Lol. Ya'll have a good Christmas. I just realized I'm here debating between 1998 Dennis Rodman and Dale fukking Davis when I should be deep into a bottle of Port at this point. Have a good one, ISH fam
Printable View
Lol. Ya'll have a good Christmas. I just realized I'm here debating between 1998 Dennis Rodman and Dale fukking Davis when I should be deep into a bottle of Port at this point. Have a good one, ISH fam
When it comes to Rodman he lays claims to these things:
Arguably the best defensive player ever
The most versatile defender ever
Likely the best rebounder ever.
At his best you are getting these three elements with Rodman. When it comes to top 75 status, he CERTAINLY BELONGS!! Two time DPOY, seven rebounding titles, 8 All Defensive Teams, and five rings on top of it makes him EASILY WORTHY of top 75 status. And despite ONLY averaging 7.3 PPG for his career, you can't have a top 75 list WITHOUT the greatest rebounder, most versatile defender, and arguably the best defensive forward ever.
Plus Rodman was a freak athlete on top of it with an all time great motor to boot. Frankly he's DAMN NEAR a 1 of 1 type of player. The defensive versatility to defend every position while ALSO leading the league in rebounding is hella rare. Only other player to do that was KG in the modern era. BUT KG was 7'0. And we have seen guys kind of similar to him in that regard such as Giannis and AD.
Rodman was 6'7-6'8. NO PLAYER his size has come close to having that type of defensive ability, defensive versatility, and rebounding in one package. Ben Wallace was likely the closest BUT I didn't see Ben defending EVERY POSITION the way Rodman was. Rodman started in the league as a SF. Wallace was always an undersized C-PF type. Draymond doesn't have the rebounding ability. Same with an AK-47, Pippen, or Bobby Jones for that matter.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965149]Lol. Ya'll have a good Christmas. I just realized I'm here debating between 1998 Dennis Rodman and Dale fukking Davis when I should be deep into a bottle of Port at this point. Have a good one, ISH fam[/QUOTE]
Merry Christmas, already over here in Europe :lol
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965139]Which years? Because even saying they'd win half still comes off as devaluing Rodman to like a notch above guys who were basically journey-man level defensive bigs. They had their utilities but not even in the same stratosphere to casually namedrop them in a conversation about Dennis Rodman.[/QUOTE]
DAMN RIGHT!!! The thing with PF's like Horace,PJ Brown, and D Davis is THE FACT they weren't ALL TIME GREAT for their position at scoring, passing, rebounding, or defense. Rodman was ALL TIME GREAT HELL ARGUABLY THE GOAT at rebounding, defensive ability, and defensive versatility. So sure Horace could get 15 PPG and 10-11 RPG. And provider all league D. But Rodman could totally shift a game in ways guys like Horace, PJ, and D Davis never could.
Rodman vs Grant
From 91-93 Grant played in 236 of 246 games
From 96-98 Rodman played in 199 of 246 games.
91-93 Bulls won 185 games total
96-98 Bulls won 203 games total.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965171]Rodman vs Grant
From 91-93 Grant played in 236 of 246 games
From 96-98 Rodman played in 199 of 246 games.
91-93 Bulls won 185 games total
96-98 Bulls won 203 games total.[/QUOTE]
This would be a relevant comparison if the 91-93 and 96-98 leagues were the same, but I'm sure you know that's not the case. 35 year old MJ was able to lead the 98 Bulls to 62 wins with Pippen missing half the year and Rodman dipping in and out of the lineup going to Vegas or playing part-time NWO member with Hulk Hogan. That says alot more about the state of the league in 98 than the point you're attempting to make about Rodmans impact on their W/L vs Grant. The 91 Bulls played in a more talented league pre- Canadian expansion with prime dream team era stars including Jordan himself at his peak, and won 61 games.
Now, about to make myself some egg nog with spiced ginger whiskey.
Dale Davis was a comparable player to Rodman.
Horace Grant was better than both.
[QUOTE=iamgine;14965181]Dale Davis was a comparable player to Rodman.
Horace Grant was better than both.[/QUOTE]
shut the **** up haha
-Smak
[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14965185]shut the **** up haha
-Smak[/QUOTE]
The only appropriate response to such nonsense.
Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all
[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965307]Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all[/QUOTE]
It's a fair point to ask how good those other players would look with MJ, Pip and Phil Jackson.
People have come to think that you absolutely need a Rodman type player for the system to work, but that was never the case. Rodman did work well because he was a good passer and smart basketball player, but his rebounding was better than Dale Davis, but how much value does 4-5 extra rebounds have compared to Dale Davis superior rim protection and scoring?
[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965307]Rodman was a goat level defensive talent no doubt but did he really play at that level during the years they won it all? Comparing Bulls Rodman to the other top tier enforcers like Oakley, Mason, Davis Boys etc is not unreasonable at all[/QUOTE]
Comparing Detroit or San Antonio Rodman is also not unreasonable. He's a good role player but that's about it.
Dale Davis and his superior rim protection and scoring?
He averaged 1 block and 10, 8 and 8 ppg in Bulls last three peat
What is going on here?
[video=youtube;aaLy6Tsgwxg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaLy6Tsgwxg&ab_channel=BBVExtra[/video]
[video=youtube;NdZn8epqnKo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdZn8epqnKo&ab_channel=NobodyTouchesJordan[/video]
The way Rodman defended Shaq allowed the Bulls to stay home on the Magic shooters and not compromise their defense. He had tremendous lower body strength and center of gravity so Shaq couldn't easily back him down into scoring position, he either forced him into taking shots beyond his comfort zone or he'd have him taking extra dribbles to create something and the Bulls defenders like MJ, Pippen or Harper could swipe at the ball or disrupt Shaq's passing. Dale Davis was more of a typical enforcer type PF and he would have just played Shaq straight up and didn't have Rodmans defensive IQ, motor or leg strength to make it harder for Shaq.
Then you have series like against the Heat where Rodman would completely get into Mournings head, he knew he was easy to fukk with and would play mind games with him. There were simply things he did that took guys out of their comfort zones that don't necessarily show up on the box score.
By 98..ok...Rodman was like 37 and starting to become more trouble than he was worth then. But you aren't replacing 96 and 97 Rodman with Dale Davis.
Why would Dale Davis play Shaq straight up and not rely on his teammates? Its always weird to me how Rodman got all the credit in guarding Shaq when the team defense Pippen, Jordan, Harper etc provided was equally important.
The fun part was Shaq actually scored a fraction more while being more efficient and having more assists compared to his regular numbers while supposedly being "stopped"
[QUOTE=Carbine;14965349]Dale Davis and his superior rim protection and scoring?
He averaged 1 block and 10, 8 and 8 ppg in Bulls last three peat
What is going on here?[/QUOTE]
Got to look at the per 36 here.
[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965382]Why would Dale Davis play Shaq straight up and not rely on his teammates? Its always weird to me how Rodman got all the credit in guarding Shaq when the team defense Pippen, Jordan, Harper etc provided was equally important.
The fun part was Shaq actually scored a fraction more while being more efficient and having more assists compared to his regular numbers while supposedly being "stopped"[/QUOTE]
You made my point. Rodman alot of the time played Shaq straight up. Dale relying on his teammates means double teams, meaning Orlando's shooters are left open. During the 95 ECFs the Magic were 45% on 3s against the Pacers. A year later against the Bulls, 25% on 3s. Orlando probably beats Chicago again if they shoot 45% 3s on high volume. The difference? Having someone defensively who can allow the perimeter defenders to stay home on the 3point shooters and not give up easy 2s to Shaq. If you don't understand the value of Rodman's individual defense there within the context of the team defense on the Magic, not sure what else to tell you.
