Actually I thought it was the Rockets who turned down the trade of Sampson for Clyde + No 2 Pick. You know the Blazers would have jumped on taking Sampson. Clyde + Hakeem + Jordan. Wow. It could have been the greatest team ever assembled in sports history.
We say that now, but I think it would have been a problem. I could see Jordan butting heads with the other two. Clyde and Jordan play the same position, and Akeem, before he rediscovered his faith, probably would have fanned some flames as well. I think that team would have been like the Shaq-Kobe Lakers, where Jordan would have either forced his way out or ran Hakeem, Clyde, or both out of town. He played well with Pippen because Pippen was the perfect sidekick. He could do everything well, just not as well as Mike. Hakeem would need touches down low etc. What I would have really loved would have been those Barkley teams from the beginning. Imagine if Houston traded Sampson for Clyde and the pick and picked up Barkley? Now that would have been something.
I was born in 95 so it's very easy to say Jordan. I Love Hakeem and glad he won 2 Championships otherwise we'd be a ring less franchise. I honestly think he is the greatest post player ever. Jordan got 6 rings in Chicago with a great supporting cast.
In terms of hardware and accolades, then yes Jordan would be the superior one. In terms of being an iconic figure for the NBA, then yes Jordan again would be the superior one. I mean he's influenced so many people throughout the generations and still influences the game today due to the media deeming him as "the greatest to ever play the game of basketball" and rightfully so since he has the hardware and accolades to back it up along with his influence. Everyone wanted to grow up being "like Mike." But I wouldn't necessarily go back in time and choose Jordan over Hakeem due to the fact that Hakeem represented Houston and could be argued as the "greatest icon for Houston sports." Not saying that drafting Jordan wouldn't have translated to that but those are "what if" scenarious and I could come up with a million "what if" scenarios that could support or go against my argument. The fact that this is even a debate just shows how valuable Hakeem was to the city of Houston. Rockets didn't choose the wrong player and winning justifies that. If the Rockets didn't win those two championships, then we'd be having a totally different conversation. But again that's a "what if" scenario.
I would take Jordan if that also meant getting Pippen, Grant/Rodman, and Phil. If Hakeem ever had that kind of help, he would be the player with 6 titles.
Is it really necessary to create a thread with a poll and rubbish everyone with a different view to yours?
Just look at him, he was an injury waiting to happen. The 80s Rockets were like the current Thunder, a dynasty that never launched. Everything went wrong for the Rockets that could while Jordan and company got to grow together.
The rockets could have traded Ralph for Clyde and the number 2 pick..... Draft Hakeem 1 take jordan 2 and also have Clyde. That team would have won 8-10 chips if the egos didn't get in the way first.
Lol Tinmac sure is amusing. I get what he is saying, but geez you try way too hard and love to call out people for no reason. I didn't get to watch that era, so I can't really say. All I experienced is the end result where Jordan has more rings.
Yeah, that works If number of seasons with good teammates are limited (for whatever reason), Jordan has the advantage. It's easier to tell than you think. Go research MJs teammates, conferences, coaches (you already know about Phil), and players each player played against. The truth isn't difficult to surmise.
Its evident that front office, coaching and player health is the deciding factor, more than it is a single-handed talent. That is where the Phil Jackson effect comes into play Phil's main attribute was "Zen Master" maximizing stars' play, and getting everyone to co-exist (for a short time at least) That team maybe coulda put egos to side if they followed Bird Celtics / Magic Lakers makeup of multiple stars on one team, buying into a multi-stars philosophy to be the next dynasty. (If they won early enough)
Unfortunately we won't ever know. Maybe their egos would have clashed and ot wouldn't have worked? Or maybe that would have been so much talent on one team and they would have won so much that it wouldn't have mattered? Compare to the "big 3" that was in Miami. MJ>LBJ Clyde>DWade Hakeem>>>Bosh Maybe it wouldn't have worked? Or maybe it would? Either way, it would have been on of the most talented teams ever assembled.
Let's try something of your own medicine ...... A true Rockets fan would't even think about making this poll
Actually, the better thing to compare would be to compare to the competition at the time. Seattle? Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton and Detlef Schrempf Utah? Karl Malone, John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek San Antonio? David Robinson, Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson Phoenix? Charles Barkley, Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle You're right. We wont ever know how a trio of Hakeem, Clyde and MJ would have worked ego-wise or on the court. But my God, talent wise it wouldn't have even been a contest.
What did Jordan win under Doug Collins? Olajuwon would have more rings if the 1986 Rockets stayed off the cocaine... and Sampson never got hurt. If the Rockets drafted Terry Porter or AC Green in 1985 instead of Steve Harris... Jeff Hornacek instead of Dave Feitl in 1986... and kept its 1987 pick for Mark Jackson (Bulls got GRANT AND PIPPEN)...
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8Gjk_d85sLg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
