PDA

View Full Version : If Rodman played today...



JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 09:37 AM
How many rebounds per game would this guy average?

Would he be able to break 20? With the increase in the number of possessions, it seems like his stats would be even crazier than they were in the 90's.


Thoughts?

Heediot
09-13-2017, 09:42 AM
Not too sure, maybe he'll have less opportunities because of how the game is played. He'll be switching to the perimeter far more often. Maybe that decreases his chances to fight and crash the glass. If Russ can get 10 per, I think Rodman can still get at least 15 per with his energy and will.

warfelg
09-13-2017, 09:45 AM
He would spend 50% of his games suspended because he plays too tough.

WaDe03
09-13-2017, 10:00 AM
He would just be another role player.

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 10:41 AM
He would just be another role player.

Ouch!

53 HOWARD
09-13-2017, 10:45 AM
He would just be another role player.

He would be even more valuable now with teams playing small ball
He was so versatile he could guard any position

If you watched him back in the day especially with Detroit one game he'd guard Jordan the next game he'd guard Ewing

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 10:51 AM
He would be even more valuable now with teams playing small ball
He was so versatile he could guard any position

If you watched him back in the day especially with Detroit one game he'd guard Jordan the next game he'd guard Ewing

+1

He's similar to Green defensively, and likely better.

While he didn't have the offensive skills and passing that Green has, he was a historically amazing rebounder, so...

He would have a huge contract and be winning DPOY awards and making the All-Defensive team.

Role player? At bit unfair.

COOLbeans
09-13-2017, 11:17 AM
multiple DPOY guy. He would be a better shooter because they wouldve worked on that going back to college. Hed be a perrenial allstar and a 150M$ player.

Heediot
09-13-2017, 11:23 AM
Rodman and Draymond are role players. They are just all-star level role players, some of the best in NBA history. Nothing wrong with that.

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 11:25 AM
Not too sure, maybe he'll have less opportunities because of how the game is played. He'll be switching to the perimeter far more often. Maybe that decreases his chances to fight and crash the glass. If Russ can get 10 per, I think Rodman can still get at least 15 per with his energy and will.

agreed. I think Rodman's ability to get his 2nd jump up before anyone I have ever seen play would still get him so many boards, but the longer rebounds now, and the fact that he would be forced to guard away from the rim more, may sway his percentage down slightly.

He would still be the games best rebounder today, easily.

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 11:26 AM
Rodman and Draymond are role players. They are just all-star level role players, some of the best in NBA history. Nothing wrong with that.

yep. Add Ben Wallace to that list.

PowerHouse
09-13-2017, 12:23 PM
Role player? At bit unfair.

A role player is exactly what he was though. But not "just another" role player.

He was probably the greatest role player of all time which is a spectacular praise. I would include Michael Cooper and maybe Robert Horry in that discussion too. That could be a whole new thread right there actually, greatest role players all time.

basch152
09-13-2017, 12:35 PM
He would just be another role player.


Wade wouldn't even make the all NBA 3rd team If he played today. Give me butler klay and harden over him.

hugepatsfan
09-13-2017, 12:44 PM
Rodman and Draymond are role players. They are just all-star level role players, some of the best in NBA history. Nothing wrong with that.

Disagree. They play roles that are typically reserved for the "role players" but they do them at such a special and elite level that they impact the games as much as the star players who play more traditional star player roles.

WaDe03
09-13-2017, 01:10 PM
+1

He's similar to Green defensively, and likely better.

While he didn't have the offensive skills and passing that Green has, he was a historically amazing rebounder, so...

He would have a huge contract and be winning DPOY awards and making the All-Defensive team.

Role player? At bit unfair.

Was being sarcastic. But which is worse, me saying that about Rodman or Rodman saying that about LeBron if he played in their era?

WaDe03
09-13-2017, 01:11 PM
Wade wouldn't even make the all NBA 3rd team If he played today. Give me butler klay and harden over him.

He would make 1st team every year. No SG in the league is on his prime level on both ends of the court.

Go ahead and take them, my SG will win that matchup every time no debate and my SG is able to carry his team to a championship.

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 01:22 PM
Disagree. They play roles that are typically reserved for the "role players" but they do them at such a special and elite level that they impact the games as much as the star players who play more traditional star player roles.

Their role is defined though. Rodman for instance, can't do anything BUT be an elite defender/rebounder. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he specializes to some degree.

Green is an enigma. Put him on a bad team, I don't think he makes them much better. But put him on a very good team, he makes them great. Meaning, I think he has some huge weaknesses, that are easily covered up with high talent next to him.

IndyRealist
09-13-2017, 01:22 PM
Disagree. They play roles that are typically reserved for the "role players" but they do them at such a special and elite level that they impact the games as much as the star players who play more traditional star player roles.

This.

All players fulfill a role. The designation of a "role player" implies that they are less valuable players. Rodman's impact on the game far surpassed many "star players" of his era.

IndyRealist
09-13-2017, 01:27 PM
Their role is defined though. Rodman for instance, can't do anything BUT be an elite defender/rebounder. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he specializes to some degree.

Green is an enigma. Put him on a bad team, I don't think he makes them much better. But put him on a very good team, he makes them great. Meaning, I think he has some huge weaknesses, that are easily covered up with high talent next to him.

By that definition, Melo has been a role player his entire career.

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 01:30 PM
By that definition, Melo has been a role player his entire career.

and not even a good one

What is a "role" player? I guess it all starts with that.

Tristan Thompson is a role player, right? Wasn't Rodman just the best Thompson possible?

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 01:32 PM
This.

All players fulfill a role. The designation of a "role player" implies that they are less valuable players. Rodman's impact on the game far surpassed many "star players" of his era.

by that definition, no, Rodman is not a role player.

Scoots
09-13-2017, 01:37 PM
+1

He's similar to Green defensively, and likely better.

While he didn't have the offensive skills and passing that Green has, he was a historically amazing rebounder, so...

He would have a huge contract and be winning DPOY awards and making the All-Defensive team.

Role player? At bit unfair.

I loved Rodman, but he had a selfish streak in him so I don't think he'd be better than Green on D, but certainly better on rebounding, and his defense was excellent when he was locked in and not number hunting. He was a pretty good passer too.

He would need to be on a team where he wasn't expected to score and any points from him were a bonus, but yeah, he'd still be good.

IndyRealist
09-13-2017, 01:41 PM
by that definition, no, Rodman is not a role player.

Yeah I don't even think there is a concensus on what role player means. We don't generally call leading scorers role players, even if that's all they do.

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 02:11 PM
Rodman and Draymond are role players. They are just all-star level role players, some of the best in NBA history. Nothing wrong with that.

LBJ is a role player, he's just a franchise role player.

Everybody plays a role. If you play a role at an All-Star level, you aren't simply a 'role player'. Steve Kerr was a role player. He hit 3's. Bruce Bowen was a role player: he his 3's and played tough D.

Rodman was arguably the greatest rebounder ever, and arguably the most versatile defender ever and almost certainly of his generation.

Just because he had a limited offensive game does not relegate him to 'role player'. There are guys who score lots and don't play D (Harden), and people don't call them role players.

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 02:15 PM
Yeah I don't even think there is a concensus on what role player means. We don't generally call leading scorers role players, even if that's all they do.

