Start your franchise with Russell or James?

[Marchesk]

Let's say they're both 22 (when Russell entered the league).

In Russell you have potentially the GOAT defender and GOAT winner. He'll be a league leader in rebounds and blocked shots, along with being an excellent passing big man (4.3 apg). And he can run the floor. He plays to win. Stats and individual accolades don't matter.

You know what you have in James.

So which one do you build your team around?

[SilkkTheShocker]

Obviously LeBron.

"GOAT Winner" doesn't hold much weight when you take into account Russell playing in an extremely weak era.

[OldSkoolball#52]

In Russell you have potentially the GOAT defender and GOAT winner.


:oldlol:


Love how a team achievement in a 9 team league can make you the individual GOAT at an abstract concept.


ISH, now and forever :rockon:

[tpols]

Im taking russell.. will provide excellent culture and leadership, elite defense and rebounding on a level that would make him dominate every frontcourt matchup today.. no chance of him leaving/quitting on my team.

Celtics never won shit for a decade before Russell and then went on a tear once he joined.

[Marchesk]

Obviously LeBron.

"GOAT Winner" doesn't hold much weight when you take into account Russell playing in an extremely weak era.

Then again, Russell's teams were denying Wilt, Oscar, Petit, and West/Baylor teams.

[3peated]

thought this was russell westbrook vs james harden thread until i read "goat winner"

[Fresh Kid]

Russell

[Sakkreth]

Noone knows who's better. But with LeBron you don't risk, you know he would turn out great in today's game, Russell might be better or might be way worse, you just don't know, but you do know LeBron would be great, you can't be sure with Russel about that.

[CavaliersFTW]

Bill Russell without hesitation. Bill Russell psychologically is on an intensity and awareness level that no other player ever reached. You don't win 11 titles 1 Gold Medal and 2 NCAA chips in 14 years by accident.

[Psileas]

:oldlol:


Love how a team achievement in a 9 team league can make you the individual GOAT at an abstract concept.


ISH, now and forever :rockon:


In Russell you have potentially the GOAT defender and GOAT winner.

...

[kurple]

:oldlol:


Love how a team achievement in a 9 team league can make you the individual GOAT at an abstract concept.


ISH, now and forever :rockon:
11 rings against an monster in Wilt

Lebron getting his legacy saved by Manu and Ray Allen in the weakest era ever.

hmmmmmmmmmmm

[kurple]

"GOAT Winner" doesn't hold much weight when you take into account Russell playing in an extremely weak era.
this is the weakest era ever.

teams like the nuggets winning 57 games. and old man duncan leading his team to the finals.

not to mention how embarrasing the east is

[Marchesk]

...

Right, wrong choice of words. Arguably, along with Thurmond.

[scm5]

Lebron 10/10 times.

Russell was great, but everyone overrates him. He played in a 9-man league on a stacked team.

Rebounds: League average today, there are about 80 rebounds to be had during a game. Back in Russell's day, there were around 120.

Points: Today, a team averages just under 100/gm. In Russell's era, they averaged about 115.

Free Throws: Russell was a poor free throw shooter that averaged 56% for his career.

He was a great defensive anchor, but wouldn't be able to provide much more than that in today's game.

Give me Lebron.

[Marchesk]

Points: Today, a team averages just under 100/gm. In Russell's era, they averaged about 115.

Free Throws: Russell was a poor free throw shooter that averaged 56% for his career.

He was a great defensive anchor, but wouldn't be able to provide much more than that in today's game.

Give me Lebron

So Russell averages 16 rebounds instead of 22? He gets 4 blocks a game instead of 7. He can still score 12-14 in today's game. He would still get 4 assists a game.

Russell didn't need to be the primary scorer for Boston most of the time. He did whatever it took to win. That's what mattered to him.

[Harison]

Im taking russell.. will provide excellent culture and leadership, elite defense and rebounding on a level that would make him dominate every frontcourt matchup today.. no chance of him leaving/quitting on my team.

Celtics never won shit for a decade before Russell and then went on a tear once he joined.
This.

There are a lot of lower than Rus on All-time scale players whom I would take over Lebron also, what to speak of Russell.

[moe94]

Russell is, by far, the most overrated player of time.

