How would you use Bill Russell on both ends of the floor today?

[70sFan]

I've been thinking about it for a long time. Russell was quite versatile offensive player in his best seasons, but he also had clear limitiations. I wonder in what role would you like to see him on modern offense. Feel free to pick any team you want for him.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts about his defensive role. This one gives us so many dimensions, it's incredibly hard to pick.

If you want to get any additional Russell footage to analyze, feel free to ask. I've got a lot of new Celtics material since the beginning of the new year.

[GSP]

Defensively hes been a mix of the best strengths of Draymond, Bam and Rudy. Draymonds communication, Iq, post defense, help defense w/ Bams athleticism, switch defense, motor, recovery and Rudys rim protection and defensive rebounding.

Offensively I see him like Bam with worse shooting. Similar athleticism and dimensions. He wouldnt be able to hit that set midrange jumper that Bam can at a serviceable clip or shoot Fts as well which would make his PPG and efficiency lower. Can be a passing hub, monster screen setter, always active and smart reading cuts and screens, finisher. Great running sets, Dhos opening the game up but not a very high impact offensive big

Watch on YouTube

W/ Russells insane athleticism and Iq hed do terrific in spaced out offenses today but he didnt have the skill level to be a highly impactful offensive big

[Heej]

Agree with GSP his role on defense is pretty well defined by certain players currently. Offensively I think he'd be a souped up version of Joakim Noah from 2014 when he finished 4th in MVP voting.

Actually weirdly enough, when that season happened I remember thinking to myself that was probably the closest thing to a Bill Russell archetypal season that we've seen. Just all around defense and playmaking lol

I'm sure with modern training he'd be a really good passer, ballhandler, and finisher. I imagine his face up game would be a nightmare. Give him a good PNR operator and with how fast he can get down the lane he'd be a nightmare for teams to tag and scramble out to 3 point shooters vs

[ZeppelinPage]

Mainly as a rim runner. Teams would just let him shoot off his post-ups and jumpers since that's a good shot for a defense to give up. I would want the ball in his hands as little as possible on offense. He makes solid reads at times, but other players would just bring more to the table in that role. Most of Russell's passes were hand-offs and pass-outs while the rest of the team worked to get open. That along with his clear turnover proneness would make me hesitant to involve him too much in the halfcourt beyond setting screens and rolling. The main reason Auerbach used him in that way is because he believed that Russell would work harder defensively if he felt involved on offense. Well, that and the fact that it was difficult to use him any other way during an era with far less PnR actions.

[sp6r=underrated]

Mainly as a rim runner. Teams would just let him shoot off his post-ups and jumpers since that's a good shot for a defense to give up. I would want the ball in his hands as little as possible on offense. He makes solid reads at times, but other players would just bring more to the table in that role. Most of Russell's passes were hand-offs and pass-outs while the rest of the team worked to get open. That along with his clear turnover proneness would make me hesitant to involve him too much in the halfcourt beyond setting screens and rolling. The main reason Auerbach used him in that way is because he believed that Russell would work harder defensively if he felt involved on offense. Well, that and the fact that it was difficult to use him any other way during an era with far less PnR actions.

The unknown question is which old players would learn to shoot with modern shooting coaches.

One thing we've learned is shooting is a learnable skill for some players. Embiid was a 68% FT shooter in college and never shot 3s. Now he's an 85 FT% shooter and can hit 3s.

I'm not saying Russell would be one of em but I'm certain some poor shooters from the pass would learn to be servicible shooters.

[SNPA]

Offense: hub
Defense: stud

As huge a Russell fan as I am, I must admit that his defensive impact would be slightly lowered in this era of spamming three.

[ZeppelinPage]

Mainly as a rim runner. Teams would just let him shoot off his post-ups and jumpers since that's a good shot for a defense to give up. I would want the ball in his hands as little as possible on offense. He makes solid reads at times, but other players would just bring more to the table in that role. Most of Russell's passes were hand-offs and pass-outs while the rest of the team worked to get open. That along with his clear turnover proneness would make me hesitant to involve him too much in the halfcourt beyond setting screens and rolling. The main reason Auerbach used him in that way is because he believed that Russell would work harder defensively if he felt involved on offense. Well, that and the fact that it was difficult to use him any other way during an era with far less PnR actions.

