Whitlock slams Amare, Howard...

[da_suns_fan]

http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/amare-stoudemire-dwight-howard-just-punk-kids-jason-whitlock-052010

[Booharv]

Whitlock will always have a special place in my heart for the way he shit on Mike Pubelica.

[vicphoenix13]

I don't get the preamble saying that "Nash suddenly looks 40." It really doesn't matter how well Nash plays because the Suns have no chance with the Lakers size advantage.

[Giuseppe]

Amare deserves it.

Howard is just bereft. He's scared to death.

[da_suns_fan]

Howard is an attention whore.

Amare is in his own world.

[The Gemini Method]

I know one guy who is kinda glad Amare and Dwight are soaking up the media's spite; LeBron...

[BUMP]

He talks about how Amare and Howard refuse to play defense because they grew up in a different era (AAU era) when really its not even that.

All you have to do is look at a championship team like the Boston Celtics, Lakers, or Spurs when they were winning and realize that it takes a total defensive team effort to win it all but Amare is just too dumb to realize.

I've seen Howard rise to that level before, I just think he's having a bad series. Amare on the other hand....

[Agloco]

The clown suit Rajon Rondo is stitching for Jameer Nelson

pwned


oh and lol @ the child abuse analogy.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

He talks about how Amare and Howard refuse to play defense because they grew up in a different era (AAU era) when really its not even that.

All you have to do is look at a championship team like the Boston Celtics, Lakers, or Spurs when they were winning and realize that it takes a total defensive team effort to win it all but Amare is just too dumb to realize.

I've seen Howard rise to that level before, I just think he's having a bad series. Amare on the other hand....


I don't get the "different era" talk either. Defense is just as important now as it has ever been. And yeah, Amare just doesn't get it. He doesn't knowingly play bad defense, he's too dumb to know what good defense is. I don't blame it on coaching, but the combination of going straight to the NBA from high school and having a coach for most of his career who didn't stress defense at all is a big reason why he doesn't play consistent, good D. Prior to this series, he'd been playing the best D of his career because the entire team had finally bought into defense.

After that game, I'd support Kerr for whatever decision he wants to make because there's only so many 2nd chances a player can get, but I still think the Suns shouldn't give up on him yet because we've seen players finally grow up after more years in the NBA than Amare's had (Zach Randolph and Paul Pierce just to name a few).

[silverblk mystix]

that clown lost all credibility when he said;

Mark Jackson-the BEST NBA color analyst

[JoeTait75]

Whitlock's one of the worst at changing his stance to fit whatever his argument is at the time. He plays the race card nonstop, yet got into a feud with Scoop Jackson because he accused Scoop of playing the race card.

The only thing he's consistent about is his knobslobbing of Donovan McNabb.

Whitlock plays the race card from both ends. He can sound like Jesse Jackson one day- and Jesse Helms the next.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

The Bill Russell knob slobbing is hilarious. Dwight Howard would have average 30 rebounds a game against the 6'5" honkies Russell played against. By far the most overrated player of all time.

[BUMP]

The Bill Russell knob slobbing is hilarious. Dwight Howard would have average 30 rebounds a game against the 6'5" honkies Russell played against. By far the most overrated player of all time.

:lol seriously, he'd be a smaller version of Lamar Odom today, but a little smarter on defense

[midnightpulp]

:lol seriously, he'd be a smaller version of Lamar Odom today, but a little smarter on defense

If you could insert Russell's genetic code into an embryo conceived in 1985, he'd likely be a slightly taller version of Lebron James. Russell was the fastest player in the league during his time, boasting Olympic class speed, and one of the best high jumpers in the world. He could easily beat James in a foot race and most likely out jump him as well.

Give Russell all the advanced training and coaching methods of the modern era and you'd have a player today who would have few equals. He'd easily be one of the top 3 players in the league, if not the best.

[BUMP]

If you could insert Russell's genetic code into an embryo conceived in 1985, he'd likely be a slightly taller version of Lebron James. Russell was the fastest player in the league during his time, boasting Olympic class speed, and one of the best high jumpers in the world. He could easily beat James in a foot race and most likely out jump him as well.

Give Russell all the advanced training and coaching methods of the modern era and you'd have a player today who would have few equals. He'd easily be one of the top 3 players in the league, if not the best.

If I was 7'2, had Shaq's strength, Iverson's handles, and Kobe's shots i'd be the best player ever

[midnightpulp]

If I was 7'2, had Shaq's strength, Iverson's handles, and Kobe's shots i'd be the best player ever

That's great, but in Russell's case there are no "ifs."

He WAS the most athletic and smartest player of his era and would be one of the top 3 athletes in the league today. Human beings don't evolve in 40 years, but training technology and coaching philosophy sure does. You give Russell all the benefits of the modern era and he's one of the best players in the league. He'd probably lead the league in rebounds, be its best defender, be the best passing big in the league, and given Russell's work ethic, he'd develop those offense skills he lacked during his playing days.

So many people like to throw around proclamations about Russell ("He played against 6'5" honkies" "He'd be nothing but a glorified Ben Wallace today!") when they don't know jack shit about the kind of player/athlete he was.

[mogrovejo]

He talks about how Amare and Howard refuse to play defense because they grew up in a different era (AAU era) when really its not even that.

All you have to do is look at a championship team like the Boston Celtics, Lakers, or Spurs when they were winning and realize that it takes a total defensive team effort to win it all but Amare is just too dumb to realize.

I've seen Howard rise to that level before, I just think he's having a bad series. Amare on the other hand....

Howard is the best defender in the game, Orlando one of the best defensive teams in the league and they're in fact playing excellent defense vs. Boston - especially Howard who has been a monster.

And yet Howard refuses to play defense because he grew in a different era?

Why do people write and read this reactionary, over-emotional articles?

There were plenty of defensive sieves pre-ACU era. There are plenty of awesome defensive players who come from the ACU rankings.

Awful article, someone should write to his boss.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Bill Russell had all the physical advantages in the world during his era and he was a mediocre offensive player. Desagna Diop would have been dominant in an era where Dolph Schayes (a 6'7", 195 pound white boy) was a HoF center.

[JoeTait75]

Bill Russell had all the physical advantages in the world during his era

Did he? He was what, 6'8"? There were guys taller than him.

[BUMP]

Talk to me when he goes from guarding this......

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/dolph-schayes.jpg




To this



http://product.images.prosportsmemorabilia.com/33-22/33-22181-F.jpg

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Did he? He was what, 6'8"? There were guys taller than him.


I've always heard he was 6'10". All I know is he shoulda been able to average more than 15.0 PPG at 44% shooting.

[Bob Lanier]

All I know is he shoulda been able to average more than 15.0 PPG at 44% shooting.
Maybe that should tell you you're underestimating his contemporaries, eh Jude?

[Bob Lanier]

lame

[Bob Lanier]

I wouldn't fuck you. That's a bound.

[midnightpulp]

Bill Russell had all the physical advantages in the world during his era and he was a mediocre offensive player. Desagna Diop would have been dominant in an era where Dolph Schayes (a 6'7", 195 pound white boy) was a HoF center.