At the end of the day, everybody plays a role so everybody is a role player, but if somebody has done anything well enough to be an All-Star, All-NBA and/or defensive player, and is winning awards (MVP, DPOY, even 6th man), then they have moved beyond merely playing a 'role' and have graduated to all-star.

Hawkeye15
09-13-2017, 02:19 PM
Yeah I don't even think there is a concensus on what role player means. We don't generally call leading scorers role players, even if that's all they do.

of HOF'ers haha

Jamiecballer
09-13-2017, 02:24 PM
This.

All players fulfill a role. The designation of a "role player" implies that they are less valuable players. Rodman's impact on the game far surpassed many "star players" of his era.This, and the post this post references

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

WaDe03
09-13-2017, 02:26 PM
I wouldn't say either Green or Rodman are role players, they're all stars/HOF guys.

When I say role player I'm talking about the Jae Crowders, Avery Bradleys, James Johnson, JR smith type players. Danny Green, Bruce Bowen, Horry, etc.

Heediot
09-13-2017, 02:32 PM
LOLOL.

Rodman is the ultimate specialist, and Draymond is the ultimate glue guy. That's all I have to say, however you define role player is up to y'all. I don't see why you can't be an all-star and be a specialist or glue guy.

valade16
09-13-2017, 03:04 PM
To me a role player is the cast you surround your star player with. There are 2 types of players primarily: the player you build around and the players that you put around that player.

Rodman is insanely good yes, but nobody is going to build a team around Dennis Rodman.

hugepatsfan
09-13-2017, 03:54 PM
Their role is defined though. Rodman for instance, can't do anything BUT be an elite defender/rebounder. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he specializes to some degree.

Green is an enigma. Put him on a bad team, I don't think he makes them much better. But put him on a very good team, he makes them great. Meaning, I think he has some huge weaknesses, that are easily covered up with high talent next to him.

Everyone's "role" is "defined" though. How good/how high players rank is about their cumulative impact. Some guys are well-rounded and contribute in many different ways. Others are good at one thing but so great at it that in total their impact is still great.

James Harden is total trash on defense but because he's so good on offense he's an elite player, for example. The same thing can apply to players with other skill sets. Some guys like Rodman/Green are so good in non-scoring roles that they're still some of the best players in the league.

Jeffy25
09-13-2017, 04:49 PM
Danny Green with less shooting and scoring and better defense and rebounding.

Peak average of 3.0/6.0 FG/FGA - 6.5 ORG, 12.5 DRG - 19.0 RPG - 1.0 SPG, 0.7 BPG - 7.0 PPG - 5 ejections per game. Me hating him as a player, but respecting his energy and effort.


If you put him with a stretch Center and a good scoring SG, you could see multiple rings.

mrblisterdundee
09-13-2017, 05:32 PM
He'd be a bigger Tony Allen, or a much less offensively inclined Draymond Green, but I'd want him on my team to guard LeBron and Durant.

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 06:39 PM
Was being sarcastic. But which is worse, me saying that about Rodman or Rodman saying that about LeBron if he played in their era?

Ah... look up Poe's Law bro... you gotta add a winky face to that ;-)

JasonJohnHorn
09-13-2017, 06:43 PM
A role player is exactly what he was though. But not "just another" role player.

He was probably the greatest role player of all time which is a spectacular praise. I would include Michael Cooper and maybe Robert Horry in that discussion too. That could be a whole new thread right there actually, greatest role players all time.

Wow! Horry has lucky timing, and he was a role player later in his career (though he was significantly more important to those Houston teams). In LAL and SAS he was just a big body to throw in who could spread the floor. That's a role player.

Cooper was more than that, but Rodman was even more.

You are putting a guy who belongs in a conversation with the greatest forwards of the game and equating him with a guy who was pretty good at hitting open 3's in the clutch.

Horry helped you out for a couple of minutes a game. Rodman changed the game for you from start to finish.

Even Cooper, who helped throughout the game, didn't change the game for a team like Rodman did.

Rodman deserves to be in the conversation with Malone and Barkley, or even Pippen; not Horry.

FlashBolt
09-14-2017, 12:28 AM
Dennis Rodman, the only guy who guards Shaq and then the next game, be able to guard Jordan. Dude was freakishly strong for his wirey frame. I think he bulked up a bit more down the latter years but man, this guy was the epitome of effort and timing.

With that being said, I think we're overatting his impact.

- Three point shooting makes it more difficult for guys to get rebounds. With less finishes at the basket, most balls are bouncing back farther to the guards and or taller guys are trying to slap the ball back rather than grab onto it.
- His lack of offensive ability would probably make him a liability at times due to the fact that floor spacing is important. On some teams where they have elite shooters already, I can see him fitting in. But if your goal is to win a championship and you don't have many shooters, he's probably not your best bet.
- Wasn't really a good passer or someone capable of getting guys open. Just battled the boards but in the game today, you're going to have to be able to create offense at all areas of the court. I think this part of his game never developed because Thomas and Jordan were so dominant but it is definitely a liability.

Defensively, I think he'd be even more of an animal. I still think Kawhi is the best defender in the league and has a case to be the greatest perimeter defender, though.

IndyRealist
09-14-2017, 11:05 AM
Obviously Rodman couldn't shoot, but we're ignoring that he would also deliberately not score and pass when he had easy layups. He's not going to post up, but he could get clean up buckets better than most.

KnicksorBust
09-14-2017, 11:55 AM
Put me in the category of people that think Rodman would have been even more valuable today. He can guard anybody in the NBA. He used to try and guard Shaq/Ewing monster big men. Now? In a game where the post game is dying and forwards need to be able to switch on pick and rolls? Perfect for his skillset. He'd be more valuable than a Rudy Gobert because he can actually switch on to guards and he's a better rebounder.

JasonJohnHorn
09-14-2017, 10:17 PM
Obviously Rodman couldn't shoot, but we're ignoring that he would also deliberately not score and pass when he had easy layups. He's not going to post up, but he could get clean up buckets better than most.

I was mentioning this earlier... but I think to judge him on that you gotta go back and watch the game tape. What was the situation. Was this PJax's call? Or was that Rodman? We the Bulls up a a dozen or so? Was resetting the shot clock and eating up time to the team's advantage?

And you gotta remember, when Rodman was on the team, the 3pt line got brought in. Kerr was shooting .500 from the arc; Toni shot .400; Jordan shot .427 from the arc; Pippen .374 (this is 95/96); Buechler .444: and they were averaging close to 20 3pters a game that year... so after 10 3's from that squad, they'd likely end up with more points than Rodman would have gotten with 10 offensive put backs.

Add to that they got to eat up the clock, make the defense work harder (tiring them out on O), and keep everybody involved, that was likely the smart way to do it.

Teams work harder on D, and when they spend the majority of the game on D, their O game goes to $#!t. This is an important thing to consider in basketball. So what seems like a gimmie on the surface, might actually be a really smart strategy.

KingstonHawke
09-14-2017, 11:08 PM
He would be even more valuable now with teams playing small ball
He was so versatile he could guard any position

If you watched him back in the day especially with Detroit one game he'd guard Jordan the next game he'd guard Ewing

Can't be a 3 and D if you can't 3. Plus the perimiter play would hurt his rebounding ability. Having PFs that can shoot has changed the game. At best I think he'd be a sort of Kenneth Faried.

