- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,536
- 13,035
Nothing will be worse for this team than if Jeanie let's Phil come back and install the triangle...
Not even losing the pick would be that bad.
Not even losing the pick would be that bad.
|| LocK Dis Up ||
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by licensed to ball,
- Start date
- Status
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
Yes it would.
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,536
- 13,035
Not adding a 4th young guy to our core wouldn't be nearly as bad as him making Russell, Clarkson & Randle play to 0 of their strengths.
You might as well trade all 3 of them at that point.
- May 3, 2013
- 8,790
- 1,989
I'd rather lose the pick. Keep Phil away
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
Can't believe you guys would rather lose the number 1 pick, Ben Simmons, (if we landed it), than have a coach put the triangle offense into our team for a few years (only to fail and stop eventually.)
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,536
- 13,035
Remember Phil is the guy who wanted to trade Kobe for Jason Kidd & Shawn Marion. Jerry West nixed it because it was a dumb idea. Kobe was averaging 22-6-5 that season.
Then left a few years later because we chose to keep Prime Kobe. Who had 8 years left in his prime before he tore his achilles.
You don't think he'd clear house when our young guys don't play to the triangle, and trade Russell, Clarkson & Randle for say a Jeff Teague, Paul Millsap & Kyle Korver?
Last edited:
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
Bro you're listing a bunch of hypothetical worries that won't come to fruition.
First of all he ain't coming back.
Second of all if he did, Jim hates him. He wouldn't let him be the GM and control anything related to trading "the house away."
That's Mitch's job, has been and will be.
Jim ain't letting anyone take Mitch's job, especially Phil whine obviously hates (he let him go and hired MDA because he refused to give Phil full control, that hasn't changed).
So at worst, AT WORST, you're worrying about the triangle offense as the worst thing that can happen to our franchise and team
Worst than not having Ben Simmons? Cmon bro.
Think about what you're saying.
Who gives a **** about the triangle, it ain't coming back to us, and even it did WHO CARES if we had Ben Simmons. We got a future. You'd rather have no triangle than one of the best NBA prospect that's been available in years, really?
You think our future hinges on not having the triangle offense?
Our future depends on talent.
First of all he ain't coming back.
Second of all if he did, Jim hates him. He wouldn't let him be the GM and control anything related to trading "the house away."
That's Mitch's job, has been and will be.
Jim ain't letting anyone take Mitch's job, especially Phil whine obviously hates (he let him go and hired MDA because he refused to give Phil full control, that hasn't changed).
So at worst, AT WORST, you're worrying about the triangle offense as the worst thing that can happen to our franchise and team
Worst than not having Ben Simmons? Cmon bro.
Think about what you're saying.
Who gives a **** about the triangle, it ain't coming back to us, and even it did WHO CARES if we had Ben Simmons. We got a future. You'd rather have no triangle than one of the best NBA prospect that's been available in years, really?
You think our future hinges on not having the triangle offense?
Our future depends on talent.
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,536
- 13,035
Phil comes back with Jeanie cleaning house of Jim & Mitch..
There would be no Jimmy, no Mitch.. It'd be Phil with full control.
And yes... Forcing Russell, Randle & Clarkson to play in the triangle is worse than not being able to add Ben Simmons.
Why because let's say we get all of it.. Phil & Ben.. And add him to Russell , Randle & Clarkson.. Forget the bad fit (You may be able to fix it with a different offense & rotations). Then you have an offense that doesn't fit anybody either. An offense that doesn't fit and players that don't fit.. That's a great future (Sarcasm by the way).
You think Phil is just going to come in and force somebody who runs the triangle for a few years? And then go away from it? You haven't learn much about Phil in the time he was here.
We'll be stuck with it for a long time, or as long as he is alive, or feels like working. An offense that isn't suited in the NBA except in limited sets and vastly modified, and even if you broke counter culture and got it to be successful, it requires the right players to do so, and not a single of them would be good in the triangle.
So we'll be stunting potential of guys in a system that discourages PG play, in a PG driven league, and needs spacing, yet doesn't lead to 3 point shooting. Cue what Byron Scott runs without the triangle. Now tell me what spacing you're going to get from Randle, Simmons & Clarkson.
