Who is the all time NBA best, or who would you draft? 11 NBA championship or 6 NBA championships?

Question

Who would you pick as your franchise player?

Player 1
2 consecutive NCAA basketball championships as the team's superstar including a record, at the time, 55 staight wins for a NCAA basketball team as the team's superstar
1 Gold Medal as Captain of the USA Olympics basketball team
11 NBA rings on a NBA team that had never been in the
1 Most Outstanding Player in the NCAA Final Four basketball championships
5 NBA MVP awards (in primes of most of the current Top 50 NBA players in NBA history)
4 NBA rebounding championships (in prime of Chamberlain)
14 major championships in 14 years (2 NCAA titles, 1 Gold, 11 NBA rings)
Possibly the best jumper in NBA history, at a minimum at least one of the top jumpers in NBA history including players of the 21st century.
The only person to win a NCAA title, a Gold, and a NBA title all within one year.
One of only two people to win consecutive NCAA titles their last two years in college and win a NBA title their rookie year

Player 2

1 NCAA title while not the star of the team
6 NBA rings
0 Most Outstanding Player awards of the NCAA Final Four Basketball championships
5 NBA MVP awards
And, 9 years in between his last NCAA title and his first NBA ring

xengold, I would agree with your assessment.

A comparison was made of Russell to a modern era Marcus Camby. In 1956, Bill Russell was ranked #7 in the world in the high jump and was easily one of the three best American high jumpers in 1956 meaning that Russell said if he did not make the USA Olympics basketball team that he would have competed in the Olympics for the USA as a high jumper. Had block statistics been kept in the Russell era, no doubt he would be the all time NBA leader. Camby would not even be in Russell's class.

A comment is made about Defensive Player of the Year Awards won by MJ which was an award created after Russell had long retired; otherwise, Russell would have almost annually won that award.

A reference was made to Russell and the ECF. Back in that era it was the East Division Finals.

A reference was made to Satch Sanders being in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame which I believe is incorrect; although, Sanders has 8 rings as a key Celtics contributor.

Russell's rebounding titles are referenced because Chamberlain was almost a guaranteed lock year in and year out to be the NBA rebounding champion. Yes, MJ's scoring titles are impressive; however, in MJ's era, MJ had little to no competition for the scoring titles while Russell had competition as both Russell and Chamberlain started their NBA primes in the late 1950s.

Saying that Russell could rebound on the par with a Marcus Camby is like saying that a Dennis Rodman could rebound on the par with a Marcus Camby. Russell had a unique knack to know how to get to the ball whether on defense or for rebounding just as Rodman had uncanny rebounding abilities.

Hoopfan, great response, but don't forget that Russell went up against three Hall of Famers in Lakers Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Gail Goodrich several times before Bill Russell won his last ring as you state against three Hall of Famers in Lakers Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, and Wilt Chamberlain.

There were only two constants in the Bill Russell Celtics era dynasty. First, only one Celtics player remained on the Celtics roster unchanged throughout that dynasty with the Celtics, and that was Bill Russell. The second constant was Red Auerbach either as a head coach or in the Celtics front office.

The Thinker: Wilt Chamberlain was the first basketball player getting into the weights weighing over 300 pounds by the mid 1960s with Wilt Chamberlain approaching 375 to 400 pounds at Russell's retirement or shortly thereafter.

Wilt Chamberlain never fouled out of a game and when Russell played Chamberlain, both got into wrestling matches, shoving matches, pushing matches, or just simply holding each other as only those two centers in the entire NBA were allowed to be as physical with each other. Russell was a quarter mile sprinter in college, so Russell was not slow. Yes, Russell was small for a center, but was ranked #7 in the world in the high jump, and apparently Russell had good lower body strength to keep a 300 to 400 pound Chamberlain out of the lane in Russell's last few years in the NBA. The most physical play in NBA history was between Russell and Chamberlain who outweighed Russell by 100 to 150 pounds. Russell and Chamberlain played at the same time for 10 years.

