Phil deserves some credit too. As great as those guys were they didn't win a single ring before Phil coached them. Pop may be the better overall coach, but Phil was remarkable in handling huge egos and getting them to play above and beyond their abilities and sacrificing for the betterment of the team.
i think phil's leadership, not his offense, is what helped those teams win titles. i don't think you can lead the same way from the front office. the offense itself has been largely ineffective when it didn't involve some seriously talented individuals. maybe that's true of all nba offenses, but it certainly doesn't make it the royal road to victory. the one thing i'll say for the triangle is that it is one of many offenses that keeps all five guys engaged and involved with the play. properly executed princeton and other motion offenses do the same. the only offenses that certainly don't work are the iso/pick and roll/great man theory offenses that gave us the rudy three lakers, the chris paul hornets, and the current rockets.
let's just be clear that phil the coach and phil the team president are two completely different people phil the coach as we all know is the greatest coach in NBA history and a true mastermind of the game. he'll never coach another game but even if it came down to that, i wouldn't want him back as coach simply because this team can't always go running back to phil whenever things are bad. they need to actually hire a competent coach that's not phil for once phil the team president has proven to be pretty lousy. his methods are completely outdated and that reflects in the decisions he's made in NY. that, and the fact that he always needs to have "his guys" running the show is enough reason to not want him back in that capacity either
I love Phil, but we seriously need new blood and we need it yesterday. It's not some random accident that Aldridge was unimpressed with our analytics department. We were the one team that didn't send a delegate to the annual analytics conference whatever year that was. To be clear, I'm not trying to focus on analytics here, just using it as an example of how calcified we got over the last 5 years or so. Our problems probably started a lot earlier than that but just finally came to a head, recently. A number of other teams in the league got significantly better when they started hiring the younger, more dynamic graduates of the San Antonio FO and elsewhere. The C-bags now look like a young fun team on the rise, and you'll notice they didn't hire some veteran from the 80s who's failed upwards into head coaching jobs. We need a fresh modern approach that reflects the NBA of today. We're not getting that with Phil. It would feel nice for a month or two, but we'd continue to stagnate and fall further back in time. The only way I'm cool with this is if he comes on as an adviser, like Jerry West in GS, but leaves the rest to the GM, who should also probably be replaced at this point.
Apparently Phil wants to hire David Blatt in New York.....who is far from a triangle guy. If Phil is trying to send signals to LA that he's open to NOT running the triangle or not bringing one of his guys as coach....then I'd be all for Phil being back in LA. My problem with Phil is the triangle and his insistence on running an antiquated offense. If he's open to NOT doing that, then by all means, I'd love for Phil to come back to LA. Brings instant credibility and respectability back to our franchise, and most of all....we get rid of Jim and Byron.
i thought blatt got a raw deal in Cleveland. I'd take him in la. this doesn't change my mind on pj as manager, though. I'm just not sold that the skillset is the same for coaching and management. one exception might be when one person does both jobs--although that hasn't been super successful in the past.
I don't think Phil has been terrible as a GM like everyone is saying. He made the Knicks somewhat relevant this year with some solid draft choices (KP and Jerian Grant whom he obtained through trade for Tim Hardaway Jr., who was basically useless), solid FA signings (Lopez, Afflalo), and a solid coaching hire (Fisher whom he ended up firing unfortunately). The Knicks coulda had a shot at the playoffs if they didn't suffer injuries to key players all at the same time (Melo, KP, Afflalo all out during that period where they lost 9 of 10 games)...I also think Rambis is a terrible coach though...and if Phil really thinks he is a good coach...ugh.
Phil has told the press in NY that he wants teams to run system offenses. He doesn't care if it's the triangle or whatever San Antonio or GS run, just as long as teams aren't running set plays all the time. He prefers ball and man movement instead of P&R or ISO.
