Shaq retires. Where does he rank all-time?

[FirstTimer]

I haven't seen enough of Robertson to really judge whether he was better than a guy like Wade, Stockton, Payton, Thomas, or Drexler.

:bizarro: :gtfo: :facepalm:

That's it.

Close down the site.

Seriously.

 

[Diddy1122]

I haven't seen enough of Robertson to really judge whether he was better than a guy like Wade, Stockton, Payton, Thomas, or Drexler. My guess would be that he is, but I'm sure those other 9 guys are top 10.

181 trip-dubs pretty much speaks for itself. He's the most skilled, all-around player to ever play the game.

Not to mention he invented the head fake & fadeaway.

Oh and he played when there was no 3-pt shot.

 

[houheffna]

Ben Wallace was 6'9 240 and won 4 DPOY. Rodman was 6'6 220.

I'm not really worried about height and weight when it comes to defense.

Yeah, but neither Rodman or Wallace were franchise players...if I had a choice between those 2 and Wilt in his prime...is there even an argument?

 

[houheffna]

I haven't seen enough of Robertson to really judge whether he was better than a guy like Wade, Stockton, Payton, Thomas, or Drexler. My guess would be that he is, but I'm sure those other 9 guys are top 10.

Okay, I'm going to need you to take my word for it....Oscar was better than those guys. Norm Van Lier said he was better than Jordan and the best ever...the argument is if he is better than Kobe or Magic...not those guys you named. He is on a higher tier.

 

[vivian]

Good

 

[FirstTimer]

Yeah, but neither Rodman or Wallace were franchise players

But Russell was.....so...what's your point?

Your argument was that you doubt a 6'9 player could dominate defenseivly in today's game....I showed you two 6'9 or under guys that did. Them not being "franchise" players wasn't the point of what you said.

Russell was obviously a franchise player when he played.
It's two seperate points.

 

[houheffna]

Do you have a brain? Just wondering. I've tried to ignore the blatant idiocy you've been spewing in this thread, but I just can't anymore. Two issues:

Faulty Basketball Logic
How does the most athletic player in NBA history (Chamberlain) never overcome his greatest rival (Russell), yet you spend this entire thread disparaging Russell and act as if this has no effect on the perception of Chamberlain? If Russell would be inept as a pro today, then how does Chamberlain's 'game' successfully translate to today's game? Its like the guy who claimed Lennox Lewis was a great boxer and Mike Tyson was a paper champion, yet the only boxer of note that Lewis beat was Tyson. HUH?

Compete Idiocy
Someone said Russell was too short to be DPOTY at 6'9". Another person points out that DPOTYs Ben Wallace and Dennis Rodman weren't taller than 6'9". YOUR CONCLUSION is that you would choose Chamberlain over Wallace and Rodman. WTF??

Bill: Ken Stabler wouldn't do well in the NFL today because he was left-handed.

Will: Mike Vick and Tim Tebow are left-handed.

Bill: If I had a choice between those two and Joe Montana in his prime, is it even an argument?

Will: ?????

Russell was not a PF or a SF like Rodman, he was a center...and I didn't see any footage of Russell with Rodman's abilities on the perimeter when Rodman won those DPOTY awards...Wallace was 20-30 pounds bigger than Russell, who was the same damn size as Luol Deng...and then I stated, best case scenario...what if Russell did dominate defensively like Wallace? I would STILL TAKE WILT...YOU IDIOT!!!

Now read that back slowly to yourself, if you don't understand it, have someone who actually graduated from the hooked on phonics program to read it to you and then shut the **** up. If you can't have a debate without debasing it to name calling...don't debate with me.

Idiocy is saying stupid shit like Wilt's game wouldn't translate to today's game....REALLY? As if the NBA is inundated with great post players...GTFOH!!! A 7'1" 280 lb. freakishly athletic beast who revolutionized the game would not translate now? Have someone explain basketball to you...good luck with that...

 

[FirstTimer]

a center

Like Wallace?

Wallace was 20-30 pounds bigger than Russell

And Russell couldn't have gotten into the weight room using today's training programs and put on weight?

Yet again era vs era comparison's suck.

How do you know Russell could not have guarded smaller players? He never had to or was asked to because he wasn't needed to.

Russell was a tremendous athlete. Again, the positives around Russell's game were built on almost nothing but his athleticism and instincts.

Idiocy is saying stupid shit like Wilt's game wouldn't translate to today's game

IMO it wouldn't translate very well.