As Russell played 10 years against the strongest man ever to play in the NBA in Wilt Chamberlain. Go back and watch Wilt in his movies with Arnold Schwartzenegger to see Wilt's build next to Arnold. Russell also played against Wes Unseld who was about 6' 5" tall by 6' 5" tall, an exaggeration obviously, back in the 1960s, so Russell played his share against big men.

As far as the comment about foot speed, Russell's sprinter speed from being a college track sprinter should indicate that Russell was by no means slow.

As far as scouting other teams, if you read Russell's autobiography as Russell played in the era of 8 team or 10 team or 12 team NBA leagues, Russell stated that there was no reason to scout as the teams played so often that it was all a matter of execution and whomever executed the best won. A different example was that UCLA's John Wooden, the most successful college coach ever, did not scout his opponents preferring to concentrate on his own players.

Answer 1

I'm guessing that you're making the argument of Bill Russell over Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan was amazing but Bill Russell was just so much better in so many ways. He was an awesome player.

Not many around here ever saw Bill Russell play so people tend to go with what's familiar.

Answer 2

Could I take Kareem Abdul-Jabbar or Magic Johnson instead. I just think that Jordan is over-rated as a chemistry guy (one reason why it took so long for his team to develop into a contender and Russell was not a very efficient scorer and won partly because he had a lot of scorers around him. Give Kareem a good PG (or even L. Allen or W. Jones) a washed up wing player or a inexperienced SF ; or Magic a solid but past his prime center and a couple of active wings and they produce immideatly in a very tough league. We will never know what Russell could have managed with out a lot of help, we know how long it took Jordan to develop into an NBA winner. Both Russell and Jordan played in a league that favored them as did Magic, the same could not be said for Kareem or Wilt. I might take Cousey over Russell. I can't say I know how things would work out but I would take a chance and put Chamberlin or Abdul-Jabbar in Russells place with the Celtics and expect at least one 75 win season.

Answer 3

I like how you mentioned Russells rebounding titles, with no mention of Jordans scoring titles. Made mention of Russells "top jumper" while saying nothing about the fact that Jordan was by far a better shooter. Oh and Jordan did not have 5 Hall of Famers on his young Bulls teams. Oh, and Defensive player of the year awards. Oh, and the leader of the Dream team....only the best collection of talent ever.

Any argument can be made with only a slice of the information. Funny you forgot to metion all that.

Answer 4

I'd take player 2.

If you put russell on a bad chicago team with no tradition
of winning he would not have as many titles.
If you put Jordan on the Celtics with the tradition of winning
he would have more titles than Russell.

If you don't agree, Red Auerbach said Jordan was the
best player he had ever seen. And Russell himself
said Jordan was the greatest of all time.

Barkley never won a title but he was better than Robert
Horry which has 7.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AlphaKOOK

3 out of 5 years prior to Russell Celtics where in the
conference finals. Chicago was not even in the playoffs
for as long as anyone can remember before Jordan
got there.
Also since you bring it up, in Russells Days you have to
win two series to get to the finals, in the Jordan ERA
you have to win 3 series to get to the finals..more teams!
So Russell won his titles the same way UCLA and John
Wooden won his titles, the NCAA had 16 teams not 64
when UCLA won their what ever number in a row.
So in fact number of titles Russell has would be at least
half that number because there would be 3 hurdles to
get by not 2 to be in the finals. THat and they played best
of 3 or 5 not 7.

AROOOOOO 2 EZ!!!!!!!
your tradition is to cheer for Kobe
which means your tradition is to be out in the 1st round!
now stop being a Kobe Jocker!

Answer 5

The guy with the six rings and since you're talking about MJ he didn't just win six rings he changed the game. You know how they say no one man is bigger than the game well he is. When kobe, D-Wade, Lebron, T-Mac, A-I or anyone in the league is going through their little moment when their not missing you know what they say(he looks like Jordan) You know what they call the 4th quarter (Jordan TIME) he's not a great player who played the game he's the greatest player to ever play the game!!!!! Don't you forget that!!!!!

