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.