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

[bagwell368]

Do you think Hakeem or Wilt would have done better than Russell on the C's?

Hakeem with the skill set he had as a player in his own time? You're talking seasons with 6 or 7 losses all season a couple of times.

Wilt - depends on how well Red can get him to to focus and stay focused.

[cahawk]

Russell was great but like rodman he couldn't really score, but he fit perfectly with a HOF team that didn't need much scoring.
Wilt would have won as many or more than Russell if they switched teams.

[bagwell368]

Wilt would have won as many or more than Russell if they switched teams.

If you knew about BIll and Wilt as well as I do, you couldn't possibly be confident with that statement. It might be true, but Red better get into Wilt's head and fast. At his best he crushed Bill, but he was often not at his best - in particular before 1965-66.

[JordansBulls]

Bill Russell seriously underrated here on PSD and overrated on Real GM when they think he had a top 3 peak all time.

[bagwell368]

Bill Russell seriously underrated here on PSD and overrated on Real GM when they think he had a top 3 peak all time.

All you have to do is look at his shooting offense (pathetic considering the era and whom he had to face, in particular in his first 3 seasons), then that majestic team he played for and the bar none best GM/Coach of his era - Red, then see him and his one way game on the Pistons of his time, and it's clear to see he'd have zero rings.

He has no business in the top 15 all time. Anyone that says top 3 hasn't spent much time thinking about Bill as a separate entity aside from the Celts or having the luxury of having seen him play as I did.

[JordansBulls]

All you have to do is look at his shooting offense (pathetic considering the era and whom he had to face, in particular in his first 3 seasons), then that majestic team he played for and the bar none best GM/Coach of his era - Red, then see him and his one way game on the Pistons of his time, and it's clear to see he'd have zero rings.

He has no business in the top 15 all time. Anyone that says top 3 hasn't spent much time thinking about Bill as a separate entity aside from the Celts or having the luxury of having seen him play as I did.

Not top 15 all time? Don't be ridiculous.

[bagwell368]

Not top 15 all time? Don't be ridiculous.

Look at his own time. Wilt, Oscar, Petit, and possibly West had a larger share of their teams success than Russell. When they were on teams with the #1 SRS, they won titles. None had more than two such teams, several had one.

Russell had nine (9), with and additional 3 years at #2. No other player ever landed in such clover as Russell in NBA history. He didn't screw it up, which is key. But he played on teams with 3-4-5-6 other HOF'ers, in a league with NO other franchise that was able to sustain a team that could compete (the Lakers were in the much weaker West, check out there mostly meh SRS ratings through those years).

In a league with mostly 7 and 8 other teams, in a league with two or three rounds of playoffs, in a league his first 3 years when there were only 3 other players at/over 6' 8", in a league with a narrow key - he not only did not dominate, he was above average at best on offense (and his FT% shooting always sucked). Once the giants showed up and the key was widened (to combat Wilt), that was it for Russell's offense which became below average.

The only positive he gets on offense is the glass, and his passing after Cousy retired. That's pretty nice, but But his shooting in a non 3 point Center dominated league? yuck.

He's not a top 5 Center all time. Jabbar, Wilt (averaged 28.7 points and 28.7 rebounds per game vs Russell in the ~140 times they faced each other in the (regular seasons and playoffs)), Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq - all better.

Neil Johnston, Gilmore, KG, and Duncan all arguable as better players as well.

Top players with two way games crowd out those that don't have such a game. Who are the great players who were one way? Magic? Bird? Barkley? It's a simple argument that Magic and Bird were both better on D than Russell was on O. Barkley is closer, but still did more on D than Russell did on O, but, Miller is the first guy that has a dominant O with a poor D - what's he? Between 20-25 all time?

Russell landed in the SINGLE greatest landing spot a NBA player ever had. He cashed it in. He was what they needed, and they were what he needed. He wins zero titles on the Pistons, and the say the Hawks starting in 1960. Bulls? No titles. None. How great could he have been? He not could create offense (not even AS level, never mind creme de' la creme levels), you do have to score after all to win.

Russell is listed as top 10 or top 15, top defensive player all time, greatest winner all time. This has been learned from the prior generation. Well, as a kid that grew up thinking the same things - I tell you he's a "stand-in" as Mr. Celtic for that great era. Well he's not that without Red, and he's not that without his teammates. It's a team game, and he's the visible face. He wasn't the team, and he's not the GOAT. He's not a top 5 Center all time. He's a happy accident of time. Other players could have done what he did given the setting. But given a weak/meager team to play for? You think he's Hakeem, Jordan, Bird, Kareem? No chance, he's a very successul part in a greater whole. He did not and could not dominate on the scoring end.