Wilt was a tremendous athlete for his time and in the league he played. How does it translate to going up today's athlete's? Having him chase around bigs like Amare, Dirk, etc in certain matchups. Having to step out and defend big with the game like Hakeem had etc. Having to deal with a massive human like Shaq(Lakers days) or a huge big like Shaq with the speed and agility Shaq had in Orlando. etc. What does Wilt use for post moves in todays game agaisnt generally bigger, stronger, more athletic post players he sees in today's NBA?
It's speculative. The game has changed an amazing amount since Wilt last played. To just flatly say Wilt's game would have translated to today and he woul dahve been dominant anywhere near what he was...I won't do..because I don't think it's true.

 

[houheffna]

But Russell was.....so...what's your point?

Your argument was that you doubt a 6'9 player could dominate defenseivly in today's game....I showed you two 6'9 or under guys that did. Them not being "franchise" players wasn't the point of what you said.

Russell was obviously a franchise player when he played.
It's two seperate points.

The point is pretty simple, breaking it down to the original argument...that I would take Kareem, Wilt and Shaq ahead of Russell, throw Hakeem in there too. Russell himself said that an older Wilt Chamberlain, in his 30's played Russell's game better than Russell did in his prime.

A prime Shaq is far superior to Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman as basketball players.

 

[FirstTimer]

...that I would take Kareem, Wilt and Shaq ahead of Russell, throw Hakeem in there too.

Ok. That's fine. ?

Russell himself said that an older Wilt Chamberlain, in his 30's played Russell's game better than Russell did in his prime.

He also basically called Wilt a pussy and a quitter at one point during their careers. Can we take that into account as well?

...A prime Shaq is far superior to Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman as basketball players.

This has literally nothing to do with anything that was said...at all.

 

[houheffna]

I cannot believe you are still posting in this thread. And you are actually posting the same crap. I still have no idea what you are talking about. I think Ted Williams was better than Joe DiMaggio, but if DiMaggio was as fast as Scott Podsednik, I would STILL TAKE TED...because Ted Williams was a franchise player and Scott Podsednik isn't.

Its like you are trying to take two separate issues, mash them together, and draw only one conclusion. I like ice cream. I like warm weather. Its cold outside, BUT I STILL LIKE ICE CREAM YOU IDIOT!!!!



What name did I call you? All I did was provide specific examples of your faulty logic. Cowboy up, pardner. Grow a pair.



I never said Wilt's game WOULDN'T translate to today's game. My complaint was how easily you disparaged Bill Russell.

My points were I don't think Russell's game translates well to this era, and definitely doesn't translate as easily as Wilt's would because Wilt was physically dominant and he would be now because of his size and the skill he had with the size...his being 4 or 5 inches taller than Russell and a much better scorer has a lot to do with that.

My point is if Russell, best case scenario, game translated to Rodman or Wallace...he would still be nowhere near the player Wilt would be in the era...


And my point was you are an idiot with no point so you resort to name calling...true sign of total ignorance

 

[FirstTimer]

My point is if Russell, best case scenario, game translated to Rodman or Wallace

No one ever said Russell today would be Rodman or Wallace.

You're slamming ideas together when they weren't presented as such.

 

[houheffna]

Like Wallace?


And Russell couldn't have gotten into the weight room using today's training programs and put on weight?

Yet again era vs era comparison's suck.

How do you know Russell could not have guarded smaller players? He never had to or was asked to because he wasn't needed to.

Russell was a tremendous athlete. Again, the positives around Russell's game were built on almost nothing but his athleticism and instincts.




IMO it wouldn't translate very well.

Wilt was a tremendous athlete for his time and in the league he played. How does it translate to going up today's athlete's? Having him chase around bigs like Amare, Dirk, etc in certain matchups. Having to step out and defend big with the game like Hakeem had etc. Having to deal with a massive human like Shaq(Lakers days) or a huge big like Shaq with the speed and agility Shaq had in Orlando. etc. What does Wilt use for post moves in todays game agaisnt generally bigger, stronger, more athletic post players he sees in today's NBA?
It's speculative. The game has changed an amazing amount since Wilt last played. To just flatly say Wilt's game would have translated to today and he woul dahve been dominant anywhere near what he was...I won't do..because I don't think it's true.

