We need to pattern our offense like the Lakers

[AtLaS]

Their offense is beautiful to watch and they get a great shot almost every time.

If you notice they don't just constantly iso Kobe like we do with Joe the entire time down the stretch. They bring him up top and run the P&R with him. They probably have the best spacing in the NBA. If they double Kobe off the P&R, he gives it to Gasol and if they pick Gasol up then he kicks it to a wide open 3 point shooter. It's almost the same EVERY trip down, but it's impossible to defend. Joe is good enough to make the right decisions on the P&R and Bibby is also a great P&R player. We could run it constantly with Smith and Horford. When we DO do it, it almost always works.

Fisher plays offense similar to Mike Bibby. If you think about it, we have a VERY similar roster to the Lakers, except we aren't as talented, of course, and we don't have Bynum, of course. But, we have a star guard who is a very capable passer, lots of shooters, and a shooting PG. We obviously wouldn't be as good as LA running it, but we'd get much better ball movement and our offense would be much more fluid. We'd be able to finish games a lot better. I just can't stand our 4th quarter offense when JJ dribbles the clock all the way down and jacks up a shot or makes a last second pass to someone for a jumper before the clock expires.

[Admin]

Their offense is beautiful to watch and they get a great shot almost every time.

If you notice they don't just constantly iso Kobe like we do with Joe the entire time down the stretch. They bring him up top and run the P&R with him. They probably have the best spacing in the NBA. If they double Kobe off the P&R, he gives it to Gasol and if they pick Gasol up then he kicks it to a wide open 3 point shooter. It's almost the same EVERY trip down, but it's impossible to defend. Joe is good enough to make the right decisions on the P&R and Bibby is also a great P&R player. We could run it constantly with Smith and Horford. When we DO do it, it almost always works.

Fisher plays offense similar to Mike Bibby. If you think about it, we have a VERY similar roster to the Lakers, except we aren't as talented, of course, and we don't have Bynum, of course. But, we have a star guard who is a very capable passer, lots of shooters, and a shooting PG. We obviously wouldn't be as good as LA running it, but we'd get much better ball movement and our offense would be much more fluid. We'd be able to finish games a lot better. I just can't stand our 4th quarter offense when JJ dribbles the clock all the way down and jacks up a shot or makes a last second pass to someone for a jumper before the clock expires.

To run the triangle effectively you must have intelligent players who are all at the very least good passers. As with most teams in the league I highly doubt we have enough of these types of players to run this offense.

You also need a coach capable of installing it, teaching it, and calling plays for it during the games. Considering how basic our offense usually is there's no way we could run the triangle with Woody. Then again other than Phil Jackson is there another coach capable of running it successfully at the NBA level? I don't know that there is.

I think we'd have more success running the Princeton offense if we had a coach who knew it since it doesn't require as much thinking or passing ability as the triangle does. Even that offense is difficult to learn as evidenced by Washington with Eddie Jordan but considering that Bibby ran it in Sacramento so successfully I think if we had a center like Brad Miller who was capable of passing out of the post we have enough ancillary players to make it work.

[Antmillennium]

Their offense is beautiful to watch and they get a great shot almost every time.

If you notice they don't just constantly iso Kobe like we do with Joe the entire time down the stretch. They bring him up top and run the P&R with him. They probably have the best spacing in the NBA. If they double Kobe off the P&R, he gives it to Gasol and if they pick Gasol up then he kicks it to a wide open 3 point shooter. It's almost the same EVERY trip down, but it's impossible to defend. Joe is good enough to make the right decisions on the P&R and Bibby is also a great P&R player. We could run it constantly with Smith and Horford. When we DO do it, it almost always works.

Fisher plays offense similar to Mike Bibby. If you think about it, we have a VERY similar roster to the Lakers, except we aren't as talented, of course, and we don't have Bynum, of course. But, we have a star guard who is a very capable passer, lots of shooters, and a shooting PG. We obviously wouldn't be as good as LA running it, but we'd get much better ball movement and our offense would be much more fluid. We'd be able to finish games a lot better. I just can't stand our 4th quarter offense when JJ dribbles the clock all the way down and jacks up a shot or makes a last second pass to someone for a jumper before the clock expires.

