Sam Bowie Is Not A Bust...

[Dro]

This is not a new documentary but for anybody who hasn't seen it, its a great watch. I'm in my 30's so I've already known that Bowie was more than just "the guy picked ahead of MJ", but obviously many don't since he's still the target of "bust" jokes. He had knee injuries, unfortunately, some of it due to his thin frame but the guy was a very skilled player and still went on to have a decent NBA career. Reading ish and other forums and listening to idiots in the media, you'd think the guy never accomplished anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uTIZ_pPKk

[JimmyMcAdocious]

He had knee injuries that nagged him throughout his career and was an inefficient 10.9 ppg scorer.

He's not a bust if he was taken in the the late first round. Forget the Jordan (or Barkley, or Stockton, etc) factor. A #2 pick who couldn't stay healthy and played only modestly whenever he could get on the floor. That's a bust. I don't give Oden a pass because I think he could have been good if he stayed healthy.

[TheReal Kendall]

People seem to forget that the Blazers drafted a talented Shooting Gaurd in 83 by the name of Clyde Drexle.No reason to draft Jordan in 84 Sam Bowie was the better option for them at that time !

Don't know much about Bowie but this is the top comment on youtube.

So if I was GM I would have went big also.

Plus I just checked Wiki(I know it's not reliable) it says the Blazers needed a Big and wanted Hakeem but the Rockets picked him so they went with the next best thing.

[ralph_i_el]

He's still a bust, because that draft was amazing, but you can't really blame Seattle for the pick.

[Marchesk]

Don't know much about Bowie but this is the top comment on youtube.

So if I was GM I would have went big also.

Plus I just checked Wiki(I know it's not reliable) it says the Blazers needed a Big and wanted Hakeem but the Rockets picked him so they went with the next best thing.

Yeah, but Jordan was a sure thing. People knew he was going to be real good at the next level. He had a pro game in college.

Hakeem is justifiable, even if in retrospect it was the wrong pick, but Bowie isn't. He wasn't an elite big in college, and he already had injury issues.

It would be like picking Noel over Lebron because you drafted Melo the year before.

[Owl]

Depends on what your definition of a bust is.

It was certainly a very bad pick with the benefit of hindsight.

There's a fair degree to which it was a poor pick straight away. Bill Simmons' version of the draft coverage is a tad harsh but there was more of a sense of Jordan being a sure thing (even if that just meant an all-star rather than being GOAT) and other coverage (SI, Hollander handbooks) noted Bowie red flags and seemed to prefer Jordan.

The key thing for me that informs/confirms my views that
a) Drafting Bowie over Jordan was a mistake straight away
and
b) a fully healthy Bowie could have been special player (note: by draft night '84 a fully healthy Bowie was no longer a possibility)
is that Bowie was never the same after the injury at Kentucky. Looking at his numbers before the injury he was a really good player. In his final year at Kentucky he was already damaged goods. Not iredeemable, not bad, but, I believe, not at all likely to reach what his potential had been.

The documentary and the numbers fit with this.

[TheReal Kendall]

Yeah, but Jordan was a sure thing. People knew he was going to be real good at the next level. He had a pro game in college.

Hakeem is justifiable, even if in retrospect it was the wrong pick, but Bowie isn't. He wasn't an elite big in college, and he already had injury issues.

It would be like picking Noel over Lebron because you drafted Melo the year before.

I forgot to mention that they drafted Drexler the year before.

So no need for another SG that's pretty much similar to the one you drafted the previous year.

I don't think no player is a bust cause you can never predict how things will turn out.

[Dro]

Depends on what your definition of a bust is.

It was certainly a very bad pick with the benefit of hindsight.

There's a fair degree to which it was a poor pick straight away. Bill Simmons' version of the draft coverage is a tad harsh but there was more of a sense of Jordan being a sure thing (even if that just meant an all-star rather than being GOAT) and other coverage (SI, Hollander handbooks) noted Bowie red flags and seemed to prefer Jordan.

