Yeah. It used to be Splash Bros. Now its just Curry and Co. Curry took it to the Next Level in the last year and half.
he might just get it this year. also i wouldn't be surprised if he makes it on the all nba team when the season is done as well.
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/153496136" width="500" height="500" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="https://vimeo.com/153496136">StephVsLBJ</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/user44640352">I3artow i3aller</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
First of all, the Rockets at one time also had 3 HOF on the team (Barkley, Hakeem, and Drexler) and a bunch of really good role players. The Boston Celtics had three at various points in history, the Miami Heat, and the Lakers. But my point is that it takes more than just stars and talent. There are more factors involved when you want to win that many games. Secondly, nobody is trying to write Rodman off as "just another role player". The phrase "role player" in itself is highly debatable and at time controversial. If you define role player as a player who plays a certain role on a team, then that could encompass literally every player on a team's roster. Everyone from your superstar down to the last player on the bench play a role. But the modern NBA is constructed in a way where anywhere from 1-3 so called "stars" are surrounded by a bunch of players who can compliment them with certain set of skills such as defense, rebounding, or 3-point shooting. Rodman, while highly skilled in certain areas like rebounding and defense, is extremely limited in another area that is crucial to success in the NBA, scoring/shooting. As such, he tends to shy away from any kind of offense and focus almost all of his energy on rebounding and playing D. Thus, he's playing a specific role in the same way that Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler have done. The concept of role player is a construct of the modern NBA and highly subject. On a team, you're either a star/primary option or a role player. For the Rockets, Trevor Ariza is a great example of someone who can play on both ends but he'll always be labelled as a role player just like JJ Reddick and Kyle Korver, who are very limited in defensive capabilities. Is this fair for Ariza? Probably not, but it's life. Rodman is an anomaly in that he knew how to market himself while playing on a highly popular and successful team with the greatest player of all time. That really helped to augment his status, for better or worse. He kind of transcended the typical 'role player' status and became a celebrity that got a good deal of coverage in the media. Although his HOF selection can be viewed by some as controversial, I think his role in helping two franchises to multiple championships and his status as the one of the top rebounders of all time helped solidify his nomination. With all that said, he is still a role player, albeit a really successful one.
Curry is the greatest shooter of all time Curry and Klay are the best shooting back court of all time
Seriously? "Certain areas like rebounding and defense"? THAT'S MORE THAN HALF THE GAME. Rodman is the greatest rebounder in the modern era, and that includes offensive rebounds. And whether you like it or not, Rodman's ability to grab 5-6 offensive rebounds per game is a major contribution to the offense. Also, Ben Wallace and Tyson Chandler were great rebounders. Rodman was the greatest rebounder in the modern era. So no, Rodman didn't play that role in the same way as Wallace/Rodman. That's like saying that JJ Reddick and Steph Curry fill the same role as 3-point specialists. Actually, it is fair. What you're failing to consider is that role players are replaceable. As good as Ariza is, there are plenty of comparable players who aren't "stars". Don't forget that we signed Ariza to fill the shoes of Chandler Parsons. Stop shortchanging Rodman. By continually refusing to give him his due credit, you're showing your bias against him. Not only was Rodman one of the greatest rebounders of all time, but he was also an elite defensive player. That's a big thing you're forgetting. And sure, great offense is flashy, and fans love it, but that doesn't change the fact that defense is half the game.
An underrated aspect of Rodman was that he was also a good and smart passer. He was able to be an active part of the triangle because he could make the right passes at the right times. He wasn't just a rebounder on the offensive end. Scoring is important, but it's not the only thing that matters. Rodman was the best rebounder ever, one of the best defensive forwards ever and a good passer. That's impacting way too much of the game to consider him a role-player or specialist. He was pretty clearly a star and Hall of Famer.
The 96 Bulls had 3 of those players in their prime, one arguably being the best player ever and the other being the best at his position, plus other help, plus arguably the greatest coach ever. In an era where no other team could match that great talent (compared to say the 80's where the Lakers and Celtics were equally stacked). You are dismissing his greatness. The Bulls had 3 superstar players and help. And to compare the role that Rodman plays to Wallace or Chandler is silly and shows me you don't know much about Rodman. He didn't care about scoring but was great in an offensive scheme (his passing, positioning and most importantly offensive rebounding to create more shots). Rodman was great, and if your opinion is that he wasn't one of the best ever or a controversial HOFer then trust me, it's in the minority. Respect it nonetheless but....