[Marchesk]

Russell is, by far, the most overrated player of time.

You know, stats, especially scoring stats, aren't everything. Who cares if a guy scores 25+ a game if his teams don't win? Russell's teams won, he did what they needed him do to win, and he's universally attributed as the anchor for that dynasty.

There's more to basketball than the box score. Or any team sport. Some guys have a knack for making their teams better.

[atljonesbro]

Lebron without hesitation. He'd win 15 rings in Russell pitiful era.

[iznogood]

I'm taking Russell Westbrook. LeBron is good though.

[moe94]

Russell's teams won, he did what they needed him do to win, and he's universally attributed as the anchor for that dynasty..

You mean you can win games when there are only 8 other teams and your team is literally fielding bench players into the HoF?

[Marchesk]

Lebron without hesitation. He'd win 15 rings in Russell pitiful era.

Yeah, because Lebron could guard the 5 spot in that era. :lol

Can't imagine what Wilt would do to Lebron.

[CavaliersFTW]

Yeah, because Lebron could guard the 5 sport in that era. :lol

Can't imagine what Wilt would do to Lebron.
Literally would throw Lebron around like a ragdoll getting post position with ease and would shoot over top of him with even moroe ease. Whatever Wilt averaged against 6-8 7-4 wingspan 280lb Wayne Embry, is at the very least what he would average against 6-7.5 7-0 wingspan 260lb Lebron.

[fpliii]

Russell, unquestionably, in this or any other era (due to his abilities as a player, not speaking to his greatness here).

I think I'd take LeBron ahead of any non-big though.

[moe94]

Russell, unquestionably, in this or any other era (due to his abilities as a player, not speaking to his greatness here).

I think I'd take LeBron ahead of any non-big though.

You'd take Tyson Chandler and Marcus Camby over LeBron? Because that's what Russell would be today, if not even worse.

[fpliii]

You'd take Tyson Chandler and Marcus Camby over LeBron? Because that's what Russell would be today, if not even worse.

Did I say or suggest that?

[moe94]

Did I say or suggest that?

Exactly what do you think he would be capable of doing today that you'd take him over LeBron James? I'm curious.

[fpliii]

Exactly what do you think he would be capable of doing today that you'd take him over LeBron James? I'm curious.

Game-changing defense and rebounding. In an era where more mobility is more important on the defensive end, he'd shine as much as he did in his era. The second you put him in today's game, he's privy to advances in training/nutrition/scouting as well. His athleticism/tools at the center position are undeniable and translate generationally, and his BBIQ is unrivaled. He's not a scorer unless you need him to be, but he closed out the 62 Finals with a 30/40 game and set the FG% record for a Finals in 65. Here's a post to griff that might be useful here:

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8850192&postcount=4

Believe what you want, and I'll do the same. As I said, I'll likely take LeBron over any non-big. But Russell and 3 (maybe 4, I go back and forth on Kareem) other centers are coming off my board before anyone else.

[CavaliersFTW]

Exactly what do you think he would be capable of doing today that you'd take him over LeBron James? I'm curious.
He'd be the most versatile (albeit not the most efficient) offensive center in the league in the sense that he can run the floor and handle the ball and run plays designed for multiple positions and he'd be a better rebounder and more impactful defensive player than anyone in the league, capable of delivering multiple championships with a guarantee'd winning culture to one lucky franchise for his entire career whilst simultaneously winning multiple MVP's and re-writing the very definition of what it means to be a modern superstar. A player who's impact is so profound he doesn't need to score points all the time to win games and series for his franchise time after time after time.

[Odinn]

LeBron stans keeping us more surprised. There is no limit for them. Congrats.

[KingBeasley08]

I'd take Tyson Chandler over Bill Russell in today's game.

[Marchesk]

You'd take Tyson Chandler and Marcus Camby over LeBron? Because that's what Russell would be today, if not even worse.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Russell could have scored more than he did if he needed. I think 12 in today's game is low guess. He could do 18.

18/16/4/4 with 1.2 steals on 54% shooting.

[Nash]

Wouldn't Russell be a Anthony Davis type of player today? And who would take Anthony Davis ahead of Lebron? Even if he was a better version than Anthony Davis, Lebron is still better than that.

