It's not difficult to understand. Is it difficult to understand that Denver played better in the playoffs than the Blazers did? Is it all because of match ups or possibly was Denver the better team? You seem to think all I care about is playoffs wins. Let's put playoff wins and regular season wins aside . . . who do you think played better in the playoffs and do you think it was all because of match ups?
The initial discussion related to who built a better team. Which roster was better, etc. I can't see how a small level of success can change the answer. You say this season, Denver is better. If Carmelo Anthony broke his hand right now, and they lost every game, we'd finish ahead of them, and then be the better constructed team? Carmelo is still on their team. But just hurt. We finish better, but does that mean their team is worse, and thus Warkenstein has done a worse job?
I think that you think it's all about playoff wins because that is what you are discussing. Yes, I feel Denver did better in the playoffs in large part due to who they were playing. Did the Lakers get better from round 2-3 when they went from Houston to Denver? Or were they the same team, facing different competition? Do you thi9nk if Carmelo was covered off and on by Artest and Battier for 6 or 7 games, he would have the same success as he did playing against NO and matching up against, who, Peja? Yeah. Matchups didn't have anything to do with that level of success.
You are just Mr. hypothetical man. Yes I think Denver would have beat Houston, but why argue over something we will never know. I'll say it again. Match ups matter, but is not the only explanation for why Denver played better than the Blazers in the playoffs. Denver played better in part because of match ups and in part because they were the better team in the playoffs. I understand you don't agree, but do you at least understand my position so you quit trying to restate a differnt way.
I don't think Denver did play better. They played about as well as Portland but against an easier team. Therefore, they advanced and Portland did not.
Thanks for getting to the issue. I get that you (and RR7) think it was the match ups that allowed Denver to go to the Western Confrence finals. I think Denver was a better team than the Blazers and that is why they advanced so much futher than the Blazers. We just see it differently.
Personally I would love to see a Denver Ptd match up in the first round. Wouldn't that be fitting to resolve this issue. Although my first choice is against Utah . . ., which shows how much I think of regular season match ups.
Even better (although I guess a trade for Dalembert would be more equal). But I would love to see how Ptd can stand up to a division rival like Denver in teh playoffs. If Ptd pulls out a series win, Iwill happily come on here and say I was wrong, Ptd is a better team than Denver. Meaning KP hs assembled a better team than MW. Heck I might think that now . . . but I am a little concerned KP has had control for 4 years (?) and it doesn't look like this team can win a playoff series yet.
Yea, i kow that out for the season kills. Figure the odds (the way i calculate it) are with the Blazers next year that Oden doesn't go down for the season. The way I figure out the odds is that first season, out for the season; second season, not out for the season; third season out for the season; . . . so fourth year, not out for the season. It's a pattern. See I can be a Blazer optomist.
If Oden goes out next year, then I will truly believe in some sort of Blazer Big Man Curse. Walton went down early with injuries, Bowie ... 'nuff said, Sabonis was a shell of his prime self by the time he hit Portland, and now Greg Oden? I may have to start going to church or something.
So, if Nene and Anderson were hurt, while Oden and Pryz were healthy, and the Blazers had a better record than Denver, you would argue that Denver is just as good as Portland? Right.
I'm not arguing anything other than Denver and Portland were equally good last season. I already posted that Denver is better than Portland this season. You seemingly made up an argument out of thin air. Why?
The way Vulcan runs things and how easily it supposedly is to get on PA's bad side. What decent GM would want to come to Portland if KP is let go. PA needs to realize that Vulcan does more harm than good.
I now understand why Nate wanted a year-to-year contract. He'll get another opportunity in the NBA; he may as well keep his flexibility when the Vulcans turn on him.
Fair enough. You are only arguing about last season. Other people in this thread are claiming the Blazers are just as good as Denver *this* season. I picked the wrong message to quote.
Yeah, that is kind of funny now that I think about it. Now back to the topic at hand, who was better last year, the Blazers or the Nuggets.
