Phil Jackson picks Bill Russell over MJ & basically says MJ or Kobe is a pick 'em

[QUOTE=Mr. I'm So Rad]No surprise. If given the choice, Phil would also take Shaq over MJ. He's always felt that basketball is a big man's game.[/QUOTE]

Yup, he even said a few years ago he would take Dwight over LeBron to build a team.

[QUOTE=Ne 1]Not that I care what Phil thinks, I form my own opinions and saying something is true just because Phil Jackson said so is a fallacious argument. But Kobe all the usual Kobe detractors were quoting Phil like his words were gospel from the bible when it fit their agenda, but now that he says he was willing to flip a coin because Kobe and Mike were both so dominating, you haters don't like it and say "who cares what Phil says, he's just trying to appease Kobe". :oldlol:




Uh, no. Kobe/Phil have already talked about this

Kobe has SMALL HANDS and can't control the ball when going to the basket like Mike. Kobe doesn't take tougher shots cause he's not smart or has a low basketball IQ, he just didn't get the same physical gifts as Jordan or LeBron. He's already on the record saying that if he had bigger hands, that he would take it to the basket every play and dunk the ball or lay it up. He just can't do it because he didn't win the genetic lottery like LeBron or Mike.

Which is why him being who he is becomes so impressive. This is a guy with average-good athleticism, but not the outta this world athleticism that Mike, LeBron or even Vince Carter have, yet he's been able to place himself right there with Bron and MJ. That is why I respect and admire Kobe. He dedicated time to develop his skills and worked around his short-comings. He isn't who he is because he's an anomaly of biology like LeBron James who simply cannot be stopped because he's a 6'8" 270 pound freak of nature with the speed and agility of a 6'4 200 pound point guard.[/QUOTE]


becuase Kobe is so skilled. Which is why I respect Larry Bird as well.

[QUOTE=tikay0]Yeah, but when I think of Russell, I think of a crazy athletic specimen that's flying up and down the court, wreaking havoc.

In a way yes, Gasol can be compared to Russ, but aesthetically wise, Gasol is too lumbering for me to compare the 2.

What about a 200-300x better version of Kenneth Faried with much better offensive awareness?[/QUOTE]
Would Russell be like KG?

Both absurd defenders and can guard out to half court, great rebounder, great vocal leaders, great passing, and the weakest part of their overall games was scoring but they still did that at a high level.

They have the same body frames too.

[QUOTE=ThaRegul8r]Walton received comparisons to Russell both in UCLA and at Portland, and if I remember correctly, I think Russell himself was asked about it while he was a commentator. It wasn't to the extent that, to give more modern examples, [B]David Robinson at Navy or Patrick Ewing at Georgetown were hyped as "next Bill Russells" before setting foot in the NBA[/B], but Walton was likened to Russell during Walton's short-lived prime due to their outlet passing, defense and making teams better, and I remember a couple people saying afterward that Walton was the only center who came closest to Russell's impact. [B]I could send you some stuff later, if you wish.[/B][/QUOTE]

The bolded is what I had in mind. During his UCLA days, there seems to have been some chatter of him being 'Russell on defense, Chamberlain on offense', but I haven't seen anything likening him to Russ directly. If you have a chance later on, I'd definitely like to take you up on that offer.

I just did a few quick searches ("next Bill Russell", "next Russell", "second coming of Bill Russell", "second coming of Russell"), and got the following results:

Artis Gilmore: 1
Len Elmore: 4
Cliff Ray: 1
Patrick Ewing: 14
Ralph Sampson: 1
David Robinson: 1
Alonzo Mourning: 1

so I decided to do look more closely into Walton's UCLA days. There are some comparisons to Walton (i.e. "similar impact", "the next great center", "he can be like what Russell was for those Celtics teams"), etc.), but not many direct stylistic comparisons. I'll look again when I have some free time. Here's the link with the PDFs used in the above count:

[url]http://www75.zippyshare.com/v/42050006/file.html[/url]

(NOTE: PDF results generally tail off after the mid-90s, so these aren't representative of the discussion thereafter).

[QUOTE=tpols]Would Russell be like KG?

