Bush4Ever. wrote:
Pretty much no one in NBA history is going to meaningfully stop Durant in single coverage.
Yes, that's pretty much correct.
No but slow him down some, yes. Gotta remember Jordan more than offsets Durant on both ends of the floor. Pippen will do well, Rodman stops green. Harper and Jordan contain Thompson and Curry, as in it will be tough for them. We act like the bulls are gonna play them on D and just let them fire threes.
The only material advantage is MJ over Klay. Every other matchup favors the Warriors, including a bench that can actually play meaningful minutes without getting exposed. The Bulls have two guys you have to pay attention to offensively, not counting Kukoc off the bench - sort of, who is inferior to Iggy.
And the thing that you just can't seem to grasp is the huge disparity in the number of 3s each team is capable of making. The Bulls were simply not designed to defend 30 feet from the bucket. They had 2 guys who could do it really well in Pippen and MJ, one guy who could do in reasonably well in Harper and an aging Rodman who could do it in little spurts. That isn't going to cut it. They were built to succeed against teams far different from the modern Warriors.
To be fair, I think you're underestimating Harper's defense.
As for Rodman... he was such a wildcard back then. Early Pistons Rodman... oh... now THAT guy could defend and he would give the Bulls two guys to go at Durant. Heck, there's even a chance he'd be the top guy to go against Durant. Remember, few NBA players have handled Basketball Jesus better than Pistons Rodman. THAT guy was legit and versatile.
By 1998, Rodman was on fumes. But 1996, he had something left. I wouldn't discount his defense. It would have been entertaining if nothing else to see him and Green go at each other with one series of annoying flops and antics after another. Both guys became mostly insufferable.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
The only material advantage is MJ over Klay. Every other matchup favors the Warriors, including a bench that can actually play meaningful minutes without getting exposed. The Bulls have two guys you have to pay attention to offensively, not counting Kukoc off the bench - sort of, who is inferior to Iggy.
And the thing that you just can't seem to grasp is the huge disparity in the number of 3s each team is capable of making. The Bulls were simply not designed to defend 30 feet from the bucket. They had 2 guys who could do it really well in Pippen and MJ, one guy who could do in reasonably well in Harper and an aging Rodman who could do it in little spurts. That isn't going to cut it. They were built to succeed against teams far different from the modern Warriors.
Jordan, Rodman, Pippen as a big 3 best the Warriors big three. Rodman > Green in that matchup. Green would get tossed 10 mins in. Rodman on D is better and a far superior rebounder. Green can shoot better, he has that.
Stop it! Rodman isn't better than Green in the modern game. His one dimensional game worked in the 90s and especially with the Bulls who didn't need much from him offensively, but Green has versatility that Rodman doesn't have. And why did you pick 3 and why did you pick Green over Klay for the 3rd?
Make it 4 guys on the Warriors in Steph, Klay, Durant and Green. All can handle the ball and put it on the deck. All can hit the 3. All can pass really well. All can defend (don't give me bullshit that KD can't defend). It's not a fair fight Deez.
You're almost like Artie ITT. You're emotionally attached to a team and won't see reality for what it is. Whether Orlando suffers in this recession or not has nothing to do with Artie as a person, but he acts like it does. Whether the Bulls could compete with the Warriors has nothing to do with you as a person, but you have made it that way. Take a deep breath Deez. It's not that important.
And you are acting like a f UC king idiot that thinks a Jordan and Pippen lead bulls team in their prime who won 72 games was gonna get throttled by a soft as fuck Warriors team. They aren’t tough at all. They are a finesse team. Holy fuck, Grizz.
Deez wrote:
Why did, why did, why did.... Why did the Warriors let a shot Cavs team beat them? You honestly gonna argue for Green over Rodman?
I'm just tired of the "Rodman could mindfuck people at will" narrative people have built up over the years, when we actually saw people actually do well against him in observable reality with nary a care in the world about his "masterful mind games".
As far as Rodman vs. Green I would take the best version of Pistons Rodman over the best version of Warriors Draymond (i.e-the one that could actually hit a three), but I would probably take the best version of Warriors Draymond over the best version of Bulls Rodman.
Although it would depend on the exact makeup of the team in question.
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
And the thing that you just can't seem to grasp is the huge disparity in the number of 3s each team is capable of making. The Bulls were simply not designed to defend 30 feet from the bucket. They had 2 guys who could do it really well in Pippen and MJ, one guy who could do in reasonably well in Harper and an aging Rodman who could do it in little spurts. That isn't going to cut it. They were built to succeed against teams far different from the modern Warriors.
This is why I find these types of arguments pointless. Nobody's gonna win the argument because of the highlighted part.
Rodman could score..he averaged well over 20 ppg in college as his teams main scorer...he could shoot threes ..his birthday game where he was shooting unconsciously is further proof..
He wasn't an offensive liability at all...green is though
Deez wrote:
Rodman > Green in that matchup. Green would get tossed 10 mins in.
Why did Rodman let Kemp go off for 23 and 10 on 55 percent shooting (or thereabouts) in the 1996 Finals if he had this magical ability to just neutralize players with his mind whenever he felt like it?
Why did, why did, why did.... Why did the Warriors let a shot Cavs team beat them? You honestly gonna argue for Green over Rodman?
The Cavs got EXTREMELY lucky in that series to win, and they actually could shoot the 3 pretty effectively overall, especially when Kyrie was hitting. But that team had no Durant and Harrison Barnes generally was mediocre in that series. And they had much more versatility defensively with a lot of different bodies to throw at the Warriors that could slow them down in spurts. The 96 Bulls had a bunch of guys who would never have seen the floor in a series with the Warriors, something you have ignored the entire thread.