The key thing for me that informs/confirms my views that
a) Drafting Bowie over Jordan was a mistake straight away
and
b) a fully healthy Bowie could have been special player (note: by draft night '84 a fully healthy Bowie was no longer a possibility)
is that Bowie was never the same after the injury at Kentucky. Looking at his numbers before the injury he was a really good player. In his final year at Kentucky he was already damaged goods. Not iredeemable, not bad, but, I believe, not at all likely to reach what his potential had been.

The documentary and the numbers fit with this.
Thats the keyword "hindsight". The Blazers had JUST drafted Drexler who had an outstanding college career himself with just as many jaw dropping highlights as MJ had at NC. It can be argued that individually, not including tournament success, that Drexler had just as good a college career as Jordan. They weren't nicknamed phi slamma jamma for nothing. Jordan was as close to a sure thing but there was no way to know he would turn out to be most people's GOAT. How could possibly see that in advance? Even with all the hype that Lebron had, which is arguably the most hype than anyone has ever had coming into the NBA, you still didn't have anybody saying he would be the GOAT and even after 4 MVP's, you still have people say he isn't the best:confusedshrug:

Lets say hypothetically that Durant and Lebron were in back to back drafts and OKC drafted Durant first. If they had the chance to draft Lebron the next year at the same position, would they do it? Or they they draft hypothetically, a Greg Oden since they really need a center? Of course, we see how good Lebron is now and people will say yes but on draft day? Probably not. Unless you think one of them could play a different position. We KNOW Durant is SF. We also know that Lebron's best position is SF. Just like Drexler and Jordan, it wasn't like Portland was gonna draft Jordan and play one of them at SF. I think they made a reasonable pick. If anything, Bowie should be blamed for not being upfront with Portland about his injuries. He led them to believe that he was completely healthy when he knew he wasn't but he said he did it for the money and he had a family to raise which I understand. If you knew a team might take you in the top 3, would you tell them the truth about your injuries? I''m not sure if I would either. Id probably win the lottery first and then deal with the rest later.

[Dro]

He had knee injuries that nagged him throughout his career and was an inefficient 10.9 ppg scorer.

He's not a bust if he was taken in the the late first round. Forget the Jordan (or Barkley, or Stockton, etc) factor. A #2 pick who couldn't stay healthy and played only modestly whenever he could get on the floor. That's a bust. I don't give Oden a pass because I think he could have been good if he stayed healthy.
The fact that he came back to average even 11 ppg and be a solid role player is WAY more than anyone expected after he was tabbed a "bust". To me, a player who deals with injuries is not a bust. A bust to me is someone like Eddy Curry. A guy who showed all the promise and domination before entering the draft but because of a bad work ethic and other reasons, did not pan out. Oden is not a bust to me, he just had bad knees. Michael Beasley is a bust to me and not even a complete bust because he's put up some decent numbers statwise but for what people thought he could be and he dominated in college, he's a bust and it wasn't because of injuries but because of other factors that he can control. You can't control getting injured. You can condition your body the best you can, but even that doesn't guarantee you won't tear an ACL or something. Things you can control like your work ethic, working on your game, focus, your mental approach to the game, getting better every year, I think those are what determine your bust status.

[Dro]

Don't know much about Bowie but this is the top comment on youtube.

So if I was GM I would have went big also.

Plus I just checked Wiki(I know it's not reliable) it says the Blazers needed a Big and wanted Hakeem but the Rockets picked him so they went with the next best thing.
You should really watch the documentary if you get a chance. It really clears up a lot of things and clarifies a lot of facts instead of what the media has been feeding us for years.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

There's a difference between being a bust and being a bad pick at the time. To be considered a bust you have to use hindsight, otherwise how can you know what they achieved in their career? Oden is a bust because he didn't produce like a #1 pick, injuries or not. With hindsight (again, you have to use hindsight to determine their careers) he probably ended up as a net negative for the Blazers.

