaching staff and the players. It's hard to learn. 

We also have a number of young players trying to learn how to play in the NBA as well. The team that PJax inherited at both Chi and LA were much further along in their development. They were quality playoff teams.

*So we are combining growing pains of extreme youth with learning pains related to the complex triangle offense. Tough combination*

So rather debate the merits of the triangle offense, I think the interesting issues are whether BC and Krause will hold the line on the triangle and for how long and if this team could mutiny against it.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> This is so overblown IMHO. Nothing is wrong with the triangle offense. It can work great. A team can also play uptempo as well and use the triangle. However, it does take a tremendous commitment from the coaching staff and the players. It's hard to learn.
> 
> We also have a number of young players trying to learn how to play in the NBA as well. The team that PJax inherited at both Chi and LA were much further along in their development. They were quality playoff teams.
> ...


The Lakers aren't doing too good playing the Triangle without Shaq. We don't have Shaq either ;-)


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

I believe there is almost *ZERO* chance that Krause will move away from the triangle if confronted by the thought of player mutiny against it. That would almost ensure him sticking with it to show that he can not and will not be undermined in that way.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> I believe there is almost *ZERO* chance that Krause will move away from the triangle if confronted by the thought of player mutiny against it. That would almost ensure him sticking with it to show that he can not and will not be undermined in that way.


Sorta like Custer's last stand?


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> The coach is not always right, and the triangle is not either. That is just the plain simple truth. But you make a point, if the players don't work and you want to run the triangle, then by all means, ship the players out and get guys that want to do it and are able to.
> 
> The thing about the triangle is that it is not creative, it is reactionary. You make your cuts, and make the pass depending on what the other team is doing to defend it. Instead of forcing the defense to play a certain way, or creating a tempo, the offense is deliberate in looking for the weakness. So instead of playing to your strengths, you are playing for the other teams weakness. When it comes to crunch time, then you have to create, and with the triangle there has been Jordan and now Kobe. Their work ethic is unquestioned and they were the best at creating for themselves. If the triangle was perfect, there would have never been a need for that part of it, but do not doubt that there is a need.


I understand what you are trying to say. All I'm saying is that the Bulls CAN indeed run in transition AND still use the triangle. In fact, I have heard Bill say, practically verbatim that, "We want to push the ball up the court every possession and try to make something happen in transition and then if nothing materializes set up the triangle." My contention is that if the Bulls WANT to run then they should be doing it instead of whining about how constricting the triangle is. Hell, if anything if they dislike the triangle so much it should be an incentive for them to score in transition!


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

So the player's frustration must lie with the freedom Cartwright gives them to create on the break. Make something happen in transition could mean, "If you don't have a layup, pull it out and set up the triangle."

As I have already noted. The deliberate nature of the triangle is also frustrating I am sure.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Sorta like Custer's last stand?


There is almost enough irony in the thought that the triangle could lead to Krause's downfall to make it possible, but maybe it is just wishful thinking.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>BCH</b>!
> So the player's frustration must lie with the freedom Cartwright gives them to create on the break. Make something happen in transition could mean, "If you don't have a layup, pull it out and set up the triangle."
> 
> As I have already noted. The deliberate nature of the triangle is also frustrating I am sure.


Thats exactly it BCH and I'm certain thats what the Bulls are told to do. Make something happen in transition and if that fails set up the triangle. Makes sense to me. I think that the Bulls players are using the deliberate nature of the triangle as an excuse for their poor play. Also, it has been my experience that the LONGER a team runs the triangle the more proficient they become using it. It takes a lot of repetition to know your spots and to know how to react to certain situations. If the Bulls were winning they would probably be praising the triangle.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

And you are missing the point still. The non-commital to running a varied fast break, and the deliberateness of the triangle are things that are anti-run oriented, and contribute to the fact that the Bulls are not a running team, which is the contention.

"know your spots and how to react" are the things that make the triangle not suitable to a running team.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

That the GM would impose a system on the coach is ludicrous. It's stupid, it's idiotic.

Again, the issue here is Rose--not what he's saying.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>gettinbranded</b>!
> That the GM would impose a system on the coach is ludicrous. It's stupid, it's idiotic.
> 
> Again, the issue here is Rose--not what he's saying.


What about Pink Floyd? He had no experience w/ the triangle let alone the NBA game.

Fact is, Jerry K hired a guy in BC who he knew 1) believes in the offense and 2) would stick with it.

So let's see, that makes 4 players so far this year who have griped about the triangle. 4 and counting.....





VD


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> So let's see, that makes 4 players so far this year who have griped about the triangle. 4 and counting.....


And also 9 out of the past 11 NBA champs.... 
hmmm... can't be all that bad...

Griping could be due to not understanding the system...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I say so what, this isn't news 

this is non-news 

the Gm aquires the players he thinks fit into what he thinks what will be a good (if not great) team 

he did it with the triangle off. in mind and he hired his last 3 coaches(yes PJ counts too and that worked out didn't) who had the same mentality as he did 

every team does it and every GM does it 

and you can look to recent gm hirings and see it J.West (who is and has always been overrated by the way) who put in mr.old school himself Hubie Brown to try to get more wins in the short term to Kiki in Denver who tore everything down to create a team in his own image 

So JK wants the triangle run ...its his perrogative, he could make them the weave the only job he has is to make sure it works out in the end.


----------



## BCH (Jun 25, 2002)

If the players can't or won't run it, then ultimately it is his fault then, right?


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*R We able to STOP them from scoring....*



> Originally posted by <b>truebluefan</b>!
> I do think we should run more and use more pick and roll. But there would be a problem to this as well. How good would our transition defense be if we ran alot more. True we could score more, but would we be able to stop them from running.




Now??:rbanana: :grinning:


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

I just don't get why Krause is so hellbent on running it. Supposedly he wants to show the world he can win without MJ and Phil, right? Let's see....