Raps08-09 Champ
09-14-2017, 11:25 PM
Probably 12 RPGish, so a little more than what he averaged when he was playing SF. In this game, he'd basically be guarding more perimeter players, reducing his rebounding opportunity. He'd win more DPOY though.

ewing
09-15-2017, 12:13 AM
35 rebounds a night


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

More-Than-Most
09-15-2017, 02:08 AM
Maybe he could help carry lebron to a title like he did for jordan 6 times :shrug:

JasonJohnHorn
09-15-2017, 08:10 AM
Maybe he could help carry lebron to a title like he did for jordan 6 times :shrug:

Not sure if you are serious (especially since Rodman wasn't there for the first three), but I love this!

Rodman was grossly underrated during his time in Chi-town. The Bulls wouldn't have even reached the finals without him.

That, and the NBA bringing in the 3-pt line essentially earned MJ another 3 titles. The 3-pt line negated Houston's strengths, and essentially started awarded MJ an extra point for his fade-away jumpers.

People seldom mention that when talking about how MJ is the GOAT.

ewing
09-15-2017, 08:25 AM
Not sure if you are serious (especially since Rodman wasn't there for the first three), but I love this!

Rodman was grossly underrated during his time in Chi-town. The Bulls wouldn't have even reached the finals without him.


That, and the NBA bringing in the 3-pt line essentially earned MJ another 3 titles. The 3-pt line negated Houston's strengths, and essentially started awarded MJ an extra point for his fade-away jumpers.

People seldom mention that when talking about how MJ is the GOAT.

most people aren't grasping at straws to try and downplay the GOAT.

FlashBolt
09-15-2017, 02:19 PM
most people aren't grasping at straws to try and downplay the GOAT.

Because most people stick to what everyone tells them.

ewing
09-15-2017, 04:47 PM
Because most people stick to what everyone tells them.

I saw all 6 runs. Rooted against him ever time. He was the best. It's not close


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JasonJohnHorn
09-16-2017, 09:42 PM
most people aren't grasping at straws to try and downplay the GOAT.

I'm not trying to downplay MJ. Just stating a fact.

Q1: Do you think MJ wins his 4th, 5th and 6th title with Will Purdue instead of Rodman?
Q2: Do you think bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for MJ to score?


Wilt made an argument back in the day that the difference between him and MJ (aside from position) is that when Wilt played, they changed the rules to make it harder for him to dominate. When MJ played, they changed the rules to make it easier for him. Taking away hand-checking and bringing in the 3pt line.

Those helped MJ. Quantifiably. I'm not saying he wasn't the GOAT, but the league is a business, and MJ was their money maker (look at the finals ratings the two years Jordan was out compared to the 3 prior: you think the league does't want MJ in the finals?)

I would argue that no team benefited from bringing the 3pt line in more than the Bulls. MJ's bread and butter was the fade away. All of a sudden, they are awarding him 3 points for those instead of two. He goes from taking 1.7 3pter per game on his career, to career-highs 3.2 and 3.6 per game. Pippen saw similar increases. That didn't help the Bulls?

That rule essentially neutralized 3pt-shooting teams (like Houston) by taking away their strongest advantage.

No where in there do I say "Jordan isn't the GOAT". Those are simple facts. Let's not mythologize the guy. He ot some help from league rule changes, and his second 3-peat he got a LOT of help from Rodman.


My argument isn't that Jordan isn't the GOAT, only that Rodman's contributions were immense to that second 3-peat team, and that Jordan had some other advantages.

If people think that's an assault on Jordan, then they are only arguing against quantifiable facts.

MJ, with Will Purdue instead of Rodman, couldn't even beat the team that got swept by the Rockets, and bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for the Bulls to compete against teams who had strong 3pt shooting and awarded MJ more points for the same shots that he had been taking anyways.

Is there something one can argue against in that statement?

FlashBolt
09-16-2017, 10:33 PM
I'm not trying to downplay MJ. Just stating a fact.

Q1: Do you think MJ wins his 4th, 5th and 6th title with Will Purdue instead of Rodman?
Q2: Do you think bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for MJ to score?


Wilt made an argument back in the day that the difference between him and MJ (aside from position) is that when Wilt played, they changed the rules to make it harder for him to dominate. When MJ played, they changed the rules to make it easier for him. Taking away hand-checking and bringing in the 3pt line.

Those helped MJ. Quantifiably. I'm not saying he wasn't the GOAT, but the league is a business, and MJ was their money maker (look at the finals ratings the two years Jordan was out compared to the 3 prior: you think the league does't want MJ in the finals?)

I would argue that no team benefited from bringing the 3pt line in more than the Bulls. MJ's bread and butter was the fade away. All of a sudden, they are awarding him 3 points for those instead of two. He goes from taking 1.7 3pter per game on his career, to career-highs 3.2 and 3.6 per game. Pippen saw similar increases. That didn't help the Bulls?

That rule essentially neutralized 3pt-shooting teams (like Houston) by taking away their strongest advantage.

No where in there do I say "Jordan isn't the GOAT". Those are simple facts. Let's not mythologize the guy. He ot some help from league rule changes, and his second 3-peat he got a LOT of help from Rodman.


My argument isn't that Jordan isn't the GOAT, only that Rodman's contributions were immense to that second 3-peat team, and that Jordan had some other advantages.

If people think that's an assault on Jordan, then they are only arguing against quantifiable facts.

MJ, with Will Purdue instead of Rodman, couldn't even beat the team that got swept by the Rockets, and bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for the Bulls to compete against teams who had strong 3pt shooting and awarded MJ more points for the same shots that he had been taking anyways.

Is there something one can argue against in that statement?

1) Don't forget about Kukoc. Dude was an absolute beast in Euro and came in ready to help day one..

2) Absolutely. I mean, even if we don't think so, imagine if the league today said, "we're moving the three point line closer to the basket."

3) That Wilt argument is a terrible one. Game was still in its baby stages back then and so, Wilt just exploited the lack of rules. Those rules weren't meant to stop Wilt necessarily as much as it was to improve the quality of the game. Even now, rules have to change to make up for any loopholes that players take advantage of.

ewing
09-17-2017, 07:31 AM
I'm not trying to downplay MJ. Just stating a fact.

Q1: Do you think MJ wins his 4th, 5th and 6th title with Will Purdue instead of Rodman?
Q2: Do you think bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for MJ to score?


Wilt made an argument back in the day that the difference between him and MJ (aside from position) is that when Wilt played, they changed the rules to make it harder for him to dominate. When MJ played, they changed the rules to make it easier for him. Taking away hand-checking and bringing in the 3pt line.

Those helped MJ. Quantifiably. I'm not saying he wasn't the GOAT, but the league is a business, and MJ was their money maker (look at the finals ratings the two years Jordan was out compared to the 3 prior: you think the league does't want MJ in the finals?)

I would argue that no team benefited from bringing the 3pt line in more than the Bulls. MJ's bread and butter was the fade away. All of a sudden, they are awarding him 3 points for those instead of two. He goes from taking 1.7 3pter per game on his career, to career-highs 3.2 and 3.6 per game. Pippen saw similar increases. That didn't help the Bulls?

That rule essentially neutralized 3pt-shooting teams (like Houston) by taking away their strongest advantage.

No where in there do I say "Jordan isn't the GOAT". Those are simple facts. Let's not mythologize the guy. He ot some help from league rule changes, and his second 3-peat he got a LOT of help from Rodman.


My argument isn't that Jordan isn't the GOAT, only that Rodman's contributions were immense to that second 3-peat team, and that Jordan had some other advantages.

