Revis Island

I constantly hear people saying Bill Russell is overrated this and Bill Russell is overrated that. About every reasoning people list to think he's overrated are all myths. So I am going to try to find/hear all the myths I've heard and debunk them. Myth #1 - Bill Russell was an average offensive player because his career averages were 15 PPG under 44% FG shoooting. - That is straight up dead wrong. How many shots are generated by a big guy setting a pick?? How many layups are because of an outlet pass that starts the break?? How many shots around the rim are made easier because of the threat of a great offensive rebounder?? There are no Centers that averages more assists than Russell in post season history with 4.7 APG (Could be wrong). Is passing not part of being an offensive player? Last I check it was, and also while his field goal % looks ordinary in today's league, it was top 7 in the league 4 times. It was a different time and a different game back then. And to end this all, Bill Russell was very capable of scoring 20 PPG, as he said on Roundtable talk with Greg Oden and other great centers, it just was not his job, he could do it but he never did. In 1962 and in 1963 he averaged 20+ PPG in the Playoffs. There is his capability of scoring. Myth #2 - Bill Russell would have been nothing if he wasn't playing for the Boston Celtics - Again a Myth and nothing but. Won 2 ncaa titles at a program that was absolutely nothing before he got there, and was absolutely nothing after he left (USF). Led them to a 55 game win streak in those two years.Along with that he was the Captain of the gold medal winning team in the Melbourne Olympics in 1956, prior to joining the Celtics mid-season. Also, The Celtics were like this..... Before Russell--Nothing, about a .500ish team During Russell--11 titles in 13 years Directly After Russell--Missing the playoffs I would offer that many of the players who played with Russell were able to raise their play, because Russell was able to take care of virtually everything on the defensive end of the court, and a fair bit on offense as well. He just made life so much easier for all involved. Myth #3 - Wilt Chamberlain played with Scrubs while Bill Russell had the most stacked team in NBA History - Big Myth. Wilt Chamberlain played with 8 HOfers throughout his career while Bill Russell had 9. That's pretty even, I don't think 1 HOFer will make that much of a difference, especially if you are supposely more "dominant" than the other player. Wilt played with Elgin Baylor, Tom Gola, Nate Thurmond, Billy Cunningham, Paul Arizin, Jerry West, Goodrich, and Hal Greer. So if you think it was the teammates were the reasons why Russell managed to win every single time, Try again. And Russell's HOF teammates..... Player - (Pts/Reb/Ast) - accomplishments Cousy - 18.4/5.2/7.5 (1 MVP, 10 straight 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds) Sharman - 17.8/3.9/3.0 (4 1st team all-NBA, 2 2nds) Heinsohn - 18.6/8.8/2.0 (4 2nd team all-NBA) Ramsey - 13.4/5.5/1.8 (never made an All-Star team) Sam Jones - 17.7/4.9/2.5 (3 2nd team all-NBA) KC Jones - 7.4/3.5/4.3 (never made an All-Star team) Havlicek - 20.8/6.3/4.8 (4 1st team all-NBA, 7 2nds, all-defense 8 years) Lovellette - 17.0/9.5/1.7 (however, that was mainly with other teams). With Boston, Lovellette was a 10-minute a game player at the end of his career. Howell - (4 of 12 seasons with Boston), 18.7/9.9/1.9 (made 1 All-Star team with Bos) Of those guys, there's no way Ramsey or KC Jones gets in the HOF without the rings. Lovellette shouldn't even count because he was at the tail end of his career when he played with Boston. Myth #4 - Bill Rusell played in a Weak ERA, Replace him with anyone and they could dominant then. - Just another Myth. Its been alluded to a number of times, but the basic flaw in the argument of people who criticize Russell is they have an imaginary time machine. If Russell had been born 50 years later, he would not look at all like he did back then. He would have had much more polished offensive moves, having had several generations of centers to copy. He would probably have been about 20 lbs heavier that was all muscle. He would still be an absolute athletic freak of nature who could run the floor faster than guards and he would still have a basketball IQ off the charts high. Its a little bit like pretending that Kobe Bryant could have been born 50 years earlier and still be the same player, That's absolute nonsense. That Kobe would probably have issues dribbling with his left hand, would not have anywhere near as good a jumper, would have far fewer offensive moves, probably not have a fadeaway at all etc... He still would have been a great player for the era, but he would have looked nothing like what we associate with Kobe. There is no magic time machine. Great players in one era are great players in any era - End of discussion. Myth #5 - Wilt usually outplayed Russell, that's why he's the better player - Mostly a Myth, but somewhat true. Wilt only averaged 6 points a game more than Russell when it matters.... the playoffs. Not exactly that huge a difference. And in the playoffs, Russell gets more boards and dimes than Wilt, despite playing slightly lower minutes. And the players back then voted Russell more MVPs than Wilt. Along with that, People don't realize that most of the time Bill Russell LET Wilt Chamberlain score on him on purpose, You want to know why? Because that was how you put Wilt's team back then....Teams weren't stupid and teams weren't so weak that Wilt would dominant them THAT easily. You could double him or whatever. However, most of the time teams would purposely let Chamberlain score all the points in the beginning so he could get into a groove. Because once he gets on his groove he's not passing the ball ever, the only time his teammates would ever touch the ball in that Scenario is if they were dribbling the ball up the court. Why they would do that you would ask? Because that was how you beat Wilt's team. You would let Wilt get his and shut down every other player. Because Wilt wasn't always about the wins during his younger years, he cared greatly about stats and most of the time they were more important to them than wins. That was why he kept losing until Bill Russell retired because he learned to copy his style of play to win championships. Here's is one reason why Wilt outplayed Russell was a myth, Take 1969 for example. Russell on his last legs. Lakers are big favorites with Wilt, West and Baylor. Somebody forgot to tell Russell he was supposed to lose. He and the Celts hold Wilt to under 12 points a game that series. Wilt shoots 2-11 from the line in one loss (a one point loss I might add) and shoots 4-13 from the line in the deciding game 7 in a two point loss. He didn't exactly light up old Bill when it mattered then did he? As you see here it is nothing but a Myth to say Bill Russell is overrated, but keep trying......

