Congratulations To The Bucks

tjmakz wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

How many touchdowns did Butkus and Taylor get?

Exactly.
That's why Brady is the GOAT of quarterbacks.
Impossible to compare them to Brady.

My point was on Russell in a backhanded way. Butkus and LT were as dominant at their position in their era as humanly possible as was Russell. I don’t know if you saw tonites game, but Gobert took away everything inside, the stats don’t show how much impact his defense had on the game, he took away everything on the inside whenever he was on the floor, utterly dominant....Russell was like that in his era and more.

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

How many touchdowns did Butkus and Taylor get?

Exactly.
That's why Brady is the GOAT of quarterbacks.
Impossible to compare them to Brady.

My point was on Russell in a backhanded way. Butkus and LT were as dominant at their position in their era as humanly possible as was Russell. I don’t know if you saw tonites game, but Gobert took away everything inside, the stats don’t show how much impact his defense had on the game, he took away everything on the inside whenever he was on the floor, utterly dominant....Russell was like that in his era and more.

The reason Gobert can barely make an all-star team is because he is limited offensively, even though he is a great defender.
Russell was not nearly as talented offensively as Wilt or Kareem.

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

Bullshit!
In what year did Russell or any team only play one playoff series and win the title? Yeah I see you said one and then the nba finals but what makes you think that it was easier? Because they played less playoff games when they busted their ass the entire 82 game schedule? How old are you? Were u actually watching or is this something somebody texted to you.
No touch defense? Are fkn kidding me? You call what they play today defense. The defense back in the 60’s was played much tougher and the rules were much more stringent back then.
You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You say the defenses were no touch and the offenses were terrible. Huh. Tell that to Rick Barry, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Sam Jones, Tommy, Hal Greer, Wilt etc. WTH have u been watching. Do i sound pissed? Well i am. For you to disrespect a player who won Olympic gold medals won NCAA titles in college 11 rings in the NBA and coached one of those championship teams and say hes undeserving? You don’t have to consider him the GOAT, who cares about that over blown adage. But to say hes undeserving of being anything short of the greatest winner in sports is shameful. Shame on you!

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

You also said it was difficult to compare players from back then an players now but you went on and did it anyway.
My one comparison I will make is this. More does not necessarily mean better.
Just because there was only 8-10 teams back then does not mean you saw a less quality basketball. Quite contrary. If you only have 10 teams and 12 players you end up with the best 120 players in the world. Very little room for scrubs to make a roster.
Now you have 30 teams with 15 on a team. So now we have 350 of the best players in the world add another 2 teams in expansion and now we have 380 players. Do you think all 350-380 players deserve to be playing on this level? I do not. The product is watered down because you have too many teams and too many players. On top of that you have 16 of those 30 teams that make the playoffs and now they have a play in tournament. Do you think all of these teams deserve to be playing for the chip after Barely winning half of their regular season games?
Say what you want about the 60’s and 70’s. They played harder and unlike today, you were seeing the best of THE best.

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

Bullshit!
In what year did Russell or any team only play one playoff series and win the title? Yeah I see you said one and then the nba finals but what makes you think that it was easier? Because they played less playoff games when they busted their ass the entire 82 game schedule? How old are you? Were u actually watching or is this something somebody texted to you.
No touch defense? Are fkn kidding me? You call what they play today defense. The defense back in the 60’s was played much tougher and the rules were much more stringent back then.
You’re talking out both sides of your mouth. You say the defenses were no touch and the offenses were terrible. Huh. Tell that to Rick Barry, Oscar Robertson, Jerry West, Sam Jones, Tommy, Hal Greer, Wilt etc. WTH have u been watching. Do i sound pissed? Well i am. For you to disrespect a player who won Olympic gold medals won NCAA titles in college 11 rings in the NBA and coached one of those championship teams and say hes undeserving? You don’t have to consider him the GOAT, who cares about that over blown adage. But to say hes undeserving of being anything short of the greatest winner in sports is shameful. Shame on you!

Sadly, you are being more emotional than logical.
Who said Boston only win one series to win the title?
In Boston’s first 8 championships they had to win only one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Not too hard when you have many of the top players in the league consolidated on one team.
Who said Russell was undeserving of anything?
If he is undeserving of anything it is automatically being called the GOAT because he is the most successful champion in NBA history.

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

You also said it was difficult to compare players from back then an players now but you went on and did it anyway.
My one comparison I will make is this. More does not necessarily mean better.
Just because there was only 8-10 teams back then does not mean you saw a less quality basketball. Quite contrary. If you only have 10 teams and 12 players you end up with the best 120 players in the world. Very little room for scrubs to make a roster.
Now you have 30 teams with 15 on a team. So now we have 350 of the best players in the world add another 2 teams in expansion and now we have 380 players. Do you think all 350-380 players deserve to be playing on this level? I do not. The product is watered down because you have too many teams and too many players. On top of that you have 16 of those 30 teams that make the playoffs and now they have a play in tournament. Do you think all of these teams deserve to be playing for the chip after Barely winning half of their regular season games?
Say what you want about the 60’s and 70’s. They played harder and unlike today, you were seeing the best of THE best.

This is fantasy.
With the explosion in the popularity of basketball all over the world over the last 3 or 4 decades means there are so many kids vying to make an nba roster.
The talent level needed to make it to the nba is incredibly high.
Bill Russell never played in the 1970’s. Why are you referencing the 70’s?
Watching basketball from the 1950’s and 1960’s seems more like the WNBA than the NBA.
Try to find a video of Cousy dribbling the ball between his legs.
I’m not picking on just him.
The talent level back then was so limited.
Yes the games might have been entertaining because all teams had low talent players compared to today’s players.
Players 60 years ago played harder? How?
Do you know how hard it is to play perimeter defense in today’s NBA?
Not just having to switch on every play, but with the incredible ball handling and 35 foot range of today’s players, playing hard is essential for every player on every play.
Watch some YouTube videos to see how hard the defenses played in the 50’s and 60’s.
I’ve watched plenty of them. It’s not hard at all. Especially in the 1950’s.

For me there are at least 3 objective criteria (I’ll limit this to team sports): 1 World Championships won/leadership (Russell, Brady, Pele, Henry Richard); 2 Transcendent figure/transformed the sport (Orr, Ruth, Pele); 3 got me or you (people) out of their seat (Orr, Ruth, Pele, Larry/Magic, Jim Brown). 4) Competitive intelligence (Russell, Gretzky, Brady, Bob Gibson). And as a bonus I’ll add greatest Lakers to repeatedly get their ass kicked in World Championship Finals by the Celtics (West, Wilt, Baylor).

BingBang! wrote:For me there are at least 3 objective criteria (I’ll limit this to team sports): 1 World Championships won/leadership (Russell, Brady, Pele, Henry Richard); 2 Transcendent figure/transformed the sport (Orr, Ruth, Pele); 3 got me or you (people) out of their seat (Orr, Ruth, Pele, Larry/Magic, Jim Brown). 4) Competitive intelligence (Russell, Gretzky, Brady, Bob Gibson). And as a bonus I’ll add greatest Lakers to repeatedly get their ass kicked in World Championship Finals by the Celtics (West, Wilt, Baylor).

Lol. Love the last one on Lakers

Fact is in later years Russell still won and did not have the best talent IMHO

In my opinion it's muddying the waters, no pun intended, by comparing positions within one sport and players between different sports to players in the same sport but in different eras.

But, when you've won so many Superbowls you're throwing the Lombardi Trophy across open water, you pretty much think you're the GOAT.




Bob


.

bobheckler wrote:In my opinion it's muddying the waters, no pun intended, by comparing positions within one sport and players between different sports to players in the same sport but in different eras.

But, when you've won so many Superbowls you're throwing the Lombardi Trophy across open water, you pretty much think you're the GOAT.




