RealGM

Who would you rather build a team around for today?

I trust Russell more than anyone in the league history to build my franchise around.

70sFan wrote:I trust Russell more than anyone in the league history to build my franchise around.

But if we are teleporting them into today's game it would be pretty easily Garnett right?
Relative to their era, sure, Russell was probably more impactful, but I don't see how anybody, even Russell himself, could come close to the defensive value he provided in the 60s nowadays simply because how much more effective and spread out offenses are. Garnett is a far better offensive player with skills as a big that are even more coveted today than in the 2000s.

wafflzgod wrote:

70sFan wrote:I trust Russell more than anyone in the league history to build my franchise around.

But if we are teleporting them into today's game it would be pretty easily Garnett right?
Relative to their era, sure, Russell was probably more impactful, but I don't see how anybody, even Russell himself, could come close to the defensive value he provided in the 60s nowadays simply because how much more effective and spread out offenses are. Garnett is a far better offensive player with skills as a big that are even more coveted today than in the 2000s.

I already said what I meant. Russell played in two completely different eras and he didn't lose any value, because he knew how to adapt his game.

I believe that Russell is the GOAT candidate for a reason.

KG and it's not even close.

Russell

KG. Bill was to limited offensively to take him over KG today.

Garnett is a safer bet to translate even more to today’s open game with soft interiors. His skillset would be even more displayed. He’d actually be utilized as a transition weapon and score a lot more easy buckets than he ever got, and his horizontal defense would be much more coveted today than it was.

Russell might translate and be the GOAT, but I think it’s more of a boom or bust pick.

Garnett

Garnett showed hand-eye coordination to an extent that Russell never did. Much softer touch as a finisher, better shooter from the FT line, and probably better hands for catching passes as well. I doubt Russell would be a better passer than Garnett, even getting to operate with more modern offenses. KG was somewhat of a wizard with his vision at times.

Garnett on just the basis of his offense will give you all-star level impact during the PS, and definitely All-NBA level impact during the RS.

Will Russell be that ahead of Garnett on defense to make up the difference? Playing in a similar era, I have my doubts. In an era that relies so much on bigs covering ground and not being able to camp in the lane as much, it is hard to think of any bigs who can accrue a ton more value than Garnett on the defensive end. Russell and Hakeem would be ahead, but KG would be fabulous.

Russell adds top level rim protection and even better defensive play calling/BBIQ and show/recover skills than Garnett defensively. Garnett adds far superior scoring and probably a bit stronger playmaking. Russell a step up as a rebounder on both ends.

If you have both getting equal nutrition, coaching, etc. growing up while still developing the same type of games but with modern advantages, I'd take Russell as neither showed 3 point range and I don't want my top scorers today taking a lot of midrange shots so Garnett's advantage on that end is less. Despite his poor shooting skills, Russell's quickness and high post passing would force defenses not to ignore him, again, if they develop the same type of game but with modern refinements.

If you time machine them from their eras, I'd take Garnett as I think the weight work, avoiding smoking, and year round conditioning make a difference that can't be made up in a training camp.

I have no trouble leaning Russell for defensive value. It's on offense where I am given to wonder. No range, crap at the foul line, inefficient in his own career in the 60s on relatively limited volume (11.4 FGA36) despite the tempo of the game. It's hard to look at that and see him translating with comparable efficacy forward. He'd get used differently on offense now, of course. Lob City, stepping in from the dunker spot, rolling off screens, putbacks and all that would represent the bulk of his attempts, so I'd expect a guy that smart and athletic to be considerably more efficient in today's game. But no kind of focal scorer. I think his athleticism and build lent himself well to today's style of defense once he adapted, but I also don't see him presiding over an ATG defensive dynasty for a dozen years to the same extent as he did in his actual career. The game is too spaced out now. When built around correctly, of course, still a bunch of #1 defenses. He'd be the best defensive player in the league.

KD wasn't a stunner as a postseason scorer, so I am given to lessen the total overall value of the offensive gap. His passing was amazing, he had lots of range and he was a pretty good RS scorer. Loved his long 2s and his post turnaround a little too much, but he did pretty well regardless. I think he's better-suited to the contemporary environment as a result, so there's some edge there, and ultimately lean towards him in this comparison. If Russ wasn't a disaster at the foul line, I might have thought differently about it, but he was, and so here we are.

durantbird wrote:Who would you rather build a team around for today?

Garnett. Nearly as good on defense, considerably better on offense.

Properly used today, I think you have Garnett scale down his post isolations. He had great moves but wasn't aggressive. Instead, his interior scoring would be more pick-and-roll and lob focused. In general, you'd station him on the perimeter more, having him trade his long twos for threes, as well as upping his facilitating/hockey assists.

Russell could be a similarly effective finisher, and from what I understand he was also a good passer, but I think his FT% tells us he just didn't have shooting touch.