I agree with your post except to pick one subjective nit. This guy is right there with him and has every bit as much of an NBA most elite coaching resume. I feel bad for the rest of the world going forward in the Olympics ..... they don't have to face Krzyzewski any more but IMO probably someone even tougher. Mike has never done it in the pros. This guy hasn't slowed down and hasn't quit yet like Phil. Doubt he will write any tell all books like Phil either.
I love Phil but Pop is better in my eyes. He's much more well rounded, can coach different styles of play and I think he's much more knowledgeable in terms of x and o's than phil.
absolutely i've long maintained that the spurs are the finest organization in north american pro sports from top to bottom and pop is one of, if not the biggest reason for that i'd still put phil ahead of pop in terms of best coaches in NBA history but he is right behind phil.
To be fair, Phil is 4-1 in playoff series against Pop as Lakers' coach. Especially impressive was that they were the defending champs in '07/'08 when we beat them, basically the same roster from the year before.
Extra points for longevity and consistency. How many seasons in a row with 50+ wins? Just absurd when you consider what we've gone through.
Not trying to put anyone down, but does anyone here even fully understand the "X's and O's" of the triangle? Can anyone whose against Phil describe specifically what it is about the triangle offense, and what it is about the evolution of the modern NBA, that prevents the triangle from being compatible with today's game? Because I'll admit, I never really fully understood what the triangle even was and now I think it's just become a cliche that the triangle is antiquated without much substance to that argument. I also doubt that anyone here pays enough attention to the Knicks to know how much the triangle has been forced upon them, and if it has, how specifically Phil's imposing of the triangle is what's preventing them from being a good team as opposed to having Melo as their best player. Similarly, I don't know how much of a say Phil specifically had on the roster transactions the Knicks have made. But I think Afflalo, Lopez, Porzingis, Grant, etc were great moves considering what New York's options were. Someone replied to one of my earlier posts and criticized Phil for getting rid of Shumpert and JR Smith. Well I just can't agree with that at all. That seems like addition by subtraction. I'll admit, if he really wants to sign Rambis long term, that would be dumb. But I don't think he's seriously considering that. He's always been a mastermind of manipulating the press. If he wants out of New York, just floating the rumor that he'd consider making Rambis the full-time head coach is exactly the kind of thing that might make New York cut ties with him so that he can come home. Phil has a great basketball mind and I think he'd be a good influence on our youth, plus a great recruiter for potential free agents. I also don't think he's has egotistic as some of you make him out to be. From what I remember, during our last few championships the word was that he allowed our young players to step outside the triangle and play their game. Similarly, I think he'd let a guy like Luke run whatever system he wanted, and I think he'd be a great mentor for Luke.
i'm not qualified enough to talk about the intricacies of the offense (i can sort of differentiate it from the princeton, but i don't know all the action and rules), and i think some of the triangle bashing in the press comes from uninformed folks who think anything but the houston rockets stand-around pick and roll is stupid and boring. i will say this: systems focused on spontaneous, reactive player and ball movement cannot be executed by just anyone. it's why you see the princeton and the triangle fail and fail. however, when you have the right personnel, they do seem to be superior. that's a neat trick, though. the sacramento kings, in their heyday, ran a beautiful offense, but it required that all five guys be intelligent and multi-skilled. it's hard to field a team like that while also being able to defend and compete athletically in the nba. anyway, my issues with phil as the front office guy started with his weak approach to the melo re-signing. when he made the initial low-ball offer, i thought he was being bold and sort of daring melo to walk for more cash elsewhere, but he quickly capitulated and gave full max. tells me either a) he didn't really know what he wanted or b) he got scared. he, like our management team, also made a bad coaching hire (zero experience coaching in that situation wasn't a good idea, and many said so at the time). so, his front office resume is whiffing on big FAs, making a solid draft choice, and hiring bad coaches (maybe to follow with rambis?). sounds like the downfalls of our current front office, minus the years-long track record of good trades and draft picks. this is why i pass.
