Series Thread: 2nd Round:Portland Trail Blazers (44-38) vs Golden State Warriors (73-9)

[gohusk]

The fact still remains the Blazers out played the Warriors. You can't use "Steph was out" as a defense of that. The Warriors from a talent perspective were still superior to the Blazers, even without Steph being there. The Blazers provided a great challenge to the Warriors because of their offensive fire power.

No they didn't. They lost the series 4-1. You don't think the Blazers being gassed late in the game because they were going all out early had something to do with that?

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

The fact still remains the Blazers out played the Warriors. You can't use "Steph was out" as a defense of that. The Warriors from a talent perspective were still superior to the Blazers, even without Steph being there. The Blazers provided a great challenge to the Warriors because of their offensive fire power.

Actually, yes I most certainly can....and I did.

It's a fact, as far as that lead per minutes stat goes...imho

FTR: I'm not trying to take away anything from the Blazers, or minimize how far they came this year when no one even had them making the playoffs. But let's get really real here..they dodged a bullet in the 1st round w/ Blake & CP3 getting hurt in the middle of that series..and props to them for capitalizing on it. They grew up a lot in both series'..and will be a much tougher team down the road because of it.

 

[CitySushi]

No they didn't. They lost the series 4-1. You don't think the Blazers being gassed late in the game because they were going all out early had something to do with that?

If the Blazers lead for an entire game, and the Warriors win in it in the last 2 minutes, does it change the fact for the majority of the game the Blazers outplayed them? How do you not comprehend that?

Game 2, the Blazers lead, by double digits for most of the entire game, with the Warriors coming back to beat them in big fashion in the 4th. Game 3 the Blazers beat the Warriors. Game 4, the Warriors were down until Steph went into Steph mode in the 4th quarter and overtime. Game 5, the Blazers held a double digit lead at one point and lead most of the game for that as well.

Putting on homer glasses doesn't change anything. The Warriors came out ahead because they remained composed and trusted each other to get it together at the end of the games, which they did.

The Blazers were the better team but for a large portion of each game, minus game 1, they outplayed the Warriors. That's undeniable.

 

[CitySushi]

Actually, yes I most certainly can....and I did.

It's a fact, as far as that lead per minutes stat goes...imho

FTR: I'm not trying to take away anything from the Blazers, or minimize how far they came this year when no one even had them making the playoffs. But let's get really real here..they dodged a bullet in the 1st round w/ Blake & CP3 getting hurt in the middle of that series..and props to them for capitalizing on it. They grew up a lot in both series'..and will be a much tougher team down the road because of it.

So you're basically using the same theory Cavs fans(and other fan bases as well) are using to discount the Warriors success last year by saying the Warriors are a fraudulent champion because they played teams that were injured.

Same principle applies here.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

So you're basically using the same theory Cavs fans(and other fan bases as well) are using to discount the Warriors success last year by saying the Warriors are a fraudulent champion because they played teams that were injured.

Same principle applies here.

Nope.....not even close.

That's an apples & oranges strawman you're choosing to insert into this. And I won't waste time splitting hairs over the many differences between the 2.

I was merely pointing to the minutes/lead differential...and why it was a weird, but interesting stat.

Nothing more.

Time to focus on the next round now.

 

[bksballer89]

If the Blazers lead for an entire game, and the Warriors win in it in the last 2 minutes, does it change the fact for the majority of the game the Blazers outplayed them? How do you not comprehend that?

Game 2, the Blazers lead, by double digits for most of the entire game, with the Warriors coming back to beat them in big fashion in the 4th. Game 3 the Blazers beat the Warriors. Game 4, the Warriors were down until Steph went into Steph mode in the 4th quarter and overtime. Game 5, the Blazers held a double digit lead at one point and lead most of the game for that as well.

Putting on homer glasses doesn't change anything. The Warriors came out ahead because they remained composed and trusted each other to get it together at the end of the games, which they did.

The Warriors were the better team but for a large portion of each game, minus game 1, they outplayed the Warriors. That's undeniable.

This is why you're my favorite Warriors fan

 

[CitySushi]

Nope.....not even close.

That's an apples & oranges strawman you're choosing to insert into this. And I won't waste time splitting hairs over the many differences between the 2.

Well I'm just trying to be consistent in my views of injuries. They happen either beneficially for the team you root for or adversely. You either universally accept that injuries affect the outcome of games or you deny it. I choose to deny it based on injuries being out of the player's control. The Warriors won the series, but were outplayed by the Blazers for most of it. There's really no reason to interject and say "well, yeah only because Steph was out". Otherwise that same principle applies to every series the Warriors played last year. I just acknowledge the Blazers for what they did. They couldn't help that Steph was out.

 

[Tai Chi≈Surfing]

Well I'm just trying to be consistent in my views of injuries. They happen either beneficially for the team you root for or adversely. You either universally accept that injuries affect the outcome of games or you deny it. I choose to deny it based on injuries being out of the player's control. The Warriors won the series, but were outplayed by the Blazers for most of it. There's really no reason to interject and say "well, yeah only because Steph was out". Otherwise that same principle applies to every series the Warriors played last year. I just acknowledge the Blazers for what they did. They couldn't help that Steph was out.