If people think that's an assault on Jordan, then they are only arguing against quantifiable facts.

MJ, with Will Purdue instead of Rodman, couldn't even beat the team that got swept by the Rockets, and bringing in the 3pt line made it easier for the Bulls to compete against teams who had strong 3pt shooting and awarded MJ more points for the same shots that he had been taking anyways.

Is there something one can argue against in that statement?

Will Predue was awful. Rodman was a 35 year old way player that had nearly run himself out of the league when his career was saved b/c he was lucky enough to play next the greatest player ever. As for the rule changes, it didn't matter our teams weren't good enough, neither were the Rockets. Jordan dominated before and after them. you give him anything approaching a respectable cast and he ran the league. Did Rodman contribute? Sure. was he as good as Horce Grant at that stage? No. He could have been replaced any # of PFs and the Bulls run the show.

Heediot
09-17-2017, 11:01 AM
Yeah Rodman was past his prime. So was Harper who took a big dip once he came to Chicago. The Bulls were a well oiled machine and everyone knew their role. The reason why did reasonably well without MJ that one eyar, was because it was a cohesive unit, but MJ puts that system over top by a big margin. It's like taking Curry out of the GS system and that team wouldn't have been the same (Pre-Durant). GS would of still been good due to coaching and cohesiveness, but not at the same level.

JasonJohnHorn
09-17-2017, 01:08 PM
Will Predue was awful. Rodman was a 35 year old way player that had nearly run himself out of the league when his career was saved b/c he was lucky enough to play next the greatest player ever. As for the rule changes, it didn't matter our teams weren't good enough, neither were the Rockets. Jordan dominated before and after them. you give him anything approaching a respectable cast and he ran the league. Did Rodman contribute? Sure. was he as good as Horce Grant at that stage? No. He could have been replaced any # of PFs and the Bulls run the show.

I think you are avoiding the question here.

Was Rodman past his prime? His prime was almost 19 boards a game, so yeah, his league leading 14.9, 16.9, and 15.0 boards a game was lower than his 'prime', but... STILL THE VERY BEST IN THE LEAGUE BY A LONG SHOT.

The language you use 'past his prime' and 'lucky enough to play next to the GOAT'... well.. that is misleading.

With respect to rebounding, Rodman's 'prime' didn't put him 'head and shoulders' above the rest of the league: it put him waist and torso above the rest of the league. So when he was 'past his prime' at 34 (not 35), he was still head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

I mean... you are comparing historic rebounding numbers to Horace Grant, who was never as good on defense as Rodman, and was never much more than a double-double player (of which there were many in the league at the time). Did Rodman have more of an impact than had Grant? ABSOLUTELY!! As subjective as such a conversation is, you can pretty easily quantify that. I don't know anybody who would argue that Horace Grant contributed more in the first threepeat than Rodman did in the second. I mean.. Cartwright was in charge of taking on the big front court scorers in that first threepeat: Grant was in charge of helping clean up the glass and adding a couple of buckets here and there. In the first three-peat, Grant's highest pergame rebounding average was 10 (he averaged less than that for two of them).

Rodman had not run himself out of the league. Not anywhere close to that. He was lucky to play with Jordan; Jordan was lucky to play with him.

The question remains: would Jordan have won the second three-peat without the league's leader in rebounds? The answer is a resounding no, as we saw when they go beat by the Magic, a team that was then promptly swept by the Rockets.

If you think he could have been replaced by any number of PFs in the league at that time, I'd be curious to see the names you come up with who the Bulls could have gotten for Will Purdue.

You are a smart dude. You know Rodman was not simply important, but ESSENTIAL to that second Bulls 3peat. You might be a little reactionary in your defense of MJ being the GOAT, but you can still view MJ as the GOAT and recognize that he would not have had a second 3peat without Rodman.

Being the GOAT doesn't mean you can win it all every year regardless of who is on your team. MAgic wouldn't have won early on without Kareem, or later without Worthy. LBJ wouldn't have won without Wade or Kyrie. Curry would have won without Klay.


Jordan wouldn't have been able to win without Pippen. He also wouldn't have been able to win without Rodman in the second 3peat.

And bringing in the 3pt line did make it easier for him to score.

JasonJohnHorn
09-17-2017, 01:21 PM
Yeah Rodman was past his prime... The Bulls were a well oiled machine and everyone knew their role.

As I said.. this comment about Rodman being past his prime is grossly misleading.

Past his prime? Yes. Still the greatest rebounder in the league by a long shot? YEAH.

Wilt was past his prime in his last year: still posted one of the most amazing seasons ever.

And Rodman was still an amazing defender. Even in his short stint in Dallas, over 12 games at the age of 38 he posted 14 boards a game in 32 minutes of play.

You can say 'past his prime', but that isn't representative of his production. He was still rebounding at a historically high level. His second season with the Bulls, he averaged over 16 boards per game.

Can you name a player since who has posted as many boards per game? Nope? Oh.. but he was 'past his prime'. Right.


The reason why did reasonably well without MJ that one eyar, was because it was a cohesive unit, but MJ puts that system over top by a big margin.

Somebody is grasping at straws. If MJ put them over the top, why didn't they win it in 95?


Look.. MJ may very well be the GOAT, but that doesn't mean he could win it all with any roster around him. Basketball is a team sport, and to suggest that a player, regardless of how great he is, NEEDS other great players to win isn't an insult to him: it is a statement of fact.

MJ was amazing, but he didn't win by himself and NEVER could. To suggest otherwise is to mythologize him. He wasn't a god.

He LOST to the Pistons THREE STRAIGHT YEARS!!! With Oakley and Cartwright, and then with Grant and Pippen. He needed players around him. Regardless of what some think, he wasn't a one man team. He never was.

After six years in the league, people questions whether he had what it took to win, because he lost to the same team 3 straight years. People were admittedly a little more willing to blame coaching then (not like today where they tear KD apart for not winning when his front office keeps shipping out the pieces he needs to win), but yes, Jordan was not viewed s infallible until he won in his seventh season.

He lost a LOT before he won a lot.

MJ need Pippen. He needed Jordan. And those guys needed good role players like Kerr, and Toni, and Harper, each of whom could have been replaced by other equally good or nearly as good role players, but...

MJ, regardless of GOAT standing, was NEVER good enough to win it all by himself.

Basketball is a team sport. NOBODY can win it all by themselves. Nobody.


And since you and Ewing are playing the semantics game to make misleading statements, why not point our that Jordan was past his prime? I mean... he only averaged 30.4, 29.6, and 28.7 points per game, and sure.. like Rodman's rebounding numbers, they did lead the league, but his scoring average over those three years was lower than his scoring average from his prime, between the ages of 23-29. Oh... wait... that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Heediot
09-17-2017, 01:47 PM
As I said.. this comment about Rodman being past his prime is grossly misleading.

Past his prime? Yes. Still the greatest rebounder in the league by a long shot? YEAH.

Wilt was past his prime in his last year: still posted one of the most amazing seasons ever.

And Rodman was still an amazing defender. Even in his short stint in Dallas, over 12 games at the age of 38 he posted 14 boards a game in 32 minutes of play.

You can say 'past his prime', but that isn't representative of his production. He was still rebounding at a historically high level. His second season with the Bulls, he averaged over 16 boards per game.

Can you name a player since who has posted as many boards per game? Nope? Oh.. but he was 'past his prime'. Right.



