Lakers Now

Round-the-Clock Purple and Gold

« Previous Post | Lakers Now Home | Next Post »

Should the Lakers stick with the triangle offense?

61486644Through all the team meditations, sage-burning exercises and enjoying the high caliber of talent on his teams, none of these qualities truly defined Phil Jackson's coaching career.

He may have felt the need to be a little modest when he pointed out last week in his exit interview that his 11 championship rings mostly predicated on the talent he had, coaching Hall of Famers Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen with the Chicago Bulls and future Hall of Famers in Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal with the Lakers. But that commentary ignores a few important things. Jordan, Pippen and Bryant didn't win any titles without Jackson coaching them, and Shaq won three of four came titles under him. Although there were certainly many tumultuous moments, Jackson mostly found a balance between giving his players enough space to make them feel respected and sticking to his beliefs that no player is above the team and immune from criticism. And more importantly, Jackson managed to sell the tenets of the triangle offense to superstar players even though it sometimes sacrificed their individual glory.

"You have to be determined," Jackson said as the key to selling that offense. "Skills are really the important aspect of this game and the players come with those skills. A lot of times we did a practice in which a high school coach would come in and thought we were a step below what they do in high school because we were emphasizing basic fundamentals. But it really is about that and the determination you have with your players that they’re going to do those things that make them work."

Jackson conceded that at varying points of their careers, Jordan, O'Neal and Bryant all had issues with running the triangle. The Lakers' underachieving 2010-2011 season illustrated Jackson's struggle in getting his players to run the offense, remarking that between four or five unspecified players actually knew how to run the system.  And as General Manager Mitch Kupchak summed up, "There are many times this year that we ran the triangle and I couldn’t recognize it."

So the next pressing question is will the Lakers continue to run it? That surely will be answered depending on who winds up becoming head coach, but below the jump I explain why they should stay with that system.

61403703

Why the Lakers should keep it:

The Lakers have all the same personnel to make it work. Whether they eventually decide to go with Lakers assistant Brian Shaw or even pick Rick Adelman, it's still possible for L.A. to run that system, or at least a variation of it. That's because, according to ESPN.com's Marc Stein, the Lakers see plenty of similarities between Adelman's "corner" offense and Jackson's triangle. Should Shaw get hired, he would presumably continue Jackson's coaching system and minimize any transition period because of both his familiarity with the players and their familiarity with the system.

Besides, the success that Tex Winter and Jackson have had running that system speaks for itself. Some may counter that the Lakers' inconsistent offense this season or even Jim Cleamons' and Kurt Rambis' struggles with implementing that philosophy in separate coaching stints with Dallas and Minnesota show that the triangle isn't all that it's cracked up to be. But as Jackson pointed out, "There’s an old adage that John Wooden said that it’s not the best system that always wins, but it’s the team that executes their system the best that wins." Had the Lakers simply ran the offense properly last season, they would've reaped the full benefits that system offers with the constant off-ball movement and reaction to situations exposing opponents' defensive weaknesses.

--Mark Medina

E-mail the Lakers blog at mgmedin@gmail.com

Top photo: Phil Jackson, left, oftens credits former assistant Tex Winter, who perfected the triangle offense that the Bulls and Lakers used in winning 11 championships. Credit: Phil Velasquez / Chicago Sun-Times / Jan. 28, 1996

Bottom photo: Phil Jackson disagrees with a referee's call as Steve Blake looks on at Staples Center. Credit: Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times

 
Comments () | Archives (53)

The comments to this entry are closed.

LA will do what's in their interest of course. For right now, it's refreshing to see the better teams (Dallas, Chicago, OKC) emphasize team play as opposed to relying on superstars. If the heat are eliminated it will mean the most interesting Finals in years.

@Art – I picked the Heat to come out of the east…but I’m hoping I was wrong, wrong, wrong! Bulls were impressive in game 1. They won’t shoot that good all series from 3pt, but the defense and offensive rebounding will still make them very tough.