I don't think Woodson has the mental capacity or the desire to bring a much better offense to the Hawks.

[crimedog]

To run the triangle effectively you must have intelligent players who are all at the very least good passers. As with most teams in the league I highly doubt we have enough of these types of players to run this offense.

You also need a coach capable of installing it, teaching it, and calling plays for it during the games. Considering how basic our offense usually is there's no way we could run the triangle with Woody. Then again other than Phil Jackson is there another coach capable of running it successfully at the NBA level? I don't know that there is.

I think we'd have more success running the Princeton offense if we had a coach who knew it since it doesn't require as much thinking or passing ability as the triangle does. Even that offense is difficult to learn as evidenced by Washington with Eddie Jordan but considering that Bibby ran it in Sacramento so successfully I think if we had a center like Brad Miller who was capable of passing out of the post we have enough ancillary players to make it work.

Not just Phil, he has Tex Winter there too. Thats a pretty unique system in the NBA.

You're right though, its not the only offensive system that could be more effective than our current one.

[AtLaS]

To run the triangle effectively you must have intelligent players who are all at the very least good passers. As with most teams in the league I highly doubt we have enough of these types of players to run this offense.

You also need a coach capable of installing it, teaching it, and calling plays for it during the games. Considering how basic our offense usually is there's no way we could run the triangle with Woody. Then again other than Phil Jackson is there another coach capable of running it successfully at the NBA level? I don't know that there is.

I think we'd have more success running the Princeton offense if we had a coach who knew it since it doesn't require as much thinking or passing ability as the triangle does. Even that offense is difficult to learn as evidenced by Washington with Eddie Jordan but considering that Bibby ran it in Sacramento so successfully I think if we had a center like Brad Miller who was capable of passing out of the post we have enough ancillary players to make it work.

I disagree. To run it you have to have shooters to spread the floor and guards with the ability to draw attention and run the P&R. It's actually pretty simple. We have that, although JJ isn't as good as Kobe and Smith/Horford are obviously not as good offensively as Gasol. But our offense would be worlds better, more fluent, and we wouldn't be iso'ing JJ constantly.

I think it'd be best with Horford because of his ability to hit the jumper. If they pick him up he swings it across the floor to an open shooter.

The only two guys who have to make decisions/plays are the two running the P&R. This is why the Lakers can get away without even having a PG on the floor at times.

Of course we wouldn't be as great as the Lakers at it but we'd be much better. Regardless, it centers around the P&R and we are very good at it with Bibby and JJ, but we just don't run it enough.

[Admin]

I disagree. To run it you have to have shooters to spread the floor and guards with the ability to draw attention and run the P&R. It's actually pretty simple. We have that, although JJ isn't as good as Kobe and Smith/Horford are obviously not as good offensively as Gasol. But our offense would be worlds better, more fluent, and we wouldn't be iso'ing JJ constantly.

If that were even remotely the case (the bold part) then there would be more than 1 team who runs it. In the last 20 years I can only remember the Bulls and Lakers running it and they both had Phil Jackson and Tex Winters as Crimedog pointed out.

I think it'd be best with Horford because of his ability to hit the jumper. If they pick him up he swings it across the floor to an open shooter.

The only two guys who have to make decisions/plays are the two running the P&R. This is why the Lakers can get away without even having a PG on the floor at times.

Of course we wouldn't be as great as the Lakers at it but we'd be much better. Regardless, it centers around the P&R and we are very good at it with Bibby and JJ, but we just don't run it enough.

The triangle is significantly more complex than a P&R offense. A P&R offense is what Utah did with Stockton and Malone. We might be capable of running that since Horford is a pretty good ball handler and shooter but I still believe that we'd be better off running a Princeton style offense.

I certainly agree with your original post that the triangle is a beautiful thing, but I couldn't disagree more about how you value the complexity of it.

[NineOhTheRino]

Which system worked better vs the Celtics

[thefloydian]

The idea of Woody trying to teach this group of players the triangle is hilarious. It would make a great reality show.