Bob


.

Bob,

Brady was entertaining with his trophy throw and that he got drunk during the boat parade.
The boat parades in Tampa seem to be so much better than street parades.
When are you coming to Florida (Tampa)?
Hopefully this year with the vaccine and things maybe getting back to normalish.

tjmakz wrote:

bobheckler wrote:In my opinion it's muddying the waters, no pun intended, by comparing positions within one sport and players between different sports to players in the same sport but in different eras.

But, when you've won so many Superbowls you're throwing the Lombardi Trophy across open water, you pretty much think you're the GOAT.




Bob


.

Bob,

Brady was entertaining with his trophy throw and that he got drunk during the boat parade.
The boat parades in Tampa seem to be so much better than street parades.
When are you coming to Florida (Tampa)?
Hopefully this year with the vaccine and things maybe getting back to normalish.

TJ,

Hard to say about the trip.  I am positively quivering at the prospect of being able to get back on a plane, not only safely but because where I land is safe.  The CDC is now saying that people who get fully vaccinated can skip quarantine.  Yeah, well, that's a wonderful idea although I don't know how practical.  If you are fully vaccinated you might be safe, but you could still be a carrier and infect others.  Furthermore, in my case, international destinations need to feel the same way and I'm not sure how many do/will.  

What is clear is this:

1.  Everyday will get better as more and more people get vaccinated, especially in G7 nations.
2.  I will not be returning to the Sarasota/Tampa Bay area again in the summer.  That's right up there in my list of dumb decisions, along with going to the Middle East in the summer and not keeping my Amazon stock I bought when it was $198.

When I do head back I'll be sure to reach out to all my friends there.  I'll make sure I'll give plenty of advance notice so you can all run.  


Bob


.

I love the drunk Brady thing. He's such a straight arrow it probably only took two beers!

My question is, why couldn't he show up in that shape all those years he used to torture my Bills?

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

You also said it was difficult to compare players from back then an players now but you went on and did it anyway.
My one comparison I will make is this. More does not necessarily mean better.
Just because there was only 8-10 teams back then does not mean you saw a less quality basketball. Quite contrary. If you only have 10 teams and 12 players you end up with the best 120 players in the world. Very little room for scrubs to make a roster.
Now you have 30 teams with 15 on a team. So now we have 350 of the best players in the world add another 2 teams in expansion and now we have 380 players. Do you think all 350-380 players deserve to be playing on this level? I do not. The product is watered down because you have too many teams and too many players. On top of that you have 16 of those 30 teams that make the playoffs and now they have a play in tournament. Do you think all of these teams deserve to be playing for the chip after Barely winning half of their regular season games?
Say what you want about the 60’s and 70’s. They played harder and unlike today, you were seeing the best of THE best.

This is fantasy.
With the explosion in the popularity of basketball all over the world over the last 3 or 4 decades means there are so many kids vying to make an nba roster.
The talent level needed to make it to the nba is incredibly high.
Bill Russell never played in the 1970’s. Why are you referencing the 70’s?
Watching basketball from the 1950’s and 1960’s seems more like the WNBA than the NBA.
Try to find a video of Cousy dribbling the ball between his legs.
I’m not picking on just him.
The talent level back then was so limited.
Yes the games might have been entertaining because all teams had low talent players compared to today’s players.
Players 60 years ago played harder? How?
Do you know how hard it is to play perimeter defense in today’s NBA?
Not just having to switch on every play, but with the incredible ball handling and 35 foot range of today’s players, playing hard is essential for every player on every play.
Watch some YouTube videos to see how hard the defenses played in the 50’s and 60’s.
I’ve watched plenty of them. It’s not hard at all. Especially in the 1950’s.