The last decade has seen championship teams that have won using the triangle offense (Houston of course the exception). Wouldn't it be more satisfying for Krause if the Bulls won a championship BY NOT USING THE TRIANGLE? It's not like Krause invented this offense or anything, where he can take all the credit for it. It's mostly Tex Winter and Phil Jax that made it famous. If Krause won another title without Phil, Tex, MJ, the triangle, etc. it would be a big "I told you so, I didn't need any of them or their stinking offense to win, I did it my own way". 

But that's just me. I guess it's all moot since Jalen just said as long as Krause is here, this is the offense we're gonna run. No if's, and's...


----------



## BamaBull (Jun 24, 2002)

*Uh oh,..here come the...*



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> And also 9 out of the past 11 NBA champs....
> ...


The Bulls players are dumber than rocks analogies!! lol:laugh:


----------



## Jim Ian (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: Uh oh,..here come the...*



> Originally posted by <b>BamaBull</b>!
> 
> The Bulls players are dumber than rocks analogies!! lol:laugh:


I didn't say that. 
Considering thier age, I think some are expecting too much of them.... I'm not. I know they need time to grasp the game and everything that comes with it (O, D, Rebounding, etc, etc). Be realistic about it.


----------



## GB (Jun 11, 2002)

*Re: Re: Uh oh,..here come the...*



> Originally posted by <b>Jim Ian</b>!
> 
> 
> I didn't say that.
> Considering thier age, I think some are expecting too much of them.... I'm not. I know they need time to grasp the game and everything that comes with it (O, D, Rebounding, etc, etc). Be realistic about it.


Well stated Jim. 


One of the things you notice about this team when compared to the Kings the other night is how complete the kings grasp of the the game as a whole is.

The Bulls have much to learn.


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

I just asked John Salley (friend of a co-worker) if the Bulls should run the triangle and he said yes because it will teach them to become a better passing team.


----------



## FJ_of _Rockaway (May 28, 2002)

Kneepad where are you ?


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

I'm really disappointed in this thread. I start a "defense of the triangle" thread, make a whole bunch of points that (as far as I'm concerned) were not refuted (the thread died soon after my last post), and now I read the same objections here in another thread less than a week later.

First, the article was a piece of garbage. I'm quite certain after reading it that Paul Ladewski knows about as much about the triangle offense as my 3-year old daughter. I fail to understand how anyone can consider the triangle to be a slow and plodding offense. When well executed, it is a blur of constant motion and quick ball movement. Of course it does not look like that now because the Bulls players are still learning-- they're thinking about their actions instead of reacting on instinct. The reaction part comes only with repetition and time. But it _will_ come.

I must have posted a dozen times here (as have others) that the triangle has nothing whatsoever to do with a team not running. I hate to sound like a broken record, but there is a whole chapter in Tex Winter's book dedicated to developing the fast break attack. He _emphasizes_ it. The 90's Bulls ran all the time. Those teams were almost always in the top 5 in the league in scoring. Has everyone forgotten so quickly? (Of course, many fast break opportunities are created by defense, something at which the current Bulls do not excel at present. But that's a topic for another thread.)

I don't understand those that are advocating an uptempo half-court offense and more lax shot selection. As if the Bulls aren't shooting badly enough already? Do you really want to watch a team coming down and players jacking up quick, ill-advised shots? Do we really want to play like the Clippers?

I hate to say it, but more and more Jalen Rose strikes me as being out for the success of Jalen Rose, not the success of the Bulls. It seems clear that he likes to (insists on?) dominate the ball, being the guy to either score or make the assist. This objective is at odds with the priciples of the triangle. No wonder he doesn't like it. He must learn to trust his teammates for the Bulls to succeed.

Lizzy, you've got to be kidding that you've never heard one player say he likes the triangle. You can start with Bill Cartwright-- that one should be obvious. Scottie Pippen would never say so because he hates Krause so much, but he was never a better player than when he played in the triangle. His game absolutely stagnated in Houston playing a typical NBA isolation offense, and he was very vocal about his unhappiness with the style of ball the Rockets were playing. Role players like Paxson, Kerr, Beuchler have openly praised it. Kerr I believe went as far as saying it saved his career. Kukoc I bet liked it. Harper struggled with it as much as anyone, but came to like it. You posted that Salley likes it. MJ hated it as first, yes. But if he really hated it that much, would he be so dedicated to playing for Phil Jackson?

Vin Diesel, you don't think the triangle is the best system for developing NBA players? I guess that depends on whether you want NBA players who know how to play with sound offensive skills like passing, cutting without the ball, and floor spacing. I myself can't think of a better way to develop NBA players.

Vin also thinks you can only succeed with the triangle with a certain magic mix of players, including I believe 2 All-Stars, a bailout guy, a low post threat, and a 3-point shooter. Hmm... sounds like a witch's potion.  Fact is, the Bulls never ran the triangle more effectively than the 93-94 season when Scottie Pippen was the only All-Star player the Bulls had, and Bill Cartwright and John Paxson missed half the season. There are also several examples of Bulls reserves rallying the team in playoff situations by executing the triangle with precision (anyone remember Bobby Hansen?). And regardless, the Bulls will hopefully, in another year or two, have most of the magic ingredients you listed anyways. Wouldn't it be better for these players to have a couple of years of triangle execution under their belts when that day arrives?

SALO, Krause is hell bent on running it because he knows it's a good way to play basketball. No, it's not the only way. But it's the way he knows works. Is there something so wrong with that?


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> 
> SALO, Krause is hell bent on running it because he knows it's a good way to play basketball. No, it's not the only way. But it's the way he knows works. Is there something so wrong with that?





> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> 
> 
> Ok then...
> ...


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> Vin Diesel, you don't think the triangle is the best system for developing NBA players? I guess that depends on whether you want NBA players who know how to play with sound offensive skills like passing, cutting without the ball, and floor spacing. I myself can't think of a better way to develop NBA players.


