You must have blended my post with whoever created this thread. I'm not thrilled we won 2 games, I just felt at the time it wasn't as tragic as some people make it out to be. I also don't use "seeds" to show the strength of a teams and their success, especially in a year where the West was so close from 2-8.
Tince is right. Seeding means very little, especially when the Spurs are involved. Perhaps you noticed that Pop is known to rest his players and coast before the playoffs? Seeding doesn't mean that much.
We were the higher seed and beat them all 3 times we played. If that's not enough evidence for you two that we were a better team than them this year, I simply can't help you.
What I think is funny is Popovich made the same adjustments Nate did, and ended up in even worse shape. The facts are, you can't make adjustments your personnel don't allow you to make. Unfortunately for them, RJ is in even worse outside shooter than most of Portlands outside shooters.
Spurs have been a lottery team for 2 years now, edged into the playoffs only by preferential officiating. We'd have swept them easily even with our depleted lineup had we gotten past the Suns.
Yeah and still won. Portland > San Antonio. You're the one who thinks seeding doesn't mean one team is better than another. The concept of this thread is that we're supposed to be happy because we did better than SA did vs. the Suns. The Spurs were worse than us. So why/how is it some sort of accomplishment that we did better vs the Suns than them? We should have done better. Jesus Christ, how shitty of a franchise are we?
No. I'm saying that before the second round started, most people would have probably said that the Spurs team that played the Suns was a better team than the Blazer team that played the Suns. (No Brandon, Not much Batum, Camby injured). Therefore, seedings are irrelevant in this context because the two teams we are comparing are not the two teams that earned those seedings. The concept of the thread is to keep things in perspective. There probably aren't too many here that thought that: (Blazers) - (Roy, Batum, and some of Camby) > (Spurs healthy) The Suns beating the healthy Spurs, while struggling more with an injured Blazer team, shows that when we add Roy and Oden, with a healthy Batum and Camby might be a very strong team.
Lottery team? The Spurs beat the 2nd best team in the West in 6 games a few weeks ago. People forget that.
If someone has flat out decided to bitch and moan, you are wasting your breath trying to cheer them up.
No it isn't. That's not the concept at all. Original Post: The Blazers beat Phoenix twice... That's gotta mean something, given their destruction of the Spurs. Me: How does a team who is worse than us winning fewer games than us vs another team mean anything other than they are worse than us? Why would you assume they'd do anything other than worse than we did? They: - Were a lower seed - Lost every game against us - Won fewer games than we did vs. a common opponent in the playoffs. The only thing it means is what most of us already assumed... The Portland trailblazers were better than the San Antonio Spurs in the 2009-2010 NBA season. It means NOTHING more than that. Finally, I have NO idea how some of you are concluding that because the Spurs were swept, Portland would have won more game with Roy and Oden.
You don't see how the possibility that the Blazers, EVEN WITHOUT Roy, Oden and Batum, are better than the healthy Spurs team, that just beat Dallas in a 7 game series, might mean something? Especially to those who want to blow up the team and rebuild? Alrighty.
Might mean what? Please tell me, what the fuck that tedious trail of nothingness means. LOLZ! Yes, the second the Spurs got swept I ran outside and screamed to the Heavens... "Take THAT, those of you whom I've never met or heard of who want to blow this Blazers team up... TAKE THAT YOU CVNTS!!!!! The LOWER seeded Spurs did worse against the Suns than we did... ah ha ha ha, AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA WWWAAAAHHHHHHHHh HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
