IMHO top centers, All time ------------------------ 1. Kareem Adbul-Jabbar 2. Hakeem Olujuwon 3. Wilt Chamberlain 4. Bill Russell 5. Moses Malone
And as more time goes on, Hakeem seems to go higher and higher in the rankings. Seems like you are talking yourself into it.
One on One, I'll take Dream over any center in the NBA, past or present!!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is not biased. That is a fact. Your chances of winning in an 8 team league are higher than your chances of winning in a 29 team league. Don't use past achievements (such as winning 11 titles) unless you are prepared to consider the time and manner in which they were accomplished. And once again, the point was that he had a ton of help in a different era.
And once again, you try to discredit a players past to elevate another players more recent history. And about the 8 vs 29 team issue....Yeah, and? Era-challenging again?
Doesn't this show the dominance of Wilt? Wasn't he a great player too? I mean, if Russell was able to "hold" Wilt to 30 points, that was considered a good game for him. Is the game supposed to read Russell: 15pts/20rbs, Wilt 0 pts/0 rbs, for Russell to be considered a great player? I mean, do you we live in a vacuum? Remember, Wilt would score 60 on someone of lesser ability in the same game. One of the reasons for the Russell/Wilt legacy was because of their epic battles. It's all relative. Also, how many times have people referred to the importance of the TEAM? Why do you think that LA, Boston, Philly, Bulls, were able to dominate so long? It's not just the importance of having depth on ones team, but also the know how to play together. The team is greater than the sum of its parts. Icehouse, you actually think that "team" is bad word. All you can see it individual stats. "My guy can jump higher than your guy....etc, etc..." I mean, you actually deduct from a players "achievements" by using the fact that he had a team around him like if that was a bad thing. Dude! Winning is winning, and that's what history remembers most. Not whether or not someone could jump higher or play on both sides of the court. In 20 years, someone will say that the only reason that Hakeem was so good was because Jordan wasn't in the league or that the talent level was weak, etc, etc...or, maybe that the era he played in was weak compared to 2023 (Remember, fans have short memories, and what's "hip" or "in style" at the time is considered the "best."). I would say that's BS!!!! They will be trying to discredit Hakeem because of his "era/competition" and use it against him. That's what you are doing against Russell.
Yes, but it is easier to win WHEN YOUR TEAM HAS MORE TALENT ON IT THAN ANY OTHER TEAM!!!! Big difference between having a talented team and a team with the most talent on it year in and year out, bar none. You are steadily discrediting the contributions of Russell's many, many HOF teammates. Yes, winning is winning. Basketball is a "team" sport. The Celtics had the best team. We are comparing Hakeem and Russell as players. Hakeem could dominate two sides of the court. Russell could not. It's that simple.
How do you explain Russell's offensive prowess in College, where he won two national championships. That's the point, he didn't have to be the man on offense and he didn't try when he got to the Celtics. He was the ultimate team player, and we don't know what he could have done on offense if he had to be the man. Just like Kobe, you're victimizing him because he didn't have to do it alone. But not having to do it alone is different than not being able to.
how do you explain dennis rodman's offensive prowess in college? sometimes college offensive skill does not translate into nba offensive skill. my .02
No more for you, you're stoned. You actually put Wilt below Dream and Moses above Shaq?!? You are a true homer. It is good to be a fan and all, but grow some objectivity please.
of course not. what difference does that make though? did rodman have the surrounding program that russell had? of course not. all i'm saying is that a "college scorer" does not always equal a "nba scorer". doesn't that seem reasonable? for more examples, see: chris jackson lindsey hunter
Can you name a player in Russell's league to make your example is the point I'm making. You keep naming Chris Jackson, Lindsey Hunter, Dennis Rodman, but these guys are no where near the league of a player like Russell. The point I'm making is Russell won everywhere he played, so I can make the point he didn't score because he didn't need to, as evidenced by his team success. Chris Jackson and Lindsey Hunter didn't score in the NBA because they weren't good enough, and there is nothing else they brought to the game that suggest that maybe they didn't score because they didn't have to. They just sucked on the NBA level Dennis Rodman on the other hand you may have a point although I don't know how much of a scorer he was in college.
That depends on how you rate greatness at te center position. Is it championships? stats? I'm a Rockets fan, but even if I wasn't, I think I'd call Hakeem the greatest center of all time because he wasthe entire package, a center with th agility and shot of a guard, something the league has rarely seen before or after the Dream came onto the scene. Dream could do it all and you can't say that about any other center that's ever played the game. It's also worth mentioning that the centers Dream is most often compared to (Shaq, Russel, Wilt) all played most of their years for teams that contended for championships every year. Dream on the other hand pracitcally played alone....I mean he played with some real losers for half of his career. Many players in that environment would have given up (by give up I mean not give it their all night in and night out). Hakeem had his moments, but the man always came to play his butt off. And if I can just take a moment to smear Wilt and Russel a lttle to help my argument, standing in the paint with a 1990's physique against the weaker, shorter white men of the 60's is a luxury Dream never had. Imagine what the Dreamshake would have done against such competition. Pleassseee!!!!!!! I actually would rate Shaq second to Hakeem on the all time list. I think Shaq gets a real bad rep from the media and the fans. Shaq by no means possesses the silky sweet moves that Dream possessed, but looking at the man's game in 93' compared to what he comes with today and you have to give the man credit for the moves he has at his size. Maybe not as pretty as Hakeem's moves, but quite unbelievable for a man of that size and you know the man had to work on that long and hard. Shaq is also a very good passing center which he never gets credit for.
kareem went down during magic's first year with the lakers. magic played post and the lakers won the title.
ANOMALY: deviation from the common rule. : something different, abnormal, peculiar, or not easily classified.......i.e. Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon
I'm amazed that people who continually knock Francis for not being a team player are some of the people knocking Russell's commitment to team because he didn't score enough.
I don't care if you call me a homer or think I don't know basketball. How can you give an opinion about different eras, different teams, different seasons, different... (you get my point?) How dare you compare??? That's like trying to compare Apples to Oranges. NOT THE SAME, gentlemen. Hakeem RULED ALL HEAVENS AND UNIVERSE WHILE PLAYING (ask young SHAQ, young Robinson, young Manute, young Dikembe, young Bradley, old Parish, and old Ewing). End of story. If you're not a homer, then why are you on this BBS? See, that's why I don't answer these silly threads... comparing Hakeem to anything... the nerve...
