Around the NBA - the 2020 Playoff Edition!

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
e_blazer said:
If Denver wants to compete for a title, Jokic has to learn not to foul so much. The game was pretty much decided when he picked up his 3rd foul early in the second quarter.
Click to expand...
Yeah that 3rd foul was a bad decision. He made a mistake. One of the few he makes but in this game it cost them dearly.
 
Tince said:
Good thing winners don't because (according to some) in the NBA, there is only 1 winner and 29 losers.
Click to expand...

May I humbly suggest that instead of "winner" we should use a term like "successful."

Denver lost to the Flakers, but they went farther than they did last season. The Suns still had a losing record, but were clearly better at the end of the season than the beginning. A team that is getting better can claim success, wouldn't you say?

Conversely, a team that got worse failed. At that point you have 2 options - recognize your problems and fix them, or make excuses. Which do you think is more effective?
 
Tince said:
Good thing winners don't because (according to some) in the NBA, there is only 1 winner and 29 losers.
Click to expand...

ok...but that Portland 'didn't-lose-any-worse-than-the-other-teams' excuse is one that wears out in a hurry. It's a one-off, IMO. The Blazers used it in 2014-15 when they got stomped by the eventual champion Spurs. Memphis crushed Portland the next season, then lost in 2nd round. Warriors crushed Portland the following season, then lost in the finals. Warriors swept the Blazers the next year and did win so there's the 2nd use of the same excuse. The Pelicans swept Portland and then lost in 2nd round. Warriors swept Portland the following year and lost in the finals.

so now, apparently, it's the 3rd time using that excuse, indicating little progress in 7 seasons, and we don't even know if the Lakers will win the finals yet.
 
Dom McBlazer said:
Congrats to your Lakers, @THE HCP !

@AldoTrapani , as long as Murray continues to progress, your Nuggets got a bright future.
Click to expand...
Yeah the Nuggets are in an extremely good position. I think they'll spend a lot of money to keep Grant but who knows what other FAs they bring back, maybe they bring back everyone if Millsap is ready to take a huge pay cut. If they pay Grant and he wants to stay they have a group of Murray, Harris, Porter, Grant, Jokic, Morris, Barton, Dozier and the omnipresent Cancar obviously that means they'll need some more front court help so they'll probably re-sign Plumlee and hell maybe they'll be the highest bidder for Millsap. If that all happened, they'd have the MLE to add another contributor to this team. Yikes!
 
wizenheimer said:
ok...but that Portland 'didn't-lose-any-worse-than-the-other-teams' excuse is one that wears out in a hurry. It's a one-off, IMO. The Blazers used it in 2014-15 when they got stomped by the eventual champion Spurs. Memphis crushed Portland the next season, then lost in 2nd round. Warriors crushed Portland the following season, then lost in the finals. Warriors swept the Blazers the next year and did win so there's the 2nd use of the same excuse. The Pelicans swept Portland and then lost in 2nd round. Warriors swept Portland the following year and lost in the finals.

so now, apparently, it's the 3rd time using that excuse, indicating little progress in 7 seasons, and we don't even know if the Lakers will win the finals yet.
Click to expand...
You know what's worn out in a hurry, people in here lumping last season's sweep by the Warriors with the rest of our playoff exits. We got swept, yes but it was the Western Conference Finals. I bet the Nuggets are feeling like they accomplished something pretty significant and they only won one game but making it to the penultimate round is not the same as getting swept out of the first round or the second round... in fact it's way better than losing in seven in either of those rounds. So in the future you might want to distinguish between the 2019 sweep and the other playoff exits of this team's current iteration.
 
wizenheimer said:
ok...but that Portland 'didn't-lose-any-worse-than-the-other-teams' excuse is one that wears out in a hurry. It's a one-off, IMO. The Blazers used it in 2014-15 when they got stomped by the eventual champion Spurs. Memphis crushed Portland the next season, then lost in 2nd round. Warriors crushed Portland the following season, then lost in the finals. Warriors swept the Blazers the next year and did win so there's the 2nd use of the same excuse. The Pelicans swept Portland and then lost in 2nd round. Warriors swept Portland the following year and lost in the finals.