[Admin]

The idea of anybody trying to teach this group of players the triangle is hilarious. It would make a great reality show.

Corrected.

[thefloydian]

Corrected.

I agree that there's probably not a coach out there that could get this group to effectively run the triangle, but the difference between Woody and those coaches is that at least they can learn the triangle themselves.

[High5]

I agree that there's probably not a coach out there that could get this group to effectively run the triangle, but the difference between Woody and those coaches is that at least they can learn the triangle themselves.

:beer:

[AtLaS]

If that were even remotely the case (the bold part) then there would be more than 1 team who runs it. In the last 20 years I can only remember the Bulls and Lakers running it and they both had Phil Jackson and Tex Winters as Crimedog pointed out.

The triangle is significantly more complex than a P&R offense. A P&R offense is what Utah did with Stockton and Malone. We might be capable of running that since Horford is a pretty good ball handler and shooter but I still believe that we'd be better off running a Princeton style offense.

I certainly agree with your original post that the triangle is a beautiful thing, but I couldn't disagree more about how you value the complexity of it.

I realize that we wouldn't be nearly as efficient at running it as the Lakers are. But, we have a similar makeup in our team. We have a star guard who can run it, shooters, and 2 adequate bigs, and Horford who's a good midrange shooter.

Regardless, we don't even have to run the triangle. But, we should DEFINITELY run the P&R more at the top of the key and space the floor with shooters. It's almost impossible to guard and we have two players (Bibby and JJ) who are great at it.

[Admin]

I realize that we wouldn't be nearly as efficient at running it as the Lakers are. But, we have a similar makeup in our team. We have a star guard who can run it, shooters, and 2 adequate bigs, and Horford who's a good midrange shooter.

Regardless, we don't even have to run the triangle. But, we should DEFINITELY run the P&R more at the top of the key and space the floor with shooters. It's almost impossible to guard and we have two players (Bibby and JJ) who are great at it.

Yep I'd absolutely love to see us run the P&R more, just as I'd like to see us post up Al and then have guys setting picks for each other and moving around which should either give him a chance to back his man down or to pass out to an open player. We did that a bit in the 1st Boston game in the playoffs last year (I think it was the 1st game) and Al was terrific and our offense looked very smooth.

I'll defend Woody in many areas but the Hawks offense isn't one of them. I really wish we had a top assistant who could install and run an offense for us so that Woody could concentrate on defense and on the game in general. I wonder sometimes if his issues with time management aren't related to him having difficulties trying to run the offense when it's obviously not his thing in addition to the defense and everything else.

[Admin]

I agree that there's probably not a coach out there that could get this group to effectively run the triangle, but the difference between Woody and those coaches is that at least they can learn the triangle themselves.

Perhaps, but with the enormous amount of success that has come from the Bulls and Lakers running it over the past 20 years you'd think that at least one other coach could have installed it successfully by now though if it wasn't too difficult for them.

If I had to choose between having a defensive minded coach and an offensive minded coach I'm taking the defensive minded coach since your defense can generate points while it's nearly impossible for an offense to keep teams from scoring.

[AtLaS]

Yep I'd absolutely love to see us run the P&R more, just as I'd like to see us post up Al and then have guys setting picks for each other and moving around which should either give him a chance to back his man down or to pass out to an open player. We did that a bit in the 1st Boston game in the playoffs last year (I think it was the 1st game) and Al was terrific and our offense looked very smooth.

I'll defend Woody in many areas but the Hawks offense isn't one of them. I really wish we had a top assistant who could install and run an offense for us so that Woody could concentrate on defense and on the game in general. I wonder sometimes if his issues with time management aren't related to him having difficulties trying to run the offense when it's obviously not his thing in addition to the defense and everything else.

I don't think Woodson has even attempted to install an offense. If he has, that is hysterical. I think I'd actually prefer it if Woodson came out and said he hasn't installed an offense, because if he HAS installed one than it is a joke. With the quality of players we have, our offense just looks terrible. Everything is so forced and sloppy, and we go 1 on 1 WAY too much.