Kneepad, it seems a little skewed to lean on a system to develop NBA players. A year and a half ago, Eddy was losing in the IHSA state finals to the Schaumburg Saxons, and TC was tearing up ballers in Dominguez HS. It scares me that the Bulls are trying to import the triangle on so many young NBA players, just a few years out of HS. I think they would be better served to run a handful of plays, instead of simply relying on some magical instinct and reaction skills to take over. 

I applaud what Hubie Brown is doing in Memphis. With so many young players on the roster, he simplied to playbook to 5-7 plays to run on offense, knowing that the kids are/were still learning the NBA game. Can you imagine Memphis running the triangle.. or Cleveland... or the LA Clippers? Our ties to the triangle are definitely based on past history, not on what's best for our current roster of players.



> Vin also thinks you can only succeed with the triangle with a certain magic mix of players, including I believe 2 All-Stars, a bailout guy, a low post threat, and a 3-point shooter. Hmm... sounds like a witch's potion.  Fact is, the Bulls never ran the triangle more effectively than the 93-94 season when Scottie Pippen was the only All-Star player the Bulls had, and Bill Cartwright and John Paxson missed half the season. There are also several examples of Bulls reserves rallying the team in playoff situations by executing the triangle with precision (anyone remember Bobby Hansen?). And regardless, the Bulls will hopefully, in another year or two, have most of the magic ingredients you listed anyways. Wouldn't it be better for these players to have a couple of years of triangle execution under their belts when that day arrives?


Point taken. But I can't name one instance of so young a team succeeding in the triangle offense. As well, its hard for me to compare this team w/ ANY of the old Bulls teams. They don't compare. There are no MJs or Pippens on this roster. Not even close. If the current Lakers (w/o Shaq) and the Bulls under Tim Floyd show anything... its that the players make the system. 

Kneepad, you know your stuff and I can understand your points. I simply believe the triangle offense isn't the best system for our current roster, and the future roster of this team (Jay, Jalen, EC, TC) It worked in the past for some great teams w/ great players. I don't see it working here. Not anytime soon.



VD


----------



## L.O.B (Jun 13, 2002)

If you got the horses, you got to let them run. This team has amazing speed but can they get enough boards to allow them to run? 

Filling lanes on break is alot easier than knowing where you should be in the triangle. I find it a bit ironic that the Bulls send their teenage big men to Newell's big man camp to learn the basics and then run the complicated triangle. I liken it to having a kid take math skills in summer school, and the enrolling him in trig for the fall. 

Nothing wrong with the basics. Rose can draw in defenders but they don't use alot of give and go's. Rose and Best when first arriving last season, showed how effective they can be doing something as basic as the give and go. I have watched enough of Jay's jumpshot to know that play would work with him and Jalen too. 

Jalen and others should be using the bodies of Curry and Baxter as screens. If you got the bulk down low, use it. Does the triangle even use a low post screen? I figure if you have quick swingmen like Jalen, Jay, Jamal and Eddie you use their quickness and jump shooting ability. 

If Krause really believes that a system, the triangle, wins championships maybe drafting players more suited to the triangle would be a good idea. By the time that Curry and Tyson's apprenticeships end, they'll free agents. *Or* we'll trade them for the highschool sophmore that's going to Texas Tech on a full ride after he graduates highschool in a few years.


----------



## RoRo (Aug 21, 2002)

> Fact is, the Bulls never ran the triangle more effectively than the 93-94 season when Scottie Pippen was the only All-Star player the Bulls had, and Bill Cartwright and John Paxson missed half the season.


actually bj armstrong was good enough to get into the starting lineup of the 94 all-star game. horace was an all-star that year too. kukoc ended up second team rookie as well, so it's not like that team was short on play makers. that team rocked  

anyways, the history of young teams and coaches not named phil and tex implementing the triangle looks pretty bleak. if we stick to this system there's going to be a lot of growing pains. 

oh and if we want run more on offense (in any offense for that matter) we need to teach the youngsters how to rebound and outlet.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Kneepad,

What I think you are missing is that the Triangle relies on a strong defensive team and a strong fast break. Think of all those awesome dunks by Pippen at the _end_ of the fast break. It also relies on players who are good passers.

I've posted a list before of the Bulls' players who got votes for the All-NBA Defense Team. The list included Jordan and Pippen, who were perrenial 1st or 2nd teamers. It also included Horace Grant, Rodman, BJ Armstrong. Even reserves like Brian Williams got votes.

The Lakers have Kobe, who's been a 1st teamer and Shaq who's been a 2nd teamer.

The Bulls' two best players, Rose and Marshall, have never received a vote. JWill likely never will. Curry is lost on defense. Considering the whole roster, maybe there's 5 guys (Hoiberg, Hassell, ERob, Blount, and Chandler) who are _average_ NBA defenders or better. None of those players are worthy of significant minutes at this point; maybe Hassell.

Defense is vital to getting fast break points to overcome the "time has run out, let the superstar chuck it up" that is important to the Triangle - even when run by the world's best players.

I'll leave it up to you to figure out how few of the Bulls are good passers. But consider that guys like Shaq, Ho. Grant, and Rodman are/were excellent passers (3+ assists/game), though they are not particularly known for this skill.

My personal opinion is that I'm not a proponent or opponent of the Triangle. It is clearly a complicated system, but it clearly is a component of the most successful teams of the last decade -though not the championship teams of the Rockets or Spurs, or most of the teams that made the NBA finals and lost. 

The team's offensive and defensive schemes should either be tailored to the players' abilities, or the players' should be chosen to fit a rigid scheme. Krause has not chosen players to fit into the triangle - look at the two best players, Rose and Marshall...

So the alternative is to tailor the offense and defense (the two must be considered together) to the strengths of the players.