@LT – Loved Drew’s post defense during that 17-1 stretch, but I’m talking more about a Big that can protect the paint, PLUS switch on the perimeter and rotate. Drew just doesn’t have the lateral movement nor motor that Noah has. I’m not saying I would take Noah over him. I’m just saying that Thibs can implement that type of system because of defenders like KG and Noah. The Lakers don’t have anyone like that.

As I said earlier, when Lakers ran triangle to the perfection, it was a thing of beauty to watch. Unfortunately on many occasions, it was something hardly even looking like triangle either someone going solo, over dribbling and wasting possession, or shooting contested 3 so early in the clock. No matter what system they’re going to run, strong defense will win it all. I hardly can imagine, unless FO decides to blow whole team, Lakers planning to take drastic changes to the system, after all they have a core personnel to run triangle.

On the different subject, is it only me, I just really tired to go over so-called trade scenario, where Lakers suppose to get CP3 or Howard in exchange for bunch of scrubs? I think it’s time to stop printing something ridiculous like this and people who authoring such “proposals” have to realize, you can’t trade Lexus for 3 or 4 Ford Escorts, it does not work this way.

Actually Shaq did win a championship in Miami without Jackson!

Let’s see…4 seasons of Triangle with current core group of players…

2 championships
1 title runner up
1 2nd round exit

Yep, the Triangle is horrible. Get rid of it immediately.

Bottomline is the Lakers have the talent to win as long as they execute whatever system they install. But I do find it humorous that some people are so anti-Triangle...like that's what caused the Lakers meltdown.

LT

Drew is just not as mobile or athletic as Dwight or Joakim. Like one of the announcers mentioned, Noah was able to stay on Lebron after a switch from a pick n roll and prevent him from driving the lane easily. Drew is probably better than Noah on one-on-one low post defense but not on manning the paint and being quick to recover on picks. Not taking anything away from Drew, it's just the way it is.

Thanks
PSP Officer

Whatever offensive system the Lakers ultimately end up running, they should pick one and ***actually run it*****.

I've been watching reruns of the Lakers-Dallas series on NBA TV, and the lack of any cohesive offensive system is blatantly apparent. The Lakers "offense" for that series was a series of post-ups, isolation plays, and high pick & rolls. When the ball hit Ron Artest or Shannon Brown's hands, it became the "my turn to shoot" offense. By Game 4, nearly the whole team followed Brown and Artest's lead.

While I admire the Triangle and think it can lead to beautiful basketball (the Jordan's-playing -baseball Bulls were a pleasure to watch), it may not be a practical system in the modern NBA.

The mental and philosophical demands of the Triangle limit the kinds of players that a team running it can have on the roster. Sometimes, you can find a player that is both talented and Triangle-compatible (e.g. Pau Gasol), more often the Lakers have had to sacrifice other talents, such as speed and athleticism, to find players who can run the Triangle (e.g. Luke Walton, Derrick Fisher).

This eventually bites the team on the rear end, because it doesn't matter how Triangle-savvy a team is if it is completely dominated athletically. See Los Angeles Lakers, May 2003 and May 2011, for examples.

Interesting article on one man’s take on the all NO DEFENSIVE team. He put Kobe on the second team. I do agree that Kobe’s defense left a lot to be desired this season, but is over the top imho.


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/05/15/my-4th-annual-nba-no-defense-team-al-jefferson-monta-ellis-kobe-bryant-and-more/



Just back from Chicago, incredible how insane that city is right now. Family and friends gave me a solid dose of Laker trash talk which after 3 finals and 2 rings kinda faded in the midwest thunder storm.

Told 'em all I won't watch, given that the basketball season is over with the Lakers last game, however, my loathing of all things Miami is so consuming, I'm thinking of making an exception to that rule. GO Bulls!

