Bill Russell really is the Most Underrated Player Eva

http://www.backpicks.com/2018/04/02/backpicks-goat-3-bill-russell/

 

Is this trolling ? Hakeem is not scoring on Russell routinely. Russell was a much better version of Hakeem on defense.

 

In today's NBA Bill Russell would be a Ben Wallace clone.

 

Yes, "Hakeem is not scoring on Russell routinely." is trolling, but you know that already. No player ever shut down Hakeem and he played in the golden age of big men, not in the age of 8 teams where only one was stacked. Russell would merely have improved Hakeem's game.

Russell was a much older version of Hakeem on defense, a version that never switched, ran down and block a point guard's shot behind the 3 point line to win a game in the finals. They were both dominant defensively. Meanwhile, Hakeem was a much better player. Wilt was too. Russell was a much better version of Dennis Rodman.

What's really hysterical is anyone arguing that Russell was the GOAT when, in his most important games, he was not even the best player on the floor. Wilt won those matchups despite losing 3 out of 5. That's undeniable proof that Russell's championships were a result of his team's greatness, not merely his own.

Russell is a HOF player on one of the greatest teams ever, not the GOAT, not even the greatest player at his position even during his own time. Great defender? Yes, but so what. The league has seen too many players truly great on both ends, one way players aren't in the conversation.

 

Didn't have time to go through the whole thread, anybody brought up the number of teams in the league back then?

 

I never even said that Russell was the GOAT overall player (I believe that Kareem is the GOAT for that matter). As a defender ? Yes, Russell was the GOAT defender. There has never been a greater offensive force than Wilt and there may well never be in the future. Nate Thurmond was an absolute beast. Do you really think that the centers of the 90s were much better than them? Wilt himself was better than all of them. Russell masterminded and executed defensive schemes that severely limited Wilt and Thurmond. People don't seem to realise that the Celtics were so dominant because they were one of the best defensive teams of all time. As an athlete (olympic level track and field athlete at 6ft10), Russell would still be an absolute phenomenon in today's era. As a defensive mastermind in terms of organisation, help defense and leadership, he would be far ahead of current defensive stalwarts. What's this about Russell not switching or defending guards/forwards? Do you realise that Russell was actually the one to invent this style of play at his position?

Not really wanting to go into the eternal Wilt/Russell debate, but Wilt winning his match-up is utter BS. Wilt's great weakness was that he was so good offensively in general that he often naturally became a blackhole. Russell correctly deduced that if he was able to limit Wilt's efficiency while still letting him get his shots, the Celtics would then freeze out Wilt's teammates and end up playing 5 vs 1. This is why Wilt's stats often nosedived against the Celtics. Wilt also won only when his team was absolutely stacked (the 1967 sixers being one of the greatest teams of all time). In his typical cerebral style, Russell coldly assessed, years later, that "Wilt could have won much more if he did much less".

 

I would certainly hope you saying that Hakeem wouldn't routinely and easily score on Russell would be you just trolling. Same goes for you saying Russell was a "much better version of Hakeem on defense". If that's not just you trolling, you should probably consider following a different sport. Prime David Robinson was an infinitely superior defensive talent to Bill Russell and Hakeem scored on him routinely as we all remember.

Don't let the fact that Bill Russell played at a time when there was very little talent in the NBA fool you into thinking that he was better than he was.

 

And I am the one who apparently has to follow a different sport....

 

If you don't realize that is true.....I mean, yeah, it would probably be for the best. The big men in the 90's were simply bigger, stronger, and more talented than anything Bill Russell faced. You are essentially sitting here and arguing for Babe Ruth over Barry Bonds.

 

I think you are...

1.) underestimating Hakeem and his defense. I am in awe enough of Russell's defense from what I've read and seen that I won't waste time arguing about who's better. I think it's likely he is the best defensive player of all time. I have also seen enough to be certain that Hakeem is no less than the second best defensive player of all time. I also have seen enough to be certain that Hakeem would wreck the league defensively in that era, similar to what Russell did. There is just no possible way there is a gulf between Hakeem and Russell's defense like you seem to be implying.

and...

