Author Topic: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat  (Read 13867 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #30 on: October 16, 2008, 09:47:09 AM »

Online bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
Here's something to think about.  The year Wilt averaged 50, 6 players averaged over 30 points per game including Wilt and Oscar Robertson who averaged a triple double.  Yet Russell won the MVP.  And MVP's weren't voted by media or coaches it was voted by the players.  So I don't know how you could say Russell wouldn't be picked first in an open gym.  The majority of the other players in the league thought he was the best player, so you don't think they would pick Russell first if they had the chance?

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #31 on: October 16, 2008, 10:34:19 AM »

Offline 12417

  • Xavier Tillman
  • Posts: 36
  • Tommy Points: 5
My original post in this thread was in response to Hoops. He was the one that decided to post that he had Thorpe's back on his comment selecting Bill Russell has 'the most overrated player in history'. I can dismiss Thorpe out of hand. His only value in a chat is any inside information he might have from working out players and prospects. His knowledge of the league and its history is obviously poor and his flippant responses worthless. However to be referred to has a kool-aid drinker and having my opinions biased by being a Celtic fan because I would consider Russell one of if not the GOAT is insulting and ignorant. My issue wasn't with Thorpe but with Hoops and cosigning.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #32 on: October 16, 2008, 10:57:43 AM »

Offline Birdbrain

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2939
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • 36 charges and counting..
Hoops, et. al.you guys are drifting from my premise.  No one who defends Russell as the greatest player ever (led proudly by me, who had the privilege of actually seeing him play) is disputing individual statistical supremacy. One need only look at Russ' contemporary, Wilt, who far exceeded Russ in every statistical category. The real point is this:  Playing this game is about who wins, not which guy scores the most points, makes the coolest passes or the most spectacular blocks (particularly apropos as Russ made a point of not swatting it into the stands, but toward a team-mate to start a break). Russell wasn't just some lucky bench guy like Horry who, while a contributor, was not the main guy in teh 5 championships he won. Russell, I would argue, was the most valuable player in every single of the 11 championship runs.  He won 11 out of 13. 

Count 'em, 11, fellas.  In 13 years.  MVP of each of those teams.  We would not have won a single one if he was not on our team, I submit. 

Instead of celebrating 17, we would have just celebrated number 6. That is who Bill Russell was.

I am not even here to make the point that Russell was the greatest player ever, although based upon the fact that he was the most valuable player on the only real dynasty in basketball, ever, I really think he is. I grant that their are legitimate arguments for saying that Jordan was the greatest, since he not only won six, but was so dominant in each win.

Frankly, I find it blasphemous that the word "over-rated" could be used in the same sentence with Bill Russell.  I have read Thorpe, and while I recognize that being flippant is his MO, that does not excuse him calling Russell over-rated. 

For those of you who believe Bill Russell was over-rated, I would suggest that you under-rate the most important element of the game: Winning.  Thorpe also let the charges during last year's playoffs stating that the Lakers (along with teh Cavs and Pistons) were superior to the Celtics, so his opinion and 2 bucks will get me a ride on the subway.

TP for you.  The term overrated is used way too much.  I even use it too much.  And to be honest I actually think Jordan is the best ever but, I think most of us suffer from not actually getting to see Russell play.  We think we know but, do we really?
Little Fockers 1.5/10
Gulliver's Travels 1/10
Grown Ups -20/10
Tron Legacy 6.5/10

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #33 on: October 16, 2008, 11:00:32 AM »

Offline footey

  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15965
  • Tommy Points: 1833
Excellent point, BDM. TP for you, my man.

William Fenton Russell's legacy shall never die!!! With all due respect to Larry and Hondo, there would be no Celtic dynasty without Bill Russell. Ask Cousy.  

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #34 on: October 16, 2008, 11:02:47 AM »

Offline Brickowski

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Tommy Points: 423
I saw Russell play, and he wasn't overrated.  It's too bad David Thorpe never got the chance.

