Reply With Quote
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.
Sounds like Rodman. A glorified Dennis Rodman.
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'll concede that. Chamberlain is another guy who wouldn't be half the guy he was in today's NBA.
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.
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.Talk to me when he goes from guarding this......
To this
And FWIW, Wilt was just as tough a cover in his prime as Shaq was in his.
so is he a center or a 2guard now?
I did, Jude. Have you even gotten out of college yet? And I'd even agree with you on thisif it weren't you and yours doing the rating.
Ah yes, Michael Jordan, another player whose best days you didn't see.
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.
Kevin Garnett has often been assigned the task of guarding perimeter players?
Is he a two guard?
Nice try, though.
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 le 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.
Last edited by Booharv; 05-22-2010 at 12:24 AM.
Rodman was able to out rebound people who were more physically gifted, Russell was jack without his physical gifts.
That's what Russell was, a defensive role player. A glorified Dikembe Mutumbo.
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.
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.
We also malign players who get by on superior athletic advantages and who wouldn't be 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.
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 les? That college didn't do before his arrival and hasn't done since his departure.
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.
He was picking on even crappier 6-5 honkeys in college.
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 out of everybody. Russell won every le 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.
You'd expect Wilt to win more than 1 championship (the championship he won as a role player on LA doesn't count).
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