Diop is nowhere near the athlete, defender, or basketball mind that Russell is. Nice move in cherry picking Schayes. But what about players like Walt Bellamy, Wilt, Bob Pettit, and a slew of lesser 6-10-7 foot players who never did shit? Why didn't they dominate like Russell if the only trait you needed back then to be a good player was to be taller than 6-5? (It's also worth nothing that players were measuring in their bare feet back then as opposed to players being measured in the shoes today).

If Russell was just a glorified athlete that picked on "6-5 honkeys" how do you explain Russell leading the University of San Francisco to back-to-back National titles? That college didn't do shit before his arrival and hasn't done shit since his departure. Yet Wilt, who was taller and just as athletic as Russell with a better offensive game, couldn't lead a marquee program in Kansas to one championship. If it was that easy, Chamberlain should've been able to replicate the feat.

Russell is one of those players you can't quantify with stats, PER, etc. His defensive game, basketball IQ, intangibles, transcend what can be measured.

He's the ultimate team player.

[IronMexican]

Sounds like Rodman. A glorified Dennis Rodman.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Idk what's funnier, the strawman you used by saying all you needed back then was to be taller than 6'5", or you acting like you watched Russell.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

That's because everyone here is wrong.

Wilt Chamberlain is easily the most overrated player in NBA history. Bill Russell is only the 2nd most overrated.


I'll concede that. Chamberlain is another guy who wouldn't be half the guy he was in today's NBA.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Sounds like Rodman. A glorified Dennis Rodman.


Rodman was more impressive. He put up beast rebounding numbers against bigger, stronger players. If he had the physical advantages Russell had his rebounding numbers would be unimaginable.

[midnightpulp]

Talk to me when he goes from guarding this......

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/dolph-schayes.jpg




To this



http://product.images.prosportsmemorabilia.com/33-22/33-22181-F.jpg

You're under the misconception that Russell only guarded other big men. He was just as often assigned the task to guard the great wing players of his era. If he played today, he wouldn't be put on somebody like Shaq (Duncan, Gasol, possibly). He might very well be a lock-down perimeter defender and be put on Kobe, Lebron, Melo etc. He'd have the speed to keep up with them and obviously the height and length to bother their shots.

And FWIW, Wilt was just as tough a cover in his prime as Shaq was in his.

[BUMP]

:lol so is he a center or a 2guard now?

[Bob Lanier]

Idk what's funnier, the strawman you used by saying all you needed back then was to be taller than 6'5", or you acting like you watched Russell.
I did, Jude. Have you even gotten out of college yet? And I'd even agree with you on this
Wilt Chamberlain is easily the most overrated player in NBA history. Bill Russell is only the 2nd most overrated.if it weren't you and yours doing the rating.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

:lol so is he a center or a 2guard now?


:lol he can guard anyone! He'd hold Michael Jordan to 6 points on 13% shooting!

[Bob Lanier]

Ah yes, Michael Jordan, another player whose best days you didn't see.

[midnightpulp]

Rodman was more impressive. He put up beast rebounding numbers against bigger, stronger players. If he had the physical advantages Russell had his rebounding numbers would be unimaginable.


Rodman was nowhere near the athlete and jumper that Russell was. Russell would easily replicate what Rodman did. If Gerald Wallace could put up the rebounding numbers he does at 6-7, Russell should be easily able to go for 15+ in today's league.

But that also depends on what kind of team he's on, system, etc.

[midnightpulp]

:lol so is he a center or a 2guard now?

Kevin Garnett has often been assigned the task of guarding perimeter players?

Is he a two guard?

Nice try, though.

[Booharv]

If a fantastic player happened to unfortunately be born in a weak era, what would you want him to do to prove his greatness? How about average 20+ rpg and win the title nearly every year he played, correct? What more could Russell do to prove to you that he was a defensive force?

As for Whitlock I think his position on race is a little more sophisticated than people are making it seem. Most people don't take the time to read all his columns so his stance appears contradictory to them, but since they don't want to put in the effort to understand his point of view they just throw some lazy label on him while they don't fully understand him. Of course his saying that Howard doesn't play defense is moronic, and I disagree with that but he generally (not every single time, but generally) writes better on race in sports than almost any other sportswriter.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Rodman was nowhere near the athlete and jumper that Russell was.


Rodman was able to out rebound people who were more physically gifted, Russell was jack shit without his physical gifts.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

If a fantastic player happened to unfortunately be born in a weak era, what would you want him to do to prove his greatness? How about average 20+ rpg and win almost every title every year he played, correct? What more could Russell do to prove to you that he was a defensive force?


That's what Russell was, a defensive role player. A glorified Dikembe Mutumbo.

[midnightpulp]

Idk what's funnier, the strawman you used by saying all you needed back then was to be taller than 6'5", or you acting like you watched Russell.

That's your whole argument concerning Russell. That he's only regarded as the player he was because of his height and athletic advantages.

I haven't seen one good counter argument against Russell's greatness here. Just the usual tired cliches.

I'm surprised at the lack of appreciation for Russell on here. We always malign one sided, soft, no defense playing, selfish, empty stat type players on here (Al Jeff, Zach Randolph, etc), but yet denigrate a hard-ass, team-first player like Russell?

I think you're focusing way too much on Russell's offensive game, or lack thereof, and not considering the complete player.

[midnightpulp]

Rodman was able to out rebound people who were more physically gifted, Russell was jack shit without his physical gifts.

Now you're losing cred.

Russell has often been touted as the best passing big man of all time with a sky BBall IQ, and one of the most fundamentally sound defenders in history. This isn't Stromile Swift we're talking about here.

He was more than his athleticism, dude. He was the perfect player outside his rough offensive game.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

We also malign players who get by on superior athletic advantages and who wouldn't be shit without those physical gifts. Russell, in spite of his physical advantages, was a role player. I find it dumb Russell, a role player, is talked about by some as a top 10 player of all time.

[JoeTait75]

If Russell was just a glorified athlete that picked on "6-5 honkeys" how do you explain Russell leading the University of San Francisco to back-to-back National titles? That college didn't do shit before his arrival and hasn't done shit since his departure.

:tu

San Francisco was playing in a HS gym when Russell got there and turned them into one of the all-time dominant teams in CBB.

[monosylab1k]

If Russell was just a glorified athlete that picked on "6-5 honkeys" how do you explain Russell leading the University of San Francisco to back-to-back National titles?

He was picking on even crappier 6-5 honkeys in college.

[Booharv]

That's because everyone here is wrong.

Wilt Chamberlain is easily the most overrated player in NBA history. Bill Russell is only the 2nd most overrated.

What would a player from that era have to do to prove to you he was great? Dunk from the 3 point line? Play blind folded and nail half court shots? I mean it was a weak era no doubt but you're not in control of your era. All you can do is dominate it. Wilt averaged 50 ppg for crying out loud. Granted he was a selfish prima donna, but he was definitely talented.

Please have a little intellectual complexity here, I mean assuming you're not just trolling, which is a definite possibility. Wilt scoring numbers were no doubt inflated by playing in that era but he did what you would expect a player from today's era to do if he were transported to back then--torch the shit out of everybody. Russell won every title pretty much and averaged insane rebound numbers. It's safe to say that at the very least you'd be curious as to what they could do in today's game.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You'd expect Wilt to win more than 1 championship (the championship he won as a role player on LA doesn't count).

