Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
We like to talk about the 90's were tough and gritty, which they were, but think about this for a second.
When Russell played, the most dominant player in the league was a [B]defensive[/B] player. That would never have happened in the 90's. Teams were great defensively but the teams that won had great offensive talents leading the way. But back then before everyone was shooting deep, and interior defense was the name of the game, a player of Russell's caliber could totally dominate.
I know the 60's weren't as "physical" as the 90's, but it does speak volumes that defense was just as important as offense and that a great defensive player could be the difference maker. Compare that to now, that would never fukking happen. Defense is important sure but everyone knows the defense is at a huge handicap right now.
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
Let's be real, while Russell was an absolutely integral part to the Celtics dynasty, he also had a significant talent advantage over the rest of the league for the majority of his career.
While I acknowledge he wasn't nearly as competitive or mentally tough as Russell was, Wilt was clearly the most dominant player in the league in the 60's, he was putting up numbers that seem unreal.
While I don't think they win 11 titles, you swap Wilt & Russell and Wilt would be the one with a handful of rings. I would always be curious how Russell would do in Wilt's place, esp pre '67.
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15022215]Let's be real, while Russell was an absolutely integral part to the Celtics dynasty, he also had a significant talent advantage over the rest of the league for the majority of his career.
While I acknowledge he wasn't nearly as competitive or mentally tough as Russell was, Wilt was clearly the most dominant player in the league in the 60's, he was putting up numbers that seem unreal.
While I don't think they win 11 titles, you swap Wilt & Russell and Wilt would be the one with a handful of rings. I would always be curious how Russell would do in Wilt's place, esp pre '67.[/QUOTE]
It's hard to argue. You could probably make the case for both of them. They're the Magic/Bird of their era. For a lot of people it's a coin flip.
Be that as it may, even if you wanna concede that Wilt was the better player, Russell was able to swing the pendulum with his defense.
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
Defense is a subject we never get too in depth with in hoops discussions it seems. I sorta agree with rhe idea that a defender cant be the best player in this era, however im reserving the right to change my mind once we see what wemby evolves into. Also the 60s were an even tougher era than the 90s if you ask the guys who player then. Its eerily similar to the 90s vs now discussion. Guards basically weren't allowed in the paint and players rarely were punished for fighting let alone hard fouls. On a sidenote I think today's defensive elite are better than their predecessors. Think about some of these guys can still lock players down without being able to handcheck or hard foul guys with impunity. Playing defense with your hands all over a guy is alot easier than the alternative.
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15022215]Let's be real, while Russell was an absolutely integral part to the Celtics dynasty, he also had a significant talent advantage over the rest of the league for the majority of his career.
While I acknowledge he wasn't nearly as competitive or mentally tough as Russell was, Wilt was clearly the most dominant player in the league in the 60's, he was putting up numbers that seem unreal.
While I don't think they win 11 titles, you swap Wilt & Russell and Wilt would be the one with a handful of rings. I would always be curious how Russell would do in Wilt's place, esp pre '67.[/QUOTE]
Im with you on Wilt being the better player of the 2, but I will say Russell is severely underrated for his abilities. I think he was a better scorer than his numbers show because they didn't need him to score, the 60s Celtics were never lacking firepower. His passing was much better than advertised and he just might have been the intangibles goat lol. He literally player coached his way to 2 chips. One of the more understated nba flexes.
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
Yeah. Funny enough the one title Wilt wins in the 60s happened to be his 2nd lowest scoring year of the decade (24.1ppg). I reckon Wilt paired with Havlicek, Sam Jones and Cousy would have racked up some titles pretty handily.
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
How far down the list of ATGs do you have to go before you find the next 15ppg 44% scorer?
Re: Something we often don't consider about Russell's era
[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15022215]Let's be real, while Russell was an absolutely integral part to the Celtics dynasty, he also had a significant talent advantage over the rest of the league for the majority of his career.
While I acknowledge he wasn't nearly as competitive or mentally tough as Russell was, Wilt was clearly the most dominant player in the league in the 60's, he was putting up numbers that seem unreal.
While I don't think they win 11 titles, you swap Wilt & Russell and Wilt would be the one with a handful of rings. I would always be curious how Russell would do in Wilt's place, esp pre '67.[/QUOTE]
Did he though? Are his teammates hofers because they were all time greats or because they played with russell? Is he not that great because of the talent around him? Probably somewhere in between
