	products recent interviews FastScripts archive about ASAP Sports

Our Clients:

Browse by Sport

Find us on

Subscribe to RSS

Click to go to
Asaptext.com

View our
e-Brochure

NBA FINALS: LAKERS v CELTICS

June 11, 2008

Phil Jackson

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA: Practice Day

Q. Given the difficulty you guys have had running an offense against these guys, do you have to consider like radical lineup changes or really shaking things up?
PHIL JACKSON: You know, I think that we'll be okay with some adjustments, just minor adjustments. A lot of what we're trying to do is get these guys activated early in the offense and try to make them aware that our transition is an adequate transition, but we really want to get ourselves in position to execute if we notice something early in the offense. We're having a little trouble doing that.

Q. Would you agree with the characterization that you just haven't been able to run an offense against these guys?
PHIL JACKSON: No. I think that a lot of what we're doing is running what we call our pressure releases because the pressure on the wings, pressure up court is creating pressure releases, so a lot of what we're doing is just running pressure releases. And as a consequence, you know, we're getting our offense at a different level and a different spacing, but our spacing hasn't been good. I said last night, it doesn't look like Laker ball yet, like we're playing Laker basketball.

Q. Is there any truth to the fact that maybe the European player fits into your offense a little more easier than American players? And then the second part of that, what do you think the future of your offense is or the triangle is, 5, 10, 15 years down the road in the NBA?
PHIL JACKSON: Question number two, I really don't know. It's a very difficult offense because it's an offense that requires a considerable amount of time in breakdown drills to get execution. A lot of times we have too many changes and too many personnel changes in the course of a year or injuries, et cetera, to get everybody working at the same level in this game. A lot of coaches don't have the time because defense takes so much time in this game, also. So concentrate that amount of time for execution and fundamental skills of offense.
But I think that you are right in a lot of ways with the characterization that European players might fit better into our offense, simply because their shooting -- perhaps there's a little more emphasis on shooting. Our American ball, a lot of it, is interior ball, driving to the basket, penetration, one-on-one, an individual game. A lot of their game fits well within this system, particularly if you have penetrators or post players like Gasol or a penetrator like Kobe Bryant.

Q. Given all the time with officiating after Game 2, is what we all saw last night something that you would consider acceptable for the duration of this Finals and for 82 games next year and the year after?
PHIL JACKSON: You know, with the bang-bang kind of night we had last night, I'm through three quarters -- not quite through the third quarter, watching the tape. I thought there was an imbalance, again, in free throws between the two teams in the first half. Obviously there's four free throws by the Celtics late in the first half. We kind of balanced it out.
They did take a lot of jump shots instead of a lot of penetrating moves that they had taken in Boston, and consequently, jump shots are usually not going to be foul situations.
But the balance at the end of the game is probably what you're going to see as far as foul shooting is going to be, spaced out in the game. Now, there could be less, 25-20, whatever. But that is kind of like indicative of the way the game was played. Boston came heavy second half, aggressive, more foul shot situations for them, again. I think the emphasis has been there in this series about the aggressor is going to get the favor.
I thought our referees did a good job controlling the game. The game got a little bit skaty in one period of time where there was some physical contact and they separated guys, got technicals assessed, the two players moved on, and that was good.

Q. You talked about last night looking at the officiating, the way it's governed in the NBA, and you said that several coaches, you've talked through the years about separating, creating an entity to create some separation between the league and the officials. Are there any ideas, firm ideas, how you would do that? How extensive have these conversations been, and what are some suggestions?
PHIL JACKSON: You know, I don't think it's developed far enough to talk about actually an entity that would operate separate and apart or satellite apart from the NBA and run the referees from outside the league office and then have a certain sense of their training, their policing and their governing those people. But it seems to be more consistent with what we want to have happen to keep it from being influenced or being -- somehow or other indiscretions happening inside the refereeing in the league office. It's cast aspersions in the quality of what we're getting.
I think these guys have an impossible job. It's a very difficult game to referee. Judgment calls on many, many situations in the course of a game, and these guys are doing as good a job as they possibly can.
But given the latitude or the freedom that could come away from the constant harangue or penetrating discussions or -- there are even teams posing basic websites that kind of critique the referees from game to game. I think has put a lot of pressure on the quality of the job that's getting done, and I think once you took it out of the league's hands or once the league took it out of their own hands, it would give them less of an oversight or overwhelming presence over the top. They wouldn't be so defensive about our refereeing all the time. Our refereeing has kind of become a sacred cow. On the outside they can criticize it, and on the inside they say do the best you can with what you got.

Q. Garnett and Pierce had poor shooting nights and yet the game still comes down to the final two minutes. What should you guys take out of that and what do you think Boston takes out of that?
PHIL JACKSON: Well, I think they have to understand that this is a game that was just a down game for them. They'll adjust to this court. They'll get themselves in better shape for the next game. They'll have a better offensive opportunity. You know, Kobe had a big game. They can probably get him back in a position where they'll feel more comfortable with what he gets done.
I'd agree that Pierce is going to play better. We've said over the past three games that we can't let all of their scorers hurt us, Allen, Pierce and Garnett. If two of the three have good games, we have to keep one of those guys at a sub-par game if we're going to have a chance to win, and last night was a good example of that.

Q. You've made the point that the referees are under pressure and both sides are working the referees all the time. If there's an imbalance in free throws, human nature and practice is that they will correct it the next game. Given all that, do you have any question about the basic credibility of the system in the fact that they're not cheating one way or the other for anybody, or do you have questions about the credibility?
PHIL JACKSON: No. I think that influence, opinion, all the things that go into making us humans lemmings, which we are, we follow fads and fashions in whatever we do, is much as effective in this game as anywhere else. But I don't think there's anything you cast any aspersions on a delivered output or outlay of which direction or how referees are going to judge a game from series to series. I think that it's as fair as they can make it. These guys come with an open mind, and that's the way the game is played. I think that the decision of how a game is played, the house teams have, the energy that ball players put out there on the court all influence the referees as to making calls, and that's what this game has always been about.

End of FastScripts

ASAP Sports, Inc. | T: 1.212 385 0297