Somebody is grasping at straws. If MJ put them over the top, why didn't they win it in 95?


Look.. MJ may very well be the GOAT, but that doesn't mean he could win it all with any roster around him. Basketball is a team sport, and to suggest that a player, regardless of how great he is, NEEDS other great players to win isn't an insult to him: it is a statement of fact.

MJ was amazing, but he didn't win by himself and NEVER could. To suggest otherwise is to mythologize him. He wasn't a god.

He LOST to the Pistons THREE STRAIGHT YEARS!!! With Oakley and Cartwright, and then with Grant and Pippen. He needed players around him. Regardless of what some think, he wasn't a one man team. He never was.

After six years in the league, people questions whether he had what it took to win, because he lost to the same team 3 straight years. People were admittedly a little more willing to blame coaching then (not like today where they tear KD apart for not winning when his front office keeps shipping out the pieces he needs to win), but yes, Jordan was not viewed s infallible until he won in his seventh season.

He lost a LOT before he won a lot.

MJ need Pippen. He needed Jordan. And those guys needed good role players like Kerr, and Toni, and Harper, each of whom could have been replaced by other equally good or nearly as good role players, but...

MJ, regardless of GOAT standing, was NEVER good enough to win it all by himself.

Basketball is a team sport. NOBODY can win it all by themselves. Nobody.


And since you and Ewing are playing the semantics game to make misleading statements, why not point our that Jordan was past his prime? I mean... he only averaged 30.4, 29.6, and 28.7 points per game, and sure.. like Rodman's rebounding numbers, they did lead the league, but his scoring average over those three years was lower than his scoring average from his prime, between the ages of 23-29. Oh... wait... that would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

LOLOL. I didn't say MJ didn't have help. Like I said he had great coaching which is help, and his support all bought in and played their role. Yeah he had two hall of famers who were producing at really high levels.

Rodman was past his prime, but I do agree that he was still a highly productive player. Never once said he wasn't.

MJ does catapult that triangle to a whole new level that's the truth. It doesn't mean he doesn't need help. Curry catapult Kerr's offense to another level it doesn't mean he doesn't need help either.

Rodman is one of my favorite players of all time so I have no beef with him.

JasonJohnHorn
09-17-2017, 02:14 PM
LOLOL. I didn't say MJ didn't have help. Like I said he had great coaching which is help, and his support all bought in and played their role. Yeah he had two hall of famers who were producing at really high levels.

Rodman was past his prime, but I do agree that he was still a highly productive player. Never once said he wasn't.

MJ does catapult that triangle to a whole new level that's the truth. It doesn't mean he doesn't need help. Curry catapult Kerr's offense to another level it doesn't mean he doesn't need help either.

Rodman is one of my favorite players of all time so I have no beef with him.

Do you think saying "So and so was past his prime" is consistent with "was a HOF playing at a really high level".

When guys say "past their prime" it implies "not that good". Sure, you could make a semantic argument otherwise and draw a Venn diagram showing how 'past their prime' doesn't mean low productivity, but you know full well that when guys say somebody is 'past their prime', it implies a lower level of performance.

Rodman, at the age of 35, in my opinion and despite his age, was in his prime and post rebounding numbers that have not been matched since by even the very best rebounders this league has hosted in the last 20+ seasons.

To suggest that a level of play that historically high is 'past one's prime' is grossly misleading and in the context of this conversation, undermines the immense and essential contributions Rodman made to those Bulls teams.

Heediot
09-17-2017, 02:23 PM
Do you think saying "So and so was past his prime" is consistent with "was a HOF playing at a really high level".

When guys say "past their prime" it implies "not that good". Sure, you could make a semantic argument otherwise and draw a Venn diagram showing how 'past their prime' doesn't mean low productivity, but you know full well that when guys say somebody is 'past their prime', it implies a lower level of performance.

Rodman, at the age of 35, in my opinion and despite his age, was in his prime and post rebounding numbers that have not been matched since by even the very best rebounders this league has hosted in the last 20+ seasons.

To suggest that a level of play that historically high is 'past one's prime' is grossly misleading and in the context of this conversation, undermines the immense and essential contributions Rodman made to those Bulls teams.

WTF just keep arguing with yourself bro. I told you I admitted he was a highly productive player in my last post. Duncan was a beast on d well past his prime too, because he was a smart player. Rodman was a crazy rebounder when he was on the bulls, but he was still past his prime, why because he was probably the smartest and high effort rebounder of all time.

ewing
09-17-2017, 06:13 PM
I think you are avoiding the question here.

Was Rodman past his prime? His prime was almost 19 boards a game, so yeah, his league leading 14.9, 16.9, and 15.0 boards a game was lower than his 'prime', but... STILL THE VERY BEST IN THE LEAGUE BY A LONG SHOT.

The language you use 'past his prime' and 'lucky enough to play next to the GOAT'... well.. that is misleading.

With respect to rebounding, Rodman's 'prime' didn't put him 'head and shoulders' above the rest of the league: it put him waist and torso above the rest of the league. So when he was 'past his prime' at 34 (not 35), he was still head and shoulders above the rest of the league.

I mean... you are comparing historic rebounding numbers to Horace Grant, who was never as good on defense as Rodman, and was never much more than a double-double player (of which there were many in the league at the time). Did Rodman have more of an impact than had Grant? ABSOLUTELY!! As subjective as such a conversation is, you can pretty easily quantify that. I don't know anybody who would argue that Horace Grant contributed more in the first threepeat than Rodman did in the second. I mean.. Cartwright was in charge of taking on the big front court scorers in that first threepeat: Grant was in charge of helping clean up the glass and adding a couple of buckets here and there. In the first three-peat, Grant's highest pergame rebounding average was 10 (he averaged less than that for two of them).

Rodman had not run himself out of the league. Not anywhere close to that. He was lucky to play with Jordan; Jordan was lucky to play with him.

The question remains: would Jordan have won the second three-peat without the league's leader in rebounds? The answer is a resounding no, as we saw when they go beat by the Magic, a team that was then promptly swept by the Rockets.

If you think he could have been replaced by any number of PFs in the league at that time, I'd be curious to see the names you come up with who the Bulls could have gotten for Will Purdue.

You are a smart dude. You know Rodman was not simply important, but ESSENTIAL to that second Bulls 3peat. You might be a little reactionary in your defense of MJ being the GOAT, but you can still view MJ as the GOAT and recognize that he would not have had a second 3peat without Rodman.

Being the GOAT doesn't mean you can win it all every year regardless of who is on your team. MAgic wouldn't have won early on without Kareem, or later without Worthy. LBJ wouldn't have won without Wade or Kyrie. Curry would have won without Klay.


Jordan wouldn't have been able to win without Pippen. He also wouldn't have been able to win without Rodman in the second 3peat.

And bringing in the 3pt line did make it easier for him to score.

Horce grant a bigger contributor to the first three peat then Dennis was to the second. the bulls would have been fine with a guy like Antonio Davis, Jerome Kersey, Othis Thorpe, Buck Williams. not guys that grow on trees but not all time greats either. The Bulls got Rodman for Predue b/c he was in process or running himself out the league. Its not the like Spurs thought Predue was man

JasonJohnHorn
09-17-2017, 07:53 PM
Horce grant a bigger contributor to the first three peat then Dennis was to the second. the bulls would have been fine with a guy like Antonio Davis, Jerome Kersey, Othis Thorpe, Buck Williams. not guys that grow on trees but not all time greats either. The Bulls got Rodman for Predue b/c he was in process or running himself out the league. Its not the like Spurs thought Predue was man

Jerome Kersey = Dennis Rodman.