Ralph Sampson and Bill Walton are great examples of players who had their careers shortened due to injuries, but still justified being #1 picks.

Anyway, there's that famous quote from Bob Knight, who was coaching Jordan and USA team for the Olympics at the time. Paraphrasing the story, Blazers GM tells Knight they need a center before the draft and Knight tells him "Draft Michael Jordan and play him at center". There were well respected basketball people who had an idea how good Jordan could be. Probably not the GOAT, but enough of a talent difference to be picked as the best available? I think so.

[Dro]

There's a difference between being a bust and being a bad pick at the time. To be considered a bust you have to use hindsight, otherwise how can you know what they achieved in their career? Oden is a bust because he didn't produce like a #1 pick, injuries or not. With hindsight (again, you have to use hindsight to determine their careers) he probably ended up as a net negative for the Blazers.

Ralph Sampson and Bill Walton are great examples of players who had their careers shortened due to injuries, but still justified being #1 picks.

Anyway, there's that famous quote from Bob Knight, who was coaching Jordan and USA team for the Olympics at the time. Paraphrasing the story, Blazers GM tells Knight they need a center before the draft and Knight tells him "Draft Michael Jordan and play him at center". There were well respected basketball people who had an idea how good Jordan could be. Probably not the GOAT, but enough of a talent difference to be picked as the best available? I think so.
I agree but still, I probably would not have drafted him. The Blazers were very impressed with Drexler and they had already made up their mind that they needed a C. They really took Bowie by default since Hakeem was gone. I don't know, I probably wouldn't have drafted Jordan either if I were Portland and had just drafted Drexler. I don't really think people really take that into consideration like they say they are, especially when there's another position that you REALLY need help at. Are you more likely to draft a guy at the same position, even if he was a sure bet, when at that time you had CLOSE to a sure bet in Clyde Drexler already on the team? Especially when you desperately need help at center which most people agree is one of the most important positions? This was the mid 80's when the NBA was used to watching guys like Kareem, Wilt, Moses Malone, and even Bill Walton be such difference makers previously. A team with second pick is probably going to use that pick to get something they really need instead of using on a player who at the time was similar to what they already had.

[The JKidd Kid]

I forgot to mention that they drafted Drexler the year before.

So no need for another SG that's pretty much similar to the one you drafted the previous year.

I don't think no player is a bust cause you can never predict how things will turn out.

Exactly, it wasn't a bad pick, I can't understand why people ignore the fact that the Blazers already had a HOF SG on the roster.

[Haymaker]

They could've drafted and traded MJ at least.

[iamgine]

In addition to already having a "nice" SG in Drexler, they had Kiki Vandeweghe, an all star small forward and Jim Paxson, an all star shooting guard. So really, they had no reason picking MJ at all.

It's tough luck that they didn't end up with Hakeem. That could've been a dynasty.

[JimmyMcAdocious]

I agree but still, I probably would not have drafted him. The Blazers were very impressed with Drexler and they had already made up their mind that they needed a C. They really took Bowie by default since Hakeem was gone. I don't know, I probably wouldn't have drafted Jordan either if I were Portland and had just drafted Drexler. I don't really think people really take that into consideration like they say they are, especially when there's another position that you REALLY need help at. Are you more likely to draft a guy at the same position, even if he was a sure bet, when at that time you had CLOSE to a sure bet in Clyde Drexler already on the team? Especially when you desperately need help at center which most people agree is one of the most important positions? This was the mid 80's when the NBA was used to watching guys like Kareem, Wilt, Moses Malone, and even Bill Walton be such difference makers previously. A team with second pick is probably going to use that pick to get something they really need instead of using on a player who at the time was similar to what they already had.

