Printable View
I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.
[QUOTE=jlip;14425640]I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.[/QUOTE]
Who is in your tier 1? Who would you vote for if you had to pick one?
[QUOTE=jlip;14425640]I am burned out with debates which is why I rarely ever post lengthy rebuttals anymore, but the disrespect to Russell I'm seeing in this thread is hilarious. The older posters such as G.O.A.T. and ThaRegul8r especially, would easily tear several of the anti- Russell arguments to shreds. With that being said, I don't really do rankings anymore. I have tiers, and anybody on my tier 1 has a legitimate case for GOAT.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't aware that pointing out how stacked Russell's teams always were is disrespectful. No one's out here claiming he's not a great player. He absolutely was. But he has no legitimate case for being a GOAT, at least not based on the body of work being presented to us.
I will ask you this question dankok8.
If you put Kareem on Russell's teams from 1957 to 1969 how many rings do you think he wins.
Kareem was unreal defensively in his first 5 years in the NBA as he led the Bucks to basically being the NBA's best defence for four straight years from 71 to 74.
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?
Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.
Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors
Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.[/QUOTE]
Heinson finished between 10th and 14th in the league in PPG 7 times and when it came to FT's, he was great, finishing top-5 in FT% 2 times, and top-12 in FT% 5 times.
He could really shoot for his era & he was a quite versatile scorer (long-range jumpers, driving lay-ups, great hook shots with both hands, etc.
Heinson also won the '57 Rookie Of The Year over teammate Bill Russell and as a rookie, Heinsohn lead the Celtics in post-season scoring with 22.9 ppg (in Game 7 of the '57 Finals, he had 37 points and 23 rebounds),
Becoming the only rookie to ever lead a championship team in scoring in either the regular or post-season.
He lead 4 more Boston champions in scoring (in the regular or post-season); only Jordan topped the 5 times that Heinsohn accomplished this (6).
[QUOTE=Dbrog;14425314]66’ Celts went through Oscar, then Wilt, then West/Baylor. How is that not legitly one of the toughest runs to the chip ever?
Russell played alongside Bob Cousey, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, KC Jones, Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, John Havlicek, and Bailey Howell who are in the hall.
Take the Russell away and only Cousy, Sharman and Havlicek are in the Hall. Sam never becomes the player he was, same for Heinsohn. Howell doesn't have the resume and KC and Ramsey don't even get consideration. It's such a farce to me to insinuate Russell was always playing on the KD/Curry stacked warriors
Edit: I'll never understand how so many people can diss a guy like Russell, who comes to a franchise with no rings, wins his rookie year then 9 of the next 11 years, watches every player on the team when he got there leave and be replaced, then wins in his last season and then the next season his team misses the playoffs for the first time since he got there.[/QUOTE]
Sam Jones doesn't get enough respect.
At the time he was considered a top ten player, only Oscar and Jerry would have been rated above him at guard and the consensus was that he would have been an even bigger star had he not been on the Celtics super team.
While Sam Jones didn't average more than 15 ppg in a season until he was 28 years old.
It should be noted that the Celtics of that era spread the scoring around and didn't really have or want a top-scorer, so his scoring doesn't look that great but the context is important.
And then he blew up from '65-67 when he was in his 30's (those were the 3 top scoring seasons for any Celtics player in the 1960s); he was 2nd-team All-NBA all 3 years, his only All-NBA selections.
Similarly, he sacrificed his scoring/focus so much so he only played in 5 ASG's. He was much better than just a 5x All-Star.
But the context is so important as If he played today his team would make sure he's featured as a 25 ppg scorer within a few years and up around 30 ppg for a long time due to his profound skills/abilities, something he wasn't really comfortable with (being featured as "the man") -- the team-over-stats Celtics was the perfect place for him.
Sam Jones career highlights & game-winners.
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8qMgF5M84U[/url]
[QUOTE=dankok8;14425698]Who is in your tier 1? Who would you vote for if you had to pick one?[/QUOTE]
Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron
I only included four players on tier 1 based on the principle of "Mt. Rushmore" which has four presidents. Honestly, I kept vacillating between Wilt and Lebron as the 4th player in that tier but gave the edge to LeBron after his 2020 title and the MVP like season that he was having at age 36 before he got injured.
I honestly haven't given much time recently to contemplating on that one player who should be #1, but when I did, it was more often than not, between Russell and MJ. But depending on the day and whatever criteria I'm factoring in that day, Kareem's and LeBron's longevity mixed with their individual dominance pulls them back into the conversation. So sorry, I can't give a simple, definitive answer.
[QUOTE=jlip;14425864]Tier 1- Russell, Kareem, MJ, and LeBron
I only included four players on tier 1 based on the principle of "Mt. Rushmore" which has four presidents. Honestly, I kept vacillating between Wilt and Lebron as the 4th player in that tier but gave the edge to LeBron after his 2020 title and the MVP like season that he was having at age 36 before he got injured.
I honestly haven't given much time recently to contemplating on that one player who should be #1, but when I did, it was more often than not, between Russell and MJ. But depending on the day and whatever criteria I'm factoring in that day, Kareem's and LeBron's longevity mixed with their individual dominance pulls them back into the conversation. So sorry, I can't give a simple, definitive answer.[/QUOTE]
I add Wilt to that tier one. And I'm the same couldn't be bothered arguing about goats. They were all great players in their respective times.
Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?
[QUOTE=000;14426013]Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?[/QUOTE]
I mean that you can plug Kareem Wilt Jordan and Lebron onto any team and they would still produce the same and provide a massive impact on both sides of the court.
Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.
I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time.
And hall of fame players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas the other guys are.
