the triangle offense has been seen in many years as unbeatable, but a lot of people were saying that it was nothing but Michael Jordan offense :grin: :grin: while it can be true, it is though an excellent efficient and entertaining offense to watch and of course to execute! My question is: is Adelman's offense as "efficient" and may be unbeatable as Tex Winter's one? it is fun to watch for sure, but can we be undefeated if it is well executed?
To be honest, all the experts keep saying that they're essentially the same offense. Probably depends on personell more than anything.
agreed think that both offenses has its strength and weakness. also its hard to run a triangle without a great wing player who can penetrate/shoot/high post and pass. these types of players are hard to come by. motion is great when you have a balanced team like the rox, where everyone contributes and distributes the ball. depending on the team, i personally prefer motion just because i don't like an offense when the whole team is dependent on one guy
Michael Jordan wasn't a big fan of the Triangle at first and called it an Equal Opportunity Offense, because it emphasized ball movement and sharing the ball, which was the antithesis of what Jordan wanted: the ball in his hands. So to say the Triangle was the Michael Jordan offense was just Michael ditching the offense at times and him improvising on his own.
Pretty much. Both offensive systems create triangles on the strong side and when the ball is swung, another is formed. Same offense.
Take out Kobe and Michael and it is average at best. If you really watch the offense when Shaq was there you will see a more traditional offense not much different than what Rudy ran with Hakeem. Adelman's offense is more sophisticated in the sense that it takes what is available. It doesn't work with ball hogs. it doesn't work on teams with one or 2 legitimate scorers at least 4 players must have scoring ability in some manner. That is why it was essential for Hayes to improve his offensive game a t least a little. And that is why you can't have Jeffries and Hayes on the court at the same time.
I do think we will be doing quite a bit of throwing it into Yao and looking for open threes. It seems like he will still command a double team. I really want to see that with Martin and Brooks bombing from the perimeter.
Technically speaking the triangle is the better offense simply because it is more disciplined and the roles are more defined, but it requires high quality players to operate it effectively. If you're running a "pure" triangle offense you would need most of your players to be have the ff: 1) High b-ball IQ 2) Good passing ability 3) 3 pt threats Unfortunately its quite hard to have all those ingredients, which is why PJ usually ends up in teams that are already stacked, and why other coaches who try to implement the triangle on crap teams fail miserably. Since the triangle's requirements are so exacting, at times PJ had to modify his triangle to accomodate the talent at hand (like when he had Jordan and Shaq in their primes). Adelman's offense IMHO is a much more instinctive offense, most people equate it to the Princeton but RA's system is actually a more user-friendly version, it allows for much more creativity on the players' part and is more accomodating to their own specific skillsets. Somebody like Lowry would probably be a good example of the difference between the two. With his lack of 3 pt shot I don't think he would be a good fit in PJ's triangle, but he flourished in RA's Read and react offense.
Triangle offense 10 titles Adleman offense 0 titles Some of it is personnel but ultimately, that is the measuring stick.
They are both forms of a motion offense (as opposed to running set plays). The triangle incorporates a bit of "set" offenses by establishing a triple post but both triangle and motion offenses both offer up unlimited reads and reactions as opposed to the ball moving through a specific path(s) to a shot. And motion offenses have been run for way more years than Adelman or Phil Jackson/Tex Winters have been coaching (and even before Peter Carrill, who gets credited with it at Princeton). It is hard to learn and run successfully though. The Rockets struggled to learn it when Adelman arrived. And while Adelman is best known for it at SAC where he had Pete Carrill as an assistant coach, he tried (unsuccessfully) to get the Warriors to run it in 1995/6 season. And he learned it from Jack Ramsay at Portland. It really depends on the ability of the players to move without the ball and courtvision and passing abilities. Set players are easier to learn and run, but motion offenses are harder to defend since they wear out defenders and since they defense can't anticipate where the ball will be at any one time. Unfortunately, all it takes is one player to break down.
Rick has just been unlucky too meet all of Phil's teams, lol. I mean, the Blazers were great teams, but going up against Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen and Jordan was just tough luck. Then Rick gets a second chance at Phil early last decade and once again he meets great players along with a referee supporting cast. I'm sure if we were to turn things around and Rick had Phil's team and vice versa, Rick would have the rings.