I don't necessarily disagree with the pick. I'm not informed enough about the Blazers in the 1983 season to say much either way. Your points about what they had in in the waiting are valid, and personally I've always been a big over wing guy when the comparison is somewhat close (I would have taken Oden over Durant). All I'm arguing is that Bowie should be considered a bust.

[I<3NBA]

i don't consider any player with their careers being derailed by injury a bust. they simply were unlucky. players that are real busts are those without injuries that still failed to live up to their expectations.

[Soundwave]

Sam Bowie -- the great thing to happen to Chicago sports -- ever.

Also IMO it's the text book example of why you never draft simply based on need.

Jordan + Drexler + the solid depth Portland amassed otherwise would've been enough to start winning titles by the late 1980s.

[chocolatethunder]

Yeah, but Jordan was a sure thing. People knew he was going to be real good at the next level. He had a pro game in college.

Hakeem is justifiable, even if in retrospect it was the wrong pick, but Bowie isn't. He wasn't an elite big in college, and he already had injury issues.

It would be like picking Noel over Lebron because you drafted Melo the year before.
Jordan was good in college but no one projected him to be the greatest player of all time. It was nothing like that. Everyone knew he was good and would be a good pro but when he became a pro he really just took his game to a different level. Not sure if you were alive back then but I was.

[Cleverness]

This is not a new documentary but for anybody who hasn't seen it, its a great watch. I'm in my 30's so I've already known that Bowie was more than just "the guy picked ahead of MJ", but obviously many don't since he's still the target of "bust" jokes. He had knee injuries, unfortunately, some of it due to his thin frame but the guy was a very skilled player and still went on to have a decent NBA career. Reading ish and other forums and listening to idiots in the media, you'd think the guy never accomplished anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uTIZ_pPKk

Thanks for posting this :applause:

[RedBlackAttack]

Here's why Bowie was a horrible draft pick...

The guy suffered a catastrophic injury in college and he has even said himself that he was never the same after his sophomore year. As a professional franchise, you have to poke, prod and examine every joint and every bone, along with all of the tape available on the guy.

Truth be told, the Sam Bowie disaster is one of the main reasons I was so adamant about the Cavs not taking Alex Len, who also has micro-fractures. There have been guys who've had surgery and been totally fine, but it is an unpredictable injury that can end careers without warning.

When you are picking in the top 3, that's just too big a risk.

[Marchesk]

Jordan + Drexler + the solid depth Portland amassed otherwise would've been enough to start winning titles by the late 1980s.

You could have played Jordan at PG or one of them at SF. It's only a question of whether their styles would have meshed well enough as primary scorers. If Drexler would have been okay with being the second scorer, then it could have worked great.

[Marchesk]

Jordan was good in college but no one projected him to be the greatest player of all time. It was nothing like that. Everyone knew he was good and would be a good pro but when he became a pro he really just took his game to a different level. Not sure if you were alive back then but I was.

I don't know about that. I was certainly watching college when Len Bias was around, and everyone thought he was going to be something else in the pros. I don't think he was more highly thought of than Jordan was.

I'm sure that Dean Smith and Bobby Knight knew that he was special. I also recall reading that some team wanted to trade up for Chicago's pick, because they wanted Jordan, but Chicago refused.

[Dro]

I don't necessarily disagree with the pick. I'm not informed enough about the Blazers in the 1983 season to say much either way. Your points about what they had in in the waiting are valid, and personally I've always been a big over wing guy when the comparison is somewhat close (I would have taken Oden over Durant). All I'm arguing is that Bowie should be considered a bust.
Yeah, I would've taken Oden over Durant also. I don't really prefer one position over the other. I tend to lean more towards team need + how good the player is.

[wakencdukest]

This is not a new documentary but for anybody who hasn't seen it, its a great watch. I'm in my 30's so I've already known that Bowie was more than just "the guy picked ahead of MJ", but obviously many don't since he's still the target of "bust" jokes. He had knee injuries, unfortunately, some of it due to his thin frame but the guy was a very skilled player and still went on to have a decent NBA career. Reading ish and other forums and listening to idiots in the media, you'd think the guy never accomplished anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1uTIZ_pPKk


You sure it was Knees? I remember him breaking his leg four different times.

