Steve9347 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:00 PM) All this debate just makes me remember how much I loved reading "The Book of Basketball". Yes. I finally got that back from someone I let borrow it, and I'm definitely going to go through it again. So much fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (ZoomSlowik @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) If Ben Wallace was even remotely close to Bill Russell, then why does he only have one ring? Could it be because he didn't dominate the league to nearly the degree that Russell did? And don't give me the "there were no big guys" thing, because Russell pretty much owned Wilt for 10 years. He never owned Wilt. His teams owned Wilt. When Wilt had a cast around him, he won. You look at their size, skillset (or lack thereof), they were pretty similar (I'm talking about Wallace here). Even if you put Russell in today's game and give him all the benefits of advanced training, etc, he won't be any bigger than Wallace. Wallace was a physical specimen who fell off a cliff once we signed him for whatever reason. But he had a 4-5 year run that was every bit as impressive as Russell, IMO. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:56 AM) How many full games of Bill Russell's have you watched in their entirety? OK. Now I feel like you're stalking me or obsessed with me or something. Edited June 13, 2011 by Jordan4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) He never owned Wilt. His teams owned Wilt. When Wilt had a cast around him, he won. You look at their size, skillset (or lack thereof), they were pretty similar (I'm talking about Wallace here). Even if you put Russell in today's game and give him all the benefits of advanced training, etc, he won't be any bigger than Wallace. Wallace was a physical specimen who fell off a cliff once we signed him for whatever reason. But he had a 4-5 year run that was every bit as impressive as Russell, IMO. OK. Now I feel like you're stalking me or obsessed with me or something. Not at all. You are just Mr. I KNOW IT ALL and I despise people who know it all without having ever even witnessed what they claim to be so absolutely certain about. Answer the question. Edited June 13, 2011 by iamshack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:04 PM) Not at all. You are just Mr. I KNOW IT ALL and I despise people who know it all without having ever even witnessed what they claim to be so absolutely certain about. Answer the question. Whatever. You never post in this thread and here you go trying to get smart. No. I didn't see Russell play live back in the 60's. That good enough for you? And I never claimed to know it all. It's my opinion. It's obviously not a popular opinion. And that's fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:48 AM) Let's put it this way: Hakeem >> Russell Yet Hakeem is never mentioned as one of the all-time great centers. It's always Wilt, Kareem and Russell. Then there's the next tier. Hakeem and Shaq would make a dirty diaper outta Bill Russell. It wouldn't even be funny. It would be like when Jeff Hornacek would check Jordan. No way. Olajowon never dominated the game the way that a Russell did. The Dream was a great player, and one of the top in his era, but I put him firmly into the second tier of all time centers. I would also add Shaq to the top tier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) http://www.basketball-reference.com/friv/ratings.cgi Basketball reference site has Russel at 6 and Olajuwon as 9 (not really much of a difference). I think you can argue Russell over Hakeem (Championships, intangibles, whatever), but Hakeem over Shaq? That just seems strange. Edited June 13, 2011 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:57 AM) My point eluded you. Hakeem Olajuwon was twice the player Bill Russell was. Yet Russell's viewed as a top 3 center ever while Hakeem is perpetually stuck in the second tier. And how am I a troll? Because I don't bow down when the masses have different opinions then myself? This is why I stay out of filmbuster. I'd get banned in 22 seconds if I were to share my opinions. The amazing part of Hakeem is he didn't play basketball until he was 14. He was an all world soccer player at that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:09 PM) No way. Olajowon never dominated the game the way that a Russell did. The Dream was a great player, and one of the top in his era, but I put him firmly into the second tier of all time centers. I would also add Shaq to the top tier. Hakeem was better at every facet of basketball. I have no clue where you're coming from. He did it better against MUCH stiffer competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Hakeem was better at every facet of basketball. I have no clue where you're coming from. He did it better against MUCH stiffer competition. The Dream wasn't your typical big man. He didn't make his mark in the paint. His game was more of the outside in. Plus he wasn't nearly the defender that many other big men were, even in his own time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:12 PM) Hakeem was better at every facet of basketball. I have no clue where you're coming from. He did it better against MUCH stiffer competition. The only thing he did better than Russell was shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:08 PM) Whatever. You never post in this thread and here you go trying to get smart. No. I didn't see Russell play live back in the 60's. That good enough for you? And I never claimed to know it all. It's my opinion. It's obviously not a popular opinion. And that's fine. I certainly do post in this thread. And since I do not post in it often, I am not allowed to point out the ridiculous nature of your opinion? I didn't ask if you watched Russell play "live" in the 60's. I asked if you have ever watched a game of his in its entirety? They did actually record basketball games in the 1960's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:18 PM) The Dream wasn't your typical big man. He didn't make his mark in the paint. His game was more of the outside in. Plus he wasn't nearly the defender that many other big men were, even in his own time. WHAT? Oh my goodness. Please stop. Hakeem was a two time DPOY, led the league in blocks multiple times, even averaged over 2 SPG a couple years. He was a FORCE defensively. Who was better? Ewing? Robinson? C'mon now. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:20 PM) The only thing he did better than Russell was shoot. Shoot, score, rebound (probably similar when you adjust for pace), pass, much better FT shooter against better competition. QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:21 PM) I certainly do post in this thread. And since I do not post in it often, I am not allowed to point out the ridiculous nature of your opinion? I didn't ask if you watched Russell play "live" in the 60's. I asked if you have ever watched a game of his in its entirety? They did actually record basketball games in the 1960's. Well, I can't recall many 1965 showdowns between the Celtics and Sixers popping up on ESPN classic or NBA tv. So, no, I've never seen a full game of Bill Russell. Just highlights. What are you getting at? Edited June 13, 2011 by Jordan4life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) WHAT? Oh my goodness. Please stop. Hakeem was a two time DPOY, led the league in blocks multiple times, even averaged over 2 SPG a couple years. He was a FORCE defensively. Who was better? Ewing? Robinson? C'mon now. Shoot, score, rebound (probably similar when you adjust for pace), pass, much better FT shooter against better competition. Well, I can't recall many 1965 showdowns between the Celtics and Sixers popping up on ESPN classic or NBA tv. So, no, I've never seen a full game of Bill Russell. Just highlights. What are you getting at? I'm getting at the fact that it's extraordinarily arrogant to claim Bill Russell is the same player as Ben Wallace, without having ever watched Bill Russell really play basketball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) Shoot, score, rebound (probably similar when you adjust for pace), pass, much better FT shooter . You said shooting in 3 different ways. Russell was a better rebounder and better defensively. Hakeem however kind of started the movement of 7 footers being able to take their game outside, he's alot like Dirk in that manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:02 PM) He never owned Wilt. His teams owned Wilt. When Wilt had a cast around him, he won. You look at their size, skillset (or lack thereof), they were pretty similar (I'm talking about Wallace here). Even if you put Russell in today's game and give him all the benefits of advanced training, etc, he won't be any bigger than Wallace. Wallace was a physical specimen who fell off a cliff once we signed him for whatever reason. But he had a 4-5 year run that was every bit as impressive as Russell, IMO. Bob Cousy shot 37.5% from the floor on his career. How good could he have been! /JFL Read the Russell/Wilt section of Simmons' book. While he exaggerates a bit (counting Nate Thurmond as a pyramid player that Wilt played with his pretty tacky) and I don't totally agree with his conclusion, Wilt had plenty of legit players on his team later in his career and still didn't beat the Celtics with regularity Again, the Lakers had West, Baylor AND Wilt in 68-69 and still lost to the Celtics. That's three top-20 players of all time by most counts, and Russell's team still won. Again, you're completely ignoring that Russell was a far better passer than Wallace and actually scored points. There's a reason that Russell had a far longer peak and was held in far higher regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Comparing Bill Russell to Ben Wallace is one of the most outlandish and over the top remarks I've heard. Russell could glide, I mean f***ing glide down the court, and he had court vision and set his teammates up. He could also put the ball on the court and dribble. None of these facts seem to matter to you. You don't need to catch nbatv or espnclassic to see what the man could do. It was the f***ing 1960's, and he looked like a player who could hold his own and get s*** done today. Discounting 50 years of genetics, medication, training, evolution of NBA rules is flat out ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:27 PM) WHAT? Oh my goodness. Please stop. Hakeem was a two time DPOY, led the league in blocks multiple times, even averaged over 2 SPG a couple years. He was a FORCE defensively. Who was better? Ewing? Robinson? C'mon now. I lived in Houston while he was in college and starting in the NBA. I watched Rockets games religious when I was down there. I know his resume, but I also watch the guy play a lot more than probably anyone here. He couldn't hold the physical style of center. Most of his blocks were of the help variety, and not on his own guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Why aren't we discussing Bill Wennington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurt05 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:40 PM) Why aren't we discussing Bill Wennington? Best Canadian center of all-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 05:42 PM) Best Canadian center of all-time And, surprisingly, Canada has produced its fair share of league average centers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:46 PM) And, surprisingly, Canada has produced its fair share of league average centers. Yes, but what about Australia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Alright. This has obviously evolved into me against the entire board. I'm done quoting 3-4 posters at a time. It is MY opinion that Bill Russell was/is overrated. It is MY opinion that Shaq, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan, hell, even Dwight Howard, would violate him. I will not deny Russell's impact and what he's meant to the game, especially during those times (as a darkie, I can obviously appreciate that). But strictly basketball related, he doesn't impress me in comparison to other all-time greats. Wilt? He'd be a monster in any era. Russell? Yes, Ben Wallace. Ben Wallace has been so irrelevant for so long that it's easy to forget how good he was from '02-'06. I wasn't even trying to insult him by comparing him to Wallace. I deem it fair. 11 titles is going to make anybody look good. That's what people look at. And that's why he's ultimately overrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoomSlowik Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) Best Canadian center of all-time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Ben Wallace is moe Dennis Rodman than Bill Russell dude. And even thats a stretch. Ben Wallace will never enter the HOF discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buehrle>Wood Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 13, 2011 -> 05:47 PM) Yes, but what about Australia? Wennington, Joel Anthony, Dalembert, Magloire, and Todd MacCulloch versus Luc Longley, Chris Anstey, David Andersen, and Andrew Bogut. It's close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts