At worst, NTL is Daniel Tosh here.
You know, I think I understand what they’re saying and where they’re coming from. I don’t agree. I find it fascinating, but they’re right in that none of this stuff with Rodman is new, whereas there were always stories about the other stuff but Jordan, Pippen and Jackson don’t talk about it as much as Rodman has. I think they’re point is mostly coming from the perspective of people who were deep in the NBA at the time and we all knew this stuff at the time. There’s been a book, a documentary, and interviews beyond belief about and with Rodman. Hell, doesn’t he still go on Stern, regularly? Now, I didn’t read the SI cover story or the tabloids at the time, so I find the stories fascinating, but this Rodman stuff really isn’t new. So, yeah, I think I get it.
I completely agree with Simmons on the rebounding thing. The doc spent maybe three minutes on the rebounding, and that’s maybe the most fascinating thing for basketball fans, and never gets talked about because he was so weird. So, as a basketball nerd, when he starts talking about practicing the ball coming off the rim differently from different guys and from different spots is super fascinating, but because he’s such a weird dude, that crazy thing only gets three minutes while Carmen Electra gets half an hour. Not that everyone doesn’t want to look at Carmen Electra for a half hour, but I kind of get that.
I didn't realize that Dennis Rodman was an actual all-time great basketball player - or at least that's how I interpreted the way the episode covered him.
He’s not a pantheon guy, like All NBA Top 50 (or whatever they call that thing), but he was one of the greatest rebounders and defenders ever. It gets overshadowed in the public eye because of the weird shit, and I kind of think that’s Russillo’s point. He was the greatest rebounder I’ve ever seen. Truly amazing. (I obviously didn’t see Russell)
But Russillo's point was that Rodman is "boring" and shouldn't have had an episode about him. I think that's kind of a ridiculous take. I think they are also kinda missing the point of who this doc is for. I think it's mostly to teach people about that era who aren't experts on it. Sure if you're super familiar with that time a lot of that will seem repetitive, but it's pretty fascinating stuff if you're seeing most of it for the first time.
Also, in a 10 part series where each part focuses on a different person from that team, it's just preposterous to say one of those shouldn't be devoted to Rodman.
I agree the defense/rebounding thing was fascinating, and I can see how basketball junkies like those two would be mad that they glossed over that and spent a lot of time on his eccentric stuff, but again, I don't think this was made for basketball junkies. My wife enjoyed the Rodman part, and would have fallen asleep had they spent 30 minutes on rebounding technique. I have no issue with that decision.
Mid 80s to Early 2000s was the 'greatest' generation of NBA basketball.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)