[RedBlackAttack]

You sure it was Knees? I remember him breaking his leg four different times.
When people talk about knee injuries, they're usually referring to ligaments which connect the joint. You are correct... Bowie's issues were always microfractures... His legs were essentially splinting like an old piece of wood and they'd snap without notice or even necessarily contact.

His leg snapped in half while in the layup line at one point. I think that's the one which finally ended his career.

[DCL]

i think injuries allow a player to get some kind of excuse card.

guys like oden, for example...

in college, healthy oden >> joakim noah

in the nba, joakim noah >>>>> broken oden

[Marchesk]

Hindsight is overpowering when it comes to Jordan, and they really didn't need another SG. But it does sound like Bowie was a huger risk due to his extensive college injuries, and Portland should have looked into it more carefully.

Charles Barkley was picked 5th. Maybe Portland should have tried trading down a couple spots if there was a team that wanted to take Jordan before Chicago got the chance?

I just read that Barkley was next on the list after Bowie. Jordan's name apparently wasn't brought up.

Barkley should have been there pick. Bowie was just way too risky for the that high of a pick.

[andgar923]

Sorry.

But nothing but "what ifs"

Truth is, we would've never known how good he could've been. There's been plenty of players throughout history with the 'potential' or the 'tools' to become great, but for some reason they simply never did.

[Dro]

You sure it was Knees? I remember him breaking his leg four different times.
Yes, you are correct, my bad. I have horrible knee injuries myself so when I hear of other people having lower body injuries, I automatically think knees:lol

[Dro]

Hindsight is overpowering when it comes to Jordan, and they really didn't need another SG. But it does sound like Bowie was a huger risk due to his extensive college injuries, and Portland should have looked into it more carefully.

Charles Barkley was picked 5th. Maybe Portland should have tried trading down a couple spots if there was a team that wanted to take Jordan before Chicago got the chance?

I just read that Barkley was next on the list after Bowie. Jordan's name apparently wasn't brought up.

Barkley should have been there pick. Bowie was just way too risky for the that high of a pick.
Good point. Barkley + Drexler + Kersey, Duckworth, Porter, may have won at least 1 ring.

[Owl]

Hindsight is overpowering when it comes to Jordan, and they really didn't need another SG. But it does sound like Bowie was a huger risk due to his extensive college injuries, and Portland should have looked into it more carefully.

Charles Barkley was picked 5th. Maybe Portland should have tried trading down a couple spots if there was a team that wanted to take Jordan before Chicago got the chance?

I just read that Barkley was next on the list after Bowie. Jordan's name apparently wasn't brought up.

Barkley should have been there pick. Bowie was just way too risky for the that high of a pick.
If they wanted Barkley they would likely have had to have picked him there. Certainly they couldn't have traded down far (at all) and be confident of getting him.

If Bowie doesn't go at number two, Bull's GM Thorn says in the documentary something to the effect that he didn't want Bowie, he was scared off by the injuries. So if Jordan is off the board, and it's not Bowie there was a clear top 6 (at the time) and "Dinner Bell" Mel Turpin was generally regarded as 6th. So the Bulls' 3rd pick would be likely have been Barkley or Perkins.

[ILLsmak]

Sam Bowie -- the great thing to happen to Chicago sports -- ever.

Also IMO it's the text book example of why you never draft simply based on need.

Jordan + Drexler + the solid depth Portland amassed otherwise would've been enough to start winning titles by the late 1980s.

I think the issue is that you don't draft on need that high. You draft the best player you can. If you want, you can trade one of them. I'd say, if the draft is a strong draft, or has strong players near the top and you have the second pick then you should take the best player that you can get.

