# If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?



## lanqiu (Dec 8, 2002)

I am thinking about who have more impact on a Champinoship team, the high-flying small superstars or the dominant centers. 

I think the wingman may have more highlights or better stats but the slow big guys are the most important.

So I think Drafting Hakeem ahead of Jordan was a right decision even we look back.

People can argue that Jordan has six rings, but he also had another superstar--Pippen with him all the time. Hakeem got his rings, sort of, singlehandly.


----------



## Devestata (May 29, 2002)

I wouldn't exactly calling having Cassell (who was just a rookie, but played big), and a younger Horry no one. I believe they also had Clyde on the team, and he's a HOFer.


----------



## rynobot (Oct 10, 2002)

clyde was there for number two, but they had Kenny Smith


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

would depend on my team of course. starting from scratch i would definitely be tempted by the dream but would opt for jordan. jordan hands down if we're taking the team's finances into consideration. otherwise, i guess i draft for needs but i think jordan gets the nod more often than not, despite the abundance of wing players and the weakness at the center position.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lanqiu</b>!
> I think the wingman may have more highlights or better stats but the slow big guys are the most important.


So, would you draft Darko Milicic over LeBron James?


----------



## LionsFan01 (Aug 7, 2002)

Definitely Olajuwan. There are plenty of talented guards and small forwards in this league but how many truly dominating centers like Olajuwan was are there today? Not many. Shaq is coming off an injury and Robinson is aging. Heck most of the players big enough to play center are just 7 foot swingmen. If you want to build a franchise around someone, do it around a dominating big man.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

I would draft Milicic over Lebron.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>lanqiu</b>!
> I am thinking about who have more impact on a Champinoship team, the high-flying small superstars or the dominant centers.
> 
> I think the wingman may have more highlights or better stats but the slow big guys are the most important.
> ...




You guys have got to be kidding me. I really cannot believe what I'm reading. 

I'm not faulting the Rockets for picking Olajuwon, but MJ turned a team around and made it one of the best teams and one of the most powerful dynasties in the history of the NBA.

Sure, it's easier to find a star wing man than a dominant center, but this isn't a star wing man we're talking about here; this is MICHAEL FREAKING JORDAN, the greatest player to ever play the game!



> Originally posted by <b>lanqiu</b>!
> People can argue that Jordan has six rings, but he also had another superstar--Pippen with him all the time. Hakeem got his rings, sort of, singlehandly.


The key here is that he won his rings when Jordan wasn't playing! I don't think ANYONE can argue that Houston would have won those championships if Jordan hadn't left. And by the way, though Jordan did have Pippen, Houston had a very deep team.


----------



## Vinsanity (May 28, 2002)

I would draft Jordan without hesitation


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

Hey why was Sam Bowie left out of this question?

-Petey


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Come on Petey, what's the use of putting Sam Bowie in the question?

It is a given that we would pick Sam Bowie first if we had to do it over again...let's at least make it interesting and keep it between that Jordan guy and Mr. Olajuwon.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> Come on Petey, what's the use of putting Sam Bowie in the question?
> 
> It is a given that we would pick Sam Bowie first if we had to do it over again...let's at least make it interesting and keep it between that Jordan guy and Mr. Olajuwon.


Oh, I see, so true, very well.

-Petey


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?*



> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> The key here is that he won his rings when Jordan wasn't playing! I don't think ANYONE can argue that Houston would have won those championships if Jordan hadn't left. And by the way, though Jordan did have Pippen, Houston had a very deep team.


Last I checked, Jordan was playing in 95. We swept the team that beat him. Yeah, he only had a month and a half until the playoffs, but if the "world's greatest player" can't be ready to go all out after one and a half months of regular season basketball, he's not as great as you say he is.

Also, considering the Rockets head to head record against the Bulls in the early 1990's, there's a very strong argument. There's just as much of a case for saying in other years that "if Houston hadn't had these injuries" maybe Jordan wouldn't have won those championships.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?*



> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> 
> 
> Last I checked, Jordan was playing in 95. We swept the team that beat him. Yeah, he only had a month and a half until the playoffs, but if the "world's greatest player" can't be ready to go all out after one and a half months of regular season basketball, he's not as great as you say he is.
> ...




I can't believe I'm reading this. For you to even suggest that the Bulls were as good in 95 as they would have been if Jordan had never left is absolutely absurd. I don't care how great Jordan is HE DID NOT PLAY BASKETBALL FOR MORE THAN A YEAR AND A HALF! Not only that, but the Bulls had to readjust to having Jordan back, and the team chemistry wasn't as good as it had been in the past, nor what it would be in the future.


