Does Kobe Bryant make the Triangle offense, or did the Triangle make Kobe Bryant?

thats the only question.

I don't fully understand the triangle offense, so idk...

SOB...way to copy my Q..


Anyway...triangle offense isn't something a player benefits greatly by...
Triangle offense just helps an offense flow in rhythm...

It helps the team...not necessarily the player....

Kobe does benefit by the triangle offense...because when he is in a tough spot...he always knows where his teammates are....thats the beauty of triangle offense...
When you learn it and understand it well....the offense becomes smooth and easy...

However...I don't see how it can MAKE a player....
So..no....the triangle offense didn't make Kobe...neither did Kobe make the triangle offense..

hmm..MJ's video tapes made him i guess lol

How can MJ's tape make him...

Sure...he might be inspired by it...or he might try to emulate him...
But it can't make him..

Try again, naif...

I think as is the case w/ every offensive strategy, it all comes down to the players in the system in the end. If you're a bad player or team, an offensive strategy is not going to make you a good one. The offense still won't function properly without good play form the players in it. Without Kobe, the Lakers triangle is not what it is, and the same goes for Nash and the Run n Gun. Kobe fits in the triangle offense, but it isn't what makes him. It fits his abilities (which he has w/ or w/o the triangle), and allows him to play his best, but thats just smart offense, not a strategy making a player. Even Marion, who many would say was made by the Run n Gun, still was just using his given abilities to their potential.

Did Allen Iverson make practice or did practice make Allen Iverson? Pssst the answer is simple of course Allen Iverson played practice if in some time continium Allen Iverson would fight with himself wrestling with the fact that he wouldn't want to practice. The obvious choice is that Allen Iverson would win. As, for Kobe ask yourself this if Kobe ever leaves the triangle would he sink his career and all that he may accomplish these next years and forever be lost in Bermuda?

Woody's Chalk Board wrote:

I think as is the case w/ every offensive strategy, it all comes down to the players in the system in the end. If you're a bad player or team, an offensive strategy is not going to make you a good one. The offense still won't function properly without good play form the players in it. Without Kobe, the Lakers triangle is not what it is, and the same goes for Nash and the Run n Gun. Kobe fits in the triangle offense, but it isn't what makes him. It fits his abilities (which he has w/ or w/o the triangle), and allows him to play his best, but thats just smart offense, not a strategy making a player. Even Marion, who many would say was made by the Run n Gun, still was just using his given abilities to their potential.

uhmm...you're stating completely different...
Nash is obviously a good player....he would be out of the league if he wasn't...
But the Q was whether the offensive system enhances the player's ability or not.....or atleast thats how you should have interpretated it....

The triangle offense would function just great without Kobe...
The Run and Gun offense wouldn't be great without a good PG.....so obviously Nash IS good...

But how inflated is Nash in the system?
you tell me

How inflated is Kobe in the system?
Not much IMO

This is a tough question. I would have to say neither.

Kobe doesnt make the triangle offense cause whenever i watch the games their offense runs through the post most of the time and kobe is just a good complimentary piece with his shooting and such.

However the triangle doesnt really make kobe cause kobe is just a really good player that benefits from the triangle offense cause he has to do less work bit if he wants can play great/takeover without the triangle and all it will take is much more effort. The traingle just takes a load off kobe and it is used like most set offenses to make other ROLE players better, Kobe is too good to be made by the triangle.

Now if u are asking this question about someone like luke walton or maybe shannon brown thats a whole different story

What the Run n Gun does for Nash is what the Triangle does for Kobe. Nash is most efficient while in the Run n Gun, and Kobe while in the triangle. Obviously, the numbers are inflated for Nash due to pace (but thats the only thing you can chalk up to the system and not Nash), but as the Triangle improves Kobe's shooting, and lowers his TOs, Nash also becomes more efficient in an offense that suits him.

Kobe Bryant is Kobe Bryant. That's just who he is. The triangle offense certainly improved his game, but it was individual skill that made him who he is, not the triangle offense.

CP3 is a product of his system I don't see him being as good as he is now on any other team. If he played the pick n roll system in Utah he would struggle. Steve Nash is a better player than CP3. Obviously, offensively for Nash has the best offensive fundamentals of any PG and passing wise/court visoion as well goes to Nash.

Woody's Chalk Board wrote:

What the Run n Gun does for Nash is what the Triangle does for Kobe. Nash is most efficient while in the Run n Gun, and Kobe while in the triangle. Obviously, the numbers are inflated for Nash due to pace (but thats the only thing you can chalk up to the system and not Nash), but as the Triangle improves Kobe's shooting, and lowers his TOs, Nash also becomes more efficient in an offense that suits him.