Also Lebron would also have a bunch of championships if he was playing back then.

Watching youtube clips of Lebron and Russell you notice easily how much better of a player Lebron is. And this is without taking into consideration that the opponents look absolutely terrible from the Russell footage.

[Quickening]

Love how much people are bigging up a player they have probably never watched play, the power of the rings! MY precious :lol

[fpliii]

Here come the alts, love it...peace out. This is why it's a fruitless proposition to discuss past greats on ISH. The site's fine when talking about the present league, but go even a few years back and all logic goes out the window.

[Dbrog]

Not really a fair fight here. Russel is GOAT or at least 2nd GOAT. Lebron best case scenario is likely top5 WHICH IS FCKING NUTS but not at a level of Bill. People need to understand that this is the same as asking if you would pick Lebron or MJ. Obviously you gonna pick MJ, but that doesn't mean Lebron's horrible.

[Mr. Jabbar]

you always avoid lebron to build around cause you also need to surround him with the leagues best players, paycuts etc.

[atljonesbro]

Russell would be basically Javale McGee with higher Iq in today's game.

[moe94]

You guys keep talking about his physical attributes, as if he was a better specimen than David Robinson. D-Rob was better in every single facet, athletically and a considerably much much much better offensive threat, while being one of the greatest defenders of all time. Robinson is destroyed in this place because of his "lack of heart" or whatever BS they use to justify that he never won a ring as the number 1 option. I just don't see how in any circumstance that Russell, today, would make more of an impact than Robinson, which is what some of you clearly believe.

[Dbrog]

Wouldn't Russell be a Anthony Davis type of player today? And who would take Anthony Davis ahead of Lebron? Even if he was a better version than Anthony Davis, Lebron is still better than that.

Also Lebron would also have a bunch of championships if he was playing back then.

Watching youtube clips of Lebron and Russell you notice easily how much better of a player Lebron is. And this is without taking into consideration that the opponents look absolutely terrible from the Russell footage.

How do you know? Elgin Baylor was basically Lebron and look how he fared.

[tpols]

Wouldn't Russell be a Anthony Davis type of player today? And who would take Anthony Davis ahead of Lebron? Even if he was a better version than Anthony Davis, Lebron is still better than that.

Also Lebron would also have a bunch of championships if he was playing back then.

Watching youtube clips of Lebron and Russell you notice easily how much better of a player Lebron is. And this is without taking into consideration that the opponents look absolutely terrible from the Russell footage.
He'd be like Anthony Davis with a Jordan like mean streak/competitiveness combined with Bird/Magic team play/leadership.

[Psileas]

Wouldn't Russell be a Anthony Davis type of player today? And who would take Anthony Davis ahead of Lebron? Even if he was a better version than Anthony Davis, Lebron is still better than that.

Being an X type of player is significantly different from being that player himself. Wade is also a "Jordan type" of player, yet most would take James over Wade but also Jordan over James.

[Dbrog]

You guys keep talking about his physical attributes, as if he was a better specimen than David Robinson. D-Rob was better in every single facet, athletically and a considerably much much much better offensive threat, while being one of the greatest defenders of all time. Robinson is destroyed in this place because of his "lack of heart" or whatever BS they use to justify that he never won a ring as the number 1 option. I just don't see how in any circumstance that Russell, today, would make more of an impact than Robinson, which is what some of you clearly believe.

Misleading information here. Russell is much more comparable to Duncan rather than Robinson. Different playstyles.

[Marchesk]

Also Lebron would also have a bunch of championships if he was playing back then.

Who are Lebron's teammates? You think Lebron by himself is going to do more than Wilt did? Or contribute more than West & Baylor? How many rings did those guys win combined while Russell was playing? One. How many did Oscar win during that dynasty? Zero.

So, who helps Lebron get past the Celtics?

Or you mean swap places. So now the Celtics are going up against Wilt every season in the playoffs. Is Lebron guarding Wilt? :facepalm

That great Celtics teams barely beat Wilt's teams several times in a seven game series. That's with one of the GOAT defensive bigs guarding Wilt. And you think swapping Lebron would mean automatic rings. Wilt would be dropping 45+ on those teams without Russell at center.