Russell has said that he wouldn't have even come close to the career that he had if Red hadn't coached him.
Auerbach had the entire Celtics team playing hard on defence, that's why they were the best team in the league before Russell arrived.
Auerbach's coaching also significantly improved the defensive abilities of his players, it seems.
KC Jones praises him in his own book and mentions how Tom Sanders didn't join the team as a defensive player but Auerbach helped mold him into one.
Auerbach also treated a minority like anyone else, thereby telling the person that he isn't a minority.
Race was a very open subject on those Celtic teams.
They could say things to each other that the outside world probably would find offensive because they knew and trusted each other.
John Havlicek: Bill was comfortable on the Celtics because he knew that Red was the first coach to draft a black player and that the Celtics were the first team to consistently start five black players. Our roommates were integrated.
Jim Loscutoff: On a lot of teams, the black players went one way, the whites another. On our team, we made a point of everyone hanging around together.
At such a racially divisive time and in such a racially charged city, this environment created by Red Auerbach was crucial to Russell's success as a player and his ability to withstand the abuses he faced outside the Celtic circle.
Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.
Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.
Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.
[QUOTE=000;14426013]Does coastalmarker plan on answering my question at some point? What does it mean that Ruseel was a "system player"? That he was the 2017 draymond green of the 60s?[/QUOTE]
Russell found an ideal home on the Celtics. They were an up-tempo team with shooters and scorers, so he wasn't needed to carry any significant offensive load, but he could still contribute by scoring on offensive rebounds and running the break, which played to his strengths in rebounding and athleticism.
Defensively, the Celtics had been aching for someone who could block shots, control the paint, rebound, and start the fast break, and that again was exactly what Russell was best at.
Within the Celtics, Russell found a sanctuary where he could let down the walls he built to protect himself from the outside world, and he became part of a close-knit family that allowed him to express himself to his fullest potential on the court.
Auerbach appreciated his talents, needed exactly what he offered, and provided an ideal environment for him to succeed.
On top of all that, he had a personality that lent itself to being obsessed with team goals at the expense of individual achievement.
A perfect fit for Russell, a perfect fit for the Celtics.
If Russell had played somewhere else, we might still recognize him as one of the best to ever play the game, but I doubt we would to the extent that we do now.
How many other teams would be satisfied to let him contribute so little in a set offence?
How many coaches would recognize and encourage his revolutionary approach to defence?
How many coaches would have given Russell the freedom to do whatever he wanted on the court as Red did?
Maybe he would've done just as well if he'd joined the Hawks and been coached by Alex Hannum who was the second-best coach of that era but there's no possible way that he would have found a situation better than Auerbach's Celtics.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426019]Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.
Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.
Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.[/QUOTE]
What should make people think Wilt would be dominating today's NBA too is that he's a freak athlete in this era as well.
Height: 7'2
Weight: 290-320 pounds (depends on which year)
7'8 wingspan (he was only officiated measured in a suit however. Legend has it that it's likely 2 inches more)
9'7.5 standing reach.
Imagine somebody of that physical profile, that is also a track star, ridiculous vertical leap, gifted passer (lead the league in assists one year) and with a gifted touch around the rim on the offensive end.
Not only that but on defence, a center that is truly capable of guarding 1-5 with his size, length and speed combined.
The only current NBA player that could rival him in terms of athleticism is Giannis. Yet physically, he even towers over him.
Giannis in comparison:
Height: 6'11
Weight: 242 pounds
Wingspan: 7'3
Standing reach: 9'2
I have yet to see any player at his position to come along with his combined strength, size and athleticism. Let alone the skills Wilt had on offence and defence.
[QUOTE=8Ball;14426019]Russell had very little offensive talent, couldn't shoot free throws.
Today's GM would use him like Dwight's Howard. Just get rebounds, defend, catch lobs.
Wilt would be picked first in every single draft besides 4-5 years. I am convinced Wilt could play in any era. His free throw deficiencies would be exploited, but he'd be a Gannis level player.[/QUOTE]
I've participated in track and field for a long time as I love it.
I have never seen an athlete in my entire life with Wilt's combination of size, agility, and speed, never.
To see that old film of him 3-Step Straddling (high jump technique) 6'6", landing in sawdust, Triple Jumping way over 40' ft with minimal real technique, then his speed on the court and hearing that he could legitimately run 440 yds in 48 sec;
There's not one 7 footer in the league now that could do that!! not one!!
I know that Wilt also put the 16lb shot in college over 50 ft, again without real good technique!!
Wilt was probably as close to a real mutant as we may ever see in the NBA
But the main thing that set him apart though was his mind!!
Listen to him talk, look at his work ethic, watch how he conceptualized things, he simply saw stuff that other people couldn't
He ran cross-country in high school!! You can't get a basketball kid now to do anything like that; because they (and their parents) can't see the benefits; but he did!!
He was lifting weights before almost anybody else was!!
His post-basketball sport was volleyball, which he started playing when he was rehabbing his knee in 1970
[QUOTE=coastalmarker99;14426016]I mean that you can plug Kareem Wilt Jordan and Lebron onto any team and they would still produce the same and provide massive impact on both sides of the court.
Russell, on the other hand, is the more limited player so he needs the right situation to succeed to the best of his abilities.
I've long said that he's very lucky to have gone to the best-run organization in the league, not to mention the best coach/basketball mind of all time and hall of fame players crawling out of every season's roster like cockroaches because I don't think he's the guy who makes you a contender by himself, whereas the other guys are.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense. Here's the celtics defensive rankings from 1953 to 1970:
8th
8th
8th (of 8)
6th
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
1st
2nd
1st
8th (of 14)