best #1 draft pick of all time

but and

i went with hakeem

i guess duncan?

hakeem picked over jordan, should that affect this somehow?

between magic and timmy. went w/magic just he was more fun to watch, more engaging personality, and his name is magic johnson.

no way is duncan better than hakeem

For me the best #1 is when you guess right despite there being some argument. Howard over Okafor (for example) was a genuine argument at the time that proved to be quite correct over time. I'm sure there are others like that.

Magic over Timmy, Kareem, Hakeem & Lebron.

lebron, duncan, hakeem, kareem, magic, oscar\

went with magic

no way is duncan better than hakeem

Don't think he is either, but he was a better pick.

Kareem took the Milwaukee Bucks to a championship as a rookie. The Milwaukee Bucks, people. As a rookie.

where were russell and wilt picked?

Kareem had that Oscar guy helping out you know.

And they didn't win his rookie year.

kareem was probably the best player and had the best career, but tim and magic brought the teams who drafted them the most rings. and duncan did it with much much less help.

so russell was 2nd after the immortal sihugo green in 1956, and wilt was a pretty shady territorial pick by philadelphia.

i'm voting magic

if we looked back in 10 years on this would we say that lebron, despite being one of the 3 best players in nba history, is sort of disqualified from being the answer here because of how his particular stint w/ the cavs went

also a tengentially related question: do you think cavs fans, knowing what they know now, would agree to go back in time and not take lebron and see how the franchise falls from then on, or do you think they still agree to take lebron and what he did when he was there w/ this as the aftermath? has to be the latter right?

i think the cavs could have won a title with better help for lebron, it's not really fair to blame the losses on him

They definitely should've drafted Darko instead.

Don't think he is either, but he was a better pick.

― A True White Kid that can Jump (Granny Dainger), Wednesday, February 9, 2011 2:23 PM (45 minutes ago) Bookmark

fair enough

if we looked back in 10 years on this would we say that lebron, despite being one of the 3 best players in nba history, is sort of disqualified from being the answer here because of how his particular stint w/ the cavs went

― J0rdan S., Wednesday, February 9, 2011 2:51 PM (35 minutes ago)

i dunno how much more dude could have really done than what he did, i mean look at that team now

also a tengentially related question: do you think cavs fans, knowing what they know now, would agree to go back in time and not take lebron and see how the franchise falls from then on, or do you think they still agree to take lebron and what he did when he was there w/ this as the aftermath? has to be the latter right?

― J0rdan S., Wednesday, February 9, 2011 2:52 PM (36 minutes ago)

they'd be lying if they said anything else - he was so loved there - it's about the journey don't you realize

"Never Nervous" Pervis Ellison

i dunno how much more dude could have really done than what he did, i mean look at that team now

― kl0p's son (k3vin k.), Wednesday, February 9, 2011 2:28 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban

Probably true, but I'm still lil pissed about him quitting during the playoffs last year (please don't waste time showing stats that disprove this) and then wasting no time ripping his Cavs jersey off. and I'm not even a CLE fan.

clearly i'm not blaming anything that happened w/ the cavs on lebron, i'm just wondering whether or not the outcome was worth the process, so to speak

on the other hand, it's not like anyone else drafted that year -- wade, bosh, melo etc would've stayed there any later than lebron did & they wouldn't have had a shot at a title prob w/ anyone in that group aside from wade, so yeah i guess they'd still take the lebron years as they were

hakeem had insane talent but his career path was a little bumpier than some of these guys.

excellent poll idea! need to think about this.

chris kamen would've stayed... the choice is clear in retrospect

It's amazing how many times people get it right, honestly.

2000
1. Kenyon Martin
2. Stromile Swift
3. Darius Miles
4. Marcus Fizer
5. Mike Miller

Say what you want about Kenyon, but the alternative was pretty bad too!

1997
1. Tim Duncan
2. Keith Van Horn
3. Chauncey Billups (who was a non-entity for a few years before his renaissance)
4. Antonio Daniels
5. Tony Battie

Like, can you even say this was a good draft pick? It seems so obvious now!