[moe94]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

Russell could have scored more than he did if he needed. I think 12 in today's game is low guess. He could do 18.

18/16/4/4 with 1.2 steals on 54% shooting.

A guy who peaked at 19 on 45% in his era is doing 18 on 54% today.

[gts]

Noone knows who's better. But with LeBron you don't risk, you know he would turn out great in today's game, Russell might be better or might be way worse, you just don't know, but you do know LeBron would be great, you can't be sure with Russel about that.

There's certain assumptions made in this type of thread. If you're going to entertain this type of topic then you have to assume if he was great in his era and a dominant force he'd be great and dominant in this era too

[moe94]

you have to assume if he was great in his era and a dominant force he'd be great and dominant in this era too

That makes no sense whatsoever.

[CavaliersFTW]

A guy who peaked at 19 on 45% in his era is doing 18 on 54% today.
He scored 22ppg on over 54% his 2nd year of the NCAA and Wilt Chamberlain is on record saying that Bill Russell 'could' have scored about 26ppg in the NBA had he needed too based on his offensive abilities. He didn't need too though, it wasn't his job, and Russell as he himself so elequently puts "will never distort your defense or your offense". He won't score just to rack up points he will instead try to accomodate what the team needs of him. Boston didn't need high efficiency or volume from him, they needed a guy who will keep the defense honest and fill in gaps whether they be from a guard spot or a forward spot. Russell will score when needed to win, and do whatever else he needs to to win the next night. His Celtics team needed a rebounder more than anything so he rebounded at the highest possible level, his offensive role was versatile and mobile as he often ran the floor but he wasn't needed in that department every night, so he would put up 9 points some nights doing nothing but putbacks and rebounds, 29 points others taking jump shots and hooks - that's why his average is so low compared to his college days where he played a more traditional back to the basket and disciplined style of offense. That's also why his fg% changed in the NBA, he took a wide variety of shots because he did have skill with both hands shooting hooks and he also had a jump shot he'd use. Aside from offensive rebounding and dunks, his offensive skills more resembled that of a forward than they did a traditional center.

[moe94]

Cav, I applaud your tenacity and distorting of anything to fit your agenda, if nothing else. You can make any fault look like a strength and that is unusual and comedic.

[Quickening]

He scored 22ppg on over 54% his 2nd year of the NCAA and Wilt Chamberlain is on record saying that Bill Russell 'could' have scored about 26ppg in the NBA had he needed too based on his offensive abilities. He didn't need too though, it wasn't his job, and Russell as he himself so elequently puts "will never distort your defense or your offense". He won't score just to rack up points he will instead try to accomodate what the team needs of him. Boston didn't need high efficiency or volume from him, they needed a guy who will keep the defense honest and fill in gaps whether they be from a guard spot or a forward spot. Russell will score when needed to win, and do whatever else he needs to to win the next night. His Celtics team needed a rebounder more than anything so he rebounded at the highest possible level, his offensive role was versatile and mobile as he often ran the floor but he wasn't needed in that department every night, so he would put up 9 points some nights doing nothing but putbacks and rebounds, 29 points others taking jump shots and hooks - that's why his average is so low compared to his college days where he played a more traditional back to the basket and disciplined style of offense. That's also why his fg% changed in the NBA, he took a wide variety of shots because he did have skill with both hands shooting hooks and he also had a jump shot he'd use. Aside from offensive rebounding and dunks, his offensive skills more resembled that of a forward than they did a traditional center.

Wilt Chamberlain also killed a mountain lion with his bare hands right... :roll: :roll: :roll: :lol

[atljonesbro]