The fun part when looking at statlines is going across the entire page and not just looking at the totals. Shaq averaged 26.6ppg during the season on 36mpg. He scored 27.1 in the 96 ECFs....on 42.5mpg. 7 more minutes to score 'a fraction more'. His efficiency was high because whenever he waa guarded by guys like Longley and Wennington, it was virtually a guaranteed score because the Bulls committed to as much single coverage as possible, and those two were, to coin Shaq's verbiage, BBQ chicken compared to Rodmans defensive efforts. The other funny part is before even looking at Shaqs stats that series, I was 99% sure his mpg were alot higher than the season and that little tidbit would be conveniently left out.
Rodman played Shaq straight up a lot of the time?
For fukk sakes go watch the series, or don't. At the very least watch the 2nd video I posted where the commentators are plainly talking about it. Doug Collins speaks to how despite Rodman only being 218 or whatever, he has a strong low base and can push Shaq out further and no double team. Rodman wasn't defending him all game, he obviously needed to be preserved for the rebounding he provided, but when he did defend Shaq it was typically straight up. The Bulls may have thrown some fake/weak doubles every so often to keep Shaq guessing, but its not possible if Rodman himself isn't able to hold his own and make it harder for Shaq to get deep scoring position.
This conversation is tedious.
Its just conversation bro dont take it too seriously but in regards to the topic I guess we just see it differently how the Bulls provide help defense for Rodman sometimes even before he catches the ball, somebody always within arms length to provide help and double team but if you see that as defending straight up a lot of the time we just have to agree to disagree
[video=youtube_share;jhlZJA6Teng]https://youtu.be/jhlZJA6Teng?si=d0MbaCEcf2OKnlyF[/video]
First play Harper helps out on Shaq to prevent the entry pass
Second play Kukoc and Pippen took turns on helping out on Shaq once he makes a move with the ball
Last 2 plays Jordan provide help defense late and they force a turnover then Rodman fouls Shaq late while Jordan still provides help D
One, I dont take online conversations seriously for the most part. 2nd, I didn't say Rodman exclusively solo covered him. Alot of it depends on what sets the Magic were running and whether the other Bulls defenders were even in position to double or be close enough to just swipe at the ball to force Shaq to pass. You can see the play happening and pretty much tell if it was gonna be a single coverage play or if one of the other Bulls were gonna soft/hard double. The worst thing that can happen defensively against Shaq is allowing him to catch the ball and within 3 seconds he's under the basket. At that point it's either a score or a foul( or worse case, and-1). Rodman being able to make it harder for him to get great position caused forced shots or allows the other Bulls defenders the ability to quickly collapse while still defend the perimeter. It kept Shaq guessing. Like all great players you aren't gonna stop him from getting numbers, you want to make him work for them and contain everyone else. And Shaq at that stage was still developing as far as making great decisions in the post. 2000 era Laker Shaq would have been much harder for Rodman because he had bulked up and he was much better as a post passer and decision maker.
[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965404][video=youtube_share;jhlZJA6Teng]https://youtu.be/jhlZJA6Teng?si=d0MbaCEcf2OKnlyF[/video]
First play Harper helps out on Shaq to prevent the entry pass
Second play Kukoc and Pippen took turns on helping out on Shaq once he makes a move with the ball
Last 2 plays Jordan provide help defense late and they force a turnover then Rodman fouls Shaq late while Jordan still provides help D[/QUOTE]
The first play Harper is shading to deny the entry pass, but when I say playing straight up I'm referring to what happens after the catch and Shaq starts getting into his dribble backdown. Ideally you want to double off the catch rather than let the post player dribble himself into great scoring position. Especially someone of Shaqs physical prowess and with guys like Dennis Scott or Nick Anderson waiting for open looks.
The 2nd play was good, Kukoc used his length to swipe and then get back out to Penny, then Pippen comes over to force the pass out. What you may not have noted is that Shaq probably caught the ball further away from the basket than he wanted to, which puts the Bulls defenders in position to do what you described.
[QUOTE=Reggie43;14965403]Its just conversation bro dont take it too seriously but in regards to the topic I guess we just see it differently how the Bulls provide help defense for Rodman sometimes even before he catches the ball, somebody always within arms length to provide help and double team but if you see that as defending straight up a lot of the time we just have to agree to disagree[/QUOTE]
I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.
Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.
Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.
What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.
They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.
You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo[/url]
Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.
-Smak
[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14965431]I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.
Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.
Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.
What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.
They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.
You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo[/url]
Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.
-Smak[/QUOTE]
Because of the antics most fans couldn't see the iq Dennis had. This guy's rebounding was just as much anticipation and positioning as the athletic and aggression aspects of it too. His passing was definitely above average for a big man in that time too and that clip shows his understanding of the triangle in addition to the passing acumen. The triangle wasn't a cake walk for most to learn as far as basketball systems go.
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965462]Because of the antics most fans couldn't see the iq Dennis had. This guy's rebounding was just as much anticipation and positioning as the athletic and aggression aspects of it too. His passing was definitely above average for a big man in that time too and that clip shows his understanding of the triangle in addition to the passing acumen. The triangle wasn't a cake walk for most to learn as far as basketball systems go.[/QUOTE]
Did you see the Rodman episode on 'the Last Dance'? Dude broke down the art of rebounding to a science. Then you understand how a guy 6'6, at most 6'7 was grabbing 18 boards in an age of great centers/Pfs and packed paints.
Pistons Rodman and Bulls Rodman were two different players. And both were great.
Pistons Rodman was more dynamic and athletic. A freak perimeter defender & weak-side help defender for his size. And could fill the lane and run the break like a whirling dervish. His best version.
Bulls Rodman was a great interior defender, enforcer and play-maker.
Both versions were GOAT-level rebounders, but Bulls Rodman refined it.
[QUOTE=ILLsmak;14965431]I feel like you're trolling, but in regards to Dale Davis, you guys talk about being an enforcer and scoring, ok.
Was Dale Davis an all time great ball getter? No. Could Davis hit 3s? No. Could Davis start the break well with great outlets? No. Could Davis make good reads and passes out of the post? No.
Could Davis defense the perimeter? No. Could Davis defend an all time great post player? No.
What was Dale probably better at doing? Finishing inside and shot blocking.
They are wildly different. Horace is definitely an all star and he could play on some teams, but as I said before, I take Rodman as a second guy, not a third guy. People need to realize what the forward position is actually doing. A lot of the guys you probably like at forward played more like guards. Rodman is an all time great forward. There is almost nothing he leaves on the table. If he had the green light, he probably could have been wet from 3, too.
You don't post Rodman hard, but he can make post passes.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2EMupX5czo[/url]
Even if you wanna give Davis an equal impact as an 'enforcer' and 'rebounder/defender,' Rodman still does way more than him, but unfort, it's not the same at all. If you put Rodman on a team with Reggie and Smits, he would shine.
-Smak[/QUOTE]
Was not really saying he was good as Rodman in his prime but that he would have been a good enough replacement for the Pistons/Bulls still win rings half the time or atleast lets say 97 or 98 when Rodman was old and past his prime
Fans get stuck on the idea that because X team won with X player that they could only win with X players specific skillset and nothing more. They dont take into consideration that a team as smart as the 90s Bulls for example could adjust with playing with another type of player and cover for his weaknesses and enhance his strengths. They might not be as good but they could still win because of how good Jordan, Pippen and Phil were
Love the discussion. When I originally made the thread, it was more so not is Rodman better than one of the Davis Boys but more so other fellow Hall of Famers.
We see Rodman ranked higher than a guy like Chris Mullin all the time now. But was it that way in 1991? Was he even considered greater than another defensive minded player like Mutombo or Alonzo Mourning.
