The Scenario
The 1984 draft produced Hakeem Olajuwon, Michael Jordan, Charles Barkley, and John Stockton. Houston took Hakeem #1. Portland took Sam Bowie #2. Chicago got Jordan at #3.
The question everyone asks: Did Houston make a mistake passing on Jordan? Our contextual analysis says... it's complicated.
Player Profile: Michael Jordan
| Position | SG |
| College | North Carolina |
| Actual Pick | #3 Overall (Chicago Bulls) |
| Pro Readiness | High |
| Career Accolades | 6× Champion, 5× MVP, 10× Scoring Champ |
Scouting Notes (1984)
- • Elite athleticism and competitiveness
- • National Championship game-winner at UNC
- • Questions about perimeter players leading teams
- • "Guards don't win championships" era thinking
- • Comparisons to David Thompson
Houston Rockets (Pick #1)
Team Context (1984)
| Factor | Rating | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC (Bill Fitch) | 65/100 | 15% | 9.8 |
| System Fit | 45/100 | 15% | 6.8 |
| Existing Star (Ralph Sampson) | 40/100 | 15% | 6.0 |
| Organization | 60/100 | 15% | 9.0 |
| SG Dev History | 50/100 | 15% | 7.5 |
| Draft Pressure (#1) | 35/100 | 10% | 3.5 |
| Market (Houston) | 65/100 | 5% | 3.3 |
| Timeline (contending) | 55/100 | 10% | 5.5 |
| TOTAL FIT SCORE | 51.75 | ||
The Problem
Ralph Sampson was the franchise. System built around Twin Towers concept.
Projection
Great player, but awkward roster fit with 7'4" Sampson as centerpiece
Why The Score Is "Only" 52
Houston was building around Twin Towers (Sampson + eventually Olajuwon). Jordan's skill set — isolation scoring, perimeter dominance — would've clashed with a post-centric system. He'd have been great, but maybe not "greatest ever" great.
Portland Trail Blazers (Pick #2)
Team Context (1984)
| Factor | Rating | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC (Jack Ramsay) | 75/100 | 15% | 11.3 |
| System Fit | 50/100 | 15% | 7.5 |
| Existing SG (Clyde Drexler) | 25/100 | 15% | 3.8 |
| Organization | 55/100 | 15% | 8.3 |
| SG Dev History | 30/100 | 15% | 4.5 |
| Draft Pressure (#2) | 40/100 | 10% | 4.0 |
| Market (Portland) | 55/100 | 5% | 2.8 |
| Need (Center) | 20/100 | 10% | 2.0 |
| TOTAL FIT SCORE | 38.25 | ||
The Fatal Flaw
Portland already had Clyde Drexler — a young, athletic SG who'd become a Hall of Famer. Drafting Jordan meant either moving Drexler or playing two ball-dominant guards together. They "needed" a center (hence Sam Bowie). The logic was sound; the execution was disastrous.
Chicago Bulls (Pick #3)
Team Context (1984)
| Factor | Rating | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| HC (Kevin Loughery) | 55/100 | 15% | 8.3 |
| System Fit | 80/100 | 15% | 12.0 |
| Roster Clarity (no star SG) | 95/100 | 15% | 14.3 |
| Organization | 50/100 | 15% | 7.5 |
| SG Dev History | 70/100 | 15% | 10.5 |
| Draft Pressure (#3) | 65/100 | 10% | 6.5 |
| Market (Chicago) | 85/100 | 5% | 4.3 |
| Timeline (rebuilding) | 90/100 | 10% | 9.0 |
| TOTAL FIT SCORE | 77.75 | ||
Why It Worked
Blank canvas. No established star to share with. Big market ready for a savior.
The Key Factor
Rebuilding timeline = patience. Jordan could develop his game for 3 years before "winning" pressure hit.
But Wait — Was Hakeem the Right Pick?
Here's the twist: Houston's pick of Hakeem Olajuwon was actually correct for their context.
Hakeem to Houston: 85/100
- • Perfect Twin Towers pairing with Sampson
- • Scheme fit for post-centric offense
- • Reached Finals in Year 2
- • 2× Champion (after Sampson left)
Jordan to Houston: 52/100
- • Awkward fit with Sampson system
- • Would've changed their identity
- • Perimeter star ≠ Twin Towers
- • Still great, but different trajectory
Houston didn't "miss" on Jordan — they correctly identified that Hakeem was the better fit for their existing roster and philosophy. Portland is the team that truly blew it.
Jordan Fit Score By Team
Houston
Awkward fit
Portland
Drexler conflict
Chicago
Blank canvas
The Verdict
The 1984 draft narrative is wrong. Houston made the right pick for their situation.Portland made the indefensible blunder — choosing injury-prone Sam Bowie over Jordan despite having a worse contextual argument.
And Chicago? They lucked into the perfect situation: a rebuilding team, no incumbent star, a huge market, and the greatest player ever falling to #3.
Sometimes falling to #3 is the best thing that can happen.