I don't get your stance on Wilt, especially compared to what you have said about Russell also. So Russell's abilities have a better chance of translating than Wilt's? No...hell no. A 6'9" center with little to no offensive game would not be an good player now, and Wilt Chamberlain be some bench warmer with limited athleticism...not at all...he was the Shaq of his era because there was nobody that damn big...and there was nobody that skillful. He had more post moves than Shaq who was about 30 lbs bigger in his prime and dominated with no jumpshot...Wilt had a great jumpshot and even a bankshot. Wilt would have a much better chance of being dominant today not just because of size and athleticism, but because of his game and how he evolved over the years. Like I said, Sabonis used Chamberlain's game as a model when it came to his post passing...and when Sabonis came into the league...people marveled at his ability to run an offense from the post, something Chamberlain was adept at doing 25 years earlier. Wilt played against Kareem, whose game would also easily translate to today, and played him well, again, he even blocked the sky hook, which no other player did...you dismiss that as nothing...but still no other player did it. An older Wilt was able to do it.

As far as Russell's statements calling Wilt a pussy...that is painfully irrelevant, because it has no bearing on Wilt's game or how translatable it is...so I don't really get that...

 

[houheffna]

No one ever said Russell today would be Rodman or Wallace.

You're slamming ideas together when they weren't presented as such.

I am slamming nothing! It was a hypothetical! If, Russell at his best was a defensive juggernaut as those players were, with limited offensive games...would he be as good as Wilt would be today? IMO...HELL NO!!! That was my point...

Russell best case scenario today wouldn't touch Wilt at his best in today's game, they both work out in the gym and refine their games? I think Wilt is still the better player by quite a large sum....

 

[Utahbullsfan]

I am slamming nothing! It was a hypothetical! If, Russell at his best was a defensive juggernaut as those players were, with limited offensive games...would he be as good as Wilt would be today? IMO...HELL NO!!! That was my point...

Russell best case scenario today wouldn't touch Wilt at his best in today's game, they both work out in the gym and refine their games? I think Wilt is still the better player by quite a large sum....

FT & The Houf are debating?!?! Clash of the titans someone get me some damn popcorn

 

[houheffna]

Again, when did I call you a name? When did I resort to "name-calling"?

I apologize, you didn't name call...you just started to blatantly insult, which is what I took exception to...you are right.

 

[houheffna]

This is quite possibly the dumbest line of reasoning I have ever seen continued in a thread. You are making it seem as if we have no evidence of Wilt Chamberlain ever playing Bill Russell, so we have to resort to these far-fetched "what if" scenarios. What does Shaq have to do with anything? What does Wallace and Rodman have to do with anything? Russell's game was nothing like Rodman's (not even the same position) or Wallace's. Wilt's game wasn't really anything like Shaq's, to be honest. Your analogies are horrendous, and besides that, they are completely unnecessary.

They are unnecessary to you because you didn't read the thread evidently....Wilt and Shaq are ALWAYS compared because of the physical dominance they showed...I stated a list of centers I would take over Russell and why...I said if you put Shaq, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, Hakeem and Russell against a wall and asked me to pick...I am picking Russell last amongst that group. Shaq of that group actually played in today's game and was the most physically dominant player in the league since....Wilt Chamberlain. I have heard that countless times over the last 15+ years. I know what positions Rodman played and pointed that out but when those two players defensive dominance was brought to the conversation I talked about their games being predominantly defense while offensively all 3 players were limited. I don't see that changing now. That was my point

And how do you we talk about those players skills translating to now if we don't use "what if" scenarios? What sense does that make? Wilt's game was actually more defined than Shaq's was, and there is really no comparison of Wilt's game to anyone if you mean carbon copy...like for example Jordan and Kobe's attempt to copy his game...if there is one, let me know who it is.

 

[clonetrooper264]

I'll say this: I'll take a two way player over a one way player any day.

 

[FirstTimer]

So Russell's abilities have a better chance of translating than Wilt's?

I quit reading here.

If you hoenstly think this question probes or is any way related to anything I've said in this thread in regards to both of them you haven't followed along at all.

I am slamming nothing! It was a hypothetical! If, Russell at his best was a defensive juggernaut as those players were, with limited offensive games...would he be as good as Wilt would be today?

I also don't recall Rodman or Wallace averaging double digits points at all let alone for 12 of a 13 year career.

You keep comparing those two guys to Russell when that was never the point of why I brought them up. I don't understand why you are so hung up on them. I simply brought them up because of a Ht/Wt comment that was made.

That's it.

Wilt's game was actually more defined than Shaq's was, .

For as unrefined as Shaq's game was...in a vacuum..Shaq's post game and post moves>>>Wilt's. But that's in a vacuum and ignores that Shaq played 20-30 years later and the post position has evolved considerably.

 

[FirstTimer]

FT & The Houf are debating?!?!

I'm really not "debating" anything.

Houf has just taken like 3 things I've said and applied them in a completely incorrect way.

Wilt>Russel.

I never said anything to the contrary.