Professional and College Basketball Forums banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,856 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Who was the better powerforward for the bulls?

For the sake of comparision below are the stats for these guys three championship seasons with the bulls.

Grant
pnts rbd
12.8 8.4
14.2 10.0
13.2 9.5

plus about 1.3 blocks and a steal a game

Rodman
pnt rbd
5.5 14.9
5.7 16.1
4.7 15.0
plub about .6 of a steal and .4 of a block.


I'd take Grant over Rodman. But it's a tough call.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
I dont know if you can compare the 2 since they are 2 different types of power forwards. After looking at those stats you posted i might have to say grant, rodman was more of a superstar because of his personality and he made many great hustle plays but he also had alot of suspensions. When we signed rodman i had a feeling great things were coming though. Grant was probably the better all around player though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Scott is right IMO. Rodman and Grant are two different players. Rodman was a great rebounder and hustler, who could get into the opposing players heads, and brought a lot of media attention. Grant had a great midrange shot, good rebounder, and pretty much good all around player. You can't choose. I'd take either of them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
Rodman had no offensive game and if we didn't have Jordan and Pippen, that would have been a problem. One of the beautiful things about Grant (and one of the reasons he left) is that there were no plays drawn up for him. What he scored was based on offensive rebounds and opportunities he helped create. Funny thing is he never averaged as much with anyone else as he did with the Bulls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,403 Posts
I dont know if you can compare the 2 since they are 2 different types of power forwards. After looking at those stats you posted i might have to say grant, rodman was more of a superstar because of his personality and he made many great hustle plays but he also had alot of suspensions. When we signed rodman i had a feeling great things were coming though. Grant was probably the better all around player though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Despite the stats, I'd take Rodman. Always hustled, had charisma, and was a tough defender. Not to mention the psychological edge he gave us by getting into guys heads...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,356 Posts
I'm not a bulls fan-but I think Horace was better-he was one of the players I actually liked from the bulls. The Lakers had him in 2000 and I thought he did pretty good..
 

·
BasketballBoards Fat Cat
Joined
·
1,320 Posts
Originally posted by <b>SS_Solid_Snake</b>!
Despite the stats, I'd take Rodman. Always hustled, had charisma, and was a tough defender. Not to mention the psychological edge he gave us by getting into guys heads...
I'm with you, SS. Rodman had some of those intangibles, plus he gave us the extra rebounds we needed (we didn't have Cartwright for the 2nd 3-peat). And I don't think it's fair to say that Rodman had NO offensive game. Passing is a huge part of offense, and I remember him making some really nice passes.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
I know the question was who was a better 4 for the Bulls, but the next step is to look at the two as overall players. We had Horace in his prime and Rodman at the end of his career. If I was putting togather a fantasy team and had two choose between Rodman in his prime and Grant in his prime, no question: Rodman.

Between the two players in their Bulls years, it is a closer call, and as others have pointed out, who is "better" depends on your evaluation of what the team needs. If you need defense and hustle, Rodman was a relatively small guy who could stop or slow down Shaq. That is impressive. If you need a balanced player who will be available to play every game, won't get in foul trouble and plays hard at both ends, the nod goes to Grant.
I guess the best way to compare the two is to imagine a Bulls-era Rodman playing in the first threepeat years and a young Horace Grant playing in the second threepeat years. IMHO, unless the space occupied by Rodman down low interferes with Cartwright, the first threepeat comes just as easily with Grant or Rodman at 4. However, the second threepeat is more doubtful with Horace in Rodman's place. Dennis' defense and hustle made up for our otherwise soft middle. Therefore, although I always liked Horace and had a love/hate thing with Rodman, I still have to give the nod to Dennis in a head to head comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,184 Posts
what can i say that hasn't already been said...

