Dennis Rodman vs Ben Wallace

[Blazing_royale]

who's a better overall player, for a team and individually?

[a-rod]

Wallace is defensive minded, powerful, intimidating and a tremendous shot blocker. but Rodman was sensational and rebounder defender, he could defend everyone from 1 to 5.

i take Rodman.

[cucad8]

Rodman, and this is an insult to him.

[GilArenas88]

Got to agree with cucad8, I think Rodman wins this one by a hundred miles. First have you seen Rodmans rebounding numbers for a 7-8 year stretch, they were Russel-esque. Like someone also said as well the man could guard 1-5, thats saying something. I always think Wallace has been overated, yeah he had a nice 3-5 year stretch, but I never thought he was a particularly good man to man defender because of his size, he was an excellent help and weak side defender. Rodman also has what 4 or 5 rings compared to Ben's 1.

Rodman was part of a team known as the "Bad Boys".

[chrice]

This poll has been done several times already, Worm wins it every time by 1000. Sometimes you get a few homers that think that Rodman was too old school to do what Ben Wallace does today, but he was a big part of the Bulls winning. Took the tough defensive assignments day in and day out, and could rebound with the best of them. He played with a lot of toughness too, constantly banging and getting banged up in the paint.

[ponder276]

Rodman, and this is an insult to him.

[AgEnT50]

Rodman, and this is an insult to him.

[Jemini80]

Rodman is about 50 times better at every aspect of the game compared to Wallace. Gotta love how the one person who voted for Wallace has not commented on why they did. Here is a hint why....there is no valid reason to vote for Ben over the Worm.

[#1KnicksFan]

Rodman is about 50 times better at every aspect of the game compared to Wallace. Gotta love how the one person who voted for Wallace has not commented on why they did. Here is a hint why....there is no valid reason to vote for Ben over the Worm.

Oo you got some lip on you boy, kiss your mother with that mouth?


That one person was me, and simply b/c (as I thought I wrote here but my post mysteriously disappeared whatdyaknow), Ben was at the VERY LEAST a comparable rebounder and defender, but without all the distractions.

People overrated Rodman during his Chicago years. The funniest thing is when people say Rodman was a better offensive player.

[Baller 24]

As much as I don't like his personality, I have to go with Rodman, the guy was sensational, his rebounding was compared to that of Wilt and Russel.

[5DOM]

rodman, and not even close

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Rodman actually was a much better offensive player, because he had a sensational bball IQ and knew what to do and where to go in a structured offence.
Of course you could never build a NBA offence around him, but he could be part of it.

[Harry Palmer]

Rodman was one of the weirdest players ever.

On paper, when you ask a coach what they want a guy to do...Rodman was all of it. Rebounded like a demon, played incredible defense, hustled, dove for balls, and didn't need the ball to be effective. Incredibly team-oriented and selfless in his play, virtually the perfect team player.

And yet he somehow combined that with being an exceptionally selfish, ego-driven attention-seeking drama queen who drove coaches batty.

Just weird.

But even given all that, yeah, the Worm, easy. Especially if you get him in that period before he became a media figure.

[CanadianKnicksFan]

rodman.

[Raymond Felton]

Rodman, and this is an insult to him.

no doubt. Sad that many casual fans just think he was an idiot playing basketball, but man was he a GREAT player. Could gaurd anyone, gave 110% every game, did the dirty work, was one of the best defensive and rebounding players of all time, and is truely someone that was worth the price of admission. He could get a crowd pumped up, his emotion could just make you want to punch your mother

[candy for lunch]

Rodman no contest.

People overrated Rodman during his Chicago years. The funniest thing is when people say Rodman was a better offensive player.

Except there's a difference between "doesn't need to be an offensive player" and "couldn't hit the rim if his life depended on it"

[The_Believer]

Both are horrible offensive players, so why are we discussing that? But Rodman was just an absolute beast on defense and rebounding, and was a big reason behind the 90's Bulls' success. Ben, on the other hand, is regressing lots now and probably at an age where Worm was still very good.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Both are horrible offensive players.

That's the mistake, Rodman was not a horrible offensive player.
He was not a scorer, but a horrible offensive player is a guy that makes the team offence worse, and it was clearly not his case.
He knew his role in the triple post offence and executed, even if there were no set plays. And I'm not even considering the impact his offensive rebounding had (isn't that offence?).

I think at least half of the NBA current starting big men wouldn't have helped the Bulls offence, if put in his place, but more likely 3/4.

[cucad8]

Ben, on the other hand, is regressing lots now and probably at an age where Worm was still very good.

Ben is 33 right now. That is the age of Rodman when he was in SA. So basically, with all of Ben's regression, he still hasn't gotten to the point in age where Rodman was playing with the Bulls. And averaging 15-16 rebounds per game. I'd like to see Wallace grab 16 rebounds per game 2 years from now. Let alone ever in his career.

[Cliff Levingston]

Wallace was quite awesome during his prime years in Detroit. He brought something that Rodman never did; elite shot blocking. Not only does that account for 2-3 actual blocks but a lot of altered shots and a lot of second guessing by penetrating guards, etc.

During their prime years, they're very comparable and probably pretty close, but Rodman's longevity was obviously much better.