You’re just exposing your level of ignorance when it comes to basketball. You continue to compare a player playing in 63 to a player playing in 2020 and at the same time saying you’re not. Well again you cannot and its silly to keep trying to make the comparisons. What one can do is watch todays game and see that there is very little defense being played. (Hard to play perimeter defense? That’s laughable. I watch Steph and others come past half court without being as far as breathed on foh.) What one can do (without comparing player talent level) is go on you tube or wherever and see the kind of defense that was played back in the 60’s-80’s and tell the difference-if you care to.
You want to compare Cousy to Westbrook go ahead, again its dumb. The players who played back then played against the best players who played back then. Just leave it at that and stop making disparaging remarks about talent level and abilities that you nor I know very little about.
So what if they played 2 playoff series back then. Today they play maybe 4? 1 plays 8 thats a joke. 2-7 that’s a joke. The intensity and level of play is at its peak in the conference finals and the finals. Those other series before that for the most part are in place for $ purposes and most of those teams don’t even belong in the playoffs. No we have the play-in and you think that brings a better brand or level of basketball? More players doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting better talent. Watch enough of the NBA today and one can see it.
I never said Bill Russell played in the 70s the players I mentioned that are HOFers played in the 60’s and part of their careers were in the early 70’s. You think there is that big of a difference then tell me where.
Finally, The talent level to make it in the NBA today is not even a stringent as it is as it was back in the 80’s. A lot of these players playing today wouldn’t make it out of training camp if they were lucky enough to get drafted. We have more stiffs today then ever. How long have you been watching again?

tjmakz wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

How many touchdowns did Butkus and Taylor get?

Exactly.
That's why Brady is the GOAT of quarterbacks.
Impossible to compare them to Brady.

My point was on Russell in a backhanded way. Butkus and LT were as dominant at their position in their era as humanly possible as was Russell. I don’t know if you saw tonites game, but Gobert took away everything inside, the stats don’t show how much impact his defense had on the game, he took away everything on the inside whenever he was on the floor, utterly dominant....Russell was like that in his era and more.

The reason Gobert can barely make an all-star team is because he is limited offensively, even though he is a great defender.
Russell was not nearly as talented offensively as Wilt or Kareem.

He also never had enough talent around on his teams so that they could win consistently, as Mitchell has developed into a bonafide star, they lost GH. If they could have had those 2 at the wings with Gobert the last few years? Winning teams get more players on the all star team, Ben Simmons if he was on a lame team like Orlando with his stats, he’d never get even a whiff of the all star game. Come on TJ do I have to school you? Russell was the preeminent defensive force on championship teams every year in his era. Look at his rebounding stats, all star team....??? He owned the whole league in that era, you should give him a little more respect moron. Don’t feel like playing nice, sure your not a moron, but your comments are bothering the purist in me....

Another thing, I had mentioned in the later years Russell still won as a lot of his HoF teammates retired and they still won without the stacked roster. I still remember Emmett Bryant, the starting PG on the 69 championship team. He was on the Knicks, but barely played, he was behind the great young Walt Frazier, Dick Barnett and Mike Riordan. Another reclamation project Russell turned around was Don Nelson, all he had was a good jumper, he had just gotten waived by the Lakers. Russell created the phrase making others better, as a kid I was shocked Bryant could start, he wasn’t that good, but playing with Russell, fringe role players could find a home and shockingly win. And that was the old Russell. He was like Brady for years carrying the Patriots with avg skill players.