[Booharv]

You know since you guys have it all figured out, maybe you could tell me what Russell and Wilt's exact averages would be in today's game. I'm actually excited tbh. Since there's no doubt in your minds and its something I've thought about a several times before I can't wait to see what their exact numbers would be. This is scintillating. All my questions finally answered. If you can't get it exact just ballpark it for me.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You know since you guys have it all figured out, maybe you could tell me what Russell and Wilt's exact averages would be in today's game. I'm actually excited tbh. Since there's no doubt in your minds and its something I've thought about a several times before I can't wait to see what their exact numbers would be. This is scintillating. All my questions finally answered. If you can't get it exact just ballpark it for me.


They were both role players on championship teams back then, you decide for yourself what they would average on a championship these days.

[Booharv]

You'd expect Wilt to win more than 1 championship (the championship he won as a role player on LA doesn't count).

Wilt was a selfish asshole, I'm talking about his talent. And what he could do in today's game. He was so selfish in fact that, and many people don't know this, but in Bill Simmons' book, Simmons refers to quotes where his teammates were disgusted with him after his 100 point game and said "This isn't the way basketball should be played", "This game was a joke", or something like that as the game ended with Wilt going 1 on 4 to get his 100 while his teammates stood wide open under the basket and got ignored.

[Booharv]

They were both role players on championship teams back then, you decide for yourself what they would average on a championship these days.

You've got it figured out surely you would know their averages in today's game. Please, please tell me, I've been wondering about this for years.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

You've got it figured out surely you would know their averages in today's game. Please, please tell me, I've been wondering about this for years.

Russell would average around what Ben Wallace averaged with less rebounds.

[midnightpulp]

We also malign players who get by on superior athletic advantages and who wouldn't be shit without those physical gifts. Russell, in spite of his physical advantages, was a role player. I find it dumb Russell, a role player, is talked about by some as a top 10 player of all time.

But Russell also had pure basketball skills outside of his athleticism. Still the best passing big man I've seen. His passes to trigger fast breaks are a thing of beauty. He didn't have a polished offensive game but could do everything else well on a basketball court.

Do you think Amare is a role player? Amare has no basketball skills outside his athleticism and a decent mid-range J. Yet the guy is a star.

And Russell is faster than Amare, a better jumper, passer, defender with a way higher Bball IQ. Pair Russell with Nash and a pick and roll between those would be even deadlier than it is now.

Phoenix would be leading this series if you replaced Amare with Russell. Russell would limit Gasol and/or shut Odom's shit down. He would also be able to trigger fast breaks off defensive rebounds, getting Hill and J-Rich some easy points, unlike Amare who can only hand it off to Nash.

But the "modern day" player Amare is a first team center and Russell is only a role player.

[Booharv]

Russell would average around what Ben Wallace averaged with less rebounds.

Oh, thank God. Finally its settled. Now I can get on to wondering about other things. Thanks. :tu

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Phoenix would be leading this series if you replaced Amare with Russell.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

All I know is Amare could do a lot better than 15 PPG on 44% shooting if Dolph Schayes was guarding him.

[Booharv]

All I know is Amare could do a lot better than 15 PPG on 44% shooting if Dolph Schayes was guarding him.

Yeah he might even average 50 ppg and then 40 years later some random kid on the internet who thinks he has it all figured out could call him a role player.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Yeah he might even average 50 ppg and then 40 years later some random kid on the internet who thinks he has it all figured out could call him a role player.


In 1972, Wilt had to take a backseat to West and Goodrich and ride them to a title. Pretty pathetic for someone who could have easily been the best player of all time.

[Booharv]

Actually I think I got you confused with the other guy. I feel this conversation is making me dumber. I'm gonna stop now.

[midnightpulp]

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

Nice way to leave the rest of my post.

Now answer me this:

Is Amare a better athlete than Russell?
Is Amare a better defender than Russell?
Is Amare a better passer than Russell?
Is Amare a better rebounder than Russell?
Does Amare have a higher bball IQ than Russell?

If you have Russell on these Suns, Odom doesn't kill you guys the way he has been, and Odom has been the main difference in the series thus far. Russell would even be able to guard Kobe in stretches.

But the Dolph Schayes thing again, nice. And about Russell's FG%. You do realize he's was in among the top 5 FG% leaders in 6 different seasons? Back then, you knock a player's head off and it wouldn't be a foul.

But go ahead, keep on talking about things you nothing about, kid.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

If Russell is on the Suns yeah their defense is a little better but their offense blows serious cock with no half court threat at all.

[Giuseppe]

Duncan, yer gettin' your booty hole loosened.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

But go ahead, keep on talking about things you nothing about, kid.


The hilarious thing about this is I'm willing to bet Russell was retired whenever you were born, you're just arguing right now to sound like a basketball purist.

[DUNCANownsKOBE2]

Duncan, yer gettin' your booty hole loosened.


I could care less. I just find the butthurt responses "Bill Russell was overrated as hell" gets hilarious.

[LnGrrrR]

The Bill Russell knob slobbing is hilarious. Dwight Howard would have average 30 rebounds a game against the 6'5" honkies Russell played against. By far the most overrated player of all time.

IIRC, he played Wilt Chamberlain pretty well.

[midnightpulp]

The hilarious thing about this is I'm willing to bet Russell was retired whenever you were born, you're just arguing right now to sound like a basketball purist.

Not all. Being a Spurs fan, I appreciate team play, basketball IQ, and defense. Those attributes win games and championships and it's something that Russell embodied.

He didn't have the greatest offensive game, but it was his choice to never develop one. Quote Russell:

"At that time," he has said, "it was never acceptable that a black player was the best. That did not happen...My junior year in college, I had what I thought was the one of the best college seasons ever. We won 28 out of 29 games. We won the National Championship. I was the MVP at the Final Four. I was first team All American. I averaged over 20 points and over 20 rebounds, and I was the only guy in college blocking shots. So after the season was over, they had a Northern California banquet, and they picked another center as Player of the Year in Northern California. Well, that let me know that if I were to accept these as the final judges of my career I would die a bitter old man." So he made a conscious decision, he said, to put the team first and foremost, and not worry about individual achievements.[14]

I just don't understand why you believe that an athletic freak like Russell who was a great passer, had great defensive fundamentals, and was feared by the opposition would just be "role player" in today's game. Dwight Howard is way more limited than Russell and is a top 3 MVP candidate.

And Russell, in today's NBA culture, would develop an offensive game.

[Findog]

Bill Russell had all the physical advantages in the world during his era and he was a mediocre offensive player

No, he wasn't. He has career averages of 15 points and 24 boards a game. If he wanted to score 30 a game, he could have.

Put a 21 year old Russell in a time machine, bring him to the present day and give him all the conditioning, training and coaching available in the modern sports world and he'd still be an elite player.

[Findog]

Nice way to leave the rest of my post.

Now answer me this:

Is Amare a better athlete than Russell?
Is Amare a better defender than Russell?
Is Amare a better passer than Russell?
Is Amare a better rebounder than Russell?
Does Amare have a higher bball IQ than Russell?

If you have Russell on these Suns, Odom doesn't kill you guys the way he has been, and Odom has been the main difference in the series thus far. Russell would even be able to guard Kobe in stretches.

But the Dolph Schayes thing again, nice. And about Russell's FG%. You do realize he's was in among the top 5 FG% leaders in 6 different seasons? Back then, you knock a player's head off and it wouldn't be a foul.