When looking at it from this perspective, Paul Westhead's up-tempo system may be the best fit. It relies the least on defense and allows far more opportunities for shots for all the players. It would take advantage of the athleticism of players like Chandler, Rose, JWill, and ERob. I wouldn't count on the Westhead offense forever, but long enough to build confidence in the players' abilities to score and handle the ball.

When I look at the Triangle, it's clear that it doesn't get opportunities for all the players - Rodman rarely shot, neither did the Bulls' centers, or even Harper. On the Lakers, Kobe is putting up an unusual number of shots, and when Shaq is in, the two get the majority of shots.

For the record, Westhead coached the Lakers before Riley. He basically built the Lakers into the "showtime" scheme of offense. His teams went 13-6 in the playoffs, using the fast break scheme. Westhead's Lakers won the championship in 1980.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

My thoughts are:

Any offense with players who don't know how to play will look slow and plodding.

That being said, I think it's fair to say that the triangle, being a more complicated offense, has a steeper learning curve than some others.

When mastered, it might get a bit more out of a well drilled team if the players are suited to the triangle's strengths.


----------



## Kneepad (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> Wasn't it Krause that said he has absolutely no say in what system his coaches run? He said all that stuff he leaves to the coach. Yet here is Jalen Rose and his statements contradict Krause 100%.


Yes, and I believe Krause when he says he does not force any particular system on his coaches (history has proven that as I have pointed out in the past). That said, I do not deny that Krause factors in what type of system a coach is likely to run before that coach is hired (what GM doesn't?).

As for Jalen, he can believe whatever he wants. That doesn't make it true. Bill Cartwright has publically denied the claim, as has every coach that preceeded him (to the best of my knowledge).



> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> What was the point of running the triangle all these post dynasty years when every year there is a major roster overhaul. If Krause really believes in the triangle, then he would keep the majority of the roster intact so the players could learn the system together over the years. That is impossible with so many different players coming in / out.


I agree with you on this point. I believe it was a mistake to attempt to implement the triangle with the incredible rate of roster turnover the Bulls went through. But that doesn't have anything to do with the merits of the offense in general, or whether the Bulls should be using it now that their roster is (hopefully) somewhat stable.



> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> And like others have mentioned, look at the Lakers right now. They have Phil Jackson, Tex Winter, Jimmy Cleamons....these guys are TRIANGLE "GURUS". And yet they STINK right now.


I have not watched the Lakers, so I don't know what the cause of their poor record is. However, I did read the headlines where Tex Winter was calling out Kobe for playing selfishly and not within the system. Based on that, and Kobe's gaudy stats so far this year, I tend to think the Lakers haven't been running much triangle. Kobe seems out to prove that he is just as important to the Lakers success as is Shaq.

I don't mean that to imply that if they were running the triangle they would magically be undefeated or anything. Many experts have pointed out (and I've always agreed) that the Lakers are a very unbalanced team that relies inordinately upon two players for their success. Obviously if one of those players goes down, they will be at a disadvantage.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Kneepad, it seems a little skewed to lean on a system to develop NBA players.


We may have to agree to disagree here. The triangle is as fundamentally sound a system as you're likely to find. I agree the Bulls could be finding greater short-term success with the Hubie Brown approach. But in the long term I think they'll be better off learning the triangle. Any advance scout will be able to tell a team playing the Griz how to defend their 5-7 plays. One of the great things about the triangle is it's unpredictability. It doesn't rely on set plays. The offense has been in plain view of the entire NBA now for, what, 12 years? And yet teams still have not figured out a way to stop it.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I can't name one instance of so young a team succeeding in the triangle offense. As well, its hard for me to compare this team w/ ANY of the old Bulls teams. They don't compare. There are no MJs or Pippens on this roster. Not even close. If the current Lakers (w/o Shaq) and the Bulls under Tim Floyd show anything... its that the players make the system.


I agree that the triangle has never been attempted with so young a team. Why is everyone so afraid of youth not being able to learn? They say the learning capacity of children exceeds that of adults. Kids, for example, pick up foreign languages far easier than do adults. I think there's some merit to the argument that "blank slates" such as Tyson and Eddy are far more likely to learn the triangle than grizzled veterans who have preconceived notions of how the game should be played.

Agree the Bulls don't have an MJ (who does?). But I believe they have some Pippen and Grant caliber players. People forget what Scottie and Horace looked like in their rookie and second years because our frame of reference is the prime years of their careers. Scottie was once just as raw a player as many of the young players on the Bulls right now. Horace was a skinny, naive kid just like Chandler is. Niether Scottie nor Horace started their rookie years. Just as Scottie & Horace did, the current young Bulls will develop too.



> Originally posted by <b>RoRo</b>!
> actually bj armstrong was good enough to get into the starting lineup of the 94 all-star game...


I figured someone would point that out.  If you or anyone truly believes that B.J. Armstrong was voted to that game based on the merits of his play, then I've got some ocean-front property in Nebraska I'd like you to take a look at. Horace too-- I loved the guy as a player, but his selection to that team was largely a carry-over from the Bulls being 3-time defending champions. It was the only All-Star appearance of his career.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> What I think you are missing is that the Triangle relies on a strong defensive team and a strong fast break. Think of all those awesome dunks by Pippen at the _end_ of the fast break. It also relies on players who are good passers.


With due respect, I am fully aware of the importance of a strong defense in general, and specifically to create fast break opportunities. But I do not agree that it is essential to running the triangle as a half-court offense.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> I'll leave it up to you to figure out how few of the Bulls are good passers. But consider that guys like Shaq, Ho. Grant, and Rodman are/were excellent passers (3+ assists/game), though they are not particularly known for this skill.


It certainly begs the question, did Shaq, Ho Grant, Rodman, etc. achieve 3+ assists/game because they were great passers or gecause they played in a system that emphasized passing and required them, really, to pass the ball?

