Excuses, or facts. Simple fact that we have not had our starting Cs for the majority of the season. And that hurts the performance of our team. And, with the way Nate's teams are designed, to rely heavily on offensive rebounds, it has a large effect on our game plans. The current teams, I would say Denver is better. Because they are healthy. At full health, I don't see where the disparity in talent lies in their favor. Sorry if it is just making excuses for you. Would you say Chicago was a better team than us last season, because they played an extra game in the playoffs? They "got it done" one extra time, so that would, I assume, make them better, in your opinion?
One day, no. I know workers who are known for coming in late and they always have an excuse (kids, sick, car trouble, traffic).
Yea that's what I'm saying. Chicago in the east winning one more playoff game is just like Denver last year. I would love to see a poll among NBA players who they think are a better team the last two years. Bcause I'll admit that I'm confused right now. It seems obvious the Nuggets have been better the last two years and most I've asked around here agree . .. but the posts on this board is making me think more about it.
Not the end result, but the actual team is what the discussion was about. Players on the team, who built a better team. tems with identical records. So the better team was the one who beat a different opponent, but had similarly struggled against Houston during the regular season. Now, if Portland had the tie breaker, and beat NO, and Denver lost to Houston, even though the teams are the exact same. Same exact players, etc. somehow, that makes Portland, now, the better team? And the better roster. With the better GM? Please explain how that changes their makeups and outlook, a matchup in the first round. Or an injury.
That's a huge "if" and then you want me to explain taht "if"? But yes, win a playoff series and that changes things. Heck even a local reporter says KP's job is linked to playoff success. I don't think I'm being way off base by putting so much value into winning playoff series. I don't think Denver loses to Houston in the playoffs because playoffs are a differnt creature. No one is saying we will beat LA at home in the playoffs even though we have owned them. I don't see anyone chanting to play Lakers over Utah because we are more likely to beat the Lkaers in teh playoffs. I don't want to play Dallas in the playoffs even though we have owned them. Personally I don't know how you can look at a regular season record and say what would have happened in the playoffs. We must be programed differnetly which is why we see this differntly.
Houston took the Lakers to seven games without Yao Ming for the last 4.5 games. So yes, the playoffs are a different creature. Houston was a MUCH better team in the playoffs than they showed in the regular season. Since your argument apparently is about "success" in the playoffs, then the only assumption one can make is that Houston would have beat Denver. Because they took LA to seven games without Yao Ming, and Denver only went 6 games with a full roster.
What? Didn't Denver have more playoff success last year compared to the Houston. So if my agrument apparently is about playoff success, Denver is better than Houston. I know it's been characterized that it's my hard fast rule that whoever has more playoff success is better, but it's really not. It is a big factor, IMO, which is why I'm having a hard time understanding that Blazers were as good as the Nuggets in the last two years, but as I already stated, maybe I'm wrong about this. Also, we have yet to see what the Blazers do in the playoffs this year . . . with the aqusition of Camby and the team almost at full strength (minus Oden and Joel), we could make some noise.
Denver had more playoff success solely because they didn't run into LA until the conference finals. Or even Houston in the first round. Since Houston had better success against LA, I have to assume that they would have beaten Denver had they been matched up in the first round. Match ups do matter, and at the end of the day, 29 teams are losers.
Really, if the Blazers beat the Lakers and went to the NBA championship and lost . . . they would be winners in my book and I'm guessing on this board. Yes match ups matter. But to say that Denver and Ptd are equal teams while one got to the conference championships and the other lost in the first round . . . it just doesn't make sense to me. Of course that has been twisted to say if a team wins one more playoff game than I think that team is better. I'm not saying that. I even get the point that if Blazers got knocked out by the Lakers and then the Lakers knock out Denver in the next round that could be comparable playoff losses. But western confrence finals v. first round loss . . . I'm not buying it was about matchups, but I get that some Blazer fans do.
I'm just killing time on a conference call, but are you saying that matchups don't have an impact on playoff success?
How do you not buy the matchups argument? If the #s 6, 7, and 8 seeds in the playoffs this season all have identical records, one could argue they are comparable teams. Now, if the #6 seed beats Dallas, and say we lost to the Lakers, even after we beat Dallas this season, we are a worse team, because we got stuck playing the harder team?
You just quoted my post that says match ups matter. I'm not in the camp that will explain Denver and Ptd being equal teams and that the only reason one was a conference title playoff team and the other was a first round loss was soley because of matchups. I think Denver was the better team last year and that is why theyplayed better thatn the Blazers and advanced. The match ups helped, but Denver played much better in the playoffs because they were a better team. Again, I understand that posters think because they had an equivalent record, they were equivalent teams. That the way the teams played in the playoffs and the success each team experienced or didn't experience was because of the playoff match ups. I get that take . . . it's wrong, but I get it.
It's wrong? So 7 games(first round) shows much mroe than 82 games does, when each team faces the same matchups? Ok.
No, he is just saying that rationalizing that Portland is as good as Denver because the Nugz got a better playoff draw is flawed logic. The facts are Denver is better than Portland.
No, it's rationalizing they are as good because they had the exact same record. After 82 games. They were as good. Who eventually got further is based off of matchups.
There is no doubt about that this year. It's a fact. I guess I still don't see the point, though. Go back 4 years and see where both teams were at, then look at who was GM of the Blazers during that period.
Based of matchups? The Nuggs were able to play something resembling defense, that's why they got further than the Blazers.
Man RR7, you just want to twist up everything I say to prove your point. let's just use the facts we have rather than all these hypos. Last Year: Blazers first round loss to Houston. Denver wins two playoff series and then loses to Lakers in Western Confernece finals. Some say equal team but Denver more successful in playoffs because of matchups. I don't agree and think Denver was the better team and proved it in the playoffs. What is the big deal? In fact I've said I'm reconsidering everything . . . but you refuse to acknowledges that maybe, jsut maybe, the fact Denver had success in the playoffs and were arguably a couple of wins away from a championship shows they were the better team last year. And what about this year? last year it was matchups, this year it is injuries, next year it will be teams are equal but Blazers have Vulcan (you know it's coming)
Yes, based off of matchups. They played a worse team than the Blazers did, and thus had an easier opportunity to get past the first round. Is that really that difficult to understand?
I think Pritchard has done a great job with this team and would prefer not to gamble on someone else. Is Denver a better team? Right now they are. But, at full health, I'd say the Blazers are both better and have more upside.