Nuggets Country, kudos to your thoughts and essay.
Posted by: Edwin Gueco | May 14, 2011 at 06:30 PM

@NuggetsCountry.. Like edwin said kudos and agree with every one of ur posts last thread.. Pau has been feeding us his lip service all year but now he sounds like a compulsive liar when he says he'll figure it out and bounce back esp during his exit interview when he said he'll "embrace his troubles and come back stronger"...

Posted by: yellofever | May 15, 2011 at 08:27 AM"

Thanks both! Sorry for the delay here, but it has been two days of hell week trying to get 400GB+ of hard drive info back up and online!


I am weary of the whole league knowing exactly what it takes to beat our current lazy triangle personnel. If the FO gets some new blood and the whole team gets a focused and non-lazy approach to every game, then maybe keep the triangle, but if not, then some new blood in a new offense may get them some enthusiasm. I am skeptical of that however, which is why I am discussing getting a no-BS ouside coach and trading some lazy assets for some eager outsiders who fit obvious needs I have been spouting for the past couple of weeks.

>>Bottomline is the Lakers have the talent to win as long >>as they execute whatever system they install. But I do >>find it humorous that some people are so anti->>Triangle...like that's what caused the Lakers meltdown.

Posted by: LRob | May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Can not agree with you more. The same true about PJ, some haters here just comparing his departure like Lakers finally got rid of some plague. The same old story, if they loose, it's a system or PJ or both, if they win, it's Kobe or Shaq or MJ/Pippen.

"I’m just saying that Thibs can implement that type of system because of defenders like KG and Noah. The Lakers don’t have anyone like that.

Posted by: LRob | May 16, 2011 at 11:29 AM

"

HOW TRUE! Until they do, we are getting our backsides handed to us forever more. Having to make hard baskets in exchange for the other team's easy baskets is especially hard on Kobe.


On another point of some here, I do agree that Kobe's focus should be getting healthy legs so he can go in 95% of the practices in the future. I saw many games where it was obvious the lack of practice time together deteriorated their movement to the effect of bad shots, bad cuts, and bad decisions by the whole team!

The Lakers should move in a new direction and change their style of play. Teams have developed an understanding of how to defend this type of offense. The management should review and make the essential changes for this team. Now is the time to do it.

The biggest problem is the "bench" not running the triangle. Lamar didn't take control and with Blake, Barnes (not familiar), and a frelancing Brown, always lost leads while partially running the offense and not getting points. Face it, we lost because every team had a much more productive bench. Our bench players couldn't keep momentum, and screwed up the chemistry with the starters when they came in. That's why the offense started out fine but couldn't sustain a rhythm. Don't tell me a team like this can't score 100 points a night.

Buzz Lightyear,

With all due respect, I think you're missing the point. Whatever plays our team was running in Dal series it has nothing to do with triangle, as you correctly pointed out with "my turn to shoot" mentality. About personnel we have, how about LO having a best season of his career? Do you consider him triangle material or not? Yes, Lakers do need to have a little smarter than average bbal player on the floor in order to execute triangle which is, as Kobe pointed out numerous times “read and react” system.

AND can we please quit the absurd 'trade Kobe' garbage!?

AND, like someone else said the '3 beater cars for a Lexus trade' garbage has also got to stop! Proposing those kind of trade scenarios just shows complete business ignorance and no CBA knowledge. These other GMs want to keep their jobs, for Pete's Sake! They are not about to trade a Howard for a bunch of 3rd or 4th stringers (we call them the 'Lakers bench'), even if the salary match works! I mean saying an absurd trade once we take as a funny joke, but when you persist, it makes us start to scan past your post comments quickly.

I mean, sure, I would trade Luke or Blake or Caracter for Wade or LeBron straight up too, but................get serious!

If we are to keep this offense, it's imperative that they practice and the new players learn to run the system. We had a starting 5 and 1 bench player (Odom) who knew the offense. Luke didn't get any time. All the other players were new to the system or new to increased playing time (Brown who can't be anything but a part time player). Until the bench learns the system, we will have a hard time scoring, and as result, players break the triangle trying to do too much.

