Printable View
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965603]Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.[/QUOTE]
Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965608]Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.[/QUOTE]
It was Nique over Drexler. Nique was injured in 91 when the first 10 guys were selected. Clyde was selected after 92 I think.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965610]It was Nique over Drexler. Nique was injured in 91 when the first 10 guys were selected. Clyde was selected after 92 I think.[/QUOTE]
Nique was a 3 like Mullin and Clyde the only other 2 on the squad besides MJ iirc. We hadn't started ignoring positions yet lol.
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965611]Nique was a 3 like Mullin and Clyde the only other 2 on the squad besides MJ iirc. We hadn't started ignoring positions yet lol.[/QUOTE]
Mullin, Clyde, Pippen and MJ were interchangeable. All can handle the rock as well. Nique couldn't do that nor pass like the other 4 guys.
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965606]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.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that's what I was referring. Its one thing to understand positioning and how shots will come off the rim ,but he took it a step beyond that.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965603]Zeke and Nique should have been there. I think Nique was coming off an injury tho.[/QUOTE]
[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]
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965608]Right, in real time it was hard to justify Stockton over Zeke and Mullin over a guy like Nique....and Laettner over anyone lol. Seems like they needed to please a specific crowd lol.[/QUOTE]
So when the Dream Team was put together they had left one roster spot open. It could have gone to several people..Isiah, Zeke, Moses Malone (who was still active), Rodman etc. In the end they gave the spot to Clyde Drexler because he had the best season of all the options.
Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan. Jordan wanted Mullin and Pippen...MJ loved Mullin they had won a gold medal in 84 together. Patrick Ewing was also on that team and Jordan loved Charles so that was the Jordan lineup (Mullin/Jordan/Pippen/Barkley/Ewing). When Jordan was working on his comeback and shooting Space Jam...Mullin was one of the guys that he called to get back in basketball shape.
Christian Laetner (another guy that ended up being a Jordan guy) was selected over Chris Webber and Shaq. Was it a bad pick...meh it's the 15th guy and if they wanted a spot up shooter he was the better pick. Coach K was also the assistant coach for the team and pushed for Laetner.
John Stockton was an easy pick as PG. The roster was finalized after the 90-91 season...Isiah only played half a season that year. Stockton had broken the 14 APG line in the previous seasons and Magic's season squad was pretty obvious (Stockton/Magic/Malone/Robinson).
Jordan was offered the Captain spot but he wanted it to be himself Larry and Magic. All three guys had issues with Isiah
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965613]Mullin, Clyde, Pippen and MJ were interchangeable. All can handle the rock as well. Nique couldn't do that nor pass like the other 4 guys.[/QUOTE]
In today's game absolutely, but in 92 not so much. Archetypes where alot more rigid. I'm saying the caliber of marquee player Nique was vs a Mullin wasnt very close. But one thing I was forgetting was when the ACL tear happened. I'm not sure he was available for the summer games and that probably made it an easy choice.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965615]Yes, that's what I was referring. Its one thing to understand positioning and how shots will come off the rim ,but he took it a step beyond that.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. We need more guys like that in today's game that will work to master less glamorous aspects of the game. And not to discredit anyone, maybe we do and just haven't heard the stories yet..
[QUOTE=John8204;14965621]So when the Dream Team was put together they had left one roster spot open. It could have gone to several people..Isiah, Zeke, Moses Malone (who was still active), Rodman etc. In the end they gave the spot to Clyde Drexler because he had the best season of all the options.
Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan. Jordan wanted Mullin and Pippen...MJ loved Mullin they had won a gold medal in 84 together. Patrick Ewing was also on that team and Jordan loved Charles so that was the Jordan lineup (Mullin/Jordan/Pippen/Barkley/Ewing). When Jordan was working on his comeback and shooting Space Jam...Mullin was one of the guys that he called to get back in basketball shape.
Christian Laetner (another guy that ended up being a Jordan guy) was selected over Chris Webber and Shaq. Was it a bad pick...meh it's the 15th guy and if they wanted a spot up shooter he was the better pick. Coach K was also the assistant coach for the team and pushed for Laetner.