Right. You gotta take a step back and look at the stats. I know you are old school, and you watched the games. Maybe you just don't remember, but Rodman was huge and could not be easily replaced. Certainly not by Kersey a the time, who averaged less than 5 boards a game during those three seasons. Buck was posting about the same at the time.

You can't even name a guy who averaged 16 boards a game since Rodman did it with the Bulls. Not one. It's not possible because nobody else has done it. You treat that contribution like have the PFs in the league could add as much, when not one guys in 21 seasons since has pulled off those numbers.

You know that's silly. You are burying yourself in a hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

This is like saying the 04 Pistons could have won with Kevin Duckworth instead of Ben Wallace.

And he wasn't playing himself out of the league. He didn't fit in SAS. His approach to the game, his attitude... it didn't mesh with what the franchise was doing. They were willing to dump Rodman, but teams know they needed to get rid of him and they knew there was a risk with him not meshing with their team, so teams weren't offering much.

It's similar to the PG deal. Everybody knows that he wants out, so nobody is putting up much of an offer.

That last year with SAS, he made the All-Defensive first team, AND the All-NBA third team, while leading the league in rebounding, and helping the Spurs to 62 wins and posting a rebounding average that nobody has touched since. And you think "he was on his way out of the league" just because he was difficult?

He was huge to the Bulls, and for some reason you don't want to admit it.

Horace Grant had a skill set that was easily replaced because a lot of guys had it: decent rebounder, decent post-up game when defenses were focused on wings, and hard worker on defense. Had Buck Williams or Kersey been on those Bulls teams during the first three titles, they would have won as much. But replacing Rodman with either of them for the second three-peat would have been a disaster.

I mean... Rodman finished ahead of Grant on the defensive team EVERY year except 94 (both second team) and made twice as many defensive teams as Grant. Always had more rebounds.

It's like you got their names mixed up or something.

I think it's time you start asking yourself some important questions:
Do you have increased memory loss and confusion?
Do you have problems recognizing family and friends?
Do you have inability to learn new things?
Do you have difficulty carrying out multistep tasks such as getting dressed?
Do you have problems coping with new situations?
Do you have hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia?


I mean... you seem pretty smart most of the time. So I assume something is just going wrong here. ;-)

Heediot
09-17-2017, 08:01 PM
Yeah no way Jerome Kersey, who was more of a SF anyway would have made the same impact as Rodman. But Could they have won with one of the Davis brothers, or one of ther solid PFs? Possibly but it wouldn't have been as easy as it was with the worm.

Kinkotheclown
09-17-2017, 08:24 PM
Rodman would be playing in Cleveland and killing it. Seriously, can anyone think of a more perfect fit with LBJ? Rodman loved the dirty work. He was a fantastic, "I don't give a **** about points, guy." He would get 3-4 crazy lob pass dunks from Lebron, set hard picks for him and play great post D. Actually, Rodman is the player LBJ is missing to win every year.

I don't know that he'd get an average of 20 but I do think he would be getting 15 a game. Rodman was very athletic and fearless.. As much as the games change, a guy like him will always do well.

ewing
09-18-2017, 06:21 AM
Jerome Kersey = Dennis Rodman.

Right. You gotta take a step back and look at the stats. I know you are old school, and you watched the games. Maybe you just don't remember, but Rodman was huge and could not be easily replaced. Certainly not by Kersey a the time, who averaged less than 5 boards a game during those three seasons. Buck was posting about the same at the time.

You can't even name a guy who averaged 16 boards a game since Rodman did it with the Bulls. Not one. It's not possible because nobody else has done it. You treat that contribution like have the PFs in the league could add as much, when not one guys in 21 seasons since has pulled off those numbers.

You know that's silly. You are burying yourself in a hole and pulling the dirt in on top of yourself.

This is like saying the 04 Pistons could have won with Kevin Duckworth instead of Ben Wallace.

And he wasn't playing himself out of the league. He didn't fit in SAS. His approach to the game, his attitude... it didn't mesh with what the franchise was doing. They were willing to dump Rodman, but teams know they needed to get rid of him and they knew there was a risk with him not meshing with their team, so teams weren't offering much.

It's similar to the PG deal. Everybody knows that he wants out, so nobody is putting up much of an offer.

That last year with SAS, he made the All-Defensive first team, AND the All-NBA third team, while leading the league in rebounding, and helping the Spurs to 62 wins and posting a rebounding average that nobody has touched since. And you think "he was on his way out of the league" just because he was difficult?

He was huge to the Bulls, and for some reason you don't want to admit it.

Horace Grant had a skill set that was easily replaced because a lot of guys had it: decent rebounder, decent post-up game when defenses were focused on wings, and hard worker on defense. Had Buck Williams or Kersey been on those Bulls teams during the first three titles, they would have won as much. But replacing Rodman with either of them for the second three-peat would have been a disaster.

I mean... Rodman finished ahead of Grant on the defensive team EVERY year except 94 (both second team) and made twice as many defensive teams as Grant. Always had more rebounds.

It's like you got their names mixed up or something.

I think it's time you start asking yourself some important questions:
Do you have increased memory loss and confusion?
Do you have problems recognizing family and friends?
Do you have inability to learn new things?
Do you have difficulty carrying out multistep tasks such as getting dressed?
Do you have problems coping with new situations?
Do you have hallucinations, delusions, and paranoia?


I mean... you seem pretty smart most of the time. So I assume something is just going wrong here. ;-)


He wasn't that good. Still he was great at presuing the ball and he was still a great post defender in Chicago but was no longer a great perimiter defender. In all he was a very good rebounder and defender that played no offensive for the Bulls. So what no one has gotten 16 rebounds a night. He also gave up on defensive assignments to chase the ball and got some offensive rebounding opportunities b/c no defended him. Replace that with a double figure rebounder that holds his own in the paint and needs to actually be defended and you are good. I mention Jerome and Buck b/c I was getting at the type of player he could have easily been replaced with. Both those guys were past there prime but if you want me to go look at the league in the those years and name guys i will. In short I think they beat your Jazz with PJ Brown. Someone mentioned the Davis boys. I think Dale would have been a downgrade but they are as good with Antonio

hotadef
09-18-2017, 08:53 AM
Rodman would be a great rebounder in any era. He was very strong and had amazing reflexes. The thing with rodman outside of his craziness he was a student of the game. He watching more film than any player or coach when he played with the bulls. Long rebound are not a problem for him as he watch film to see what happens when a player shoots long from top of key is it a long rebound or vs short do they pull up short vs bricks to the back board. he knew that type of info on every player on the court if you watch video of him playing you will see when certain player take shots he start moving away from basket soon as the shot leave the hand. i know he was only known for his d and rebounding but rodman was amazing at what he did. like barkly he they increased his height he was 6ft 6 he said he playing weight weight was 215 to 220 legs strength that could hold shaq

JasonJohnHorn
09-18-2017, 04:08 PM
He wasn't that good. Still he was great at presuing the ball and he was still a great post defender in Chicago but was no longer a great perimiter defender. In all he was a very good rebounder and defender that played no offensive for the Bulls. So what no one has gotten 16 rebounds a night. He also gave up on defensive assignments to chase the ball and got some offensive rebounding opportunities b/c no defended him. Replace that with a double figure rebounder that holds his own in the paint and needs to actually be defended and you are good. I mention Jerome and Buck b/c I was getting at the type of player he could have easily been replaced with. Both those guys were past there prime but if you want me to go look at the league in the those years and name guys i will. In short I think they beat your Jazz with PJ Brown. Someone mentioned the Davis boys. I think Dale would have been a downgrade but they are as good with Antonio

You just back yourself into a corner and now are just minimizing his importance without using reasoning.