He scored 22ppg on over 54% his 2nd year of the NCAA and Wilt Chamberlain is on record saying that Bill Russell 'could' have scored about 26ppg in the NBA had he needed too based on his offensive abilities. He didn't need too though, it wasn't his job, and Russell as he himself so elequently puts "will never distort your defense or your offense". He won't score just to rack up points he will instead try to accomodate what the team needs of him. Boston didn't need high efficiency or volume from him, they needed a guy who will keep the defense honest and fill in gaps whether they be from a guard spot or a forward spot. Russell will score when needed to win, and do whatever else he needs to to win the next night. His Celtics team needed a rebounder more than anything so he rebounded at the highest possible level, his offensive role was versatile and mobile as he often ran the floor but he wasn't needed in that department every night, so he would put up 9 points some nights doing nothing but putbacks and rebounds, 29 points others taking jump shots and hooks - that's why his average is so low compared to his college days where he played a more traditional back to the basket and disciplined style of offense. That's also why his fg% changed in the NBA, he took a wide variety of shots because he did have skill with both hands shooting hooks and he also had a jump shot he'd use. Aside from offensive rebounding and dunks, his offensive skills more resembled that of a forward than they did a traditional center.
This is the type of guy who thinks Toni kukoc is better than Lebron cause he played in "golden era"

[Nash]

Who are Lebron's teammates? You think Lebron by himself is going to do more than Wilt did? Or contribute more than West & Baylor? How many rings did those guys win combined while Russell was playing? One. How many did Oscar win during that dynasty? Zero.

So, who helps Lebron get past the Celtics?

Or you mean swap places. So now the Celtics are going up against Wilt every season in the playoffs. Is Lebron guarding Wilt? :facepalm

That great Celtics teams barely beat Wilt's teams several times in a seven game series. That's with one of the GOAT defensive bigs guarding Wilt. And you think swapping Lebron would mean automatic rings. Wilt would be dropping 45+ on those teams without Russell at center.
You are talking about 2013 Lebron sent back to the 50's/60's with all of his skills and the science that athletes have today. The quality of the opponents was not the best back then and if Lebron was in a contender I'm pretty sure he would have been the difference between championships and not. He's already that dominant in todays league where only the best trained athletes make it to the league with there being much, much more active players to chose from.

[Fudge]

I'd probably start my franchise off with any big man in the Top 10 GOAT over any perimeter player, outside of maybe Jordan. So, I'd rather have a guy like Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq over the likes of Bird, Magic, Kobe, Bron, etc.

[CavaliersFTW]

This is the type of guy who thinks Toni kukoc is better than Lebron cause he played in "golden era"
Toni kukoc is a role player, Russell is a GOAT candidate - these are not one in the same, and I do not confuse the two, though it seems you do. Michael Jordan is the GOAT candidate from that era not kukoc.

[HomieWeMajor]

Lebron
No teams full of 6'2 white guys in the league today for Bill to exploit.

[fpliii]

You are talking about 2013 Lebron sent back to the 50's/60's with all of his skills and the science that athletes have today. The quality of the opponents was not the best back then and if Lebron was in a contender I'm pretty sure he would have been the difference between championships and not. He's already that dominant in todays league where only the best trained athletes make it to the league with there being much, much more active players to chose from.

:confusedshrug:

In these hypotheticals, either both are privy to advancements, or neither are. You can't have it both ways if you're starting a franchise and choosing between one. The second you put Russell in today's game he gains the advantages, the second you put LeBron in the 60s he loses them.

[Marchesk]

:confusedshrug:

In these hypotheticals, either both are privy to advancements, or neither are. You can't have it both ways if you're starting a franchise and choosing between one. The second you put Russell in today's game he gains the advantages, the second you put LeBron in the 60s he loses them.

How long do PEDs stay in your system? Plus Lebron can wear his basketball shoes in the time machine, right? Or is it one of those deals where you have to go through naked?

[moe94]

The second you put Russell in today's game he gains the advantages, the second you put LeBron in the 60s he loses them.

In other words, these are meaningless.

[fpliii]

In other words, these are meaningless.

These debates? I guess so. Unless someone believes that mankind has evolved in 50 years (good luck with that...). Great players will be great players in any era, from the shotclock's introduction until today.

I think you'd have to say LeBron with the advantages > Russell without them, but the second they're put in the same draft that is pointless.

[greymatter]

Even if you ignore the intangibles, Russell is still a better piece to build around than James. Russell is the greatest defensive player ever and 2nd greatest rebounder and passer behind Wilt at the center position. His offensive production was only marginally above average, but that was by choice for team chemistry.

In today's game, Russell would easily give you 15-16 rpg, 4+apg, 4+bpg and anywhere from 13-18 ppg depending on how much scoring you want/need from him. His game and IQ allows him more versatility in filling almost any role his teams need. The fact that he doesn't need to ball to dominate a game is what makes him that much more valuable than Lebron could ever be in terms of building around.