1. Wade 2. Roy 3. Johnson 4. Ginobili 5. Vince 6. Ray Allen

I voted for LeBron, but I feel Kobe is better. I honestly can make a case for either side, my logic just goes with Kobe Bryant for many reasons mentioned in this thread, but honestly you cannot say because Kobe has a Finals MVP and a Ring that makes him better than LeBron. There is much more reasoning than that.

Not really attacking, but if Rondo didn't play the game he did in Game 6 of the 2008 Finals, most people wouldn't care about him much they would still underrate him. He's a good player, star player. He's easily the best rebounding PG in the NBA. One of the best floor generals and is arguably the best defensive PG in the NBA. It's hard to put guys like Miller and Rose above him, when he's the best at so many things at his position. It's almost like saying James Worthy is better than Dominique Wilkins, In my opinion that is true. Worthy never had much of a chance to prove himself as a leader since he played with Magic Johnson his entire career but he was still a damn good player. Just like Rondo.

See 2009 Playoffs for reasons....Pretty tired of people bashing him just because he schooled Kobe in Game 6 of the 2008 Finals, so people just say well Rondo has 3 HOFers.

My 10 > Your 10 1. CP3 2. Deron 3. Billups 4. Parker 5. Nash 6. Rondo 7. Nelson 8. Rose 9. Harris 10. Miller

Prime: Baron Now: Giblert

How About.... Boozer performs better in the playoffs by a long shot -IS more Efficient of a player -Much Stronger -Better Defender -Better Rebounder and it's not even close. But I guess Bosh does have range so the argument isn't so stupid.

Because you have nothing for me, everybody with a brain knows Boozer is the superior player.

Again, I'd rather have somebody that has enough strength to guard a forward than a player that actively tries and gets [expletive] slapped by every single player.

Agreed, Jason Kidd is a window licker when it comes down to Academics IQ, in terms of basketball IQ he's a genius.

So you decide to penalize Boozer for having a great coach? Last I checked, Sam Mitchell was the COY in 2007. Boozer had Deron Williams, I will grant you that, but if you think most of Boozer's points came from Deron, then you have no clue what you were saying. Plus, It's not like Bosh would benefit off of playing Deron, Cp3 or whoever. Bosh is a weak [expletive] finisher, the only thing that would benefit is the pick n pop that Ford and Calderon already currently do. Bosh is not better than Boozer on defense. I don't care if he puts the effort. I'd rather have a player that doesn't try defensively and doesn't get constantly pushed around everywhere then somebody who does try and gets pushed around all over the place.

Boozer Playoffs Stats 2007: 17 games Played: 23.5 PPG, 12.2 RPG, 2.9 APG, 53 FG%, 38.5 MPG 2008: 12 games played: 16 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 2.8 APG, 41 FG%, 36.8 MPG 2009: 5 Games played: 20.6 PPG, 13.2 RPG, 2.2 APG, 52 FG%, 37.2 MPG Boozer>Bosh.

The same Chris Paul that was 2ND in the 2008 MVP Voting and should have been first? Tell me how many times Bosh ever even came close to Top 10 MVP voting. Never, and never in his life. Chris Bosh is by far the most overrated player in the league. At least Boozer comes through in the playoffs. He's stronger, better, more efficient, better rebounder and the better defender. Bosh has more range than Boozer and it ends from there. Keep in mind in 2007 Boozer was actually a pretty good player then and an All-Star, that's what a healthy Carlos Boozer is. Averaging 20/10s vs Yao, Duncan and the Warriors.

No, I am talking about Three years ago when one of the biggest known Scrubs in the league managed to take Bosh's lunch money from him.

Difference is Boozer doesn't get pushed around by guys like Jason Collins or Rashard Lewis, while even Steve Nash can push Bosh around.

Balls play a factor in basketball games, not so much about Acne.

Not at all. Bosh got pushed around by Jason Collins in the 2007 NBA Playoffs. His averages were pretty terrible too, at least when Boozer played in the playoffs he actually showed up.

Sun Yue, I heard he's the Brezec Stopper.

1. Evans 2. Flynn 3. Harden 4. Griffin 5. Hasheem Honorable Mentions: Chase Buddinger and Jermaine Taylor

I see no evidence of what I just bolded about Al Jefferson's smarts being suspect or Shaq's. As far as drawing double teams and finding the open player, He is pretty smart at that. He's also pretty smart at positioning himself and willing to repost himself on the offensive end.

Who's the better player? In my opinion, I'll take Boozer just because he has balls.

Which is why he said the reason why he gets steals is because he's smart enough to know what play the opponent is going to run. Chris Paul is every bit as smart as Nash, him playing defense and being smart at it is why he's smarter than Nash.

Then I have no clue why you put Bogut on the 2nd team. You should have just put Shaq then or even Al Jefferson. and Chris Paul is smarter than Steve Nash is basketball wise.

I'm just taking Intelligence in general. All-Intelligent 1st Team PG: Nash SG: Ray-Ray SF: Shane Battier PF: Tim Duncan C: Emeka Okafor Second Team PG: Jacque Vaughn SG: Kobe SF: Grant Hill PF: Pau Gasol C: Yao By the way Greatness, You do realize Kidd had to take the SAT like 50 times just because he failed all of them right? Not to mention, He's somewhat of a douche.