Bush4Ever. wrote:Bulls Rodman was not a great perimeter defensive player with great lateral movement/quickness like he was in his Detroit days.
Although he was physically stronger.
Rodman was simply allowed to get away with his instigating, cheating, etc. , etc, when he played with the Bulls...
It was like WWF wrestling where it seemed like every time the bad guys used a foreign object or cheated in some way, the ref was always distracted and not looking...The NBA wanted it that way to help create the Jordan legacy...
Bush4Ever. wrote:Bulls Rodman was not a great perimeter defensive player with great lateral movement/quickness like he was in his Detroit days.
Although he was physically stronger.
This. You could have him guard Green and maybe Durant in very tiny spurts, but there's no way he can guard 30 feet out by his Bulls days. It just ain't happening.
elartman1973 wrote:Rodman could score..he averaged well over 20 ppg in college as his teams main scorer...he could shoot threes ..his birthday game where he was shooting unconsciously is further proof..
He wasn't an offensive liability at all...green is though
By year 2... Bird was shooting 35% in the conference finals largely guarded by Rodman.
Post-serious injury, post-four straight Finals trips, after having a pretty solid regular season against Detroit.
You could come up with excuses for Basketball Jesus... or run with the facts that he shot 35% in the conference finals that year against a non-rookie Rodman.
Look, I love Larry Legend. But Rodman destroyed him in 1988.
Deez wrote:
Jordan, Rodman, Pippen as a big 3 best the Warriors big three. Rodman > Green in that matchup. Green would get tossed 10 mins in. Rodman on D is better and a far superior rebounder. Green can shoot better, he has that.
Stop it! Rodman isn't better than Green in the modern game. His one dimensional game worked in the 90s and especially with the Bulls who didn't need much from him offensively, but Green has versatility that Rodman doesn't have. And why did you pick 3 and why did you pick Green over Klay for the 3rd?
Make it 4 guys on the Warriors in Steph, Klay, Durant and Green. All can handle the ball and put it on the deck. All can hit the 3. All can pass really well. All can defend (don't give me bullshit that KD can't defend). It's not a fair fight Deez.
You're almost like Artie ITT. You're emotionally attached to a team and won't see reality for what it is. Whether Orlando suffers in this recession or not has nothing to do with Artie as a person, but he acts like it does. Whether the Bulls could compete with the Warriors has nothing to do with you as a person, but you have made it that way. Take a deep breath Deez. It's not that important.
And you are acting like a f UC king idiot that thinks a Jordan and Pippen lead bulls team in their prime who won 72 games was gonna get throttled by a soft as fuck Warriors team. They aren’t tough at all. They are a finesse team. Holy fuck, Grizz.
You can never actually make an argument Deez. You can only make hyperbole. Its because you're stupid. Sorry Deez, but you're dumb as a brick and should have taken my advice a few pages ago. I walked you through the matchups at both ends, the advantage from deep, the versatility advantages and so on and so forth, and you just say the same shit over and over again and never actually address the two teams matching up.
AbeVigodaLive wrote:
You could come up with excuses for Basketball Jesus... or run with the facts that he shot 35% in the conference finals that year against a non-rookie Rodman.
Look, I love Larry Legend. But Rodman destroyed him in 1988.
I'm simply putting some of your beloved "context" into that particular factoid.
Pre-injury in the regular season, he did very well against Rodman and Detroit. You can look at the game logs yourself.
Post-injury, after the grind of another long season without rest, he indeed did poorly in the playoffs.
It is what it is.
Incidentally, in 1990 (his last season of meaningful individual big time numbers), he averaged 25 points per game against Detroit on 59 percent true shooting percentage. In 1988, he averaged 27 a game on 60 percent true shooting percentage. 1989 he was injured.
Last edited by Bush4Ever. on Wed May 13, 2020 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Deez wrote:
Why did, why did, why did.... Why did the Warriors let a shot Cavs team beat them? You honestly gonna argue for Green over Rodman?
I'm just tired of the "Rodman could mindfuck people at will" narrative people have built up over the years, when we actually saw people actually do well against him in observable reality with nary a care in the world about his "masterful mind games".
As far as Rodman vs. Green I would take the best version of Pistons Rodman over the best version of Warriors Draymond (i.e-the one that could actually hit a three), but I would probably take the best version of Warriors Draymond over the best version of Bulls Rodman.
Although it would depend on the exact makeup of the team in question.
Green has a temper, Kemp wasn’t getting tossed and techs every game. You think Rodman wouldn’t get in Greens head? You aren’t even that dumb
vcsgrizzfan wrote:
And the thing that you just can't seem to grasp is the huge disparity in the number of 3s each team is capable of making. The Bulls were simply not designed to defend 30 feet from the bucket. They had 2 guys who could do it really well in Pippen and MJ, one guy who could do in reasonably well in Harper and an aging Rodman who could do it in little spurts. That isn't going to cut it. They were built to succeed against teams far different from the modern Warriors.
This is why I find these types of arguments pointless. Nobody's gonna win the argument because of the highlighted part.
And that's really been my argument from the get go. The Bulls were amazing for the 90s, because that was how they needed to be built to win. Building a team on 3 point shooting was a helluva lot harder back then because there wasn't much of it, and not many guys could reliably do it.
As the game has evolved, 3 point shooting and floor spacing has become much more important and those Bulls weren't built to compete with that.
It takes nothing away from MJ or Pippen or anyone else on those teams. The game has just evolved.
It's not materially different from lifting the Bill Russell 1960s Celtics and making them play the 1980s Celtics. Cousy couldn't dribble with his left hand for chrissakes. I love Russell, but those Celtics teams would have gotten annihilated against virtually any 80s competition.