John Stockton was an easy pick as PG. The roster was finalized after the 90-91 season...Isiah only played half a season that year. Stockton had broken the 14 APG line in the previous seasons and Magic's season squad was pretty obvious (Stockton/Magic/Malone/Robinson).
Jordan was offered the Captain spot but he wanted it to be himself Larry and Magic. All three guys had issues with Isiah[/QUOTE]
Well if Mj got to pick the roster we definitely know the best available guys weren't selected lol. That's almost as proven as his greatness at this point.
[QUOTE=John8204;14965621]Chris Mullin was selected because of Michael Jordan.[/QUOTE]
Do you have any source for this? As far as I've ever read, the only stipulation Jordan had was not having Isiah on the team, as everyone knows.
As for Laettner, this discussion comes up every few weeks. He thoroughly deserved to be on that team. He was the most accomplished college player of the time by far. Everyone knew Shaq was going to tear up the NBA but the college pick was about what you've done, not what you're going to do. What Laettner did or didnt do in the NBA is irrelevant. People hate on that pick all the time but revisionist history doesnt change the facts.
[QUOTE=Nowoco;14965727]Do you have any source for this? As far as I've ever read, the only stipulation Jordan had was not having Isiah on the team, as everyone knows.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I was looking to see if I could find any of the clips I've seen of Jordan over the years. He brings up Chris Mullin all the time in documentaries. Jordan and Mullin started playing together in 81, they won a medal in 84, he was at the Jordan Dome in 95. He even got Mullin and Ewing in a McDonalds commercial in 92.
[video=youtube;lZz5Gz_AvWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZz5Gz_AvWU[/video]
I also remember a story about Bird getting convinced by MJ and Magic to go even though he was hurt.
As for Laetner they had like five or six guys they could have picked on the short list. Laettener was definately picked as a spot up shooter but it could have easily been Grant Hill. Shaq and Chris Webber were the bigger names those were the blue chippers but Laettner picked for basketball reasons.
Practically speaking the final spot shouldn't have gone to any college player, without getting into who deserved it or otherwise. I don't recall if there was some mandate or if it was just a ceremonial position. But Stockton was injured and since politics kept Isiah out, that spot would have been better served on a PG like Tim Hardaway or KJ. IIRC Scottie ended up doing spot PG duties, but he should have been out on the wings with MJ and Clyde, not running offense. Ultimately it didn't really matter because the team was leagues ahead of everyone else, they could have picked someone from the stands for the last spot and it wouldn't have mattered.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965745]Practically speaking the final spot shouldn't have gone to any college player, without getting into who deserved it or otherwise. I don't recall if there was some mandate or if it was just a ceremonial position. But Stockton was injured and since politics kept Isiah out, that spot would have been better served on a PG like Tim Hardaway or KJ. IIRC Scottie ended up doing spot PG duties, but he should have been out on the wings with MJ and Clyde, not running offense. Ultimately it didn't really matter because the team was leagues ahead of everyone else, they could have picked someone from the stands for the last spot and it wouldn't have mattered.[/QUOTE]
All of those guys made Dream Team II. Which basically had all of the 2nd tier stars like Reggie Miller and Derrick Coleman were on the team.
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;14965761]All of those guys made Dream Team II. Which basically had all of the 2nd tier stars like Reggie Miller and Derrick Coleman were on the team.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know. I think there's a case one of them could have been on the first team as an injury replacement for Stockton or just to have a 3rd PG in place of the college player pick, but it's all hindsight now.
Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.
I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).
I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.
I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).
I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.[/QUOTE]
That’s not necessarily saying much a ton of title teams would lose if you just removed their 3rd best player without replacing them.
Well maybe not teams that were basically just two man shows like the 01-02 Lakers or 20 Lakers or insanely stacked ones but the majority.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.
I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).