But go ahead, keep on talking about things you nothing about, kid.

:lol

Fg% back then was way worse. Russell was a good, not great, offensive player in his time.

[Findog]

That's what Russell was, a defensive role player. A glorified Dikembe Mutumbo.

:lol

Best player on 11 championship teams.

He certainly wasn't a "role player" in his day, and wouldn't be a role player today.

[midnightpulp]

No, he wasn't. He has career averages of 15 points and 24 boards a game. If he wanted to score 30 a game, he could have.

Put a 21 year old Russell in a time machine, bring him to the present day and give him all the conditioning, training and coaching available in the modern sports world and he'd still be an elite player.

NP.

I don't know why the posters who denigrate Russell can't grasp that fact.

Russell had anywhere from a 45 to 50" vertical. Was a world class high-jumper and 440 sprinter. A 1964 Russell (without the training technology and modern conditioning and diet regiments that today's players benefit from) is a better athlete than 90% of today's players. Give him all those modern benefits and he's likely up there with Lebron as the best athlete in the league. That's why the Ben Wallace, Dennis Rodman comparisons are crap. Russell was a far superior athlete than them.

If one-dimensional Amare Stoudemire can be a star today, Russell can't? :lol

[Findog]

I've always heard he was 6'10". All I know is he shoulda been able to average more than 15.0 PPG at 44% shooting.

15 ppg on 44% shooting was very good back then. His focus wasn't scoring anyways. Dwight Howard is a great player without being an offensive force.

Russell was a great player in the era in which he played. If you try to deny that, you're an idiot. And if you're suggesting that he couldn't be more than a "defensive role player" today with his athleticism and access to modern training methods, you're an idiot.

[Edward]

I just got off the phone with DoK, and he's more than happy that someone who thinks Carl Landry > Amare Stoudemire also thinks he's an idiot. He'd actually be worried if that person called him smart.

[poop]

im sure Russell had a great bbiq and was a great defender and leader. he deserves tons of credit for what he achieved.

man stats back then were WAY inflated.

i mean, Dr.J - a 6-6 shooting guard- averaged over 15 rebounds a game his rookie year :rolleyes

in this modern era Russell would put up

10-14 ppg
10-11 rpg
1.5 bpg
4 asp

still solid numbers

wilt would do

25 ppg
10-12 rbpg

still solid numbers but 50 and 25?? oh brother give me a break.

[monosylab1k]

I really don't get the whole "if he trained like a modern athlete" angle. It makes zero sense imho.

You take a player as what he is regardless of the era he played. It's pointless to say "if he trained like a modern athlete" because he didn't. So throw all that out. I could very easily say "If Shaq played against a bunch of 6-5 white guys he could average 50/20 every season" but that makes no sense either. Take the player as exactly what he was.

Bill Russell as Bill Russell in today's game is a rich man's Marcus Camby. Hardly a player that sucks, but nowhere near the elite player he was playing against 6-5 honkeys.

[midnightpulp]

im sure Russell had a great bbiq and was a great defender and leader. he deserves tons of credit for what he achieved.

man stats back then were WAY inflated.

i mean, Dr.J - a 6-6 shooting guard- averaged over 15 rebounds a game his rookie year :rolleyes

in this modern era Russell would put up

10-14 ppg
10-11 rpg
1.5 bpg
4 asp

still solid numbers

wilt would do

25 ppg
10-12 rbpg

still solid numbers but 50 and 25?? oh brother give me a break.

Are we talking about 1960s Bill Russell or are we assuming that Bill Russell hops in a time machine, transports himself to today, and enjoys all the modern coaching, conditioning, and training benefits?

1960s Russell would probably average those numbers. If you pair him with a great point guard like Nash or Kidd, he likely averages over 20. Not one big today would be able to keep up with Russell in a pick and roll. Prime Garnett would be the only one with a shot. Maybe Howard.

Now if Russell works hard to develop his offensive game, you'd have a more athletic version of Karl Malone. Russell would be a terror running the floor and would be able to take opposing bigs off the dribble. He also get a good number of junk points off putbacks and the like. If he's able to develop a post game and a jumper, all the better.

[Edward]

Bill Russell had 3 or more HoFers other than him on all of his championship teams, and most of his championships came when there were like 7 other teams in the league. Props to him for winning 11 championships in an 8 team league with a team that didn't need any offense from him. His job was to grab rebounds and throw outlet passes to great offensive players like Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy, just like it was Dikembe Mutumbo's job in 2001 to grab rebounds and pass the ball to Allen Iverson.

[Edward]

If you pair him with a great point guard like Nash or Kidd, he likely averages over 20.

He had Bob Cousy for most of his career, so we've already seen how limited his offense is with a great PG.

[Edward]

Modern coaching? May I ask what modern coach would do more for him than Red fuckin Auerbach (the guy the coach of the year award is named after) didn't? :lmao

[Edward]

Now if Russell works hard to develop his offensive game, you'd have a more athletic version of Karl Malone.

Bill Russell was a fuckin twig and Karl Malone is built like a gorilla, he easily has 40 pounds on Russell, and would have taken a steamy shit on him had the two ever played each other in their prime.

[midnightpulp]

I really don't get the whole "if he trained like a modern athlete" angle. It makes zero sense imho.

You take a player as what he is regardless of the era he played. It's pointless to say "if he trained like a modern athlete" because he didn't. So throw all that out. I could very easily say "If Shaq played against a bunch of 6-5 white guys he could average 50/20 every season" but that makes no sense either. Take the player as exactly what he was.

Bill Russell as Bill Russell in today's game is a rich man's Marcus Camby. Hardly a player that sucks, but nowhere near the elite player he was playing against 6-5 honkeys.

Fair point.

That's why I usually don't like comparing players across different eras.

What am I arguing that Russell wasn't simply a "product" of his era like maybe a Mikan or the aforementioned Dolph Schayes. You're not going to stop a player with Russell's athleticism from being a strong player in 1965 or 2010, especially when you consider his superior bball IQ, passing ability, and defensive intensity. Those skills can translate seamlessly to any era.

If Amare is an elite player, why couldn't Russell be one? Russell is faster than Amare, a better leaper, defender, rebounder, passer, with a much more aptitude for the game.

[Edward]

If Amare is an elite player, why couldn't Russell be one? Russell is faster than Amare, a better leaper, defender, rebounder, passer, with a much more aptitude for the game.


So you're saying Russell could be Amare Stoudemire in modern basketball. OK. He'd go from being an 11 time champion, 20+ RPG player to being someone who won't even sniff the HoF.

[Edward]

For someone with such a high aptitude for the game, why couldn't he hit at least 60% of his free throws?

[midnightpulp]

Modern coaching? May I ask what modern coach would do more for him than Red fuckin Auerbach (the guy the coach of the year award is named after) didn't? :lmao

Watch some of those old games (youtube). Auerbach wasn't running anything as sophisticated as the triangle, half court sets were sloppy as hell, players not really moving without the ball, not many pick and rolls, spacing sucked. Basketball back then was essentially a fast break orgy. That's why there was such inflated stats back then. Lots of possessions.

Give Russell a more modern system that could maximize his athleticism, like one heavy with pick n rolls, and Russell would be a viable offensive option.