Again, if Howard, CP or DWill insist to join LA, they have all the power, as did Melo. Everyone knew Melo wanted to go to NY and well, he went to NY. If Denver hadn't traded him there, he could have walked there for FREE this summer. Bynum for Howard is not a scrub, neither is Pau for DWill or CP. Basically my opinion is DWill or CP would change our whole dynamic and make us unbelievable. I want one of those two, whoever Kobe wants.

Yep, the Triangle is horrible. Get rid of it immediately.

Bottom line is the Lakers have the talent to win as long as they execute whatever system they install. But I do find it humorous that some people are so anti-Triangle...like that's what caused the Lakers meltdown.

Posted by: LRob | May 16, 2011 at 11:45 AM

actually the TRIANGLE "caused the Lakers meltdown" … "with the current core group of players…"

when LO - Gasol - Artest/Barnes - Kobe/Brown - Fisher/Blake on the court, there was NO TRIANGLE - it was just a SEMI-CIRCLE

Gasol did not anchored the post, founding himself out on the 3 point line. remember, he even took some shots. so, where was the TRIANGLE?

LO was also playing POINT - no TRIANGLE

BYNUM also the biggest TRIANGLE liability - no passing skills - remember, that's FUNDAMENTALS that the "franchise player" is missing.

the real TRIANGLE was Tex Winter - GONE

PJ did TRIANGLES from memory - no skills to adjust or to have some variations

so if PJ could not really do it without TEX, behind on the bench, what makes you think that SHAW, with the same "core" (Bynum with no passing skills for the famous "inside - out" or, Gasol, who can't anchor the post), will do better not having PJ next to him and TEX behind the bench?

the "new TRIANGLE" is just a bunch of terrible SHOOTING perimeter players.

smart coaches like Thibeau, Carlise and even Phoenix figured how to DENIE the passing lanes to the BIGS, who are TERRIBLE or AFRAID to establish POST POSITIONS, and made the Lakers "SHOWCASE" terrible outside shooting.

A Recipe for FAILURE

the only TRIANGLE was the bad politics of PJ - Gasol - Fisher to DEFLECT all the shortcomings of this "current core group of players…"

Basically the Lakers have to keep it. This team isn't going to run (no 7 seconds or less), we don't have a player capable of breaking down the D (like Rose or Rondo can, consistently) to create wide open shots. With older, slower vets on the team a true system to get open shots is needed. With our wealth of talented big men this style of offense plays to their strengths (all of them are deft passers, Lamar exceptionally so). This is why I feel Luke has more to offer our team than any other in the NBA, why I thought his lack of PT hurt us in the post season where solid execution is at a premium. I love the energy Barnes could bring (especially prior to the knee injury) but his lack of familiarity often left him out of position in our schemes. Artest was the same last year but picked up some of his cut spots better this year.


If we scrap this offense we basically have to scrap the team. Not sure how the triangle works...well I have provided some wicked smart links. Enjoy.


Here's the Wiki:

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

But this is better:

http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/platriangle-principles.html

This is Phil talking about it with the aid of Tex Winter:

http://vimeo.com/1491700

Aloha

I keep reading about potential trades for Cris Paul. Understand that under no circumstances will Cris Paul be traded untill the NBA can find a buyer for the Hornets. Then it will be the new owners call.

MH

"Interesting article on one man’s take on the all NO DEFENSIVE team. He put Kobe on the second team. I do agree that Kobe’s defense left a lot to be desired this season, but is over the top imho.


http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawakami/2011/05/15/my-4th-annual-nba-no-defense-team-al-jefferson-monta-ellis-kobe-bryant-and-more/


Posted by: LRob | May 16, 2011 at 11:50 AM

"

Haha. After seeing his explanation for it I completely understand. He' admits Kobe is certainly not one of the 10 worst in the league. The reason his defense looks so porous is because he has a reputation of being an elite defender and even this year, he was voted 1st team all defense. If he wasn't still getting recognition for being an amazing defender, his lack of defense would not stand out.

