Russell to LeBron: "Thank you for leaving me off your Mt. Rushmore."

He said that? Sounds mad as fcuk! Of course now he's not salty, but its "ether" lmfao...

[QUOTE=Pointguard] [B][I]There isn't one player that has ever [SIZE="5"]said[/SIZE] they patterned their game after Russell.[/I][/B] [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Actually you can pattern your game after Russell by observing the details of how he does things. How to keep blocks inbounds... the art and science of help and recover, all the little tricks to help you be a threat but still be able to protect the basket... the best timing and technique on blocks, when and how to jump... how to use your lower body (your posterior, in fact) to gain position on the block on offense, and how to deny position on defense... how to screen properly, how to do a good outlet pass etc.

Effort is only one part of defense. There is a lot of skill involved. Same thing with off the ball offense.[/QUOTE]
Yea.. none of that is sexy or appealing. Most players especially young guys have a selfish mentality. They arent looking to be leaders and master finer points of the game. Theyre trying to score and put up stats, get paid, dunk on people..

Rebounders and defenders dont get paid or attention like scorers.. which is why scoring/offense in general is the most emulated thing.


Nobody's showing off their screening skills at the park..

[QUOTE=pauk]There is really only one definite player who should be in everybodies mt. Rushmore and that is MJ, the rest is virtually impossible to make without always leaving at least 1-2 guys "who should be there instead".[/QUOTE]


No not really. It should definitely be Jordan AND Russell, and the other two spots are debatable IMO. I don't see what argument there is that Russell should not be there. Greatest winner, exemplifies team play, unselfishness, and defense and in his time was universally regarded as the best player in the league, which is really the biggest reason why someone like Oscar, or even Wilt, has no place being picked ahead of Russell in a list like this. Sure, there's arguments about his offense and him having such greater teammates then his peers, which have shown to be dumb arguments and proven wrong for the most part. And sure, you can argue that his era wasn't as difficult, which I would agree with, but fact remains he was a pioneer and his era really set the motion for the NBA to be a great league and it wouldn't be right to not include someone from his era with the league still being relatively young. Its one thing if the league has been around for hundreds of years, but it hasn't.

[QUOTE=JohnFreeman]Anyone would win in the era Russell played in.[/QUOTE]



then why didn't they?

[QUOTE=BuffaloBill]then why didn't they?[/QUOTE]
Because they weren't born yet.


Keep it real. Roy Hibbert would absolutely dominate Bill Russell.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Because they weren't born yet.


Keep it real. Roy Hibbert would absolutely dominate Bill Russell.[/QUOTE]
You could have at least chose someone who can score a basket. This is the weakest big men era of all time, including russells era. Wilt would throw Hibbert around like a rag doll and Russell would hold him to 1/8 shooting.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]Because they weren't born yet.


Keep it real. Roy Hibbert would absolutely dominate Bill Russell.[/QUOTE]


The way I see it, I'm not gonna say Russell couldn't be the same player he was back then in today's game. I mean if guys like Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman can do it, why not Russell.

But there's no question most decent 'modern bigs' like Hibbert or Varajao could have the impact Russell had back then. The competition simply was not that great. There were 9 teams, and most of them had players who wouldn't even get a D-1 scholarship today.

[QUOTE=KyrieTheFuture]You could have at least chose someone who can score a basket. This is the weakest big men era of all time, including russells era. Wilt would throw Hibbert around like a rag doll and Russell would hold him to 1/8 shooting.[/QUOTE]


Nope, wrong.

The reason this era for big men is 'weak' is because of how the game has changed. Wing players have been given more freedom in attacking the basket, as well as launching threes, so the focus for centers is on defense. Paint scoring is typically done from the PF position now. If there were no threes everyone would still throw the ball into the post, but that's not the approach these days.

The players who come over to double a center are also longer and more athletic now. Kareem and Wilt didn't have to worry about guys like Josh Smith or Lebron coming over to help.

If you drop Andrew Bogut into 1968 he's dropping 30 every game if his team asks him to. And swatting midgets all day.


