How great are the greats really?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from walton. Show walton's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to How great are the greats really?:
     If Bill Russel were to be replaced with Dwight Howard would the celtics have as many championships as they did led by Bill. Would Bill Russel even be able to lead the Magic to a finals? what would the cavs be if they had Larry Bird and Lebron were the one battling Magic's Lakers in the 80s?
    Posted by brndonthagreat

                     Bill Russell was the most intelligent basketball player to ever play the sport. He was twice as good as Dwight Howard could ever be because of his intelligence and his ability to execute a game plan which allowed his team to succeed. Dwight Howard in contrast is a dumb, dumb, basketball player. Russell lead the Celtics to 11 World Championships. He also lead the small college of San Francisco to 60 straight wins. Think this was a fluke? He was successful against arguably the most dominant player to ever play the game {Wilt Chamberlain} and the two headed monster of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Chamberlain would have eaten Howard up. Wilt was not as intelligent a player as Russell but he was alot more "savvy" than Howard. The Celtics would not have come close to the 11 Championships Russell lead them too with Howard replacing him. To think otherwise is ludicrous.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    In Response to How great are the greats really? :                  Bill Russell was the most intelligent basketball player to ever play the sport. He was twice as good as Dwight Howard could ever be because of his intelligence and his ability to execute a game plan which allowed his team to succeed. Dwight Howard in contrast is a dumb, dumb, basketball player. Russell lead the Celtics to 11 World Championships. He also lead the small college of San Francisco to 60 straight wins. Think this was a fluke? He was successful against arguably the most dominant player to ever play the game {Wilt Chamberlain} and the two headed monster of Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Chamberlain would have eaten Howard up. Wilt was not as intelligent a player as Russell but he was alot more "savvy" than Howard. The Celtics would not have come close to the 11 Championships Russell lead them too with Howard replacing him. To think otherwise is ludicrous.
    Posted by walton


    I agree.  He was always two steps ahead of everyone else.  He was an innovator in terms of defense and blocking shots.  He would be great in any era
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    This always gets me in era discussions, almost all of us are taller than our parents.  In this era Russell would most likely have been two to three inches taller allowing him to play certainly at his circa 1960's ability.  He was a big man who dominated playing against bigger big man Wilt, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Walt Bellamy and other giants.
    Posted by concord27


    As good as Russell was he never dominated Chamberlain. He won more titles for sure but individually, Chamberlain was a beast.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really? : As good as Russell was he never dominated Chamberlain. He won more titles for sure but individually, Chamberlain was a beast.
    Posted by RUMcHale


    Typical Kobe mentality, me first then the team. Since when did Basketball become an individual sport like Tennis or Golf? It's about winning as a team. 

    What's the point in being a beast if most of the time you end up losing. Cool
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really? : Typical Kobe mentality, me first then the team. Since when did Basketball become an individual sport like Tennis or Golf? It's about winning as a team.  What's the point in being a beast if most of the time you end up losing. 
    Posted by P34


    Isn't it ironic, you make a point regarding Kobe to emphasize individuality and yet he has more championships than any current player (except Fisher) playing. So if Kobe is individualistic, how did he win 5? Let me guess, he rode the coat tails of Shaq and Gasol. But wait, if he rode their coat tails wouldn't he have had to play as a team member??

    See, you really should think before you type. Schooled again.

    RUMcHale=2
    P34=0

    Hard luck.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    As mentioned previously, Russ and Wilt were good friends, and they both got what they wanted out of the relationship.  Wilt got all the stats, Russ won all the titles...koME has nothing to do with it!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from mem17. Show mem17's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    Wilt deserves more credit than what some of you guys are giving him. Some of you guys are giving him the credit he deserves. Wilt won 2 championships despite the fact he had to play against the Celtics for most of his career against Bill Russell, Cousy, Sam Jones et al. One championship was with the Lakers once Russell retired. Wilt was one of the 5 best players of all-time and almost any basketball fan who is old enough to have watched him play would agree.
        Does the fact that Patrick Ewing, Karl Malone or John Stockton never winning a championship make them less of a player or even Ernie Banks from the Chicago Cubs. I don't think so. Neither had a good enough team to play with to win a championship or there was a team during their era that was extremely dominant such as the 60's Celtics or the 90's Bulls. 
       
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from mem17. Show mem17's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    Why is it that when comparing generations everyone wants to do a 'Remake' of the older generation player? Sort of sounds like a confession that the players of the 50's and 60's were not as good as the current generation. Here are a few things they would have to do to compete with the current players.  Put on 10-50 lbs, make them 2" taller, improve their shooting by 5-10%, make all the white players as quick as the black players and at the same time teach them how to separate their feet from the floor. And when dribbling the ball point out that they have 2 hands and that it is legal to use your 'off' hand. But most important of all figure out what to do with all the white players of the 50's and 60's that would not make the rosters of the modern generation. SeemsToMe
    Posted by SeemsToMe

        You're correct that some of the players from the 50's and 60's would never make it in the NBA today.  However the star players from those eras would be stars today also. Examples: Russell, Chamberlain, West, Baylor, Cunningham etc. It's also true for other sports. Willie Mays and Mickey Mantle would be just as dominant in baseball today as they were during the 50's and 60's.  How about Jim Brown in football? He would still be the best running back in the NFL.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really? : Isn't it ironic, you make a point regarding Kobe to emphasize individuality and yet he has more championships than any current player (except Fisher) playing. So if Kobe is individualistic, how did he win 5? Let me guess, he rode the coat tails of Shaq and Gasol. But wait, if he rode their coat tails wouldn't he have had to play as a team member?? See, you really should think before you type. Schooled again. RUMcHale=2 P34=0 Hard luck.
    Posted by RUMcHale


    How many titles did Kobe get when there was no Shaq or Gasol? ZERO!

    Kobe and the Lakers even missed the 2005 playoffs.Cool

    HAHAHA!!!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really? : Isn't it ironic, you make a point regarding Kobe to emphasize individuality and yet he has more championships than any current player (except Fisher) playing. So if Kobe is individualistic, how did he win 5? Let me guess, he rode the coat tails of Shaq and Gasol. But wait, if he rode their coat tails wouldn't he have had to play as a team member?? See, you really should think before you type. Schooled again. RUMcHale=2 P34=0 Hard luck.
    Posted by RUMcHale


    2-0, really? When was it 1-0?
     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    So Fierce thinks that Chamberlain stinks .... tell that to Russell and see where that gets you.
    Posted by Mployee8


    I never said that Chamberlain stinks. Making things up just so you can make me look bad. You're pathetic! 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: How great are the greats really?

    In Response to Re: How great are the greats really?:
    So Fierce thinks that Chamberlain stinks .... tell that to Russell and see where that gets you.
    Posted by Mployee8


    Or better yet, why don't you post my post where I said that Chamberlain stinks.  
     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share