I believe the Bulls have plenty of passing ability on their roster. Rose, Williams, Hassell, Crawford, Hoiberg, Chandler, Marshall, Baxter... all have shown at least flashes of terrific passing ability. The only exceptions to this I would say are Curry and Fizer. ERob I'm not really sure on.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> The team's offensive and defensive schemes should either be tailored to the players' abilities, or the players' should be chosen to fit a rigid scheme. Krause has not chosen players to fit into the triangle - look at the two best players, Rose and Marshall...


Why do you believe Rose and Marshall are not a good fit? Rose in particular is, IMO, the perfect type of player for the triangle. If he ever accepts it, I believe he could become more effective than he ever has been in his career. More importantly, the Bulls will become less reliant on him and more able to overcome nights where he is off his game.



> Originally posted by <b>DaBullz</b>!
> When I look at the Triangle, it's clear that it doesn't get opportunities for all the players - Rodman rarely shot, neither did the Bulls' centers, or even Harper.


I'm sorry, DaBullz, but this is simply not true. Nothing could be further from the truth, actually. The triangle is known as "the equal-opportunity offense." It's true Rodman rarely shot, but not because the offense didn't provide him opportunities (I've read that Bulls coaches were constantly encouraging him to shoot more), but rather because he made a concious decision to become a rebounding celebrity rather than a well-rounded basketball player.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

*we are NOT 'those' Bulls*



> Originally posted by <b>Kneepad</b>!
> I agree that the triangle has never been attempted with so young a team. Why is everyone so afraid of youth not being able to learn? They say the learning capacity of children exceeds that of adults. Kids, for example, pick up foreign languages far easier than do adults. I think there's some merit to the argument that "blank slates" such as Tyson and Eddy are far more likely to learn the triangle than grizzled veterans who have preconceived notions of how the game should be played.
> 
> Agree the Bulls don't have an MJ (who does?). But I believe they have some Pippen and Grant caliber players. People forget what Scottie and Horace looked like in their rookie and second years because our frame of reference is the prime years of their careers. Scottie was once just as raw a player as many of the young players on the Bulls right now. Horace was a skinny, naive kid just like Chandler is. Niether Scottie nor Horace started their rookie years. Just as Scottie & Horace did, the current young Bulls will develop too.


Kneepad, per your post, all great points.

I just think that this current Bulls team has little semblence to the Bulls championship teams. Too many Bulls fans fall into that trap. There are no MJs, Pippen or Grants on this roster. The future of this team is built around the bigs and a future star PG.

<i>That team</i> had the two best SG-SF tandem in the league offensively and defensively, with the bigs mainly concerned w/ scraps on offense.. and the PG mainly being a spot up shooter.

<i>This team</i> is built on the potential of having the best PF-C combo in the league, with a dynamic PG who will feed the bigs and create shots (not just spot up shooting). These three are athletic and have talent to be truly great at their positions.

The triangle topic has been beat to death here, and its probably here to stay as long as BC is the coach. But I can't help but think whatever offense or system we run... there needs to be more pro-active movement w/o the ball (back cuts, down screens) and better passing w/ it. 

Watch a western conference game.... (I watched Houston/Dallas last night). Watch their crisp passing, spacing and movement w/o the ball. Watch them run plays to get easy looks. The offenses are creating motion and causing the defense to react. The offenses play to player's strengths. Its very basic actually. I fear running a complex offensive scheme w/ so many young players is going to hurt this team in the long run. Throw in the offensively inept coaches pet Hassell... and most nights we're playing 4 on 5 on offense. Right now, its a plodding offense... and is not playing to our player's strengths. Ugh.




VD


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

I have a question...

Why are folks here arguing/complaining about what type of offense we run? Why is Jalen Rose complaining about the triangle?

From the looks of it, this team is right about average in terms of scoring in the NBA. What they are far below average in is defense. Can't win games if you can't stop the other team from scoring.

It's time for Rose and the rest of the pampered, lazy group of players to take a look in the mirror and dedicate themselves to giving effort on BOTH ends of the floor. 

The problem with the Bulls isn't in the triangle, its nuiances and its difficulty to master. Our offense is just fine. The problem with the Bulls is they couldn't stop a womans over-80 wheelchair team from dropping 100 on them and also fouling out Curry and Chandler in the process.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

Kneepad,

Thanks for posting some sanity over here. It's nice to know someone else recognizes the merit's of the triangle. I agree completely that article was BS. If the players want to run then the triangle will certainly not prevent them from doing that. Until they come out with that "fast break" half court offense I've been hearing so much about, I say the Bulls stick with the triangle.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> I agree completely that article was BS.


Ace, not to pick on you, but I think the article was very worthwhile if only for the very telling quotes from the players that I have not seen anywhere else.

I really think BC needs to go on the PR offensive and post a long Q&A session on Bulls.com or in the Trib discussing his offensive philosphy and the merits of the triangle.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

*Kneepad!* Well done. To so thoroughly address every point without even once relying on insult or childishness. You are the man. I agree with everything you've posted regarding the triangle as an offense.

*fl_flash!* You are exactly right! Everyone is complaing about our scoring?!?! In our twelve games this season, we have scored: 99, 84, 92, 105, 69, 87, 100, 101, 87, 111, 98, and 94 for an average of 94 points/game. This should be enough to have a winning season. In twelve games, however, we have given up:
96, 79, 98, 109, 91, 114, 93, 108, 105, 93, 111, and 100 for an average of 100 points/game. If this is what our opponents are scoring when we play our "slow down" offense, I shudder to think of what they'd score if we played a constant "run and gun" style. Incidentally, fast break points per game were:

*Chicago -- Opponent*

12-8 (Boston)
10-4 (New Orleans)
8-14 (Atlanta)
38-28 (Toronto)
13-14 (Boston)
9-9 (Dallas)
16-24 (New Jersey)
14-23 (Milwaukee)
8-12 (New Orleans)
19-7 (Memphis)
16-9 (Sacramento)
12-13 (Golden State)

.....we are running the break as much as any team. In fact, we have been better on the break than Sac-Town, New Orleans, Boston, and Memphis, and played Dallas to a draw. teams thought of as "run-and-gun" or shoot first offenses. Based on the *FACTS*, to make the claim that our offense is stifling our fast break is ridiculous.

To quote the Aldridge article:


> But this season, four teams averaged more than 100 points, and of those four, three -- Sacramento, Dallas and the Lakers -- made the second round of the playoffs or better.


Also, of the four, one (Lakers) runs the triangle, and two more (Sac-Town and Dallas) run offenses that emphasize sharing the rock and scoring from every position on the floor.



> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> I applaud what Hubie Brown is doing in Memphis. With so many young players on the roster, he simplied to playbook to 5-7 plays to run on offense, knowing that the kids are/were still learning the NBA game. Can you imagine Memphis running the triangle.. or Cleveland... or the LA Clippers? Our ties to the triangle are definitely based on past history, not on what's best for our current roster of players.


*Vin!* Usually you are right on the money, but did you read what you posted? Memphis?!?! They're looking to beat the record of even the worst Bulls team of the last five seasons, and they're loaded with young talent. Certainly Hubie just got there, but..... Memphis?!?!

Let's see, Rose, ERob, Crawdad, Jay, Fizer all on record complaining about the triangle. These defensive specialists are all jut trying to make excuses for their matador defense on the other end. For a team starting a rookie and three sophomores and with 8 of their top 10 contributors having fewer than three seasons of NBA playing experience to be scoring an average of 94 points/game we should be ecstatic.

Now let's play some defense.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>johnston797</b>!
> 
> 
> Ace, not to pick on you, but I think the article was very worthwhile if only for the very telling quotes from the players that I have not seen anywhere else.
> ...


Oh yeah, of course it's interesting to hear the players laments. That part of the article was informative. I still think players are in the wrong though to publicly discuss their problems with the triangle with the media. IMO they're merely making excuses for their own poor play anyway. 

I supposse what I meant by saying it was BS is that the writer clearly doesn't have a coaches understanding of the game. He thinks the triangle will prevent the Bulls from running when nothing could be further from the truth. Then he suggests that the Bulls need a "running" uptempo offense. Well, no, what they need is to RUN in transition and set the offense up when that fails. The writer doesn't provide any insight into what offenseive scheme he THINKS the Bulls should use (I would wager a large guess that he has no idea) or why they should use it. The whole article was basically an ill informed hatchet job on teh triangle. If we forget history then we are doomed to repeat it. I remember these same types of articles coming out in the late 80's. Fortunately the Bulls orginization doesn't solicit the opinions of beat writers with no coaching experience when deciding what they want to run.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Wynn</b>!
> 
> *Vin!* Usually you are right on the money, but did you read what you posted? Memphis?!?! They're looking to beat the record of even the worst Bulls team of the last five seasons, and they're loaded with young talent. Certainly Hubie just got there, but..... Memphis?!?!
> 
> ...


Hey Wynn.

Great point about defense. That is something BC has continually stressed. Mainly, defense = playing time. Completely agree.

Where I disagree is the 'we're scoring enough points mentality'. We are scoring more points b/c of Jalen and Donyell, who roughly account for 40% or our offensive output. Putting the triangle aside for a moment, I would like to see Eddy Curry get more looks in the post and not just in the first half. I would like to see Jay have the freedom to penetrate more, since he seems like he can break just about any other point guard down off the dribble. I would like to see Tyson in the game in the second half, the kid is shooting a gaudy 54%. I would like to see some ball movement in 4th quarters, no single isolations for Jalen. And if we're going to run an 'iso' for Jalen, for goodness sake there shouldn't be another teammate within 30 feet of him. I would like to see the coaches pet' Hassell benched in favor of Robinson at times b/c... sorry Bill... Trent's defense isn't that great.

I made the Memphis comparison b/c Hubie has made an attempt to simplify the game for his young players. You don't see him losing his composure or complaining to the press about his young kids' play (as BC has done recently with Jay, Jamal, and others) He's an old school coach, but I plain and simple I think he's running the team well. He is teaching the kids the NBA game. The jury's still out if BC is doing the same.



VD


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Hey Wynn.
> ...


I agree with what your saying. you DO realize that when Jalen is taking the ball in an iso thats not being run out of the triangle most of the time? If you want Eddy to get the ballin the post and if you want more passing and less iso's you should be a proponent of the triangle Vin.


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> Putting the triangle aside for a moment, I would like to see Eddy Curry get more looks in the post and not just in the first half. I would like to see Jay have the freedom to penetrate more, since he seems like he can break just about any other point guard down off the dribble. I would like to see Tyson in the game in the second half, the kid is shooting a gaudy 54%. I would like to see some ball movement in 4th quarters, no single isolations for Jalen. And if we're going to run an 'iso' for Jalen, for goodness sake there shouldn't be another teammate within 30 feet of him. I would like to see the coaches pet' Hassell benched in favor of Robinson at times b/c... sorry Bill... Trent's defense isn't that great.


See, now this is the *Vin!* I've known and loved on this board. I, too, am perplexed about the absence of Curry and Chandler in the second half. Being a Hassell fan, I also recognize that he seems to be in a slump, and would like to see more of ERob. Would love to see Jay create more and Jalen "create" (take on a triple-team) less.

And you're right, none of this has to do with the triangle.

I can only imagine that Big Bill has the teens on a token economy based on some combination of defense and rebounding. It seems like they aren't necessarily being rewarded for strong outings, and it confuses me. I love Trent's attitude, and disagree with posters who feel he's a weak link offensively. I think he's actually got a very polished offensive game, which he displayed last season. Problem, though, is that with so many "offensive" players, Trent is not asserting himself enough. Enough, that is, to keep the defenses honest.

*Go Bulls!*

:rbanana: :wbanana: :rbanana: :wbanana: :rbanana:


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>ace20004u</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree with what your saying. you DO realize that when Jalen is taking the ball in an iso thats not being run out of the triangle most of the time? If you want Eddy to get the ballin the post and if you want more passing and less iso's you should be a proponent of the triangle Vin.


What I mean about Jalen's isolation (seemingly our 4th quarter offense), is that the Bulls run this set differently that most teams. Watching the Sonics run it last night against the Blazers.. basically Gary Payton ran an iso from the left block. Every one of his teammates was clear on the other side of the court. Like if you drew a line down the middle, every teammate was on the other side of it (to prevent a double team). What the Bulls do in Jalen's iso is continue w/ the 'triangle' spacing, w/ a player near the top of the key and at times, a player in the low post. Jalen has been double teamed almost every time he gets an iso... resulting in 1) low percentage shots, 2) a turnover pass, or 3) a score from either Jalen or the player camped at the top of the key. MJ <b>killed</b> oncoming double teams by either spinning away and scoring or finding open looks for teammates elswhere on the court. I don't see the same w/ Jalen unfortunately.

Per your low post feed and passing argument... that is the characteristic of ANY offense. But what other offenses do, that the Bulls currently lack, is that they create motion and easy looks for players down low. Because of the confusion of the triangle, and yes.. spacing... this is precisely the reason why zone defenses stifle us completely. We lack the offensive creativity, passing, and outside shot to keep defenses honest. My argument is that the triangle is a factor in inhibiting this.



VD


----------



## truebluefan (May 27, 2002)

Many people wonder why the towers do not play more than 20 minutes each. They have a right to know. My opinion and speculation is, we are trying to play two raw players, kids. As far as i can tell that has not been done before. Indy came close to it. 

BC seems to want to not only win games but develop the kids at the same time. So therefore start the kids, let them play agains the other teams best players. But when the game is on the line you play your vets. I know some people may argue that if the kids do not get to play at the end when it really counts, how will they ever learn to put games away when it really matters!! good point. But, we are actually trying to win games this year. When last year, that might not have been the case. Of course one can argue that the vets let some games slip by us that we could have won. Fts were the problem. Some of it was the kids fts or lack of making them. Some was veteran fts missed at the end of the game we could have made.


----------



## Showtyme (Jun 24, 2002)

This is a good discussion, going on here.

In an earlier thread, I compromised VD's view of short-term success in molding an offensive scheme to the strengths of the players, and Kneepad's defense of the triangle as a proven, successful offense that exercises the fundamental basketball offensive skills.

Why not let the kids run, run around in the full-court and the half-court, and for now find whatever mode they can to score? It will vary from night to night... against strong defensive teams like San Antonio, Detroit, and Dallas (yes, DALLAS... 5th in league, allowing less than 88 pts a game), the triangle will ultimately fail. There is just not enough single talent on this team to find a mismatch that would work, and among Jalen, Donyell, Jay, Crawford, and the rest of the team, there is no single gamebreaker-type player.

How are the Bulls ever going to be able to beat teams like that? Well, defensively we have to perform, built around Chandler, Hassell and Blount. There has to be blocks, big boxing out, and perimeter shut-downs.

The salient question, now... offensively, how can we win? Using the triangle? Distributing the ball, passing through the post, trying to move without the ball and create mismatches? Do the Bulls have the poise and the ball-handling to even do that? And are there ever really any mismatches, anyway?

Or, maybe the Bulls could start running pick-and-rolls, a la Stockton/Malone.

Here's what I think: the Bulls' best offensive play, in my opinion, is not Jalen popping a J, Crawford's floater, Baxter's garbage points off of offensive boards, or Fizer's strange 16-footer.

The Bulls' best offensive plays that I've seen this season are these: Eddie Robinson getting a pass on a cut for a SICK dunk, and the alley-oop dish to Tyson Chandler. These are high percentage shots. :yes: 

These come from running uptempo offenses in both transition and in the half-court. I say, do what we can do make these kind of shots happen. I'm no expert on the triangle, but it doesn't seem like it's the best way to take advantage of the athleticism and quickness of our young team.

Learn the triangle in practice? Develop basketball intelligence OFF the court with smart coaching and slow understanding? Use it in certain sets on offense, when appropriate in games? Sure. But make it the primary thing in the front of the minds of all players every time they come down the court.... that's not healthy.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

There's a lot to respond to here. A lot of great points raised.

First, I want to make an observation about the old Bulls' team. This is not that team, of course ;-) The old team had 4 players 6'7" and a big center (Luc). What people don't seem to realize is that they played a very strange kind of lineup that made matchups, and preparation, difficult for opponents. You have to look at the entire scheme differently on offense and defense.

On offense, Pippen was the Bulls' PG, not their SF. Jordan was the Bulls' PF. Once you get this basic understanding of the offensive scheme, it becomes clear why the Bulls won so much - you had a Magic-type PG in Pippen, and no way to match up against Jordan in the blocks (where PFs play).

On defense, the Pippen and Jordan played their listed positions (SF and SG). But the rest of the team did strange things. Like having Longley playing PF on D with Rodman playing C (remember Longley guarded Malone and shut him down!).

What people may not realize is that Kukoc played C for the Bulls about 2/3 of his minutes.

Take these things into account and you have a matchup nightmare for the opposition. Put a PF on Jordan in the post, and he goes around him. Put a G on Jordan in the post, and he goes over him. Pippen couldn't be effectively guarded by opponents' SF while he was playing PG.

In general, you think "I guard the man who guards me," and that failed miserably because it resulted in horrible mismatches.

(A side note: if Houston played Pippen at PG, he would have been much better. When Portland plays Pippen at PG, they go on winning streaks.)

