Is Len Bias really as good as Bill Simmons says he is?

[IllalwayslikeHavlicek]

A stronger James Worthy?

[Surferdad]

You mean, 'was'

[IllalwayslikeHavlicek]

我不会说英语（我是中国人）。 我用翻译表达自己。 如有语法问题，请见谅 ; D ; D ; D

[gouki88]

He was an incredible athlete and was really efficient. I don't know if he would've been as good as Worthy, but I always thought he would have been like pre-New York Xavier McDaniels on offence. Athletic combo forward. Not sure how good he was on defence, but given his athletic tools and the Celtics coaching & players I imagine he would've developed into a really good defender.

[Roy H.]

He could have been.  He could have been better than that.  Or, even if he survived draft night, he could have ended up as a waste of potential.

[Donoghus]

He could have been.  He could have been better than that.  Or, even if he survived draft night, he could have ended up as a waste of potential.

Yeah, and that's the part of the equation that people tend to overlook.  In that day & age, you just don't know how he would've turned out.  Especially if he was dabbling in that stuff before he was about to receive a boatload of money as a professional.  You would certainly hope that he would've been kept in line by the organization and his teammates but you just don't know.  Look at what happened to some of his contemporaries of the time.

[Ed Monix]

He could have been.  He could have been better than that.  Or, even if he survived draft night, he could have ended up as a waste of potential.

I remember watching an interview with John Salley who I believe either knew Bias or friends of Bias’ and Salley said that because Bias’ had been training so hard he had only had a very small amount of body fat and that was a major cause of the overdose death.

https://youtu.be/IjAhmo082Uo&t=3m18s

[ETNCeltics]

He was 2x player of the year in the ACC, in an era that included Mark Price, Brad Daugherty, Kenny Smith, and John Salley. He was consensus first team all-American ahead of a bunch of guys who would become NBA all stars.

He could have flopped like another all American forward from that  era, Walter Berry, but unlike Berry, Bias wasn't an undersized post player. He had a great all around offensive game. He was considered the most athletic player in college basketball, and it wasn't James Worthy and Xavier McDaniel he was most compared to, it was Michael Jordan.

[Ed Monix]

This is Michael Wilbon talking about Bias and he’s someone who;

A) Chicago native, Jordan guy

B) Is one of the most respectable sports journalists in the business

‘Watching Bias was like art’

https://youtu.be/_Zmvqs2B9wM

[Silas]

I don’t know what Simmons had to say about Bias.  Being a Maryland bball fan, I watched Bias his whole career at Md.  He had amazing jumping abilities but came out of high school with only a great jump shot.  At 6’8” his shot was difficult to guard or block.  Early on he wasn’t strong and had problems finishing at the rim.  By the time he was entering his final year at Md he had become an all around player and was unstoppable.  I watched Jordan at NC and always felt Bias during his last year was bigger, stronger, and a much better shot.  If he had not been into drugs and had played with Bird and the rest, he could have been an equal to Jordan if not better. 

[footey]

Sadly, we will never know.  One of those moments I could not believe.  Stunning.

[tonydelk]

I don’t know what Simmons had to say about Bias.  Being a Maryland bball fan, I watched Bias his whole career at Md.  He had amazing jumping abilities but came out of high school with only a great jump shot.  At 6’8” his shot was difficult to guard or block.  Early on he wasn’t strong and had problems finishing at the rim.  By the time he was entering his final year at Md he had become an all around player and was unstoppable.  I watched Jordan at NC and always felt Bias during his last year was bigger, stronger, and a much better shot.  If he had not been into drugs and had played with Bird and the rest, he could have been an equal to Jordan if not better.

Bias was a beast.  He was Lebron before Lebron with his size and strength.  May have been a better athlete the Lebron which is nuts.  What a tragedy. 

[Ed Monix]

我不会说英语（我是中国人）。 我用翻译表达自己。 如有语法问题，请见谅 ; D ; D ; D

English translation from IllalwayslikeHavlicek:

‘I don't speak English (I am Chinese). I use translation to express myself. If you (I) have any grammar problems, please forgive me’

[bdm860]

One thing that always takes me down from fantasizing what might have been is that he was drafted #2.

People act like he was that next sure thing, a generational prospect, that can't miss franchise cornerstone, etc.,  but he was drafted #2.  Guys that are that clearly a superstar usually don't get drafted #2.

