<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Find me a championship team that didn't have a dominant/defensive presenced big man</div>Bulls - Rodman was not a big man, he was 6'7" and 210 pounds, and never played center. Horace Grant wasn't dominant either.Pistons ('89,90) - their center was Bill LaimbeerLakers - 87,88 - Kareem wasn't close to dominant at that point in his careerCeltics - 86 - Parish was no longer a dominant force either at that pointSonics - 79 - Sikma was certainly not what you'd call dominantWarriors - '75 - Clifford freakin' Ray was their centerThere you go. 13 out of the last 32 champions, I bet it's a similar number for all positions.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 3 2007, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bulls - Rodman was not a big man, he was 6'7" and 210 pounds, and never played center. Horace Grant wasn't dominant either.</div> He was a PF and he was one of the best rebounders/defenders of all time. How can you not consider Rodman as a big man? If he was listed 1.5-2'' taller you would though, right? Elton Brand is 6'8'', Ben Wallace is 6'9'' on a good day. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Warriors - '75 - Clifford freakin' Ray was their center</div> Be nice to Cliffy!
Dennis Rodman might not have been a 'big' man but he pestered the F*ck out of whoever he was playing against, the guy was something to watch. He made up for his lack of size with being in great position.
<span style="font-family:Arial"> Who cares if he wasn't a 'big man' in terms of height or weight. He's one of the best defensive power forwards of all time and he always guarded the opposing teams best center/forward. Bill Laimbeer didn't anchor the Pistons defense down low, Dennis Rodman did. Laimbeer was a very good defender though. He was still dominant, especially in the 4th quarter of games. Kareem always hit the big shots, throughout the regular season and playoffs. Just because the main focal points on offense were Magic Johnson and James Worthy doesn't mean Kareem wasn't dominant, because he was. I'm not sure I would call Robert Parish dominant, but you can't ask for much better numbers. He did average 16 points and 10 rebounds per game that year. Aside from Parish, they also had Kevin McHale AND Bill Walton. If you don't consider that center trio dominant, then I don't know what to tell you. I agree with this statement, that's why I mentioned this team a few posts up. Clifford Ray was a solid double double guy, and they also had George Johnson who was a good defensive center. Regardless of what I just said, I agree with you on this post. Neither of those guys were good enough to win you a championship, they were role players.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC? @ May 3 2007, 08:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><span style="font-family:Arial">Who cares if he wasn't a 'big man' in terms of height or weight. He's one of the best defensive power forwards of all time and he always guarded the opposing teams best center/forward.Bill Laimbeer didn't anchor the Pistons defense down low, Dennis Rodman did. Laimbeer was a very good defender though.He was still dominant, especially in the 4th quarter of games. Kareem always hit the big shots, throughout the regular season and playoffs. Just because the main focal points on offense were Magic Johnson and James Worthy doesn't mean Kareem wasn't dominant, because he was.I'm not sure I would call Robert Parish dominant, but you can't ask for much better numbers. He did average 16 points and 10 rebounds per game that year. Aside from Parish, they also had Kevin McHale AND Bill Walton. If you don't consider that center trio dominant, then I don't know what to tell you.I agree with this statement, that's why I mentioned this team a few posts up.Clifford Ray was a solid double double guy, and they also had George Johnson who was a good defensive center. Regardless of what I just said, I agree with you on this post. Neither of those guys were good enough to win you a championship, they were role players.</span></div>1. The point is that you're being very lose with your definition of dominant big man if you allow Rodman to be center, it's the equivalent of saying "EVery championship team had a dominant guy who was somewhere from PG-SG"2. Once again, just because he was the greatest rebounder of all time doesn't make him a big man.3. I'm sorry, but if you think he was "dominant" back then you're severely under-estimating what it takes to be dominant.4. If you call 16-10 and 14-10 in the eighties dominant I don't know what to tell you. I guess Emeka Okafor is a dominant center right now. For some reason people often seem to think the definition of dominance is "shooting a high fg% at the center position", I don't get why dominant ever became only a thing said about centers. Joe Fulks was one of the most "dominant" players of all time, as a 35% field goal shooting guard.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 3 2007, 02:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Bulls - Rodman was not a big man, he was 6'7" and 210 pounds, and never played center. Horace Grant wasn't dominant either.Pistons ('89,90) - their center was Bill LaimbeerLakers - 87,88 - Kareem wasn't close to dominant at that point in his careerCeltics - 86 - Parish was no longer a dominant force either at that pointSonics - 79 - Sikma was certainly not what you'd call dominantWarriors - '75 - Clifford freakin' Ray was their centerThere you go. 13 out of the last 32 champions, I bet it's a similar number for all positions.</div>Milwaukee in 1971 duhhhhh