If he wasn't, when did things change?
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965527]Love the discussion. When I originally made the thread, it was more so not is Rodman better than one of the Davis Boys but more so other fellow Hall of Famers.
We see Rodman ranked higher than a guy like Chris Mullin all the time now. But was it that way in 1991? Was he even considered greater than another defensive minded player like Mutombo or Alonzo Mourning.
If he wasn't, when did things change?[/QUOTE]
Its not a simple 1:1 comparison with someone like a Chris Mullin because defensive oriented players are kind of in their own category( and frankly don't get the same level of respect that offensive stars get). I think Dennis was viewed at his best as a transcendent defensive player, sort of a 1 of 1 type. Mullin was a great scorer/ shooter and had a 4 year run as an all-nba player. His career body of work wasn't better than Dennis even if you want to say he was better in a vacuum at their respective best. To me it's like comparing apples and pizza asking which is better.
Its almost like asking who was better, either in totality of their career or just in a vacuum, Ben Wallace who had anchored Detroits defense for a half decade and won a title, or Gilbert Arenas who had 3-4 years of being a great scorer and all NBA player? Who should rank higher? Like how should these things should be measured?
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965562]Its not a simple 1:1 comparison with someone like a Chris Mullin because defensive oriented players are kind of in their own category( and frankly don't get the same level of respect that offensive stars get). I think Dennis was viewed at his best as a transcendent defensive player, sort of a 1 of 1 type. Mullin was a great scorer/ shooter and had a 4 year run as an all-nba player. His career body of work wasn't better than Dennis even if you want to say he was better in a vacuum at their respective best. To me it's like comparing apples and pizza asking which is better.
Its almost like asking who was better, either in totality of their career or just in a vacuum, Ben Wallace who had anchored Detroits defense for a half decade and won a title, or Gilbert Arenas who had 3-4 years of being a great scorer and all NBA player? Who should rank higher? Like how should these things should be measured?[/QUOTE]
Ben Wallace situation is different. EVERYONE considered Big Ben as the player for the Pistons. The leader and even the best player. Rodman was never the leader or best player for any of his teams.
If we go back to I guess 1988-1998, how many seasons was Mullin considered better than Rodman? I mean, that's an honest question.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965565]Ben Wallace situation is different. EVERYONE considered Big Ben as the player for the Pistons. The leader and even the best player. Rodman was never the leader or best player for any of his teams.
If we go back to I guess 1988-1998, how many seasons was Mullin considered better than Rodman? I mean, that's an honest question.[/QUOTE]
But how then do people even measure Ben Wallace against Rip or Chauncey Billups? You keep bringing up Mullin for an obvious reason, his scoring prowess as compared to Rodman. Ben Wallace was such a great defender and rebounder, and one could argue he was the best or most important on the 04 Pistons but that was a team of good to really good players with no dominant superstar, which makes that an easier claim. Big Ben wouldn't have been the best player on the 89/90 Pistons or the Bulls 96/97/98 teams. So ultimately an irrelevant point. Its very possible that peak Rodman on the 04 Pistons also blurs the line with who the 'best' player was.
One could argue Rodmans prowess as a defender/rebounder and the other intangibles he brought were more conducive to winning than Mullin's scoring. But again its not a 1:1 comparison, because you're debating Rodman's contributions as an elite defender/rebounder to winning against Mullin scoring alot of points and losing. You can find hundreds of guys, and I'm not saying this as a knock on Mullin, that can score 25 before you find what Rodman did. But that's if you can value what he did without looking at PPG or however else the term 'better' is being quantified here.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965573]But how then do people even measure Ben Wallace against Rip or Chauncey Billups? You keep bringing up Mullin for an obvious reason, his scoring prowess as compared to Rodman. Ben Wallace was such a great defender and rebounder, and one could argue he was the best or most important on the 04 Pistons but that was a team of good to really good players with no dominant superstar, which makes that an easier claim. Big Ben wouldn't have been the best player on the 89/90 Pistons or the Bulls 96/97/98 teams. So ultimately an irrelevant point. Its very possible that peak Rodman on the 04 Pistons also blurs the line with who the 'best' player was.
