RealGM

This is such a fascinating comparison because many debate if the 92 Bulls or the 96 Bulls were better and this is part of the reason why.

Who was the better player and who was the better fit for the Bulls?

It's Rodman.

But it's a lot closer than most would think. Horace Grant was very good in 1991-92 - excellent defender, good shot blocker, good offensive rebounder, very efficient on offense.

Horace Grant was no better than Drew Gooden apparently

Grant to me, reasonably close but clear choice.

Cop out answer, I think they were each better on their version of the Bulls than they would be if they switched teams (91-93 Bulls are worse with 96-98 Rodman and likewise for switching Horace).

2nd 3 peat Bulls had more depth on the offensive end. The aggregate of Longley, Harper, and Kerr I think provided more offense than Cartwright, Paxson, and Armstrong (the former two were really falling off by 93 as BJ started taking on a bigger role). Then you add Kukoc on top of that, and there was enough offense to make up for Rodman's lack of scoring (although he contributed on the offensive glass and was a good passer). 1st 3 peat Bulls needed Grant's scoring punch.

Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk

I prefer Grant. He was a 1990s Al Horford with good range, excellent defense and low-usage who scaled exceptionally well on his teams [Chicago, Orlando and Los Angeles].

I prefer Pistons Rodman to Bulls Rodman and to Horace Grant.