The question should be: What's the best offense for this group of players?

The triangle is not the only offense that does without a superior PG. The Kings under Adelman thrived without one (neither Mike Bibby nor Doug Christie was close to being a classic PG).

Gasol would seem better suited to playing the high post, while Bynum seems better at the low post. So a high-low post offense might be appropriate.

That would provide plenty of room for the Lakers' wing players to operate, perhaps with more flexibility than under the triangle.

Though as long as Kobe is sticking to his "pecking order" schtick, it's hard to see why anyone would want to try to coach him:

"In regard to the offensive demands that Bynum made Tuesday with local media, Bryant stated that the ball should continue to go through him first, Gasol second.

“Ultimately, [Bynum will] have to fall in line because I’m gonna shoot the ball – we all know that,” Bryant said. “Pau is going to get his touches; he’s No. 2. And then [Andrew] will have to fall in line.”

[From Mark Spears' recent column in Yahoo Sports.]

the "Triangle" must go for 3 reasons:

1. It takes to long to learn. Come on man! 3 years.
2.It requires high b-ball IQ which most players don't have
3.Its not a good system for young players. 99.9% of college programs have a play book. The Laker don't have a playbook.

I could mention several more but why? The systems has ONLY proven to work with "Mega-star" like players. No other team in the NBA has adopted it.

Hey guys we have a live chat going on.

You can't argue with results and the results show that the Triangle offense wins championships when run right. The problem is running the offense right. It's funny, because when I was playing Freshman basketball in H.S., my coach came up with a brilliant idea that we were going to run the Triangle. At the time, the Bulls were destroying their opponents and a lot of credit went to the Triangle offense. So we actually tried to practice the Triangle. The collective response from the team was; "HUH??". We were running around trying to make triangles, it was sad. And looking back at it, I don't even think our coach had any idea what he was doing either. What coach would try to take an offense thats considered complicated to pros and try to get high school freshman to understand it and run it?

But what I'm trying to say is that the Lakers should only stick with the Triangle if we have to right coaches to teach it. Phil Jackson and Tex Winter are the only coaches who have it mastered so they are probably the only ones who are qualified to teach it. So I would stick with the Triangle if Phil Jackson and Tex Winter are involved in teaching it. If not, let's go with Adelmans system which works very well in the NBA too.

Go Lakers!

I think the Lakers should keep the Triangle , only If they hire Brian Shaw has Coach. He already knows how to use it. The Lakers don't need Dwight Howard , yet. But If they hire some other coach , then they should break up the team. Because another Coach might use some other type of system . When the Lakers were used to triangle , mostly. But no matter what , the Lakers won mostly all with DEFENSE FIRST , then OFFENSE . So it all depends on who they hire as HEAD COACH FIRST , before changing a lot.

I'm over the Lakers for now. There's no use in beating myself up over a bunch of millionaires who didn't put the type of effort and intensity into their game as their fans did. These Lakers just didn't care that much this year for some reason. So why get upset about it if the players themselves didn't really care. I can't think of a more undeserving team than this years Laker squad.

On the bright side, each of the 4 teams left in the playoffs have a legit shot at winning it all. When has there been a more open field of competition for the championship? I'm going to root for the OKC Thunder. I'm a big KD and Russell Westbrook fan. I think it'd be amazing to see these guys win it all for such a little town that puts its heart and soul into each game for these guys. I still hate Kendrick Perkins, but I'll ignore his presence and enjoy some good NBA basketball. Which is something that has eluded me this year with the Lakers.

Go Lakers!

To those who respond to the idea of a new offense for the Lakers by saying "Look what happened when Rudy Tomjanovich came in and tried to install a new offense" (and I'm talking about you, Mark Heisler), let's look at the facts:

Rudy T's record as Lakers coach during the 2004-05 season was 24-19. He quit not because he had done poorly as the Lakers' coach, but rather because he couldn't deal with the pressure.