Bill  Russell won NCAA and Olympic titles and 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA.( He won the NCAA title with the University of San Francisco Dons, for cripes sake.) One of those NBA  championships, he was the player-coach. He flew commercial or took the train as opposed to today's private jet travel and, oh yeah, he played in an era when black men were treated like dirt, not just in the south, but all over the country,  and fought for civil rights and his own dignity as a human being his entire life.  As far as his basketball proweaa is concerned,it was an era when centers were on top of the food chain and he ate more than anybody. I don't know whether Babe Ruth was the GOAT or not, because I didn't see him play. Anybody that didn't see Russ play is engaging in mental masturbation when they express an opinion on his ability and value. Comparing players from different sports, and/or eras is foolish. The only way to gauge a player's relative worth is by comparing them to their contemporaries.There are, otherwise, too many variables. Statistically speaking, Ruth hit more home runs than entire teams. I can't say he was the GOAT, because I didn't see him play, but I'm not going to denigrate him because he didn't play last week. The difference between Russell and Yogi is that Yogi was never ( some may disagree, he did win 3 MVPs) the best player on the Yankees in any of those championship years. First, Joe D was, then Mantle. On the other hand, every single teammate of his will tell you that Russell was the heart and soul of every one of eleven championship teams. Saying he's not in the conversation for the greatest of all time is ludicrously presumptuous. By the way, Russell was an olympic high jump champion ,as well. Last time I mentioned that , some ninny informed me that they jump higher today.

For the record I saw Russell play/dominate, still remember how he used to rocket up for rebounds and blocks, his springiness and athleticism were so far ahead of his time....

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

Ktron wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

LOL.
It's not relevant that in some of the Celtics championships they only had to play one playoff series before they went to the Finals?
I think Jaylen and Jayson already know how hard it is to win (3) 7 game series just to get to the Finals.
Players back then did play more minutes per game.
But it was against no touch defenses and the offenses were terrible.
Many teams back then shot under 40%.
Yes, it is very difficult to compare players from 60 years ago to today.
The point is that Russell does not deserve the GOAT title because he happened to play in an era in which it was dramatically easier to win championships and that he played on the same team with many of the best players in the league.

You also said it was difficult to compare players from back then an players now but you went on and did it anyway.
My one comparison I will make is this. More does not necessarily mean better.
Just because there was only 8-10 teams back then does not mean you saw a less quality basketball. Quite contrary. If you only have 10 teams and 12 players you end up with the best 120 players in the world. Very little room for scrubs to make a roster.
Now you have 30 teams with 15 on a team. So now we have 350 of the best players in the world add another 2 teams in expansion and now we have 380 players. Do you think all 350-380 players deserve to be playing on this level? I do not. The product is watered down because you have too many teams and too many players. On top of that you have 16 of those 30 teams that make the playoffs and now they have a play in tournament. Do you think all of these teams deserve to be playing for the chip after Barely winning half of their regular season games?
Say what you want about the 60’s and 70’s. They played harder and unlike today, you were seeing the best of THE best.

This is fantasy.
With the explosion in the popularity of basketball all over the world over the last 3 or 4 decades means there are so many kids vying to make an nba roster.
The talent level needed to make it to the nba is incredibly high.
Bill Russell never played in the 1970’s. Why are you referencing the 70’s?
Watching basketball from the 1950’s and 1960’s seems more like the WNBA than the NBA.
Try to find a video of Cousy dribbling the ball between his legs.
I’m not picking on just him.
The talent level back then was so limited.
Yes the games might have been entertaining because all teams had low talent players compared to today’s players.
Players 60 years ago played harder? How?
Do you know how hard it is to play perimeter defense in today’s NBA?
Not just having to switch on every play, but with the incredible ball handling and 35 foot range of today’s players, playing hard is essential for every player on every play.
Watch some YouTube videos to see how hard the defenses played in the 50’s and 60’s.
I’ve watched plenty of them. It’s not hard at all. Especially in the 1950’s.