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?*



> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm... so what about 1996? When Cassell, Elie, and Olajuwon all suffered serious injuries, and only returned in the last month of the season, giving them two weeks to prepare for the playoffs? The rest of the team had to adjust to them being back. The team chemistry wasn't as good. There's just as strong of case to say the Bulls won because of those Rockets' injuries as there is to say the Rockets won cause Jordan only started playing later in the season.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?*



> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> 
> 
> Hmm... so what about 1996? When Cassell, Elie, and Olajuwon all suffered serious injuries, and only returned in the last month of the season, giving them two weeks to prepare for the playoffs? The rest of the team had to adjust to them being back. The team chemistry wasn't as good. There's just as strong of case to say the Bulls won because of those Rockets' injuries as there is to say the Rockets won cause Jordan only started playing later in the season.



But the biggest difference is that the Bulls in 96 were absolutely dominant. It wouldn't have mattered if those guys weren't injured, because the Bulls were easily the best team in the league that year. Also, there's a huge difference between coming back from an injury and coming back after not having played for a year and a half. In 95, there was no dominant team in the NBA. There is no reason to think the Bulls wouldn't have won it if Jordan had never left.


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If you can redo it? who were you going to draft, Oladruwan or Jordan?*



> Originally posted by <b>The Truth</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> But the biggest difference is that the Bulls in 96 were absolutely dominant. It wouldn't have mattered if those guys weren't injured, because the Bulls were easily the best team in the league that year. Also, there's a huge difference between coming back from an injury and coming back after not having played for a year and a half. In 95, there was no dominant team in the NBA. There is no reason to think the Bulls wouldn't have won it if Jordan had never left.


And the Rockets in the playoff run of 94-95 were absolutely dominant. They were the *No masked cursing* 6th seed, and they dominated the league. They came back from down 3-1, winning two games on the road in Phoenix. They ripped out David Robinson and the Spurs' hearts, on their floor when he won MVP. They swept the Magic in convincing fashion. What more did they need to do?

There's no reason to think the Bulls beat the Rockets, since the Rockets consistently owned them in head to head matchups, and never met in the Finals.


----------



## Jason Caffeine (May 31, 2002)

Bulls woulda won in their sleep.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

No use crying over spilled milk. History is done, Olajuwon begat Bowie, who begat Jordan. Let's remember that Jordan played in Dean Smith's system at UNC, and never averaged more than 20 points in college. His college career is remembered for hitting the winning jumper in the NCAA championship, but that team was lead by Worthy and Sam Perkins, not the precocious freshman. Jordan never won another NCAA title w/o Worthy. Olajuwon's teams had great success in the NCAA, a miracle dunk from Shackleford away from winning his own title. 

It's easy to look back and say who made the mistake. Myself, I would've selected Olajuwon with no remorse. He was a sure thing. Bowie was less of a sure thing, but it's hard to pass up an athletic big man with a lot of potential.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

Hmmm... let's see..... do I......

1) Draft the greatest athlete of the 20th century? OR
2) Draft the #5 or #6 best center ever in the NBA?

I think I'll take number one. 6 rings. Blah blah blah.





VD


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

*Top 10 teams of all time.*

http://www.nba.com/history/toptenteams_index.html

Well, looks like the Dream and the Rockets are missing.... And speaking of '96, a certain Bulls team was on the list as well as '93.

p.s. I will say that this thread did teach me a new usuage of the word, dominate. Very interesting.


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

Last I checked the true definition of a team's dominance came in the playoffs, not the regular season...

Oh, and there's just a strong a case that Jordan isn't the "greatest athlete ever" as there is to say Hakeem is the "5th or 6th greatest center ever". I saw Hakeem during his prime, and I would be stunned if there was one greater center in league history, much less five.


----------



## tenkev (Jun 12, 2002)

Michael's team did win 55 games without him. Of course they are gonna win the title when he came back. That's like adding Kobe to the Spurs.


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> Last I checked the true definition of a team's dominance came in the playoffs, not the regular season...
> 
> Oh, and there's just a strong a case that Jordan isn't the "greatest athlete ever" as there is to say Hakeem is the "5th or 6th greatest center ever". I saw Hakeem during his prime, and I would be stunned if there was one greater center in league history, much less five.


Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, Russell.....

you rate Hakeem ahead of any of these guys? puh-lease.




VD


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, Russell.....
> ...


I rate Hakeem well over the Shaq he schooled in the NBA finals, and the Shaq that depends on a player like Kobe or Penny to win. Shaq's virtually a non-option in the last six minutes of a game because of his free throw problems, and that's a huge negative that is rarely exposed because of Kobe.

Also, Hakeem *in his prime* was a more dominant player than Kareem, imo. I won't speak about Wilt and Russell, since I didn't watch them play...


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

Well shaq just got into the league those years and he did do a decent job.

If you match them up at their respective seasons into the league, shaq would dominate hakeem.


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KennethTo</b>!
> Well shaq just got into the league those years and he did do a decent job.
> 
> If you match them up at their respective seasons into the league, shaq would dominate hakeem.


If that were true, you'd think Shaq himself (as cocky as he is) would admit it, instead of saying that Hakeem was the greatest player he ever played against...

And statistically, Shaq was actually *better* then than he is now. The only reason he's winning championships now is that he has Kobe Bryant with him. 

While not all of a player's improvements can be found in statistics, it's pretty damn rare that a player averaging almost the *exact same* stats can go from being dominated to dominating a player (the same one) over the course of a few years.


----------



## Scuall (Jul 25, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Hakeem *in his prime* was a more dominant player than Kareem, imo. I won't speak about Wilt and Russell, since I didn't watch them play...


Just wondering... did you watch Kareem in his prime. Not the mid-80s elderly Kareem (although he was still arguably the best center in the game), but rather the mid-70s Bucks Kareem?


----------



## superdave (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> 
> 
> I rate Hakeem well over the Shaq he schooled in the NBA finals, and the Shaq that depends on a player like Kobe or Penny to win. Shaq's virtually a non-option in the last six minutes of a game because of his free throw problems, and that's a huge negative that is rarely exposed because of Kobe.
> ...


LMAO.

You rate Hakeem over Shaq eh? The '95 Finals were the 3rd NBA season for O'Neal, he hardly had the all-around offensive game he had during the past 3 titles. Shaq in his prime (now) would kill Olajuwon.

And now you are rating Hakeem above Kareem? 6 titles, 6 time MVP, and the NBA's all time leading scorer? Oh yes.... Kareem wasn't a more dominant player than Hakeem. Oh yeah, my bad. 



VD


----------



## Hollis (Jun 4, 2002)

I don't know for sure about putting him #1, but he'd definitely be top 3 in my book....

Put Shaq(prime) vs. Hakeem(prime), and you'd have a pretty darn good matchup.....I doubt Shaq would "dominate" like some of you say he would....Shaq couldn't guard Hakeem, and Hakeem would have trouble guarding Shaq. Fair?


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

You have to take Jordan if you look back. Jordan is the greatest player ever. How could you not take the greatest player ever. By that very definition you would be an idiot if you did not take him. This is if you look back of course, but that was the original question.


----------



## The Cat (Jul 14, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Vin Diesel</b>!
> 
> 
> LMAO.
> ...


He's the all-time leading scorer because of the longevity of his career. He won so many titles because of the longevity of his career. It was easier to win MVP when Jordan wasn't in his prime.

My point is not to rank Hakeem over Kareem based on their *entire careers*. My point is that imo, Hakeem's *prime* was greater than Kareem's prime. Hakeem's prime was short (3-4 year period), but in that time period he was as great as any player I've ever seen. I've only seen a couple of games with Kareem on the Bucks, though, so I'm not completely sure about a younger Kareem.

Also, if Shaq now would "kill" Hakeem, why doesn't he kill Tim Duncan? Surely you don't think Duncan now is better than Hakeem in his prime. Duncan's had statistically superior numbers (by far) in each of the last two seasons vs. O'Neal. I could care less who won the games... there's a big difference in having Kobe Bryant vs. Steve Smith.

And, if Shaq's supposedly developed this "all around game", why is he still scoring the same points on the same number of shots as he did in 1995?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The Cat</b>!
> It was easier to win MVP when Jordan wasn't in his prime.


LMOL. This is why Jordan is the hands down best player and only option if you could re-draft.


----------



## carver401 (Aug 24, 2002)

if they had the draft over again knowing what each player would do jordan would easily go number one. Not only did he win 6 championships, he made big shots was a fan favorite and made millions for the bulls and the NBA. And how many championships did olajuawan win when jordan played a whole season?