[CavaliersFTW]

Even if you ignore the intangibles, Russell is still a better piece to build around than James. Russell is the greatest defensive player ever and 2nd greatest rebounder and passer behind Wilt at the center position. His offensive production was only marginally above average, but that was by choice for team chemistry.

In today's game, Russell would easily give you 15-16 rpg, 4+apg, 4+bpg and anywhere from 13-18 ppg depending on how much scoring you want/need from him. His game and IQ allows him more versatility in filling almost any role his teams need. The fact that he doesn't need to ball to dominate a game is what makes him that much more valuable than Lebron could ever be in terms of building around.
:applause:

[Rose'sACL]

I never compare any player to pre-80s players as I can't prove if they were as good as their stats suggested. You have to actually watch full games to judge a player and really few people have watched full games from those old eras .
You can't judge those players as good or bad based on a few highlight videos by people like cavsftw .
Just stop comparing players who player most of their careers pre-80s to modern era players.
There is a reason no one talks about Russell or wilt in their top 10 as there is no sure way to tell how good they really were.

[CavaliersFTW]

I never compare any player to pre-80s players as I can't prove if they were as good as their stats suggested. You have to actually watch full games to judge a player and really few people have watched full games from those old eras .
You can't judge those players as good or bad based on a few highlight videos by people like cavsftw .
Just stop comparing players who player most of their careers pre-80s to modern era players.
My videos are made so that people CAN freely talk about the players I highlight. U mad?

[MP.Trey]

Russell...





Westbrook







:yaohappy:

[fpliii]

I never compare any player to pre-80s players as I can't prove if they were as good as their stats suggested. You have to actually watch full games to judge a player and really few people have watched full games from those old eras .
You can't judge those players as good or bad based on a few highlight videos by people like cavsftw .
Just stop comparing players who player most of their careers pre-80s to modern era players.

Uh, no? Sorry.

Pre-80s is arbitrary. Why not pre-90s? Really, the current mini-era started in 07-08, why compare anyone before that to today's players?

There's a continuity in the league's history, no steep dropoff. If you don't want to partake in comparisons of "pre-80s" players to "post-80s" players, you don't have to post in these threads. But posting here and categorically dismissing players before some arbitrary cutoff is a no-go.

[Psileas]

I never compare any player to pre-80s players as I can't prove if they were as good as their stats suggested. You have to actually watch full games to judge a player and really few people have watched full games from those old eras .
You can't judge those players as good or bad based on a few highlight videos by people like cavsftw .
Just stop comparing players who player most of their careers pre-80s to modern era players.
There is a reason no one talks about Russell or wilt in their top 10 as there is no sure way to tell how good they really were.

Why did you specifically pick the 80's as a checkpoint? At least according to the criteria you've set, you have to have seen players from the 80's play in order to judge. Well, have you? Have you seen Gervin play? Or does Gervin not count, since he's also played in the 70's? What if someone has seen all players from 1965 and on? Is he allowed to compare?

[Nash]

:confusedshrug:

In these hypotheticals, either both are privy to advancements, or neither are. You can't have it both ways if you're starting a franchise and choosing between one. The second you put Russell in today's game he gains the advantages, the second you put LeBron in the 60s he loses them.
These comparisons have always been meaningless. But the biggest hypthetical is if Russell would be good enough back then, not the other way around because we know Lebron would be even better in the 50s and 60s.

[Psileas]

Uh, no? Sorry.

Pre-80s is arbitrary. Why not pre-90s? Really, the current mini-era started in 07-08, why compare anyone before that to today's players?

There's a continuity in the league's history, no steep dropoff. If you don't want to partake in comparisons of "pre-80s" players to "post-80s" players, you don't have to post in these threads. But posting here and categorically dismissing players before some arbitrary cutoff is a no-go.

Yeah, for example, let's divide history into pre-zone and after-zone eras. At least, this means something more than just throwing out there a random number that sounds cool, like 1980 or "last 30 years".

