Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: Do you Consider Bill Russell A Top Ten Player Of All-Time?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    32 68.09%
  • No

    15 31.91%
Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 202
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,663
    vCash
    1500

    Do you Consider Bill Russell A Top Ten Player Of All-Time?

    I was thinking about this the other day, and I have had him in my top ten lists in the past, but have now decided to take him out. The main reasoning for this was that I started thinking about if you replaced either Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem with him...how many titles would those old Celtic teams have won? I felt like they would have won like 15 at least with any of those 3 players. Put Russell on either of their championship teams and would those teams still have won titles?

    Russell on the 1995-96 Rockets???

    Russell on the 2000-2002 Lakers???

    Russell on the 1999, 2003, 2005, or 2007 Spurs???

    My guess is that these teams wouldn't win titles with him. Russell was a great defensive player and all, and def one of the best to ever play the game, but top ten...it's a little hard to put put him over guys like Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem knowing that he most likely wouldn't have won titles in their place and they could have easily won more in his place. Hell, even Robinson or Malone might have won more than 11 titles on those Celtic teams.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    21,547
    vCash
    1500
    It's tough to compare players from different eras, especially since I wasn't alive to see him play. But based on his winning and titles and all of his accomplishments, I'd say yes.

    S E A N....M A Y N E

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    I was thinking about this the other day, and I have had him in my top ten lists in the past, but have now decided to take him out. The main reasoning for this was that I started thinking about if you replaced either Shaq, Duncan, or Hakeem with him...how many titles would those old Celtic teams have won? I felt like they would have won like 15 at least with any of those 3 players. Put Russell on either of their championship teams and would those teams still have won titles?

    Russell on the 1995-96 Rockets???

    Russell on the 2000-2002 Lakers???

    Russell on the 1999, 2003, 2005, or 2007 Spurs???


    My guess is that these teams wouldn't win titles with him. Russell was a great defensive player and all, and def one of the best to ever play the game, but top ten...it's a little hard to put put him over guys like Shaq, Duncan, and Hakeem knowing that he most likely wouldn't have won titles in their place and they could have easily won more in his place. Hell, even Robinson or Malone might have won more than 11 titles on those Celtic teams.
    This is the wrong way to compare players. They need to be measured against their era, and that is really the only fair way. Sports evolve. 100 years from now, if we measured it your way, Magic, KAJ, Bird, Kobe, and many other top 10 players ever would be kicked out, because the league will be filled with bigger, stronger, more skilled players at that time.

    To answer the question, yes, he makes my top 10, but I am not as high on him as many. He was just so limited offensively, and while you compare against era, he didn't face anywhere near the competition of his later peers.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,033
    vCash
    1500
    I will say, Kobe fans who use his team success had better have Russell top 5 ever. Otherwise, they are completely contradicting themselves.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,663
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    I will say, Kobe fans who use his team success had better have Russell top 5 ever. Otherwise, they are completely contradicting themselves.
    Really??? You make it sound as if Kobe never had any individual success of his own to speak of other than championships.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    Really??? You make it sound as if Kobe never had any individual success of his own to speak of other than championships.
    no, no. What I am saying is, Russell gets a nice bump in his all time rankings because he was such a winner. Many Kobe supporters try and sell him as a top 5-7 player because of his rings, when there are a few players that were individually better that they rank below him, because of team success.

    If Kobe had 1 ring, or even 0, is he still a top 10 player ever? If you say yes, I don't agree. If you say no, then Russell needs to drop as well imho.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,663
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    This is the wrong way to compare players. They need to be measured against their era, and that is really the only fair way. Sports evolve. 100 years from now, if we measured it your way, Magic, KAJ, Bird, Kobe, and many other top 10 players ever would be kicked out, because the league will be filled with bigger, stronger, more skilled players at that time.

    To answer the question, yes, he makes my top 10, but I am not as high on him as many. He was just so limited offensively, and while you compare against era, he didn't face anywhere near the competition of his later peers.
    As far as comparing players to their era's...Russell is a top 10 player for sure.

    But that is not the only thing to take into account when you compare players. There has to be some account for the fact that that some had weaker era's. Matchup's must be considered too. I just feel that Russell wouldn't have been able to lead many modern teams to a championship the way he did in the 60's. It's true that Wilt had some inflated numbers too, but when all is said and done, Wilt would be able to stand the test of time for sure and would be the best center in the NBA if he were still playing today. Same could not be said for Russell.

    I have taken Russell out of my top ten and added in Big O instead.

