1984 Draft. Olajuwon and Jordan.

[CptCrunch]

Why are there so many newphews postings?

No one thinks that Hakeem > Jordan.

Historically people haven't faulted the Rockets for taking Hakeem over Jordan.

Pre-draft pretty much everyone thought Hakeem was #1.

[giberish]

Why are there so many newphews postings?

No one thinks that Hakeem > Jordan.

Historically people haven't faulted the Rockets for taking Hakeem over Jordan.

Pre-draft pretty much everyone thought Hakeem was #1.

Blazer fans have extensively faulted the Rockets for taking Hakeem over Jordan. The Rockets had the ROY playing center for them already (Sampson) they should have taken the wing and left the center for Portland.

[Sark]

They could have had both. Portland was going to trade the 2nd pick + Clyde Drexler for Ralph Sampson. So Houston could have had Hakeem Olajuwon, Clyde Drexler, and Michael Jordan.

[XxIronChainzxX]

This is a nonsense topic. When you select a Hall of Fame player, that was the consensus pick at the time, you don't have regrets because a "better" Hall of Fame player went later. The 76ers selected Iverson in 1996, and Kobe went later, and I've never heard one 76er fan of that age, express regret or concern that they could've had Kobe. I doubt there is a single Rockets fan that was of age at that time, that thinks twice about selecting Olajuwan over Jordan.

While I agree with your point overall you've picked a bad example. The gap between Kobe and Iverson is a substantial one - in fact I'd go so far and say it's about as extreme as it can be while still talking about two HOF guys.

[TheWitcher]

MJ would've forced his way out if he was on those Rockets teams. Yes, I acknowledge it's a weak stance, but I truly feel that way. Also that's not a dig on Jordan, more of a compliment. Jordan knew his worth.

[HotelVitale]

Context is everything, though...Sure, MJ is the greatest ever, but the gap is not quite what you make it out to be. Or rather, it might not have been enough for him to drag some pretty terrible teams to any significant playoff glory had he been drafted by the Rockets and surrounded by the kind of riffraff Hakeem was surrounded by. I mean, hell, let's pretend MJ doesn't retire in '93 and swap him and Hakeem. Does Jordan take that Rockets team to the title? How does Hakeem do if you put him next to Pippen, Grant and Kukoč on that 55-27 Bulls team?

Still making this more complicated than it needs to be. Fully agree about context and also about not writing narratives based totally on what happened to happen rather than what could have happened (my least favorite realgm logical fallacy), but the case for Jordan as a top-3 all time player doesn't rest on his 6 championships alone. If it did then I for one would never ever make that case, and I think most of the good posters on here wouldn't touch it either.

Virtually ever stat-based argument puts Jordan in that top 3, and every way to measure his playoff performances (stats, efficiency, results, etc) also makes him routinely stack up with the best ever, and that's why there's consensus around Jordan's status as the best ever or very close to it. Olajuwon is an awesome player and might make that top-15 status, but I don't see any reason to be intrigued by an argument that top-15 is actually maybe just as good as top-3. There's a clear gap there, and it's built on many things.

[wojoaderge]

I've never been a Rockets fan, except for a little during the second half of '88, so I can't vote

[12footrim]

Hakeem is my favorite center of all time. Nothing he couldn't do in the paint. I bet in this era he'd even develop a 3. Although it would limit his effectiveness and what makes him so great.

No clue why people always make this assumption. He had plenty of incentive too learn to hit 3's in that era and many players his age did add it like Sam Perkins. Do you think he didn't try as well? Hell the 3 point line was shorter 3 of the years in his prime when he was winning championship and he still couldn't make them enough he would even attempt them even when many big men were getting the greenlight that had never really taken them before on a team that loved to shoot 3's.

He wasn't a very effiecent player. Basically 51% FG and 71% FT's for his career anyway, and that's shooting about all 2's. 25-124 for 20% from 3.

