Bill Russell: I lost track of how many championships I won

number1joker · Post #61 » by **number1joker** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 12:37 am

littlerock2277 wrote:Deandre jordon would be able to do the same thing bill russell did back in his era

lol this comment made me laugh

Johnlac1 · Post #62 » by **Johnlac1** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 1:05 am

For a twenty year period from 1956 to 1976, the Celtics had the greatest system in basketball. Red Auerbach was not considered a great tactician, but he knew how to build an excellent system and get the players to perform in that season. Not unlike the Spurs and Popovich. Russell was the key player in that system, and the team functioned like a machine. Not only was Russell a great physical presence, he was one of the top two or three smartest players in the league. From 1956 to 1976 the Celtics always played with a focus and intelligence few teams could match.

The closest to the Celtics in intelligence were the Frazier-Reed Knicks teams of the late sixties and early seventies. Some teams could match them or exceed them in overall talent (the '67,'68 Sixers), but no other team performed as well year in and year out during that time period. When Russell retired after the '69 season, the Celtics acquired another great center, Dave Cowens, and won two more titles in the '70s. Might have been three more if Havlicek hadn't gotten hurt in the '73 playoffs. The Bird-led Celtics of the '80s played a different style of ball. Great teams, but Russell and Cowens teams played more similarly. Havlicek was the link between the Sixties and the Seventies.

FirmBizBws · Post #63 » by **FirmBizBws** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 1:35 am

1UPZ wrote:
number1joker wrote:No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

If it wasnt for Bill Russel, NBA wouldnt probably be this big and Lebron probably wouldnt be born or atleast he wont be playing basketball...

You have to compare in context..... in 100 years time when some elite humans can grow to 8 feet and move like guards and score 50ppg, would that disregard everything happening NOW?

Is bill Russell his father?

Did LeBron James not play football?

I'm pretty sure you're vastly overestimating his impact in this context

theFireBlanket · Post #64 » by **theFireBlanket** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 2:23 am

Nyk4lyfe wrote:I call BS.

PM me his #, I've got something to ask him.

Nazrmohamed · Post #65 » by **Nazrmohamed** » Sun Jun 8, 2014 2:54 am

GoBobs wrote:Tired of hearing him brag. He was lucky to be on the best team in the league at the time.

To pretend he is the same level basketball talent as Wilt, or Jordan, who dominated a much larger league is silly.

Ridiculous. Smaller league, more talent per roster spot. Larger league, more room for the bottom third of most nba rosters to be wasted on de eloping young talent. Even now compared to the 90's, nba rosters are littered with players only in the league because 3 years from now they MIGHT become an all-star. You played the same teams over and over again so the atmosphere was like a playoffs game ever single game.

The concept of one and done didn't exist back when he played. Tanking wasn't a concept back when he played. Flopping wasn't a concept back when he played. Being simply athletic with no real skills wasn't a concept back when he played.

Larger does not equal better. And no he wasn't the same level talent, he was a better defender, just as good a rebounder, better team player, better passer. Smarter player. Better leader. You don't win 8 straight not being a great talent, in a league where every game is heavily scouted, everyone is highly skilled and the league was set up the same way for everyone else as it was for the Celtics. He and they were just that dominant.

GreenHat · Post #66 » by **GreenHat** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 4:12 pm

miltk wrote:
GreenHat wrote:
miltk wrote:
sorry but any time someone makes such a statement of comparison it IS a sign of disrespect. a champion is a champion. all champs of all eras share the same champion dna.

i wonder why only champions understand what other champions have done. oh wait i know, because they know what it takes.

All championships are not created equal. Completely different winning a title in an 8 team league with two rounds of playoffs than in a 30 team league with 4.

Also a lot easier to keep a dynasty going without a salary cap.

imo that is a false statement. more teams means more mediocrity and more cr@p. is it POSSIBLE that a good team gets upset by a bad team,,,yes. is it probable?,,,would you bet your house. why do we still get okc, spurs, indy, and miami. the same best teams always are the same year in and year out, until they get too old.

the 64team field is not what brought parity to college. 64 teams means 32 REALLY BAD ONES. just look at the champions in the past 2 dozen years.....they're always the same. what brought parity to college was good players from the top teams leaving early.. imagine hood and parker staying at duke next year.

put miami and indy in the west, get rid of the east, and that is a better approximation of yesterday's game.

That's not how numbers work.

Take it to the extreme. Would it be easier to win 11 rings in a league with 2 teams or in a league with 400 teams and you had to play 10 rounds of playoffs each year. Its pretty obvious.

Also your example of college basketball makes no sense because JUST THIS YEAR a #7 seed won. That would have them at #24-28 at the start of the tourney, well outside the top 8.

You also bring up the best teams are staying the best teams as a counter example to an era when the same team won 11/13 titles. Do you not realize how absurd that is?

If there was no salary cap and only 8 teams, teams like the Heat, Pacers, Spurs and Thunder would be getting at least a mid lottery pick every year and even their second round picks would still be good players. They could also add new players to their core every year and not have to cut guys for financial reasons.

Its much easier to win multiple championships when there are much less teams and no salary cap.

tonyreyes123 · Post #67 » by **tonyreyes123** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 4:35 pm

Bill Russell is a douche

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

James40 · Post #68 » by **James40** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 5:10 pm

He averaged 45 minutes a game for his career, no one Jordan or Lebron could do that. He was also black at a time that racism was still prevalent, he couldn't go to certain restaurants or Hotels, he grew up in real projects because of racism,he could of competed in the Olympic high jump, but on Realgm he's a scrub. The 1960's were easier. Lol.

I'm pretty sure today's superstars have it a lot easier than he did.

xStanton27 · Post #69 » by **xStanton27** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 5:24 pm

There's a reason no one has him as the best player ever. Of course he's an all time great, no one has ever won more, but lets be real about the differences between basketball then and now

ronnymac2 · Post #70 » by **ronnymac2** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 5:58 pm

That's awesome. The man won so much he lost count. 11 titles. 2 as player-coach, as a leader of men.

nyk4L7_21 · Post #71 » by **nyk4L7_21** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 6:03 pm

Russell revolutionized basketball I'll give him that...once coaches and GM's saw how a dominant big man could impact the game and change franchises they began to draft players similar to him in terms of size, skillset, etc. Players in turn, adapted their games in order to increase their chances of getting drafted; a process that has repeated itself throughout the years with all of the Russells, Wilts, Jordans, Magics, Birds, etc that came along.

I may not be explaining it well, but I see it as a sort of survival of the fittest type of thing. Of course players are going to get better, because they're adapting their games and emulating the skillsets of prior legends and trying to do it better, a process which only becomes acceleratted with advances in medicine and film technology.

James40 · Post #72 » by **James40** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 6:03 pm

xStanton27 wrote:There's a reason no one has him as the best player ever. Of course he's an all time great, no one has ever won more, but lets be real about the differences between basketball then and now

You got that right, chartered planes, air conditioned arenas, training facilities. The game is much different now.

Sam6 · Post #73 » by **Sam6** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 6:49 pm

number1joker wrote:No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

number1joker · Post #74 » by **number1joker** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 6:56 pm

Sam6 wrote:
number1joker wrote:No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Post #75 » by **Slava** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 6:59 pm

Bill Russell is at an age when he barely would remember wetting his bed at night so its hardly surprising.

dho4ever · Post #76 » by **dho4ever** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 7:01 pm

number1joker wrote:
Sam6 wrote:
number1joker wrote:No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Hasheem "Useless" Thabeet is 7 Foot 3, nough said...

SichtingLives · Post #77 » by **SichtingLives** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 7:01 pm

tonyreyes123 wrote:Bill Russell is a douche

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Pretty bad when "Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums" is the strongest part of your comment

SichtingLives · Post #78 » by **SichtingLives** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 7:02 pm

Slava wrote:Bill Russell is at an age when he barely would remember wetting his bed at night so its hardly surprising.

And if he did, you could always be sure Wilt was right underneath it :wink:

number1joker · Post #79 » by **number1joker** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 7:06 pm

dho4ever wrote:
number1joker wrote:
Sam6 wrote:
Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Hasheem "Useless" Thabeet is 7 Foot 3, nough said...

Ok now name some 6 foot 7 centers to have a tremendous amount of sucess in the nba.

I can come up with plenty of 7 footers.........

James40 · Post #80 » by **James40** » Mon Jun 9, 2014 7:14 pm

number1joker wrote:
Sam6 wrote:
number1joker wrote:No disrespect to Russel but if he played in the nba today he wouldnt have nearly as many titles, especially 8 in a row.

That's basically impossible for a modern NBA team to do.

For that reason alone teams like Shaq's LAkers, Jordans Bulls and Duncans Spurs are all far more impressive dynastys imo.

Look we can all agree that Russell would not win 8 in a row or 11 in 13 in todays NBA but how does that reason alone make those other dynasty's more impressive? Maybe their is an argument for other dynasties being as impressive, but I don't see how a 3 peat or two 3 peats in 8 years or 17 years of title contention is definitively more than what Russell's Celtics achieved.

Centers back then were 6 foot 7, nough said..........

Yea, nothing like playing against the most dominate player ever, by far in Wilt Chamberlain 142 times, I'm sure that was easy.