Why did Portland draft Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan?

by **J@3** on Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:37 am

Looking at it from an objective point of view, they probably should've taken Barkley.

by **Sauru** on Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:43 am

in hind sight its easy to say that but go back to when he was drafted. barkley was a way undersized power forward. the fact that he turned out so damn good only shows how much heart he had.

by **J@3** on Mon Jun 06, 2005 10:53 am

It is kind of funny when the big man they should've chosen looking back is actually shorter than the guard they didn't pick.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:02 pm

Even Sam Perkins (Dallas, 4th overall) would have been a better choice. Kevin Willis at 11th, John Stockton at 16th. But again, hindsight is 20/20.

by **Fresh8** on Mon Jun 06, 2005 5:58 pm

insight isnt 20/20... like andrew said...
here's a question... would MJ have become MJ if he were to play off the bench?

by **Sauru** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:04 am

that was easily the best draft ever(imo that is) they could have picked a host of players that would have worked out better. the thing is if you go back and ask the guys who drafted barkley or stockton or whoever, if you asked them if back then they could have picked bowie instead i guarentee they all would say yes. the only one who might say no is the bulls.

by **Drex** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:56 am

would MJ have become MJ if he were to play off the bench?

I'd said he probably would. MJ had so much passion for the game, he was always finding ways to become a better player. He got so motivated from being cut in his HS team, that probably he would've earned his starting spot.

by **Jeffx** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:54 am

Jae wrote:Looking at it from an objective point of view, they probably should've taken Barkley.

Not really, Jae. As all of us thought(back then), Portland needed a 7-footer to battle Kareem. Us so-called "experts" missed the boat on Sam Bowie.

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:01 pm

Bill Cusby wrote:here's a question... would MJ have become MJ if he were to play off the bench?

Possibly, as Drex said he had the drive and the determination, though he had a much greater impact having started from day one.

by **J@3** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 12:06 pm

Yeah I'm talking about looking at it from an objective point of view now... with hindsight and such. I mean they were stacked at the guard position and needed a paint player, thus looking back Barkley probably would've been the better pick.

by **beau_boy04** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 5:56 pm

Bill Cusby wrote:insight isnt 20/20... like andrew said...
here's a question... would MJ have become MJ if he were to play off the bench?

He would have had even a greater impact that what Ben Gordon was with the Bulls this season. Trust me on that one

by **Fenix** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:20 pm

beau_boy04 wrote:He would have had even a greater impact that what Ben Gordon was with the Bulls this season. Trust me on that one

He would have played more positions than Gordon (correct me if I'm wrong, but BG7 only played SG) coming off the bench -> more playing time. Oh. baby, a 20+ pts per game from a guy who isn't even in your starting lineup?

by **Metsis** on Tue Jun 07, 2005 8:26 pm

Sauru wrote:that was easily the best draft ever(imo that is) they could have picked a host of players that would have worked out better. the thing is if you go back and ask the guys who drafted barkley or stockton or whoever, if you asked them if back then they could have picked bowie instead i guarentee they all would say yes. the only one who might say no is the bulls.

The Bulls wanted a big guy... They just had to take Jordan as he was the best player left for them. They were hoping to get a center... So they would have said yes too.

Barkley... What a crazy dunking machine for a guy who's 6'4" tall... They always embelished a little and wrote down 6'6" as his height every where, but the man was barely 6'4"...

Just like KG is marked down as 6'11" as he's probably closer to 7'1"...

Let's call them measurement errors... It happens...

by **Jackal_** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:17 am

Will Sit wrote:They had Luc Longley, he dominated!

OK, first off Luc sucked guys. Sorry to burst your bubbles. Stats say it all. I found his career stats. Judge for yourself. I think any backup center in today's game is putting up better numbers.

Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/basket ... ayers/419/

This response is a little delayed, my apologies for that. Just felt the need to respond to it lol.

by **AlwaysWhat,NeverWhy** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:19 am

Luc wasn't much of a talent, but was a coach's guy and the cornerstone of Jackson's triangle offense... back then there weren't many passing big men like him that could have made the system work, so yes, he was indispensable to the Bulls...

by **Jackal_** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 10:21 am

Yeah his passing was good, and his turnover percentage was very low. Which is very important, but still wasn't considered a threat.

Good Ol' triangle offense, good thing you mentioned that. Didn't think of it.

by **J@3** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:43 pm

does it really matter, with the amount of championships they won with him as the starting C I don't think his turnover percentage matters at all.

by **Jackal_** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:11 pm

I was mentioning how it was very low...he sucked then and always will suck

And I'm pretty sure he had nothing to do with the championships the Bulls won. :idea:

Bluesky · by **Andrew** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:55 pm

Sucked? Nothing to do with the championships they won? I'm not about to argue he was a dominant centre but he was solid, his numbers were about the same as Cartwright's during the 91-93 seasons. He filled the lane, he scored when he needed to, he could defend. He was no superstar, but he was a solid role player which is all they need him to be. With all due respect, to say he sucked and had nothing to do with the championships is a pretty ignorant thing to say.

by **J@3** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:21 pm

No he's exactly right, I mean surely a team can win multiple championships with no C and only 4 players out on the court at a time.

by **COOLmac©** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:38 pm

^^^^^^ahhh the smell of sarcasm....IMO LUC owns KWAME (Y)

mr.longley has more basketball sense than this youngster

by **Jackal_** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:45 pm

Ignorant, just my opinion bud

I used to love the bulls, and Longley just didn't do as well as I thought he should. Technically he won those championships therefore making him a part of the successful team. But I'm sure any other center could've done what he did. And Jae, again you find a way to jump on my ass

Something about a bandwagon?

by **Jackal_** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:53 pm

I'm just playin wit you man, I was just never a fan of Longley.

by **Metsis** on Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:41 pm

Longley wasn't too special, but most of the big men are just that. They are big, and have some skills, but they're not good enough to be stars on their teams... When you get a big man with talent and star potential, you hang onto them with your life... Ewing, Olajuwon, Mutombo, Robinson etc. All played most, if not all of their careers for the same team... They were very good players and they were big and that made them superstars...

Andrew coming over to defend his fellow Australian... No wonder... He was good and probably one of the best players to come out of Australia, but he didn't play such a pivotal role for the bulls as Jordan or Pippen. He was a good support for them to win games and probably would have lost some games had he not been around.

by **cyanide** on Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:47 am

Legend, always trying to stir up controversy, eh? :lol:

Why did Portland draft Sam Bowie instead of Michael Jordan?

Who is online