Russell would be better on defense, but the gap would be decreased since rim protection (Garnett's relative weakness) is less emphasized today. They are similarly mobile.

Russell's intangibles are tempting but I'd feel safer going with Garnett.

We saw one year of healthy KG on a talented team and look what happened. Championship.

DirtyDez wrote:We saw one year of healthy KG on a talented team and look what happened. Championship.

Lol, I'm a fan of KG, but arguing "championship impact" isn't where you want to go for Garnett in this comparison.

Many people now weren't around during Russell's time, plus we don't have proper video and stats from that era, so I don't think Russell is being fully appreciated. He was a tremendous athlete with an elite motor and GOAT-tier BBIQ. Imagine a taller, longer, faster Draymond. His flat-out speed and leaping ability would help him excel at defending in space as well as at the rim, and he could use those attributes offensively to great effect in transition, as a cutter, and as a lob threat.

Many players have had outstanding physical skills, but Russell paired that with GOAT-tier intelligence, competitive drive, and poise.

It's not that Garnett was deficient in those areas, and he is a logical comparison to Russell, but it seems Russell is getting dismissed too easily here.

Outside wrote:

DirtyDez wrote:We saw one year of healthy KG on a talented team and look what happened. Championship.

Lol, I'm a fan of KG, but arguing "championship impact" isn't where you want to go for Garnett in this comparison.

Many people now weren't around during Russell's time, plus we don't have proper video and stats from that era, so I don't think Russell is being fully appreciated. He was a tremendous athlete with an elite motor and GOAT-tier BBIQ. Imagine a taller, longer, faster Draymond. His flat-out speed and leaping ability would help him excel at defending in space as well as at the rim, and he could use those attributes offensively to great effect in transition, as a cutter, and as a lob threat.

Many players have had outstanding physical skills, but Russell paired that with GOAT-tier intelligence, competitive drive, and poise.

It's not that Garnett was deficient in those areas, and he is a logical comparison to Russell, but it seems Russell is getting dismissed too easily here.

Russell was on stacked teams beyond belief. They were winning multiple titles with an average center. Nothing against Russell who was amazing for his time.

DirtyDez wrote:Russell was on stacked teams beyond belief. They were winning multiple titles with an average center. Nothing against Russell who was amazing for his time.

Who was the average center? Russell?

Ol Roy wrote:

DirtyDez wrote:Russell was on stacked teams beyond belief. They were winning multiple titles with an average center. Nothing against Russell who was amazing for his time.

Who was the average center? Russell?

An average center in place of him. Maybe not a dynasty but they get a few if we’re strictly talking titles. All time players on some of those teams.

Cousy
Sharman
Heinsohn
Jones
Havlicek

Outside wrote:

DirtyDez wrote:We saw one year of healthy KG on a talented team and look what happened. Championship.

Lol, I'm a fan of KG, but arguing "championship impact" isn't where you want to go for Garnett in this comparison.

Many people now weren't around during Russell's time, plus we don't have proper video and stats from that era, so I don't think Russell is being fully appreciated. He was a tremendous athlete with an elite motor and GOAT-tier BBIQ. Imagine a taller, longer, faster Draymond. His flat-out speed and leaping ability would help him excel at defending in space as well as at the rim, and he could use those attributes offensively to great effect in transition, as a cutter, and as a lob threat.

Many players have had outstanding physical skills, but Russell paired that with GOAT-tier intelligence, competitive drive, and poise.

It's not that Garnett was deficient in those areas, and he is a logical comparison to Russell, but it seems Russell is getting dismissed too easily here.

In Russell's day the ball IQ you needed on D was probably inferior to a D-3 HS team today. The game s just so much more sophisticated today, that I don't think you can assume Russell's IQ 'would translate'. He was a mastermind in the stone ages, not a physicist from modern times.

DirtyDez wrote:

Ol Roy wrote:

DirtyDez wrote:Russell was on stacked teams beyond belief. They were winning multiple titles with an average center. Nothing against Russell who was amazing for his time.

Who was the average center? Russell?

An average center in place of him. Maybe not a dynasty but they get a few if we’re strictly talking titles. All time players on some of those teams.

Cousy
Sharman
Heinsohn
Jones
Havlicek

Havlicek never played with Sharman, he played one season with Cousy. Heinsohn was washed after 1963.

We've seen how these rosters that were stacked beyond belief fared without Russell and they didn't make the playoffs, it wasn't pretty.

The idea that Russell had ridiculously stacked teams compared to other top 15 players is only a product of the number of his titles. Nobody ever showed me why I should act that 1964-69 Celtics teams were stacked in comparison to his opponents, because it's not the case. Sure, Russell won with stacked teams in 1957 or 1959. He also won with mediocre talent in other years. He always kept winning.