I would note that, extrapolated over an entire season, this 24-19 record was better than Phil Jackson achieved during each of the first two years after his return to the Lakers (42-20, 45-37). And it's hard to argue that the roster Rudy T had was any better than the ones Phil J had (arguably, it was worse).

Phil J did not succeed until the 2007-08 season, when both (i) Andrew Bynum emerged as a potential star and (ii) the Lakers stole Pau Gasol from Memphis. I'm sure most any coach would have done better with this lineup than with the one Rudy T inherited.

Rudy T's main tenet of offensive basketball was to design the offense to maximize the strengths of each of his players.

Not such a bad idea, when you think about it.

The triangle offense is really not that complicated. Shannon and Artest never really understood it but coaches commented how Steve Blake immediately picked it up once he came over. It's not that difficult to learn. I think Phil Jackson or Tex Winter could have a high school team running a decent one within a day. There are only a few spots on the floor. When one player leaves his spot, another player takes it. It's common sense really. It might take some time to know which players like to occupy which spots and what plays are likely to open up with certain players but all in all, it is not that difficult.

The Lakers could do fine without it. I don't know if some people don't realize it but even the starting unit abandons the triangle sometimes. Kobe's shots are almost exclusively outside of the triangle. His isolation back to the basket plays are the types of plays that the triangle is designed to eliminate.

The Lakers need spacing so the big men can operate. The players like Artest and Fisher need open shots on the perimeter. Kobe likes to play one on one. Most offensive sets satisfy all of those demands. When the ball enters the post, the perimeter opens up. When the perimeter opens up and the ball is passed out, the help defense closes out and the post player is open for a re-post. This happens when you run the triangle and it happens when you don't run the triangle.

The triangle may have been Phil's offense of choice but it's not the only style that works and it's not the only way his teams could have won. It's very effective when it is operated by great players but that can be said about any offense.

When Miami Heat played against Dallas in the NBA Finals, Shaq and Alonzo Morning gave D-Wade a ride around the town, and they kept telling Wade that we need you. Shaq and Morning were old, and D-Wade was young. They did not want Wade to follow the stupid pecking order. Triangle should go away, they didn't want to run in the past, same to the future.

@LROB & PSP … I understand and agree with the point you are making. Thanks.
.............................................................
TOM

@NUGGETS COUNTRY … The big damper on trading for Dwight as far as the Lakers go is that there are many teams out there who would be willing to take Arenas or Turkoglu and their huge contracts in order to get Dwight, something the Lakers would NOT be willing to do.
.............................................................
TOM


drew for dwight... make it happen!

let's go #babybulls!!!!

Remember how well the triangle was flowing with Ariza on the wing? Artest is too slow and too poor of a shooter to be our wing. Our offense has been really ugly the past couple years with exception to our post play.

More often than not over the past 2 seasons, it's been hard if not impossible to tell when the Lakers were running the triangle.
Does that mean they weren't executing properly? Or does it mean they'd gotten away from it completely? Perhaps there's truth to both.
In any case, it's not working like it should. And when something doesn't work, you either replace it or you get personnel who not only know how to use it but also have the discipline to operate it according to instruction.

I have to go back to the All-Star game and remember how sweet it was to see Kobe play with pure guards in DWill and Cp3..So yeah, e ither one of those dudes will do..Hell, even if we could somehow nab Nash, i would go for it and then maybe draft a pg, keep Fish on the bench and keep Blake..But something def gotsta be done with the pg position as we all know and we need a MEAN 4! None of our power 4's have any grit and grime to their games..That's gotta change! Another player I'd like to see on the Lakers is, Utah's Gordon Hayward..That kid was resilient against us, pretty much singlehandledy killed us with his penetration and playmaking...Just some random thoughts..Its gonna be interesting, long ass summer! I cannot bring myself to watch any games..When the Lakers aren't playing, I am not watching. But in my heart of hearts, I def don't want Miami or Dallas to win, or Oklahoma just because of Kendrick PorkNBeans! so I am rooting for Chi-Town!!!

