There is only one "G O A T"

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from bostonsucks69. Show bostonsucks69's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Russell was a great player but he played with a lot of hall of famers and back in a time when there was only 8 teams. Here is my top 5.

    1. Magic
    2. Jordan
    3. Kareem
    4. Chamberlain
    5. Kobe
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from painter. Show painter's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    [QUOTE]I never saw Russell or Wilt play, so I'm not going to argue either way.  However, to say he is the greatest champion of all time based on his 11 rings in 13 years is a little overstated.  Many of those years, the league only had 8 or 9 teams, 6 of which made the playoffs, and often half of the playoff teams had losing records.  The teams with the best record in each conference got 1st round byes and only had to win 8 playoff games to get the championship. 

    And those 8 teams were stacked top to bottom with what at the time were real NBA players, each with a role.  It was no easier to win then than it is now, except for the difference of free agency. Every time a new team was added, a dispersal draft was held that took effective players from each team; not the stars, but those just below. The new teams also had draft preference in a desire to make them immediately viable.  The stiffs began to arrive in the '70s, after Mr. Russell and company had dominated.  I did see Russell and Wilt play each other and would marvel at Russell's ability to 1. play Wilt to a stand-offf, while, 2. making the other Celtics better.  Wilt never made teammates better through his play.  Bill Russell is the greatest player in NBA history. Period.  Gotta laugh at anyone who wants to include the choker LaQueen in a discussion of quality players.  He can't touch Russell, MJ, Bird, Magic, Jerry West, Dr. J, or Dwayne Wade in the ability to rise to the occasion and finish a game or a championship.  He gags whenever given the opportunity.  An overrated tight end who can't handle the ball without traveling and can't take it inside without first knocking stationary defensive players off their feet.  If games were called like they were in Russell's day, LeQueen would be a detriment to any team because he'd be giving up the ball all of the time - carries, double dribbles, walks, charges - too many turnover possibilities to name.  But he gets to do what other players are not allowed to do because the NBA officiating is corrupt and inferior.  


     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Another way to look at it is the Russell/Chamberlain rivalry......Wilt went for stats....Russ went for wins....Wilt won twice in his entire career....he couldn't lead his college team to a title....and Wilt played with some great talent.....the year he led the league at 50 PPG, his team had a losing record...he was traded mid season...after finally winning in Philly, he wore out his welcome and was traded to the Lakers....he finally won another title....his physical skills could've let to many titles...but his mental make up (look what I can do) reduced his overall impact on three teams....
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from cofj. Show cofj's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Another great post Duke.  Wilt was one of the greats, but he didn't compare to Russell.  In my opinion, not only was Wilt not the greatest to play the game, he wasn't even the greatest CENTER to play the game.  He wasn't even the greatest LAKER'S CENTER to play the game.  That goes to Kareem.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Thanks buddy!! I agree with you....so much talent.....but he rarely learned to fit his talents to winning teams.....
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Basing the argument largely on number of championships presumes that (i) none of the greatest players in the last 25 years could have accomplished the same in the 1960s, and, conversely (ii) Russell would have won that many rings regardless of the era in which he played.  I don't think it's true.  Teams don't even get to the Finals more than 3 consecutive times anymore.  Reviewing his stats show he was a great defender and rebounder, and slightly above average offensively.  His FG% never approached best in the league, and he was a poor FT shooter, but was a great passer.  Blocks weren't official stats in his day, so who knows.  Was he the perfect player?  No, but his "faults" (for lack of a better term) are overlooked due to his 11 rings in 13 years.  You can say he was better than Wilt because they played against each other.  How is it possible to definitively say he was better than Hakeem, Shaq and Kareem?  And I'm not definitively saying that he wasn't, because the point is the eras in which they played were so different.  Still, I do think it is much harder to go through 4 rounds of playoffs every year than 2.  But, just like the Celtics and Lakers each dominated separate eras, you can say Russell was the best of his era.  Reaching beyond that is insulting to the greats who played the majority of their careers in any of the last 3 decades.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from lakersavenger. Show lakersavenger's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Duke, he was great, but what have you done for me lately? Just sayin'.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFURY13. Show DFURY13's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    Who cares. King James is better than them both.
    Posted by tompenny


    Lebron is still King Nothing until he wins something.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Avenger.............I hear you pal...and I get it...
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"