The unknown question is which old players would learn to shoot with modern shooting coaches.

One thing we've learned is shooting is a learnable skill for some players. Embiid was a 68% FT shooter in college and never shot 3s. Now he's an 85 FT% shooter and can hit 3s.

I'm not saying Russell would be one of em but I'm certain some poor shooters from the pass would learn to be servicible shooters.

It's possible. While shooting was definitely worse in the 50s and 60s, I don't think it was quite as awful as some might think. Factors like the ball, rim, playing conditions, and lack of open space to get to the rim all contributed. With modern conditions and rules efficiency would surely rise.

With that being said, Russell was quite inept offensively. It wasn't as much of a shooting problem as much as it was an overall awareness and skill problem. There's a reason why Auerbach basically sat Russell aside during his first month and told him they didn't need him for scoring as much as for rebounding and defense. Russell just didn't have much innate skill on the offensive side of the ball, which leads me to believe that if he did improve in the modern game, it still wouldn't be worth it to have him involved. Someone like Embiid had offensive potential even from an early age. Whereas Russell was known for his inability to score or do much on offense when coming into the NBA.

[sp6r=underrated]

Mainly as a rim runner. Teams would just let him shoot off his post-ups and jumpers since that's a good shot for a defense to give up. I would want the ball in his hands as little as possible on offense. He makes solid reads at times, but other players would just bring more to the table in that role. Most of Russell's passes were hand-offs and pass-outs while the rest of the team worked to get open. That along with his clear turnover proneness would make me hesitant to involve him too much in the halfcourt beyond setting screens and rolling. The main reason Auerbach used him in that way is because he believed that Russell would work harder defensively if he felt involved on offense. Well, that and the fact that it was difficult to use him any other way during an era with far less PnR actions.

The unknown question is which old players would learn to shoot with modern shooting coaches.

One thing we've learned is shooting is a learnable skill for some players. Embiid was a 68% FT shooter in college and never shot 3s. Now he's an 85 FT% shooter and can hit 3s.

I'm not saying Russell would be one of em but I'm certain some poor shooters from the pass would learn to be servicible shooters.

It's possible. While shooting was definitely worse in the 50s and 60s, I don't think it was quite as awful as some might think. Factors like the ball, rim, playing conditions, and lack of open space to get to the rim all contributed. With modern conditions and rules efficiency would surely rise.

With that being said, Russell was quite inept offensively. It wasn't as much of a shooting problem as much as it was an overall awareness and skill problem. There's a reason why Auerbach basically sat Russell aside during his first month and told him they didn't need him for scoring as much as for rebounding and defense. Russell just didn't have much innate skill on the offensive side of the ball, which leads me to believe that if he did improve in the modern game, it still wouldn't be worth it to have him involved. Someone like Embiid had offensive potential even from an early age. Whereas Russell was known for his inability to score or do much on offense when coming into the NBA.

Good points.

[70sFan]

Mainly as a rim runner. Teams would just let him shoot off his post-ups and jumpers since that's a good shot for a defense to give up. I would want the ball in his hands as little as possible on offense. He makes solid reads at times, but other players would just bring more to the table in that role. Most of Russell's passes were hand-offs and pass-outs while the rest of the team worked to get open. That along with his clear turnover proneness would make me hesitant to involve him too much in the halfcourt beyond setting screens and rolling. The main reason Auerbach used him in that way is because he believed that Russell would work harder defensively if he felt involved on offense. Well, that and the fact that it was difficult to use him any other way during an era with far less PnR actions.

The unknown question is which old players would learn to shoot with modern shooting coaches.

One thing we've learned is shooting is a learnable skill for some players. Embiid was a 68% FT shooter in college and never shot 3s. Now he's an 85 FT% shooter and can hit 3s.

I'm not saying Russell would be one of em but I'm certain some poor shooters from the pass would learn to be servicible shooters.

It's possible. While shooting was definitely worse in the 50s and 60s, I don't think it was quite as awful as some might think. Factors like the ball, rim, playing conditions, and lack of open space to get to the rim all contributed. With modern conditions and rules efficiency would surely rise.

With that being said, Russell was quite inept offensively. It wasn't as much of a shooting problem as much as it was an overall awareness and skill problem. There's a reason why Auerbach basically sat Russell aside during his first month and told him they didn't need him for scoring as much as for rebounding and defense. Russell just didn't have much innate skill on the offensive side of the ball, which leads me to believe that if he did improve in the modern game, it still wouldn't be worth it to have him involved. Someone like Embiid had offensive potential even from an early age. Whereas Russell was known for his inability to score or do much on offense when coming into the NBA.

I think you're being a bit harsh on Russell's offensive skills. He didn't have elite shooting touch, which was the main reason why he was inconsistent. It doesn't mean he was completely unskilled though. He had a few moves in the post, he could beat you off the dribble and the most importantly, he thrived in two-men actions, even in limited sample. It would be also interesting to see how good of a shooter he would become, because he had a midrange shot in his repertoire.

I wonder how much looser ball-handling rules and traveling calls would turn him more into faceup slasher. We've seen him quite a few times taking opponents off the dribble and finishing it with a nice touch. He had good enough handles to stay under control at high speed with very strict palming rules.

On the other hand, it seems like he did have some turnovers problems and I wonder how much of that was caused by his role vs his limitations.

I wouldn't also agree that Russell was seen as poor scorer coming into the league. He averaged 21 ppg on excellent 54 TS% in college and he showed potential on that end in games we have from this period.

[coastalmarker99]

Russell was very great on offence against the Lakers in the finals.

'1962 22.9 ppg on a 54.3 FG%.

1963 20 ppg on a .46.7 FG%

1965 17.8 ppg on a .70.2 FG%

1966 23.6 ppg on a .53.8 FG%



I don't know if that speaks to Russell being a decent offensive player or LA's defense against centers being God awful.


As when Russell faced Wilt in the postseason his offensive production dropped considerably.

Case in point being.

Russell's numbers against Wilt in the Finals:

'64: 11.2 ppg on a .38.6 FG%
'69: 9.0 ppg on a .39.9 FG%.

[70sFan]

Russell was very great on offence against the Lakers in the finals.

'1962 22.9 ppg on a 54.3 FG%.

1963 20 ppg on a .46.7 FG%

1965 17.8 ppg on a .70.2 FG%

1966 23.6 ppg on a .53.8 FG%



I don't know if that speaks to Russell being a decent offensive player or LA's defense against centers being God awful.


As when Russell faced Wilt in the postseason his offensive production dropped considerably.

Case in point being.

Russell's numbers against Wilt in the Finals:

'64: 11.2 ppg on a .38.6 FG%
'69: 9.0 ppg on a .39.9 FG%.

He wasn't that bad in his first two postseason clashes against Wilt:

1960: 20.7 ppg on 44.6 FG%
1962: 22.0 ppg on 39.9 FG%

Not amazing, but not bad either. He was quite good in 1965 ECF as well, 16 ppg on average efficiency with almost 7 apg. I agree that it was tough for him to play against Wilt on offensive end as a whole.

[feyki]

Don't think Russell's shooting was the issue, he just couldn't find easy looks under the rim. He'd be probably like Deandre level finisher but with Draymond level playmaking. Just fell into fight club, instead of disneyland.

[70sFan]

Don't think Russell's shooting was the issue, he just couldn't find easy looks under the rim. He'd be probably like Deandre level finisher but with Draymond level playmaking. Just fell into fight club, instead of disneyland.

I don't think we disagree that much, I just think he didn't have shooting touch to make hooks and contested finishes on consistent basis, even though he had a hook from either hand.

