Rank the Blazers Best Postseasons

[DusterBuster]

76-77 Championship (4-2 against Sixers)
89-90 Finals (1-4 against Pistons)
90-91 Conf Finals (2-4 against Lakers)
91-92 Finals (2-4 against Bulls)
98-99 Conf Finals (Swept by Spurs)
99-00 Conf Finals (.... you all know)
18-19 Conf Finals (Swept by Warriors)

The latest Rip City Report had an interesting debate about where this Blazers offseason ranks among the Blazers deepest playoff runs. What says the RealGM Blazers Board?

[Wizenheimer]

is this for off-season or post-season?

[DusterBuster]

is this for off-season or post-season?

Post, good catch!

[Moonbeam]

76-77 Championship (4-2 against Sixers)
89-90 Finals (1-4 against Pistons)
90-91 Conf Finals (2-4 against Lakers)
91-92 Finals (2-4 against Bulls)
98-99 Conf Finals (Swept by Spurs)
99-00 Conf Finals (.... you all know)
18-19 Conf Finals (Swept by Warriors)

The latest Rip City Report had an interesting debate about where this Blazers offseason ranks among the Blazers deepest playoff runs. What says the RealGM Blazers Board?

Depends on the criterion, I"d say.

Best team?

I'd probably go:

1991-92
1976-77
1999-00
1990-91
1989-90
1998-99
2018-19

Best performance?

1976-77
1990-91
1989-90
1999-00
2018-19
1998-99
1990-91 (this team underperformed relative to expectations)

Most fun? I wasn't around for the 1976-77 Blazers, but for the others:

1989-90
2018-19
1991-92
1998-99
1990-91
1999-00

[ImABlazerFan]

Moonbeam nailed it.

[mojomarc]

I'd actually argue that 90-91 was a better team than 91-92. Playoff performance, I'd agree 91-92 was better. But I would rank 89-90 as a better overall performance because the team was not expected to perform like they did. And I think 99-00 is very underrated in terms of the playoff performance. They should have been in the finals and almost definitely would have won if not for the collapse in game 7 (and some fishy refereeing, although not nearly as bad as with Sacramento a few years later).

[Tim Lehrbach]

It's too bad the 2000 team is remembered pretty much exclusively for the collapse. They took care of business in the first two rounds against solid competition and adapted after being hit hard by the 67-win Shaq/Kobe Lakers to be in a position to win the series (and quite probably the championship), but were undone by one quarter. Obviously it was a massive choke, but that team played at a championship level for 63 quarters. Dunleavy is not credited much for his coaching that postseason, either, which is also a shame.

The '77 team is tops for taking home the crown, of course, and the '90 and '92 teams get the nod for making the Finals (and by beating some teams that were better than the '00 Wolves and Jazz, at that), but the 2000 squad is definitely deserving of its place in history as one of the best ever to fall short of the title. In my memory (my earliest Blazers memories being the 1990 team), only the 1996 Sonics, some iteration of the 2003-2007 Mavericks, 2005-2007 Suns, and 2016 Thunder were clearly better teams that never won the title (either in the subject year or with basically the same core in another year). I think they were better than the Jazz finalists, the Nets finalists, the '02 Kings, the 90s Knicks, Magic, and Pacers, pre-Duncan Spurs, etc. Probably a "weak" champion if they'd closed the deal, but a unique and impressive squad for sure.

I don't know why I'm going on about this. Not like we haven't beaten nostalgia for that team to death a million times on here.

[d-train]

What bothers me about the so-called collapse is we were down 3-1 in that series and came back to nearly win. I don't know how a near legendary comeback against a superior opponent is so universally sold as a collapse. The collapse was how close Lakers came to letting it slip away.