2018 NBA Playoffs - What the "Experts" are Saying

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
He said in his best Wheels voice.....
Click to expand...
Either that, or Jackie Chiles.

30b52d5b1987cb59af5236a4d8334ca1.jpg
 
HCP said:
See this is what I’m talking about. It’s like a Trump supporter (which I’m not accusing you of being) when no matter what they back him up. Dude, it’s OK to say we got lucky in that series by the other team losing their two BEST players. It’s OK to say that’s why we won. It won’t make you any lesser of a Blazers fan bro. Had we lost Dame and CJ, this place would have been screaming about how THAT was the reason we lost the series right?
Click to expand...

But is it really luck if it's a common occurrence? Is it just bad luck that both CP3 and Blake Griffin have suffered a lot of injuries over the course of their careers, not just against us, but against other teams, too? Both of those guys have missed a shit ton of games over the last seven years.

Yes, of course it made it easier to beat them, but there doesn't exist any alternate reality where they weren't injured. That's a calculated risk you take when you build your team, and your playoff hopes, around a pair injury prone stars. You, as a Portland fan, should know that more than anyone.

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
But is it really luck if it's a common occurrence? Is it just bad luck that both CP3 and Blake Griffin have suffered a lot of injuries over the course of their careers, not just against us, but against other teams, too? Both of those guys have missed a shit ton of games over the last seven years.

Yes, of course it made it easier to beat them, but there doesn't exist any alternate reality where they weren't injured. That's a calculated risk you take when you build your team, and your playoff hopes, around a pair injury prone stars. You, as a Portland fan, should know that more than anyone.

BNM
Click to expand...
Thats a ton of typing just simply admit that we won because their two best players got hurt. Thats all I was asking. And we would have lost had we lost Dame and CJ.
 
HCP said:
Thats a ton of typing just simply admit that we won because their two best players got hurt. Thats all I was asking. And we would have lost had we lost Dame and CJ.
Click to expand...

But, neither of those things happened. Blake and CP3 were injured. Dame and C.J. weren't. Keep playing your what if games all you want. The reality is we beat them. I chose to accept reality.

I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with this. Did GSW have to give back the trophy and rings when they beat CLE without Love and Kyrie? Did they have to give them back last year when they beat the Spurs after Zaza took out Kawhi?

BNM
 
Boob-No-More said:
But, neither of those things happened. Blake and CP3 were injured. Dame and C.J. weren't. Keep playing your what if games all you want. The reality is we beat them. I chose to accept reality.

BNM
Click to expand...
Are you claiming I’m not being “real”? C’Mon FAMS.
 
HCP said:
Thats a ton of typing just simply admit that we won because their two best players got hurt. Thats all I was asking. And we would have lost had we lost Dame and CJ.
Click to expand...

One word answer:

Did the Pistons get better or worse after adding Griffin, who you claim was such a huge loss for the Clippers?

One word.
 
Boob-No-More said:
The reality is we beat the Clippers in 2016. Accept it.

BNM
Click to expand...
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.
 
HCP said:
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.
Click to expand...

Strawman. I've never said that. It has no bearing on the discussion.

BNM
 
Back on topic...

NBA playoffs 2018: Bracket picks, predictions for Western Conference first round
Sean Deveny - Sporting News


(3) Trail Blazers vs. (6) Pelicans
The backstory

Both the Trail Blazers and Pelicans had important games for seeding purposes on the final night of the season, and both came up with important wins. Now, though, the pressure is on the Blazers, who rolled through much of the second half of their schedule, including a 13-game winning streak, before petering out inexplicably in the final month.

Portland was just 5-7 to close the year, and with the Blazers expecting to make progress this season — that means at least a trip to the second round of the postseason — this series is a must-win. The Pelicans come in with five straight wins, and a playoff berth that may have saved the job of coach Alvin Gentry.

The key player

If you’re going to slow down the Pelicans, you have to contend with Anthony Davis, and that will be the job — for much of the game, at least — of center Jusuf Nurkic. The two have faced each other eight times, and Davis has averaged 27.1 points and 11.0 rebounds with 53.8 percent shooting in their matchups.

Nurkic can afford to let Davis get 25-27 points, but he needs to make him work for them and must stay out of foul trouble because the Blazers are low on frontcourt depth. If Nurkic can keep Davis in the 20s and chip in 12-15 points himself, Portland can let its two backcourt stars, Damian Lillard and C.J. McCollum, make the difference with their perimeter scoring.

The big number

12. The Trail Blazers are not a great 3-point shooting team, nor are they great at defending the 3-point line. But 12 is a key number for them. When they have made at least 12 3-pointers, Portland has gone 18-5 this year. When they have allowed opponents to make at least 12, Portland has gone 8-14.

The prediction

The Pelicans will make this one worth watching, especially if Davis can put up some huge scoring nights. But the lack of depth for New Orleans will be a problem, and will be enough to push Portland to a series win.

Trail Blazers win series 4-3
 
Strenuus said:
You know, for as much grief as you give Kingspeed, you actually do some of his act yourself.

:MARIS61:
Click to expand...
Please. EVERY fucking post of his is some sort of argumentative "I TOLD YOU SO" "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" bullshit. EVERY POST!
 
All I'm saying here is that we won a series because the other team lost their two best players is all. I don't think that is being argumentative JinxSpeed like by any means.
 
HCP said:
Please. EVERY fucking post of his is some sort of argumentative "I TOLD YOU SO" "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" bullshit. EVERY POST!
Click to expand...

I am staying out of this cesspool, but I have to see that your new selfie avatar is very attractive. You have never looked better, @HCP
 
HCP said:
Please. EVERY fucking post of his is some sort of argumentative "I TOLD YOU SO" "I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I" bullshit. EVERY POST!
Click to expand...

But wait, there's more!
 
HCP said:
I don't venture to the OT page much, what does the Strawman comment mean?
Click to expand...

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
 
Boob-No-More said:
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
Click to expand...
Nice. Good way to describe it.
 
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.
 
HCP said:
See this is what I’m talking about. It’s like a Trump supporter (which I’m not accusing you of being) when no matter what they back him up. Dude, it’s OK to say we got lucky in that series by the other team losing their two BEST players. It’s OK to say that’s why we won. It won’t make you any lesser of a Blazers fan bro. Had we lost Dame and CJ, this place would have been screaming about how THAT was the reason we lost the series right?
Click to expand...
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.

:cheers:
 
crandc said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top