To be fair, most of those teammates were HOFamers simply because they were part of the 60s Celtics. Patrick Beverly would be a HOFamer if he was on that team. It's debatable if those teams were the most talented every year -- maybe they were, but a couple others were at least comparable, especially a few of Wilt's 76ers teams.
Fair enough. The thing about basketball is that a single player can dominate the game, far beyond any other sport. Green is very good. Pippen was very good. Havlicek and Cousy were very good. Certainly, Green and Russell have similar strengths. But the alpha dog on a great team has a special role. He wrecks the other team's game plan, and then everything opens up for everybody else. Rarely, a great team makes it there because of balance. As good as Green is, it's hard to believe that he's the one driving the Warriors when you see a game like tonight vs OKC.
Draymond is the difference from Curry and Thompson being just another 50 win team to a 69 and 73 win championship team. Draymond has been a winner his whole life. Everyone loves flashy offense and jacking up 3's though so it's only natural people are hyped on Curry and Thompson with their shooting set up through tons of illegal screens. It's a 3point contest out there...except their shots aren't even contested. I do agree Draymond couldn't carry a team like LeBron though. But, neither can Curry or Thompson. It's like they are each the perfect #2's on the same team which is better than a traditional #1 and #2 and #3 team set up.
As far as I know, and I'm too young for the Bill Russell years, he wasn't a mouth-breathing, moving-screen, holding-behind-the-play machine, so there are some key differences. Draymond Green is more of a Karl Malone / Bruce Bowen hybrid.
Green is good. Is he better than Bill Russell? I don't know, though it's now clear that he's a better all-around player than Wayne Gretzky.
You get out of here with that Baloney, Russell was the star of that team, your comparisons use role players, its a completely erroneous and misleading comparison. If I use your same line of reasoning, Draymond is as good as MJ, yeah MJ has 6 rings...but but Horry also has 6, so counting rings is completely pointless. That's essentially your argument! Ridiculous. Russell won 5 MVPs, won 11 championships out of 13 seasons (and he was injured at a critical time in the finals for one of those non-championship seasons). I'd also like to mention Russell was doing this at the same time Wilt was dominating, the Big O was averaging a triple double and heaps of stars were beasting. Furthermore, there is a reason the FMVP is called the Bill Russell trophy! So YOU get out of here with that baloney, and give me some of what you're smoking, because you're clearly not in your right mind at the moment.
My goodness the stupidity! Bird wasn't the Alpha Dog on the 86 Celtics check this out! Kevin Mchale - Hall of Fame Bill Walton - Hall of Fame Robert Parish - Hall of Fame Bird had help! Draymond>Bird That's how you sound...
Might as well compare Draymond to Michael Jordan, both sound equally stupid. I think Bill averaged Draymond's career high in rebounds one year. Edit: I checked the scoreboard. Draymond Green's career high for rebounds is 20 vs the Hawks in '15. Bill Russell averaged 22.5 rebounds a game for his entire career. Bill averaged more assists per game and points too. Where does this dumb ****er get the notion that these two are in the same ballpark? One has never even won an MVP trophy, the other is a legend that will be remembered for lifetimes.
You and I both know that is a seriously flawed way to look at the comparison: raw numbers in different eras. There were more rebounds available. Also, Russell didn't average more assists per game. Green is putting up 7 this year.
how easily millennials forget another guy in the millennium, ben wallace. wallace better than draymond.
Beverley would not be EVEN ALL STAR on those teams. The worst all star ever was probably BJ Armstrong, thanks yo being on the Bulls with MJ. And He was much better than Beverley.