so now, apparently, it's the 3rd time using that excuse, indicating little progress in 7 seasons, and we don't even know if the Lakers will win the finals yet.
Click to expand...
Not to mention; if Lakers had Rondo against Blazers; I think it would have been a lot worse for Blazers.
 
blazerkor said:
You know what's worn out in a hurry, people in here lumping last season's sweep by the Warriors with the rest of our playoff exits. We got swept, yes but it was the Western Conference Finals. I bet the Nuggets are feeling like they accomplished something pretty significant and they only won one game but making it to the penultimate round is not the same as getting swept out of the first round or the second round... in fact it's way better than losing in seven in either of those rounds. So in the future you might want to distinguish between the 2019 sweep and the other playoff exits of this team's current iteration.
Click to expand...

and if the Nuggets get swept in the 1st round next season, they won't be feeling so good about themselves anymore, and they shouldn't because it means most of the assumptions they were making about the meaning of a WCF appearance were hollow. The Blazer team that made it to the WCF 18 months ago is long gone. Kanter, Aminu, Harkless, Curry, Meyers, Turner, and Layman aren't Blazers any more. It's a new team now that just finished with the equivalent of a 39-43 record and then got crushed in the 1st round. Which result predicts more about the future...the one for a team that no longer exists, or the one for the team that mostly does? And yes, that's a segue into the injury excuse
 
wizenheimer said:
ok...but that Portland 'didn't-lose-any-worse-than-the-other-teams' excuse is one that wears out in a hurry. It's a one-off, IMO. The Blazers used it in 2014-15 when they got stomped by the eventual champion Spurs. Memphis crushed Portland the next season, then lost in 2nd round. Warriors crushed Portland the following season, then lost in the finals. Warriors swept the Blazers the next year and did win so there's the 2nd use of the same excuse. The Pelicans swept Portland and then lost in 2nd round. Warriors swept Portland the following year and lost in the finals.

so now, apparently, it's the 3rd time using that excuse, indicating little progress in 7 seasons, and we don't even know if the Lakers will win the finals yet.
Click to expand...

Who's using it as an excuse?

Portland is an above average team, not horrible, not the worst. For some that's acceptable, others, not so much.
 
Buffalo Custard said:
May I humbly suggest that instead of "winner" we should use a term like "successful."

Denver lost to the Flakers, but they went farther than they did last season. The Suns still had a losing record, but were clearly better at the end of the season than the beginning. A team that is getting better can claim success, wouldn't you say?

Conversely, a team that got worse failed. At that point you have 2 options - recognize your problems and fix them, or make excuses. Which do you think is more effective?
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

I know on here people talk about how last year we got swept out of the playoffs so it was just as bad as pervious years. I don't agree with that logic. Doesn't sound like you do either.

I think it is fair to look at our success (or lack there of) against the Lakers and how compare it to other teams to see just how far off we are from the likes of Houston, Denver, etc. Clearly we're a LONG ways from a title team, but maybe right there with the Denver's and Houston's of the world.

I'm not saying this should be the only way to determine this, but I do think if the Rockets took the Lakers to 7 and the Denver swept them, I would be a little more concerned.
 
wizenheimer said:
and if the Nuggets get swept in the 1st round next season, they won't be feeling so good about themselves anymore, and they shouldn't because it means most of the assumptions they were making about the meaning of a WCF appearance were hollow. The Blazer team that made it to the WCF 18 months ago is long gone. Kanter, Aminu, Harkless, Curry, Meyers, Turner, and Layman aren't Blazers any more. It's a new team now that just finished with the equivalent of a 39-43 record and then got crushed in the 1st round. Which result predicts more about the future...the one for a team that no longer exists, or the one for the team that mostly does? And yes, that's a segue into the injury excuse
Click to expand...
Oh I didn't think we were talking about projecting the future, I just thought we were talking about our team's failures/accomplishments and I just think that because we were swept out of the WCF a lot of people in here (you would be included because of your previous post) lump that in with our other playoff exits regardless of when they came. Every team wants to win the championship but the closer you come to approximating that goal the more successful you were. That's all I'm talking about, so many in here giving the team no credit for making the playoffs year in and year out and then once they do make a run in the playoffs, so many in here did't and still don't want to give them credit for that.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
Not to mention; if Lakers had Rondo against Blazers; I think it would have been a lot worse for Blazers.
Click to expand...
Rondo?!? What if we had Ariza and Zach? I'm not going to go back further than that to make all of the other injury excuses from this season, lets keep it recent, but don't come at us with "if Lakers had Rondo" blah blah blah. Rondo was hurt, Ariza wasn't even hurt and would have made a much bigger impact on that series than Rondo. Zach was hurt and again unlike Rondo for the Lakers, Zach starts for us.
 