    1. Jordan
    2. Magic
    3. Kareem
    4. Wilt
    5. Shaq
    6. Kobe
    7. Bird
    8. Duncan
    9. Hakeem
    10. Big O

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,663
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye15 View Post
    no, no. What I am saying is, Russell gets a nice bump in his all time rankings because he was such a winner. Many Kobe supporters try and sell him as a top 5-7 player because of his rings, when there are a few players that were individually better that they rank below him, because of team success.

    If Kobe had 1 ring, or even 0, is he still a top 10 player ever? If you say yes, I don't agree. If you say no, then Russell needs to drop as well imho.
    For sure if Kobe had 0 rings or 1 ring he would not be top ten. Most likely top 15 for sure though.

    I ask you...if you have Russell in your top ten, than why not have Havlicek as well. At least he would have to be in the top 15 by your logic. No?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    As far as comparing players to their era's...Russell is a top 10 player for sure.

    But that is not the only thing to take into account when you compare players. There has to be some account for the fact that that some had weaker era's. Matchup's must be considered too. I just feel that Russell wouldn't have been able to lead many modern teams to a championship the way he did in the 60's. It's true that Wilt had some inflated numbers too, but when all is said and done, Wilt would be able to stand the test of time for sure and would be the best center in the NBA if he were still playing today. Same could not be said for Russell.

    I have taken Russell out of my top ten and added in Big O instead.

    1. Jordan
    2. Magic
    3. Kareem
    4. Wilt
    5. Shaq
    6. Kobe
    7. Bird
    8. Duncan
    9. Hakeem
    10. Big O
    I partially agree with you, which is why Russell, to me, is barely in my top 10. Trust me, I have gotten heat for that before, he was just so offensively limited, and played against like 9 teams with a super stacked squad. But his defensive dominance, rebounding, toughness, and matchup domination against Wilt are impressive.

    Trying to understand this right. Are you saying if you took a time machine, and Russell, exactly the player he was at the time, and put him now, he wouldn't lead teams to rings?
    Last edited by Hawkeye15; 01-08-2013 at 08:06 PM.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    932
    vCash
    1500
    Russells's the best center to play the game.

    Also, Duncan > Shaq

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    5,604
    vCash
    1500
    It's tough to put him in the top 10 but I'd say top 50 for sure. And definitely the number 1 leader of all time or high up there.


    #wankfortiggins

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Bushwood Country Club
    Posts
    58,033
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    For sure if Kobe had 0 rings or 1 ring he would not be top ten. Most likely top 15 for sure though.

    I ask you...if you have Russell in your top ten, than why not have Havlicek as well. At least he would have to be in the top 15 by your logic. No?
    I agree with your Kobe ranking given those circumstances. Yeah, Havlicek hovers around 15-18 for me I suppose, without flipping over and really looking at numbers again.

    If you want the ultimate, you've got to be willing to pay the ultimate price. It's not tragic to die doing what you love.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    9,663
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by nolafan33 View Post
    Russells's the best center to play the game.

    Also, Duncan > Shaq
    Really? So if you were starting a team, you would take Russell over Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, or Duncan? There is a better argument for him being top ten of all time due to his 11 rings than for him being the best center to play the game...thats a very hard sell. I don't know many people that would buy the argument that Russell was the best center to play the game other than a few old time Celtic homers.

    Duncan is not better than Shaq bro. No one in the history of the NBA has been as dominant as Shaq was in his prime.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    471
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    Really? So if you were starting a team, you would take Russell over Shaq, Kareem, Hakeem, or Duncan? There is a better argument for him being top ten of all time due to his 11 rings than for him being the best center to play the game...thats a very hard sell. I don't know many people that would buy the argument that Russell was the best center to play the game other than a few old time Celtic homers.

    Duncan is not better than Shaq bro. No one in the history of the NBA has been as dominant as Shaq was in his prime.
    Plus Duncan played most his career at power forward so why is he being mentioned with centers?
    NBA - Miami Heat
    MLB - Detroit Tigers

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Toronto/St Catharines
    Posts
    3,117
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by amos1er View Post
    Really??? You make it sound as if Kobe never had any individual success of his own to speak of other than championships.
    And you just did the same thing about a guy who won 5 MVPs

    If you put Bill Russell in today's NBA, then no, he isn't as good as he was back in the day. But that can be said for any player, which is why you can't compare eras. Transport a guy like Jason Richardson back to the 1930s, and he's probably the GOAT. Players will continue to get faster, stronger and more athletic as time goes by.

    Bill Russell is not a top 10 basketball talent of all-time, but I think he's no doubt a top 10 player.

Page 1 of 14 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •