Reply With Quote
'ol Cubby waiting on that Duncan fella at the chuckbox;::::Hubby in the car with the chloroform rag.
Gosh I tell ya that suit was hot that day, he's out and he's stayin out
Chief Culburn, wishin' for an erect tee-pee.
'ol Cubby waiting on that Duncan fella at the chuckbox;::::Hubby in the car with the chloroform rag.
Gosh I tell ya that suit was hot that day, he's out and he's stayin out
Good morning, Altered.
Koolaid. I never give you any trouble because you never give me any. I know many people here give you for what you post, but I don't. In fact, I sometimes see excellent posts from you that are well thought out. If you were to focus your attention to posting this way, and less on the cliche bantering you get caught up in, you might find it a refreshing change. Speaking of change, I can't change you, and I'm not trying, but if I can help you be a better poster, then maybe I am like Bill Russell who made his teammates better.
There is plenty of truth to this post. Keep in mind, professional sports in Russell's day wasn't that far removed from Jackie Robinson's entrance into baseball. You can still argue Bill Russell was top 10 all time when he retired, but both white and black men were above him then that many don't place there now.
As far as reasons why MJ should or shouldn't be the GOAT, I wasn't trying to go there. What I was trying to point out is how MJ's 6 rings helped shape top 10 lists. Example, suppose MJ came into the league with Bird and Magic. Lakers had number 1 pick and planned on drafting Johnson. Celtics actually picked Bird in 1978 because he was eligible then, having redshirted one season in college. Bulls had #2 pick and would have picked MJ instead of David Greenwood. Chances are Jordan doesn't win until 1991 as he did, and he runs out of gas soon, so maybe he ends with 3 les. If somehow you put MJ on the Rockets instead, again, maybe he wins 3 les and probably Magic and Bird win 1-2 fewer. Although he is still the great player he was, he probably doesn't become GOAT and gets bunched with Bird and Magic behind Kareem and Wilt. Conversely, if he doesn't take 2 seasons off, and the Bulls owner keeps the team together after the 1999 lockout, MJ may have won 9 in a row. Bottom line is, he won 6 rings and passed the totals of Bird and Magic. MJ ruled the 90's as Bird and Magic the 80's and Tim, Shaq, and Kobe the last decade. I am not not trying to rank these players from the 80's to date. What I am trying to point out is MJ capitalized on the popularity of the NBA that was set by those that came before him and media hype helped convince us he was the GOAT. This factor, among others, had a boomerang effect on Bill Russell, and his stock rose further as a direct result of what MJ accomplished.
Well, who is going to guard a big man? Another big man, of course. No one could stop Kareem and Wilt in their primes, you could only hope to slow them down and beat them with the rest of your team. Smaller players could be dealt with in other, and often easier ways. Many examples, no need to go there. So, if you were to take basketball as a one on one game, and just use top centers of all time, Russell is not going to do very well. He simply must take some kind of a hit on his legacy for this reason. We all know basketball is a team game, and Bill had to rely on his teammates to help him win. My point is, he had better help than anyone. See my reply to come to Jamstone, shortly.
Here's my answer to this. Anyone can have an opinion, and it's most interesting for me to see when one ranks the best players of all time. My thread about a top 20 is linked above. Please post your top 20 in that thread, bring it back. I believe it is a very interesting thread with excellent basketball discussion. No one should criticize you for who you put on your top 20, because it's your opinion.I'm ok with devaluing Russell's rings...but to make the case that Russell is not top 10 and Duncan is or even top 5 is laughable...Tim Duncan may be top 15 -20 nothing more nothing less...You do have to look at the complete package...including player impact from a global perspective...Despite his les Timmy has not added to the game's innovation and revolution. He's not added fans to the bottom line across the broader spectrum. He's liked by the media because he has a house z mentality he's a maid servant so to speak and they eat that up..He's not a global icon nor revolutionary...
Well, I have answered history2b twice about this. Both the 1966-69 Celtics, who had taken a step back, and the 1984 Celtics did not enter those seasons as favorite, yet won more les with championship experience. It's a fact that it is something that exists. Spurs still have it. The odds are tough, but it can't be entirely ignored.But the question is who was their compe ion enroute to those les...let me extrapolate...Has the Spurs championship experience gotten them anywhere since 07. The Spurs may be experienced but guess what...you need to factor who's standing in front of them......is there a more experienced team in front of them... ing aye...FACT: Kobe has played in more le games than Duncan and Phil has coached in more le games than Pop..
My loyalties lie like this.You carry some good knowledge of the game but I see elements of you trying to appease or appear fair and balanced to a wanting, hopeful, and prayerful Spur fanbase...
