Originally Posted by dankok8
You look at Wilt's and his teammates' performance in a vacuum. It doesn't work that way. One AFFECTS the other... Wilt is partly responsible for his teammates performing poorly. Taking too many shots, not passing the ball effectively/willingly, discouraging his teammates with his crazy antics like living in NYC and skipping practices...
Is it a coincidence that the 66-67 Sixers with basically the same players as the year prior suddenly became a powerhouse? NO... Wilt changed his style of play and his team blossomed.
Even if Wilt doesn't deserve to get ripped so much then Russell should be praised. Do you not believe in intangibles or you just pretend they don't exist?
Who's saying Russell SHOULDN'T be praised? He was truly a very great player. And I don't disagree with a lot of what you say about him. But to lay the Boston dynasty at HIS feet, and refuse to acknowledge the HUGE part Auerbach played, well, that's just wrong. And by denying Auerbach's role you're denying the huge advantage Russell had over Chamberlain.