Fisher for Dwight make it happen.... LOL! Retire already Fish!

Luke for CP3 make it happen.... LOL! Dear Luke, you absolutely robbed the Lakers family, I mean the Buss family without being caught.... Everyone envies your position....... the highest paid bench warmer. I can certainly do that..... why don't we change positions every quarterly if you get tired of warming the bench once in awhile. I get 20% of your 6M for substituting you.


if it's not broke, don 't try and fix it. The truth be told, it wasn't the triangle or lack of the triangle. The lakers from the start of the season didn't appear to have the passion or the focus and sometimes when you're constantly winning it's hard to keep your focus and your hunger. In my opinion, if you are going to keep the bulk of the team, then continue with what has brought you two championships. We all know that a key player of the laker's didn't appear to show up in the playoffs especially in the dallas series. However, we know that this player was one of the main ingredients that helped the lakers win their previous to championships. I may need my head examined, but I feel like kobe. I think the bulk of this team if they come back focused can win another championship. Conformity, without unity or unity without conformity leads to the hunter not only being hunted, but being captured and in some cases being encaged. psalms 119:165 isaiah 26:3 psalms 23

Lakers should keep the Triangle System.... the problem is not so much who is going to Coach next year or if this system is adequately good enough or not..... but the main problem is that the players are Slow & UNATHLETIC..... and NOT HUNGRY and LACK OF FOCUS.... Odom with his reality show, Artest with his Rap music career (this is a JOKE!), and Kobe want us have a perception of him as a Superman or Super human or simply a hero that he can play with all that injuries in his body and refusing to recover or heal his body IS PLAIN EGOTISTICAL

It's time for this team to add Dwight and CP3 whatever necessary means .

Mary Chandler, why aren't you a GM for a team? No other GM seems to know how to put a team of 10-12 allstars together like you do.

Posted by: Bay to LA | May 16, 2011 at 05:00 PM


Bay to LA,

that's because I just turned 14 years old last month.

I would want to be the only woman to become a GM in the NBA in the near future.... especially for the Los Angeles Lakers!

Posted by: mary chandler | May 16, 2011 at 05:38 PM

It's all about hunger. Going to the finals for 3 consecutive years is a feat that's unheard of in modern day sports. Unfortunately, our guys got tired of it and it was stale to them. We need new, hungry and energetic guys - be it players, coaching staff - or even a system.

Kobe's best games here KobeGames.Blogspot.com

I believe coaching should be dynamic and creative. A monotomous offense pattern could be easily studied by the opposing team. That's why with this so called triangle offense, the Lakers found it, in not a few times, difficult to execute a successful offense simply because the opposing team had read them.

Ditch the Triangle offense.
Why?
Because it's BORING to watch.
It may be great for old teams who lack athleticism, but it's a killer for us fans.
Wooden is correct, any decent system, run well will do fine.
So why select such a stodgy, staid, slow, boring offense?
If any decent offense, run well can win, why stay with such a painfully dreary one?

Great basketball heralds the astonishing athleticism of superb athletes working well together as a team. Great basketball emphasizes movement --of players on and off the ball, and movement of the ball. With the Triangle, the ball moves, but the players, not so much. But that player movement is what the fans come to see. Without that athletic movement the game could be baseball, or golf.

C'mon Lakers, Phil's departure is an opportunity to improve your game. Sticking with an offense good players only begrudgingly accepted, tolerated, is the wrong move when the essence of the game is full-blown athleticism, with some of the planet's greatest athletes on hand. Why say no to what fans pay to see?

Please Mitch, can we now up the level of Laker athleticism?

