Your All Time Team

[Fafnir]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

[syfy9]

PG : Gary Payton (A little after Prime/veteran leadership)
SG : Jordan (Prime)
SF : Kevin Garnett (Prime)
PF : Hakeem (Prime)
C : Bill Russell (Prime)

6th Man : Larry Bird

I'd want to create one of the greatest defenses of all time if I could. Having KG in his prime, I'm sure he'd somewhat be able to handle opposing forwards. If the chance that he'd be driven on, Russell and Hakeem can move over from their positions and help out. A Jordan and Payton combo is lethal on defense, and will easily trigger fast breaks. Larry Bird as 6th man will go in for KG more than he'll play SF, and tune the offense when Jordan rests. If these players played together, they'd be one of, if not the greatest defensive squad ever to play the game of basketball.

On the offensive side, we can let Jordan do his thing. I don't like how most teams have Magic and Larry and Jordan, they need the ball to be most effective. Well, we can't have Magic and Larry and Jordan holding the ball at the same time and shooting, passing, and making a hustle play all together. That would be too much teamwork.

So I have Jordan as the player who dominates the ball and does it best, and Russell who is the player that doesn't need the ball to dominate, and Hakeem, who's offensive capabilities add a force inside. Payton is a solid all around player, and past his prime, won't need the ball as much. He and Larry can combine to be a Scottie Pippen, Larry will be his passing, Gary will be his scoring. Then there are the 3 big men, who can dominate through offensive boards. We'd have to look for post players often and give and go. I think this would be able to beat most teams of any era on the defensive end, as each of them are defensive masterminds.

[greg_kite]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

[Eddie20]

All Time Team

PG- Magic
SG- Jordan
SF- Bird
PF- Duncan
C- Shaq


My All Time Fun Team. How would you defend this team? Do you bring a help defender on Shaq? If so, who do you leave open?

PG- Nash or Mark Price
SG- Allen
SF- Bird
PF- Dirk
C- Shaq

[greg_kite]

My All Time Fun Team. How would you defend this team? Do you bring a help defender on Shaq? If so, who do you leave open?

PG- Nash or Mark Price
SG- Allen
SF- Bird
PF- Dirk
C- Shaq

I love it.  That would be a fun team to watch.

[BballTim]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

  You're really misunderstanding the value of a player like Russell. His impact on a team's defense isn't limited to one on one defense against the man he's guarding. His impact on the game isn't measured solely on 1v1 production against the opposing center.

[mgent]

Magic would be wasted on these teams.  Due to defense and mismatches I'd go with:

Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Russell
KG or Hakeem or Kareem

As long as LeBron never starts the possession.

[BballTim]

Magic would be wasted on these teams.  Due to defense and mismatches I'd go with:

Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Russell
KG or Hakeem or Kareem

As long as LeBron never starts the possession.

  Bird's wasted on that team, if you're going to put Jordan and LeBron on the team I'd go with non-scorers who don't care if they see the ball more than 2-3 times a half, maybe Russell, Rodman and Bruce Bowen. Even Mutumbo would complain about a lack of touches with those two in the game.

[mgent]

Magic would be wasted on these teams.  Due to defense and mismatches I'd go with:

Jordan
LeBron
Bird
Russell
KG or Hakeem or Kareem

As long as LeBron never starts the possession.

  Bird's wasted on that team, if you're going to put Jordan and LeBron on the team I'd go with non-scorers who don't care if they see the ball more than 2-3 times a half, maybe Russell, Rodman and Bruce Bowen. Even Mutumbo would complain about a lack of touches with those two in the game.

Whether or not it would work is hypothetical.  Bird's, Michael's, and LeBron's passing would all be wasted, but they are 3 of the best at creating their own shot.

There are millions of teams that would fit together better than that one, but none that have the same level of talent.  If you've got MJ with the ball in his hands, leaving LeBron or Bird is an automatic bucket.  I think it would work, especially with the efficiency increase you'd see with PGs on MJ and SGs on LeBron.  Like I said though, LeBron would have to be willing to take the backseat to Bird and Jordan.

Mike/Ray/Larry would be slightly more crazy offensively but i don't know if the lesser defense/rebounding/passing would make it a better team.

[greg_kite]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

  You're really misunderstanding the value of a player like Russell. His impact on a team's defense isn't limited to one on one defense against the man he's guarding. His impact on the game isn't measured solely on 1v1 production against the opposing center.