----------



## Lakers_32_4ever (Dec 30, 2002)

First of all, i would like to clear up the misconception that Michael Jordan is the best player of all time. He's not. Why can't "the greatest player ever" take Washington to the title, or even the Eastern finals? Now really, the greatest player should be able to do that, but once again that brings me to the question, how do you define the greatest? Is the greatest, statistically the finest ever? Or is the best, the player who comes in to your team, wakes them up, and leads them all the way? Michael Jordan had an awesome supporting cast, with Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc, Armstrong, and the Zen Master. Say all you want, but you cannot deny that Washington gives him a nice roster to work with. 

Michael Jordan got in the right place at the right time. Look at any of the other contenders from Jordan's era. Where do you think they would rank in today's league? Face it, Jordan got lucky.

And as for Olajuwon, Ralph Sampson was supposed to be huge, but he failed. The Rockets offered him no support, till the early 90's when Clyde came in. 

Also, by the time the supporting cast showed up, it was too late for Olajuwon. Centers cannot last as long as gaurds in the modern league because of the beating they take. I am not sure that I would take Jordan, or Olajuwon, but if the draft were in today's NBA, it would be Hakeem, hands down. Michael never would amount to anything in today's NBA. Personally though, from the NBA's finest draft, I would take Stockton. IMO, the most important role that a player can do for a team is make everyone else better. I'm sure he can do that, but I can't say for anyone else.

Ten years down the road, LeBron James will have become one of the flukes of the NBA. Maybe a Sam Bowie, a Ralph Sampson, a Christian Laettner. He will be some super hyped up phenom who may have been quality, but never good enough. As for Milicic, watch out. The NBA is losing quality American guys, time to ring in the new guys, and the fall of America, because guys like Jordan were better against crap. If the Clips played against high schoolers, no one would say they sucked, because of their record.

The greatest is not so until he can prove that he can do it anywhere, that he is limitless, and that his personal stat inflation is not all that matters in the NBA. Winning is.


----------



## allenive21 (Jul 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lakers_32_4ever</b>!
> First of all, i would like to clear up the misconception that Michael Jordan is the best player of all time. He's not. Why can't "the greatest player ever" take Washington to the title, or even the Eastern finals? Now really, the greatest player should be able to do that, but once again that brings me to the question, how do you define the greatest? Is the greatest, statistically the finest ever? Or is the best, the player who comes in to your team, wakes them up, and leads them all the way? Michael Jordan had an awesome supporting cast, with Rodman, Pippen, Kukoc, Armstrong, and the Zen Master. Say all you want, but you cannot deny that Washington gives him a nice roster to work with.


This is the only part of your post I read and it is proposterious. Hmmm let me think for a second, why can't MJ lead the Wizards to the finals, did you ever stop and think that as players get older they get worse. Since Larry Bird is old now he is a horrible basketball player and will never ever be considered good. MJ was one of the greatest in his prime. Last time I checked players primes don't come at age 39. The greatest statiscally would probably have to be Wilt and he is not considered the greatest to grace the game of basketball. MJ's teammates were somewhat good but definately not great. They are not superstars like MJ was. MJ is old and definately not in his prime. Most players that have been considered really good in the NBA were not good at age 39 which MJ is. MJ is still a good player in this league, but since he is past his prime he is not going to be able to handle the load of one time completely and lead them to the Championship.


----------



## CY02 (Dec 26, 2002)

I don't think Houston regreted the decision. After all, Dream won them 2 championships. And I also doubt if MJ would really win 6 rings playing at Houston (remember no Pippen, no Rodman). And without so many rings, he probably wouldn't be recognized as the greatest player ever in the game. 

And not to take anything away from MJ, I always think that the reason MJ was able to be so dominant was that there were not many outstanding SGs in his era (Drexler and who else?) while if you are Dream, you have more competition (Ewing, Robinson etc).

On a side note, I have a "history repeats itself" feeling when people debate about "Yao vs Lebron". But I think this time the center will win more rings because right now the competition of SGs are undoubtedly greater than that of Cs. We will see...


----------



## Wink (May 30, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>CY02</b>!
> And not to take anything away from MJ, I always think that the reason MJ was able to be so dominant was that there were not many outstanding SGs in his era (Drexler and who else?) while if you are Dream, you have more competition (Ewing, Robinson etc).


back in the day I think you would have to consider Mitch Richmond and Reggie Miller two outstanding shooting guards.


----------

