Could bring the ball up the floor as a Center, could pass and start the break. Let's compare that to Rodman.
So, like Rodman? Rodman was a good passer, had no problems starting the break after his rebounds. Neither Rodman nor Russell was any kind of special ball-handler. One of the reasons the triangle offense was so successful was that Rodman was a good and smart passer within it.
Meant to say that one of the reason was because their power forward was a good and smart passer--Horace Grant in the first threepeat and Rodman in the second threepeat.
Do you even read what I write?? Or do you just like to debate based on how you interpret things in your head? I was debating with another gentleman that what the 96 Bulls accomplished was tremendous in that they had 2 superstars on that team (albeit one was the GOAT) and a bunch of really good supporting cast. The other person went off and insisted that Rodman was the third star and that the Bulls couldn't have accomplished anything without his presence, to which I said, he wasn't really a "star" in the traditional sense anymore when he got to the Bulls. He still was really good at doing the things he was good at doing. You guys look at things in black and white and ignore the fact that the role of a player can change as they get old and their skills diminish. Aging players like Ginobili, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnet, Vince Carter, they all are role players at the end of their careers on their respective teams because they don't play like they used to. It's JUST A FACT OF LIFE. Rodman was at his prime in Detroit but when he got the Bulls, he was a role player, although he was very good at it. We're all saying the same thing, but in different ways. I'm just trying to be more nuanced because Wekko basically made Rodman to be literally the most important player on the 96 Bulls, which I thought was ridiculous. Hall of Fame selection goes towards players who've had an impact on the game in various ways, so yes, it's a very open ended and subjective criteria. Reggie Miller selection was public controversial as a lot of his contemporaries and peers did not agreed to it at the time. You can Google this if you don't remember that far back. He has been Pacer's first option for a very long time and carried that team to numerous playoff successes but he never really his mark in NBA history. He was a really good three point shooter but he wasn't the best. His defense was above average but never earned him any "defensive specialist" recognitions. He was known to be super clutch but you don't get into the HOF for being clutch. He never won a ring. If I was a voter, I would NOT have voted for him to be in the HOF. And I know a lot of former players would stand by that position.
Russell also averaged around 16 PPG in his career. Rodman never averaged in the double digits in scoring except once in his second season with the Pistons. So although Russell is great rebounder and defender, he can also score.
You realize Rodman does plenty on offense, right? Passing is important to offense, especially in a system like the triangle (since we are discussing the Bulls). Offensive rebounding is important to an offense. More shots = more points, right? Setting screens, spacing (not clogging the paint like Jones or Capela does, as opposed to Smith), etc.
I am. Are you doing the same? Let me bold what we don't agree on. Yes, he was still a star when he got to the Bulls as far as his basketball impact. He wasn't a role player. If you take what he did in Chicago and apply it to the majority of his career he would still make the HOF and go down as one of the games best rebounders and defenders ever. That's not "role player" impact. That's "I'm historically great at two aspects of basketball" impact. And I've never heard any player say they think Rodman didn't belong in the HOF. If you think Rodman wasn't historically great then you are in the minority.
No, not even close. No one else thinks Rodman was a role player with the Bulls. Here are a few more facts of life that you seem incapable of understanding. A player's prime is measured by his production, not his age, and players' primes vary in duration. Rodman was in his prime in Detroit. He was also in his prime in Chicago. Is that really so difficult to understand? I would love for you to find a quote where I even remotely imply such a thing. I said that the 95 Bulls were knocked out of the playoffs by the Orlando Magic. The 96 Bulls added Rodman, swept the Magic, and won the title. Each of those 4 statements are undeniable facts of life.
You say Draymond Green isn't a star, yet act like it's blasphemous that a few people don't consider Rodman a star? Green does much more for a team.
Yes, it's blasphemous and ignorant. Rodman is in the HOF. A modern day player can't be in the HOF and not be a star. I don't think Green would be nearly as successful if he were on a different team. He benefits greatly from playing alongside Curry, and if Green were to get injured, I think the Warriors would still be championship contenders. Let's not forget that in the finals last year, Iguodala outplayed Green.
There are a ton of HOF'ers. Was Sarunas Marciulionis a star? You can be a super role player and make the HOF. That doesn't mean as much as you think. Green can possibly win the DPOTY this season and people argue he should have won last season. He's a triple double threat every night. Yet, he's not a star but Rodman is.
Marciulionis? Seriously? He's in the HOF due to his international achievements, not because he was a "super role player" for the Warriors. If you think Green deserved the DPOY last year, why was Iguodala tasked with guarding Lebron in the finals? And like I've already stated, Green benefits from playing with Curry. Curry draws more defensive attention than anyone else in the league. Yet you continually ignore this fact and act as if Green's production is from his own volition.
I know he's in there for his international achievements. He still wouldn't be considered a "star" is my point. Non stars make the HOF and you're using Rodman's HOF status to say he's a star and Green is not a star.
There are tons of international players in the HOF who weren't stars in the NBA. It should've been obvious that I was referring to American players. Can you name a single modern day American player who is in the HOF but wasn't considered a star during his NBA playing days?
Are you going to tell us that announcers and commissioners can make the HOF too? It's clear Rodman is on based solely on his play in the league. I challenge you to name role players in the HOF just based on that, and not something else like their international impact.
That's just going to create another debate of "all star selection = star" But as of recent entries, id say Guy Rodgers, and Roger Brown for example
7 time total rebounds per game leader. 4 time total rebounds leader. 2 time DPOY. Not exactly average role player material.
I guess DeAndre Jordan is a supserstar. Whiteside is a superstar. Hell, lets thrown in names like Mark Eaton, no one can block like him, thats not a role, thats a very important part of basketball and he was the best at it as far as average per game, so def. superstar material.
If you are referring to this Guy Rodgers, I'd have to disagree: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/22/sports/guy-rodgers-an-nba-all-star-dies-at-65.html Have any examples from the modern era of basketball, say 1980 and on?