Second, do the current Bulls have the players to make such a scheme work? No. Jalen Rose on offense has a lot of Pippen's skills, but with JWill around, Rose is not the team's PG. Opponents get to guard him with very traditional kinds of defensive strategies, though his pure skill lets him be dominant for stretches of time. JWill is nothing like Pippen at PG, and again lets the oppponents use a traditional D strategy (guard him with a PG). Neither Rose nor JWill are going to get votes for NBA All-Defense team, which is a HUGE difference. Marshall is a traditional SF/PF with great offensive skills. He isn't known for his defense, either. Again, a traditional D matchup works.

Just about the only places I see the Bulls able to get a mismatch are at PF and C with TC and EC. TC because of his length and agility, and EC because there just aren't many true centers in the league anymore.

Third, the question of passing ability. Rose has it. JWill has it, but it looks forced - he should probably be an SG like he was at Duke, but he'd be a small one. Maybe that'd be good because of the mismatch thing... Marshall has it to a lesser degree.

The old Bulls really had it. I mentioned guys like Ho. Grant. He was a highly skilled player from the first game on the NBA court. In all aspects. Ron Harper may never get the credit for being the great all-around player he showed he was - he sacrificed his stats to fit into the system - he guarded SGs so Pippen could guard SFs. 

Rodman had tremendous basketball skills, though he didn't practice and become a true all-around player. He led the nation in SCORING in college, so he could have been a scorer. He was an amazing passer and ball handler...

This Bulls team has many players with stone hands, and lack of all-around skills. There's almost no semblence of defensive ability on the entire roster, and certainly they don't play D well as a unit (like having the guards direct the O guards towards chandler to get blocks/help). 

Third, what do the Bulls have? Far more talent than any of the championship Bulls teams. At least in breadth and depth. They don't have a Jordan or Pippen, but when you look at the 6th man through the 9th man, this team has better players. They also have ridiculous youth. 

Summary. Put it all together. The triangle isn't a good fit. The D is lacking. The passing ability is lacking. The mismatches just aren't there. 

So the suggestion of looking at a new kind of offensive and defensive scheme makes perfect sense. RUN, RUN, RUN. Use the youth and depth. Wear the other team down and finish them off when they're tired. Forget about defense, for the most part. You CAN win if you outscore the oppponent. But you have to try to outscore them 150-145.


----------



## Louie (Jun 13, 2002)

> Jalen, Donyell, Jay, Crawford, and the rest of the team, there is no single gamebreaker-type player.


I don't necessarily agree with this- Jalen has shown an ability to consistently hit shots down the stretch against virtually any defense- his length/height, quick release and foot speed allow him to create space for himself and hit shots in the faces of defenders. I don't think this Bulls team should try to run the triangle exactly like the dynasty Bulls- perhaps Rose could play the "Jordan role" of the post-up guard that scores off of spin moves and turnarounds and is also able to pass out of double teams. Jay can then run the point, ala Pippen. He won't be able to create mismatches with his height like Pippen, but there are few players that can stay with him because of his quickness. We should eventually be able to run the offense through either Chandler or Curry (or both). Chandler seems a slightly better passer, but Curry is more of a scoring threat so it is more likely they'd run it through him. When we can do that, Rose can drift back out to the perimeter and become more of an outside shooter. By then he'll be on the way out of his prime, and this will allow him to be a solid contributor long after he is no longer our primary scoring option. Staying on the perimeter will also allow him to conserve his energy.
We do need some personnel changes though. IMO our core of Williams/Rose/Chandler/Curry should stay intact (unless we can pull off a huge steal), and I'd like to keep Marshall, Baxter, and Mason around, but other than that everyone is tradeable. Our biggest need is defense, but it would also be great if we could bring in a more consistent 3 point threat. This would spread the floor, making it easier for the Twin Towers to operate inside.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

How about that Lakers game?

That is what you get with two teams both playing the triangle:

159 combined points.

Sheesh


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

Why does everyone insist the triangle is at fault for losses

the bulls are according to the stats and eye an avg. off. team 

but they are bad def. team 

do you know what that equals in a tough opening month? 4-9 

its not rocket science anyone who thought the team would instantly gel was fooling themselves .

no one thought before the season started that the bulls would jump out to a great start why backpeddle now

wth losses come bickering and with wins come harmony 

its a wise person that knows it was coming and it will pass


----------



## Wynn (Jun 3, 2002)

Also from the Laker game, fast break points were 13-14 in favor of the Lakers. Points in the paint (high % shots) were 48-44 in favor of the Bulls. Face it, last night if either Jay *or* Jalen could hit the side of a barn, we win the game. Can't blame that entirely on the offense. No matter what scheme you're running, you still have to work for the best available shot. Jalen 2-16 shooting?! At least he had 5 assists.

_BTW, this is NOT a call to trade Jalen._


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> "To be honest with you, no matter who the coach is, this team will run the triangle as long as Jerry Krause is here," Rose says. "That's something that I found out when I got here. When you go to the Bulls, you will run the triangle on offense."
> 
> I'm convinced Jerry Krause is also the one who insists Phil Jackson run the triangle in Los Angeles.
> Seriously, doesn't it make sense that a coach who has had success with this system want to implement it? I have no problem with the triangle not flowing well during the first half of the year. We have a binch of new players who are playing together. Teaching a system is an investment for the future. It will pay off. The players who are now criticizing are probably the ones who don't get it.


----------



## SALO (Jun 6, 2002)

*Re: Re: Rose confirms it is KRAUSE that insists on the TRIANGLE*



> Originally posted by <b>laso</b>!
> 
> 
> > Originally posted by <b>SALO</b>!
> ...


----------



## laso (Jul 24, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Rose confirms it is KRAUSE that insists on the TRIANGLE*

The one that really matters is Jay Williams. And despite what he's saying, I think he's made some real efforts to run it. It's probably frustrating to him and he probably feels a little chained right now. But the more he gets used to it, the more he can fit his strengths into it. 

I'm not an expert and I don't know if the triangle is better than other systems out there. But what I think is that we should not be impatient. Trashing a system three weeks in the season, with a bunch of new young players on the roster, is extreme. (IMHO.)


----------