[midnightpulp]

Bill Russell was a fuckin twig and Karl Malone is built like a gorilla, he easily has 40 pounds on Russell, and would have taken a steamy shit on him had the two ever played each other in their prime.

Then how come Dennis Rodman's twig ass gave Malone fits?

And Russell was a better athlete than Rodman could ever dream of being.

[Edward]

Watch some of those old games (youtube). Auerbach wasn't running anything as sophisticated as the triangle, half court sets were sloppy as hell, players not really moving without the ball, not many pick and rolls, spacing sucked. Basketball back then was essentially a fast break orgy. That's why there was such inflated stats back then. Lots of possessions.

Give Russell a more modern system that could maximize his athleticism, like one heavy with pick n rolls, and Russell would be a viable offensive option.


Even if all that is true, I still don't get why Mr. sky high IQ was a 56% free throw shooter. Shouldn't someone as smart as he was know to work on his free throws more?

[midnightpulp]

So you're saying Russell could be Amare Stoudemire in modern basketball. OK. He'd go from being an 11 time champion, 20+ RPG player to being someone who won't even sniff the HoF.

No, I'm saying Russell would be better than Amare.

But Amare is considered an elite player in this league and you guys in the anti-Russell camp believe that Russell would just be a role-player today.

And Russell does everything better than Amare but score, so how is it logically feasible that Russell would only be a "role-player?" when Amare is considered a "star?"

[monosylab1k]

And Russell does everything better than Amare but score, so how is it logically feasible that Russell would only be a "role-player?" when Amare is considered a "star?"

Because Amare is considered a star only because of how he scores.

[midnightpulp]

Even if all that is true, I still don't get why Mr. sky high IQ was a 56% free throw shooter. Shouldn't someone as smart as he was know to work on his free throws more?

Duncan has a great basketball IQ and is inconsistent at free-throws. Rondo also has a high IQ and can't be relied upon to hit FTs consistently.

Russell also had freakishly large hands, so that may explain some of his inconsistency. Also, players were not as fundamentally sound back then with regard to shooting as they are now.

That said, I don't see the connection between free-throws and basketball IQ. Those two things aren't mutually inclusive. Some great shooters are dumbasses on the court.

[Edward]

Then how come Dennis Rodman's twig ass gave Malone fits?

And Russell was a better athlete than Rodman could ever dream of being.

Karl Malone was just a choker, unfortunately for him he didn't have teammates that could take care of the offense like Russell did.

[LnGrrrR]

We also malign players who get by on superior athletic advantages and who wouldn't be shit without those physical gifts. Russell, in spite of his physical advantages, was a role player. I find it dumb Russell, a role player, is talked about by some as a top 10 player of all time.


You'd expect Wilt to win more than 1 championship (the championship he won as a role player on LA doesn't count).

So... in one instance you bash on Russell because he was tall.

And in the other, you bash Wilt because you expected championships of him.

Even though Russell was the one preventing Wilt from championships at times.

It boggles the mind. And I don't see how you can call a team's center and major defensive force a "role player".

Was Shaq a role player? How about Dwight Howard? Or do you not count those because they score more?

Here's the newsflash... Russell didn't NEED to score in most cases. Why would you force the offense through your big man if it was running well through other players?

[monosylab1k]

Even if all that is true, I still don't get why Mr. sky high IQ was a 56% free throw shooter. Shouldn't someone as smart as he was know to work on his free throws more?

He needs modern coaching for that. The type of modern coaching that made Rick Barry one of the most accurate FT shooters ever.

http://www.eba-stats.com/images/legends/rick_barry_1977.jpg

:lol modern coaching at work.

[Edward]

Duncan has a great basketball IQ and is inconsistent at free-throws. Rondo also has a high IQ and can't be relied upon to hit FTs consistently.

Russell also had freakishly large hands, so that may explain some of his inconsistency. Also, players were not as fundamentally sound back then with regard to shooting as they are now.

That said, I don't see the connection between free-throws and basketball IQ. Those two things aren't mutually inclusive. Some great shooters are dumbasses on the court.


Michael Jordan had gigantic hands as well but that didn't stop him from an improved jumper. The way you've been slobbing Russell's knob in this entire thread, I'm not sure how someone as awesome as he was couldn't improve his free throw shooting.

[midnightpulp]

Because Amare is considered a star only because of how he scores.

But if Russell played today you don't think we'd be on here exalting his defensive impact and discussing the fact how Russell impacts the game more than say a Chris Kaman, who has a nice post game and can score, but sucks at everything else?

You know that great defense impacts the game as much as great offense, so I fail to see how we wouldn't recognize Russell's defense and thus deem him a "star."

[LnGrrrR]

Wtf is up with idiots in this thread equating FT% with greatness? :lol

Were there some holes in Russell's game? Of course. BUt what he did do, he did AMAZINGLY well.

You judge a player by his peers, by the competition he played, etc etc. Bill Russell would be much like Dwight Howard is today, a defensive force who could singlehandedly impact a defense. Except he wouldn't probably be half as prone to dumb fouls as Dwight Howard is.

[midnightpulp]

Michael Jordan had gigantic hands as well but that didn't stop him from an improved jumper. The way you've been slobbing Russell's knob in this entire thread, I'm not sure how someone as awesome as he was couldn't improve his free throw shooting.

I guess it's similar to how someone as awesome as Shaq and Duncan can't improve theirs.

Some players just suck at FTs.

Still, FTs have nothing to do with basketball IQ.

[Edward]

So... in one instance you bash on Russell because he was tall.

And in the other, you bash Wilt because you expected championships of him.

Even though Russell was the one preventing Wilt from championships at times.

It boggles the mind. And I don't see how you can call a team's center and major defensive force a "role player".

Was Shaq a role player? How about Dwight Howard? Or do you not count those because they score more?

Here's the newsflash... Russell didn't NEED to score in most cases. Why would you force the offense through your big man if it was running well through other players?

That's what most people call defensive specialists, "role players". Ben Wallace, role player. Bruce Bowen, role player. Kendrick Perkins, role player.

Russell and Wilt both needed to be surrounded by hall of famers to win championships. Russell alone wasn't preventing Wilt from winning championships. The team Russell was on that was stacked with a bevy of HoFers was stopping Wilt from winning championships. If Wilt was the one with Cousy, Sharman, Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Ramsey, Havlicek etc., he would have been sending Russell packing every year. Neither one was capable of carrying a team like Shaq in 2000 or Duncan in 2003.

[monosylab1k]

You judge a player by his peers, by the competition he played, etc etc.

Which in Bill Russell's case was a bunch of 6-5 honkeys.

[monosylab1k]

But if Russell played today you don't think we'd be on here exalting his defensive impact and discussing the fact how Russell impacts the game more than say a Chris Kaman, who has a nice post game and can score, but sucks at everything else?

You know that great defense impacts the game as much as great offense, so I fail to see how we wouldn't recognize Russell's defense and thus deem him a "star."

First off, Kaman is a solid defender and rebounder, he's no Al Jefferson on defense.

Second, defensive impact is very important but everybody knows that defensive specialists aren't stars in this league. Russell's contributions would be appreciated by his team and basketball junkies, but not the average fan.