One could argue Rodmans prowess as a defender/rebounder and the other intangibles he brought were more conducive to winning than Mullin's scoring. But again its not a 1:1 comparison, because you're debating Rodman's contributions as an elite defender/rebounder to winning against Mullin scoring alot of points and losing. You can find hundreds of guys, and I'm not saying this as a knock on Mullin, that can score 25 before you find what Rodman did. But that's if you can value what he did without looking at PPG or however else the term 'better' is being quantified here.[/QUOTE]
I mention Mullin because I was trying to find someone who played basically the same era as Rodman. And he's also a Hall of Famer.
I could use a non Hall of Famer, Shawn Kemp. I grew up in the 90s and I know for a fact the majority would take Kemp over Rodman. The 96 Finals, Kemp was 23/10 on 55% FG, Rodman 7/14.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965580]I mention Mullin because I was trying to find someone who played basically the same era as Rodman. And he's also a Hall of Famer.
I could use a non Hall of Famer, Shawn Kemp. I grew up in the 90s and I know for a fact the majority would take Kemp over Rodman. The 96 Finals, Kemp was 23/10 on 55% FG, Rodman 7/14.[/QUOTE]
Rodman was good enough in the Finals that some argue he had an argument for finals MVP. The question of who is better with him and Kemp isn't much different than with Mullin. How are we defining better when comparing people with vastly different skillsets and roles? I think its the same, Rodman ended up with the more decorated career. Yes, I can easily say Kemp on the Bulls wins chips with 1000% more conviction than saying Dale Davis would, but circumstances do play a role with these rankings. Kemp in a bubble was probably better/more impactful than Mullin for that matter. At no point have you really quantified what you mean by better though. Frankly it doesn't really matter to me, but I could better understand your angle. Better because he scored more? Better as a two-way player( that would be the most obvious argument for Kemp as a player over Rodman compared to Mullin).
Just thinking aloud, can you imagine the level of terror in the 92 Olympics had Rodman been selected and he's out there with MJ and Scottie hounding the likes of Toni Kukoc and Petrovic?
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965594]Just thinking aloud, can you imagine the level of terror in the 92 Olympics had Rodman been selected and he's out there with MJ and Scottie hounding the likes of Toni Kukoc and Petrovic?[/QUOTE]
That is true. However, Rodman wasn't even an option when they were putting the Dream Team together. His name probably didn't even come up in discussions.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965595]That is true. However, Rodman wasn't even an option when they were putting the Dream Team together. His name probably didn't even come up in discussions.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know. 92 Dream team was more about the biggest names in the league, the A listers if you will, and 'specialists' like Rodman weren't thought of until later Team USA rosters. Also, Detroit's reputation coming off their chips a few years earlier didn't do viable Piston candidates any favors. Some selections and omissions were political ( MJ infamously not wanting Isiah is common knowledge).
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965600]Yes I know. 92 Dream team was more about the biggest names in the league, the A listers if you will, and 'specialists' like Rodman weren't thought of until later Team USA rosters. Also, Detroit's reputation coming off their chips a few years earlier didn't do viable Piston candidates any favors. Some selections and omissions were political ( MJ infamously not wanting Isiah is common knowledge).[/QUOTE]
Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965464]Did you see the Rodman episode on 'the Last Dance'? Dude broke down the art of rebounding to a science. Then you understand how a guy 6'6, at most 6'7 was grabbing 18 boards in an age of great centers/Pfs and packed paints.[/QUOTE]
I did but I remember the bits said throughout the later part of his career as well. Haven't heard of many guys who watch other guys shoot around just to study rebounding angles lol. He was one of a kind.