- Joined:
- May 4, 2010
- Posts:
- 27,077
- Liked Posts:
- 15,145
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:





That's it.
Close down the site.
Seriously.
I haven't seen enough of Robertson to really judge whether he was better than a guy like Wade, Stockton, Payton, Thomas, or Drexler.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, but neither Rodman or Wallace were franchise players
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: ?????
Like Wallace?a center
And Russell couldn't have gotten into the weight room using today's training programs and put on weight?Wallace was 20-30 pounds bigger than Russell
IMO it wouldn't translate very well.Idiocy is saying stupid shit like Wilt's game wouldn't translate to today's game
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.
Ok. That's fine. ?...that I would take Kareem, Wilt and Shaq ahead of Russell, throw Hakeem in there too.
He also basically called Wilt a pussy and a quitter at one point during their careers. Can we take that into account as well?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.
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.
No one ever said Russell today would be Rodman or Wallace.My point is if Russell, best case scenario, game translated to Rodman or Wallace
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.
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....
Again, when did I call you a name? When did I resort to "name-calling"?
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.
I quit reading here.So Russell's abilities have a better chance of translating than Wilt's?
I also don't recall Rodman or Wallace averaging double digits points at all let alone for 12 of a 13 year career.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?
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.Wilt's game was actually more defined than Shaq's was, .
FT & The Houf are debating?!?!