So lots of talk about teams not being legit if they beat others without thier best players or key players. If Portland advances out of the first round, how many people will have an asterisk on it because Murray is out? if we run up against utah after that with Mitchel out and we win the series, does it get an asterisk? In previous playoffs/finals: lakers beat miami last yer without bam. Asterisk? toronto beat GS without durant. Asterisk? gsw beat houston without chris paul to get to the finals. Asterisk? Some say if dgreen isnt suspended for gMe seven they win against cleveland. Asterisk? we beat the clippers who had players go down with injuries in the series. Asterisk? Well this year our Blazers are healthy aNd most teams we may face are not. So im curious. If we win and go deep is it because the other teams had injuries? Or is it because we are just better? conversly how does your answer above align with the question below? With us having our 2nd and 3rd best players out for most of the season, does that mean the teams who beat us should have an asterisk as well? and if so, could we possibly be much better than anyone outside of Barkley and kingspeed thought when healthy?
Obviously, any team who beats the Blazers gets an asterisk since presumed starting PF Zach Collins has been out all year.
Kind of a loaded question. This is going to parlay into "Injury Excuse" and then it will become a thread about Stotts. Does he even deserve credit?
only a loaded question if taking you are taking the answer down an irrelevant path. This isnt a thread anout coaching or stotts. Unless you think we dont have wnough of those? This is about wins and losses and what is considered legit vs not. since our coach has been here through both regardless the coach is not part of the equation on this topic. Its about injured players and how game results are viewed in that context. I used to be of the opinion that injuries dont matter and we beat the clips fair and square regardless of their two best players going down. But my tune has been changing based on what I've seen of the Blazers this year. Most teams who lose their 2nd and 3rd best players get a pass but it doesn't seem many feel the Blazers should have that pass this year. So its got me wondering...
Sure. Put an asterisk there. But, a win is a win. I would rather win a championship with an asterisk than to not win one at all.
The Blazers get who they get. It's not their fault if that team is missing players due to injury. Same with any of the examples you listed. It sucks. You want to see teams go at each other full force in the playoffs, but it is what it is. Blazers still have to try to take advantage of it. Denver isn't going to roll over because they don't have Murray though. It's still going to be a fight.
Murray being out is pretty much why people consider this to be a pretty even match-up. I could see this going 7 again, easy.
nah. Not needed. My real point is rhat it seems like a team always have an issue or two and so most rings mad won games should have an asterisk if that were the case. But then i look at this season and think how can we not use injuries aS an asterisk for our earlier losses.
not everyone is saying that though. I listened to the radio to work and on the way home and they were saying we should tKe this. Mayne not easily but it really shouldn't go seven. But hey. At least you didn't claim it as a fact, so at least there is that!
When it's this evenly matched I don't understand how people say "oh, we should take this" nah... any game could go either way. A random ass player could get hot... we are portland after all. We have a great track record of letting random players have career nights. Remember Houston? Troy Daniels? And I think this year it's even more evenly matched. So to say it's a foregone conclusion that Portland takes it... nah.
This is where i think facts verses opinions is possibly confusing? see i never said its a fact it will be easy. It may very well be difficult. See these are opinions. mine is that we will win easily in five but 3 of the five games will be tough and one we get blown out in. So to me it wont really be easy when detailing it out. But im two years if/when people see it as a 4-1 defeat. It will look easy. but again. Thanks for at least not claiming your stance as factual.
Asterisks don't come via injury, generally. They come via horrible ref calls, that shift the momentum or change the course. Or things like playing in a Bubble in Orlando. Lockout shortened season. The teams that have asterisks are the Spurs in the shortened season due to the lockout. The Lakers last year and the L*kers team that got all the help against Sacramento in the WCFs. You could probably make a case for the L*kers team that beat the Blazers in the 2000 WCFs as well.
People forget about those asterisk after a few year. All that's left in the record books in who won it all
Collins is almost always out so I do not see that as a legitimate excuse. Until we are competitive against a team that has a chance at winning a title, the criticism is justified IMO.
if all it takes for an * is a timely injury to a single opposing player, most champions would have an *....especially by fans of the other team in the case of Portland vs Denver, yeah, the Nuggets would be stronger if they had Murray. And if Barton and Dozier are out as well...ok the Blazers got lucky. the biggest * I can remember was attached to the Laker team that the officials essentially gifted a series win over the Kings. A slightly smaller * is attached to the Miami team that won in 2005, because Dallas players couldn't even look at DWade without getting whistled. Series was tied at 2-2, and then, the officials took over and sent Wade to the FT line 46 times in the final 2 games; Miami won both games by a total of 4 points I'd say this though: it's better to advance with an asterisk than to exit without one
One day a large asteroid will strike the earth and wipe away all asterisks and everything else whined about by humans since the dawn of time. Such is the relative importance of asterisks vs. asteroids.
