Can you justify Russell > KAJ to start a franchise?

[Jaivl]

Yes, you can. I wouldn't, though.

[penbeast0]

Actually we don't police opinions of our posters, it's not worth the time. HOWEVER, as a mod junior to me, it is your duty to support your senior mod . . . especially when he is right, rrravenred. Toeing the party line is part of the Job.

That said . . . Kareem told the ABA right out of college that he only wanted to play in LA or NY, it wasn't a racial thing, it was a "center of the cultural universe" thing. Kareem was a pretty intellectual guy for a basketball star, into jazz and culture. The Muslim thing just reinforced an existing mindset.

As for Boston, remember that the 70s were a bad one for racial issues in Boston. It was one of the centers of racial controversies as the Civil Rights movement moved from the Deep South to the Northern cities and Boston handled it pretty badly. Even in the 80s, there was a real element of black v. white whenever the Lakers played the Celtics and I can't remember a single black friend of mine (didn't have any from Boston) rooting for the Celtics.

[penbeast0]

Oh, and Russell's differences with Kareem defensively would be more extreme in the modern era than in the 60s/70s although center defense may be less important today. Russell's defensive value was more in his help defense and defensive rebounding based on his extraordinary motor and mobility; Kareem's was in his interior post defense where his height and intelligent positioning gave problems to low post scoring centers and allowed him to block shots . . . . he wasn't nearly as mobile or as comfortable moving away from the basket defensively. So he would have more problems against stretch centers, smaller quicker lineups where they use a bigger quicker forward with handles at center, or other types of offenses common today that were rarer in his heyday.

[CaliBullsFan]

For me, it's gotta be KAJ in basically all eras except the 60s and maybe 70s. I think Russell would've been clearly less valuable today than he was in his era, while Kareem's skillset transcends all eras. Just such a talented all-around player. Russell's main value - his enormous defensive impact, would've suffered today, and even Bill's biggest fans around here admit that. His leadership is certainly a nice quality to possess, but if I could pick a rich man's Noah (that's basically what Russell would be today), or Kareem, I'm going with the latter, and wouldn't even hesitate.

Honestly, I was really surprised by how many people said they would take Russell over Duncan to build around, in yesterday's thread...Sure, I admire Mr. Russell as much as anyone, and I'm a big fan - you gotta have tremendous respect for that man, because it's certainly well deserved, but as far as the greats of the 60s, I'd take Wilt over him for today's game. Oscar, I believe is also a transcendent player, but him (and West and even Baylor), are a much less sure thing than Russ and Wilt, because the bigmen's game wasn't based on handling the ball, or being a playmaker (passing from the post wouldn't IMO be a problem).

Honestly, I think you need less talent around Kareem to build a good team, than around Russell, because Abdul-Jabbar was such a gifted scorer, and still a very good defender (I think Kareem's defensive impact would be closer to Russell's today than it was back in the day).

Honestly, I greatly disagree with Penbeast that this era is no longer an era of post offense. I thnk it's more about the fact that 7 feet tall, really athletic and skilled bigmen are an extinct breed. Look even at a guy like Yao - he totally altered the course of a game on both ends of the court, and Yao wasn't nearly as great as Kareem, particularly had stamina and injury problems that Kareem didn't have, and likely still wouldn't have today. Jabbar was also a very intelligent offensive player, who could easily play Tim Duncan's role (score when the opportunity is there, or pass to open teammates when double teamed, or even make plays from the post).

Even an offensively limited player like Dwight Howard was pretty much devastating, in his best years in Orlando, and Dwight didn't even really have a jumpshot in his arsenal...


Oh, and as far as Kareem having some special "cultural needs", as he put it - I think it'd be more bearable for him to play in a small market today, with the Internet and all of these other ways of communication. Also, I think we shouldn't put that much emphasis on it, because it seems to be a circumstantial thing, in quite a large part. Oscar's retirement certainly played a significant role in Kareem's desire to leave Milwaukee...

Calling Russell a rich mans Noah is like calling Jordan a rich mans Demar Derozan

[Quotatious]

Calling Russell a rich mans Noah is like calling Jordan a rich mans Demar Derozan

Russell would be a much better rebounder and shotblocker than Noah, but everything else is equal.

[aal04]

Russel is my Goat.

He was drafted into an ideal situation and he really needed to win lots of rings to prove himself.

He FRIGGEN WON LOTS of rings.

Really, he met expectations. Its simple.

[CaliBullsFan]

Calling Russell a rich mans Noah is like calling Jordan a rich mans Demar Derozan

Russell would be a much better rebounder and shotblocker than Noah, but everything else is equal.