There are billions of people worldwide to pick basketball players from now. You really think they can't find ANYONE who could do the things the tall dudes in 1973 could do? They just prioritize different things now, and being tall doesn't equate to virtual automatic dominance like it used to.

It's just reality.

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]Nope, wrong.

The reason this era for big men is 'weak' is because of how the game has changed. Wing players have been given more freedom in attacking the basket, as well as launching threes, so the focus for centers is on defense. Paint scoring is typically done from the PF position now. If there were no threes everyone would still throw the ball into the post, but that's not the approach these days.

The players who come over to double a center are also longer and more athletic now. Kareem and Wilt didn't have to worry about guys like Josh Smith or Lebron coming over to help.

If you drop Andrew Bogut into 1968 he's dropping 30 every game if his team asks him to. And swatting midgets all day.


It's just reality.[/QUOTE]
I already know you're a troll so I won't bother explaining why you're wrong, there are several posters who can do it better than me anyway.

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]The way I see it, I'm not gonna say Russell couldn't be the same player he was back then in today's game. I mean if guys like Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman can do it, why not Russell.

But there's no question most decent 'modern bigs' like Hibbert or Varajao could have the impact Russell had back then. The competition simply was not that great. There were 9 teams, and most of them had players who wouldn't even get a D-1 scholarship today.[/QUOTE]
The thing that annoys me about Russell is that his delusion knows no bounds. Like, have some perspective. Yeah, you won 11 titles in an 8 team D-League. Congrats. But this guy once said in the 90s when the league had 27 teams something to the effect of "if I played in this era, I'd still win 11 championships or maybe more" and he was being dead serious.

[QUOTE=Akrazotile]The way I see it, I'm not gonna say Russell couldn't be the same player he was back then in today's game. I mean if guys like Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman can do it, why not Russell.

[B]But there's no question most decent 'modern bigs' like Hibbert or Varajao could have the impact Russell had back then. The competition simply was not that great. There were 9 teams, and most of them had players who wouldn't even get a D-1 scholarship today.[/[/B]QUOTE]

In 1965 Bill Russell won his 5th MVP, was all NBA first team, and led the league in rebounding. In the half court the Celtics' offense was run through him. The Celtics' starting pg avg. 5.6apg. Russell avg. 5.3apg. Russell led the team in assists in the playoffs and avg. 18/25/6 on an NBA record 70.5fg% in the Finals. (Neither Rodman nor Ben Wallace ever had the team's offense run through them.) The following players were starting centers and his "not so great competiton" as you put it that season.

Wilt Chamberlain
Willis Reed
Walt Bellamy
Nate Thurmond (Became starter after Wilt was traded)

So we have a 9 team league, and over half of them (Russell's Celtics included) have a Hall of Fame starting center. With 9 teams, that means you play a minimum of 7 games (depending on the division) against each team. More than half of your games are against a Hall of Fame center. How many games against Hall of Fame centers does Howard, Hibbert or Noah play today? Please list me one center in today's game that you know is better than either one of those four centers that Russell faced in more than half of his games in 1965.

[QUOTE=NumberSix]The thing that annoys me about Russell is that his delusion knows no bounds. Like, have some perspective. Yeah, you won 11 titles in an 8 team D-League. Congrats. But this guy once said in the 90s when the league had 27 teams something to the effect of "if I played in this era, I'd still win 11 championships or maybe more" and he was being dead serious.[/QUOTE]

The same way MJ or people from his era claim that he would easily avg. 40ppg in the league today and are serious?

[QUOTE=jlip]The same way MJ or people from his era claim that he would easily avg. 40ppg in the league today and are serious?[/QUOTE]
No, because Jordan already did 37. He could feasibly do 40 with the relaxed defences of today if he was chucking it away on a fast paced team.

Can't believe Lebron put Oscar on the Mount Rushmore thing, that guy is a bonafide empty stat padder. I guess Lebron aspires to be that. :confusedshrug:

The Mount Rushmore should be:
The Greatest Player
The Greatest Rivalry in the greatest era (80s) that revitalized the NBA to new heights
The Greatest Winner