You’re just exposing your level of ignorance when it comes to basketball. You continue to compare a player playing in 63 to a player playing in 2020 and at the same time saying you’re not. Well again you cannot and its silly to keep trying to make the comparisons. What one can do is watch todays game and see that there is very little defense being played. (Hard to play perimeter defense? That’s laughable. I watch Steph and others come past half court without being as far as breathed on foh.) What one can do (without comparing player talent level) is go on you tube or wherever and see the kind of defense that was played back in the 60’s-80’s and tell the difference-if you care to.
You want to compare Cousy to Westbrook go ahead, again its dumb. The players who played back then played against the best players who played back then. Just leave it at that and stop making disparaging remarks about talent level and abilities that you nor I know very little about.
So what if they played 2 playoff series back then. Today they play maybe 4? 1 plays 8 thats a joke. 2-7 that’s a joke. The intensity and level of play is at its peak in the conference finals and the finals. Those other series before that for the most part are in place for $ purposes and most of those teams don’t even belong in the playoffs. No we have the play-in and you think that brings a better brand or level of basketball? More players doesn’t necessarily mean you’re getting better talent. Watch enough of the NBA today and one can see it.
I never said Bill Russell played in the 70s the players I mentioned that are HOFers played in the 60’s and part of their careers were in the early 70’s. You think there is that big of a difference then tell me where.
Finally, The talent level to make it in the NBA today is not even a stringent as it is as it was back in the 80’s. A lot of these players playing today wouldn’t make it out of training camp if they were lucky enough to get drafted. We have more stiffs today then ever. How long have you been watching again?

You made my point for me about playing perimeter defense.
Defenders can barely touch offensive players like Curry.
Offensive players are so unbelievable skilled in today's game in shooting and with the ball in their hands.
It's very hard to guard with the offensive schemes.

I play in a big basketball league in Tampa.
There are some former NBA players in that league, including John Henson who was in the NBA up to last March.
I can't believe how good and dominant some of these guys are and that they can't make an NBA roster.
John talked about how hard it is for a big guy to switch on guards.

Again, this conversation is not about the 70's and 80's.
We were talking about Bill Russell and in the era that he played vs. today's game.

jrleftfoot wrote:Bill  Russell won NCAA and Olympic titles and 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA.( He won the NCAA title with the University of San Francisco Dons, for cripes sake.) One of those NBA  championships, he was the player-coach. He flew commercial or took the train as opposed to today's private jet travel and, oh yeah, he played in an era when black men were treated like dirt, not just in the south, but all over the country,  and fought for civil rights and his own dignity as a human being his entire life.  As far as his basketball proweaa is concerned,it was an era when centers were on top of the food chain and he ate more than anybody. I don't know whether Babe Ruth was the GOAT or not, because I didn't see him play. Anybody that didn't see Russ play is engaging in mental masturbation when they express an opinion on his ability and value. Comparing players from different sports, and/or eras is foolish. The only way to gauge a player's relative worth is by comparing them to their contemporaries.There are, otherwise, too many variables. Statistically speaking, Ruth hit more home runs than entire teams. I can't say he was the GOAT, because I didn't see him play, but I'm not going to denigrate him because he didn't play last week.  The difference between Russell and Yogi is that Yogi was never ( some may disagree, he did win 3 MVPs) the best player on the Yankees in any of those championship years. First, Joe D was, then Mantle. On the other hand, every single teammate of his will tell you that Russell was the heart and soul of every one of eleven championship teams. Saying he's not in the conversation for the greatest of all time is ludicrously presumptuous. By the way, Russell was an olympic high jump champion ,as well. Last time I mentioned that , some ninny informed me that they jump higher today.

Anyone can put Russell in the GOAT conversation.
There's clearly two that are head and shoulders above the others in the 45 years I have been watching the NBA, in my opinion.
Jordan and Lebron.
Kareem definitely should be in the GOAT conversation but I did not see him play with Milwaukee.
Many of my memories of Kareem who was my favorite all-time player is as an older player who wasn't as dominant as his early years.

tjmakz wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:Bill  Russell won NCAA and Olympic titles and 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA.( He won the NCAA title with the University of San Francisco Dons, for cripes sake.) One of those NBA  championships, he was the player-coach. He flew commercial or took the train as opposed to today's private jet travel and, oh yeah, he played in an era when black men were treated like dirt, not just in the south, but all over the country,  and fought for civil rights and his own dignity as a human being his entire life.  As far as his basketball proweaa is concerned,it was an era when centers were on top of the food chain and he ate more than anybody. I don't know whether Babe Ruth was the GOAT or not, because I didn't see him play. Anybody that didn't see Russ play is engaging in mental masturbation when they express an opinion on his ability and value. Comparing players from different sports, and/or eras is foolish. The only way to gauge a player's relative worth is by comparing them to their contemporaries.There are, otherwise, too many variables. Statistically speaking, Ruth hit more home runs than entire teams. I can't say he was the GOAT, because I didn't see him play, but I'm not going to denigrate him because he didn't play last week.  The difference between Russell and Yogi is that Yogi was never ( some may disagree, he did win 3 MVPs) the best player on the Yankees in any of those championship years. First, Joe D was, then Mantle. On the other hand, every single teammate of his will tell you that Russell was the heart and soul of every one of eleven championship teams. Saying he's not in the conversation for the greatest of all time is ludicrously presumptuous. By the way, Russell was an olympic high jump champion ,as well. Last time I mentioned that , some ninny informed me that they jump higher today.

Anyone can put Russell in the GOAT conversation.
There's clearly two that are head and shoulders above the others in the 45 years I have been watching the NBA, in my opinion.
Jordan and Lebron.
Kareem definitely should be in the GOAT conversation but I did not see him play with Milwaukee.
Many of my memories of Kareem who was my favorite all-time player is as an older player who wasn't as dominant as his early years.

I would put Russell in there and I only saw the older version, because of how utterly dominant he was vs his contemporaries and that is all we can go on.....

Larry and Magic have to be included, only flaw neither dominant individual defenders. As a tag team, they were the 80’s....

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:

jrleftfoot wrote:Bill  Russell won NCAA and Olympic titles and 11 championships in 13 years in the NBA.( He won the NCAA title with the University of San Francisco Dons, for cripes sake.) One of those NBA  championships, he was the player-coach. He flew commercial or took the train as opposed to today's private jet travel and, oh yeah, he played in an era when black men were treated like dirt, not just in the south, but all over the country,  and fought for civil rights and his own dignity as a human being his entire life.  As far as his basketball proweaa is concerned,it was an era when centers were on top of the food chain and he ate more than anybody. I don't know whether Babe Ruth was the GOAT or not, because I didn't see him play. Anybody that didn't see Russ play is engaging in mental masturbation when they express an opinion on his ability and value. Comparing players from different sports, and/or eras is foolish. The only way to gauge a player's relative worth is by comparing them to their contemporaries.There are, otherwise, too many variables. Statistically speaking, Ruth hit more home runs than entire teams. I can't say he was the GOAT, because I didn't see him play, but I'm not going to denigrate him because he didn't play last week.  The difference between Russell and Yogi is that Yogi was never ( some may disagree, he did win 3 MVPs) the best player on the Yankees in any of those championship years. First, Joe D was, then Mantle. On the other hand, every single teammate of his will tell you that Russell was the heart and soul of every one of eleven championship teams. Saying he's not in the conversation for the greatest of all time is ludicrously presumptuous. By the way, Russell was an olympic high jump champion ,as well. Last time I mentioned that , some ninny informed me that they jump higher today.

Anyone can put Russell in the GOAT conversation.
There's clearly two that are head and shoulders above the others in the 45 years I have been watching the NBA, in my opinion.
Jordan and Lebron.
Kareem definitely should be in the GOAT conversation but I did not see him play with Milwaukee.
Many of my memories of Kareem who was my favorite all-time player is as an older player who wasn't as dominant as his early years.

I would put Russell in there and I only saw the older version, because of how utterly dominant he was vs his contemporaries and that is all we can go on.....

At their peak, Jordan and Bird were probably the two most dominant players I have seen.
Can you imagine if Larry played with today's focus on 3 point shooting? Wow...
Lebron has had the longest streak of league dominance and really isn't showing signs of slowing down.

Agreed TJ, I actually enjoy these debates and am having fun with you.

cowens/oldschool wrote:Agreed TJ, I actually enjoy these debates and am having fun with you.

It's all good Cow.
I enjoy them too.