I don't see how the triangle improves Kobe's shooting....
TO's are a good point though...

And btw...so you do agree that Nash's value is enhanced due to the system?

Woody's Chalk Board wrote:

What the Run n Gun does for Nash is what the Triangle does for Kobe. Nash is most efficient while in the Run n Gun, and Kobe while in the triangle. Obviously, the numbers are inflated for Nash due to pace (but thats the only thing you can chalk up to the system and not Nash), but as the Triangle improves Kobe's shooting, and lowers his TOs, Nash also becomes more efficient in an offense that suits him.

Both systems make both players better but kobe doesnt rely on his system as much as nash does.

Nash without run n gun= Possibly not top 5 pg

Kobe without traingle=Still probably top 3 player

TonyEM wrote:

CP3 is a product of his system I don't see him being as good as he is now on any other team. If he played the pick n roll system in Utah he would struggle. Steve Nash is a better player than CP3. Obviously, offensively for Nash has the best offensive fundamentals of any PG and passing wise/court visoion as well goes to Nash.

Nah.....

Chris Paul already benefits from the pick and roll ALOT. He has a very good in and out game using a pick cause he can drive, throw up a floater or shoot. Plus look what he did with the pick and roll/pop with david west. Turned that guy into an all star!

The Triangle keeps the offense always moving, and him from taking as many bad shots as he normally would, thus increasing his shooting percentage.

And no, I don't think Nash's value is enhanced due to the system he plays in. Hes still the same player no matter what system he is in, its up to the coach to put his best player in the system that suits him best.

Well the triangle offense is what it is... if you have good players running it, it will look good. If you have bad players running it, it will look bad.


and when Phil Jackson took a year off a few years ago, didnt Kobe average like 35 PPG?

so he could still get it done even without the tiangle offense.

Considering the amount of times both Kobe and Jordan broke the triangle offense (Tex Winter and Phil Jackson's words) the answer is neither. Both Kobe and Jordan freelance around the triangle offense. It's primarily set up so the the other four players keep moving in the offensive set to give the playmaker options and mismatches.

Jordan was scoring at will without the triangle offense before Phil became his coach and if Kobe had stay with Charlotte rather than be traded to LA he would've been a big time scorer regardless.

Any off/def system used is based off or the offensive and defensive philosophies of the coaching staff. The management then goes after players that fit that system. Nellie's "Small Ball". Pat Riley's "Showtime" and "Thug Ball" he used.... all based on the players they had, the players they brought in and the "Stars" of the team. D'Antoni's "14 second or less offense". My favorite coach of all time Chuck Daly... Jerry Sloan... Greg Popavich's "No Ego" basketball...

Kobe
Nash
Shaq
LeBron
Bird
Magic
Wilt....

All of these players would be successful on any team. It's the coaching that plays to their strengths.

His value is enhanced because of the system, but he still would be a great player and Hall of Fame talent on another run n gun offense that rather than call for pick n pops, like Phoenix's offense does they call for pick n rolls in run n gun sets, like NY. NY under Mike D because that is our bread n butter use the pick n roll, whereas in PHX they use the pick n pop more. This goes w/o saying that Steve Nash would excel in a pick n roll high uptempo ssystem like NY because he's just a great player. He is gifted what more can I say. If Mike D's offense can make Duhon a solid shooter (not this season) and not a known passer(before NY) into 1 of the top 8 assist men in the NBA. What would it do for a player like Steve Nash if ever put in that system pick n roll or not Nash is the type of player that would get used to that.

He's been in an uptempo system his entire career he could go to any of the uptempo styled coaches from Don Nelson, Mike D, Jim O'Brien, etc. if he wants and he would still be great at it because his natural abilities fit in well with that team concept. Plus, he's a natural born leader he has a knack in turning teams in turmoil into caliber teams. He is a positive team chem changer. If you take out Steve Nash out of PHX and replace him with CP3 and put Nash in NO. I'd tell you what would happen CP3 will struggle with the Suns and ultimately they will fail and the Hornets would relish under Nash.

Woody's Chalk Board wrote:

The Triangle keeps the offense always moving, and him from taking as many bad shots as he normally would, thus increasing his shooting percentage.

And no, I don't think Nash's value is enhanced due to the system he plays in. Hes still the same player no matter what system he is in, its up to the coach to put his best player in the system that suits him best.

I don't see how can take more bad shots that he already does..
So idk what you're talking about lol

And so...the run and gun is the best system for Nash?
Therefore...it enhances his play...right?

YS wrote:

Woody's Chalk Board wrote:

The Triangle keeps the offense always moving, and him from taking as many bad shots as he normally would, thus increasing his shooting percentage.