Russell was as much a superstar on defense as MJ was on offense.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2008, 11:27:03 AM by Brickowski »

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #35 on: October 16, 2008, 11:35:12 AM »

Offline coco

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2682
  • Tommy Points: 146
I wouldn't put too much weight on DThorpe opinion.  He is a Collage BBall guy. Doesn't know much about the pros except for Florida's teams.  He picked the Lakers in 4, ranked Orlando higher than the Cs, etc.....

MStein, CFord, JHollinger are ESPNs best....
« Last Edit: October 16, 2008, 01:33:59 PM by coco »

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #36 on: October 16, 2008, 01:31:38 PM »

Offline BCelts

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 264
  • Tommy Points: 13
Thorpedo just likes to be an ass sometimes. He answers my questions all the time. But he's just saying That Bill Russel wouldn't be as good if had to defend centers like Hakeem, kareem, Shaq, and Ewing which is prolly true.

I think Wilt Chamberlain can rank with those guys in terms of talent.  I don't have the stats in front of me to back it up, but I remember hearing multiple times that Russell habitually dominated Wilt.

It's hard to compare centers to small forwards or point guards.  Since they don't - and couldn't - play against each other directly, there's no way to really say that Russell is better than Jordan or vice versa.  But I have no problem in saying that Russell is the best center of all time.  Take that for what it's worth.

This is exactly right.  Russell's defense changed the game.  You can legitimately consider him, Big O, Kareem, Jordan, Bird, and Wilt as "first picks" in an all-time fantasy draft in my opinion.  Thopedo is wrong.  Mostly because Russell did not score like the others on this list, I would guess.  Then again, relative to this list Bird didn't defend, Jordan didn't rebound, and Kareem didn't pass.  Even the greats had their weaker areas.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #37 on: October 16, 2008, 01:40:45 PM »

Offline BCelts

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 264
  • Tommy Points: 13
Bill Russel was the most dominant player in NBA history. He's probably the most dominant figure in sports History. With that said he's definitely being overrated when people say he was the best to play the game.

Huh? :o

Bill Russel played in the 60s and mostly played against 6'5 guys or shorter at his position other than Wilt. Put Bill Russel in the NBA during the 90s and he's a good player but he won't shine as the elite. He's prolly an all-star but not dominant. It's hard to tell but this is my opinion. I think the 2008 Clippers could beat any 70s nba team.

I take this same view.  I get into arguments about it all the time.  Each generation of teams and players are better than the last because players continue to develop more athleticism, in general.  The opposing point of view states that fundementals have eroded.  The argument that I have most is whether the 85-86 Celtics team could beat the 96 (I think) Bull's team that won 70 games.  Although I bleed green, I say no only because I think that althleticism in the 80s guys is not up to par with the 90s guys, and they get run off the court.  Even more inflamatory, I think that in today's day and age Bird would still be a good to very good player, but his lack of footspeed would make him a significant liability against today's small forwards on the defensive end.

I think when you compare "great" players, you have to adjust mentally for their era.  One could take a very logical view that Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron (and Jordan too) were the best players in NBA history.  This view ignores that Russell's athleticism would fit right in with today's players. He does not really fit the "increasing athleticism" arguments.

Would the 85-86 Celtics team beat the 07-08 Celtics?  I think not.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2008, 01:47:08 PM by BCelts »

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #38 on: October 16, 2008, 02:19:32 PM »

Offline Schupac

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 958
  • Tommy Points: 235
Hoops, et. al.you guys are drifting from my premise.  No one who defends Russell as the greatest player ever (led proudly by me, who had the privilege of actually seeing him play) is disputing individual statistical supremacy. One need only look at Russ' contemporary, Wilt, who far exceeded Russ in every statistical category. The real point is this:  Playing this game is about who wins, not which guy scores the most points, makes the coolest passes or the most spectacular blocks (particularly apropos as Russ made a point of not swatting it into the stands, but toward a team-mate to start a break). Russell wasn't just some lucky bench guy like Horry who, while a contributor, was not the main guy in teh 5 championships he won. Russell, I would argue, was the most valuable player in every single of the 11 championship runs.  He won 11 out of 13. 

