Sacramento Kings Move to the Triangle with Mixed Results
During training camp, Sacramento head coach Reggie Theus mentioned that the Kings will make the transition to the triangle offense this season to take advantage of the skill set of the players on the roster.
This seems like a good idea in principle. The triangle thrives with athletic, multiskilled players, particularly guys that can cut, slash, and finish—which sounds a lot like Garcia, Salmons, Martin, and Greene, eh?
It is also aided by big men that can pass out of the post—Brad Miller and Spencer Hawes, anyone?
Perhaps best of all for the Kings is that it minimizes the importance of a true point guard—which may be good news, considering that there is only one true point guard on the roster.
The triangle is not the most simple offense in the world, however. Having watched the first two preseason games, I have seen the triangle in action at times, but not in the strength signifying any verifiable commitment to the offense.
More often than not, the Kings seem to end up in traditional pick-and-roll sets, and a lot of motion offense. Not that this is a bad thing, particularly with a young roster. At this point, early in the preseason, it makes a lot of sense to keep things simple for all the young guys and let them play.
This will also make it easier to evaluate players. I think that as we get closer to the regular season and we get more of an idea who will be on the regular season roster, we will see more of the triangle being run. As the season progresses, we should only see more and more of it.
For now, the young guys play and get their experience, with one eye on the present and one eye on the future. Assuming Theus sticks with the offense, it should help a lot looking forward to the next couple of seasons as these players grow and learn together.
This is a roster that is not ready to contend for a championship, and likely not a playoff spot either—but committing to a system for the future should pay dividends in the long run.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?