Originally Posted by dankok8
It's true that from 59-60 until 63-64 Russell had clearly more talented rosters than Wilt. However he molded those teams into a juggernaut. Blocking shots to his teammates to kick-start fast breaks is just one. He covered for guys who had trouble defending, he tasked his guards with simply boxing out and he'd grab the rebounds, he'd facilitate from the high post and reward his teammates over and over and over for moving well without the ball. His intense competitiveness and puking before games got his team's respect and they were hyped before each and every game. They became him and he became them!! Celtics didn't have many one on one scorers. They need a system which Russell orchestrated and masterfully executed. He knew how to play and defend all five positions. He had detailed scouting reports on every player, his own and the opponents.
Also from 64-65 until 68-69 Wilt's rosters were either better or even with Russell's every year and in that span Russell still won FOUR OF THE FIVE SERIES between them. The notion that Wilt would dominate Russell every year with a better roster is LUDICROUS... because he didn't!
Russell's intelligence, psychological warfare, leadership, and dedication and sacrifice don't show up in the stat sheet. When you're discussing Bill Russell you may as well throw the stat sheet out the window... or at least put it in a giant pile of salt.
It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left.
LOL, this post just cracks me up. You're a Russell worshiper who lays the Boston dynasty at the feet of Russell. You seem to forget about a certain individual named Red Auerbach. I don't disagree with the notion that there would have been no Boston dynasty without Russell, but neither would there have been without Auerbach. Of course I understand that Auerbach has to be minimized to build Russell up to make him appear greater than Chamberlain. And some people that don't know any better fall for it. Well, some of us know better. The real key to the Boston dynasty was the "marriage" of Auerbach and Russell.
As for the bolded part...........you say that from 65-69 Wilt had rosters just as good if not better than Russell. That's partially true. But you seem to forget about DEPTH. Wilt's rosters simply didn't have the depth that Russell's did, and that can be attributed to Auerbach, who always saw to it that Russell had what he needed. The fact is though, in comparing Boston and Philly over those five years, it's more than a matter of personnel. There are two other key elements in the comparison. First is injuries, and second is coaching. In knowing the facts of 68, had Philly been healthy, there's no question they would have beaten Boston. And in 69 had the lakers had a competent coach, they more than likely would have won. Boston was clearly superior in 65 and 66.....they still had Auerbach and Philly had Schayes. And I might just say this......in 66 nobody was beating Boston due to Auerbach's retirement.
I've observed these Chamberlain/Russell debates for 50 years. It always amazes me how Russell supporters always fall back on the championships.....it always ends up Russell's eleven rings against Chamberlain's individual dominance. In doing that they're pulling Auerbach into the debate, yet they refuse to acknowledge him. The truth is, the debates are rarely Chamberlain vs. Russell, they're Chamberlain vs. Russell and Auerbach.
You said.....It's a fact that those stacked Celtics rosters laden with HOFers got nowhere before he came or after he left. That's a very superficial statement, so answer me this....just "where" would Russell have been without those stacked Celtic rosters and without Auerbach? I had one clown insist that Russell would have had the same success no matter what team he had gone to. Hehe, now THAT's ludicrous.