Rodman was 34, 35 and 36 years old on the Bulls runs. Not like he was primed superstar. He played in 199(started 177) out of a possible 246 games in 3 regular seasons with the Bulls. He started only 9 games out of 21 that final run. I don't want to knock down his value, but some arguments sound like it's just to knock down MJ and Pips accomplishments when they already had 3 rings before Rodman and Rodman didn't do anything for the Spurs with Admiral and a bunch of really good role players or past their prime but still effective former all stars. You won't see NBA 2K list Rodman's player status as STAR like you will with MJ and Pip, he will be listed as simple a "starter."
Minutes played is more important than games started. In that final playoff run, Rodman averaged 34 mpg. Only Jordan/Pippen averaged more. In 1995, the Bulls lost to the Magic in 6 games in the ECSF. In 1996, they added Rodman, swept the Magic, and won the championship. Rodman may not have done anything with the Spurs, but that doesn't change the fact that he was crucial to the Bulls. Why are the rankings from a video game relevant?
I did specifically say he's one of the best rebounders in NBA history in one of my comments. If you look at Rodman's career as a whole, he definitely qualifies as a HOF. But I think Caesar made a great point, Rodman was not in his prime when he arrived at Chicago. He was traded to Chicago in 1995, when he was already 34. He was still effective because he's a high IQ player who knows how to position himself for rebounds and played smart defense against sometimes bigger and stronger players (Malone and Shaq). His prime was when he was with the Pistons, where he made two All-Star appearances. I actually do know a lot about Rodman and the Bulls because I grew in the 90s and basically worshiped Jordan and the Bulls. I watched almost every game during their second 3 year run and my recollection of that team was basically this: - Jordan was God between 95-98. During 91-93, Magic, Isiah, and Bird were still around, albeit at the end of their careers. Jordan was the "up and coming" best in the league but people still gave Magic, Isiah, and Bird the respect that they deserved. - Pippen established himself as a legitimate star and not hiding behind Jordan's shadows after leading the Bulls during the season and a half that Jordan was doing baseball. - The third scoring option on that team was a mix of Ron Harper and Toni Kukoc. Harper used to be a big time scorer and a reputation as a "poor man's Jordan" with the Cavs until injuries slowed him down. He revitalized his career with the Bulls by being a secondary ball handler and perimeter defender. He can occasionally hit the midrange J to relieve pressure from Jordan/Pippen. Kukoc, although not as great of a defender, was probably the third best scorer on the team. He can create his own shots and was a reliable 3-pt shooter. - Rodman, as I stated earlier, was a super role player who was flamboyant and played his role perfectly as a rebounder and defensive specialist. Also, keep in mind that during an era where there was no TMZ, Youtube, and social media, Rodman usually got more press coverage than any other player on the team. Although Jordan had his commercials with Nike, Hanes, and Gatorade, stayed mostly out of the spotlight during the 90s. Rodman basically always made the news with his antics - marriage to Carmen Electra, dating Madonna, best-selling book, made-for-TV movie, wrestling, gambling, drinking, partying, etc etc etc. He was mostly a sideshow act but fortunately drew all the attention away from the team so the team could focus on playing.
My point is he is supposed to be this star, yet he came off the bench. Regardless of starter minutes, you don't bring stars off the bench on championship runs.
This needs to be a thing. MEGASTAR SUPERSTAR ALL STAR FRINGE ALL STAR SUPER ROLE PLAYER/ENFORCER 6th MAN ROLE PLAYER VET LEADERSHIP/LOCKER ROOM PLAYER BENCH WARMER/PROSPECT In the case of the Bulls they had a mega star, a super star, a super role player, 6th man(toni kukoc) and the rest were regular rotational role players and vet guys.
That's not a valid point. It doesn't matter who starts. What matters is who plays the most minutes. That's common sense.
And it is common sense for coaches to start their STARS for chemistry. If he was some scoring star, it makes sense to bring him off the bench on a team with mj and pip, but he rebounds and plays D. That's all he offers you. That should be a player starting especially if he is considered a star. But he's not. He was a 36 year old super role player.
You're basically saying that the 1st minute of a game is significantly more important than the next 47.
Look at Ginobili. In 2005, he was an all-star, the Spurs won the championship, and he averaged almost 34 mpg in the playoffs. However, he started only 15 out of the 23 playoff games. According to your logic, Ginobili wasn't a star, and Popovich doesn't have any common sense as a coach. Does that sound about right?
might want to reconsider your player evaluations if Ginobili is not considered a star to you. Im sure all the top players in the league he's broken their heart against would disagree with your statement.