Well the Dubs did win 2 games w/o their main chef in the kitchen.....so it's more or less a wash.
In closing: Yes..I'll repeat....Major props to the "blaze ups" for being a formidable opponent.

 

[Heatles84]

This is why you're my favorite Warriors fan

He's pretty okay.

 

[The Oldtimer]

The fact still remains the Blazers out played the Warriors. You can't use "Steph was out" as a defense of that. The Warriors from a talent perspective were still superior to the Blazers, even without Steph being there. The Blazers provided a great challenge to the Warriors because of their offensive fire power.

Sorry, but who gives a rat's ass if a team out plays the other team, if they lose the game. How can a team out play another team and still lose?

 

[gohusk]

If the Blazers lead for an entire game, and the Warriors win in it in the last 2 minutes, does it change the fact for the majority of the game the Blazers outplayed them? How do you not comprehend that?

Game 2, the Blazers lead, by double digits for most of the entire game, with the Warriors coming back to beat them in big fashion in the 4th. Game 3 the Blazers beat the Warriors. Game 4, the Warriors were down until Steph went into Steph mode in the 4th quarter and overtime. Game 5, the Blazers held a double digit lead at one point and lead most of the game for that as well.

Putting on homer glasses doesn't change anything. The Warriors came out ahead because they remained composed and trusted each other to get it together at the end of the games, which they did.

The Blazers were the better team but for a large portion of each game, minus game 1, they outplayed the Warriors. That's undeniable.

Scoreboard. The Warriors won those games because of depth. It doesn't matter who's leading after the 3rd quarter. The fact was that the Blazers legs were a lot more tired than the W's at the end of the games. You don't gameplan for 46 minutes.

 

[bksballer89]

Sorry, but who gives a rat's ass if a team out plays the other team, if they lose the game. How can a team out play another team and still lose?

Easily

 

[The Oldtimer]

Easily

Okay, if you say so.

 

[elw4corps]

Okay, if you say so.

No, bksballer is right you can be outplayed majority of a game and still come away with a win. I mean go back and watch that usc-texas championship game and tell me that usc did not outplay them majority of that game. (i am assuming you are from la due to your teams.)

 

[aar000n]

opps

 

[The Oldtimer]

No, bksballer is right you can be outplayed majority of a game and still come away with a win. I mean go back and watch that usc-texas championship game and tell me that usc did not outplay them majority of that game. (i am assuming you are from la due to your teams.)

Yes I am an old USC fan. Bksballer has the right to say what he said about a team out playing a team and still losing. In reference to that USC-Texas Championship game, IMO USC DID NOT out play Texas in that game, if they had they would have beaten Texas.

 

[CitySushi]

Scoreboard. The Warriors won those games because of depth. It doesn't matter who's leading after the 3rd quarter. The fact was that the Blazers legs were a lot more tired than the W's at the end of the games. You don't gameplan for 46 minutes.

Dude, I'm a Warriors fan. I'm not saying the Warriors are garbage, just acknowledging that they struggled for large portions of each game against the Blazers. If you didn't see that, then I'm not sure what game you were watching.

In the end the Warriors prevailed because of the exact reasons you said, depth and more importantly experience. They never got tight when they were down and they kept trusting that eventually things would swing in their favor if they continued to play the game right.

All I was saying is that playing from behind each game, especially against better teams like OKC, isn't a winning recipe. The Blazers held the edge for much of the game and in the next series and going forward, the Warriors can't continue to dig themselves a hole.

 

[gohusk]

Dude, I'm a Warriors fan. I'm not saying the Warriors are garbage, just acknowledging that they struggled for large portions of each game against the Blazers. If you didn't see that, then I'm not sure what game you were watching.

In the end the Warriors prevailed because of the exact reasons you said, depth and more importantly experience. They never got tight when they were down and they kept trusting that eventually things would swing in their favor if they continued to play the game right.

All I was saying is that playing from behind each game, especially against better teams like OKC, isn't a winning recipe. The Blazers held the edge for much of the game and in the next series and going forward, the Warriors can't continue to dig themselves a hole.

I'm trying to give the blazers some credit here. They came out to play with guns a blazing the entire game. That's playoff basketball but they couldn't pull it off for 48 minutes. The W's stuck with theirs for 48 minutes and won it 4-1. I don't know how many times I said to myself "just take the easy 2" down the stretch but the W's stuck stubbornly to the 3 and they came out on top. Kerr's a great coach. All the players are dialed into sticking with the game plan for 48 minutes because it's the game plan that got them 73 wins. I wish it were 4 blowouts instead of nail biters but this is the playoffs. Blazers came out and played legit basketball and basically threw the kitchen sink at the W's. They got one win which at the end of the day is the only thing that matters.

 

[trojanfan12]

How can a team out play another team and still lose?

Not sure why this is hard for some folks to grasp (not just you). If, for example, a team goes into the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead, then the team they are playing outscores them by 11 in the 4th quarter to win the game. It can be said that the team that lost played better for 3 quarters, but fell apart in the 4th.

Heck, we saw USC do that several times during the schollie reductions.

 

[Mecca]

Sorry, but who gives a rat's ass if a team out plays the other team, if they lose the game. How can a team out play another team and still lose?

* see the 15 OKC 4th quarter meltdowns this Season