Like I said before, I think Russell in today's game would be a better version of Marcus Camby. If Greg Oden could ever stay healthy, he'd almost be the perfect version of a modern day Russell.

[Edward]

Which in Bill Russell's case was a bunch of 6-5 honkeys.

:lmao

[midnightpulp]

He needs modern coaching for that. The type of modern coaching that made Rick Barry one of the most accurate FT shooters ever.

http://www.eba-stats.com/images/legends/rick_barry_1977.jpg

:lol modern coaching at work.

Do you think teams back then had an army of assistant coaches and consultants like they do today?

You don't think Russell would benefit from a dedicated shooting coach, which to my knowledge, all team's employ in some capacity? Back then you probably just had Red telling him, "Just relax and keep focused" or some bullshit like that. I doubt they had someone working with Russell on form, stance, etc.

So yeah, modern coaching would help Russell out.

[Edward]

Tbh Ben Wallace is the better comparison imo. He truly was a defensive stud, who like Russell would have been able to average 15 points on 44% shooting in the 50's just because he was 6'9" and could jump high. Marcus Camby is a terrible man defender so it's unfair to Russell to compare him to that. Ben Wallace was so good at defense that he'll be remembered for it.

[monosylab1k]

Don't get me wrong, I don't just hate on Bill Russell and Wilt. They were legends in their time but get overrated because of how weak their competition was. Even still, they transcended their era to the point where they'd still be solid players in today's game.

tbh I think it's ridiculous when anyone calls George Mikan or Dolph Schayes one of the 50 greatest players ever. In modern days we'd call them "Mark Madsen" and "Pat Burke".

[midnightpulp]

First off, Kaman is a solid defender and rebounder, he's no Al Jefferson on defense.

Second, defensive impact is very important but everybody knows that defensive specialists aren't stars in this league. Russell's contributions would be appreciated by his team and basketball junkies, but not the average fan.

Like I said before, I think Russell in today's game would be a better version of Marcus Camby. If Greg Oden could ever stay healthy, he'd almost be the perfect version of a modern day Russell.

That's kind of my point. I think posters on here would deem Russell a star and an impact player, while the masses and media slobber over some empty stat type player like Jefferson.

[LnGrrrR]

Which in Bill Russell's case was a bunch of 6-5 honkeys.

Right... because Cousy, West, etc etc had no skills.

I won't argue that Russell's stats might be a bit inflated, but to imply that he'd be "just another player" is ridiculous, and assumes too much.

As well, his team dominated the league... so the natural belief is that he would go from most imposing figure on defense, whose teams wins 11 championships, to modern-day Chris Kaman? GTFO.

I guess Jerry West would just be a Sebastian Telfair, and Bob Cousy would be what, a poor man's Gilbert Arenas? :lmao

[monosylab1k]

That's kind of my point. I think posters on here would deem Russell a star and an impact player, while the masses and media slobber over some empty stat type player like Jefferson.

In that case I agree with you. He'd be a solid player who would make big contributions to any team. But I don't think Bill Russell in today's game would ever be the Hall of Fame player or legend he is now.

[Edward]

Yeah I don't hate Russell at all, I just don't like how he gets put in the same breath as bigs like Kareem, Hakeem and Shaq who in their prime could dominate a game on both ends of the court against better competition.

Wilt on the other hand I'm not a fan of in the slightest. He was a stat whore who would always fall apart at the wrong time. It's pretty sad when Bill Russell could shut you down simply by taking you out to dinner and being nice to you.

[monosylab1k]

Right... because Cousy, West, etc etc had no skills.

I won't argue that Russell's stats might be a bit inflated, but to imply that he'd be "just another player" is ridiculous, and assumes too much.

As well, his team dominated the league... so the natural belief is that he would go from most imposing figure on defense, whose teams wins 11 championships, to modern-day Chris Kaman? GTFO.

I guess Jerry West would just be a Sebastian Telfair, and Bob Cousy would be what, a poor man's Gilbert Arenas? :lmao

They'd have alot harder time getting their shots off against the athletes of today's game, that's for sure. I highly doubt Jerry West is an All-Star in today's game, Cousy has a better shot at it but I don't know about him either.

[LnGrrrR]

In that case I agree with you. He'd be a solid player who would make big contributions to any team. But I don't think Bill Russell in today's game would ever be the Hall of Fame player or legend he is now.

Hard to say. I think he'd be along the Ben Wallace/Dwight Howard mold of defenders, and somewhere between them offensively.

Sure, Russell was thin. But it's possible he would've bulked up for the modern day game. No one can say for sure.

I think he'd definitely make multiple All-Defense teams, and probably mult All-Star selections as well. If his defense impacted the game enough to win a championship or two, who knows?

[Edward]

Right... because Cousy, West, etc etc had no skills.

I won't argue that Russell's stats might be a bit inflated, but to imply that he'd be "just another player" is ridiculous, and assumes too much.

As well, his team dominated the league... so the natural belief is that he would go from most imposing figure on defense, whose teams wins 11 championships, to modern-day Chris Kaman? GTFO.

I guess Jerry West would just be a Sebastian Telfair, and Bob Cousy would be what, a poor man's Gilbert Arenas? :lmao


Back then the league had 8 teams. Now it has 30 teams. Back then Red Auerbach had access to college players all over the country because of his connections to college coaches, now all the other teams have access to the players. I think it's fairly safe to assume that 11 championship number is irrelevant to current day NBA.

[LnGrrrR]

They'd have alot harder time getting their shots off against the athletes of today's game, that's for sure. I highly doubt Jerry West is an All-Star in today's game, Cousy has a better shot at it but I don't know about him either.

Rondo is ... what, 6'1? And he still manages to impact a game, DESPITE his poor shooting. It's not unthinkable.

[LnGrrrR]

Back then the league had 8 teams. Now it has 30 teams. Back then Red Auerbach had access to college players all over the country because of his connections to college coaches, now all the other teams have access to the players. I think it's fairly safe to assume that 11 championship number is irrelevant to current day NBA.

Oh yeah, I don't think anyone is going to win 11 champs any time soon. I'm saying that, for his day, winning 11 championships is probably equal to winning 3 or 4 today.

[Edward]

Hard to say. I think he'd be along the Ben Wallace/Dwight Howard mold of defenders, and somewhere between them offensively.

Sure, Russell was thin. But it's possible he would've bulked up for the modern day game. No one can say for sure.

I think he'd definitely make multiple All-Defense teams, and probably mult All-Star selections as well. If his defense impacted the game enough to win a championship or two, who knows?


I agree, he would have bulked up, lost some athleticism from doing so, and become Ben Wallace. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's just ridiculous the finals MVP trophy is named after someone who'd be as good as Ben Wallace right now.

[midnightpulp]

In that case I agree with you. He'd be a solid player who would make big contributions to any team. But I don't think Bill Russell in today's game would ever be the Hall of Fame player or legend he is now.

I think he'd be a top 10 player in the league. Say you transport 1965 Russell to today, I don't think he'd remain thinking about basketball in a 1965 context very long. I believe he would quickly adapt and be a strong player, possibly one of the league's best.

You just wouldn't be able to stop a 6-10 guy with a 40+" (some have estimated it at 50) vertical jump from succeeding if he had any type of drive and motivation. He could learn a post game, develop a jumper, and adapt to the modern game.