Phil is also hiring an underling to coach his system without coaching it. Clear to say, that isn't how things work in the NBA. You don't get success from that.
And even if you bring in Phil and he tries the triangle for a few years, and then realize it sucks.. You spent the time trying to teach them a system, and fully commit to it. Then at 23-24-25, you're all of sudden ditching it, and they have to learn an entirely new system. That's the best case.
Add to the fact that there is zero chance Jeanie is going to reign in Phil, and you have a disaster as bad as losing the pick. Where Phil makes a Kobe for Kidd & Marion like trade.
The worst case is he sees it not working, and then starts trading most of them for guys he wants to fit his system.. Worst part of it... He's not even coaching the system.
But it's not a trade off thing, it isn't like if we lost the pick, we could keep Phil away. I'd love to keep the pick, and keep Phil away no matter what.
There's a few scenarios..
Keep Pick, Keep Phil away = Great
Lose Pick, Keep Phil away = We'll be fine, it sucks we lost the pick, but we'll be fine
Keep Pick, Phil has total unfettered control = We may be fine, but for god's sake most outlooks of it, do not sound promising
Lose Pick, Phil comes here = Well then we enter the twilight zone, of all the bad things happening
There would be no Jimmy, no Mitch.. It'd be Phil with full control.
And yes... Forcing Russell, Randle & Clarkson to play in the triangle is worse than not being able to add Ben Simmons.
Why because let's say we get all of it.. Phil & Ben.. And add him to Russell , Randle & Clarkson.. Forget the bad fit (You may be able to fix it with a different offense & rotations). Then you have an offense that doesn't fit anybody either. An offense that doesn't fit and players that don't fit.. That's a great future (Sarcasm by the way).
You think Phil is just going to come in and force somebody who runs the triangle for a few years? And then go away from it? You haven't learn much about Phil in the time he was here.
We'll be stuck with it for a long time, or as long as he is alive, or feels like working. An offense that isn't suited in the NBA except in limited sets and vastly modified, and even if you broke counter culture and got it to be successful, it requires the right players to do so, and not a single of them would be good in the triangle.
So we'll be stunting potential of guys in a system that discourages PG play, in a PG driven league, and needs spacing, yet doesn't lead to 3 point shooting. Cue what Byron Scott runs without the triangle. Now tell me what spacing you're going to get from Randle, Simmons & Clarkson.
Phil is also hiring an underling to coach his system without coaching it. Clear to say, that isn't how things work in the NBA. You don't get success from that.
And even if you bring in Phil and he tries the triangle for a few years, and then realize it sucks.. You spent the time trying to teach them a system, and fully commit to it. Then at 23-24-25, you're all of sudden ditching it, and they have to learn an entirely new system. That's the best case.
Add to the fact that there is zero chance Jeanie is going to reign in Phil, and you have a disaster as bad as losing the pick. Where Phil makes a Kobe for Kidd & Marion like trade.
The worst case is he sees it not working, and then starts trading most of them for guys he wants to fit his system.. Worst part of it... He's not even coaching the system.
But it's not a trade off thing, it isn't like if we lost the pick, we could keep Phil away. I'd love to keep the pick, and keep Phil away no matter what.
There's a few scenarios..
Keep Pick, Keep Phil away = Great
Lose Pick, Keep Phil away = We'll be fine, it sucks we lost the pick, but we'll be fine
Keep Pick, Phil has total unfettered control = We may be fine, but for god's sake most outlooks of it, do not sound promising
Lose Pick, Phil comes here = Well then we enter the twilight zone, of all the bad things happening
Last edited:
Los Angeles
formerly bright nikes
- Apr 11, 2004
- 23,224
- 4,898
this is unbelievable.
- Feb 17, 2007
- 21,784
- 2,957
Phil won't be here. It's going to be Mitch and Jim who decide our next coach and Phil will stay away.
- Dec 17, 2005
- 23,933
- 5,933
All that matters. Facts.
- Aug 2, 2008
- 37,536
- 13,035
I hope so.
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 46,962
- 31,571
Every year there's that one college kid that bottom dwellers like us HAVE TO get because there hasn't been a kid like him for years.
Every year.
Every year.
Last edited:
Every year there's that one college kid that bottom dwellers like us HAVE TO get because there hasn't been a kid live him for years.
Every year.
Not this year.
