Lebron + Melo + Kobe + Nash + Shaq =

[Marchesk]

http://www.photofile.com/SportsProducts/Photos/aafq036.jpg

[navy]

Id legit take all those players over Bill Russell. Even Melo.

[3ball]

Id legit take all those players over Bill Russell. Even Melo.
i'm tellin ya brah, basketball's a lot more complicated than ur making it out to be... but carry on

[Marchesk]

Id legit take all those players over Bill Russell. Even Melo.

You'd take Melo over the greatest winner of all-time? :biggums: :coleman: :rolleyes: :facepalm

[navy]

You'd take the greatest winner of all-time over Melo? :biggums: :coleman: :rolleyes: :facepalm

You can say this for Bill Russell. At least he never lost the MVP to a 6 foot white point guard.
Yes. Weak era and a stacked team. Not impressed.

Melo in the 60s? 6 rings. Russel today? Poor mans Tyson Chandler.

[Marchesk]

Melo in the 60s? 6 rings.

:roll:

Melo would beat out Wilt, Oscar, Baylor and West for six rings? Dude isn't even better than Gus Johnson (overall).

[navy]

:roll:

Melo would beat out Wilt, Oscar, Baylor and West for six rings? Dude isn't even better than Gus Johnson (overall).
Probably plays with those guys tbh. :confusedshrug:

[Marchesk]

Russel today? Poor mans Tyson Chandler.

Yeah, because Tyson Chandler is known for his high BB IQ and great intangibles.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'd take Sha

[RoundMoundOfReb]

I'd take Shaq and LeBron over Russell for sure. I'd consider Kobe as well.

[navy]

Yeah, because Tyson Chandler is known for his high BB IQ and great intangibles.
In other words dude was on a stacked team in a weak era and I cant possibly think of real reasons why he's better than Tyson Chandler. :oldlol:

[KembaWalker]

Yes. Weak era and a stacked team. Not impressed.

Melo in the 60s? 6 rings. Russel today? Poor mans Tyson Chandler.

Even Tyson Chandler has more rings then Melo...:rockon:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Russell was a considerably better passer than Tyson Chandler. And honestly, I'd take Tyson over Melo this season easily.

[Marchesk]

I'd take Shaq and LeBron over Russell for sure. I'd consider Kobe as well.

Top 10 all-time players, so your preference. Melo, though? :wtf:

[navy]

Russell was a considerably better passer than Tyson Chandler. And honestly, I'd take Tyson over Melo this season easily.
Alright. Russell = Joakim Noah.

Happy? :coleman:

[RoundMoundOfReb]

Alright. Russell = Joakim Noah.

Happy? :coleman:

More athletic than Noah. I'd say a better shot blocking KG without the Jumper.

[3ball]

I'd take Shaq and LeBron over Russell for sure. I'd consider Kobe as well.
seems fine on the surface, but none of those guys win 9 rings in the 60's (including 8 in a row) replacing Russell on those Celtics teams.

shaq isn't beating wilt as many times as Russell did, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE those talented boston teams don't play nearly as high a level of basketball with Shaq on there instead of Russell.

with Shaq or Lebron on those teams, they'd win several rings, but some years it would be like the 2002-2006 olympics and world championships, where the chemistry and brand of basketball being played wasn't that high.

[navy]

More athletic than Noah. I'd say a better shot blocking KG without the Jumper.
You're not taking into account the quality of blocks to be had though. Garnett on the 60s Celtics? 12 rings.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

seems fine on the surface, but none of those guys win 9 rings in the 60's (including 8 in a row) replacing Russell on those Celtics teams.

shaq isn't beating wilt as many times as Russell did, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE those talented boston teams don't play nearly as high a level of basketball with Shaq on there instead of Russell.

with Shaq or Lebron on those teams, they'd win several rings, but some years it would be like the 2002-2006 olympics and world championships, where the chemistry and brand of basketball being played wasn't that high.

Does Russell win the title with the 2000 Lakers? i don't think so. I know you hate LeBron, but this is a terrible argument against Shaq.

[3ball]

Does Russell win the title with the 2000 Lakers? i don't think so. I know you hate LeBron, but this is a terrible argument against Shaq.
it goes both ways - russell can't carry a team like Shaq, but Shaq can't fit into a team like Russell and lead a team that plays such a high brand of basketball.

no shaq led team (or lebron led team) is ever capable of playing as anywhere near as high a brand of basketball that Russell's teams played (or Duncan's, for that matter).

the high brand of basketball beats talent every time - this has been the consistent trend throughout history with many examples.

Bill Russell's 60's teams would destroy Shaq's 2000 teams.

[RoundMoundOfReb]

2001 Lakers are one of the best teams of all time. They wouldn't get "destroyed" by anyone.

[navy]

2001 Lakers are one of the best teams of all time. They wouldn't get "destroyed" by anyone.
lol at Shaq not winning on those Celtics teams.

[3ball]

2001 Lakers are one of the best teams of all time. They wouldn't get "destroyed" by anyone.


but once he got to the Finals, Shaq always benefited from a weaker Eastern Conference - throughout history, most championship teams had to face a tough team in the conference finals, and then another tough team in the Finals - but Shaq only had to face tough teams in the conference Finals.. In the Finals, Shaq has faced the weakest competition of any superstar with multiple rings (Philly in 2001, New Jersey 2002, Dallas 2006).

if they faced Russell's 60's Celtics, who defeated Wilt like it was their job, Shaq gets destroyed.

thoroughly blown out - the exact same type of blowout we see all the time when a team that relies on talent, gets destroyed by a team playing a pure, superior brand of basketball (see the 1995 Finals, 1998 WCF, 2002 World Championships, 2004 Finals, 2004 Olympics, 2006 World Championships, 2011 Finals, and 2014 Finals).

honestly, if the star-less 2004 Pistons can destroy a shaq-led team, what would the 60's Celtics do?.. they had a bevy of all-stars, a GOAT coach, the best brand of pure, team basketball available, and a guy just like Ben Wallace, only with better offense and defense.
.

[Knicksfever2010]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1OMiSrEJXnY/R5EA5fAVbsI/AAAAAAAAFl4/NzIPs-eJhMA/s400/Gus%2BJohnson.gif

[Practice?]

Id legit take all those players over Bill Russell. Even Melo.

:roll:

[ralph_i_el]

Brian Scalabrine on the 60's Celtic.....12 Rings

But really though, it's impossible to compare players from such different eras, especially when most of the people doing the comparing weren't alive for Russell's career. I've only seen a little footage of him and listened to stories from my grandpa who watched him play live in college.

Not nearly enough information to form an opinion on.

[3ball]

Not nearly enough information to form an opinion on.


none of you guys can tell me the NBA's pre-2001 policy on paint-camping, yet you say you're certain today's rules don't allow less paint-camping.

how could you know? you don't have any information to go on, let alone nearly enough.

also, to form a reasonable projection that Russell's teams would win, it's enough to know that Russell played on loaded teams who played smart, team ball with a great coach - those types of teams beat Shaq-led teams that rely mostly on his ability and aren't contributing as equitably as a team.. i.e. 1995 Finals - Shaq's team is loaded, they get swept by a less talented team playing better team ball... Ditto 1998 WCF... Ditto 2004 Finals (5-0 sweep).
.