One_and_Done wrote:cupcakesnake wrote:One_and_Done wrote:Who would the archetype for Russell even be? Even if he was Gobert, Gobert is not a top 10 player.
What if Draymond was 4 inches taller and an elite athlete?
That's an insanely valuable player. I don't think Bill Russell is a good scorer in any generation, but he was a crafty, cerebral playmaker on offense who was very good at reading the floor. As an athlete, we have video proof that this guy was just ridiculous in terms of speed, mobility, and vertical leap.
So modern Bill Russell would bring value as a rim threat, a passing hub, and as a terror in transition.
I don't think I need to explain why his defense would translate.
I know you're pretty dead set on the idea that any player who came before is automatically worse and therefor not discussing, but Bill Russell is a very rare basketball player and it's fun to imagine what he might look like if he was born in the year 2000.
That Russell dunk has been shared so much, that I think people have lost sight of what it shows. There is nothing in that video that any number of athletic roll men in today's NBA couldn't do. Russell isn't Frank Weissing a 7 footer, he's not even jumping over that (very short) guy. Russell jumps beside him.
I have no problem saying Russell could play today. He was clearly an athletic outlier for his time. This talk of being a hybrid Duncan or having the passing and shooting of Draymond, is a bit silly though. It's like all the exaggerated stories about Wilt. Modern basketball is so much more sophisticated, the idea we can just assume Russell's basic defensive awareness translates today doesn't hold water.
But even if we granted all that, his lack of offense condemns him to a reduced impact. Even if he's Rudy Gobert, he's not a top 10 player in today's game.
Were not watching the same video if you think "any number of athletic roll men in today's NBA" are equivalent athletes. Bill Russell could touch the top of the backboard. He's one of the best vertical athletes ever, while also being fast.
I don't get the Draymond shooting thing you keep talking about. Draymond shot the ball well for 1 season and 1 playoff run. It got hella hyped, and people kept talking about it for years, but it's safe to call it an aberration at this point.
I never made the Duncan point and don't see them as offensively comparable at all. Russell would have limitations as a scorer in any era (the FT% is the safest indicator of this). In terms of era-related stylistic limitations, I think Russell operating as a play finisher would make him a much more efficient scoring weapon than he was in the 60s.
It is actually impossible to project defensive awareness translating with completely different rules. There isn't really a basis to talk about it, unless you want to go into specific play-types and imagine what Russell could and could not do, based on the footage we have. If he was a prospect coming up today, I'd be pretty positive talking about his timing, court mapping, reaction speed, and ability to cover his own mistakes and others with that insane vertical reach.
A lot of the fg% stuff is a bit overblown imo, since the average fg% of the league was 42% in Russell's playing days.