Ben is great and all, but Ingram is moreso a roster fit. We need a good young SF, and Ingram fits that quite well.
Now, I don't think we'd pass on Ben to take Ingram if we got #1, but at #2, with Ben off the board, we'd be lucky to just fill a dire need and continue growing from there.
Not to mention, keeping a pick from a failed trade we never expected to keep in the first place.
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,026
- 85,612
Every year there's that one college kid that bottom dwellers like us HAVE TO get because there hasn't been a kid live him for years.
Every year.
KAT was that guy last year, Wiggins the year before, Simmons is that this year.
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 46,962
- 31,571
Not real impressed with Ben myself.
Not saying he sucks. Not saying he's trash. Not saying he'll be a bust.
I just don't see 'franchise savior' when I watch him.
Not saying he sucks. Not saying he's trash. Not saying he'll be a bust.
I just don't see 'franchise savior' when I watch him.
- Feb 5, 2013
- 39,357
- 40,807
land the #1, draft ben, trade down a pick to get ingram while acquiring more assetsNot this year.Every year there's that one college kid that bottom dwellers like us HAVE TO get because there hasn't been a kid live him for years.
Every year.
Ben is great and all, but Ingram is moreso a roster fit. We need a good young SF, and Ingram fits that quite well.
Now, I don't think we'd pass on Ben to take Ingram if we got #1, but at #2, with Ben off the board, we'd be lucky to just fill a dire need and continue growing from there.
Not to mention, keeping a pick from a failed trade we never expected to keep in the first place.
- Jan 4, 2012
- 11,410
- 12,654
He'd be the best player on our team right away
MVP
Supporter
- Feb 28, 2008
- 83,026
- 85,612
He'd be the best player on our team right away
Exactly. And a player who's game is much better tailored to the pro league than college.
- Apr 24, 2006
- 18,752
- 13,102
I would love a clean house approach this offseason - fire Jim and Mitch
but Phil is a baaaad move
gotta move on from him
I'd rather see us give full control to Calipari, let him run the show
Or promote Ryan West to GM and let him hire his coach
Hiring Phil and him bringing in Shaw or Luke to run the triangle would be a colossal mistake
but Phil is a baaaad move
gotta move on from him
I'd rather see us give full control to Calipari, let him run the show
Or promote Ryan West to GM and let him hire his coach
Hiring Phil and him bringing in Shaw or Luke to run the triangle would be a colossal mistake
- Apr 4, 2008
- 74,936
- 24,349
What has Calipari ever shown to be worthy of running a show in the NBA?
- Apr 24, 2006
- 18,752
- 13,102
Just saying, rather have that than Phil running the show. Calipari knows the pulse of the new generation and a ton of players love him. I want something new and outside the box. He would change the culture of living in the past and play his style of ball, he knows basketball
In LA you need a big name and a splashy hire. What had Popovich done in the NBA before the Spurs job? Or Larry Brown before his first gig?
In LA you need a big name and a splashy hire. What had Popovich done in the NBA before the Spurs job? Or Larry Brown before his first gig?
Last edited:
- Sep 5, 2010
- 92,736
- 128,978
Last edited:
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 46,962
- 31,571
Calipari would NOT be to us what Pete Carroll has been/is for the Seahawks.
He's an EXCELLENT recruiter, arguably the GOAT.
You don't recruit in the NBA.
You can voice interest to the front office on different players who are available or would be available, but that's not comparable to recruiting at all.
Yes, he knows basketball, but that's not his biggest strength. Recruiting is.
Reeeeaaallllly wish we could let that ship set sail for good.
He's an EXCELLENT recruiter, arguably the GOAT.
You don't recruit in the NBA.
You can voice interest to the front office on different players who are available or would be available, but that's not comparable to recruiting at all.
Yes, he knows basketball, but that's not his biggest strength. Recruiting is.
Reeeeaaallllly wish we could let that ship set sail for good.
- Apr 24, 2006
- 18,752
- 13,102
True, you can have both though. A name and a good coach. Like Phil in 99. Coach K who they pursued multiple times. Calipari would create hope and excitement as GM/coach
Luke and Tibbs would be very good hires if Jim and Mitch are retained
Luke and Tibbs would be very good hires if Jim and Mitch are retained
- Status