1) Basketball fan
2) T-Wolves fan
3) Western conference fan
4) Lakers fan
5) Every other west team tied equally
I don't dislike any player in the east, west, or any team. My only gripe now was how LeBron left the Cavs, and I'm over that.
Midnight and I tangled once before, I forgot what about. He was once on my list, but I took him out. He's actually quite intelligent about the game, and that I respect. Yes, he goes out of his way to bash the Lakers, but really, no team or player is immune. It's all in fun. See my first paragraph above.Midget Night is in ing love...but I wanna see you make that midget dance...I will pay prime $$$ to see dat ...
Probably tangled in the sheets fighting over who's bottom was in the wet spot.
With that dead pecker of yours, tanglin' in the sheets is something you can no longer do.
har, har, har...
Daddy & Midget sittin' in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g. first comes love then comes marriage then comes Heaty in a baby carriage.
u wrote mii and u wud do dat too on my facebook da otha dai. wut does it mean showty?
Special day for you and Luva, I bet.
I still got it!!!
Uh, uh. You were on the receiving end of that injection of baby batter.
I want to respond in depth to the rest of your post, but don't have time at the moment. Chances are Jamstone is 100% correct here. By me taking a stand to drop Bill Russell out of the top 20, with all the evidence I have, I at least make a convincing case that Bill Russell is not top 5 all time, and no one should put him there IMO. Whether you, or anyone, make Bill top 10 or not, is up to you, it's your opinion. Leaving Bill Russell off a top 10 clears room for another deserving player. My top 20 list, linked in my initial post, kept him off at first, but i added him back on in my last post, where I clarified my top 20. However, without more posts in that thread, it's dead and needs more input to keep that discussion alive. that's up to anyone reading this thread, I have already invited Koolaid to give us his top 20.
LOL
Bottom line is, you, like Koolaid don't bother me at all. I joined to get in arguments, and own people who give me . Now, I find the place is at least worth hanging around because good discussions do occur here. There is one going on, once you get past the trivialities. That's ok, that's what you guys do and I have no problem with it. Carry on.
Daddy you're ok. It's Midget who needs an enema.
I smell Goat!
Every fox smells it's own hole.
Then I smell fox.
But when I take appreciation of your scent, I smell Goat!
Breaking down Bill Russell based on a random poll taken in 1970 and consensus among other Spurs fans on Spurstalk? Lol. Putting Duncan hypothetically in the 1960s and claiming Ben Wallace is essentially "the same player??" I really can't think of a dumber assessment. Some people who just don't know the game are just ignorant but to think you know and pontificate this nonsense is just delusional and stupid. Much worse imo.
Phila_Chamberlain makes several good points about Bill although I don't agree with how underwhelmed he appears to be with the impact made. Changing the game is not something that I look back on lightly. It's bigger than posting gaudy regular season stats and breaking statistical records.
As it is Russell won 5 regular season MVP awards and one could assume 10 or 11 Finals MVP awards which wouldn't really bode well for the whole "everyone thought Hondo or Cousy was better" argument.
And Red Auerbach? He didn't coach the last 2 Celtic teams Russell won with, the last of which not only was Bill the head coach, he also defeated his biggest rival, Chamberlain, who had joined forces with 2 players better than Bill (according to Troll).
Amazing to think that 3 individual players far superior to the overrated Bill Russell would still manage to lose to him for the nth time, without Auerbach on their home floor.
Even more amazing that doing what it takes to win the game is undervalued to number worshipping stat boys.
tbh, imho you should go start a thread
the old debate i keep on seeing with players from the 50s-60s compared to the later is if they had access to proper nutrient and gym facilities...nothing has change in weights and ...so whats the problem besides the workout plan?
The fact that the game evolved along the way???
Maybe just that miniscule teeny weeny detail?
I've enjoyed the way NBA game has evolved.
I abhor the same evolution in the NFL & MLB.
It's not that "weightlifting" by itself has changed that much. It's more to the fact that few NBA players weightlifted back in the 50s and 60s at all. In today's NBA, every player lifts weights at least a little bit, and a large percentage of players lift daily, especially in the off-season and do so to get considerably bigger and stronger. You add different diet and nutrition regimens, including weight gainer, along with the evolution of strength and conditioning to include stuff like yoga and pilates and other uncoventional techniques to improve flexibility, agility, and other aspects of athleticism, and you have a pretty significant difference in overall athleticism in the league.
Now take all of those into consideration and then realize that almost all NBA players today make the type of money that allows them to work out like that year round instead of having to take on different jobs in the off-season to supplement their income, where back then even if some of the players didn't have to get another job, they weren't likely working on their game in the off season.
That's your great counterargument?
And I'm on your side in this debate, but that was weak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