2.) overestimating how much of an individual impact a single player can have on defense. You seemed to imply in some of your other posts that you could build a team from scratch around Bill Russell...a defensive player. I have never heard that proposed in all of my life following the NBA. The NBA has always been an offensive league. Sure, defense is a major factor in distinguishing between all the top offensive teams, but you're rarely ever going to see a contending team that is all defense and little offense. The NBA is not the NFL, where a defense can carry a mediocre/unspectacular offense. This lowers Russell's overall value significantly when compared to a player that could anchor a team on both sides of the court.

 

I’m talking about Dwight the player not Dwight the teammate.

Clearly bill Russell is better in that department.

I can easily say that Russell would be a Clint Capela type of player in this era and would have trouble scoring even 10ppg. If you shoot that bad in that era you would get killed in the modern era.

I don’t doubt that he’s a fantastic defender that would translate to this era but he would not even be considered the 2nd best player on a championship team.

That’s a pretty big difference.

Guys like Hakeem, wilt, Kareem would dominate in any era. Hakeem especially he was ahead of his time in being able to switch onto guards.

I’m not trying to rag on bill but he’s not the goat and it’s not even close.

His claim to fame is the chips he won which is great but the league had 10 teams and his team did have quite a few HOF players. Whether u think their in the HOF because of bill or not us besides the point because they all were clearly talented enough to get in.

He’s done a lot for the game but if we go skill for skill there’s quite a few players I would pick over him for goat status.

 

Hakeem is was better than Russell

Dream would have been wilt on offense and Russell on defense and would be considered the best player off Alltime.

Players are better now than then it’s modern evolution. Shaq could have easily scored 100 points in a game like wilt did In the era. David Robison and Helen would have done all of the stuff wilt did in that era.

I never get why the old heads can’t see that players are far more skilled Athletic as well as being bigger and faster.

To think that guys wouldn’t have the same impact as those players in that era I’d laughable to me.

Hell even Joel Embiid would have dominated that era.

 

Bill Russell was not athletic? An olympic level high jumper who can run the 400m in 49s all while being 6ft10 and strong as hell ? Show me a better athlete at his position today.
Russell and Wilt were the original unicorns. They are genetic one offs. Shaq could dominate any era because he too is a genetic one off: a 300 pounds 7fter that had elite coordination. Lol at Robinson doing it like Wilt. Old ass, injury-ridden Wilt played against Kareem (the actual goat) and more than held his own.
While Hakeem is definitely one of the best defensive players of all time, he has nothing on Russell as a team defender and organizer. Russell's rep as the GOAT defender rest in a major way on his incredible vision on defense. He always seemed to rotate and help at the best moment. I really don't understand why there is so much incredulity at thinking that there was a sizable gap between Russell and Hakeem in terms of defensive ability when it is the very reason why Russell is rated higher than Hakeem in serious basketball circles with no time for "ringz" arguments. Finally Russell's outsized impact on Celtics win rate has been repeatedly borne out by the stats and that was because the Celtics dynasty was built on defense.
PS: While it may seem that I am a Russell stan getting off from watching grainy film, I actually think that Bill was and remains a bitter, racist POS. I probably disagree with him on most subjects.

 

You're already following a different sport, one played by ghosts and straw men.

Don't know what an "organizer" is, apparently a 6th position on the floor that Russell was the greatest at, as well as the only one to play.

Hakeem's teams weren't build on defense? Serious basketball circles? You really need to learn to think objectively.

No one is saying Russell wasn't a great defender, they're saying that a one-way player isn't in the discussion and Russell is a one-way player. Rodman was a great defender too.

Kareem also preferred to play only one end of the court. Also not the greatest.

 

That's what would think the fair comparison would be with a much better passing game than Ben, but to pretend that he could do things Dream could do offensively is pure fantasy.

 

People think you are dissing, hating, or trying discredit him by saying those things. But, having a career 44 FG% is below average for a big men, they are long range shooting bigs and wing players who average that, being the focal point on offense and enduring double-triple teams.