      I get the feeling that many on this board, to a great extent, Judge a players ability on the number of rings he  accumulates over the coarse of his career. Just wonder how many rings Russ might have picked up during his career if he had been signed back in 1956 by the Knicks or Pistons?
      Here's a little Comparison of the 3 teams from 1956 through the 1968-69 season.
       Winning seasons--Celts-13,,,Knicks-3,,,Pistons-0
       Win Percentage---Celts-.705,,, Knicks-.420,,,Pistons-.403
      Average number of roster Hall of fame players per year on each team.
           Celts-5.08,,,Knicks-1.6,,,Pistons-1.9  (Celtic number does not include Russ)

      Of coarse there is no way to know the answer, but if it was less than 11, would that make Russ, while playing with either the Knicks or Pistons, any less the great player that he certainly was while playing for the Celts?

         Just wondering.
    Seems
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Seems.......you have me totally confused as to our earlier discussions.....are you the same "Seems" that I was talking with a few days ago.......going on 80.....?  ....just wondering my friend!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    Seems.......you have me totally confused as to our earlier discussions.....are you the same "Seems" that I was talking with a few days ago.......going on 80.....?  ....just wondering my friend!
    Posted by Duke4

     Thats me

    Seems
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    hmmmm..........one minute you are touting the early Celtic teams....the next you are going the other way.......I'm confused.....

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
      I get the feeling that many on this board, to a great extent, Judge a players ability on the number of rings he  accumulates over the coarse of his career. Just wonder how many rings Russ might have picked up during his career if he had been signed back in 1956 by the Knicks or Pistons?   Here's a little Comparison of the 3 teams from 1956 through the 1968-69 season.    Winning seasons--Celts-13,,,Knicks-3,,,Pistons-0    Win Percentage---Celts-.705,,, Knicks-.420,,,Pistons-.403   Average number of roster Hall of fame players per year on each team.        Celts-5.08,,,Knicks-1.6,,,Pistons-1.9  (Celtic number does not include Russ)   Of coarse there is no way to know the answer, but if it was less than 11, would that make Russ, while playing with either the Knicks or Pistons, any less the great player that he certainly was while playing for the Celts?      Just wondering. Seems
    Posted by SeemsToMe


    I'm of the opinion that Russell would have won multiple championships wherever he ended up playing. If he'd have gone to St Louis they'd have won multiple titles in the 50's and 60's. Celtics won nothing without Russell and it could be argued that they may well not have won a championship if Russell was playing for another team.

    That's how important Russell was. Russell was just too good in that era. He'd have made any team that he played for into a great one. Back to St Louis, say he landed there and they won 10 or 11 championships. Then St Louis would have the hall of fame players and the Celtics may well have not have the same number of players enshrined at Naismith that they do now. Heck, the Celtics may well have been in another city? It's impossible to say what would have happened.

    Russell made the Careers of those Celtic players. And I'm including guys like Cousey, Ramsey and Sharman there. Without Russell they don't win anything, and they would still be remembered as basketball pioneers, but they would not be remembered as championship winners.


     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    hmmmm..........one minute you are touting the early Celtic teams....the next you are going the other way.......I'm confused.....
    Posted by Duke4


      Duke
     I don't recall touting them,( short term memory could be better) but I do recall saying that the Celtic teams of the 50's and 60's were my favorite Celtic teams.That still holds. But for many different reasons I consider the ability of the players and the quality of the teams of the 50's and 60's, to be quite inferior to those of the 80's onto the present. I  don't Judge Russ by the number of rings he has. I watched him play for 13 years, so I'm totally aware of his fabulous talent and would guess that he would have been just as great with the
     Knicks or pistons. But as to how many rings he would have won playing with those 2 pathetic teams?  Who knows?  But I doubt that it would have been 11. Same Russ, different cast of players at his side.    By the way, my remarks are not intended as a put down of Russ but rather to illustrate my opinion that there are some flaws in using "Rings" to determine one's greatness.
    Seems 
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T" : Wrong again!! Your hopeless argument about there now being 20 teams opposed to 9 in the 60s is so pathetic. The player base is now far more accessible to African American players including international players i.e. Nowitzki, Gasol, Ginobli to name but a few. Can you name 3 international players from the 60s that were significant?? FAIL!! So far, you've been schooled on this topic as well as you claiming Kareem won 3 championships AND that Magic/Kareem/Worthy (3 players) would be a counter argument for Kobe/Shaq being the best 1-2 combo! WOW- YOU FAIL!!
    Posted by Laker-Nation32


    Explain why it is a hopeless argument?

