Garnett vs Russell

[DirtyDez]

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.

Please... Russell, Heinsohn and Sam Jones were the same age. Cousy and Sharman were great into their early 30’s. The first half of Russell’s career was a dream team compared to the rest of the 8-10 team league.

[70sFan]

Please... Russell, Heinsohn and Sam Jones were the same age.

True and Heinsohn was washed up after 1964. Do you deny that?

Cousy and Sharman were great into their early 30’s.

True, but Sharman retired in 1961 and Cousy retired in 1963. Russell won 5 additional rings without them.

The first half of Russell’s career was a dream team compared to the rest of the 8-10 team league.

How do you explain the success during the second half of Russell's career?

[Jaivl]

If I have full control over his career, I probably take KG over anyone but LeBron. Russell is right there, but it's kind of a bad era (relatively speaking) for his profile.

[TheGOATRises007]

Russell is like a supercharged Draymond Green in every aspect bar the 3pt shooting.

He's physically superior in every possible facet. One of the greatest athletes in NBA history.

I see no reason why he wouldn't translate well to today's game. A greater focus today on nutrition, training and lesser humane obstacles compared to Russell's time, why wouldn't he dominate?

All-time players thrive in any era. I would never disrespect them in any sport.

[Tomtolbert]

I'd easily take KG, even if I have Russell ranked higher. The knowledge available with KG having played in a much more recent era just provides much more certainty about him than Russell. Because of this, Russell's floor to me is lower than KG's.

[tsherkin]

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.

Are you really going to argue that Russell was too stupid to play high-end D today with his physical tools and instincts?

[theonlyclutch]

Russell is like a supercharged Draymond Green in every aspect bar the 3pt shooting.

He's physically superior in every possible facet. One of the greatest athletes in NBA history.

I see no reason why he wouldn't translate well to today's game. A greater focus today on nutrition, training and lesser humane obstacles compared to Russell's time, why wouldn't he dominate?

All-time players thrive in any era. I would never disrespect them in any sport.

Russell, even given modern training/nutrition, would not have nearly the ball-handling/initiation/playmaking skills that Draymond has, given the latter trained has reps as a guard/forward which Russell at his size would not be developed to nearly this extent.

[70sFan]

Russell is like a supercharged Draymond Green in every aspect bar the 3pt shooting.

He's physically superior in every possible facet. One of the greatest athletes in NBA history.

I see no reason why he wouldn't translate well to today's game. A greater focus today on nutrition, training and lesser humane obstacles compared to Russell's time, why wouldn't he dominate?

All-time players thrive in any era. I would never disrespect them in any sport.

Russell, even given modern training/nutrition, would not have nearly the ball-handling/initiation/playmaking skills that Draymond has, given the latter trained has reps as a guard/forward which Russell at his size would not be developed to nearly this extent.

Why not? We have plenty of initiating centers now and Russell did plenty of that in his own era. People don't realize that Russell run basic P&Rs as a ball-handler in the 1960s at center position.

[Outside]

Russell is like a supercharged Draymond Green in every aspect bar the 3pt shooting.

He's physically superior in every possible facet. One of the greatest athletes in NBA history.

I see no reason why he wouldn't translate well to today's game. A greater focus today on nutrition, training and lesser humane obstacles compared to Russell's time, why wouldn't he dominate?

All-time players thrive in any era. I would never disrespect them in any sport.

Russell, even given modern training/nutrition, would not have nearly the ball-handling/initiation/playmaking skills that Draymond has, given the latter trained has reps as a guard/forward which Russell at his size would not be developed to nearly this extent.

Why not? We have plenty of initiating centers now and Russell did plenty of that in his own era. People don't realize that Russell run basic P&Rs as a ball-handler in the 1960s at center position.

And he ran full speed while dribbling on the break.

If you look at video from those days and say Russell (or anyone, for that matter) couldn't dribble like today's players, you're absolutely correct because they called carrying the ball if your hand slipped down the side of the ball. He'd be an excellent ballhandler in today's game.