Count 'em, 11, fellas.  In 13 years.  MVP of each of those teams.  We would not have won a single one if he was not on our team, I submit. 

Instead of celebrating 17, we would have just celebrated number 6. That is who Bill Russell was.

I am not even here to make the point that Russell was the greatest player ever, although based upon the fact that he was the most valuable player on the only real dynasty in basketball, ever, I really think he is. I grant that their are legitimate arguments for saying that Jordan was the greatest, since he not only won six, but was so dominant in each win.

Frankly, I find it blasphemous that the word "over-rated" could be used in the same sentence with Bill Russell.  I have read Thorpe, and while I recognize that being flippant is his MO, that does not excuse him calling Russell over-rated. 

For those of you who believe Bill Russell was over-rated, I would suggest that you under-rate the most important element of the game: Winning.  Thorpe also let the charges during last year's playoffs stating that the Lakers (along with teh Cavs and Pistons) were superior to the Celtics, so his opinion and 2 bucks will get me a ride on the subway.

Bam BOom FING FANG FOOM GIVE HIM THAT TP!!! I thought about posting here, but why bother when you already laid the argument out so well?

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #39 on: October 16, 2008, 04:16:46 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
Bill Russel was the most dominant player in NBA history. He's probably the most dominant figure in sports History. With that said he's definitely being overrated when people say he was the best to play the game.

Huh? :o

Bill Russel played in the 60s and mostly played against 6'5 guys or shorter at his position other than Wilt. Put Bill Russel in the NBA during the 90s and he's a good player but he won't shine as the elite. He's prolly an all-star but not dominant. It's hard to tell but this is my opinion. I think the 2008 Clippers could beat any 70s nba team.

I take this same view.  I get into arguments about it all the time.  Each generation of teams and players are better than the last because players continue to develop more athleticism, in general.  The opposing point of view states that fundementals have eroded.  The argument that I have most is whether the 85-86 Celtics team could beat the 96 (I think) Bull's team that won 70 games.  Although I bleed green, I say no only because I think that althleticism in the 80s guys is not up to par with the 90s guys, and they get run off the court.  Even more inflamatory, I think that in today's day and age Bird would still be a good to very good player, but his lack of footspeed would make him a significant liability against today's small forwards on the defensive end.

I think when you compare "great" players, you have to adjust mentally for their era.  One could take a very logical view that Kobe, Duncan, and LeBron (and Jordan too) were the best players in NBA history.  This view ignores that Russell's athleticism would fit right in with today's players. He does not really fit the "increasing athleticism" arguments.

Would the 85-86 Celtics team beat the 07-08 Celtics?  I think not.

  People seem to be confusing Bball in the 70s and 80s with those black and white film clips we see every once in a while. There were players in the 70s (Kareem, Dr J, David Thompson, Calvin Murphy..) and the 80s (Bird, Jordan, Nique, Drexler, Barkley, KJ...) that were as athletic as anyone who play today.

  Did Jordan become less dominant as his career progressed because he was going up against more athletic players in the 90s than he did in the 80s?

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #40 on: October 16, 2008, 04:50:20 PM »

Offline BCelts

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 264
  • Tommy Points: 13
  People seem to be confusing Bball in the 70s and 80s with those black and white film clips we see every once in a while. There were players in the 70s (Kareem, Dr J, David Thompson, Calvin Murphy..) and the 80s (Bird, Jordan, Nique, Drexler, Barkley, KJ...) that were as athletic as anyone who play today.

  Did Jordan become less dominant as his career progressed because he was going up against more athletic players in the 90s than he did in the 80s?

I disagree that Bird, my favorite all-time baseketball player, is "as athletic as anyone who play today."  THere is a reason that JJ Redick cannot get on the court, and he is not a worse shooter than he was in college. 

However, I agree that many of the 70s and 80s guys are as althletic as players today.  The average athleticsm is not the same, but many of the stars, including Russell in the 60s, have the tools to play today. 

