Vmart wrote:

tkf wrote:

Vmart wrote:Object of inserting Copeland, Amare and Barron would have been to exploit Hibberts defensive weakness which is to pull him away from the basket. Chandler, Martin did none of that. The game plan that Woody implemented played right into the Pacers strengths. He allowed Hibbert to become an anchor on defense.

In the playoffs you are only going to see good and great coaches. This where coaches have to elevate their game of coaching to higher levels making adjustments on the fly is one criteria. Knowing how to exploit opposing teams weaknesses and knowing the other teams strengths. I felt that Woody didn't do any of this.

Woody is a good coach, he can learn from this debacle make himself stronger next year, if he can't get it done then it's time to move on. 54 wins with all the injuries is something that should not be over looked he did well. Playoffs are playoffs if the result next year are the same then a coaching change maybe needed.

LET ME ask this Vmart, now I am not saying woody is a good coach or made all the right decisions... but are you telling me, you would trade having no one at all to stop hibbert for jumpers from copeland , amare and Barron? really.... i think indy would have loved that.. because they would have dumped the ball into Hibbert every time, and if you think he was a monster before, well he would have looked like wilt vs those guys... kenyon and Chandler really could not guard him, but they made him work a bit.. it could have been worse.. I just don't like the implications by some or a few that woodson blew this series.. I think that is being delusional, not saying this is your view, but the pacers were just better.. I am not a big fan of woodson, but his choices were limited. you can only exploit a teams weakness to the extent of what you have..

Playoffs are playoffs if the result next year are the same then a coaching change maybe needed.

as well as a player overhaul as I think both the coach and the roster are equally flawed... to be fair..

I'm not implicating that Woody lost the series but he was definitely one of the main reasons though. Yes I wanted Amare and Barron to play center more Barron is 7' can stretch the floor and take Hibbert out of his comfort zone. Amare should have been given more minutes as he can also stretch the floor and he was probably the best on defense vs Hibbert. Another thing is Hibbert just didn't have to work hard on defense because he didn't have to guard Chandler and Martin just be in their vicinity. The Knicks got out rebounded and last I looked Barron was pretty damn good at rebounding for the Knicks. Didn't understand why Camby was activated over Barron that left me scratching my head because Woody had absolutely no intention of playing Camby. Now if Camby is injured why even have him on the bench another bad coaching decision. Playing Kidd heavy minutes when he was giving very little night in and out. At least Barron was healthy. Couldn't understand continuously banging his head with JR Smith when he was cold he could have played Copeland. Didn't understand the need to go predictable with iso Melo he did this in Altlanta with Joe Johnson.

The Pacers series opened my eyes to Woody's limitations as a coach. I have seen Phil Jackson goto the end of the bench in the playoffs, I couldn't understand why Woody was having so much trouble doing this.

Woody gets another year because of the 54 win season, that was a masterful job especially with all the injuries. The playoffs though is another beast. The coach has to elevate, there are a lot of people here that say that the coach can't shoot for the players but he could sure damn pull them from the game. The coach has more input on the game than some think.

Amare was on a minute restriction, no way could he deal with a physical big like Hibbert, he wouldn't even have the energy to do anything on offense.. Earl Barron? really man, this guy hasn't played a meaningful minute all year and you want woodson to trust him to not only guard hibbert but knock down shots in a playoff series? I can't blame him for not playing EArl at all..

The Pacers series opened my eyes to Woody's limitations as a coach

really? so you didn't see the debacle vs the magic when the Hawks got crushed by an average of 40ppg in the playoffs? I think many saw his limitations, but turned the other way because of the early success, and the campaign for JR as 6th man and carmelo for MVP....it was there, but many ignored the signs... heck it was there last year...

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

VCoug wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yes, Frank Vogel.

Couldn't cut it in Div 1 basketball.
Got a job splicing tapes.
Parlayed rinsing Pitino's jock strap into gaining entrance into the coach's old boy's club.
Has talked his way into the head coaching ranks.
Talks alot.

Yes, that Frank Vogel.

Mike Woodson. ex-NBA player. Has coached in quite of few more playoff games than Vogel has.

I'm sure Mike Woodson is worried about the brilliant insights of Juniata College's Big Mouth on Campus.

Maybe talking about Woody is better than trying to talk about "The Layup"?

Lol, really? How about this:

Frank Vogel career 111-74 regular season record and 15-14 playoff record.