I'm just so sick of the iso Joe and two man game. In crunch time we don't even use our other guys, they stand in the corner and let Joe do his thing. It's obviously something Woodson's offense because we've been doing it for 3 years. If JJ passes, they just throw it right back to him.

[AtLaS]

If I had to choose between having a defensive minded coach and an offensive minded coach I'm taking the defensive minded coach since your defense can generate points while it's nearly impossible for an offense to keep teams from scoring.

If the defensive minded coach had a clue about offense, I would agree, but Woodson is all defense. He has no clue about offense. It doesn't matter how well you play on D if you can't score. The teams that win championships always have good D's, but they also always have a good offense. And, defense is much easier taught than offense because it's much more about effort.

A head coach who can't coach offense shouldn't be a head coach, period.

You have to be able to get easy baskets when opposing teams are on a run and in clutch time. I can't even remember how many times we've called timeouts and our play after the timeout was an iso that led to a retarded shot. It is ridiculous that it would happen so often, yet it constantly does.

[Admin]

I don't think Woodson has even attempted to install an offense. If he has, that is hysterical. I think I'd actually prefer it if Woodson came out and said he hasn't installed an offense, because if he HAS installed one than it is a joke. With the quality of players we have, our offense just looks terrible. Everything is so forced and sloppy, and we go 1 on 1 WAY too much.

I'm just so sick of the iso Joe and two man game. In crunch time we don't even use our other guys, they stand in the corner and let Joe do his thing. It's obviously something Woodson's offense because we've been doing it for 3 years. If JJ passes, they just throw it right back to him.

He's definitely installed an offense (or at least some plays) and there are stretches of a few minutes in each game where you'll see guys setting picks and moving without the ball and we look unstoppable ... and then we're back to ISO Joe. My guess is that we have plenty of plays to be a successful offense but our guys get lazy or too comfortable with ISO Joe and Woody isn't enough of a disciplinarian with them to keep that from happening.

Another issue is that our 2 most senior players love playing the 2 man game with each other and Woody allows it because when it's working we're capable of scoring with anyone. If we had a more traditional PG with enough seniority to truly run the team I imagine that our offense would look better but Bibby is more of a scorer and the 2 man game works well for him.

I'd also like to think that if we had a guy on the blocks like Bosh who could demand the ball from our guards that our offense would look a lot better since we don't have anyone on our team that can demand the ball in the paint at this point.

[Admin]

If the defensive minded coach had a clue about offense, I would agree, but Woodson is all defense. He has no clue about offense. It doesn't matter how well you play on D if you can't score. The teams that win championships always have good D's, but they also always have a good offense. And, defense is much easier taught than offense because it's much more about effort.

A head coach who can't coach offense shouldn't be a head coach, period.

You have to be able to get easy baskets when opposing teams are on a run and in clutch time. I can't even remember how many times we've called timeouts and our play after the timeout was an iso that led to a retarded shot. It is ridiculous that it would happen so often, yet it constantly does.

I don't believe that's a fair or accurate statement that he has no clue about offense because no matter how good Joe is he alone can't make us the 10th most efficient offense in the NBA.

We do have too many bad after timeout plays but more often than not the bad ones are when we've got bench players in there.

[AtLaS]

I don't believe that's a fair or accurate statement that he has no clue about offense because no matter how good Joe is he alone can't make us the 10th most efficient offense in the NBA.

IMO that just shows how much offensive talent we have. Our offense is sloppy, period, we easily have the ability to do much better.

And, Woodson's widely proclaimed defensive greatness has never really shown much fruition, considering we've never even been in the top half of the NBA in defensive efficiency.

[Admin]

IMO that just shows how much offensive talent we have. Our offense is sloppy, period, we easily have the ability to do much better.

Well we're certainly talented offensively, but I guarantee you that none of us could coach the Hawks to the 10th most efficient offense in basketball.

And, Woodson's widely proclaimed defensive greatness has never really shown much fruition, considering we've never even been in the top half of the NBA in defensive efficiency.

Of course I'd like us to be higher but even with all of the injuries this year we're still 16th out of 30 in defensive efficiency. I can't say for sure but I'm fairly certain that we were around 12th last year but I can't find a link to last years Hollinger stats.