So what nobody has averaged 16 boards? I'll tell you so what: it indicates the elite level he was playing at, which you dismissed as 'passed his prime'. It may not have been his peak, but it was still very much his prime.

"Still great at pressuring the ball" and still "a great post defender". Great... Yes. In fact, All-Defensive great! Which put him at the very best at that at his position. Though that is subjective, even you are admitting that he was 'great'.

And yes... he was posting rebounding numbers that haven't been met since, so: HISTORICALLY IMPRESSIVE REBOUNDING.

Antonio Davis? Rodman was grabbing about ten boards more a game at that time, and while Davis develop into a strong post defender, he was only posting 8 points and 6 rebounds a game that first year Rodman was with the Bulls. You think that is going to replace Rodman's 5.5 and 15 boards? You are going to give up almost 10 rebounds a game to get 2.5 more points?

Dale Davis was hovering around a double double that year, but you'd have to combine both Davis that season to equal the boards Dennis was getting.

His defense was still elite. His rebounding was historically elite. Both were central to the Bull's success.


You are complaining about his offense, like that team needed another scorer. They had Jordan, Pippen, Toni, Harper and a bunch of role players like Steve Kerr. Trading 10 boards to get 2.5 points in the paint would make that team MUCH less competitive.

Then you complain that he 'gave up on defensive assignment to chase after rebounds'. Right. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? The ball is up in the air... you are supposed to keep defending a guy? Or chase down the rebound. A loose ball comes up. You chase it. You are essentially criticizing him for hustling.

His offense was limited, but was were both Davis's. And he wasn't a tool. He shot nearly .500. When guys stepped away from him, he'd cut in and get lobs from Pippen and Jordan. And his offensive rebounds were a huge bonus to the team.


But yeah... a guy who put up historically high rebounding numbers and played All-NBA defense is just some guy that can be replaced by a back-up PF (Antonio) on a team that lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the Bulls. Or that team's starting PF. Or a passed-his-prime SF posting less than 7 points and 5 rebounds a game or a passed-his-prime PF (Buck) posting almost 10 fewer boards and a couple more points.

If that makes sense to you.

Obviously, Rodman stole your gf back in the day or something, because what you are saying makes no sense.

ewing
09-19-2017, 02:32 PM
You just back yourself into a corner and now are just minimizing his importance without using reasoning.

So what nobody has averaged 16 boards? I'll tell you so what: it indicates the elite level he was playing at, which you dismissed as 'passed his prime'. It may not have been his peak, but it was still very much his prime.

"Still great at pressuring the ball" and still "a great post defender". Great... Yes. In fact, All-Defensive great! Which put him at the very best at that at his position. Though that is subjective, even you are admitting that he was 'great'.

And yes... he was posting rebounding numbers that haven't been met since, so: HISTORICALLY IMPRESSIVE REBOUNDING.

Antonio Davis? Rodman was grabbing about ten boards more a game at that time, and while Davis develop into a strong post defender, he was only posting 8 points and 6 rebounds a game that first year Rodman was with the Bulls. You think that is going to replace Rodman's 5.5 and 15 boards? You are going to give up almost 10 rebounds a game to get 2.5 more points?

Dale Davis was hovering around a double double that year, but you'd have to combine both Davis that season to equal the boards Dennis was getting.

His defense was still elite. His rebounding was historically elite. Both were central to the Bull's success.


You are complaining about his offense, like that team needed another scorer. They had Jordan, Pippen, Toni, Harper and a bunch of role players like Steve Kerr. Trading 10 boards to get 2.5 points in the paint would make that team MUCH less competitive.

Then you complain that he 'gave up on defensive assignment to chase after rebounds'. Right. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? The ball is up in the air... you are supposed to keep defending a guy? Or chase down the rebound. A loose ball comes up. You chase it. You are essentially criticizing him for hustling.

His offense was limited, but was were both Davis's. And he wasn't a tool. He shot nearly .500. When guys stepped away from him, he'd cut in and get lobs from Pippen and Jordan. And his offensive rebounds were a huge bonus to the team.


But yeah... a guy who put up historically high rebounding numbers and played All-NBA defense is just some guy that can be replaced by a back-up PF (Antonio) on a team that lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the Bulls. Or that team's starting PF. Or a passed-his-prime SF posting less than 7 points and 5 rebounds a game or a passed-his-prime PF (Buck) posting almost 10 fewer boards and a couple more points.

If that makes sense to you.

Obviously, Rodman stole your gf back in the day or something, because what you are saying makes no sense.

Now you are just trying to be annoying. I clearly explained that I was saying that he was replaceable by a player like Buck or Jerome were in there prime. Given opportunity A Davis was a solid double guy. On a team like the Bulls getting 30 plus mins a night I see him netting 13 or 12 and 11 or so with solid defense. He could also hit a free throw and mid jump shot and generally wasn't total stiff on offense. Like it or not Rodman was. He made you play 4 on 5. He was great at chasing down balls and post defense as a Bull. That doesn't make him great and doesn't make him the reason the Bulls won titles. They could have won with a solid double double guy that played good D and could occupy a defender.

look! big kids
09-19-2017, 04:21 PM
Just wanted to put this pretty in-depth Rodman study here if it hasn't been referred to yet when discussing Rodman's value.

https://skepticalsports.com/the-case-for-dennis-rodman-guide/

JasonJohnHorn
09-19-2017, 10:51 PM
Now you are just trying to be annoying. I clearly explained that I was saying that he was replaceable by a player like Buck or Jerome were in there prime. Given opportunity A Davis was a solid double guy. On a team like the Bulls getting 30 plus mins a night I see him netting 13 or 12 and 11 or so with solid defense. He could also hit a free throw and mid jump shot and generally wasn't total stiff on offense. Like it or not Rodman was. He made you play 4 on 5. He was great at chasing down balls and post defense as a Bull. That doesn't make him great and doesn't make him the reason the Bulls won titles. They could have won with a solid double double guy that played good D and could occupy a defender.

Hey... a historically great defender and rebounder can be replaced by Jerome Kersey. If that's what you think, that's your business.

That's like saying a historically good scorer like Jordan could be replaced by Ron Harper. Keeping in mind that when MJ was replaced by Ron Harper, they only saw a regression of 2 regular season games. I guess they would have improved had they brought Mitch Richmond in instead ;-)

Obviously we have a difference view of how valuable defense and rebounding is, and how much Jordan, Pippen, Harper, and Toni needed another scorer to carry that heavy scoring load.

Cough up 10 boards to get an extra 2-4 points from a guy who's not as good on D. Sure.

I still like you though Ewing. No hard feelings.

JordansBulls
09-19-2017, 11:11 PM
Wade wouldn't even make the all NBA 3rd team If he played today. Give me butler klay and harden over him.

Put the crack pipe down.

