SacBee: Theus to introduce triangle offense to Kings
- Thread starter Revrag
- Start date
Let me start off by saying I've always been a fan of motion offenses, having coached them many years. The kids are always involved, and know that the ball could be coming to you at any time if you're ready to receive it.
I think it's a great move. You're building a team that, at its core, will be together for many years. If they're going to grow and learn, it's better that they learn playing together within a system that they'll be using for a long time. We all know this year is a wash anyway, (except for those of us with delusions of grandeur) so using this year as a stepping stone in more than one way seems like a good idea to me.
That being said, the triangle can be tricky to master. The Lakers didn't pick it up right away, so I don't expect the Kings to come running out of the gates masters of the triangle.
If we're as athletic as Theus thinks we are, this will only help.
Of course, next year you may hear me say, "Seemed like a good idea at the time."
I think it's a great move. You're building a team that, at its core, will be together for many years. If they're going to grow and learn, it's better that they learn playing together within a system that they'll be using for a long time. We all know this year is a wash anyway, (except for those of us with delusions of grandeur) so using this year as a stepping stone in more than one way seems like a good idea to me.
That being said, the triangle can be tricky to master. The Lakers didn't pick it up right away, so I don't expect the Kings to come running out of the gates masters of the triangle.
If we're as athletic as Theus thinks we are, this will only help.
Of course, next year you may hear me say, "Seemed like a good idea at the time."
I could see it being a good long term fit for our roster too, if we have the patience to let the kids learn it and have their growing pains. It preaches constant motion and smart movements, much like the Princeton offense we used before. With Petrie's love for versatile players who can pass, shoot and score in a variety of ways, a well run triangle would be a great fit.
More on the triangle for those who are interested:
http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/triangle.asp
http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/platriangle-principles.html
http://www.cybersportsusa.com/hooptactics/triangle.asp
http://www.jes-soft.com/playbook/platriangle-principles.html
I sincerely doubt he played in it -- he did play for Chicago, but long before the triangle days.
Not sure whether he used any of it in his two seasons at New Mexico. Might be a bit tough to implement in a college setting, with very young kids, constant turnover, student athletes who at least in theory should be doing their basket weaving homework rather than working through all the subtleties of the offense etc.
While there is a bit of a sleeping with the enemy stench to this, the triangle actually shares many principles with our old Princeton and could be a solid fit, for our younger players in particular (and therefore might be showing a welcome increased focus on our youth despite Theus's blatherings are about playing the old guys). Few questions:
1) has any NBA team NOT coached by Phil (and Tex) actually had high level success trying to emulate the system? For that matter have Phil and Tex had high level success when their teams were not just stacked?
2) will Theus be around long enough for this to bear any fruit? This is more a long term committment sort of move -- we won't be hugely effective with it until we get real comfortable, maybe not even this year.
3) the triangle always requires post play as a key (there is always at least one point of the triangle stationed inside). That could make good use of Spenser and Jason, and hence why I hope it means we are doing this thinkng of them. But Brad and Mikki do not seem terribly well suited (Mikki perhaps as an off the ball finisher, but certainly not part of the traingle of players). And none of our guards are post up types (John maybe a little, but you do not want to run an offense through him MJ --> Kobe --> Salmons?
4) the triangle, at least as Phil has always run it, has always reduced the PG to a spot up type roleplayer and put the ball in other players' hands. While that could make Beno viable as a longterm roleplaying starter for us into the future, it also takes the ball out of our best decisionmaker's hands and puts it into a the hands of a bunch of guys who are not natural passers.
I'm all in favor of motion and passing, but I have no idea whether the Triangle is the best way to achieve that for this team or not. What I do like about it is that it should favor Thompson taking time from Moore, and to a lesser extent Hawes from Miller. It could make Moore and Williams fairly irrelevant. Oh, happy day! 
I think you may have answered #1 with your prior paragraph. I don't remember exactly when, but sometime during the Adelman era I remember hearing less about the Princeton offense and more of how we were using a quasi-triangle offense. Don't remember the specifics, however, and I could very well be making this up. Does anyone else recall anything similar?
As for #2, I'm ok with that as long as it makes Reggie feel comfortable enough to play the kids. I don't want to see the team try to lose, but I don't want Miller and Moore out there for 45 minutes, either. Reggie may not be the final answer for this team, and we probably should hold off on any formal extension until later in the season, but if we give him some sort of informal "Hey, don't worry about this week or this month, we'll give you some time to sort the new system out," that's fine by me.
I hope you're right on #3, and that this means more minutes for Jason and Spencer (or Shock & Hawes as I hope to call the future frontcourt). If there's any hope for the future, at least one of Spencer or Jason is going to have to become a legit inside presence. Both would be nice, too. As for posting the guards, wasn't there just a story about Kevin working on his post game? I think that could be a new direction we see, as well.
Finally, on the point of the point, my first reaction to this was, "Well, who's our Fisher?" Can Beno hit the jumper and defend consistently as we need him to? Does this mean the "Draft Future PG Star in 2009" plans are on hold?
As for #2, I'm ok with that as long as it makes Reggie feel comfortable enough to play the kids. I don't want to see the team try to lose, but I don't want Miller and Moore out there for 45 minutes, either. Reggie may not be the final answer for this team, and we probably should hold off on any formal extension until later in the season, but if we give him some sort of informal "Hey, don't worry about this week or this month, we'll give you some time to sort the new system out," that's fine by me.
I hope you're right on #3, and that this means more minutes for Jason and Spencer (or Shock & Hawes as I hope to call the future frontcourt). If there's any hope for the future, at least one of Spencer or Jason is going to have to become a legit inside presence. Both would be nice, too. As for posting the guards, wasn't there just a story about Kevin working on his post game? I think that could be a new direction we see, as well.
Finally, on the point of the point, my first reaction to this was, "Well, who's our Fisher?" Can Beno hit the jumper and defend consistently as we need him to? Does this mean the "Draft Future PG Star in 2009" plans are on hold?
