Why did Portland draft Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan?

Read this to get a bit of enlightenment on why..

I don't want to be harsh or rude, but this is old, old news. But what I find funny is how quickly people forget the players draft after Michael. At #4, went Michael's college teammate, Sam Perkins. And after Perkins was Sir Charles. Michael wasn't the only star the Blazers passed on (John Stockon was drafted later in the first round as well).

Same with other posts that argue who's the greatest this or that or other posts that have been debated countless times in the forum.

Portland did pass a lot of stars during the draft but the article I posted explains why they did pass them up.

"The world repeats itself"

The irony is that Michael himself drafted a disappointing 7 footer in Kwame.

Just one of those little things in life that keep you laughing.

Hindsight is indeed 20/20. No one, not even the Bulls expected Michael Jordan to have the impact that he did, no one could have forseen Bowie's injury-plagued career either. In that respect, it's a little unfair to criticise Dr Ramsey and suggest he made a terrible blunder. But we can still look back on it and consider it a blown opportunity.

Same with other posts that argue who's the greatest this or that or other posts that have been debated countless times in the forum.

Portland did pass a lot of stars during the draft but the article I posted explains why they did pass them up.

"The world repeats itself"

I wouldn't say you're comparing apples and oranges, but the two aren't the same thing. When an argument occurs regarding the best ______, there are a myriad of points that could possibly be made. Some debates bring out now prespectives, stats that seem to get overlooked, etc. On the other hand, the article basically states a widely accepted idea, so far that it could almost be called a fact. I could easily write and post an article that claims Detroit drafted Darko Milicic based on potential and the lack of a serious need elsewhere, but don't we already know that? I don't mean to sound patronizing, but unlike threads such as "KG vs. TD" or "T-Mac vs. Kobe" (which I do believe have been a few too many times), there really is no argument to make.

One cannot exactly call PDX stupid for drafting need over talent. We see this occur quite often. Sometimes, it backfires, other times it doesn't.

Come to think of it, probably not even Jordan knew how good he was by that time. Players always get better with time, hard work, dedication and so many other qualities and I think that's why Michael Jordan turned out to be Michael Jordan.

If you had Wilt/Shaq, MJ and LeBron in the same draft - who would you pick if you had #1?

If I knew their how they'd turn out, I'd pick Jordan. That's if I knew he'd turn out to be the Jordan we know him as. Duh.

If I didn't know he'd be as good as he became, I'd pick Shaq. Time and time again it's proven that big men win championships, without knowing what MJ could become, he could just be any other guard & guards don't win championships. (Unless it's MJ ofcourse, which in this case we didn't know.)

Hell, that was confusing.

Well, I would chose Shaq and LBJ over MJ. That would make me a heretic, wouldn't it? And why would I do that, exactly? Is easier to keep Shaq lean and motivated and surround him with proper role players (and one really good one) than teach a young Jordan how to play team game or find him complementary players (such as Pippen). And as for the King James's case - I believe he has much, much more potential than the young Jordan. And above all, he already is a team player.

I just noticed by watching some of the old finals: you really cannot win a championship without a dominant post player, but it doesn't neccessarily have to be a center or a power forward. Jordan dominated post as a 6'6'' guard.

Detroit never had a dominant post player

Detroit never had a dominant post player

Smartass . Of course they did. Well... M'kay, you win. But just until I get a couple of their games.

(Oh, speaking of Pistons - the 2004 edition that is - could Rasheed be considered as a 'dominant post player'?)

There are only a few guards that can dominate in the post, MJ being one of the few.

Rasheed could be considered as a threat down low, he can score & defend down low. Ben is there to grab boards so that also helps.

Detroit doesn't really win by dominating the post, they win by clamping down on the players surrounding the dominant player. One man can't win a basketball game, Detroit's figured that much out. They know that if they shut down the supporting cast, there's only so much that one man can do.

If Detroit plays SA, I'm guessing they wont double Duncan, they'll let him do his thing, they'll try to shut down the supporting cast.

Sam Bowie did NOT have three point range. Credibility OVER!

Sam Bowie did NOT have three point range. Credibility OVER!

Jordan didn't have it either .

haha ask the 1992 portland trailblazers about jordan's 3 pt range!

haha ask the 1992 portland trailblazers about jordan's 3 pt range!

I meant that he didn't hava a 3pt range when he came into the league.

Compare him to a guy like Reggie Miller who made 3's all the time (he came to mind first), Jordan does not have 3 point range. His bread and butter is the mid-range shot, hence why there are so many pictures of him with his follow through still up, watching the ball go through the net from the free throw line.

Dominant in terms of offense? I don't think it's needed to win a championship.

Dominant in terms of defense? Absolutely. Detroit did have dominant paint players in terms of raw defense & hustle, Laimbeer & Rodman. Gonna try to outrebound Laimbeer & Rodman in their primes? Good luck & kiss your teeth goodbye.

Remember it was Rodman who guarded Jordan when the Bulls were the whipping boys for Detroit, and it was that team that convinced Jordan he couldn't win a championship with the way he was playing. Without Detroit, i doubt Jordan would have accepted Tex's triangle system which turns guards into passers & outside shooters.

The only semi-anomoly in terms of championships without dominant big men was the Bulls, and they did have 1 very good one each run...Grant and then Rodman. But that was about it. But their freakishly good perimeter (jordan/pippen) probably offset their below average interior (for a dynasty team).

I wouldn't really class Dennis Rodman as a big man, either. He was listed at 6'8" 220, most people believed he was really closer to 6'6". Neither Rodman nor Grant are big men in the Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem sense.

Oh, speaking of Pistons - the 2004 edition that is - could Rasheed be considered as a 'dominant post player'

whenever he decides to venture into the post and quit lazying around then yeah he's dominant....sadly, he must have been seperated at the hip from Antoine Walker

At that time, I thought Portland made the right move. My friends & I believed Bowie would be a superstar. And Portland needed a big man to combat Kareem & the Lakers.

I wouldn't really class Dennis Rodman as a big man, either. He was listed at 6'8" 220, most people believed he was really closer to 6'6". Neither Rodman nor Grant are big men in the Wilt/Shaq/Hakeem sense.

Around here, "big man" = paint player, not just 7 footer. Rebounds, defends, brings strength to a team. A rebound is a rebound, a block is a block, doesn't matter if it comes from 6' 6" Barkley or 7' 6" Yao Ming.

Sheed is a nice player, but Detroit's dominant big man is Ben Wallace without a doubt.

I think too much emphasis is put on where someone's cranium lies unless someone is going to block a shot with their forehead. Wingspan is just as important as height.

Absolutely, but in basketball the term "big man" refers to the biggest players, and that doesn't include guys like Rodman and Barkley. They were big forces, they rebounded like big men. But apart from the rebounding, Rodman was more like a small forward than a big man. Barkley posted up a lot more, but his game was still much more multi-faceted than most big men. In any case, neither are big men in the mold of Wilt, Kareem, Hakeem or Shaq.