I understand it but you seem to think Russell would put up the same stats and still win 11 championships against today's athletes.  It would not happen.  He was an athletic freak at the time.  He would not be now.  Unless he's from Krypton a guy that's 6'9" 215 can't match up in the post with a guy that's 7'1" 325.

[BballTim]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

  You're really misunderstanding the value of a player like Russell. His impact on a team's defense isn't limited to one on one defense against the man he's guarding. His impact on the game isn't measured solely on 1v1 production against the opposing center.

I understand it but you seem to think Russell would put up the same stats and still win 11 championships against today's athletes.  It would not happen.  He was an athletic freak at the time.  He would not be now.  Unless he's from Krypton a guy that's 6'9" 215 can't match up in the post with a guy that's 7'1" 325.

  You're not understanding my point. Aside from the fact that he'd be more than 215 lbs if he played today, Russell's impact on a defense is more than his 1v1 defense.

[greg_kite]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

  You're really misunderstanding the value of a player like Russell. His impact on a team's defense isn't limited to one on one defense against the man he's guarding. His impact on the game isn't measured solely on 1v1 production against the opposing center.

I understand it but you seem to think Russell would put up the same stats and still win 11 championships against today's athletes.  It would not happen.  He was an athletic freak at the time.  He would not be now.  Unless he's from Krypton a guy that's 6'9" 215 can't match up in the post with a guy that's 7'1" 325.

  You're not understanding my point. Aside from the fact that he'd be more than 215 lbs if he played today, Russell's impact on a defense is more than his 1v1 defense.

I do understand it, I just don't think he would have the impact that you think he would.  I also think he wouldn't have time to concentrate on stopping anyone else if he had to match up with Shaq.  You leave Shaq to help on someone else and Shaq is going to the hoop for an easy jam.

[BballTim]

I'll take my chances with:

Magic
Jordan
Bird
Duncan
Russell

So you really think Russell could match up with Shaq, Yao or even Hakeem?  I know he was great in the 60s, and I never saw him so it's hard to argue my case, but he was 6'9", 215 and shot low 40s percentage wise.  I respect your hoops knowledge as much as anyone Roy but I think your love of Celtics history is trumping how he would actually match up against other big guys who probably had more skill that Wilt (who actually put up some pretty sick numbers against Russell by the way).

Can't put up too much of an argument against the rest of your team.  

When considering guys for all-time teams, I always look to their dominance against their peers, rather than trying to make arguments centered around height, athleticism, etc.  If you gave Russell the advantages modern players have, his athleticism would have been better.  Heck, to go even farther, it's likely that Russell would be taller if born today, as well; the height of the average person has increased about 1.5" since 1960.  Perhaps that's a bridge too far, but it just gets into the difficulties of comparing players of different eras.

Russell's defense was the most dominant skill in perhaps the history of the NBA.  He's also the biggest winner in the history of the sport.  That has to count for something.

Plus he defended Wilt, who was just as capable of dominance as Shaq.

I'd put my money on Shaq being able to score easier on Russell than Russell scoring on Shaq.  Shaq was a near 60% shooter scoring 30 ppg while Russell was almost always under 45% and around 17ppg against totally inferior athletes.  Shaq still dominated against guys like Ewing, Olajuwon, Robinson, Mourning, Mutombo, Sabonis, Yao and even Shawn Bradley.

  You're really misunderstanding the value of a player like Russell. His impact on a team's defense isn't limited to one on one defense against the man he's guarding. His impact on the game isn't measured solely on 1v1 production against the opposing center.

I understand it but you seem to think Russell would put up the same stats and still win 11 championships against today's athletes.  It would not happen.  He was an athletic freak at the time.  He would not be now.  Unless he's from Krypton a guy that's 6'9" 215 can't match up in the post with a guy that's 7'1" 325.

  You're not understanding my point. Aside from the fact that he'd be more than 215 lbs if he played today, Russell's impact on a defense is more than his 1v1 defense.

I do understand it, I just don't think he would have the impact that you think he would.  I also think he wouldn't have time to concentrate on stopping anyone else if he had to match up with Shaq.  You leave Shaq to help on someone else and Shaq is going to the hoop for an easy jam.

 You could always make him a power forward if you're hung up on Shaq. But I'd say your claims lack merit since Russell was able to impact the defense more than just 1v1 when he was playing against Wilt, who was at least as much of an offensive force as Shaq.

[Finkelskyhook]

Russell
Duncan
Bird
Oscar
Rondo

[Marcus13]

Oscar
Ray
LeBron
KG
Shaq