If Russell was revolutionary because of his ability to block shots how different of an impact does the bird make on the league? First off we know teams wont trade him away because of his skin color so its hard to put Birdman on the Celtics without changing the course of history but lets pretend he ends up with the Celtics, does he turn them around defensively the same way Russ did, would Bird spark the break as well as he does for Denver in Boston? If so how many titles we talking here?
Zero. Russell = HOF player, defensive player extraordinaire Birdman= Pothead, good shot-blocker Post defense is more than just shot-blocking. Just ask the Chuckwagon.
Celtics would probably never win a championship until Larry Bird came around. Like said and done, one thing people completely take Russell for granted is the fact that he played with no blueprint and the fact that he took away Wilt's superpowers. He's the last player you can judge by using stats. However, his stats did always increase when the playoffs came around especially around Finals time. People constantly call Russell Overrated but typically those are usually the same idiots that judge everything using stats.
What a great post. I was just thinking last time I saw the Nuggets play that Birdman's leadership really reminded me of the great Bill Russell.
Here's how Bill Simmons described Bill Russell's abilities for his time, in his Book of Basketball (keeping in mind that Simmons is an unabashed Celtics homer): "Russell was like a left-handed, infinitely more cerebral Dennis Rodman, only if Rodman had Walton's passing talent, David Robinson's athletic ability and Michael Jordan's maniacal drive, and if Rodman could block shots like Josh Smith unleashed on the WNBA for an entire season." Chris Andersen's got the shot-blocking and overall athletic ability (ability to jump start fast breaks), and I'll be generous too and give him the rebounding though he doesn't dominate in that department quite like Russell did. In terms of leadership and competitiveness and basketball IQ? Russell probably set himself apart.
If you're looking at it as simply transporting a player from present day to 40-50 years ago, if they're any good today they'd probably be elite back then. Yeah, including Andersen. I mean, before Bill Russell there weren't any shot blockers. So you put Andersen on that team, and sure they'd be much better. Its hard to say definitely that Bill Russell's basketball abilities surpassed what Andersen is capable of. He played in a completely different league in terms of talent. But, again, its the mental aspect of the game which really set Russell apart, even compared to today's players.
What if a mentally ill person asked about replacing Bill Russell with Birdman instead of asking about pointforwards?
Perfectly described. Russell could actually improve alot of modern NBA teams who don't seem to focused on defense, rebounding, non-statistical plays, and sometimes winning.
What point are you trying to make? That those Celtics teams were so good that you can put Deke or Ben Wallace or Birdman on there and they'd still win 9 championships in a row? That Bill Russell was over-rated? We've already had that thread here and the result was inconclusive. One can't pretend to have any knowledge of those Celtics teams or Bill Russell unless one was there to watch those games live.
Dont forget Deke was a legit 7"2, he would actually be able to lock eyes with Wilt without have to tilt his head back.
Do the names George Mikan and Dolph Schayes ring a bell to you?????? No offense meant to you but it always surprises me when people diminish the accomplishments of athletes from generations before their own. Just because the modern game is different and has progressed from back then doesn't mean they didn't play back then also. Normally when it appears a kid makes untrue statements, I consider the source, but I usually find your opinion worth reading whether I agree with it or not, so in that light you've been enlightened.
I'm pretty sure neither of those guys were shot-blockers, but if you have a source that says otherwise please let me know. Edit: Well, his wikipedia page does say he was a shot-blocker, so I guess I stand corrected. I've read elsewhere that Russell was the first dominant shot blocker / defensive player.
Several things really but mainly the fact that he was the first at something so abundant in todays league makes me wonder just how replaceable the guy is. What caliber of play must the replacement player be able to produce in order to keep the C's a dynasty? Do you really see the C's losing if Deke is the guy anchoring the middle? Considering that they were already a great offensive team and all they needed was a guy to make them the best defensive team in the league and rebound. Doesnt Deke provide that and superior finishing abilities, he wont be able to run the offense like a latter day Russ, but in their early days they didnt need him to, and Hondo has proven capable of carrying bigger loads without his stars around so I dont think Cooz retiring hurts them all that much. Probably wrong but lets just keep it simple, if you think that team can even win 1 title with a decent shotblocker/defender then it gos a long way in vindicating Wilt imo. (The other debate that sparked this thread) I find Russ vs Wilt to be our Shaq vs Duncan. Duncan like Russ was drafted onto a team with a specific set of needs that the player could fill and compete at a high level from day 1. Whereas Shaq and Wilt got last place teams and had to build them up.
Hmmm... what would happen if you put Birdman in the '60's with pot and LSD and free love and social unrest on one side and old-fashioned coaching on the other? I'm guessing he would not tune in, turn on a lot, and end up dropping out to pursue his spiritual life.
