I'm not gonna compare a player with the same number of career starts as Jared Sullinger to Dennis Rodman.This is why you'll never understand the game, because your belief system is flawed.
That's for sure.
@Gil Scott-Heorin is a troll, someone shut him up
- Thread starter Shadygreatest
- Start date
That's for sure.
I'm convinced dudes didn't even watch Rodman at this point - just simply regurgitating casual fan talking points on his "game".
You still don't get it do you? Stop thinking inside of a box all the time, and open your mind. In a few years time Draymond probably won't have the lateral quickness he does now, or he might get injured - the point is the way he's been performing on the defensive end and the impact he has over the last two seasons (which is a generous enough period to gauge one's defensive abilities - we're not talking about 10 games) is better than any version of Rodman.I'm not gonna compare a player with the same number of career starts as Jared Sullinger to Dennis Rodman.
That's for sure.
How many Warriors games in total have you watched over the last few seasons?
No it isn't.
And the fact that it's such a small sample size proves nothing.
It is a small sample size.
It's not a small sample size. What is wrong with you?
You do realize that Rodman only guarded wings for a limited period of time right? You constantly bring up how many games Draymond started - you do realize that Rodman only become a regular starter in his 4th/5th season right?
I'm comparing Draymond to THAT version of Rodman, where he was at his best defensively.
Nonsense.
You're cherry picking a useless sample size to make a sensationalist argument.
Next you're gonna compare Gordon Hayward to Scottie Pippen's first 3 years in the league.
"I'm just comparing him to THAT Scottie Pippen..."
What is wrong with you? Are you even going to type a rebuttal to what I posted or just keep acting like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't?
You simple ass muhfukka. I'm comparing Rodman at his best, defensively (which is only a few years) to what Draymond has proven over the last few years. Furthermore we've seen enough of what Draymond can do on defense to compare him to Rodman at his peak defensively. It's not as if it's been a few games against garbage teams.
Hayward at no point of his career thus far has proven to be better than Pippen, and Pippen wasn't at his peak during the first three seasons in the league - nonsensical comparison. And again, I'm not talking about where Draymond ranks all-time defensively or as a player, just that he's proven to have more impact on the defensive end than Rodman has. Anybody that's looks at this with sense and reason can see that Draymond has shown/proven enough to warrant a comparison.Next you're gonna compare Gordon Hayward to Scottie Pippen's first 3 years in the league.
"I'm just comparing him to THAT Scottie Pippen..."
What years was Rodman at his peak defensively, in your opinion?
You've shown nothing that even suggests Draymond is better than Rodman.
And even if you did (which you can't) it's completely useless because comparing any 2 year span to any other 2 year span doesn't prove anything. Because it's a small sample size.
How many times you gonna run this circle, breh?
I've explained myself on this in other threads, in depth.
Rodman at his best defensively couldn't guard bigs, protect the paint/contest shots inside like Draymond can; which ties in with him being better on help defense. They're pretty much near-equals out on the perimeter. Rodman didn't have the same defensive capabilities all throughout his career, which is why it's stupid for you suggest that it's a "small sample size".
Let me ask you this question - if Curry continues playing at this level and the Warriors go on to win another title - would you agree that Curry's peak is better than most of the top 10 PGs of all-time? Not necessarily rank him above them in an all-time sense, but just the level he's played at over the last few years?
There's video evidence of Rodman guarding Bigs all over the internet.
Watch it.
Whatever evidence may exist of Draymond Green guarding Bigs is useless. He plays in literally the worst era for Big Men in the history of the NBA.
Hard to say. We don't know what Curry's peak is yet. And comparing peaks means nothing unless you take into consideration the context of his career.
Curry could tear an ACL on the last game of the season and finish his career. And then what? You'll be on the coli in 10 years talking about how Curry's peak was so great but the overall arc of his career wasn't shyt compared to say...John Stockton or Jason Kidd...engaging in those "B-b-but if he didn't get hurt...." circle jerks?
That's why peaks don't mean anything when there's so little sample size to compare.
Both Draymond and Curry have a long way to go before they solidify anything about themselves. Certainly Green has a longer way to go than Curry.
If you'd been around 16 years ago you'd have been talking about the all-time greatness and peak of Grant Hill....until that ankle gave way...
Yeah just as I thought, you have absolutely no idea of what the fukk you're talking about.
Rodman wasn't guarding bigs when he was at his peak defensively. Laimbeer, Salley and Edwards did that shyt. Rodman would have the odd possession guarding a 4, but he wasn't doing it regularly and most certainly wasn't protecting the rim at any point during his peak or throughout his career. Did you even watch him in Detroit?
Not only is this false (half the reason you can't have a reasonable argument in the first place, regarding today's league), but Draymond's defensive impact goes well beyond just defending bigs. If you actually watched Warriors games you'd know this, instead of regurgitating these casual fan talking points of how he only guards 4s. He is the first player in history who has a undefined role on defense, which is down to his defensive abilities of actually being able to guard every position as well as protecting the rim (something in which Rodman can NEVER attest to).
Here's the thing you must understand - don't think inside of a box and don't take people's opinions out of context - which you seem to do all the time. When I say that Draymond is a better defender than Rodman at any point during his career, or that Curry is performing better than any PG has since Magic, it doesn't mean that I'm ranking them ahead of past players in a historical sense or that I'm NOT taking into account a generous enough period that they've played at that level. There's plenty of past players who had higher peaks that didn't end up having better careers than some of their peers, yet why do we always have to speak about players in that sense? Why can't we also discuss who had a better peak, or prime or proved that they were better during one stage of their careers?
It seems you have an awful time accepting that today's game is better than in the past, and you use whatever irrational logic to keep holding onto that notion.
Originalgangsta317
Banned
Did you even bother to actually watch the clip you posted? Most of those possessions they were sending help at Shaq forcing him to give the ball up. Furthermore, there's more to defense than just defending in the post. Did y'all just start watching basketball yesterday or something?
Yea, he didn't let Shaq get deep position though,nobody can guard Shaq one on one,but this was a hell of an effort by Rodman,something Draymond couldn't do
Originalgangsta317
Banned
The mental gymnastics this dude Gil stay making
"Which version of Rodman we talking about?"
"Rodman had help"
"I'm only talking about Rodman playing the 4"
"I mean when Rodman was with the Spurs"
perfect gif