Now sure this was the era where if there's an All-Star caliber Center available, that's who you take, '86 was in the middle of a 5 year stretch of Centers getting drafted #1, along with most of the top few picks being either a C or PF.  So maybe Bias just didn't fit the right mold to go #1.  Maybe he was viewed as Durant here, a generational talent but the guy ahead of him had more appeal just because he was a Center.  (But also think Jordan's explosion the previous year would help shatter that glass ceiling and have people start searching for that next Jordan, if he really was supposed to be the next Jordan).

And while sure there's some studs in the 80's near the top of the draft not drafted #1 (Jordan, Dominique, Isiah), but there's more non studs by far.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Danny Manning or Wayman Tisdale or Danny Ferry or Armen Gilliam or Rodney McCray or Xavier McDaniel, etc. who was drafted by the Celtics but had an untimely demise and then we'd see them romanticized the same way (only with the PF compared more to Barkley/Malone than Jordan).

Maybe there was a lot of debate of who should go #1, and maybe a lot of other franchises would have actually drafted Bias #1.  There was debut that Carmelo should be drafted over LeBron, that Emeka Okafor should be drafted over Howard, that Aldridge should be drafted over Bargnani, that Durant should be drafted over Oden, that Ball should be drafted over Fultz, that Camby should be drafted over Iverson, etc.  Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.


But the fact that he went #2 definitely makes me question how much of a generational talent he really was at the time.  And if there was that buzz, was it just normal rookie hype (like is often seen with guys like Andrew Wiggins, OJ Mayo, Michael Beasley, etc.)?

Just on the hype train, here's a few articles calling Andrew Wiggins the next LeBron:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/basketball-phenomenon-andrew-wiggins-dubbed-the-best-prospect-since-lebron-james/news-story/024e639ff57e3a5c2ac15de9522384b1

https://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-wiggins-next-lebron-2013-5


Just because people are saying it, doesn't make it true.


Just the pessimist in me.

[djsway104]

One thing that always takes me down from fantasizing what might have been is that he was drafted #2.

People act like he was that next sure thing, a generational prospect, that can't miss franchise cornerstone, etc.,  but he was drafted #2.  Guys that are that clearly a superstar usually don't get drafted #2.

Now sure this was the era where if there's an All-Star caliber Center available, that's who you take, '86 was in the middle of a 5 year stretch of Centers getting drafted #1, along with most of the top few picks being either a C or PF.  So maybe Bias just didn't fit the right mold to go #1.  Maybe he was viewed as Durant here, a generational talent but the guy ahead of him had more appeal just because he was a Center.  (But also think Jordan's explosion the previous year would help shatter that glass ceiling and have people start searching for that next Jordan, if he really was supposed to be the next Jordan).

And while sure there's some studs in the 80's near the top of the draft not drafted #1 (Jordan, Dominique, Isiah), but there's more non studs by far.  I wouldn't be surprised if it was Danny Manning or Wayman Tisdale or Danny Ferry or Armen Gilliam or Rodney McCray or Xavier McDaniel, etc. who was drafted by the Celtics but had an untimely demise and then we'd see them romanticized the same way (only with the PF compared more to Barkley/Malone than Jordan).

Maybe there was a lot of debate of who should go #1, and maybe a lot of other franchises would have actually drafted Bias #1.  There was debut that Carmelo should be drafted over LeBron, that Emeka Okafor should be drafted over Howard, that Aldridge should be drafted over Bargnani, that Durant should be drafted over Oden, that Ball should be drafted over Fultz, that Camby should be drafted over Iverson, etc.  Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.


But the fact that he went #2 definitely makes me question how much of a generational talent he really was at the time.  And if there was that buzz, was it just normal rookie hype (like is often seen with guys like Andrew Wiggins, OJ Mayo, Michael Beasley, etc.)?

Just on the hype train, here's a few articles calling Andrew Wiggins the next LeBron:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/basketball/basketball-phenomenon-andrew-wiggins-dubbed-the-best-prospect-since-lebron-james/news-story/024e639ff57e3a5c2ac15de9522384b1

https://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-wiggins-next-lebron-2013-5


Just because people are saying it, doesn't make it true.


Just the pessimist in me.

We took tatum at 3