Agree with most of what you wrote, but if we’re sticking to this analogy, there were numerous tape-measure HR’s in the form of *incredible* dunks and blocked shots. It was a highly, highly athletic game. Not a Virginia type of defensive slog.
NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament Thread
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 733
- Views: 11K
- Sports
Bigs23
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,681
These teams were flying around, scratching, and clawing for 40 minutes. I didn’t think UF was going to be able to match Houston’s frenetic energy but they did.
It was kind of a wild game, not beautiful but a game worthy of the moment.
Centerpiece
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,865
Agree. Too heavyweights going at it. I think everyone would agree that the two best teams were fighting it out in the end. Auburn and Duke were worthy of the final four, but they were not worthy of the final game. And yes, I agree. Definitely not a Virginia-type slow down walk it up bullshit game.
Heelsandeers
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 597
Nope. But the two most deserving were
- Messages
- 1,290
I guess Jordan, who played against Dawkins for two years in college, saw something you didn't. Hard to say what somebody's destiny would've been had they been paired with Jordan. The real bright side of not drafting Dawkins is that they might not have taken Pippen the next year if they had Dawkins and were looking for a big. As far as Sellers, the only reason anyone even knows his name is b/c he played with Jordan a few years. Dude was 7'0" and averaged 2.7 rpg in his career. Bulls dumped him after 3 seasons...
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,773
Jordan also saw something in Adam Morrison that nobody else did. Players are typically bad GMs. Most of the league's terrible trades are made by teams with stars looking for that one final piece. LAL got Westbrook; PHO Bradley Beal; MIL Lillard; and so on.
The Bulls were trying to make Sellers a 7'0" small forward. Basically, they saw him as a possible Durant-like player, in terms of size, shooting, agility. They didn't need the rebounding so much because they had Oakley (when they drafted him at least). Obviously Sellers turned out badly but in the NBA there's not much difference between a mediocre draft pick and a terrible one. That's why teams have mostly shot for the stars in their high lottery picks. You can get a Johnny Dawkins anywhere. You can't get a 7'0" shooter just anywhere. Turns out you couldn't get one out of OSU but that was the mentality I think.
Plus, Dawkins was a bad fit for the Bulls. He was a small SG with limited range. Dawkins game was pullup 17 footers. Great. Why do you need that when you have MJ? Dawkins wasn't a PG (which is what the Sixers tried to make him into), he was too small to play 2, was positionally blocked at the 2, and so what would he add to the team? They didn't want to draft a backup at #10.
- Messages
- 1,290
Yeah, I had to look all this up b/c clearly nobody knows Sellers' shooting stats (or anything else about him), but his 2 pt. fg% was under 50% for his career, both college and pro. Not sure why anyone would think that guy was ever going to be a Kevin Durant type of player. At any rate, Dawkins was a better all around player than Sellers by a pretty good margin, even factoring in the positional difference. He averaged better than 7 apg in his prime, you'd have to think that number would've been better if he'd had Jordan and Pippen to pass to. Speaking of small guards with limited range, the Bulls did alright with John Paxson, I'd say Dawkins was at least that good, probably better. Granted, they already had Paxson, so why not try to fill a different positional need instead of drafting the same guy, which I think is basically what you're saying. But Sellers sure wasn't it...
Rather than take Brad Sellers or Johnny Dawkins at #9, the Bulls should have taken John Salley (Sal went #11).
John Paxson was a much better fit for the Bulls than Johnny Dawkins - especially after Scottie Pippen evolved into the great Point Forward he became.
John Paxson was a much better fit for the Bulls than Johnny Dawkins - especially after Scottie Pippen evolved into the great Point Forward he became.
ChileG
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,472
And the other team even scored 3 points in the last 45 seconds.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,773
John Paxson was, relative to the league, a good three point shooter -- especially later in his career. Shot 43% in 1990 and 46% in 1992.
The goal with Sellers was to play him at SF. Ideally he was supposed to add rim protection while staying out of MJ's way on offense. Obviously it was a failed attempt because Sellers wasn't the guy, but again, the idea was sound. They just didn't have the right guy -- which is I suppose a way of the idea being unsound, but there was at least a thought there. Dawkins would not have been useful to the Bulls, even if he was the better player in the league.
7.4 apg on a bad team was nothing really back in those days. It was middle of the pack. FG% was higher; people shot many fewer threes; and FTs were lower than they are today, I think. There were lots more chances to get assists (which is why Stockton's assist records are likely untouchable). Dawkins' only good season on a good team came playing beside Barkley, so he racked up plenty of assists that way.
I'm not going to the mattresses to defend Brad Sellers of all players. He was a failure in the league. And if you think it was a bad draft choice, I don't remember well enough to debate that. I just understand completely why they didn't draft Dawkins.
I also understand why they didn't draft Salley. Again, they already had Oakley (who was at the time exclusively a paint player), and the last thing they needed was more bodies to clog the lane for MJ.
- Messages
- 1,191
That sounds familiar. Except for the winning part.
- Messages
- 1,191
It all worked out for Jordan and the Bulls the following year when Chicago made draft day trade with Seattle, trading Olden Polynice for Scottie Piipen, and drafted Horace Grant.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,773
Didn't they give up Oakley in that deal to the Knicks? Or was that a separate trade?
Not taking up for MJ as a GM, but Adam Morrison gets a very bad rap. He had a solid rookie season, finishing 4th in ROY voting after being drafted 3rd overall. I watched him score almost 30 points in a half, one game that season. The guy could go off.
His defense was always going to be the challenge, but after his unfortunate ACL kept him out his entire 2nd season, that was all she wrote. He lost what lateral quickness he had, and certainly was never going to be able to defend after that. People didn’t seem to come back from that injury back then, and he definitely didn’t.
But it’s unfair to gloss over that injury and dismiss him as a bust IMO.
1988 trade b/t the Knicks and Bulls. Cartwright for Oakley. The Knicks and Bulls also swapped 1st and 3rd round picks in the 1988 draft; the Bulls drafted Will Purdue, a decent back-up, with the Knicks 11th pick (who became trade fodder for Dennis Rodman years later).
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 6,773
1. People came back from ACLs all the time back then. You're thinking of the 1980s.
2. Morrison shot a ghastly 39% from two-point range and 33% from three point range. So in terms of scoring, he was extremely inefficient. Listed as a PF, he average 2.9 rpg in almost 30 minutes per game. That rebounding rate is pretty bad for any player, but especially terrible for a forward (even if you think he was really playing SF). He didn't get assists too much either -- 2.1 apg versus 1.7 TOs.
3. So basically Morrison's only NBA skill was the ability to get shots which he converted at an abysmal rate. He's usually considered one of the worst picks of all time, although in recent years he's had some folks surpass him that regard (cough cough Anthony Bennett cough). His career FG% was 39%. In that rookie season, his effective FG% was last in the entire league. Incidentally, his teammate Felton was 3rd worst, but at least Felton played D and was a reasonably effective passer (especially given that he was throwing to a bricklayer).
Like I said, he finished 4th of a not so strong rookie class for ROY. It was a solid season, it was not a bust… and he was getting his sea legs under him as a scoring threat. ACL’s were not nothing back then, especially for, like I already said, a guy challenged with lateral quickness deficiencies by NBA standards.
You’re remembering him as one of the worst picks of all time because of his really high collegiate and even pop culture profile, “The Stache” became a cult favorite. And because he flamed out after his major injury. All of that does not actually make him one of the worst picks of all time, it just makes him popular to pick on.
Bigs23
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,681
That was a weak draft. Rodman at 27 was the best pro on it.