-Smak

[Dro]

I think the issue is that you don't draft on need that high. You draft the best player you can. If you want, you can trade one of them. I'd say, if the draft is a strong draft, or has strong players near the top and you have the second pick then you should take the best player that you can get.

-Smak
So do you think the Cavs made the right pick?

[Collie]

The thing with Bowie is that he was already an incredible reach during that draft. I mean, if he was the consensus 2nd best player, I'd understand, but the guy missed 3 years (THREE) of his college playing days and was a 10-9 player coming into the 84 draft. Portland picked him because he was literally the 2nd best Center in a draft that only had Hakeem and maybe Sam Perkins as a good college center (Kevin Willis had a so-so college career)

[JellyBean]

I never really thought of Sam Bowie as being a bust. The dude just caught some bad breaks. A bust to me is someone who is hyped, is injury free, plays but does not play to their potential. Bowie and a several other so-called "bust", just had some injuries that limited their careers.

[Dro]

The thing with Bowie is that he was already an incredible reach during that draft. I mean, if he was the consensus 2nd best player, I'd understand, but the guy missed 3 years (THREE) of his college playing days and was a 10-9 player coming into the 84 draft. Portland picked him because he was literally the 2nd best Center in a draft that only had Hakeem and maybe Sam Perkins as a good college center (Kevin Willis had a so-so college career)
This is a good point.....I wonder how good Portland may have been with Perkins? A different type of team for sure.....

[AnaheimLakers24]

yes he is

[outbreak]

people have different definitions of what a bust is, for me someone's only a bust if they do a darko or thabeet. I wouldn't call someone a bust just because a better player is taken later in hindsight.

[hawksdogsbraves]

people have different definitions of what a bust is, for me someone's only a bust if they do a darko or thabeet. I wouldn't call someone a bust just because a better player is taken later in hindsight.

I don't think it's fair to label people busts based on what guys picked after them did. They have no control over that.

His production never lived up to what you want out of a number 2 overall pick, so in that sense he is a bust.

But I can see people not liking to hand the bust label to guys who had their careers derailed by injuries though. Like you can't really compare Greg Oden to Darko. One 'busted' due to his body failing him, the other 'busted' due to being a shitty basketball player.

[ZMonkey11]

bust. definition of bust.

[oarabbus]

bust. definition of bust.


:biggums:

He's not a bust. As other people said guys like Olowokandi, Kwame, Beasley, Darko, Johnny FLynn are busts. He actually played for a decade and was pretty solid despite basically being crippled through the entirety of it. Steve Stipanovich (2nd pick in 1983 draft) is another guy who just had a lot of injuries. Also Adam Morrison.

His pick was the right choice at the time. In the documentary one of the Blazers execs says even with hindsight he would have picked Bowie at the time. I mean this guy was just that good. Guys who beat Hakeem in a 1 on 1 match in college... no joke. He just got hurt. If he was able to stay healthy, he would have easily played at a second pick level, near the same level as Hakeem. Jordan would still be GOAT. Just imagine 2 Hakeems in the NBA though... sad story really.

[deja vu]

Jordan and Drexler would have been unstoppable. 4-6 titles would be realistic.

[Stringer Bell]

A lot of players, selected very highly in drafts, have had less productive careers than Sam Bowie.

It's just unfortunate for Bowie that the next guy picked was MJ. He'll always be remembered for that.

Portland already had a shooting guard, but I do question picking a player who had missed two seasons in college due to injury. That's a huge gamble.

[iamgine]

I think the issue is that you don't draft on need that high. You draft the best player you can. If you want, you can trade one of them. I'd say, if the draft is a strong draft, or has strong players near the top and you have the second pick then you should take the best player that you can get.

-Smak
Untrue. It all depends on how good the players in the draft were.

For example, if you rate Jordan a 7.9 and Bowie a 7.8, it makes a lot of sense to draft Bowie if you need a C and you already has a star SG.