1996
Allen Iverson
Marcus Camby
Shareef Abdur-Rahim
Stephon Marbury
Ray Allen

If they re-did this one, do you think Allen goes #1?

magic

Allen or Mr. Allen?
AI had a amazing career. I doubt many GMs would opt for the guy who wound up having the longer, more career over the guy who was an MVP, filled seats, single-handedly carried his team to the Finals, was the best player ever at his height...

Mr. Allen if you're nasty

ray-ray had the best career of those 1996 top five, but i think there was an even better player down at #13

john stockton was much better than iverson at his height

always thought john had an inch or 2 on AI?

yeah i dunno its hard to say 'reported heights' and all - they look roughly the same size to me

"much better" a bit of an overstatement tho

stockton's hair made him seem 6'5"

i dunno as much as i love iverson for who he is, he was a bit of a train wreck of a player, v inefficient etc

i think there was an even better player down at #13

True, but I usually judge the pick based on the players who were actually in the mix for the top picks. No one really thought Bryant would go #1 that year, although I do remember him being quite high profile as a high schooler.

you think stockton could've got those that 6ers team to the finals? being super efficient isn't everything

eh that one sixers team was built around iversons skills and barely came out of a v weak eastern conference

so "no" then

well its a stupid meaningless question is what im saying, i mean iverson couldnt do any stockton stuff either, he couldnt run the pick n roll w/malone and take the jazz to the finals twice in a v tough conference and get the all time assists record

imo stockton was better on a year to year basis and he was still in his prime at the point in his career when iverson was out of the nba altogether

it's stupid and meaningless but you just used its premise to argue your side haha. point is they did different things for a team and to say stockton was "much better" is exaggeration done to poke at one lil facet of what i said that isn't really relevant to the larger point

no i just used it to point out its stupidness

and i used it to point out your stupidness, but i did it first so i win go home loser boy here's your mom's sweater

no you used it to point out your stupidness

the nature of his game has allowed him to play at a high level for v long & he's obv a very deadly second banana, but... second banana is what he is

so the definitions of positions are ~changing~ in ths modern game

I don't think iverson can ever be considered a pure point guard in the way stockton was because he had a shoot-first, and shoot-second, and shoot-third mentality - experiments to make him play point later in his career are gross and I basically don't think about that ever

anyway

http://hoopedia.nba.com/images/c/c8/JoeyCrawfordTechnicalFoul.jpg

double T assessed to ice cram and granny - can we get on with the game now plz

iverson is as position-less as lebron, his position on the sixers was "scorer"

ray's had a very nice, long career & he will set many records, but he's been strictly a complementary player his whole career

― J0rdan S., Wednesday, February 9, 2011 7:07 PM (36 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

whaaat ray has averaged 26 ppg in a season made multiple all nba teams and been the best player on a bunch of playoff teams

I don't think iverson can ever be considered a pure point guard in the way stockton was because he had a shoot-first, and shoot-second, and shoot-third mentality

Marbury had the same mentality and yet was never considered anything other than a PG.

how many pure point guards are left in the NBA? kidd, nash...?

good point polyphonic - idk why they played marbury at point

Remember in 2001 when the Sixers beat the Bucks 4-3 to advance to the Finals? Allen was pretty good in those playoffs.

I'd take AI over Ray in that draft, but that doesn't mean Ray wasn't a star. That Bucks team that lost to AI's Sixers was a joy to watch, and built around Ray's skills; Big Dog may have got the money but he wasn't the key guy, and neither was Cassell.

from my experience playing with the youngsters in pickup games lately, watching high school ball etc, current generation views PG as "oh boy, I'll get to have the BALL IN MY HANDS the most, get 1st chance to score every time up the court" rather than "oh boy, I'll get to run the offense and set up my scoring teammates". i don't watch much NCAA, are there any up-n-coming true PGs?

in granny's world of young ppl

if peak ray allen is a complimentary player then only like legit mvp candidates can be considered 'primary' or whatever the fuck its called

