Is it possible for someone to pass up Bill Russell's 11 rings?

People always talk about getting equal to or passing up Jordan's 6 whether it be Kobe, LeBron or whoever...but is it possible for a player in the future to get 11+?

This is a big what if, and no one can really give an answer and proclaim it as fact...but still, interested to hear what ISH thinks


[IMG]http://oi45.tinypic.com/2ugmq15.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://www.easymemes.com/uploads/memes/755_Zul51XlPEL5hWvM.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mb6p94lCXk1rg3bauo1_500.jpg[/IMG]



[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9werv87Vw1r2br17o1_400.jpg[/IMG]



[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m98d77ComE1r31jjho1_500.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8puyjjd8x1ruzeslo1_500.png[/IMG]


[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7byihEnVp1qc5k8to6_500.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m74oi2ypkB1ruzeslo1_500.jpg[/IMG]


[IMG]http://oi48.tinypic.com/28kms8.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m68p22hS7s1qm3v2do1_500.jpg[/IMG]

No.

No. Next question.

The closest any superstar has come is six, and the closest a non-star player has come is seven. Still a ways away. Even if players became purely ringchasers they still couldn't do it (witness the ringchasers who failed to get even one ring).

Weren't there like 8 teams during Russell's era? That's like winning the division title in today's NBA. But with 30 teams and unless technology gets advanced enough that players can play well into their 40's, no I don't see any player ever reaching 11 rings or even 8 or 9.

[QUOTE=Brick Rick]Weren't there like 8 teams during Russell's era? That's like winning the division title in today's NBA. But with 30 teams and unless technology gets advanced enough that players can play well into their 40's, no I don't see any player ever reaching 11 rings or even 8 or 9.[/QUOTE]

Teams were also way more stacked back then so it evens out. Anyway, no one is ever going to touch this record unless a superteam is assembled with an absolutely monster big. Think modern day Wilt but with the leadership of a Duncan or Russell. It would literally take someone who is that good AND ALSO having a stacked team. Just won't happen.

I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?

Weak Era

[QUOTE=Brick Rick]I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?[/QUOTE]

Well back then 43% was pretty much the league average. It was just a different style of basketball (think Nash's Suns vs BDiddy's Warriors). Also, you must remember that the rims weren't even all uniform, the arenas were in crappy condition, and the basketballs varied as well (think of all the funky stat stuff that occurred when they switched to that synthetic ball a few years back).

Not only that, but many of these players had jobs n such on the side cause they didn't get paid enough. Either way, Russell's shooting wasn't what made him a great offensive player (cause he certainly clanked a bunch of those sweeping hooks). In any case, I'm not gonna get into a long spiel about Bill's offense. Times were just different for better or for worse.

[QUOTE=Brick Rick]I was just looking at Russell's stats, the 20+ boards per game is impressive but how did he shoot such a low percentage for field goals at 43% and against 6'4 unathetlic white centers at that?[/QUOTE]
What the guy above me said, also because he didn't play against 6'4 unathletic white centers.

[IMG]http://oi40.tinypic.com/292xmra.jpg[/IMG]
Thurmond
[IMG][IMG]http://chasing23.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/wilt.jpg[/IMG][/IMG]
Wilt
[IMG]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/001/183/849/WALT_BELLAMY_20100808172138_640_480_display_image.jpg[/IMG]
Walt Bellamy
[IMG]http://cdn.bleacherreport.net/images_root/slides/photos/000/847/935/embry-wayne-1962_display_image.jpg[/IMG]
Wayne Embry
[IMG]http://nba-players.net/data/media/75/Willis_Reed_8.jpg[/IMG]
Willis Reed

Thing is Bill Russell had hypothetically won like maybe just as many FMVPs (he was the best player there, the FMVP award didnt exist back then)... so to get 11 rings the way he did would mean a guy ending up with around that many FMVPs aswell.... There was 8 teams back then and playoffs did consist of only 1-2 series before the Finals, to be the most dominant team in that era was kindof more of a one sided outcome compared to today considering especially how that Celtic team was ridicilously stacked and to overwhelming, it may have been the best team ever...

So unless GOD decides to lace up a pair of shoes and somehow miraculously lands always the best supporting cast for his entire or almost his entire career i think its pretty much impossible... Even the Robert Horry way i think it might be impossible... :P

[url=http://espn.go.com/espn/photos/gallery/_/id/8492386/image/1/king-rings-espn-magazine-marvel-present-lebron-king-rings]Yes[/url]

Not gonna happen until a one man team superstar player is born which is never. :oldlol:

[QUOTE=pauk][B]Thing is Bill Russell had hypothetically won like maybe just as many FMVPs (he was the best player there, the FMVP award didnt exist back then)... so to get 11 rings the way he did would mean a guy ending up with around that many FMVPs aswell[/B].... There was 8 teams back then and playoffs did consist of only 1-2 series before the Finals, to be the most dominant team in that era was kindof more of a one sided outcome compared to today considering especially how that Celtic team was ridicilously stacked and to overwhelming, it may have been the best team ever...

So unless GOD decides to lace up a pair of shoes and somehow miraculously lands always the best supporting cast for his entire or almost his entire career i think its pretty much impossible... Even the Robert Horry way i think it might be impossible... :P[/QUOTE]

well, he didn't win in 69 so 10 would be has absolute most

68 *might* go to Havlicek as well

people also aren't on the same page with 57, 59, 60 (he wouldn't win in 58 in a losing series) as well

61-66 are probably his though, so a minimum of 6 with probably a few more

Well, Jordan could've had 8, maybe 9 hadn't he retired so damn often.
Magic got to, I think, 9 Finals, yet retired early.
Kobe to 7.
You could easily imagine an alternate universe where Duncan has 6 rings, maybe 7. Say Fisher misses in 2004, Ginobili doesn't foul in 2006, and the Spurs keep playing the same way as the first two games against the Thunder.
Horry might've played for the Bulls instead of Houston/LA from 96 to 98, then ringchased for the Celtics in 08...
I don't think it's as impossible as it sounds.

[QUOTE=BoutPractice]Well, Jordan could've had 8, maybe 9 hadn't he retired so damn often.
Magic got to, I think, 9 Finals, yet retired early.
Kobe to 7.
You could easily imagine an alternate universe where Duncan has 6 rings, maybe 7. Say Fisher misses in 2004, Ginobili doesn't foul in 2006, and the Spurs keep playing the same way as the first two games against the Thunder.
Horry might've played for the Bulls instead of Houston/LA from 96 to 98, then ringchased for the Celtics in 08...
I don't think it's as impossible as it sounds.[/QUOTE]

Maybe not, but let me offer you another alternative universe: Russell doesn't get injured in 1958 and Red Auerbach doesn't retire in 1966.