Mike Woodson career 278-320 regular season record and 18-28 playoff record.

Spo>Pop with this analogy.

Pop 128-79 playoffs .618%

Spo 42-23 playoffs .652%

nice try, but you also have to count the amount of rings pops have...

there is a huge disparity between vogel and woodson..

Not my analogy, but if you counts rings Vogel has none.

exactly, and neither does woodson as a head coach so when you look at the disparity in records, I would not be so quick to knock vogel....

I know this wasn't your analogy or point, just pretty much agreeing with vcoug....

Better overall talent will always propel a coach...Phil with awesome talent=great, without it, not so much.

The Pacers have overall better talent, not totally surprised with the win.

and that's all I am saying.. I am not the biggest woodson fan, but in all fairness, what was he to do? he was somewhat limited....

I dont know what point you're making, you seem to be straddling both sides of the fence.

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

i dont think anyone would think Woodson is better than Doc this season, even if you threw out every other years those guys have coached because we know Doc didn't have the talent to get it done.

All coaches make mistakes from time to time. Vogel made one in game 1, Woodson did as well in his series.

no, not at all, my point is this..

Woodson is a decent coach. Vogel is better..

The Pacers won, not just because vogel is better, but vogel also had the better team.

I don't agree with the idea that woodson blew the series because of his coaching, that wasn't the biggest factor at all.

Not straddling at all, I thought I was clear..

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

A good coach is a good coach. It helps when you have more talent. Having more talent doesn't make you a great coach, it gives you more wins. In other words woodson not being as good of a coach as vogel really didn't decide this series..

I haven't said either coach is better than the other, only that the Pacers have a better overall team, so naturally Vogel SHOULD look better.

Talent that wins definitely propels coaches, alsways has from the start of the sport.

Spo for instance gets a ton of credit from his teams success, but he did draw eyes on him when they didn't win the first one.

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

VCoug wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yes, Frank Vogel.

Couldn't cut it in Div 1 basketball.
Got a job splicing tapes.
Parlayed rinsing Pitino's jock strap into gaining entrance into the coach's old boy's club.
Has talked his way into the head coaching ranks.
Talks alot.

Yes, that Frank Vogel.

Mike Woodson. ex-NBA player. Has coached in quite of few more playoff games than Vogel has.

I'm sure Mike Woodson is worried about the brilliant insights of Juniata College's Big Mouth on Campus.

Maybe talking about Woody is better than trying to talk about "The Layup"?

Lol, really? How about this:

Frank Vogel career 111-74 regular season record and 15-14 playoff record.

Mike Woodson career 278-320 regular season record and 18-28 playoff record.

Spo>Pop with this analogy.

Pop 128-79 playoffs .618%

Spo 42-23 playoffs .652%

nice try, but you also have to count the amount of rings pops have...

there is a huge disparity between vogel and woodson..

Not my analogy, but if you counts rings Vogel has none.

exactly, and neither does woodson as a head coach so when you look at the disparity in records, I would not be so quick to knock vogel....

I know this wasn't your analogy or point, just pretty much agreeing with vcoug....

Better overall talent will always propel a coach...Phil with awesome talent=great, without it, not so much.

The Pacers have overall better talent, not totally surprised with the win.

and that's all I am saying.. I am not the biggest woodson fan, but in all fairness, what was he to do? he was somewhat limited....

I dont know what point you're making, you seem to be straddling both sides of the fence.

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

i dont think anyone would think Woodson is better than Doc this season, even if you threw out every other years those guys have coached because we know Doc didn't have the talent to get it done.

All coaches make mistakes from time to time. Vogel made one in game 1, Woodson did as well in his series.

no, not at all, my point is this..

Woodson is a decent coach. Vogel is better..

The Pacers won, not just because vogel is better, but vogel also had the better team.

I don't agree with the idea that woodson blew the series because of his coaching, that wasn't the biggest factor at all.

Not straddling at all, I thought I was clear..

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

A good coach is a good coach. It helps when you have more talent. Having more talent doesn't make you a great coach, it gives you more wins. In other words woodson not being as good of a coach as vogel really didn't decide this series..

I dont think I've made any reference to Woodson blowing the series, all i said is he made mistakes, no different than Vogel making a mistake in game 1 of his series.

I haven't said either coach is better than the other, only that the Pacers have a better overall team, so naturally Vogel SHOULD look better.

Talent that wins definitely propels coaches, alsways has from the start of the sport.

