Reply With Quote
Rodman was a better defender, but Duncan was the better player.
It seems to me that people are confusing "better defender" with "greater defensive impact".
"Better defender" = Rodman in his prime (Pistons days)
"Greater defensive impact" = Duncan
As a power forward/center, Duncan is naturally going to have more of an impact on the defensive end of the court. Being 7 ft tall, Duncan can block shots and alter shots, provide more presence in the paint, provide better help defense, and help clog the lane. Any 7 ft center with decent athletic ability is going to have a big impact. Which is why 7 ft centers are paid so much in the NBA. They don't grow on trees.
But as far as being a better defender, Rodman wins this debate. At least, back when he was playing for the Pistons. Rodman was a committed defender, who had the lateral movement to stay with two guards, and enough athletic ability and strength to defend against power forwards and centers. The guy was a buzz of energy on the defensive end, always coming up with big rebounds (remember when he was the 6th man of the year, and even though his total rebounds in a game weren't as high, his rebound rate per minute was astounding)
I don't think that Duncan was ever considered a great one on one defensive player. Decent post players could always score against Duncan. But I always saw Duncan in the same light as Larry Bird. As a great help and team defender, but with added height.
Rodman was a better defender, but Duncan was the better player.
Lets see what happens when tbone got finds out that lakaluva is a stinky got paki who pretends to be a black all-american athlete who engages in sexual activities with Koolaid_ .
Dude, no. While I'm glad you've admitted Rodman is better defensively, you took it too far by insinuating Dennis is the greatest PF of all time.
Offense is not part of this thread topic. Want to debate Rodman vs Duncan on offense? OK!!! LMAO Then go start your thread. Personally, I don't think thats a very intriguing topic.
This one, on the other hand...
Preach on brotha! Agreed.
Spur fans inevitable take everything from a Laker fan as an attack on their hero, but in this case, it's just a semi-revealing good-spirited debate.
LMAO........
Like how Kobe Bryant "dragged" his nuts across the face of Spur nation in the 08 (and '01) WCF?
Ya... that's why Paki is attention whoring in a Spurs forum...
TBH, if you don't like the people around here, you can head back to LG with the rest of the post-Gasol frontrunning Laker ys... or join tre on the ESPN forums...
LMAO........
Like how Kobe Bryant "dragged" his nuts across the face of Spur nation in the 08 (and '01) WCF?
Yah... looks like he choked on Duncan's nutsack...
As seen from Bruce Bowen being constantly SHAFTED from a DPOY award, that award rarely goes to the BEST defensive player in the league.
Considering he's the better defensive player according to Laker s, I wonder how many rings Rodman won with the Admiral when he was still playing for the Spurs. tee, hee
If Rodman was really the once-in-a-generation defensive force that people claim him to be, why the did he get faceraped by Olajuwon in the 94-95 NBA playoffs? tee, hee
Rodman is the more versatile defender, he can guard the 2 through 5 positions and provide energy to the entire arena like no other.
Duncan anchors the Spurs defense and plays both ends on the floor, you can't compare to two of them.
Ben Wallace versus Rodman would be a better argument.
It was Robinson who got face raped.
Sounds good to me. As long as duncan is the most impactful.
Knowing that Robinson can't handle Olajuwon, why didn't Rodman take the challenge to stop Olajuwon? Maybe Rodman wasn't really that good of a defensive force to begin with. tee, hee
Laker fans love Rodman and Pippen..I wonder why, TBH..
Olajuwon ate Rodman for breakfast, son.
Back in the 90s, 85 percent of Laker fans were Bulls fans.
No, see: Jordan vs. Kobe..Back in the 90s, 85 percent of Laker fans were Bulls fans.
Because in 1994 and 1995, Hakeem Olajuwon was a once-in-a-generation unstoppable offensive force. Some regard Hakeem of the mid 1990s as the perfect and complete basketball player. No one was stopping Hakeem in those seasons. Not Rodman. Not Robinson. Not Bill Russell. Not Duncan. Not Ben Wallace. Not Alonzo Mourning. Not KG. Not Wilt. No one. That's why.
Besides that, Hakeem had 4-5 inches and about 40-50 lbs. on Rodman. So not only was he already an unstoppable offensive force, he had height, length, and strength on Rodman. David Robinson was a DPOY winner himself and was taller, longer, and stronger and had quickness for his size. That's why D-Rob was the better player to match-up against Hakeem than Dennis. Neither one of them could contain Hakeem back then.
So the point is, Rodman was never really the great defensive force to begin with. Thanks for clarifying that Jamstone. Point is, Duncan would have done a better job limiting Hakeem's production, than that psychopath Rodman.
That doesn't make any sense, ezau..
That's a pretty strong argument.
But it's not just having the opportunity to have more impact. For example, Samuel Dalembert is a 7-foot athletic center who is a presence in the paint with help defense, shot blocking, and rebounding. But I wouldn't say he's a better defender than Rodman simply because he has the opportunity for more impact.
Duncan in his prime actually maximized his opportunity to impact the game defensively more than any regular athletic 7 footer. Dalembert doesn't anchor a defense to make the entire defense better. Duncan's presence does that. so it's not just having more impact.
And being a "more versatile defender" doesn't necessarily mean better either. Rodman was definitely more versatile. I'm watching the Yankees-Twins game right now, so I'll use this analogy. A pitcher might have a "versatile" repertoire of pitches. Maybe he has a mid 90s fastball, a wicked slider, plus curve, and plus change-up. Maybe that slider is one of the best in the majors, like Rodman was one of the best rebounder in the game in his prime. But then you have a guy like Mariano Rivera. He is not a versatile pitcher. He has one pitch, the cut fastball. But throughout his career, he's used that one pitch to be about as dominant as a closer could be. Is the pitcher with the versatile arsenal of pitches better than Rivera who only has one pitch? Versatility doesn't make a defender better.
Not to diminish what Olajuwon did in those years, but I think they've become slightly overblown in time. He put up insane scoring numbers, particularly for a big man, but if you go back and look at those box scores, the guy had a lot of games during those runs where he shot close to 30 times a game and was almost without fail over 20. With his size, athleticism and skill, shooting that much, he should have been scoring at or near the rate he was.
I realize what he did in the playoffs separated him from Robinson and I'm not going to dispute that, but non-Spurs fans have seemingly forgotten how good Robinson was. He was right there (regular season) with Olajuwon in those years and was actually superior to him in some. Advanced stats bear that out.
Some still claim Garnett is better than Duncan or think it's at least close, but rare is the person that acknowledges that the gap between Olajuwon and Robinson wasn't nearly as wide as popular belief would have you believe.
I agree with this post. Rodman was the better defender... Duncan has more impact though. Nothing wrong with that. But its a small gap between the 2 as straight up defenders.
A better discussion on this would be who was better between Rodman and Bowen. Rodman was great at rebounding, he had an eye for the ball and a go-get-it at ude.... but I think Bruce Bowen was better when it comes to straight up defense on the ball.
Rodman was relevant as a defender for a few years and mainly got his cred from rebounds, Bowen made a career out of defending the best the league had to offer for his entire stint with the Spurs and limiting them quite effectively.... Nash, Kobe, LeQuit, Ray Allen, Dirk, you name them, he defended them at one point or another, and effectively nutralized them at least once in any given game. His effectiveness on defense was noticable to even the fair weather fan, he was literally a game changer. It was like night and day on some occasions.... A player would be "going off" and Pop would stick Bowen on the guy, and all of the sudden that player would shut down almost completely to the point it made you think it was just dumb luck, but he was so consistant doing it to the top scorers of the league it almost looked like a scripted wrestling match where the unassuming David defeated the giant Goliath, and he did it more times than I can remember......
The only other person that can be compared to Bruce's effectiveness is Ron Artest, who is losing a step defensively and hasnt done it nearly as long as Bruce did. When Bruce was forced to retire, he was still a top 5 defender in the league.... The Spurs did him wrong IMHO in that trade for , but its a business...
I bet he could still be playing if he really wanted to... The man is a freak of nature.
Last edited by phyzik; 10-07-2010 at 02:09 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