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>1. The point is that you're being very lose with your definition of dominant big man if you allow Rodman to be center, it's the equivalent of saying "EVery championship team had a dominant guy who was somewhere from PG-SG"</div><span style="font-family:Arial">Dennis Rodman plays the power forward and center spot, as well as defending the other teams best big man. That's a dominant big man in my opinion, I don't see how you can honestly say Rodman wasn't dominant in the post.</span><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>3. I'm sorry, but if you think he was "dominant" back then you're severely under-estimating what it takes to be dominant.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">I repeat... He was still dominant, especially in the 4th quarter of games. Kareem always hit the big shots, throughout the regular season and playoffs. Just because the main focal points on offense were Magic Johnson and James Worthy doesn't mean Kareem wasn't dominant, because he was. You would have to watch some of the games to understand.</span><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>4. If you call 16-10 and 14-10 in the eighties dominant I don't know what to tell you. I guess Emeka Okafor is a dominant center right now. For some reason people often seem to think the definition of dominance is "shooting a high fg% at the center position", I don't get why dominant ever became only a thing said about centers. Joe Fulks was one of the most "dominant" players of all time, as a 35% field goal shooting guard.</div><span style="font-family:Arial">I never said Robert Parish was dominant, did I? I said he put up decent numbers, I never said he dominated. You're missing the whole point of my post though. I said that even though they had Robert Parish, they still had Kevin McHale AND Bill Walton. That's a dominant trio of big men, whether you agree or not.</span>
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE)</div><div class='quotemain'>Lakers - 87,88 - Kareem wasn't close to dominant at that point in his career</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame)</div><div class='quotemain'>Milwaukee in 1971 duhhhhh</div>wow, by opinion of you is getting lower by the post. Your reading comprehension skills are worse than anybody else on this forum that I've seen.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tHe_pEsTiLeNcE @ May 3 2007, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>wow, by opinion of you is getting lower by the post. Your reading comprehension skills are worse than anybody else on this forum that I've seen.</div> What does this post have anything to do with the topic?I was countering his point of Kareem on the LA team not being dominant at that stage of his career by saying when Kareem was dominant he won a title with Milwaukee in case he wasn't aware that he did.Sorry but your reading comprehension skills may be deteriorating as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (playaofthegame @ May 3 2007, 06:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> What does this post have anything to do with the topic?I was countering his point of Kareem on the LA team not being dominant at that stage of his career by saying when Kareem was dominant he won a title with Milwaukee in case he wasn't aware that he did.Sorry but your reading comprehension skills may be deteriorating as well.</div>I said the 87 and 88 lakers didn't have a dominant center, as Kareem wasn't dominant at that point in his career.You retorted by saying that he was dominant 17 years prior. That isn't a counter, that's just not reading properly.
Im not sure what time of player Oden will become. He was a great player in college but didnt dominate the college scene like Durant did, depending on what team I was id pick durant based on player talent although oden will likely also become a great nba player just not as soon.
I would definatly go for Durant. He has the shooters touch and he is a smart young player. I can see Durant being a premier player in the NBA in a few years.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ May 11 2007, 03:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Im not sure what time of player Oden will become. He was a great player in college but didnt dominate the college scene like Durant did, depending on what team I was id pick durant based on player talent although oden will likely also become a great nba player just not as soon.</div>Duncan didn't dominate the college scene his freshmen year. He ended up being a pretty good NBA player.Trust me man Oden is gonna be an impact player and that's the type of player he's motivated to be. When you're built like that and are the kind of person this kid is sky's the limit. He has a better offensive game than people give him credit for. He has a very nice baby hook that he wasn't able to show at it's best because of the injury and he is very athletic for his size.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Cupcake15 @ May 21 2007, 08:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I would definatly go for Durant. He has the shooters touch and he is a smart young player. I can see Durant being a premier player in the NBA in a few years.</div> Everyone knows Durant and Oden are going to be premier players....what makes you think Durant would be the better choice.