I liked Horace a lot during the first three peat, he obviously wasn't a feature player in the offense, but still got his points, and really was a quality defensive player in the post.

however, once he fell in love with his 15 ft jumper, it was all over for him. He used to get points on put backs and feeds into the post... once he decided he needed to get his own shots, he started to decline as an effective player in the NBA

Rodman never had that problem... but he wasn't there to score points anyway. the thing i really liked about Rodman was how he took other players out of the game just by irritating them. IMHO, the Bulls would have had a much more difficult time against the Sonics in 96 if Rodman hasn't effectively removed Frank Brickowski and Shawn Kemp from the series. he did a good job of irritating Karl Malone as well -- another couple of series in which Horace would not have been as helpful in getting wins
 

·
I never slice.
Joined
·
2,282 Posts
I would take Horace Grant (in his prime) any day of the week over Dennis Rodman (also in his prime). Horace did it all-- rebounds, defense, hustle, scoring. He willingly did the dirty work, and if Phil Jackson would have showed him a little more love and appreciation, he might never have left the Bulls.

People always praise Rodman for being a team player. In my opinion, Rodman sacrificed his contribution to the team in order to pad his rebounding numbers. Someone else in the thread pointed it out-- there's no reason he couldn't have been more of a contributor offensively. He and his agent made the decision to become this dedicated rebounding machine to make a name for himself, a feat in which they succeeded. I have often wondered if the Bulls had told Will Perdue (the guy the Bulls traded to get Rodman) to forget about offense all together and simply concentrate on getting as many rebounds as he could, if he couldn't have put up similar numbers to Rodman's. Before you start laughing histerically, consider that in his prime Perdue pulled down more than 6 rpg while playing less than 20 mpg. The one year in his career he averaged more than 20 mpg (96-97), he pulled down nearly 10 rpg while playing 30 mpg.

Anyways, as I said count me as a vote for Grant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,975 Posts
I think Perdue did forget about offense. And rebounding too.

I would not underestimate Rodmans complete skills as a player. Though I do like Grant's play a lot, Rodman was a superior passer and ballhandler, and was certainly better in the clutch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,686 Posts
Another thing Rodman helped with was that he took a lot of the media scrutiny off of Jordan. No one was writing stories about Jordans gambling anymore, the talk of the town became Rodmans hair or Rodman showing up somwhere in a wedding dress.
 
Joined
·
25 Posts
The DR is in !

Whatever Dennis' motives were, his results were simply better than Horace's. Dennis had the ability to score a little (10 ppg was his peak), just that he decided to become a master of defense and rebounding, rather than a jack of all trades like Horace. I will always remember him shutting down a primetime Shaq in the '96 Conference Finals. At the twilight of their careers, Dennis was still a pretty significant component to the Bulls' championships whereas Horace was just another power forward recycled by the Lakers. Even at age 39, if he ever got his head on straight, he'd still have the ability to win the rebounding title.
 

·
Administrator 12/02--7/07
Joined
·
36,839 Posts
You would never think of Horace and Dennis as remotely similar. We all assume Dennis spent his career as a one dimensional defensive presence and Horace was the "jack-of-all-trades." I went back, looked at the numbers and was surprised.

Grant career:
8.3 ppg 11.5 rpg 2.3 apg 1.01 bpg

Rodman career:
7.3 ppg 13.1 rpg 1.8 apg .58 bpg

Interesting. Overall, Grant's numbers are slightly better, but the numbers are far more similar than I would ever have expected.

In comparing the two, I still go back to trying to picture the Bulls winning the second 3-peat with Horace instead of Dennis. IMO Horace could not have done the job Dennis did in slowing or stopping Malone overall in the last two championship series. That type of presence may not show up on the stats, but in my book, that is the tiebreaker, giving Dennis the upper hand in comparison.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,149 Posts
I think I have to go with Rodman. Grant was a very good defender, but Rodman was an unbelievable defender.

I think the biggerst thing was Rodman's, his ability to get inside other guy's heads. That's a big factor in why he was such a good defender.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,319 Posts
Rodman was far superior

I believe that Rodman was a far superior player. He didn't score as much as Grant but that never was what he tried to do. He was an extremely good rebounder and defender. The kind of guy that every team needs to be a good team he hustled 100% of the time. And, I think people forget how good Rodman was at handling the ball and passing.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top