Answer 6

I agree...Olowokandi has to be one of the worst if not THE WORST overall first pick in the draft. Not only was he soft and slow, but look at all the players the Clips passed up on that year - Bibby, VC, Jamison, Paul Pierce, and Dirk to name a few. I'm sure the Clips still regret that pick even to this day.

Answer 7

Michael Jordan

Answer 8

Very different eras - Russell and Celtics vs MJ and Bulls.

Because of knowing what I know about the eras (put Russell and the Celtics in the age of free agency) I take MJ

Answer 9

The problem with this is that when Bill Russel was in the league he played with people smaller than he was. SIGNIFICANTLY smaller than he was. So he was so dominating. The league was nowhere near as competitive.

He couldn't score by himself, he was just a defensive force. Also the boston celtics had the best starting 5 in the league for 10 straight years so it wasn't just him.

sorry guy no dice.

Answer 10

Sometimes, the ignorance on here is mind-boggling.

That "all-star team" that Russell supposedly joined never even went to the NBA finals until Russell came on board, so "iknowballs", your argument carries no weight whatsoever.

And Russell was usually the 3rd or 4th option on offense. His job was to rebound and defend, which he did better than anybody in history. He was more than happy to sacrifice points in order to win championships, unlike Jordan.

And all throughout his career, these "all star" players retired, but the Celtics kept on winning titles. Russell was the only constant. And as soon as Russell retires, the Celtics collapse.

And the fact that there were only 8 teams back then meant that the teams were better and deeper then when Jordan played. Some of the teams Russell had to face night in and night out:

St Louis: 4 HOFer's including 6'9" Bob Petit

LA Lakers: HOFer's West, Baylor, and later 7'1" Wilt Chamberlain

Cincinnati: HOFer's Oscar Robertson, 6'8" Jerry Lucas

Philly 76ers: Wilt, Hal Greer, 6'9" Luke Jackson, Billy Cinningham

HOFer's: Walt Bellamy, and Nate Thurmond, both 6'11", Willis Reed; 6'10", Wes Unseld; 6'7", Zelmo Beatty; 6'9"

To say that Jordan played against better competition is ludicrous. The fact that there were fewer teams meant that Russell had to play against these players every night. He and Wilt usually faced off 12-13 times a year, not including playoffs.

Can you imagine if Jordan had to play Bird's Celtics, Magic's Lakers, the 80's Pistons, Dr. J's Sixers 12 times a year?

Michael Jordan didn't start winning championships until the talent from the 80's drizzled off, and the league expanded. And he did have good players around him, he just doesn't have the ability to make players around him better.

And as far as his mythical "will to win"....where was it in his 2nd and 3rd year in college....when he couldn't even get his TarHeels to the Final Four, despite being loaded with NBA talent. See, even when he does have players around him, his "will to win" vanishes...lol

There was no player in history that had a greater "will to win" than Bill Russell. Eleven titles in thirteen seasons, plus 2 NCAA titles....you'd have to be an idiot to choose Jordan over Russell....unless maybe you were starting a shoe company.
__________________________

(F)ockers....Red Auerbach: " if I was starting a team today, and I could pick one player, the one player I would choose, and the greatest ever would be Larry Bird"

And the only reason the Bulls made the playoffs is because the league decided to go from 8 playoff teams to 16. Jordan's Bulls made the playoffs his first 3 years with losing records, and were quickly eliminated.

"Darth Vader"....you make absolutely no sense. Russell had to face Wilt Chamberlain many, many times throughout his career....I don't think he'd have any trouble against the centers of today.

SHAWN KEMP????..........LMAO........yeah if growling into the camera is your criteria of a great forward....jeeshhhh!!!!
_________________________

No, "Darth Vader".....what the 1994 Bulls lacked was a Jordan jocking referee, that should have put his whistle away in the final seconds of a playoff game.