[Edward]

Oh yeah, I don't think anyone is going to win 11 champs any time soon. I'm saying that, for his day, winning 11 championships is probably equal to winning 3 or 4 today.


I'd say it's impossible to tell. No one would be able to hoard HoF talent like Auerbach did, and back then there was no draft lottery. Teams could win a championship and then get a top 10 pick the next year. Somehow the Lakers in 1979 were an above .500 and still got the 1st overall pick to use on Magic Johnson.

[LnGrrrR]

I agree, he would have bulked up, lost some athleticism from doing so, and become Ben Wallace. Nothing to be ashamed of, it's just ridiculous the finals MVP trophy is named after someone who'd be as good as Ben Wallace right now.

What's so surprising about that? I mean, the trophy is named after who played best in the Finals... he often did.

Apart from renaming it the "Jordan" trophy, I really can't see anyone who's more worthy.

[LnGrrrR]

I'd say it's impossible to tell. No one would be able to hoard HoF talent like Auerbach did, and back then there was no draft lottery. Teams could win a championship and then get a top 10 pick the next year. Somehow the Lakers in 1979 were an above .500 and still got the 1st overall pick to use on Magic Johnson.

Agreed, but Red had an eye for talent. Look at the deal he made to get Parish, drafting Bird, etc etc. He also, AFAIK, pretty much invented the "6th man" role, and was the first coach to use an all-black lineup. It wasn't just that he could stockpile talent, but he recognized that talent and knew how to use it effectively.

I mean, might as well denigrate PJ for coaching three of the best players of all-time to get his title.

[Edward]

I think he'd be a top 10 player in the league. Say you transport 1965 Russell to today, I don't think he'd remain thinking about basketball in a 1965 context very long. I believe he would quickly adapt and be a strong player, possibly one of the league's best.

You just wouldn't be able to stop a 6-10 guy with a 40+" (some have estimated it at 50) vertical jump from succeeding if he had any type of drive and motivation. He could learn a post game, develop a jumper, and adapt to the modern game.


That vertical would spiral downward once he started bulking up and wasn't a skinny little athletic twig anymore. If he remained the skinny little twig he was, he would get knocked around.

[monosylab1k]

I think he'd be a top 10 player in the league. Say you transport 1965 Russell to today, I don't think he'd remain thinking about basketball in a 1965 context very long. I believe he would quickly adapt and be a strong player, possibly one of the league's best.

You just wouldn't be able to stop a 6-10 guy with a 40+" (some have estimated it at 50) vertical jump from succeeding if he had any type of drive and motivation. He could learn a post game, develop a jumper, and adapt to the modern game.

Highly skeptical of that. Shit that happened 50 years ago tends to get exaggerated as a person's legend grows. In 50 years, people will talk about how Jordan won a game in the Finals with the flu, two bad ankles, a numb right arm, and internal bleeding.

[Edward]

Agreed, but Red had an eye for talent. Look at the deal he made to get Parish, drafting Bird, etc etc. He also, AFAIK, pretty much invented the "6th man" role, and was the first coach to use an all-black lineup. It wasn't just that he could stockpile talent, but he recognized that talent and knew how to use it effectively.

I mean, might as well denigrate PJ for coaching three of the best players of all-time to get his title.

Red had an eye for talent but that Celtics run was largely fueled by the connections he had in college coaching. He's said this himself, but he had not watched a single minute of Russell before drafting him, he had just heard about the way the guy can impact games defensively from other coaches. No one else on the East Coast had any idea who Russell was since he played on the West coast. If they did, chances are Boston wouldn't have been able to acquire the #1 overall pick so easily.

[LnGrrrR]

That vertical would spiral downward once he started bulking up and wasn't a skinny little athletic twig anymore. If he remained the skinny little twig he was, he would get knocked around.

Getting larger doesn't necessarily imply his vertical would decrease that greatly. Lebron has a pretty impressive vertical, as does Dwight Howard, and they're both beasts.

[Edward]

Getting larger doesn't necessarily imply his vertical would decrease that greatly. Lebron has a pretty impressive vertical, as does Dwight Howard, and they're both beasts.


Dwight Howard has no lower body strength whatsoever, if he ever actually added bulk to his legs, his vertical would get worse. Dwight's arms look bigger than they are because of how thin the rest of his body is, the dude has chicken legs.

[LnGrrrR]

Red had an eye for talent but that Celtics run was largely fueled by the connections he had in college coaching. He's said this himself, but he had not watched a single minute of Russell before drafting him, he had just heard about the way the guy can impact games defensively from other coaches. No one else on the East Coast had any idea who Russell was since he played on the West coast. If they did, chances are Boston wouldn't have been able to acquire the #1 overall pick so easily.

That's just a sign of Red's intelligence, to me. :lol Was that Celtics team stacked? Sure it was. But that's like saying you can't count the Lakers title in 08 because their team was stacked, or the Celtics in 07, etc etc. Teams that win multiple championships tend to be stacked, and while it might have been easier in earlier eras, it obviously doesn't make it impossible in this era.

[Edward]

That's just a sign of Red's intelligence, to me. :lol Was that Celtics team stacked? Sure it was. But that's like saying you can't count the Lakers title in 08 because their team was stacked, or the Celtics in 07, etc etc. Teams that win multiple championships tend to be stacked, and while it might have been easier in earlier eras, it obviously doesn't make it impossible in this era.


I'm saying Auerbach had advantages then he wouldn't have now, it's anyone's guess what those 11 championships translate to now.

[LnGrrrR]

Dwight Howard has no lower body strength whatsoever, if he ever actually added bulk to his legs, his vertical would get worse. Dwight's arms look bigger than they are because of how thin the rest of his body is, the dude has chicken legs.

So are you arguing that Howard is too thin to be a defensive presence?

Or are you arguing that Russell could bulk up similar to Howard?

Either way somewhat deflates your argument.

[midnightpulp]

That vertical would spiral downward once he started bulking up and wasn't a skinny little athletic twig anymore. If he remained the skinny little twig he was, he would get knocked around.

But we're assuming his role in today's game would be a post-defender. I'd personally keep Russell the way he is and have him d up the quicker perimeter forwards like Bron, Dirk, Durant, Odom, Garnett etc. I think he do okay against Gasol and Duncan as well. He often kept Wilt below his averages and Wilt is much bigger and athletic than Duncan and Gasol, so I think Bill would hold his own against those two. If he gets torched, you could always put him on the perimeter.

As for his offensive game, have to model it after Amare. Run havoc with him in pick and rolls. I doubt Bill ever develops the shooting touch to replicate Amare's mid range jumper, but I think he'd have the smarts to develop a strong post-game. He wouldn't need the bulk either, he could use his speed and hops for such.

[spurs10]

What do you think Tim Duncan would say after "consider the source" to all of you talking trash about Mr. Russell? When you are not in the position to shine the man's shoes....SHUT THE ^&* UP!

[BUMP]

What do you think Tim Duncan would say after "consider the source" to all of you talking trash about Mr. Russell? When you are not in the position to shine the man's shoes....SHUT THE ^&* UP!

This is a basketball forum where people have the right to opinion, if you don't like it the door is that way....


<---------------------

[midnightpulp]

This is a basketball forum where people have the right to opinion, if you don't like it the door is that way....