[fpliii]

These comparisons have always been meaningless. But the biggest hypthetical is if Russell would be good enough back then, not the other way around because we know Lebron would be even better in the 50s and 60s.

According to you, perhaps. In reality, both directions are equally valid, since you don't know how one would perform without today's advantages, or the other with today's advantages.

[Rose'sACL]

Even if you ignore the intangibles, Russell is still a better piece to build around than James. Russell is the greatest defensive player ever and 2nd greatest rebounder and passer behind Wilt at the center position. His offensive production was only marginally above average, but that was by choice for team chemistry.

In today's game, Russell would easily give you 15-16 rpg, 4+apg, 4+bpg and anywhere from 13-18 ppg depending on how much scoring you want/need from him. His game and IQ allows him more versatility in filling almost any role his teams need. The fact that he doesn't need to ball to dominate a game is what makes him that much more valuable than Lebron could ever be in terms of building around.
How is Russell better unless you are a team like Celtics who can just stack talent? This guy talks about James like he is a scrub for playing with wade when Russell played on the most stacked team of all time compared to other teams during that era.
I hate to compare today's players to Russell or wilt but based on what I have read I would take James 10 out of 10 times unless I am Lakers or Celtics of that era and I can outspend everyone else to plug all the offensive needs as Russell should have averaged more even if he had offensive game of current Dwight as the game was really fast paced compared to today.

[Rose'sACL]

Yeah, for example, let's divide history into pre-zone and after-zone eras. At least, this means something more than just throwing out there a random number that sounds cool, like 1980 or "last 30 years".
Are you guys stupid? There are more videos of nba after the 80s and this is why it is easier to judge players.I have no idea why people don't get this.

[IncarceratedBob]

Just because Russell could dominate a game against teams composed mostly of middle aged white dudes doesnt mean he could do it today. LeBron we know can dominate the NBA whilst in its absolute PEAK. I'll go with James.

[Rose'sACL]

My videos are made so that people CAN freely talk about the players I highlight. U mad?
Why are writing like a 12 yr old? I have watched most videos on your channel and really like them but your objective in posting those videos is really wrong as we can't judge players from a few videos. You have to watch 20-30 games against different teams from regular and post season to have even a little idea how good they were.
I get that you are probably a very emotional sports fan who was probably an emotional wreck when James made that decision to leave cavs but let go. You will feel better. You are a good poster but you way too biased to be taken seriously. If you let go of the hate then you will be a top poster on this forum. Don't make sports so seriously.

[Psileas]

Are you guys stupid? There are more videos of nba after the 80s and this is why it is easier to judge players.I have no idea why people don't get this.

Then why didn't you keep this as the sole criterion from the very beginning and tried to add some arbitrary season number, as if there are way more games available from the 1981 NBA compared to the 1979 NBA, at least if you don't want to judge Magic or Bird (or a teammate of them)? You said you don't try to judge players pre-80's, yet, there have been added multiple videos from the 1977, 1978 and 1979 Finals (1977 playoffs, as well).

Not to mention that even viewing the players on video is not really an accurate way of trying to judge them, because we tend to do so by today's standards. It's way better to watch them live, but you have to be neither too young (=youthful enthusiasm blows things out of proportion) nor too old (=biased towards the era you cared more about).

[Rose'sACL]

Then why didn't you keep this as the sole criterion from the very beginning and tried to add some arbitrary season number, as if there are way more games available from the 1981 NBA compared to the 1979 NBA, at least if you don't want to judge Magic or Bird (or a teammate of them)? You said you don't try to judge players pre-80's, yet, there have been added multiple videos from the 1977, 1978 and 1979 Finals (1977 playoffs, as well).

Not to mention that even viewing the players on video is not really an accurate way of trying to judge them, because we tend to do so by today's standards. It's way better to watch them live, but you have to be neither too young (=youthful enthusiasm blows things out of proportion) nor too old (=biased towards the era you cared more about).
Add whatever number you want. I was just saying pre and post 80s as it is easier . at least you get my reason now.
I don't have problem comparing players if at least their peak years has full game videos of a few regular season games and all playoff games.
The reason is that you can see how home scorers give cp3 at least a couple more assists every game. Just think how many players of old era received as there wasn't any video evidence.