Russell is a far far better leaper would be a much better finisher than Noah, better on ball defender, Russell is a better ball handler, and Noah in the 2nd half of this season has been out of his mind in terms of passing Russell was basically that all the time.

It is like saying Jordan is a rich mans Derozan except he's a better shooter passer and defender

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think we don't understand well enough how good offensively Russell would be if he was born 40-50 years later. If his talent had been exposed to modern coaching I'm sure he would have been a clear positive factor on offence, playing in the flow.

I'd see him being more similar to likes of Amare and David Robinson.

Sent with my Nokia 3210 using Tapatalk

[Quotatious]

I think we don't understand well enough how good offensively Russell would be if he was born 40-50 years later. If his talent had been exposed to modern coaching I'm sure he would have been a clear positive factor on offence, playing in the flow.

He was already a clear positive factor offensively in the 60s. Great passer, and a decent scorer for his era, especially earlier in his career.

I'd see him being more similar to likes of Amare and David Robinson.

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves... Russell himself even admitted (actually he said it about himself and KC Jones) that he wasn't blessed with offensive talent, and that's why he made defense his main focus. Amare and D-Rob are all-time great offensive bigmen, and I don't want to call Russell overrated, because I have so much respect for him, but that's what he becomes when you start talking about him like some demigod, almighty creature - overrated. Dennis Rodman was an amazing athlete, too - and he wasn't a great, or even good offensive player. Would've been similar with Russell.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Neither these two were blessed with the natural game that Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq or Hakeem had, they were just very successful at getting open, cutting and finishing. To be even more extreme, look at Dwight who had even less offensive instincts and could score in the 20s with high efficiency.
I think we're underrating how much the current coaching made these players, on both sides of the floor. Russell was not thought in his youth how to play, so what we see in him (and in the other players of his era) is natural. Imagine him being able to train his footwork with Hakeem, having a shooting coach, how to run a pick and roll... all this on an all time great athlete able to naturally understand the game.
Maybe Amare or DRob is going to far, but he had everything to be much better than Rodman.

[Quotatious]

Neither these two were blessed with the natural game that Jabbar, Duncan, Shaq or Hakeem had, they were just very successful at getting open, cutting and finishing. To be even more extreme, look at Dwight who had even less offensive instincts and could score in the 20s with high efficiency.
I think we're underrating how much the current coaching made these players, on both sides of the floor. Russell was not thought in his youth how to play, so what we see in him (and in the other players of his era) is natural. Imagine him being able to train his footwork with Hakeem, having a shooting coach, how to run a pick and roll... all this on an all time great athlete able to naturally understand the game.
Maybe Amare or DRob is going to far, but he had everything to be much better than Rodman.

I think it's very risky to assume that a totally unremarkable (in the all-time sense) offensive player all of a sudden becomes elite today. Basketball has greatly improved over the last 50 years, so even if we give Russell the benefit of modern training, we also have to assume that other players get better too - it's not like Russell is the only one who improves. I think Russell's improvement, and league's improvement, would go hand in hand, so he would still be a bit above average offensive player - maybe a better Noah offensively (and overall, like I've said before). It's certainly not bad, but not elite, either.

Robinson and Stoudemire did FAR more than just cut to the basket and finish - they were both very adept ISO scorers with pretty good jumpshot. Russell never was.

Oh, and I don't doubt that he would be better than Rodman - I just used him as an example of a great athlete with high bball IQ who wasn't a great offensive player.

[Texas Chuck]

Dennis Rodman was an amazing athlete, too - and he wasn't a great, or even good offensive player. Would've been similar with Russell.

But Rodman was a good offensive player. Unconventional ways, sure. But absolutely a positive on the offensive end. Smart passer, good screener, unbelievable offensive rebounder. Understood his role and played it to near perfection.

I agree Russell isnt like to be Admiral or Amare like on offense in any era, but he was a positive offensive guy in his own era and I see no reason to think a guy with his level of basketball understanding and skill wouldnt be a positive on the offensive end as well. He's not Ben Wallace here.

[Quotatious]

But Rodman was a good offensive player. Unconventional ways, sure. But absolutely a positive on the offensive end. Smart passer, good screener, unbelievable offensive rebounder. Understood his role and played it to near perfection.

Yeah, I know (colts18's about Rodman's offense was pretty great viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1307631&start=0 ), but I'm sure you know what I mean. Rodman averaged less than 6 FGA per game, and a little over 7 PPG for his career. He certainly wasn't someone you could rely on, offensively.

I agree Russell isnt like to be Admiral or Amare like on offense in any era, but he was a positive offensive guy in his own era and I see no reason to think a guy with his level of basketball understanding and skill wouldnt be a positive on the offensive end as well. He's not Ben Wallace here.

I'm not saying he would be Ben Wallace, either. Both Ben Wallace and Robinson/Amare are huge extremes. Let's just say that Russell would be somewhere in the middle between Ben and the Admiral. I think it sums it up pretty nicely.

[Texas Chuck]

if you are saying Russell (and Rodman) wouldnt be great scorers, then sure we agree. I happen to think you can be a high-level offensive player without being an elite scorer.

[Quotatious]

if you are saying Russell (and Rodman) wouldnt be great scorers, then sure we agree. I happen to think you can be a high-level offensive player without being an elite scorer.

That's true, but when we talk about the best offensive players in history, all of them were at least good/very good scorers (and if they're just "very good" scorers, they have to be absolutely elite as playmakers - Magic/Nash are probably the worst scorers among the top 10 offensive players ever, and that's already very, very difficult to reach their level as a scorer).

In other words - to be a great offensive player, you need to produce at elite level - great offensive rebounding, screen setting, smart passing etc. are all nice, put someone actually has to consistently make plays and score points - theoretically, you could have no offensive skills at all, and barely ever touch the ball on offense, and still have positive offensive impact because of intelligent, effective off-ball movement, but that's kinda absurd for me. I think there could be some games where, for example, Rodman looks better than Iverson on offense, because AI has a cold shooting night, but constantly attacks and makes plays - to me it's still crystal clear that AI is the far better offensive player. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.

[CaliBullsFan]

For Russell I always say the same thing. Imagine Chris Webber offensively(with a much worse jumpshot), Ben Wallace defensively, in Shawn Kemp's body. His prime averages would be

14-16 points per game
13-15 rebounds per game
4-5 assist per game
3-4 blocks per game
1-2 steals per game

and i think he would be best at PF where he could have a greater impact defensively

[Texas Chuck]

@Q

Sure, I dont think Russ would ever be a great offensive player. Or Rodman. But my point was they are both quite good offensive players. Kidd is another example of this. I think too many times we lose focus on impact when guys aren't good scorers.

We are too quick to dismiss the offensive ability of guys like Russell( even KG and Duncan tend to not get enough credit for how good they are offensively and both of them scored a ton of points). Absolutely most of Russell's impact comes on the defensive end, but he's a complete player.

[lorak]

if you are saying Russell (and Rodman) wouldnt be great scorers, then sure we agree. I happen to think you can be a high-level offensive player without being an elite scorer.

Any examples of high level PF/C offensive players in XXI century?

[Quotatious]

For Russell I always say the same thing. Imagine Chris Webber offensively(with a much worse jumpshot), Ben Wallace defensively, in Shawn Kemp's body. His prime averages would be

14-16 points per game
13-15 rebounds per game
4-5 assist per game
3-4 blocks per game
1-2 steals per game

and i think he would be best at PF where he could have a greater impact defensively

Pretty good estimation about his stats. I'm not sure about him playing PF though. Ben Wallace was roughly Russell's size (actually even two inches shorter, with two inches shorter wingspan, too, than Russ), and he played center. I think a stretch four like Ryan Anderson would be the best fit to Russell. Russell would be listed as 6'11'', 240-245 lbs today. He was actually measured as a little over 6'9'' 1/2 in 1955, and played at about 225-230 lbs for most of his pro career. I think it's safe to say that to be most effective in today's game, he would gain about 15 pounds. That's a legit center size, and given his lack of a jumpshot, you have to give him a partner who's primary skill is long range shooting, and these guys are most PFs, not centers.

[The Infamous1]

In a post 1980 nba(basically modern nba)I just can't see bill russell having anymore defensive impact than a prime KG or Duncan... And if I'm not taking those two over Kareem(and they outclass Russell offensively btw)I'm damn sure not taking russell over rim.

Kareem would be ridiculously easy to build a title team around.

I can't put it any better than this. I respect the hell out of what Russell did but in today's NBA I don't think it's possible for one player to be a defensive specialist and be:

MVP
FMVP
Best player on a multiple title team

I don't think Russell is that much better than Hakeem, DRob, Dikemebe, or whoever else and they couldn't do it. I get it that Russell had jedi skills with an Iron Man heart and Game of Thrones ruthlessness. But he still would have to display an offensive game on par with Shaq/Hakeem/Dirk before I'm going to take him over KAJ. It's not like Kareem didn't dominate his era either. He had 5 MVP's in the 70's, what happened to this forum saying winning isn't everything?

Russell's whole resume is based around his team success......

I agree and I also think "prime" Kareem is starting to get underrated. The only guy I would take over him in his prime is Jordan and mike had better teams around him and coaching in the early to mid 90's then Kareem had in the mid to late 70's.

Kareem is a guy who won and dominanted at every level with multiple coaches, systems, roles, and players