I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.[/QUOTE]
95 Bulls losing to the Magic had a lot to do with losing their big man Horace Grant. They didn't have a replacement in 95. They got Rodman the next season to basically replace him.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.
I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).
[B]I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago[/B].[/QUOTE]
That would probably depend on who was on the team in place of him and if they still end up in the finals regardless. A couple of names being tossed around earlier aren't replacing 96 Rodman. But yeah I understand the general sentiment.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965775]Rodman's impact can't be viewed in light of the superstardom he played alongside. He has to be viewed as a third piece who elevates or significantly raises the ceiling.
I posted about Rodman's contributions before on ISH somewhere. Every team he played for did better with him and fell off some without him. Even the Lakers played significantly better with him (17-6 record).
I truly believe if Rodman wasn't on that '96 team, Seattle probably takes that series to 7 games and maybe even beats Chicago.[/QUOTE]
LOL stop with this nonsense. Guy like Charles Oakley was fully sufficient to replace Rodman on that '96 team.
[QUOTE=iamgine;14965809]LOL stop with this nonsense. Guy like Charles Oakley was fully sufficient to replace Rodman on that '96 team.[/QUOTE]
Yea. I didn't mean someone like Oakley couldn't. I'm saying if Rodman wasn't there and Chicago had Kukoc starting at the 4. Oakley was a great rebounder, great mid-range, and a defensive specialist. Obviously they would win with him as they would win with another all-star level player.
This whole thing with casually namesdropping other decent to good PFs in Rodman's place is weird. Nobody is saying he was irreplaceable. Charles Oakley was a good player, had a decent 15 foot jumpshot so he'd score a bit more than Dennis( and we're talking like 8-10 points compared to Rodman averaging 6), but wasn't nearly as versatile defensively( he only made 2 All defensive teams in case anyone thinks he was in the same tier because he was out there clotheslining people on their way to the basket), not as good a passer and in the period of time we're talking about, pulled down 5-6 less rebounds and like half as many offensive rebounds. It's like people are googling '90's power forwards' and just throwing out names like these are 1:1 replacements. What Rodman was able to do in 96 greatly contributed to a team that was historically great and set the all-time wins record that stood for 20 years. Even if they replaced him with Oakley and still win, I can confidently say they aren't nearly as good and to touch on what HoopsNY said, if they get to the finals I'm not 100% convinced the Sonics don't win. Rodman averaged 8 offensive rebounds that series. MJ over the course of that finals wasn't some unbeatable force, especially games 4-6 and Scottie was horrid on offense.
[video=youtube;pas7u0fcmzc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pas7u0fcmzc&ab_channel=BasketballComposition[/video]
[video=youtube;98R_SCHiSUY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98R_SCHiSUY&ab_channel=LamarMatic[/video]
[video=youtube;4kIDw1qMCW0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kIDw1qMCW0&ab_channel=Exit[/video]
I'm not even 100% they beat the Magic with Oakley if Grant doesn't get injured.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965903] What Rodman was able to do in 96 greatly contributed to a team that was historically great and set the all-time wins record that stood for 20 years. [/QUOTE]
That is vast exaggeration. You know who was mainly responsible for them being so good other than MJ and Pippen? Kukoc.
Rodman was perfectly replaceable by the likes of Oakley and Davis.
[QUOTE=iamgine;14965905]That is vast exaggeration. You know who was mainly responsible for them being so good other than MJ and Pippen? Kukoc.
Rodman was perfectly replaceable by the likes of Oakley and Davis.[/QUOTE]
Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?
FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.
Dennis Rodman was a historically great defensive player and rebounder but eh, PJ Brown will do. Straight clown takes bordering on trolling.
Speaking of Ewing. In my mind, Ewing was injury prone and always hurt throughout his career. But I was just looking at the stats and they say different. He got hurt in his first two seasons and at the end of his career but between 1987-1997, his absolute prime, he only missed 20 games which is exceptional for a center.
Does anyone else (mis)remember him this way?
