At best, Russell in modern times is Ben Wallace. A 6'-9" ish defensive C anchor of a championship team and multiple defensive player of the year. Really good player, yes. All-time top 10 great? No way. He is consistently overrated in all time player discussions.

Saying Russell is overrated is one thing. Saying he's Ben Wallace or Theo Ratliff is insulting. The guy won championships at every level. High school, college and pros. In his whole career he only had a handful of years where he ended on a loss. And don't forget he played many years against Wilt, who is also an all time great legit 7 footer. Russell won almost all of those battles.

That being said, it's definitely harder to win now. Old timers will say it was harder to win back then because the league is diluted now. But I don't think you can realistically say that top to bottom talent is even comparable.

No it's not insulting. Put Ratliff or Wallace on those celtics teams and they're still winning title after title.

The quality of play now compared to 50s and 60s is not even in the same galaxy. I'm fine with saying he's a top 100 player based on all the 'ships but top 10 or 20 like I see all the time, no way.

quote:

---

No it's not insulting. Put Ratliff or Wallace on those celtics teams and they're still winning title after title.

The quality of play now compared to 50s and 60s is not even in the same galaxy. I'm fine with saying he's a top 100 player based on all the 'ships but top 10 or 20 like I see all the time, no way.

---

It's easy to discount skill and mental toughness. Russell was a winner plain and simple. Ben and Theo aren't going to win mvps in any era. You're basically saying any random 6'9" guy would dominate back then. Meanwhile, Wilt was busy NOT winning anything in college or the pros.

If modern-era Ben Wallace or Theo Ratliff had played in the 60s, we would probably still know their names but not think of them in the same category as a Bill Russell. Second tier stars.