Spo for instance gets a ton of credit from his teams success, but he did draw eyes on him when they didn't win the first one.

what doese propel a coach mean? It seems you agree with me, but want to argue for the sake of arguing... propels coaches how? wins? I already said that.. but it doesn't make them a better coach.

Spo for instance gets a ton of credit from his teams success

as he should, but he also is questioned and doubted because of the amount of talent he has..

I don't think anyone would think spo is a better coach then George Karl although his team is enjoying more success than denver....

VCoug wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

VCoug wrote:

jrodmc wrote:Yes, Frank Vogel.

Couldn't cut it in Div 1 basketball.
Got a job splicing tapes.
Parlayed rinsing Pitino's jock strap into gaining entrance into the coach's old boy's club.
Has talked his way into the head coaching ranks.
Talks alot.

Yes, that Frank Vogel.

Mike Woodson. ex-NBA player. Has coached in quite of few more playoff games than Vogel has.

I'm sure Mike Woodson is worried about the brilliant insights of Juniata College's Big Mouth on Campus.

Maybe talking about Woody is better than trying to talk about "The Layup"?

Lol, really? How about this:

Frank Vogel career 111-74 regular season record and 15-14 playoff record.

Mike Woodson career 278-320 regular season record and 18-28 playoff record.

Spo>Pop with this analogy.

Pop 128-79 playoffs .618%

Spo 42-23 playoffs .652%

nice try, but you also have to count the amount of rings pops have...

there is a huge disparity between vogel and woodson..

Not my analogy, but if you counts rings Vogel has none.

exactly, and neither does woodson as a head coach so when you look at the disparity in records, I would not be so quick to knock vogel....

I know this wasn't your analogy or point, just pretty much agreeing with vcoug....

Better overall talent will always propel a coach...Phil with awesome talent=great, without it, not so much.

The Pacers have overall better talent, not totally surprised with the win.

and that's all I am saying.. I am not the biggest woodson fan, but in all fairness, what was he to do? he was somewhat limited....

I dont know what point you're making, you seem to be straddling both sides of the fence.

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

i dont think anyone would think Woodson is better than Doc this season, even if you threw out every other years those guys have coached because we know Doc didn't have the talent to get it done.

All coaches make mistakes from time to time. Vogel made one in game 1, Woodson did as well in his series.

no, not at all, my point is this..

Woodson is a decent coach. Vogel is better..

The Pacers won, not just because vogel is better, but vogel also had the better team.

I don't agree with the idea that woodson blew the series because of his coaching, that wasn't the biggest factor at all.

Not straddling at all, I thought I was clear..

You seem to agree Vogel is a better coach than Woodson yet acknowledge Vogel has overall better talent and seem to agree that talent propels a coach as well.

A good coach is a good coach. It helps when you have more talent. Having more talent doesn't make you a great coach, it gives you more wins. In other words woodson not being as good of a coach as vogel really didn't decide this series..

I dont think I've made any reference to Woodson blowing the series, all i said is he made mistakes, no different than Vogel making a mistake in game 1 of his series.

I haven't said either coach is better than the other, only that the Pacers have a better overall team, so naturally Vogel SHOULD look better.

Talent that wins definitely propels coaches, alsways has from the start of the sport.

Spo for instance gets a ton of credit from his teams success, but he did draw eyes on him when they didn't win the first one.

what doese propel a coach mean? It seems you agree with me, but want to argue for the sake of arguing... propels coaches how? wins? I already said that.. but it doesn't make them a better coach.

Spo for instance gets a ton of credit from his teams success

as he should, but he also is questioned and doubted because of the amount of talent he has..

I don't think anyone would think spo is a better coach then George Karl although his team is enjoying more success than denver....

I think Spo is a better coach than Karl, definitely.

well with all due respect I think you are in the minority on that one...

The Knicks had been gone away from the teams strengths as soon as the playoffs started with the Boston Series, but since the Knicks were more talented we were still able to overcome our poor play. However, the chickens came home to roost in the Pacer series and Woody got exposed.

For those defending Woody it would be one thing if like Doc he was executing great tactics and putting his players in the best position to succeed, but Woody wasn't doing that. We were playing AWFUL BB. Too much ISO, Not enough Ball and Player Movement, Too much switching and not enough smart help and forcing the Pacers to take tough shots. Poor use of the Roster, playing guys too long that weren't producing and sitting guys that were and awful lineups that we'd never played before and had very little chance to succeed. Woody often played right into the hands of the Pacers strengths which made the job tougher for the players. I could go on and on about the bad coaching Woody did in the playoffs. So really there is no excuse for the job he did. Even when a team looses you can still recognize when the coach did a great job, like MJax with GS. You can't say that about the job Woody did!!!