And no, I don't think Nash's value is enhanced due to the system he plays in. Hes still the same player no matter what system he is in, its up to the coach to put his best player in the system that suits him best.

I don't see how can take more bad shots that he already does..
So idk what you're talking about lol

And so...the run and gun is the best system for Nash?
Therefore...it enhances his play...right?

LOL

Dazed & Confused wrote:

Well the triangle offense is what it is... if you have good players running it, it will look good. If you have bad players running it, it will look bad.


and when Phil Jackson took a year off a few years ago, didnt Kobe average like 35 PPG?

so he could still get it done even without the tiangle offense.

Exactly. When Jim Cleamons (long time assistant to Phil Jackson), took the triangle offense with him to an unwilling and uncoachable Dallas Mavericks team, they basically ran the Jim out of town. They tried to get him players to run it 1996-1997 Mavs had 28 different players on it roster that season). But it never took and the team he had was awful with Chris Gatling as the leading scorer. So it wasn't ran properly.

A lot of players feel most comfortable in a certain system. Take AI for example his entire career was spent playing on defensively built teams that ran an uptempo system on the offensive end. The Denver Nuggets did not fit the bill in that they were not a good defensive team by any stretch of the imagination, but they had a lot of scorers that it was easy to incorporate AI into it because it fit the bill as what AI has always known a uptempo team. Look what happened when they moved AI over to Detroit. That was his 1st time playing in a half-court set in his career & it did not end well. I mean he was hesitant to shoot, reverted back to shooting in the low 40%'s after shooting in the mid 40's in Denver, and he took less shots. I mean he averaged 18+ PPG and what 5/6+ APG based on sheer skill alone. He' still a great player, like Nash, but it is obvious that they love a certain system above all the rest and feel awkward and uncomfortable if ever displaced from it.Back to Nash look at him under Terry Porter he was uncomfortable still put up solid lines, but his uncomfortability stunted what he would do in a run n gun set.

TonyEM wrote:

A lot of players feel most comfortable in a certain system. Take AI for example his entire career was spent playing on defensively built teams that ran an uptempo system on the offensive end. The Denver Nuggets did not fit the bill in that they were not a good defensive team by any stretch of the imagination, but they had a lot of scorers that it was easy to incorporate AI into it because it fit the bill as what AI has always known a uptempo team. Look what happened when they moved AI over to Detroit. That was his 1st time playing in a half-court set in his career & it did not end well. I mean he was hesitant to shoot, reverted back to shooting in the low 40%'s after shooting in the mid 40's in Denver, and he took less shots. I mean he averaged 18+ PPG and what 5/6+ APG based on sheer skill alone. He' still a great player, like Nash, but it is obvious that they love a certain system above all the rest and feel awkward and uncomfortable if ever displaced from it.Back to Nash look at him under Terry Porter he was uncomfortable still put up solid lines, but his uncomfortability stunted what he would do in a run n gun set.

If Larry Brown was dead, he'd be rolling in his grave that you just called his offense "up-tempo". All of Brown's offense is half court. Plus Philly before Brown was a terrible defensive team. He didn't do anything but score in Denver. Detroit is when he showed that he can't physically bring himself to be a teammate.

Basically, Larry Brown is the master of half-court offenses. But, at least what I saw w. him in Philly is that both AI & Brown, put aside their egos after they went at it for awhile and worked within each others strengths. I know before Brown Phily wasn't a defensive team and Brown put Philly on the map defensively and in terms of winning as well. However, when Eric Snow a SG in Seattle was brought in to run the point in Philly, a good defender in his own right. It laid the groundwork that Philly was primarily a defensive team.

However, although Brown has always preached half-court offenses he gave AI a lot of room to be AI. Especially, when AI assumed PG duties when Snow was on the bench or anytime he brough the ball up which was with regularity. AI would create off of fastbreaks cause he was speedy and he'd A.) obviosuly score, B.) get to the line, C.) Drive and either kick it out to the open man on the perimeter (mostly McKie) or with all the misses he had Philly would get easy putbacks. That in a nutshell was Philly's offense during the time.

I feel that Brown & Iverson had but no choice but to work together and work off one another doing things that none of them may have liked, but was good for the team. If not the relationship would have never rectified itself and AI would have been shipped off to Detroit before he really was shipped off to Detroit. Being that Philly almost traded him there when Brown asked for him being traded. As Brown left Philly he has continued on his path of half-court offenses.

Won him a title in Detroit, failed miserably in NY (but that's because we neither had the players to fit that sort of system whether it was in terms of talent or levelheadedness that team was in shambles.) Right now in Charlotte they he has stayed true to his style.