[Sane]

Children, MJ was only retired for 1 of Hakeem's 2 rings. He couldn't beat Shaq's Magic, of course he would not have beaten Hakeem's Rockets who wiped the floor with the Magic.

The Rockets - as the 6th seed - took down:

#3 seeded Stockton/Malone Jazz - without homecourt advantage
#2 seeded Barkley/Kevin Johnson Phoenix Suns - without homecourt advantage
#1 seeded David Robinson's Spurs - without homecourt advantage

Shaq and Penny's Orlando Magic, who had booted a 100% fit and healthy MJ out of the playoffs. Rockets didn't have homecourt advantage in the Finals either, not that it mattered since it was a clean sweep.

Results are results and MJ's rings and performance means he's earned the right to be hailed as the greatest. However, Hakeem's rings are worth far more than 2 rings.

[dhsilv2]

Why are there so many newphews postings?

No one thinks that Hakeem > Jordan.

Historically people haven't faulted the Rockets for taking Hakeem over Jordan.

Pre-draft pretty much everyone thought Hakeem was #1.

Blazer fans have extensively faulted the Rockets for taking Hakeem over Jordan. The Rockets had the ROY playing center for them already (Sampson) they should have taken the wing and left the center for Portland.

You always take the best player available, always! Which portland should have done, lol.

[SomeBunghole]

Virtually ever stat-based argument puts Jordan in that top 3, and every way to measure his playoff performances (stats, efficiency, results, etc) also makes him routinely stack up with the best ever, and that's why there's consensus around Jordan's status as the best ever or very close to it. Olajuwon is an awesome player and might make that top-15 status, but I don't see any reason to be intrigued by an argument that top-15 is actually maybe just as good as top-3. There's a clear gap there, and it's built on many things.

But the question here isn't who the better player of the two was. That's a given. The question is whether Rockets fans right now wish the team had drafted Jordan instead of Olajuwon. Which is also a slightly different question from whether they were right to draft Olajuwon ahead of him at the time.

[SomeBunghole]

You always take the best player available, always! Which portland should have done, lol.

Except that Michael Jordan didn't come out of college stamped with "future GOAT" on his forehead.

The Blazers had a SG in Paxson who just made two straight ASG appearances and who was 2nd team All-NBA(a.k.a a top 10 player in the league). They had a young Clyde Drexler they fully planned on giving a green light that season, and he repaid them by having a breakout year. He would also easily be a top-10 player in a few years. 2 weeks before the draft, they had traded for Kiki VDW, who was the 1980s equivalent of a prime Carmelo. Deadly first step and scored at will. Also coming off two straight ASG appearances and having finished second and third in the league in scoring those years. He was not a shooting guard, but he was a player who needed the ball in his hands a lot. Jordan does not work in this situation unless you move players. And again, that seems like a no-brainer in 2019, but this was 1984. The Blazers still made 2 Finals over the next decade. If Bowie doesn't break down and if they still draft Porter the year after, that's a team that perhaps makes another Finals apperance(they had a really good year between the two Finals visits but were knocked out in Conference finals by the Lakers) and perhaps take one of those Finals series. The organization was obviously competent enough to put together a very good team and if you look back through the papers of that time, they weren't universally condemned for taking Bowie.

Of course, since this is all highly hypothetical, you might also ask what happens if the Blazers take one of the other HOFers available to them at that point. Stockton at 2 would've been a reach, but Barkley was fairly realistic. He went 5th. A team of Stockton-Drexler-Kiki or Drexler-Kiki-Barkley might have been able to cause some trouble in playoffs by 1990. Assuming Kiki's back doesn't give out like it did in real life. Hell, you could ask if drafting Thorpe or Willis would've made a difference in 1990 or 1992.

Either way, I can understand why they didn't think that stocking up on yet another talented SG whose skillset was approximately similar to Drexler's wasn't a priority in 1984.