<---------------------

:toast

Yeah, everyone's been respectful here and no one called Bill Russell Darius Miles or anything.

Now that would be an insult Russell fans could get legitimately angry about.

[MaNu4Tres]

Howard is the best defender in the game, Orlando one of the best defensive teams in the league and they're in fact playing excellent defense vs. Boston - especially Howard who has been a monster.

And yet Howard refuses to play defense because he grew in a different era?

Why do people write and read this reactionary, over-emotional articles?

There were plenty of defensive sieves pre-ACU era. There are plenty of awesome defensive players who come from the ACU rankings.

Awful article, someone should write to his boss.

This..

[Mavs_man_41]

No, he wasn't. He has career averages of 15 points and 24 boards a game. If he wanted to score 30 a game, he could have.

Put a 21 year old Russell in a time machine, bring him to the present day and give him all the conditioning, training and coaching available in the modern sports world and he'd still be an elite player.

this is bullshit, i hate it when people always use this crutch when defending the old timers. coaching and all the training in the world aren't really going to make you THAT much more of an athlete. what are some advanced training methods going to do, make you a little faster, increase your vert by a couple more inches? Back in high school, i had about a 37 inch standing vertical without access to anything more advanced than regular weights that they had back in the 60's. So i guess if i had nba trainers working with me, i'd be the highest leaper in recorded history right? everyone just quit arguing this moot point and go ahead and bow down and kiss my ass right now then, im the GOAT.

Bill Russell = Ben Wallace, get over it people

[Bob Lanier]

And it's been proven that you can build a championship team around Ben Wallace. A shame the same can't be said of Dirk Nowitzki or Amare Stoudemire.

[midnightpulp]

this is bullshit, i hate it when people always use this crutch when defending the old timers. coaching and all the training in the world aren't really going to make you THAT much more of an athlete. what are some advanced training methods going to do, make you a little faster, increase your vert by a couple more inches? Back in high school, i had about a 37 inch standing vertical without access to anything more advanced than regular weights that they had back in the 60's. So i guess if i had nba trainers working with me, i'd be the highest leaper in recorded history right? everyone just quit arguing this moot point and go ahead and bow down and kiss my ass right now then, im the GOAT.

Bill Russell = Ben Wallace, get over it people

Human beings don't evolve in 40 years but training techniques and coaching methods do. If not how do you explain the way World Record times in track get lower and lower every decade or so? This holds true even in the pre-Roids era of Olympic competition.

And yeah, if you had access to all the advanced training methods that professional players enjoy, your vert probably would improve a couple of inches, as would your stamina, strength to mass ratio, etc. Anyhow, we're not really talking about Russell the athlete. He would be a great athlete in today's NBA regardless.

Russell would benefit the most from modern coaching. Look at the games from back then. Most players were fundamentally poor by today's standards. Terrible jumpshot form, couldn't use their opposite hand when dribbling, etc. The "modern coaching" argument as it pertains to Russell has to do with the idea that he'd more than likely develop strong fundamental offensive skills in addition to his superior athleticism, excellent instinct for the game, and great defensive skills, thus becoming an even better player.

And Wallace =/= Russell. Wallace had no passing game, Russell did. Russell was faster, a better leaper, and had a higher bball IQ.

Maybe Russell wouldn't be a dominant force in today's league, but it stands to reason he'd be a better all-around player than Ben Wallace.

[mogrovejo]

Russell would be extremely similar to Dwight Howard. Best comparison possible, very similar strengths and weaknesses.

[dickface]

And it's been proven that you can build a championship team around Ben Wallace.

:lol

now we have the dumb opinion.

[Edward]

And it's been proven that you can build a championship team around Ben Wallace. A shame the same can't be said of Dirk Nowitzki or Amare Stoudemire.

Bullshit. The knowledgeable Pistons fans on this site (so basically all the Pistons fans besides you) will tell you that team was built around no one. It's retarded when people say the team was built around Billups, same goes for Wallace.

[Giuseppe]

That Piston team was built around the marital woes of Daddy & KobePERIOD

[Edward]

And Wallace =/= Russell. Wallace had no passing game, Russell did. Russell was faster, a better leaper, and had a higher bball IQ.


get over this passing game shit. Bill Russell could find Bob Cousy and make an outlet pass. Congratufuckinglations to him, to say he's the best passing big man of all time because he can make outlet passes is an insult to the likes of Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and a number of other people.

[midnightpulp]

get over this passing game shit. Bill Russell could find Bob Cousy and make an outlet pass. Congratufuckinglations to him, to say he's the best passing big man of all time because he can make outlet passes is an insult to the likes of Bill Walton, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan and a number of other people.

The reason I harp on Russell's passing is to challenge the fucktarded myth that Russell "would just be another Ben Wallace." Wallace couldn't do shit outside rebound and play defense, while Russell had a greater overall skillset.

It's a stupid fuckin comparison.

[Bob Lanier]

Bullshit. The knowledgeable Pistons fans on this site (so basically all the Pistons fans besides you) will tell you that team was built around no one. It's retarded when people say the team was built around Billups, same goes for Wallace.
The team was built around defense, ergo it was built around Wallace, dumb little Suns fan. Remember defense? Even Phoenix played it once, and not even too long ago.

[Findog]

I just got off the phone with DoK, and he's more than happy that someone who thinks Carl Landry > Amare Stoudemire also thinks he's an idiot. He'd actually be worried if that person called him smart.

Who says Carl Landry is better than Amare Stoudemire? Carl Landry at $4 million a year is a better deal than Amare Stoudemire at $18 million a year. You get 60-70% of the production at 25% the price.

I'm also happy that somebody who thinks Bill Russell was a "role player," slobbed Shaq's knob constantly and didn't seem to understand that Phoenix could be better off without him, and also opined that the Suns couldn't beat the Blazers in their first-round series without Earl Clark feels confident enough to post his opinions on a basketball messageboard. That takes brass fucking balls...or lack of shame.

[Findog]

I really don't get the whole "if he trained like a modern athlete" angle. It makes zero sense imho.

.

That's in response to the poster who thinks Bill Russell in his day was a "role player." Do I think Russell would be the best player on 11 championship teams if he played today? No, but I think he would be a borderline All Star caliber player.

[Rogue]

Put the prime version Russell in today's league, he'd still be competitive with the vaunted defence of his and some competent works at the opposite end of floor. But would he dominate this league like he actually did in his years? no.

The league is no longer the yard of giants. NBA used to favour only the big guys and you can easily find that most remembered names from 60s and 70s are players of inside. but the league has turned more athleticism-favoured since then, take the 3-point establishment for example.

The truth doesn't lie. You can still find a couple 20-10 players in this league but most of them are power forwards who're more dependent on athleticism&skills than the simple length, and possibly some guards with 10+ assists. Mr. Shite was one archetype of centers who have nothing but length, and you know how he is right now.

dinosaurs extinct already...

[Rogue]

even if you play centre in this league, you can't play the game the same way those old centres did. get lebron in 70s he'd probably be nothing bigger than a marginal all star, and I'm afraid Steve Nash couldn't even survive in that league considering his softness and shortness.

No prejudice against the old time, I mean. I think Greg Oden would be an all-time great if he was born 2-3 decades earlier, but in this zone of time he's no more than a dinosaur fossil that reminds us of the antique styles sometimes.