[QUOTE=Nowoco;14965917]Speaking of Ewing. In my mind, Ewing was injury prone and always hurt throughout his career. But I was just looking at the stats and they say different. He got hurt in his first two seasons and at the end of his career but [B]between 1987-1997, his absolute prime, he only missed 20 games which is exceptional for a center.[/B]
Does anyone else (mis)remember him this way?[/QUOTE]
I wasn't watching the NBA till like 89, so I missed the first few years and by the late 90s, being past 35 and getting more injured was par for the course. But in his prime, I remember him being generally healthy and available.
[video=youtube;DVcckbtfObQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVcckbtfObQ&ab_channel=BTMBasketballTimeMachine[/video]
Timely video that just showed up on my youtube this morning. It's around 40 mins so most won't have the attention span to watch it, but worth a watch if anyone is interested.
dudes are forgetting Rodman could be a number 2 with the right player. If you take the Bulls for example, if you replace Pip with him and you have... MJ, Rodman, Kukoc, that's still a very solid team. His lack of scoring means you have to have two players who can score well, though.
Rodman was dumped by SAS and then retired as a Bull. Sure he did the LA/DAL thing, but... he had great success with DET, had a hard time adjusting to SAS (for two years, still got MVP votes? He wasn't the 3rd guy there, he was the 2nd, alongside a big (basically one of the worst situations for him to be in.)
Rodman is one of the best number 3s of all time, but people are underrating him as a number 2. I think if you can have your pick of anyone, there is a case to pick rodman second. That is a value you cannot get elsewhere. I think that's what people are missing. Sure people could have replaced him, but his value was still way higher than theirs.
-Smak
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965908]Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?
FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965936]Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.[/QUOTE]
No-one throwing out these other names have actually bothered explaining why someone like Dale Davis or Charles Oakley are simple plug and plays. It's like the mindset is '[I]what bruiser forward type who averaged 10/10 can I throw out there?[/I]' But while Rodman could get physical he also had much greater defensive versatility than those guys on top of just being a flat out better rebounder. Pistons Rodman could defend positions 1-4. The older,slower Bulls Rodman could still defend 4s and 5s' and some 3s. Guys like Oakley and Dale Davis got 10 boards mostly banging and being in proximity of the basket. Rodman was all over the court diving for loose balls, could board and throw bullet outlet passes leading to an easy 2 for Jordan/Pippen on the break, could read the Triangle very well as you said and make the correct pass, and did things to get under the opponents skin; he was a psychological master and would get guys out of their comfort zone.
Scoring-wise yeah someone like Oakley gave you a bit more but Rodman was one of the best, if not the best, offensive rebounders most years which led to more possessions, generally equaling out someone like Davis or Oakley giving you an extra 4-5 points depending on the year.
He was simply a more active and dynamic player. These guys on here are like '[I]well lets see umm Dale Davis could score 10 points and could get 9-10 rebounds so ummmm yeah that's good enough[/I]'. Rodman was great at getting 'timely' rebounds, or drawing momentum changing charges, he just did what is referred to as 'winning' plays but he's just being, as far as I can tell, boiled down to some simple bruiser type who just grabbed a bunch of boards, and I guess scoring a few less points equals out to grabbing more rebounds or something. Frankly I don't know what formula they're using.
Dude was a freak who lucked up joining two great teams with real coaches and real superstars.
The spurs is a great example of how much of loser dude really was. Was a straight flake when he had no guidance.
Yeah he’s a great rebounder and defender but that’s it.
Dude would not be remembered if he never colored his hair and acted a fool. Surely would never be remembered at all if he didn’t play for those legendary Piston and Bulls teams.
Dudes barely remembered now. It takes North Korea and LeBron homers make this dude relevant.
Honestly I’d take
Tony Allen
Bruce Bowen
AC Green
Shawn Marion
Ron Artest
Josh Howard
Richard Dumas
Reggie Lewis
Dan Marjele
Joe Johnson
Rashard Lewis
Raja Bell
Mitch Richmond
Sean Elliot
Etc
Etc
Etc
Over Rodman any day.