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

playa2 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Uptown wrote:

holfresh wrote:Maybe Woodson should have Chandler work on his three point shooting so he gets proficient at it like Bosh, that way next time Knick play the Pacers, we can have Chandler camp out at the three point line like Bosh..Isn't that why Hibbert was on the bench at the end of the game, they were afraid Bosh would blow by him on the way to the hoop??

I came in here to say this. Before Hibbert was taken out, the Heat had torched him on a few plays earlier by pulling him away from the basket to guard Bosh. Your only as smart as the roster you have at your disposal....We didn't have the players to exploit the slow footed Hibbert and pull him away from the basket....

Chris Copeland played Center for the Knicks during the season , but Woody did not use that strategy against Hibbert.

Sometimes you make your opponent match up with you.

And what would Hibbert do to Copeland on the blocks???..And who will Novak defend??.No one is the answer...

I guess it's the way you see it.

I would ask what would Hibbert do with Copeland knocking down 3's in his grill or blowing by him dunking the ball when he's forced to defend him outside the paint.

3 points are more than 2. Vogel basically said You could have took Hibbert out of the game defensively , but you didn't know how to exploit it.

After 10 years of misery Woodson took this miserable franchise to respectability, 73-34 regular season and what does the Knick fan do...Whine...Ungrateful...Last year under MDA, we were definitely not making the playoffs..Woodson took over and we made the playoffs ...Following year we won 54 games and made it to the second round..Some would say that's progress..Any thanks Woody???..No..Insults...

The goal is to win a championship, not a damn division titile.

You see you have some fans like you that are happy with a good regular season, whoo..hoo..pop the champagne!! maybe we can get out the 1 st round

Then you have the fans like myself that anything less then a trip to the finals is a avg season..
especially when your star player is getting older but not wiser..

So at what point does a fan like yourself get a grasp reality??..Indy was the better team..They played better defense..They have 5 players who could drop 25 on any given night...There comes a time when you just have to give the other team and coach credit...

Most players in the league can drop 25 giving the touches and no player on the pacers is avg more the 19ppg..I do give vogel his credit, but woodson has loss a ton of credit in my book

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This isn't about Vogel. This is about Woody. Those of us who are criticizing Woody aren't 2nd guessing him. Some of us were 1st guessing since we've been saying he has issues with his coaching for a while. He was CLEARLY out coached in both the Boston and Indy series. We simply had more talent than Boston, but in terms of coaching tactics, Doc was doing a better job with what he had. What we needed was for Woody to do the same with the Knicks vs. the Pacers. Woody failed to get the most out of his roster against the Pacers.

The Knicks had been gone away from the teams strengths as soon as the playoffs started with the Boston Series, but since the Knicks were more talented we were still able to overcome our poor play. However, the chickens came home to roost in the Pacer series and Woody got exposed.

For those defending Woody it would be one thing if like Doc he was executing great tactics and putting his players in the best position to succeed, but Woody wasn't doing that. We were playing AWFUL BB. Too much ISO, Not enough Ball and Player Movement, Too much switching and not enough smart help and forcing the Pacers to take tough shots. Poor use of the Roster, playing guys too long that weren't producing and sitting guys that were and awful lineups that we'd never played before and had very little chance to succeed. Woody often played right into the hands of the Pacers strengths which made the job tougher for the players. I could go on and on about the bad coaching Woody did in the playoffs. So really there is no excuse for the job he did. Even when a team looses you can still recognize when the coach did a great job, like MJax with GS. You can't say that about the job Woody did!!!

Woody took the exact same that MDA was coaching from a 18-24 team to a 18-6 team..How can you explain that???..And it is about Indy, they are the better team...

what did he do in the playoffs after the great finish to the season, explain that 1-4 record

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This isn't about Vogel. This is about Woody. Those of us who are criticizing Woody aren't 2nd guessing him. Some of us were 1st guessing since we've been saying he has issues with his coaching for a while. He was CLEARLY out coached in both the Boston and Indy series. We simply had more talent than Boston, but in terms of coaching tactics, Doc was doing a better job with what he had. What we needed was for Woody to do the same with the Knicks vs. the Pacers. Woody failed to get the most out of his roster against the Pacers.