[juju151111]

James,Russell isn't winning 11 chips today.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Wow this one's tough. I can't decide.

[Rose'sACL]

Wow this one's tough. I can't decide.
Always go with the player you saw. May be Russell was better. May be wilt was better than Jordan but you just can't prove it like you can prove that mj was actually better than lebron.
Maybe wilt is the goat but it is hard to prove it.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Yeah, because Lebron could guard the 5 spot in that era. :lol

Can't imagine what Wilt would do to Lebron.

Whats it matter? Wilt dominated everyone and all his teams did was lose :oldlol:

[SamuraiSWISH]

On the basketball side of things? LeBron.
On the marketing side of things? LeBron.
On the entertainment side of things? LeBron.

But intangibles? LeBron may very well leave my team high and dry because a lack of testicular fortitude, or character. If I don't have another top five player, and top fifteen player along his side ... he might leave me.

Bill Russell, as a player? Basically a more competitive, intelligent version of Ben Wallace. I need a roster stacked to the brim with HOF talent, and an 8 team league for him to win championships.

So, if I'm a GM and can choose anyone in history? It's neither. Gun to my head? Russell. At least I don't think he would leave me high and dry. He's a respectable man with character.

[Doranku]

If my choices are starting a franchise in the mid '50s with Russell OR starting a franchise in the mid '00s with LeBron... I'll take Russell.

If my choices are starting a franchise in the mid '50s with Russell OR starting a franchise in the mid '50s with LeBron... I'll take LeBron.

If my choices are starting a franchise in the mid '00s with Russell OR starting a franchise in the mid '00s with LeBron... I'll take LeBron.

If my choices are starting a franchise in the mid '00s with Russell OR starting a franchise in the mid '50s with LeBron... I'll take LeBron.










Basically, Russell played in a weak era.

[Greg Oden 50]

Obviously LeBron.

"GOAT Winner" doesn't hold much weight when you take into account Russell playing in an extremely weak era.

LeBron can't led a Team to success :no: :no: :no:
so Russell :applause:

[Greg Oden 50]

this is the weakest era ever.

teams like the nuggets winning 57 games. and old man duncan leading his team to the finals.

not to mention how embarrasing the east is

much tougher than LeBron face :no:

[NumberSix]

People are so delusional.

[Greg Oden 50]

People are so delusional.

LeBron is the most overrated superstars at All time :applause:

[BoutPractice]

The question you have to ask yourself with Russell is: could any other bigman than Russell have won as much as he did, in the same circumstances? (I say "as much" because it's essentially impossible to win more than he did)

In other words, if you're willing to diminish what Russell did, you have to make the argument that the Celtics would have reached the exact same results had he been replaced by say, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Yao Ming or Dwight Howard. You have to argue that all of them would be able to win 11 titles, with 2 as player-coach.

Another way of looking at it: suppose Bill Russell and Tyson Chandler are both available on the market right now. Who do you sign?

As for the "stacked" argument, consider this... the Nets were called "stacked" at the beginning of the year too, and they're 3-10. But of course, if Russell comes on this Nets team and they go all the way, people will retroactively label them "stacked".

Finally, considering scoring and FG%... consider that Andre Drummond is scoring 12 ppg in 33 mpg and on 65% FG...

[AintNoSunshine]

I might get flamed but Russell won't be the same if you insert him into today's game, the game is much much better today

[The-Legend-24]

Bron easily.

Russell won all his shit in a 8 team league ffs. And lol @ GOAT defensive player, put Bron in that era and he would be called the same shit.

[Marchesk]

I might get flamed but Russell won't be the same if you insert him into today's game, the game is much much better today

Including the bigs?

[Marchesk]

And lol @ GOAT defensive player, put Bron in that era and he would be called the same shit.

Last I checked, Lebron isn't a center, and those guys had a bigger impact in the game back then.

But anyway, consult any basketball historian and they will tell you that Russell is in the conversation for GAOT defender. Thurmond is another center from that era who was just as great, if not better on the defensive end.

[rmt]

Tyson Chandler does not belong in the same sentence as Bill Russell. What an insult. At least use Ben Wallace. Chandler, Marcus Camby and Marc Gasol - what a shame to the DPOY award - none of them have anything on Russell.