[One_and_Done]

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.

Are you really going to argue that Russell was too stupid to play high-end D today with his physical tools and instincts?

The instincts Russell needed to play well in his era were preschool level compared to today. I find the whole use of the term 'instincts' misleading honestly, because often good D today is about doing the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do.

[70sFan]

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.

Are you really going to argue that Russell was too stupid to play high-end D today with his physical tools and instincts?

The instincts Russell needed to play well in his era were preschool level compared to today. I find the whole use of the term 'instincts' misleading honestly, because often good D today is about doing the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do.

You can say exactly the same about Tim Duncan, but somehow you don't.

[tsherkin]

The instincts Russell needed to play well in his era were preschool level compared to today. I find the whole use of the term 'instincts' misleading honestly, because often good D today is about doing the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "instincts," but his timing, anticipation, athleticism and touch (on blocks) were all extremely high-end. That still translates.

And if Rudy Gobert can learn how to play NBA-level defense at a multiple-DPOY level, I think we can project Bill Russell's efficacy without much issue at all, frankly.

[70sFan]

The instincts Russell needed to play well in his era were preschool level compared to today. I find the whole use of the term 'instincts' misleading honestly, because often good D today is about doing the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "instincts," but his timing, anticipation, athleticism and touch (on blocks) were all extremely high-end. That still translates.

And if Rudy Gobert can learn how to play NBA-level defense at a multiple-DPOY level, I think we can project Bill Russell's efficacy without much issue at all, frankly.

Gobert is a different species compared to Russell. He's like modern physicist compared to caveman master.

Or something like that...

[tsherkin]

Gobert is a different species compared to Russell. He's like modern physicist compared to caveman master.

Or something like that...

Right, right.

But yeah. Gobert isn't some brilliant basketball mind. He listens to his defensive coaches and he knows his role. And Russell was Bill friggin' Russell. He'd have been elite as hell in today's game. Particularly since he was more mobile than Gobert. By a lot.

[Doctor MJ]

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.

Are you really going to argue that Russell was too stupid to play high-end D today with his physical tools and instincts?

The instincts Russell needed to play well in his era were preschool level compared to today. I find the whole use of the term 'instincts' misleading honestly, because often good D today is about doing the opposite of what your instinct tells you to do.

I don't agree with any of your assessments here.

So much of what we think of as BBIQ is about having a fast brain, and so largely fast brain guys in any era going back to the 1920s would be high BBIQ players today.

If you want to talk about the disadvantage of not knowing specific scheme and parlance of today's game, well sure, it'd take a little bit of time to get trained up, but if you played for top tier coaches and developed basic understanding of Xs and Os back then, you'd understand stuff from today fine after some background.

Re: good D is about opposite of instincts. No it isn't. It's still largely about understanding what offensive players are trying to do and countering them.

Now, it's true that depending on defensive rules, you sometimes are basically forced to play more individual defense rather than team defense, but this frankly has more effect on perimeter guys than it does on traditional - that is of the Russell archetype - centers.

[One_and_Done]

‘Instinct is a lie, told by a fearful body, hoping to be wrong’

When you see a knife coming at you, your instinct is to block or dodge it somehow, in the hope you will survive. But what if the best course of action is to let the knife hit you at a non-vital point, grab the guy, and let your buddy finish him off? Modern D is often like that, where you are asked to make choices that are counter intuitive. Thinking basketball did a good video of it during the Wolves-Denver series last year, breaking down the seemingly irrational choices that players were intentionally making on D to execute the Scheme.

Talking about a guy being “cerebral” is fine, but it is all contextual. What was the context in which he seemed to have a high IQ. Russell’s context was a caveman league, where the coaching was so unsophisticated that Russell could do it while playing at the same time (and we know from his post-playing career that Russell was most definitely not a good coach). Coaches would tell guys to “get out and play hard”, and “pass more”. While that’s a slight exaggeration of how unsophisticated it was, it’s not even much of one. Today’s D requires vastly more of players in terms of both physical exertion and bball IQ.