The Knicks had been gone away from the teams strengths as soon as the playoffs started with the Boston Series, but since the Knicks were more talented we were still able to overcome our poor play. However, the chickens came home to roost in the Pacer series and Woody got exposed.

For those defending Woody it would be one thing if like Doc he was executing great tactics and putting his players in the best position to succeed, but Woody wasn't doing that. We were playing AWFUL BB. Too much ISO, Not enough Ball and Player Movement, Too much switching and not enough smart help and forcing the Pacers to take tough shots. Poor use of the Roster, playing guys too long that weren't producing and sitting guys that were and awful lineups that we'd never played before and had very little chance to succeed. Woody often played right into the hands of the Pacers strengths which made the job tougher for the players. I could go on and on about the bad coaching Woody did in the playoffs. So really there is no excuse for the job he did. Even when a team looses you can still recognize when the coach did a great job, like MJax with GS. You can't say that about the job Woody did!!!

Woody took the exact same that MDA was coaching from a 18-24 team to a 18-6 team..How can you explain that???..And it is about Indy, they are the better team...

what did he do in the playoffs, explain that

Who was the better team???

None of the teams MDA coached in NY were expected to make the ECF's. So MDA coaching was horrid when he lost with a less talented team and not enough time to prepare for the season, a crazy Lockout shortened season with no practice days, plus a pouting Franchise Player! Woody had a team the next year that had better overall talent and another 82 games of built up chemistry, with a full off season of work for the team's best players, a full training camp and full pre-season, but it's not Woody's fault for all the things I listed that he did wrong from a coaching standpoint in the playoffs? Let's just drag MDA into this to try and make Woody look better. Well when MDA had his shot with a team that was EXPECTED to get to the Conference Finals, he actually GOT HIS TEAM TO THE WESTERN CONFERENCE FINALS!!! TWICE!!! Woody failed to deliver. Don't compare Woody to MDA when MDA has done more as a coach.

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:

knicks1248 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

nixluva wrote:This isn't about Vogel. This is about Woody. Those of us who are criticizing Woody aren't 2nd guessing him. Some of us were 1st guessing since we've been saying he has issues with his coaching for a while. He was CLEARLY out coached in both the Boston and Indy series. We simply had more talent than Boston, but in terms of coaching tactics, Doc was doing a better job with what he had. What we needed was for Woody to do the same with the Knicks vs. the Pacers. Woody failed to get the most out of his roster against the Pacers.

The Knicks had been gone away from the teams strengths as soon as the playoffs started with the Boston Series, but since the Knicks were more talented we were still able to overcome our poor play. However, the chickens came home to roost in the Pacer series and Woody got exposed.

For those defending Woody it would be one thing if like Doc he was executing great tactics and putting his players in the best position to succeed, but Woody wasn't doing that. We were playing AWFUL BB. Too much ISO, Not enough Ball and Player Movement, Too much switching and not enough smart help and forcing the Pacers to take tough shots. Poor use of the Roster, playing guys too long that weren't producing and sitting guys that were and awful lineups that we'd never played before and had very little chance to succeed. Woody often played right into the hands of the Pacers strengths which made the job tougher for the players. I could go on and on about the bad coaching Woody did in the playoffs. So really there is no excuse for the job he did. Even when a team looses you can still recognize when the coach did a great job, like MJax with GS. You can't say that about the job Woody did!!!

Woody took the exact same that MDA was coaching from a 18-24 team to a 18-6 team..How can you explain that???..And it is about Indy, they are the better team...

what did he do in the playoffs, explain that

Who was the better team???

None of the teams MDA coached in NY were expected to make the ECF's. So MDA coaching was horrid when he lost with a less talented team and not enough time to prepare for the season, a crazy Lockout shortened season with no practice days, plus a pouting Franchise Player! Woody had a team the next year that had better overall talent and another 82 games of built up chemistry, with a full off season of work for the team's best players, a full training camp and full pre-season, but it's not Woody's fault for all the things I listed that he did wrong from a coaching standpoint in the playoffs? Let's just drag MDA into this to try and make Woody look better. Well when MDA had his shot with a team that was EXPECTED to get to the Conference Finals, he actually GOT HIS TEAM TO THE WESTERN CONFERENCE FINALS!!! TWICE!!! Woody failed to deliver. Don't compare Woody to MDA when MDA has done more as a coach.