[Ambrose]

I'd use Russell as a rim runner on offense and just let him be himself on defense. I don't think I would give him much offensive responsibility. His passing would not translate the same way in 2022. He wasn't a real creator for others, he was turnover prone, and has nowhere near the vision or passing talent of Noah or Draymond. In an ideal world he's finishing, creating a little against mismatches and making the right pass for an easy assist when others collapse on him. If you use him like Draymond your offense is going to be terrible.

[70sFan]

I'd use Russell as a rim runner on offense and just let him be himself on defense. I don't think I would give him much offensive responsibility. His passing would not translate the same way in 2022. He wasn't a real creator for others, he was turnover prone, and has nowhere near the vision or passing talent of Noah or Draymond. In an ideal world he's finishing, creating a little against mismatches and making the right pass for an easy assist when others collapse on him. If you use him like Draymond your offense is going to be terrible.

He's not the main creator, but I think he would thrive as a playmaker as a roll man or in 4 on 3 situations. He'd be also very good secondary passer. Not on Draymond level for sure (though his inside pressence would make him more dangerous in these situations) but I don't think he lacked vision to play Bam's role for example.

[Ambrose]

I'd use Russell as a rim runner on offense and just let him be himself on defense. I don't think I would give him much offensive responsibility. His passing would not translate the same way in 2022. He wasn't a real creator for others, he was turnover prone, and has nowhere near the vision or passing talent of Noah or Draymond. In an ideal world he's finishing, creating a little against mismatches and making the right pass for an easy assist when others collapse on him. If you use him like Draymond your offense is going to be terrible.

He's not the main creator, but I think he would thrive as a playmaker as a roll man or in 4 on 3 situations. He'd be also very good secondary passer. Not on Draymond level for sure (though his inside pressence would make him more dangerous in these situations) but I don't think he lacked vision to play Bam's role for example.

If by secondary passer you mean secondary creator I disagree completely. That's begging to be a bottom 5 offense. If by secondary passer you mean he flips the ball to an open man after he's received a pass and they've collapsed on him, then yes I think he'd be solid at that.

[70sFan]

I'd use Russell as a rim runner on offense and just let him be himself on defense. I don't think I would give him much offensive responsibility. His passing would not translate the same way in 2022. He wasn't a real creator for others, he was turnover prone, and has nowhere near the vision or passing talent of Noah or Draymond. In an ideal world he's finishing, creating a little against mismatches and making the right pass for an easy assist when others collapse on him. If you use him like Draymond your offense is going to be terrible.

He's not the main creator, but I think he would thrive as a playmaker as a roll man or in 4 on 3 situations. He'd be also very good secondary passer. Not on Draymond level for sure (though his inside pressence would make him more dangerous in these situations) but I don't think he lacked vision to play Bam's role for example.

If by secondary passer you mean secondary creator I disagree completely. That's begging to be a bottom 5 offense. If by secondary passer you mean he flips the ball to an open man after he's received a pass and they've collapsed on him, then yes I think he'd be solid at that.

I meant the latter, I don't think Russell could be your clear 2nd offensive creator. As I said though, I don't think peak (1962 version) Russell would be bad offensive player today and he'd be a part of strong offense in which he's not the worst player on the starting lineup.

[dygaction]

Offensive end, feels like he would be Dwight Powell on steroids with better passing ability.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

On defense nothing really changes on how you use Russell except that he will have to defend the pick at the 3 poit line which I figure with his quick feet he could defend the 3 point line pick better than most current centers.

On offense he is a rim runner. He can set the 3 point line pick and then roll to the basket. The help defense in the paint is gone. Everybody is out at the 3 point line defending somebody. On the other hand 1960s defensive players (other than centers and maybe power forwards) were more glued to their own guys and not necessarily even looking to provide help defense. Still I think Russel could rim run more easily now than he could in his own time. The lane is open and he was a great athlete. I did not think that Russells low post scoring moves were all that good. What showed on the fast break is that Russel hadthe potential to be a great rim runner.

[feyki]

Offensive end, feels like he would be Dwight Powell on steroids with better passing ability.

Simply, you're saying Yannis.