I will never understand why so called fans of teams want to go out of their way to make one sided arguments to criticize "their team" and then turn around and make excuses for other teams. "Oh if the other team wouldn't have had injuries we never would have..." Then the same person, "I can't stand it when we use the injury excuse." I mean seriously it makes absolutely no sense. Why do fans of a team, our team... the Blazers in this instance, go out of their way to give their team absolutely no respect. It's maddening!
 
Last edited:
blazerkor said:
Rondo?!? What if we had Ariza and Zach? I'm not going to go back further than that to make all of the other injury excuses from this season, lets keep it recent, but don't come at us with "if Lakers had Rondo" blah blah blah. Rondo was hurt, Ariza wasn't even hurt and would have made a much bigger impact on that series than Rondo. Zach was hurt and again unlike Rondo for the Lakers, Zach starts for us.
Click to expand...
We were comparing how different teams had done against the Lakers in these playoffs. Rondo did not play against us, he did play against the other two teams. I don't think this has anything to do with Zach.
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
We were comparing how different teams had done against the Lakers in these playoffs. Rondo did not play against us, he did play against the other two teams. I don't think this has anything to do with Zach.
Click to expand...

I’ll take the impact of even just a healthy Dame vs the impact of Rondo.
 
blazerkor said:
Oh I didn't think we were talking about projecting the future,
Click to expand...

I'm always looking at that.

was last season more memorable than the season before it or this season? for sure, especially the series win against OKC and Dame's shot & wave. If all you want to do it look at each season as separate from other seasons, before and after, that's fine, I guess, but then I want to see each player have a 1 year contract based upon the previous season. But if players, and coaches, and GM's have multi-year contracts. then I'm going to be looking at the immediate future and judging things accordingly. And, with the relatively short shelf life on NBA careers, I have another reason to gauge the present in terms of going forward; the wick on Dame's prime is burning brightly right now, but it wont always be so.

in other words, I'm not going to gauge Portland by it's very best result in a 3 or 4 year span, or it's worst result for that matter, but by all results in that 3 or 4 years. Basing the future on a feel-good-high-water-mark rather than doing so realistically, is what led Portland to it's disastrous 2016 off-season; an off season they are still paying for

if people want to still celebrate a 2019 2nd round win over Denver in 2021 or 2022, that's fine. But that win nearly 1.5 years ago is not a valid shield against criticism & doubts of a different Blazer team...the current Blazer team. Portland beat Denver 18 months ago, Yay! Since then, they've gone 36-47, Boo! I'm gauging by both of those results
 
UKRAINEFAN said:
We were comparing how different teams had done against the Lakers in these playoffs. Rondo did not play against us, he did play against the other two teams. I don't think this has anything to do with Zach.
Click to expand...
It definitely does have a lot to do with Zach because we were one of the teams being compared and you brought up the fact that one of LA's players was injured and failed to mention that one of ours was injured and another was at home asking to play. In a fictional world where Rondo wasn't injured against us that would have made a difference in how successful we were against the Lakers but if we're going to operate in a fictional world why aren't we imagining that if both Zach and Ariza had played against the Lakers that would have made a vastly more significant difference in how successful we were against them than Rondo playing. It's like you are chomping at the bit to make up scenarios that make us look bad but don't want to recognize any scenario that makes us look better... it's preposterous.
 
wizenheimer said:
I'm always looking at that.