    Wouldn't a 20 team league be better than one at it's current size? More teams doesn't equate to the product being better. Or if it does, can you explain it to me.

    The best players in the league in the LATE 50's and 60's were African American. How and where did I say the league was not accessible to them? Show me where I said this.

    Did international players go to play in the NBA in the 1960's? I'm assuming that the majority of the best international players in the 60's were from Eastern Bloc countries. So how could they have played in the NBA? It would have been politically impossible. Explain to me why foreign players would have wanted to play in the NBA in the 50's and 60's seeing you bought them up. Was there Japanese players playing Baseball in the USA in the same period? Or Mexican players?

    Just looking at the Olympic Games during the period you bought up the Silver medal was won by The Soviet Union - FOUR TIMES. None of those players who you would probably classify as THE BEST international players at the time would have been able to play in the NBA. The other Silver medalist during that era was Yugoslavia. Again the players from that nation would have been unable to play in the NBA during that period. So as I said the best players in the world, other than from the United States were in the Eastern Bloc. Therefore they could not have played in the USA even if they wanted to.

    You always attack but you never offer anything constructive. I'm figuring that most people here must have you on ignore. I don't know why I don't.



     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from DFURY13. Show DFURY13's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T" : Explain why it is a hopeless argument? Wouldn't a 20 team league be better than one at it's current size? More teams doesn't equate to the product being better. Or if it does, can you explain it to me. The best players in the league in the LATE 50's and 60's were African American. How and where did I say the league was not accessible to them? Show me where I said this. Did international players go to play in the NBA in the 1960's? I'm assuming that the majority of the best international players in the 60's were from Eastern Bloc countries. So how could they have played in the NBA? It would have been politically impossible. Explain to me why foreign players would have wanted to play in the NBA in the 50's and 60's seeing you bought them up. Was there Japanese players playing Baseball in the USA in the same period? Or Mexican players? Just looking at the Olympic Games during the period you bought up the Silver medal was won by The Soviet Union - FOUR TIMES. None of those players who you would probably classify as THE BEST international players at the time would have been able to play in the NBA. The other Silver medalist during that era was Yugoslavia. Again the players from that nation would have been unable to play in the NBA during that period. So as I said the best players in the world, other than from the United States were in the Eastern Bloc. Therefore they could not have played in the USA even if they wanted to. You always attack but you never offer anything constructive. I'm figuring that most people here must have you on ignore. I don't know why I don't.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Have you ever met a troll who could make a valid argument? I think we'll see pigs fly before we see that lol.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    to my good friends "Seems" and "RU"......it is always refreshing to read your comments....and the integrity and good manners speak volumes....well done!

    B
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    to my good friends "Seems" and "RU"......it is always refreshing to read your comments....and the integrity and good manners speak volumes....well done! B
    Posted by Duke4

     Duke

       Keep those thoughtfull and well intended post coming. I fully understand and appreciate your passion for the " Game of your youth".
    Seems
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Thanks buddy.....I am still a fanatic.....guess some things never change.....

    Celtics
    Dodgers & BoSox
    Rams

    my teams for 50+ years.....no turning back now....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from koberulz. Show koberulz's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T" : Explain why it is a hopeless argument? Wouldn't a 20 team league be better than one at it's current size? More teams doesn't equate to the product being better. Or if it does, can you explain it to me. The best players in the league in the LATE 50's and 60's were African American. How and where did I say the league was not accessible to them? Show me where I said this. Did international players go to play in the NBA in the 1960's? I'm assuming that the majority of the best international players in the 60's were from Eastern Bloc countries. So how could they have played in the NBA? It would have been politically impossible. Explain to me why foreign players would have wanted to play in the NBA in the 50's and 60's seeing you bought them up. Was there Japanese players playing Baseball in the USA in the same period? Or Mexican players? Just looking at the Olympic Games during the period you bought up the Silver medal was won by The Soviet Union - FOUR TIMES. None of those players who you would probably classify as THE BEST international players at the time would have been able to play in the NBA. The other Silver medalist during that era was Yugoslavia. Again the players from that nation would have been unable to play in the NBA during that period. So as I said the best players in the world, other than from the United States were in the Eastern Bloc. Therefore they could not have played in the USA even if they wanted to. You always attack but you never offer anything constructive. I'm figuring that most people here must have you on ignore. I don't know why I don't.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    You also state thst the Celtics would not have won a championship without Russell. How do you know that? You also said that St. Louis would have won multiple championships if Russell had played for them. Again, how do you know that? You hate Kobe and call yourself a Laker fan, yet how many championships would the Lakers have won without him?

    Also a 1/2 punch refers to a combo of 2 players and not 3, and Kareem has more than just 3 championships. Since you live in Australia, did a kangaroo kick you in the head or what? *kidding* Seriously though, have you ever seen a funnel web spider or a brown snake while living there?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T":
    In Response to Re: There is only one "G O A T" : Explain why it is a hopeless argument? Wouldn't a 20 team league be better than one at it's current size? More teams doesn't equate to the product being better. Or if it does, can you explain it to me. The best players in the league in the LATE 50's and 60's were African American. How and where did I say the league was not accessible to them? Show me where I said this. Did international players go to play in the NBA in the 1960's? I'm assuming that the majority of the best international players in the 60's were from Eastern Bloc countries. So how could they have played in the NBA? It would have been politically impossible. Explain to me why foreign players would have wanted to play in the NBA in the 50's and 60's seeing you bought them up. Was there Japanese players playing Baseball in the USA in the same period? Or Mexican players? Just looking at the Olympic Games during the period you bought up the Silver medal was won by The Soviet Union - FOUR TIMES. None of those players who you would probably classify as THE BEST international players at the time would have been able to play in the NBA. The other Silver medalist during that era was Yugoslavia. Again the players from that nation would have been unable to play in the NBA during that period. So as I said the best players in the world, other than from the United States were in the Eastern Bloc. Therefore they could not have played in the USA even if they wanted to. You always attack but you never offer anything constructive. I'm figuring that most people here must have you on ignore. I don't know why I don't.
    Posted by RUWorthy


    Very good advice you are giving yourself.  Also, don't respond to koberulz, as it is Rico showing his true colors!
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SeemsToMe. Show SeemsToMe's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Duke

    As a Boston Braves fan back in the late 40's and early 50's (until they moved to Milwaukee) I got to see those fabled "BUMS" quite often on T.V.  I was able to pick up their radio signal quite well at night so "Red" Barber spent many hours in my home. Then as a Yankee fan, their was always the World Series, with the 2 teams squaring off 6 times from 1947 through 1956.  I remember all those Dodger greats just like it was yesterday. But alas,its been 64 years since Cookie Lavagetto(sp) broke up Floyd Blevens no hit bid in the bottom of the 8th inning to hand the "Bums" a great World Series win. Ah the memories.

    Seems
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    I hear you pal....my first recollection of baseball was as a four year old (summer 1955).....I remember walking out to play when my father and older brother (by nine years) were watching the old black & white tv.....my brother pointed to the set and said" Brian, those are the Brooklyn Dodgers and that's Duke Snider....he is the best player in the game"....I was instantly hooked....of course, back then, there was no internet, no huge media outlets, no ESPN....and I was just learning how to read....so it took me a few years to get into sports...but I was a Dodger fan....and my first WS was in '59...."Go Go Sox vs the aging Dodgers...we sat at tv tables watching the games and I got to see my hero hit his last WS home run as the Dodgers won in six....things just took off from there....how I wish there had been all this access when I was four years old.....but I more than made up for it as I grew up with sports.....the memories.....
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from CVD2312. Show CVD2312's posts

    Re: There is only one "G O A T"

    Sorry, but at 6'9" and 215 lbs, Russell would never have been able to guard Shaq in his prime. That's smaller than most small forwards in todays game.

    I went back and looked through the rosters from the early 60's. Most centers were about 6'7". Its also worth mentioning that Russell only shot 44% for his career (against these tiny centers).

    Measuring someone's greatness purely by their championships is stupid. That would make Robert Horry one of the greatest players ever.

    Some of the greatest ever have never won a title.... Stockton, Malone, Barkley, ect. Look at Barkley, he averaged like 40 a game in those '93 finals against the Bulls, but still lost.

    You people all love Paul Pierce so much...what if that Garnett/Allen trade had never happened? He would never have won a title. None of those 3 would have a title, does that make them worse players?


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share