[BigRedDog]

No. Despite MJ being the better player, ill find Olajuwon's career more impressive for me, carrying his team with no second star to 2 rings.

Drexler was the 2nd star for the 2nd ring.

What also needs to be taken into account here is that Houston won their 2 titles due to the void that MJ left when he took 2 years off. Hakeem could have easily ended up with zero rings without MJ’s mid career retirement.

Anyways, to answer the question, of course you’d rather have MJ than Hakeem, he was the better player.

Sure it's possible, but More than likely The Rockets beat the Bulls if the bulls even manage to make the Finals in '94 and it puts a damper on Jordan's "6-0" claim that ignores all his early round exits.

I think you can make a solid claim Hakeem was as good as Jordan. It's certainly very close. Hakeem just wasn't gifted the level of amazing teammates Jordan was fortunate enough to play with over the years.

Combine that with how important post players were back then and i think hakeem was obviously the correct choice to go #1.

It's funny how important timing is in life. Jordan is always referred to as the GOAT no matter how much more Lebron has done in his career. I mean if a guy like TMac had been born 20 years earlier before the advent of the zone defense no one would think Jordan was the GOAT.... timing is everything man

[dhsilv2]

You always take the best player available, always! Which portland should have done, lol.

Except that Michael Jordan didn't come out of college stamped with "future GOAT" on his forehead.

The Blazers had a SG in Paxson who just made two straight ASG appearances and who was 2nd team All-NBA(a.k.a a top 10 player in the league). They had a young Clyde Drexler they fully planned on giving a green light that season, and he repaid them by having a breakout year. He would also easily be a top-10 player in a few years. 2 weeks before the draft, they had traded for Kiki VDW, who was the 1980s equivalent of a prime Carmelo. Deadly first step and scored at will. Also coming off two straight ASG appearances and having finished second and third in the league in scoring those years. He was not a shooting guard, but he was a player who needed the ball in his hands a lot. Jordan does not work in this situation unless you move players. And again, that seems like a no-brainer in 2019, but this was 1984. The Blazers still made 2 Finals over the next decade. If Bowie doesn't break down and if they still draft Porter the year after, that's a team that perhaps makes another Finals apperance(they had a really good year between the two Finals visits but were knocked out in Conference finals by the Lakers) and perhaps take one of those Finals series. The organization was obviously competent enough to put together a very good team and if you look back through the papers of that time, they weren't universally condemned for taking Bowie.

Of course, since this is all highly hypothetical, you might also ask what happens if the Blazers take one of the other HOFers available to them at that point. Stockton at 2 would've been a reach, but Barkley was fairly realistic. He went 5th. A team of Stockton-Drexler-Kiki or Drexler-Kiki-Barkley might have been able to cause some trouble in playoffs by 1990. Assuming Kiki's back doesn't give out like it did in real life. Hell, you could ask if drafting Thorpe or Willis would've made a difference in 1990 or 1992.

Either way, I can understand why they didn't think that stocking up on yet another talented SG whose skillset was approximately similar to Drexler's wasn't a priority in 1984.

MJ was seen as the better prospect. The blazers did something idiotic and tried to draft based on their needs, which is ALWAYS WRONG. You talks take the best talent available. If you have to move pieces you move pieces.

[Sark]

No. Despite MJ being the better player, ill find Olajuwon's career more impressive for me, carrying his team with no second star to 2 rings.

Drexler was the 2nd star for the 2nd ring.

What also needs to be taken into account here is that Houston won their 2 titles due to the void that MJ left when he took 2 years off. Hakeem could have easily ended up with zero rings without MJ’s mid career retirement.

Anyways, to answer the question, of course you’d rather have MJ than Hakeem, he was the better player.

Sure it's possible, but More than likely The Rockets beat the Bulls if the bulls even manage to make the Finals in '94 and it puts a damper on Jordan's "6-0" claim that ignores all his early round exits.

I think you can make a solid claim Hakeem was as good as Jordan. It's certainly very close. Hakeem just wasn't gifted the level of amazing teammates Jordan was fortunate enough to play with over the years.

Combine that with how important post players were back then and i think hakeem was obviously the correct choice to go #1.

It's funny how important timing is in life. Jordan is always referred to as the GOAT no matter how much more Lebron has done in his career. I mean if a guy like TMac had been born 20 years earlier before the advent of the zone defense no one would think Jordan was the GOAT.... timing is everything man

Nah, you can't make that claim. I mean you can, but you'd be wrong. Everyone that was alive during the era, and saw what happened, knows that Jordan was better than Olajuwon. Hakeem was a great player, but he was never on the level that Jordan was.

It would be like saying that Durant was as good as Lebron. Someone can make that claim, but they'd be wrong.

[The_Hater]

I think you can make a solid claim Hakeem was as good as Jordan. It's certainly very close. Hakeem just wasn't gifted the level of amazing teammates Jordan was fortunate enough to play with over the years.

You decided to go down this route I see?

It wasn’t close, Jordan is the GOAT, Hakeem is somewhere in the 9-12 range all time. A great player no doubt but you shouldn’t make a terrible argument just to try and prove his greatness. And then there’s my original point, that Hakeem needed MJ to retire in order to squeeze out a couple of rings in watered down league.

I’ve never, ever seen someone try and argue that Hakeem was as good as MJ and here I get two in the same thread.

[gipper08]

No. Despite MJ being the better player, ill find Olajuwon's career more impressive for me, carrying his team with no second star to 2 rings.

Drexler was the 2nd star for the 2nd ring.

What also needs to be taken into account here is that Houston won their 2 titles due to the void that MJ left when he took 2 years off. Hakeem could have easily ended up with zero rings without MJ’s mid career retirement.

Anyways, to answer the question, of course you’d rather have MJ than Hakeem, he was the better player.

Hakeem made the finals before Jordan did and then played with bad supporting casts for most of his career. If Jordan played with the guys Hakeem did, no guarantee he would have won more rings.

Jordan/Sampson would have won a ring in 86 that is for sure.

[Hroz]

If you wish we drafted Jordan instead of Hakeem then you're not a Rockets fan.

Though most Rockets fans know that we were offered the 2nd pick and Clyde Drexler for Ralph Sampson by the Blazers. Not doing that trade is our failure.

[Hroz]

Nah, you can't make that claim. I mean you can, but you'd be wrong. Everyone that was alive during the era, and saw what happened, knows that Jordan was better than Olajuwon. Hakeem was a great player, but he was never on the level that Jordan was.

It would be like saying that Durant was as good as Lebron. Someone can make that claim, but they'd be wrong.

You decided to go down this route I see?

It wasn’t close, Jordan is the GOAT, Hakeem is somewhere in the 9-12 range all time. A great player no doubt but you shouldn’t make a terrible argument just to try and prove his greatness. And then there’s my original point, that Hakeem needed MJ to retire in order to squeeze out a couple of rings in watered down league.

I’ve never, ever seen someone try and argue that Hakeem was as good as MJ and here I get two in the same thread.

Jordan/Sampson would have won a ring in 86 that is for sure.

Firstly Jordan/Sampson aren't getting past the Lakers.
No way Jordan/Sampson are stopping Kareem without Olajuwon.
And if you think Sampson Jordan 100% would've beaten the Celtics. You really have no idea.

Secondly Jordan is loved he ruled commercials, he was a brand onto himself. Players like that are always going to be overhyped. Olajuwon with his thick Nigerian accent never had the chance.

Thirdly give Olajuwon Pippen and let's see how it all plays out. Give Jordan Kenny Smith.

While I'm not saying Olajuwon was better than Jordan it's obvious we will never have all the facts to prove one way or the other who was better. It's just people's opinions.

[VDT]

A bit (or a lot) of a heretic here but i am not sure Jordan would have won more if they had the same coaching and supporting cast.