RealGM

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

70sFan wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

countryboy667 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

Oh, but Russell's anemic offense is? And much of Russell's success and reputation is due to his having the support of a ridiculously stacked team. Russell was a great player, but his reputation would be much diminished if he hadn't consistently had great teammates, better teammates than Nate was ever lucky enough to have. I stand by what I said--if I were starting a team and had a choice between Thurmond and Russell as my five, I'd pick Thurmond. Just as good defensively but better offensively.

countryboy667 wrote:

70sFan wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

Oh, but Russell's anemic offense is? And much of Russell's success and reputation is due to his having having a stacked team. Russell was a great player, but his reputation would be much diminished if he hadn't consistently had great teammates, better than Nate was ever lucky enough to have. I stand by what I said--if I were starting a team and had a choice between Thurmond and Russell as my five, I'd pick Thurmond. Just as good defensively but better offensively.

LA Bird wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I would really like to see your top 10 centers list if Ewing "doesn't begin to touch such a list", Moses isn't either, and you are "undecided" about Hakeem.

70sFan wrote:2. Russell was clearly more impactful on defense than Thurmond, it's a fact.

mdonnelly1989 wrote:Peak + Prime + Longevity + Career

Goat Player MJ 100. Worst player of all time, 40.

#1. Kareem 98/100
#2. Bill Russell 98/100
#3. Wilt Chamberlain 98/100
#4. Shaq O'Neal 97.5/100

#5. Hakeem Olajuwon 96/100

#6. David Robinson 95/100
#7. Moses Malone 95/100

#8. Patrick Ewing 94/100
#9. George Mikan 94/100

#10. Bill Walton 93/100

Top 10 Guards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2074931

Top 10 Forwards of All Time viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2075423

penbeast0 wrote:Ignoring the numbers, Russell should be #1, he dominated defensively like no one has ever dominated at either end before or since. Kareem outside of 71 never was able to translate his undoubted individual greatness into team performance until the arrival of Magic and an incredibly stacked team, same for Wilt outside of 67. Gilmore did a lot more in the NBA than Walton, both won a title but Gilmore was a dominant big man for a decade more while Walton only had the one year. Mikan is always the wild card, you know he has to be there somewhere but the 50s were such a different version of basketball, you don't know where.

Like some, I do think Duncan is really more of a center over his career but he did play both the 4 and the 5.

70sFan wrote:

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

I'm the biggest Thurmond fan on this board, but he's not top 10 center ever. His offense simply wasn't good enough and he had durability problems. I'd definitely have him inside top 15 though.

countryboy667 wrote:WHERE'S THURMOND? Yet ANOTHER bogus list...I'll commit heresy here-- starting a team, I'd take Thurmond over Bill Russell. Russell was damned good, but the rings he earned were by virtue of being a member of a great stacked dynasty and that causes him to be a bit overrated individually. He was weaker in every category than Thurmond was, and Russell's greatest strength, his defense, was no better than Nate's. IMO, Ewing doesn't begin to touch such a list. Olajowon? Undecided, but IMO he has the status of being the most absurdly and grossly overrated player on the RealGM boards. Malone was good, but one of the ten best ever? C'mon....Walton? Great player, loved his game, if he'd stayed healthy would deserve being listed in top ten, but fact is he DIDN'T stay healthy long enough to deserve being listed as a top ten all time. At least unlike the forwards list, they have Duncan correctly listed...again, WHERE'S THURMOND?

https://www.nba.com/history/legends/profiles/nate-thurmond

Prokorov wrote:
Its hard for me to put stock in rings that were won over teams with a losing record in the finals in an era with 8 teams. And i think most of russells myth is due to his ring count. I defintely hold era against those who played pre-merger. and especially early 60s

penbeast0 wrote:

Prokorov wrote:
Its hard for me to put stock in rings that were won over teams with a losing record in the finals in an era with 8 teams. And i think most of russells myth is due to his ring count. I defintely hold era against those who played pre-merger. and especially early 60s

So, you feel that putting all the greatest basketball players on 8 teams makes wins against them more meaningless that when you spread them over 20 or so in an era of rapid expansion when there was not an equivalent expansion of the talent pool (the 70s and into the 80s for example). I disagree and hold the 60s to be stronger than the 70s most of the 80s particularly 62-67 v. 82-87 though there are more questions about 60-61 (less integrated) and 68-69 (the beginning of the expansion era).

Russell's legacy is the incredible defensive dominance of his teams over the league, I think half the top 20 all time defensive teams were Celtic teams the last time someone posted a list here. That's almost every year of Russell's career taking teams with complete turnover of personnel to the same dominance year after year after year. The winning is part of it certainly, but they were winning because of Russell. AS Owly said, these weren't upsets, they were the favorites almost every year too . . . despite being at or near the bottom of the league offensively consistently.

Despite Nate Thurmond's individual brilliance as a man defender, his teams were rarely among the league leaders defensively; at least Wilt's teams were frequently second.