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

[70sFan]

‘Instinct is a lie, told by a fearful body, hoping to be wrong’

When you see a knife coming at you, your instinct is to block or dodge it somehow, in the hope you will survive. But what if the best course of action is to let the knife hit you at a non-vital point, grab the guy, and let your buddy finish him off? Modern D is often like that, where you are asked to make choices that are counter intuitive. Thinking basketball did a good video of it during the Wolves-Denver series last year, breaking down the seemingly irrational choices that players were intentionally making on D to execute the Scheme.

Talking about a guy being “cerebral” is fine, but it is all contextual. What was the context in which he seemed to have a high IQ. Russell’s context was a caveman league, where the coaching was so unsophisticated that Russell could do it while playing at the same time (and we know from his post-playing career that Russell was most definitely not a good coach). Coaches would tell guys to “get out and play hard”, and “pass more”. While that’s a slight exaggeration of how unsophisticated it was, it’s not even much of one. Today’s D requires vastly more of players in terms of both physical exertion and bball IQ.

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

Could you tell me what kind of offensive sets teams run in the 1960s and what defensive schemes were the most relevant? Nothing fancy, just basic breakdown.

[TheGOATRises007]

‘Instinct is a lie, told by a fearful body, hoping to be wrong’

When you see a knife coming at you, your instinct is to block or dodge it somehow, in the hope you will survive. But what if the best course of action is to let the knife hit you at a non-vital point, grab the guy, and let your buddy finish him off? Modern D is often like that, where you are asked to make choices that are counter intuitive. Thinking basketball did a good video of it during the Wolves-Denver series last year, breaking down the seemingly irrational choices that players were intentionally making on D to execute the Scheme.

Talking about a guy being “cerebral” is fine, but it is all contextual. What was the context in which he seemed to have a high IQ. Russell’s context was a caveman league, where the coaching was so unsophisticated that Russell could do it while playing at the same time (and we know from his post-playing career that Russell was most definitely not a good coach). Coaches would tell guys to “get out and play hard”, and “pass more”. While that’s a slight exaggeration of how unsophisticated it was, it’s not even much of one. Today’s D requires vastly more of players in terms of both physical exertion and bball IQ.

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

Could you tell me what kind of offensive sets teams run in the 1960s and what defensive schemes were the most relevant? Nothing fancy, just basic breakdown.

I don't know why you bother with a poster who has such a disdain for greats of the game.

You're way more patient than I am.

[tsherkin]

What Russell did was so basic, that I am not comfortable saying he would be a high IQ player in today’s vastly different league. What Duncan did gives me much more assurance, because the league was significantly more sophisticated in Duncan’s era compared to the 60s (especially in the back end).

Why is it you think he couldn't follow contemporary coaching? That he couldn't learn? Why do you think he couldn't do what many players did literally as defense changed in the NBA over the past 20 years? What is it that you think sets 36 year-old Brook Lopez so very far apart from Russell, for example? Or Gobert?

Do you think Bill Russell was stupid?

[penbeast0]

Russell, even given modern training/nutrition, would not have nearly the ball-handling/initiation/playmaking skills that Draymond has, given the latter trained has reps as a guard/forward which Russell at his size would not be developed to nearly this extent.

Why not? We have plenty of initiating centers now and Russell did plenty of that in his own era. People don't realize that Russell run basic P&Rs as a ball-handler in the 1960s at center position.

And he ran full speed while dribbling on the break.

If you look at video from those days and say Russell (or anyone, for that matter) couldn't dribble like today's players, you're absolutely correct because they called carrying the ball if your hand slipped down the side of the ball. He'd be an excellent ballhandler in today's game.

Guards of the 60s, sure. Big men as excellent ballhandlers, more doubtful. Even in today's world, seven footers don't usually do that much dribbling against pressure. Bam Adebayo with elite shotblocking and rebounding but weaker shooting, sure.