Rodman ain’t better than
Stephen Jackson
Jason Richardson
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Charles Oakley
Anthony Mason
Etc
Etc
[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;14965936]Yeah i think we're doing Worm a disservice throwing these guys names out like that. Not saying Oak wasn't a tough, quality forward, same for Davis but Rodman was unique and maybe under appreciated because of it. And when we talk about him I'm always one to bring up his iq because once I heard stories I was kind of blown away from what I thought of him in real time. He said he learned the triangle in like 15 minutes and Winter confirmed at some point he was in fact one of the fastest to learn the offense. And for the younger fans here, the reason it's a significant thing to mention is the triangle was notoriously difficult for some players to learn. Ron Harper was a lead dog on his own team before playing in chicago, yet he struggled mightily to learn the offense the 1st season and his numbers didn't ever reflect his talent level in Chicago. So for a guy most saw unjustly as just a role player to grasp and master it so quickly is noteworthy.[/QUOTE]
Good point. Ron Harper is a good example but another example is Glen Rice. Rice didn't fit well with the triangle offense and didn't like it either. Rodman adapted well, probably because he wasn't a scorer, but also because he was a good passer, something that gets left out of the conversation a lot.
Rodman won DPOY in 1990 and 1991. His contributions are understated when it comes to those late 80s and early 90s Bad Boyz Pistons teams. Look at the following:
[B]DET w/Rodman '93: 36-26 (48 win pace)[/B]
DET w/o Rodman '93: 4-16 (17 win pace)
Rodman leaves after '93 and there are some shakeups, but Detroit wins just 20 games. He joins SAS and they go from being a 49 win team to a 55 win team, and then the following season 62 wins. He was a locker room problem but we can't ignore SAS play with him.
But here's the interesting thing about '95. Rodman played just 49 games:
[B]'95 SAS w/Rodman: 40-9 (67 win pace)[/B]
'95 SAS w/o Rodman: 22-11 (52 win pace)
The discrepancy is a little skewed because the following season, SAS went on to win 59 games. But I think a lot of that had to do with Sean Elliott's elevated play. Point is, Rodman was an obvious ceiling raiser.
[B]'96 CHI w/Rodman: 57-7 (73 win pace)[/B]
'96 CHI w/o Rodman: 15-3 (68 win pace)
The regular season numbers don't show it as much but Rodman's play in the playoffs I think summed it up well.
[B]'97 CHI w/Rodman: 48-7 (72 win pace)[/B]
'97 CHI w/o Rodman: 21-6 (64 win pace)
Then in '99 he joins the Lakers:
[B]'99 LAL w/Rodman 17-6 (61 win pace)[/B]
'99 LAL w/o Rodman: 14-13 (42 win pace)
There's just so much evidence of Rodman's contributions. As a third best player, it's really hard to think of anyone else I'd rather have in all of league history, and that includes Elgin, Manu, Klay, Ray, Grant, etc.
[QUOTE=Norcaliblunt;14965967]Rodman ain’t better than
Stephen Jackson
Jason Richardson
Draymond Green
Klay Thompson
Charles Oakley
Anthony Mason
Etc
Etc[/QUOTE]
I'm taking Rodman as a third best player over all of those guys, especially if you have the scoring you need from a 1-2 punch like Steph/KD, Kobe/Shaq, MJ/Scottie, West/Wilt, Bird/McHale, Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Wade, LeBron/Kyrie, LeBron/AD, Tatum/Brown, etc.
Norcaliblunt continuing to prove he's dumb as a rock. Richard Dumas lmao
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14965908]Exaggeration how? Are you arguing that someone first team all-defense and lead the league in rebounds with guys like Shaq, Hakeem, Malone, Barkley, Robinson, Ewing, Mourning and Mutumbo in the league was a minor player in that? Kukoc was vital to this but not Rodman? A guy that equaled the all-time record for offensive rebounds TWICE in the finals but meh, Dale Davis will do. What 96 FMVP votes did Kukoc get?
