A strawman argument has nothing to do with the OT section. It's basically a made up argument - arguing against something I never said. You said, "Not every loss is because of the refs." In reply to one of my posts. I called that a strawman argument because I never claimed all (or any) losses were do to the refs. You created, and won, a non-existent argument. A strawman is often used to distract from the actual argument. When you run out of counterpoints, throw something new out there that has nothing to do with the original argument. "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man." The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition." Up until that point, we were only discussing injuries. The refs hadn't been mentioned once until you attempted to play them as your trump (lowercase) card. "Not denying it, just debating about HOW we won. I don’t care just want people to accept why. I want us to win every series and game, just want people/fans to realize how it happened. Not every loss is because of the refs." The ref comment was a strawman that you set up and then knocked down. BNM
San Francisco Chronicle says Blazers in 7 NY Times says Blazers, no number of games specified. Times sportswriters also polled on conference finals, most said Houston over GSW, one said Houston over Portland. FWIW. Which is probably nothing.
The Blazers were indeed fortunate that the Clippers were not at full strength in that series. Just as many other teams have been fortunate due to many other teams' injuries, including an ugly history of Portland injuries, over the years. The only thing I called out was the one moron who thinks the Blazers franchise gets 'all the breaks'. I've been a Blazers fan since day one, and unless by breaks he meant bones, that guy is, at best, astonishingly ignorant.
There is definitely a path for Portland to make WCF. If they and Houston make it that far, Houston better watch out. Anyone else feel the destiny of a Portland-Sixers final?
Bill Simmons and Ryan Russillo playoff preview podcast. Blazers-Pelicans coverage starts around 1:01:17. Both picking Pels to upset Blazers, which is too bad because they also think POR has a legitimate shot at beating GSW in the second round, if both teams make it that far. BNM
Here are what the experts from NO are saying: https://www.thebirdwrites.com/2018/...in-trail-blazers-davis-lillard-mccollum-rondo NO in 6, NO in 6 or POR in 7 NO in 6 NO in 7 NO in 6 NO in 5 NO in 7 NO in 6 POR in 7 lol and we thought our guys were biased.
538. com differs from Vegas odds. East, they give Raptors 42%, 76ers 30%, Cavs 14%, Celtics 9%. West, Floppers are overwhelming 57% favorites, with Rip City, Mormons, Seattle Turncoats and Cupcakes all more or less equal and Geriatrics a bit behind.
Pretty sure Russillo picked the Blazers and at the end Simmons said Blazers in 7, but likes the Pels for the upset.