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #41 on: October 16, 2008, 05:04:44 PM »

Offline Brickowski

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4207
  • Tommy Points: 423
Russell would be the best defensive player in the NBA if he were playing today. Also, he ran the floor like no big man before or since. He was relentless. There is no way that any of today's centers could stay with him.

Of course, playing in a stodgy half-court style, Russell wouldn't be as effective on offense.  But put him on a running team with a few shooters, and he would be just as spectacular.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #42 on: October 16, 2008, 06:01:21 PM »

Offline TitleMaster

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 980
  • Tommy Points: 117
Quote
Of course, playing in a stodgy half-court style, Russell wouldn't be as effective on offense.  But put him on a running team with a few shooters, and he would be just as spectacular

Well, I think the idea behind Russell's so-called lack of offense (LOL!) was that he didn't take many shots, to being with. His system was about setting up the court to contain the likes of an Elgin Baylor or a Wilt Chamberlain while shifting the ball, via blocks or assists, to other Celtic scorers. So in effect, when the team would cycle from the Heinsohn/Cousy Eisenhower-Kennedy era to the Nellie/Hondo Beatles-Johnson era, there was no loss of scoring power on the Celtics side for the entire stretch. In other words, it was the Cousy touch that was overrated, not Russell. Today, if a single team's main scorer (vis-a-vis playmaker) went down, their dynasty would collapse, not so with the Russell Celts where the loss of a Tommy Gun and Cooz didn't hurt at all.

Do realize that Baylor was a more explosive scorer than our Kobe Bryant or Dwayne Wade. He had routine high percentage 50+ pt games.

In a half-court setting, Russ would just as well, take more shots and be a regular 22-18 superstar big man than the 15-25 guy that he was.

So all and all, other than Hakeem, since I'm closer to that era, I'd take Russell over most other players of the pre-ABA era.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #43 on: October 16, 2008, 06:06:45 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
  People seem to be confusing Bball in the 70s and 80s with those black and white film clips we see every once in a while. There were players in the 70s (Kareem, Dr J, David Thompson, Calvin Murphy..) and the 80s (Bird, Jordan, Nique, Drexler, Barkley, KJ...) that were as athletic as anyone who play today.

  Did Jordan become less dominant as his career progressed because he was going up against more athletic players in the 90s than he did in the 80s?

I disagree that Bird, my favorite all-time baseketball player, is "as athletic as anyone who play today."  THere is a reason that JJ Redick cannot get on the court, and he is not a worse shooter than he was in college. 

However, I agree that many of the 70s and 80s guys are as althletic as players today.  The average athleticsm is not the same, but many of the stars, including Russell in the 60s, have the tools to play today. 

  Bird was quick with great reflexes and great hands and body control. There are different kinds of athletes. And if the athletes of the 70s and 80s went through the same conditioning and training and diet regimens of the athletes today they'd be as athletic.

Re: David Thorpe Calls Bill Russell Overrated on ESPN Chat
« Reply #44 on: October 16, 2008, 06:44:15 PM »

Offline BCelts

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 264
  • Tommy Points: 13
  People seem to be confusing Bball in the 70s and 80s with those black and white film clips we see every once in a while. There were players in the 70s (Kareem, Dr J, David Thompson, Calvin Murphy..) and the 80s (Bird, Jordan, Nique, Drexler, Barkley, KJ...) that were as athletic as anyone who play today.

  Did Jordan become less dominant as his career progressed because he was going up against more athletic players in the 90s than he did in the 80s?

I disagree that Bird, my favorite all-time baseketball player, is "as athletic as anyone who play today."  THere is a reason that JJ Redick cannot get on the court, and he is not a worse shooter than he was in college. 

However, I agree that many of the 70s and 80s guys are as althletic as players today.  The average athleticsm is not the same, but many of the stars, including Russell in the 60s, have the tools to play today. 

  Bird was quick with great reflexes and great hands and body control. There are different kinds of athletes. And if the athletes of the 70s and 80s went through the same conditioning and training and diet regimens of the athletes today they'd be as athletic.

ANd if they had the same nutrition, they might all be better.  The degree of better would be determintive of skill level.  Regardless, I don't think you can count what would of happened.