Both absurd defenders and can guard out to half court, great rebounder, great vocal leaders, great passing, and the weakest part of their overall games was scoring but they still did that at a high level.

They have the same body frames too.[/QUOTE]

Great comparison. KG is arguably the best defender of our generation. I definitely see the comparisons.

[QUOTE]Jackson dodged when asked to select between Jordan and Lakers guard Kobe Bryant[/QUOTE]
wonder why :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=tikay0]Yeah, but when I think of Russell, I think of a crazy athletic specimen that's flying up and down the court, wreaking havoc.

In a way yes, Gasol can be compared to Russ, but aesthetically wise, Gasol is too lumbering for me to compare the 2.

What about a 200-300x better version of Kenneth Faried with much better offensive awareness?[/QUOTE]

Maybe a Dwight-Noah-old Duncan hybrid (without Duncan's jumpshot) would be a nice Russell-lite? You get the athleticism/rebounding/interior presence (Dwight), versatility/passing/hustle (Noah) and intelligence/craftiness/will to win (Duncan).

[QUOTE=fpliii]Maybe a Dwight-Noah-old Duncan hybrid (without Duncan's jumpshot) would be a nice Russell-lite? You get the athleticism/rebounding/interior presence (Dwight), versatility/passing/hustle (Noah) and intelligence/craftiness/will to win (Duncan).[/QUOTE]

:applause: Awesome comparison. Russell was indeed that dang good. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=tpols]Would Russell be like KG?

Both absurd defenders and can guard out to half court, great rebounder, great vocal leaders, great passing, and the weakest part of their overall games was scoring but they still did that at a high level.

They have the same body frames too.[/QUOTE]
That's also a good comparison.

From the games I've seen of Russell, he's like Noah on steroids. Great defender, rebounder, team player, very quick for his size, surprising ball handler and amazing passer.

There's also a bit of KG, but without the midrange J and with more dominant defense. Less theatrics too.

One last comparison I would throw around is Duncan. Like Timmy, he's a superstar who cares about the little details that don't get noticed by casual fans but win championships, plays with his mind as much as with his body, and always moves with purpose on the court.

[QUOTE=fpliii]Maybe a Dwight-Noah-old Duncan hybrid (without Duncan's jumpshot) would be a nice Russell-lite? You get the athleticism/rebounding/interior presence (Dwight), versatility/passing/hustle (Noah) and intelligence/craftiness/will to win (Duncan).[/QUOTE]
That as well.

I'm starting to think Phil is just talking out his arse. This nikka just saying crap now to get a buzz

I love reading comments like this from people like Phil who actually have experience with both the "old" and more modern eras. He actually faced Russell at the end of Russell's career, and probably grew up as a fan of his. So to him, Russell is not some old guy who is only known by some stats on basketball reference.com. He saw Russell's genius and dominance and is in a great position to appreciate how great he truly was.

Also, much like Pippen, Phil Jackson has a relationship with MJ that fans don't understand. Phil wasn't a "fan" of MJ's. He was his coach. From Phil's perspective MJ is not some perfect basketball "god." He saw the flawed, losing MJ whom he had to teach to be more unselfish and trusting of his teammates. He remembers having to pull MJ aside in the 4th quarter of game 5 of the '91 Finals and tell him to pas to an open Paxson instead of trying to win it himself. He saw the player whom he had to help become a winner. So to Phil, it's not, "MJ is the clear GOAT. He is 6 for 6 in the Finals." as some fans like to say. To Phil, it's, "I helped him go 6 for 6 in the Finals. It's not just his greatness alone. He may not have been this successful if he hadn't learned to listen to me."

[QUOTE=tpols]Would Russell be like KG?

Both absurd defenders and can guard out to half court, great rebounder, great vocal leaders, great passing, and the weakest part of their overall games was scoring but they still did that at a high level.

They have the same body frames too.[/QUOTE]
Bill Russell was a terrible offensive player, just Garnett is adequate at that aspect.

[QUOTE=jlip]I love reading comments like this from people like Phil who actually have experience with both the "old" and more modern eras. He actually faced Russell at the end of Russell's career, and probably grew up as a fan of his. So to him, Russell is not some old guy who is only known by some stats on basketball reference.com. He saw Russell's genius and dominance and is in a great position to appreciate how great he truly was.