You are 100% correct about the Celtics however. That team, despite all those great players, would not have won a title without Russell's defense and presence in the middle.

Answer 11

I don't really know why we would compare Michael Jordan to Bill Russell:

1. They played in different eras. 1960's Russell played in an era with only eight teams... Jordan spent his time playing with his team against a league that continues to have expansion teams until it grew to 29 teams. Siting this you can see that if you have one great player there is a very good chance that your team would dominate not to mention that Boston had a composition of Hall-of-Fame kind of players (I know you know all of them). The level of competition is very, very different my friend...

2. They played different positions. Bill Russell is a center and Jordan is a guard? What's the difference? Go figure. Basketball is what other's says "a big man's sport" thus the Bulls achievements quashes the term since the team never really had a dominant Big man since Artis "A-Train" Gilmore. It's hard enough winning with a good big man how about not having one?

To answer your question directly: No I won't pick Bill Russell if given a chance to draft him... Simply because he would give up a lot of size to the opposition (as pointed by one answerer above Bill stands 6'9) And with the built Bill Russell have I don't think he would be able to compete with all the big bodied players of today (try Yao Ming)... He would be good but never great in this era. (probably would remind you of a Marcus Camby in terms of built and ravageness on the blocks and boards).

I'd better stick with a Jordan who played against the best players of the modern era, thus improving his game more and becoming one of the most intelligent players of the game... Even Bill Russell himself gives a nod at this:

Bill Russell on Michael Jordan: “he has this-it's like a computer in his head that he knows all of his MULTIPLE SKILLS, which ones he uses, and when to use them, to WIN the game, because you see the thing is what makes him a great player is his sense of priority, what is important.”

He further more added that : “what makes him great is his attitude. I think that after I've watched him play I guess hundreds of times since he was a kid, and the ENTHUSIASM and the WILL to win has been there all the time, and what I like about him is that even today in the regular season games he shows up to play just like he played when he was in high school or in college, just as hard, with just as much DEDICATION, and with just as much intensity.”

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sports/ja...

Hope this helps.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Alpha wolf I don't know why your bashing me... Does your hate for Jordan run that deep? You can't win at arguments and that is why you are bashing others opinions? Well with the exeption of Wilt could you point out who else stands in the way of that great Boston Celtic team? Nobody because they only have eight teams! With a team composed of Bill Sharman, Bob Cousy, Tom Heinsohn, Bill Russell, Sam Jones, K.C. Jones how could you go wrong? You are calling Pippen the best forward of Jordan's era? I don't think so... What about Kemp, Malone, Barkley aren't they forwards as well? Proved you wrong again. Well best of luck on your presumption.

Additional: Now here comes the 'wolf accomplice, Let's see Boston had Cousy and Sharman as their main guys. As the Official Boston Celtics Website puts it: Instant Offense but no Defense, They were winning but can't get through to the Finals because they are lacking in one major facet in their game and that is DEFENSE. Russell plugged that hole, so you can say that Auerbach, Boston's architect had been long looking for such a player. If Ben Wallace was available then maybe Red would have picked him, no? lol. The Bulls are a struggling team a team that would seldom go to the play-offs before the "Air" arrives thus plugging MAJOR hole in their team. And what hole is that? Confidence. 1994's Pippen-led Bulls was a strong team. In fact they are defending champions. What does that team lack? Confidence. They could have easily won it all again but what was lacking? Confidence. Jordan was the franchise's cornerstone and by picking up the pieces of the puzzle the Bulls won their first taste of honey in NBA landia.

As I said with the great team like Bill's how can you go wrong? Against a team with two HOF's how can they defend a team with no vulnerability? Tell me now....

Hoopfan: Before Kemp became a drug fiend addict he was HOF caliber in Seattle... Even Malone had trouble stopping him (circa 1996 Western Conference Finals?)... Time to read history again....