FOH with this bullshit. This is where you need to take your own advice of stopping with the nonsense.[/QUOTE]
Actually yes. Kukoc was A LOT more crucial than Rodman.
You throw words like all defense and rebounds. It's like saying Raja Bell is absolutely crucial because he's 1st all defense level and shoot 3s so well. :lol
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965971]Good point. Ron Harper is a good example but another example is Glen Rice. Rice didn't fit well with the triangle offense and didn't like it either. Rodman adapted well, probably because he wasn't a scorer, but also because he was a good passer, something that gets left out of the conversation a lot.
Rodman won DPOY in 1990 and 1991. His contributions are understated when it comes to those late 80s and early 90s Bad Boyz Pistons teams. Look at the following:
[B]DET w/Rodman '93: 36-26 (48 win pace)[/B]
DET w/o Rodman '93: 4-16 (17 win pace)
Rodman leaves after '93 and there are some shakeups, but Detroit wins just 20 games. He joins SAS and they go from being a 49 win team to a 55 win team, and then the following season 62 wins. He was a locker room problem but we can't ignore SAS play with him.
But here's the interesting thing about '95. Rodman played just 49 games:
[B]'95 SAS w/Rodman: 40-9 (67 win pace)[/B]
'95 SAS w/o Rodman: 22-11 (52 win pace)
The discrepancy is a little skewed because the following season, SAS went on to win 59 games. But I think a lot of that had to do with Sean Elliott's elevated play. Point is, Rodman was an obvious ceiling raiser.
[B]'96 CHI w/Rodman: 57-7 (73 win pace)[/B]
'96 CHI w/o Rodman: 15-3 (68 win pace)
The regular season numbers don't show it as much but Rodman's play in the playoffs I think summed it up well.
[B]'97 CHI w/Rodman: 48-7 (72 win pace)[/B]
'97 CHI w/o Rodman: 21-6 (64 win pace)
Then in '99 he joins the Lakers:
[B]'99 LAL w/Rodman 17-6 (61 win pace)[/B]
'99 LAL w/o Rodman: 14-13 (42 win pace)
There's just so much evidence of Rodman's contributions. As a third best player, it's really hard to think of anyone else I'd rather have in all of league history, and that includes Elgin, Manu, Klay, Ray, Grant, etc.[/QUOTE]
Rodman wasn't the only one left. Did you forget Isiah Thomas injury or Mark Aguirre retiring. Bill Laimbeer was done. Joe D, Zeke and Laimbeer were the only holdover from the championship teams.
[QUOTE=HoopsNY;14965972]I'm taking Rodman as a third best player over all of those guys, especially if you have the scoring you need from a 1-2 punch like Steph/KD, Kobe/Shaq, MJ/Scottie, West/Wilt, Bird/McHale, Magic/Kareem, Shaq/Wade, LeBron/Kyrie, LeBron/AD, Tatum/Brown, etc.[/QUOTE]
You’d take Rodman over Klay? In this day and age?
[QUOTE=iamgine;14966011]Actually yes. Kukoc was A LOT more crucial than Rodman.
You throw words like all defense and rebounds. It's like saying Raja Bell is absolutely crucial because he's 1st all defense level and shoot 3s so well. :lol[/QUOTE]
Ah so all of a defense being a first team all-defender and leading the league in rebounding, literally setting the record for offensive rebounds in the finals are minor contributions. You throw around words like he was 'ALOT more crucial' with no context behind your vacuous statements whatsoever. FOH with this trolling garbage.:lol:facepalm
[QUOTE=RRR3;14966004]Norcaliblunt continuing to prove he's dumb as a rock. Richard Dumas lmao[/QUOTE]
Don't forget Iamgine following on with some dumb analogy about Raja Bell. Apparently that's the level of importance Rodman had on those teams. I'm just assuming at this point its trolling.
[QUOTE=Phoenix;14966069]Don't forget Iamgine following on with some dumb analogy about Raja Bell. Apparently that's the level of importance Rodman had on those teams. I'm just assuming at this point its trolling.[/QUOTE]
That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.