Also, much like Pippen, Phil Jackson has a relationship with MJ that fans don't understand. Phil wasn't not a "fan" of MJ's. He was his coach. From Phil's perspective MJ is not some perfect basketball "god." He saw the flawed, losing MJ whom he had to teach to be more unselfish and trusting of his teammates. He remembers having to pull MJ aside in the 4th quarter of game 5 of the '91 Finals and tell him to pas to an open Paxson instead of trying to win it himself. He saw the player whom he had to help become a winner. So to Phil, it's not, "MJ is the clear GOAT. He is 6 for 6 in the Finals." as some fans like to say. To Phil, it's, "I helped him go 6 for 6 in the Finals. It's not just his greatness alone. He may not have been this successful if he hadn't learned to listen to me."[/QUOTE]
Great insight.

[QUOTE=jlip]I love reading comments like this from people like Phil who actually have experience with both the "old" and more modern eras. He actually faced Russell at the end of Russell's career, and probably grew up as a fan of his. So to him, Russell is not some old guy who is only known by some stats on basketball reference.com. He saw Russell's genius and dominance and is in a great position to appreciate how great he truly was.

Also, much like Pippen, Phil Jackson has a relationship with MJ that fans don't understand. Phil wasn't not a "fan" of MJ's. He was his coach. From Phil's perspective MJ is not some perfect basketball "god." He saw the flawed, losing MJ whom he had to teach to be more unselfish and trusting of his teammates. He remembers having to pull MJ aside in the 4th quarter of game 5 of the '91 Finals and tell him to pas to an open Paxson instead of trying to win it himself. He saw the player whom he had to help become a winner. So to Phil, it's not, "MJ is the clear GOAT. He is 6 for 6 in the Finals." as some fans like to say. To Phil, it's, "I helped him go 6 for 6 in the Finals. It's not just his greatness alone. He may not have been this successful if he hadn't learned to listen to me."[/QUOTE]


Or maybe Phil wouldn't have become the winning coach he did without MJ. Phil wouldn't have had NO cred without MJ leading those teams to titles. It ain't like Phil ever took a team like the Raptors to the Finals.

Russell was most definitely NOT a terrible offensive player. There's a lot more to offense than scoring. He was no Ben Wallace...

PJax didn't say Russ was better. He just said he would pick him if he was starting a team. He made no mention of "GOAT" or who is better.

[QUOTE=S13M]First he said MJ was better, but now he can't make a decision on who to pick?[/QUOTE]

A lot of the sports media is saying Phil picked Russell because he was tired of hurting Kobe's feelings. He saw how badly all the Jordan comparisons and love thrashing got to Kobe (via twitter). Not sure I believe that, but still hilarious anyway. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=sportjames23]Or maybe Phil wouldn't have become the winning coach he did without MJ. Phil wouldn't have had NO cred without MJ leading those teams to titles. It ain't like Phil ever took a team like the Raptors to the Finals.[/QUOTE]

You're totally missing my point. My point is not that Phil single-handedly turned some incompetent loser into a champion through his coaching genius. My point is Phil doesn't view MJs resume' and career as [B][U]just[/U][/B] the result of MJ's greatness either, which is basically how the average fan sees things when they start rattling off the case for a player's GOAT status. Phil sees MJ's greatness, not as a star- strucked impressed fan. He sees it as the result of a process which he greatly contributed to.

It's kind of like the big brother of a superstar. The average fan only knows that superstar as a superstar and is totally enamored by his/her greatness. The fan wants the superstar's autograph, to take a picture with him/ her, or screams in excitement when they see this celebrity.

The big brother doesn't do that. The big brother is like, "I remember when I used to beat you up back in the day, and mama used to wipe your nose. I grew up with you, and remember when you weren't so popular. I helped you get where you are by taking you to practice and everything." Phil is like MJs big brother in this case. He's not the fan.

[B]Russel Was The Best Defensive Player Ever and Among the GOAT Rebounders But He Wasn