Rodman 7 1st team all D
8 defensive teams
7 time rebound leader
5 rings and trumps Wallace on the boards by a large margin.
Fuck a ring. Rodman played alongside Dantley, Dumars, Thomas, Robinson, Jordan & Pippen. God damn, I hope he won a few rings.
so now rings don't matter cause he had good teammates? Holy fuck we cherry pick. Rings matter, they don't matter, they had good teammates, he had no team around him. Can we fucking stick to something of the same argument on here ever?
Last edited by Deez on Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
King Deez wrote:
Rodman 7 1st team all D
8 defensive teams
7 time rebound leader
5 rings and trumps Wallace on the boards by a large margin.
Fuck a ring. Rodman played alongside Dantley, Dumars, Thomas, Robinson, Jordan & Pippen. God damn, I hope he won a few rings.
so now rings don't matter cause he had good teammates? Holy fuck we cherry pick. Rings matter, they don't matter, they had good teammates, he had no team around him. Can we fucking stick to something of the same argument on here ever?
To be fair, while the goalposts have moved on from time to time... we can't simply go with (x) rings > (x) rings this deep in the discussion when how those rings were won is a viable part of the discussion.
We're not talking about lead dogs being THE primary reason their teams won. We're talking about niche players who did a few things really super duper well. It shouldn't be the same argument as we had in the first 10 or 15 picks because the resumes/legacies for these guys are entirely different.
Fuck a ring. Rodman played alongside Dantley, Dumars, Thomas, Robinson, Jordan & Pippen. God damn, I hope he won a few rings.
so now rings don't matter cause he had good teammates? Holy fuck we cherry pick. Rings matter, they don't matter, they had good teammates, he had no team around him. Can we fucking stick to something of the same argument on here ever?
To be fair, while the goalposts have moved on from time to time... we can't simply go with (x) rings > (x) rings this deep in the discussion when how those rings were won is a viable part of the discussion.
We're not talking about lead dogs being THE primary reason their teams won. We're talking about niche players who did a few things really super duper well. It shouldn't be the same argument as we had in the first 10 or 15 picks because the resumes/legacies for these guys are entirely different.
King Deez wrote:
so now rings don't matter cause he had good teammates? Holy fuck we cherry pick. Rings matter, they don't matter, they had good teammates, he had no team around him. Can we fucking stick to something of the same argument on here ever?
To be fair, while the goalposts have moved on from time to time... we can't simply go with (x) rings > (x) rings this deep in the discussion when how those rings were won is a viable part of the discussion.
We're not talking about lead dogs being THE primary reason their teams won. We're talking about niche players who did a few things really super duper well. It shouldn't be the same argument as we had in the first 10 or 15 picks because the resumes/legacies for these guys are entirely different.
Oh shut the fuck up Abe.
Solid retort.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
To be fair, while the goalposts have moved on from time to time... we can't simply go with (x) rings > (x) rings this deep in the discussion when how those rings were won is a viable part of the discussion.
We're not talking about lead dogs being THE primary reason their teams won. We're talking about niche players who did a few things really super duper well. It shouldn't be the same argument as we had in the first 10 or 15 picks because the resumes/legacies for these guys are entirely different.
I think Rodman's advantages in longevity, rebounding, and ring count outweigh Wallace's in defense and relative contribution to a ring (in that he was the 1a or 1b of a title team, whereas Rodman was never close to that mark).
Taking a break from the board. Please reference my last post for more details if you are interested.
I personally think Ben's peak was higher than Rodman's, but much shorter.
Ben relied a lot on his goofy athleticism and faded fast as soon as it started to fade.
Rodman had much greater longevity at a high level but for a few years, Ben's defensive impact was absolutely phenomenal and is generally severely underrated.
so now rings don't matter cause he had good teammates? Holy fuck we cherry pick. Rings matter, they don't matter, they had good teammates, he had no team around him. Can we fucking stick to something of the same argument on here ever?