was last season more memorable than the season before it or this season? for sure, especially the series win against OKC and Dame's shot & wave. If all you want to do it look at each season as separate from other seasons, before and after, that's fine, I guess, but then I want to see each player have a 1 year contract based upon the previous season. But if players, and coaches, and GM's have multi-year contracts. then I'm going to be looking at the immediate future and judging things accordingly. And, with the relatively short shelf life on NBA careers, I have another reason to gauge the present in terms of going forward; the wick on Dame's prime is burning brightly right now, but it wont always be so.

in other words, I'm not going to gauge Portland by it's very best result in a 3 or 4 year span, or it's worst result for that matter, but by all results in that 3 or 4 years. Basing the future on a feel-good-high-water-mark rather than doing so realistically, is what led Portland to it's disastrous 2016 off-season; an off season they are still paying for

if people want to still celebrate a 2019 2nd round win over Denver in 2021 or 2022, that's fine. But that win nearly 1.5 years ago is not a valid shield against criticism & doubts of a different Blazer team...the current Blazer team. Portland beat Denver 18 months ago, Yay! Since then, they've gone 36-47, Boo! I'm gauging by both of those results
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I have no problem with you talking about the future and always keeping your eye on what's coming next but if you are going to do that, wouldn't it then behoove you to give the most weight to the more recent performances. Meaning getting swept by the Warriors probably shouldn't even be mentioned, getting swept by the Pelicans would hold very little weight, our run in the playoffs last year would hold some weight but the only thing of real importance is both what we did this season and what we have to look forward to next season which is where injury excuses or more so looking forward to fully healthy players and rotations become really valid.
 
blazerkor said:
It definitely does have a lot to do with Zach because we were one of the teams being compared and you brought up the fact that one of LA's players was injured and failed to mention that one of ours was injured and another was at home asking to play. In a fictional world where Rondo wasn't injured against us that would have made a difference in how successful we were against the Lakers but if we're going to operate in a fictional world why aren't we imagining that if both Zach and Ariza had played against the Lakers that would have made a vastly more significant difference in how successful we were against them than Rondo playing. It's like you are chomping at the bit to make up scenarios that make us look bad but don't want to recognize any scenario that makes us look better... it's preposterous.
Click to expand...

this is a bit of walking way out into the deep grass now

but, keeping things relatively the same, keep in mind that while Portland was missing Zach and Ariza, the Lakers were missing Rondo and Bradley. And they were missing Bradley for the same reason Portland was missing Ariza....player choice

and saying that the difference between Zach/Ariza is "vast" compared to Rondo/Bradley is kind of crazy. If any team was missing the best player out of the 4 it was the Lakers missing Rondo. He hasn't been dubbed "Playoff Rondo" for no reason. And of course, Denver was missing Will Barton. Zach may have helped a little on AD, and Ariza may have helped a little on Lebron. But Rondo and Bradley defending Dame and CJ would have made as least as big a difference for the Lakers as Portland having Zach and Ariza. In fact, the histories of Rondo/Bradley defense against Dame suggest the Lakers were missing more
 
Last edited:
blazerkor said:
You know what's worn out in a hurry, people in here lumping last season's sweep by the Warriors with the rest of our playoff exits. We got swept, yes but it was the Western Conference Finals. I bet the Nuggets are feeling like they accomplished something pretty significant and they only won one game but making it to the penultimate round is not the same as getting swept out of the first round or the second round... in fact it's way better than losing in seven in either of those rounds. So in the future you might want to distinguish between the 2019 sweep and the other playoff exits of this team's current iteration.
Click to expand...
According to some, we had a better playoff run than last year because we went out in 5 than in sweep. Stupid logic.
 
blazerkor said:
It definitely does have a lot to do with Zach because we were one of the teams being compared and you brought up the fact that one of LA's players was injured and failed to mention that one of ours was injured and another was at home asking to play. In a fictional world where Rondo wasn't injured against us that would have made a difference in how successful we were against the Lakers but if we're going to operate in a fictional world why aren't we imagining that if both Zach and Ariza had played against the Lakers that would have made a vastly more significant difference in how successful we were against them than Rondo playing. It's like you are chomping at the bit to make up scenarios that make us look bad but don't want to recognize any scenario that makes us look better... it's preposterous.
Click to expand...
wow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top