how true
but yeah, howard didn't have just one bad game. he's had quite a bit. he's been QQing so much lately, and shut up and play. it's so easy to get into his head.
in previous years, a healthy yao raped howard. but that's probably because houston was actually well-coached and disciplined at the time
which was absolutely correct, don't back down from your stance now. being ben wallace seems like more the likely scenario than "he would have learned to shoot and use his left hand in todays nba! and he would be way faster and stronger too!" i didn't know anyone prevented him from going to the gym and shooting and working on his left, but apparently so.
That argument was absolutely ridiculous
yup, when i went and hooped at the park the other day and someone asked me if i was left handed because they kept overplaying my right hand and i'd take them to the hole lefty, it was all because i have obviously had the benefit of today's superior nba coaching!
Seriously dude, when you've got a bum like Red in Auerbach as your coach, how the are you supposed to learn how to shoot a left handed layup or make your free throws. Talk to me when Bill Russell was coached by someone who the coach of the year award was named after.
Lol, ok. I wouldn't have gone that far but I agree that he is, just not necessarily for those reasons. It wasn't all 6'5 white guys back then. And while he didn't completely shut him down, Russell did do a great job against Wilt.
I would agree that he very similar to a Ben Wallace and that's why he's overrated. Not because he dominated small white guys, but because he actually was a very poor offensive player. Shot 44% from the field as a center, a Shaq or Ben like 56% from the free throw line. Never averaged 20 points and only averaged as many points as he did because of the pace of the Celtics back then. All the championships do in fact ignore his offensive inep ude.
But, your comment might be a little more harsh than I would make lol.
You could also say the rebounds he averaged was also inflated due to pace of play. His rookie year almost 3 players on that team averaged double figure rebounding. There's no way that would happen in today's NBA.
41, Jammie, & Duncan all need an enema, immediately.
I'll have Ln administer it. He ain't since Game 3 of the Boston/Cleveland series so he knows whence he speaks.
OVERATED PERIOD END OF STORY. However, we can't blame him. He dominated on Defense.
Hey, dummy, that's how rings are won/Defense.
Preach on, Jamstone!
Where do you rank Bruce Bowen among championship wing players?
Right next to Michael Jordan and Kobe Bryant the way Bill Russell is slotted next to Wilt and Kareem?
Yes, because he was a poor offensive player.
And revisionist history chooses to ignore that fact because of all the championships.
But, Jammie, that's the beauty of Russell, he impacted his Championships thru his commitment and premier execution of defense. That's the true wonder of playing defense:::nobody can stop you. You're in control. That's such a relief to a professional athlete:::the knowledge that what you're doing can't be controlled. You get 5 guys doing that like last nite in Boston and we'll play getting it stopped in the Finals.
Russell also won 2 consecutive NCAA championships. One of only 4 players in NBA history to win a NCAA and NBA championship back-to-back. Also picked up an Olympic Gold medal in addition to his 11 NBA championships.
Anyone who says Russell is overrated is not qualified to be a fan.
But...but...uh, rings
Since when does overrated = bad?
Bill Russell is the greatest "winner" in the history of sports.
He's still overrated because people don't remember that he was a bad offensive player. Again, he shot 44% from the field as a center. Can you imagine a center in today's NBA shooting 44% from the field and being called a superstar? People bash Kobe for shooting under 45% and he's a perimeter player. What's worse, Bill Russell shot worse in the playoffs. In two of those Boston championship runs, Bill Russell shot under 37% from the field. In fact, I'd go so far as to say his lack of offense made things tougher for the Celtics. And that's saying a lot since they won so much. And it wasn't like Ben Wallace who knew he sucked on offense and didn't take a lot of shots. Bill Russell was still taking 10-12 field goal attempts per game. He was getting touches. And realize this was also in an era of basketball where defense wasn't exactly stifling.
Anyone who thinks by calling Bill Russell that I'm saying he sucked is misguided. Bill Russell is still an all-time great because of his dominance on defense. But that doesn't mean he can't be overrated. He is.
I didn't say Russell wasn't a superstar.
You can easily compare Ben Wallace to Bill Russell as far as skill set and impact defensively. Don't sell Ben Wallace short. As far as winning goes, you can't compare anyone to Bill Russell. I haven't taken away anything from Bill Russell's legacy or the fact that he was the greatest winner of all time. Calling him overrated has to do with the fact people ignore that he was a poor offensive player. You look at people making lists of greatest players of all time, you'll often see him at or near the top of the list. I think it's overrating him. He was a great winner, a great compe or, and a superstar in his era because of the winning. He is also overrated.
If he's one of the best players in the history of the league, then Robert Horry and Dennis Rodman should at least be in the discussion of top 50 players in the league. If you could take Russell or Hakeem, who do you take? If you could take Russell or Duncan, who would you take? I'd take the latter in each case but most people rate Russell as a better player.
To me, winner does not = player.
To sum this all up.
Bill Russell in his era was a beast and the best player in the league.
The league was obviously weaker back then.
If he were to somehow be in the NBA today with the same build, same talent, same everything he had back then, he would be a borderline all star. If you match up his talent and playing ability to other big men in their prime in different eras, he's not nearly as good.
Its not hard to understand people..
That's nonsense, BUMP. The league would be naturally stronger back then. Rampant expansion has only diluted the talent level.
Well, Rodman should be, but you ignore that Russell was by far the best player on his team when you base your argument on this kind of "lulz steve kerr" sensationalism, as
ignores the difference in importance between pivots and wings.Where do you rank Bruce Bowen among championship wing players?
I'd agree that he's overrated as well, but not for the same reasons that this Jew posits, nor for yours.
If anything's overrated, it's your own belief that you know anything about basketball. Not being personal, but anyone who's not crystal clear about Russell's status as one of the best players in NBA history is simply pig ignorant.
Examine his game with a fine tooth comb if you will, but don't be so blind as to put what you find in context. In Russell's case, the context is the greatest champion of all time.
I think people very much remember that Bill Russell wasn't known for his offense. Thats why you always hear talk about his defense, IQ, teamwork, intangibles, and winning mentality above anything else. People generally don't harp on a player's negatives if they have the career and the well-liked personality that Russell has but that doesn't mean his weaknesses aren't acknowledged.
So...if people realize Russell's weaknesses and the context of his career/era...is he still overrated?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