The bottom line is that AI scored more, stole more, distributed the ball more. He was always around the ball. But Ray was much more efficient, less of a gambler, a great catch-and-shoot guy. AI could never do what Ray does and vice versa.

xxp its pretty meaningless to "run an offense" in pickup games vs the nba

i do also think ppl are forgetting ray's pre-celtics career a bit

i do also think ppl are forgetting ray's pre-celtics career a bit

He was on a lot of mediocre teams, especially as a Sonic.

ray is a much more useful versatile player than iverson - w/iverson its like youre building a v particular type of team around him and hes taking all the shots and making a ton of turnovers and it is what it is but he was never quite good enough to be worth it

its no coincidence iverson isnt in the nba anymore while ray is still making allstar teams

Iverson's style of play meant he got the crap kicked out of him game after game. His body broke down after 37000 minutes. It happens. They were very, very different, and really not comparable.

shush you - ai filled more seats than ray ever did

I mean, if we're judging dudes on how gracefully they turned into complementary players a lot of stars are going to come off poorly.

Ray Allen would not be an all-star if he played for the Bobcats.

I will brook no criticism of AI - ice cram you are dangerously close to your second technical and ejection

all nba players comparable! especially in this context the draft, who do you pick first

I will brook no criticism of AI - ice cram you are dangerously close to your second technical and ejection

― dayo, Wednesday, February 9, 2011 7:43 PM (27 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

hey i love AI srsly one of my fav dudes ever in the nba, so entertaining an fearsome and just raw and genuine, but he was seriously flawed, i can see that WHY CANT U

Isn't this the quintessential sports argument? The gym rat vs. the star?

of course ray & iverson are comparable -- the fact that they play about as opposite as guards can play is what makes it a great debate

mean, if we're judging dudes on how gracefully they turned into complementary players a lot of stars are going to come off poorly.

― polyphonic, Wednesday, February 9, 2011 7:43 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

its not the only criteria, but longevity is generally considered a legit major aspect of analyzing careers

quick question: what did the sonics/thunder ultimately turn ray allen into? i.e. what would they look like right now if they kept ray all this time

thunder ended up getting jeff green, but they traded away big baby too

hey i love AI srsly one of my fav dudes ever in the nba, so entertaining an fearsome and just raw and genuine, but he was seriously flawed, i can see that WHY CANT U

― ice cr?m, Thursday, February 10, 2011 8:45 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

can't see you through my hater blockers sorry

so do we think less of malone for ending up on the lakers

nah, more for his facial hair

for his sketchers ads

also i didnt' do good w/ him on NBA Jam

ray allen's sonics teams had a couple playoff runs iirc, in a stacked conference with very little supporting talent (rashard and...?)

quick arbitrary top 10:

1. Kareem
2. Magic
3. Hakeem
4. TD
5. Shaq
6. Oscar
7. Bron
8. Elgin
9. D. Robinson
10. Walton

pretty sure about the top 2, 3-6 are all in the same tier, and bron is hard to rank properly

it is impressive how most of these guys over the past 20-something years have panned out. looks like we've got three A+ picks in a row (after 3 iffy picks), and before that there were a dozen in a row where the players were anywhere from occasional all-stars to legendary.

if peak ray allen is a complimentary player then only like legit mvp candidates can be considered 'primary' or whatever the fuck its called

I'm not sure this is really true - like, Mike Beasley isn't the best player on a 13-win team but he's a "primary" guy - he didn't work with Wade on his team but next to a complementary all-star he does great - Ray's always done a ton of work to get himself open off screens etc - he was great as a #1 option but there was nothing about his prime game that wouldn't have been compatible with having another top player alongside him.

im not saying he couldnt get along w/another all star

Automatic thread bump. This poll is closing tomorrow.

It would be a shame if Hakeem Olajuwon didn't get a vote, but I voted Kareem already and stick by it.

LBJ, even though I hate him

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

lol @ BG & CW vote

oscar shut out!

everyone hates oscar, and oscar hates everyone

ok which one of you is "cleavie wonder"?
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/623709-ray-allen-vs-allen-iverson-whos-the-better-player

I dunno, but I want my cut. ;-)