Dennis Rodman: How good was he actually at his best?

[sdot_thadon]

That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.

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.

Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

[Phoenix]

That's about Rodman's level of importance. People just exaggerated Rodman for some reason.

No it isn't, don't be daft. Even removing championships there's 2 all-star nods, 2 DPOY, 6 all-defense, 2 All-NBA, and 7 rebound titles worth of accolades separating the two of them.

[HoopsNY]

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.

I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

[Phoenix]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.

I'm assuming he's trolling, because anyone seriously equating Raja Bell with Dennis Rodman should be heavily sedated and in a straight jacket.

I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

I'm not sure if he means Kukoc was more crucial in general or in the 96 finals. The former would be a fair take in 98 because Rodman was really up and down that year. But 96 Finals Rodman? The one some people feel was FMVP that series? The one that Shawn Fukking Kemp is on record as saying 'Jordan didn't beat us, we had no answer for Rodman'. No chance in hell.

Otherwise, you spout the kind of nonsense he's going on about when the intent is to keep someone engaged in a back and forth( which admittedly he's gotten more energy from me than his posts warrant on the topic).

[HoopsNY]

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.

That doesn't explain how Detroit played so well with Rodman in 1993 and so poorly without him. You can't compare a 48 win pace to 17. The gap is immense. While it may not have all been Rodman, it certainly had a lot to do with him.

[HoopsNY]

You’d take Rodman over Klay? In this day and age?

Sure. Why not? Rodman is a legitimate versatile defender, which means he'd easily defend the perimeter. If you have a scoring duo like Tatum/Brown, or even Steph/Klay, why wouldn't you? I'll take my chances with Luka/Kyrie plus Rodman, as opposed to Luka/Kyrie + Klay. Klay is 34 this season. I'm taking 34 year old Rodman over him most likely.

[HoopsNY]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.


Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

Yea. Rodman was getting MVP votes on Detroit, San Antonio, and Chicago. He had 4 years where this was the case. By comparison, Draymond has had only 1 year (2016), Marion 2x (2005, 2006), Artest 0x, B. Wallace 3x (2002, 2003, 2004), D. Jordan 0x, Oakley 0x, and Mason 2x (1997, 2001).

I think that's a pretty telling bit of information, together with all the other stuff like his rebounding, offensive rebounding, FMVP votes, DPOYs, passing, and his teams' success with and without him. It's nothing to scoff at, that's for sure.

[sdot_thadon]

I'm assuming he's trolling, because anyone seriously equating Raja Bell with Dennis Rodman should be heavily sedated and in a straight jacket.



I'm not sure if he means Kukoc was more crucial in general or in the 96 finals. The former would be a fair take in 98 because Rodman was really up and down that year. But 96 Finals Rodman? The one some people feel was FMVP that series? The one that Shawn Fukking Kemp is on record as saying 'Jordan didn't beat us, we had no answer for Rodman'. No chance in hell.

Otherwise, you spout the kind of nonsense he's going on about when the intent is to keep someone engaged in a back and forth( which admittedly he's gotten more energy from me than his posts warrant on the topic).

I guess so, because I couldn't see anyone who watched both guys say that with a straight face. Maybe he was bored.

[L.Kizzle]

I disagree, it's more likely the complete opposite for some unknown reason. For the life of me i can't understand the need to revise the past. Rodman was a big deal for the Bulls. A 3rd star without being a traditional star type. They never just mentioned Mj and Pippen in those seasons he was always included. Now if you want to make the argument that he wasn't as good by the end of the run? Be my guest I agree. But certain things he brought to the table were consistent and dependable for a legendary team. It's actually an insult to liken hin to Raja Bell lol.


Not only that but he put names in there that were 1st options! Of course we're taking a 1st option guy over Dennis. And as much as i hate Klay he's fair game. Marion and Artest are the only other non 1st option guys id listen to an argument for.Aside from those guys it's a ridiculous list.

Rodman was known for his off the court antics by then. He was wrasslin, having secks with famous women, marrying himself, arguing with coaches and now coloring his hair. He was now a polarizing figure. He wasn't in Detroit.

[sdot_thadon]

Rodman was known for his off the court antics by then. He was wrasslin, having secks with famous women, marrying himself, arguing with coaches and now coloring his hair. He was now a polarizing figure. He wasn't in Detroit.

Exactly. And i think for him it helped highlight when he actually did play and do the things he did, which let's be real are the less glamorous aspects of the game. It's the same reason so many future fans had trouble giving Bill Russell his flowers.

[iamgine]

I certainly don't recall this. Maybe Kukoc was in spurts in the '98 finals, like when Pippen went down. Kukoc played well in games 5 and 6, but he was a non-factor in the first 4 games of the series. He wasn't exceptional or even good in '96 or '97 in the playoffs, either. So I'm not sure you're arriving at this conclusion.

Of course no one remembers Kukoc because he's only a 3rd option. Way below MJ and Scottie. I'm talking about how Bulls was able to win 72 games. They basically has a peak Horace Grant level player in Kukoc.

[L.Kizzle]

Dennis Rodman had a made for TV film about his life in 1998. A coincidence, teammates Isiah Thomas' mother was featured in a made for TV movie during his playing days and a Michael Jordan one was in production as he finished his final season in Chicago.

[HoopsNY]

Of course no one remembers Kukoc because he's only a 3rd option. Way below MJ and Scottie. I'm talking about how Bulls was able to win 72 games. They basically has a peak Horace Grant level player in Kukoc.

Not sure what you mean. Kukoc barely played in the ECSF and for the playoffs in its entirety, he averaged 11 PPG on 39% FGs, 19% from 3, and that's with a shortened line.

He certainly wasn't a peak Horace Grant level player, especially seeing that he was the 6th man that year (and the majority of the 3 peat). He was an important player overall, yea, but I think you're overrating him.

[iamgine]

Not sure what you mean. Kukoc barely played in the ECSF and for the playoffs in its entirety, he averaged 11 PPG on 39% FGs, 19% from 3, and that's with a shortened line.

He certainly wasn't a peak Horace Grant level player, especially seeing that he was the 6th man that year (and the majority of the 3 peat). He was an important player overall, yea, but I think you're overrating him.

I guess we just disagree then

[HoopsNY]

I guess we just disagree then

But what are you basing it on? I'm trying to understand that much. Grant was a solid piece who could rebound, defend, had a good mid-range, and could deliver 15 PPG.

Kukoc was a good ball handler, give you similar points or more, but was terrible defensively, not a good rebounder, but was a better passer. His performance doesn't match peak Grant (especially when peak Grant is probably '91-'96). And during the 3 peat, Kukoc was at best hit or miss in the playoffs. I'd argue Grant was a superior postseason performer to Kukoc.