Vinsanity115
09-19-2017, 11:59 PM
Rodman would make guys like Green look like the b____s they really are.

ewing
09-20-2017, 05:37 AM
Hey... a historically great defender and rebounder can be replaced by Jerome Kersey. If that's what you think, that's your business.

That's like saying a historically good scorer like Jordan could be replaced by Ron Harper. Keeping in mind that when MJ was replaced by Ron Harper, they only saw a regression of 2 regular season games. I guess they would have improved had they brought Mitch Richmond in instead ;-)

Obviously we have a difference view of how valuable defense and rebounding is, and how much Jordan, Pippen, Harper, and Toni needed another scorer to carry that heavy scoring load.

Cough up 10 boards to get an extra 2-4 points from a guy who's not as good on D. Sure.

I still like you though Ewing. No hard feelings.

Playing 4 on 5 makes it harder for everyone else. Btw Kersey was a 15 and 8 easy in his prime and that was playing next other rebounding PFs. Buck was a 15 and 12 guy easy ( prime Buck Williams was a better player the Dennis ever was). AD was a double guy too once he got 30 mins a night. I don't dislike you either but you are being a punk about your argument by cherry picking stats. Rodman was a good player (you want to say he was great cause is was great at one thing fine but I'll weigh his whole game, call him good, and we'll disagree). I don't think he was the reason the Bulls won titles, neither was the NBA changing the rules for Jordan, nor was it MJ getting stars calls, or the refs on the floor. they were better, no conspiracies or secret narratives helping Just the best player with a good caste tearing up the league.

JasonJohnHorn
09-20-2017, 01:23 PM
Playing 4 on 5 makes it harder for everyone else.

The Bulls were more efficient offensively with Rodman on the court. So... not sure how that has any bearing here.

The Bulls had the best scorer (perhaps in NBA history and certainly at the time) in Jordan. They had one of the 10 most versatile offensive players in the league at the time in Pippen. They had a guy (Kerr) posting over .500 from the arc and other role players posting .400 and Toni and Harper, both competent scorers, chipping in.

Why would the Bulls have benefited from a guy who scorers 15 when they already have the scoring load covered?

Rodman's rebounding was not only historically amazing; it made the team significantly better. Ad given their starting C was a $#!t rebounder, they desperately needed a guy that could clean glass more than anything else.

So how would a sub-standard rebounder like Kersey have helped this team?

You simply aren't providing any evidence.

That team wouldn't have won with Will Purdue instead of Rodman (which is what they would have had), and even if they were to have gotten Buck or Kersey, or either Davis... none of them would have given the Bulls the rebounding dominance that they needed, or the level of D that Rodman provided.

They needed Rodman to win, and he wasn't easy to replace.

Even if he could have been replaced by any number of the guys they mentioned, how were the Bulls to get their hands on such a player with Will Purdue as a bargaining chip?

You have no argument other than "Rodman can be replaced by Kersey", which is like saying Jordan could have been replaced by Allan Houston (and even that would be generous).


Jordan's the best scorer. Rodman's the best rebounder. Both were All-Defensive team players. The Bulls had both and needed both to win. Why would you discount one and not the other?

ewing
09-20-2017, 02:56 PM
The Bulls were more efficient offensively with Rodman on the court. So... not sure how that has any bearing here.

So what? He probably played more with MJ then without. Are you making a case for it being easier to play offense with a stiff then without a stiff?


The Bulls had the best scorer (perhaps in NBA history and certainly at the time) in Jordan. They had one of the 10 most versatile offensive players in the league at the time in Pippen. They had a guy (Kerr) posting over .500 from the arc and other role players posting .400 and Toni and Harper, both competent scorers, chipping in.

Why would the Bulls have benefited from a guy who scorers 15 when they already have the scoring load covered?

Because all those guys get easier looks if one guy isn't zoning at all times b/c his man is stiff

Rodman's rebounding was not only historically amazing; it made the team significantly better. Ad given their starting C was a $#!t rebounder, they desperately needed a guy that could clean glass more than anything else.

So how would a sub-standard rebounder like Kersey have helped this team?

During his best years he was not sub-standard.



You simply aren't providing any evidence.

That team wouldn't have won with Will Purdue instead of Rodman (which is what they would have had), and even if they were to have gotten Buck or Kersey, or either Davis... none of them would have given the Bulls the rebounding dominance that they needed, or the level of D that Rodman provided.

If you point is Predue for Rodman was a great trade for the Bulls you are right

They needed Rodman to win, and he wasn't easy to replace.

Maybe not easy but certainly replaceable. I think crediting Rodman with the Bulls second 3 peat is a kin to crediting Charles Oakley with the Knicks being a successful team. He certainly was part of it but he was not the reason and the team could have done it with other players

Even if he could have been replaced by any number of the guys they mentioned, how were the Bulls to get their hands on such a player with Will Purdue as a bargaining chip?

It was a good trade

You have no argument other than "Rodman can be replaced by Kersey", which is like saying Jordan could have been replaced by Allan Houston (and even that would be generous).

you are either overrating Dennis, underrating MJ, or overrating Allen


Jordan's the best scorer. Rodman's the best rebounder. Both were All-Defensive team players. The Bulls had both and needed both to win. Why would you discount one and not the other?

One was a lot better at basketball then the other

JAZZNC
09-21-2017, 05:36 AM
Did a MF seriously just say they could have still won with PJ Brown instead of Rodman? That's significantly stretching the truth.

ewing
09-21-2017, 05:51 AM
Did a MF seriously just say they could have still won with PJ Brown instead of Rodman? That's significantly stretching the truth.

yes

ewing
09-21-2017, 07:59 AM
In 97' Rodman averaged 4 and 8 for the playoffs. #glorifiedroleplayer

Heediot
09-21-2017, 08:43 AM
In 97' Rodman averaged 4 and 8 for the playoffs. #glorifiedroleplayer

I think your undervaluing Rodman. I do agree he was one of the best role player/specialists in nba history, but his impact on the bulls was pretty substantial. I think the Bulls could win a ship or 2 with other guys you put down as examples, but Rodman fit that team like a glove. Your not winning 70 plus or in the high 60's with PJ Brown, one of the Davis Boys, or one of the Blazers. Kersey is a solid player, but if you put him at PF most of the time back in the 90's, it would wear him down. Kersey would be a nice complement to Kukoc, but Toni was the 6th man.

ewing
09-21-2017, 09:36 AM
I think your undervaluing Rodman. I do agree he was one of the best role player/specialists in nba history, but his impact on the bulls was pretty substantial. I think the Bulls could win a ship or 2 with other guys you put down as examples, but Rodman fit that team like a glove. Your not winning 70 plus or in the high 60's with PJ Brown, one of the Davis Boys, or one of the Blazers. Kersey is a solid player, but if you put him at PF most of the time back in the 90's, it would wear him down. Kersey would be a nice complement to Kukoc, but Toni was the 6th man.


I can accept that prime Jerome might not have been tough enough to fit the bill and I admit was a fan of his in his day. His game makes me think of Horce with a bit more explosion honestly. Questioning his toughness for that spot is valid. You can't defend the same bigs with Jerome as you could Dennis. On the other hand prime Buck Williams was a better player then Dennis ever was. I get that is is cool to see a guy relentlessly pursue rebounds and post defend someone he looks to skinny to defend but what he was was was an complimentary piece. Pip and Michael were great basketball players. Dennis was not- he was good