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING... I WAS WATCHING THE LAKERTROTTERS ALL SEASON AND I AM STILL WONDERING WHERE IS THE TRIANGLE??? WHAT TRIANGLE ARE YOU GUYS REFERING TO? IT IS AN OFFENSE THAT TURNED TWO 7 FOOT MEN INTO 6 FEET AND UNDER LEAGUE PLAYERS. THE BLACK MAMBA OFFENSE IS MOSTLY WHAT I SAW IN THIS YEARS PLAYOFFS AND THAT DIDN'T WORK EITHER. I ALSO SAW THE ONE ON NINE OFFENSE, THAT DIDN'T WORK.
I SAW THE ONE PASS JUMP SHOT OFFENSE, THAT DIDN'T WORK. I SAW HOW MANY 3'S CAN YOU MISS, THAT DIDN'T WORK... I CAN HARDLY WAIT TO SEE WHAT OFFENSE THEY LAKERTROTTERS COME UP WITH NEXT SEASON.

I think the we should hire Shaw, stay with the triangle and run it, and start LO at the PG position and bring Fisher off the bench. I think LO can be close to Magic Johnson on the floor if given the chance. Pippen played more like Johnson as "point forward" and I think that would be good for us and LO. He can rebound the ball and run the floor. If you look at alot of plays where LO rebounded the ball and ran the floor, that led to alot of transition baskets for the Lakers.

Check out the Zen master talking playoff basketball and relationships http://tinyurl.com/3vklk9u

I think the we should hire Shaw, stay with the triangle and run it, and start LO at the PG position and bring Fisher off the bench. I think LO can be close to Magic Johnson on the floor if given the chance. Pippen played more like Johnson as "point forward" and I think that would be good for us and LO. He can rebound the ball and run the floor. If you look at alot of plays where LO rebounded the ball and ran the floor, that led to alot of transition baskets for the Lakers.

Posted by: Bummi | May 17, 2011 at 06:52 AM

Bummi,

I completely 120% agree with you!!!! This should have been done long time ago!

I think the we should hire Shaw, stay with the triangle and run it, and start LO at the PG position and bring Fisher off the bench. I think LO can be close to Magic Johnson on the floor if given the chance. Pippen played more like Johnson as "point forward" and I think that would be good for us and LO. He can rebound the ball and run the floor. If you look at alot of plays where LO rebounded the ball and ran the floor, that led to alot of transition baskets for the Lakers.

Posted by: Bummi | May 17, 2011 at 06:52 AM

Bummi,

I completely 120% agree with you!!!! This should have been done long time ago!

Lamar Odom as POINT GUARD make it happen!

The thing with the triangle is that your top dog has to be a believer in it and be a master of it. When MJ fully accepted the triangle everyone fell in line and everyone had to abide by it. Only MJ and Pip had the license to deviate once in a while. The Lakers on the other hand have a bunch of players who like to go solo and ignore the system. It's a lack of discipline more than anything else.

This situation is no different than when my favorite football team, the Dallas Cowboys, were given no choice than to give up the famous "Doomsday Defense." There comes a time when a certain formula that has given you so much success in the past stops working & needs to be replaced with something new. Teams had figured out a way to defeat it with relative ease so it was time to put it on the scrap heap. Such is the case for the Lakers Triangle Offense. It is simply time for the Lakers to go in a different direction. My biggest complaint about the Triangle Offense is that it is too complicated & takes too long to adjust to. When other teams pick up new players those players are able to make an IMMEDIATE contribution to their new team's success because of being able to make an easy transition to that team's formula on offense & defense. Such is NOT the case with the Lakers with the triangle offense which is why they have so much DEAD WEIGHT on their bench, resulting in those players not being able to make a significant contribution to the Lakers success when needed. In other words, they need to switch to an offense where in the event they pick up new players to help the team, those players will be able to help out RIGHT AWAY! Hiring Rick Adleman as the new coach would definitely help in this respect.

KObe come on! I belive you!


Connect

Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

Video

All Things Lakers »

Your database for all things purple and gold.

Find a Laker

Search a name

Select a season

Choose one of our lists



Categories


Archives
 

About the Bloggers


Bleacher Report | Lakers

Reader contributions from Times partner Bleacher Report

More Lakers on Bleacher Report »



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists:


In Case You Missed It...