Whitlock slams Amare, Howard...

[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 in Auerbach (the guy the coach of the year award is named after) didn't?

[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 in twig and Karl Malone is built like a gorilla, he easily has 40 pounds on Russell, and would have taken a steamy 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 ap ude 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 ap ude 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 ap ude 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 in Auerbach (the guy the coach of the year award is named after) didn't?

Watch some of those old games (youtube). Auerbach wasn't running anything as sophisticated as the triangle, half court sets were sloppy as , 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 in twig and Karl Malone is built like a gorilla, he easily has 40 pounds on Russell, and would have taken a steamy 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 , 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 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.



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?

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 compe ion 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 compe ion 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.

[midnightpulp]

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



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 bull 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.