holfresh wrote:

loweyecue wrote:All this hoopla about nothing. Woody was out coached this isn't debatable. What Vogel said wasn't cool - you don't go about taking shots at other coaches - but it was true.

Who was the better team??

We were. According to your own BS all season long - Second in the East if I remember correctly???

loweyecue wrote:

holfresh wrote:

loweyecue wrote:All this hoopla about nothing. Woody was out coached this isn't debatable. What Vogel said wasn't cool - you don't go about taking shots at other coaches - but it was true.

Who was the better team??

We were. According to your own BS all season long - Second in the East if I remember correctly???

Then you have no clue what u are watching..

loweyecue wrote:

holfresh wrote:

loweyecue wrote:

holfresh wrote:

loweyecue wrote:All this hoopla about nothing. Woody was out coached this isn't debatable. What Vogel said wasn't cool - you don't go about taking shots at other coaches - but it was true.

Who was the better team??

We were. According to your own BS all season long - Second in the East if I remember correctly???

Then you have no clue what u are watching..

No, I am simply calling you on the horse**** you were spewing all regular season. Too bad you can't have your cake and eat it too.

What have I been saying all regular season??.I support the Knicks so therefore I think they are the best team on the planet???..What have I been saying???..I'm not whinny and pissy over Gallo, Lin and MDA, so that my problem???

holfresh wrote:If Woody was so bad, how come he beat a much better coach in Doc Rivers in the playoffs???..I wonder if Celtic fans are crying that Doc got out coached ??

playa2 wrote:

tkf wrote:

playa2 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..

As I watched the knicks series vs the Pacers, when Hibbert passed out of the double team his teammates were knocking down momentum changing 3 pt shots. Now if Hibbert was allowed to score ok, but his teammates wouldn't have been so wide open from downtown. So giving up 2 pts instead of 3 would be to our advantage. As I said those open 3's for the Pacers were always at a time when the knicks would make a run and they would steal the momentum back.

Woodson didn't put this team in the best possible position to win and along with player error it just made it look like Indiana was so much better than what they really were.

We actually gave Hibbert more confidence with our coaching strategy and we didn't have to do that.

SO WHAT you are saying playa is that you would have let hibbert continue to shoot and score down low at close to a 50% clip then indy take threes and they were barely cracking 30% in the series I think..( need to check, but I think that is close)

I never understood your basketball logic or lack thereof playa... but why would you want Hibbert going against the likes of amare or Copeland in the post? do you really think it is a good idea to concede inside points like that? really? how is that smart? and you have the nerve to complain about woodson?

It wasn't the open threes that killed the knicks, it was the offensive rebounds, and points in the paint that did them in playa.. that was huge...

What would West or Hibbert do with Copeland on the perimeter.

What you don't understand is what would Hibbert do coming out of the paint trying to defend Copeland who 3 pt shot was deadly, the net at times barely moved.

We had the Pacers right where we wanted them and didn't stay with what got us there. Then he puts in shooters when we fall behind at the end of the game. Pacers were frustrated we had those guys questioning themselves in the 4th qtr and the pressure was on them and we took our foot off the gas. Thank you Woody

signed Indiana Pacers.

Watch the game ^

That too would have moved Hibbert out of his comfort zone on defense.

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:If Woody was so bad, how come he beat a much better coach in Doc Rivers in the playoffs???..I wonder if Celtic fans are crying that Doc got out coached ??

Are these concepts too hard to understand? Doc had the inferior team but coached them up and almost took us out!!! Evaluating the performance of a coach isn't only about W/L. You have to weigh the strength of the opponent too. MJax lost to spurs but it was evident he did a GREAT job. Thibs lost but he got every ounce of effort out of his team and had great tactics. If the Knicks lost but had played great ball, smart lineups and rotations etc then no one would be bashing Woody! His poor decisions hurt the teams chances. No guarantee his team wins but u don't want the coach to cost u games over the course of a post season. Woody was out coached, Period!

yes woody was outcoached no question, but indiana was the better team all along. they were always the better team, it's just that playoff winning teams play a rougher brand of ball-- rebounding and defense-- which doesn't have as much sizzle.

i have watched enough basketball to realize that ball movement, rebounding, and defense are necessary attributes to a true contender 95% of the time. the pacers have impressed because the rebounding and defense were always there. in the playoffs it's really about matchups in addition to defense, and that's where a good coach will strategize: in exploiting matchups.

vogel outcoached woodson. of this there can be no argument whatever.

nixluva wrote:

holfresh wrote:If Woody was so bad, how come he beat a much better coach in Doc Rivers in the playoffs???..I wonder if Celtic fans are crying that Doc got out coached ??

Are these concepts too hard to understand? Doc had the inferior team but coached them up and almost took us out!!! Evaluating the performance of a coach isn't only about W/L. You have to weigh the strength of the opponent too. MJax lost to spurs but it was evident he did a GREAT job. Thibs lost but he got every ounce of effort out of his team and had great tactics. If the Knicks lost but had played great ball, smart lineups and rotations etc then no one would be bashing Woody! His poor decisions hurt the teams chances. No guarantee his team wins but u don't want the coach to cost u games over the course of a post season. Woody was out coached, Period!

No you guys making poor decisions from your couch...Thinking that a line up up Novak and Copeland can compete against David West and Hibbert...It's almost comical if I didn't know u guys were serious..

CrushAlot wrote:

holfresh wrote:Spo just got out coached!!!..Hibbert just dropped 29 pts 10 boards on Bosh..I wonder what he would do against Novak and Copeland...

Novak, Cope > Battier, Allen, Bosh, Miller... Play the rook.

These basketball aficionados probably still doesn't think Indy was the better team ...

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 after the great finish to the season, explain that 1-4 record