Bill Russell's 11 Rings Are Overrated.

[Legends66NBA7]

Most people don't know about anything that took place before they became interested or before they were born, and Sam Jones didn't become a significant contributor to the Celtics' championship run until 1962, when he made the All-Star team for the first time, averaged 36 minutes a game in the postseason, and hit the series-winner in Game 7 of the EDF. Prior to that, he hardly played, and thus didn't contribute much to the rings. Most people who cite Jones don't know that because they didn't bother to check, including you. Beginning in '62 on, Jones was a significant contributor, at which point Russell already had four titles.

Exactly. The first 4 years were almost K.C. Jones-esque contribution towards those titles. Same goes with Hondo, although he contributed more than both Jones's in his first 3 titles.

Along with that, Sam Jones didn't win any major individual awards, only a 5x all-star, and 3x all NBA teamer (all second team), etc... There's no comparing what Russell did for those Celtic teams vs what Jones did for those Celtic teams and the proof is there.

[Ballin416]

There's no need to bring down the reputation or ability of an NBA legend. Can't we just recognize and appreciate the contributions that he's made to the game. The epic Wilt rivalry, defence vs offence, and greatest winner in professional sports. It was a long time ago so I say let the old man have his praise.

[NumberSix]

Most people don't know about anything that took place before they became interested or before they were born, and Sam Jones didn't become a significant contributor to the Celtics' championship run until 1962, when he made the All-Star team for the first time, averaged 36 minutes a game in the postseason, and hit the series-winner in Game 7 of the EDF. Prior to that, he hardly played, and thus didn't contribute much to the rings. Most people who cite Jones don't know that because they didn't bother to check, including you. Beginning in '62 on, Jones was a significant contributor, at which point Russell already had four titles.

What do you mean "Russell already had four titles"? The Celtics won titles, not Bill Russell. You forget that the first title Bill Russell his team mate Bob Cousy was the league MVP. It's not like it was just Bill Russell and a bunch of role players. Those Celtic teams were completely lopsided compared to the rest of the league. The rest of the NBA teams were still hesitant about having too many black players on their teams.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Bill Russell in today's era: high school janitor

[Burgz V2]

i find it ridiculous to hold this argument against Russell. It's not like he had a choice who he could play against. The league was in its (relative) infancy as was the sport itself. 11 rings is untouchable, sure, because the league will never be 8 teams with two super teams. But I credit him for more than just that, he revolutionized the sport and was a pioneer for black athletes at the same time.

In an era where players were paid peanuts, and recognition paled in comparison today, I think it is only fitting for him to get the praise he gets for the 11 rings, heck, he's got nothing else

[Burgz V2]

i find it ridiculous to hold this argument against Russell. It's not like he had a choice who he could play against. The league was in its (relative) infancy as was the sport itself. 11 rings is untouchable, sure, because the league will never be 8 teams with two super teams. But I credit him for more than just that, he revolutionized the sport and was a pioneer for black athletes at the same time.

In an era where players were paid peanuts, and recognition paled in comparison today, I think it is only fitting for him to get the praise he gets for the 11 rings, heck, he's got nothing else

[willds09]

Queen jamez is tha most overrated superstar finals mvp in NBA history

[jlip]

Please stop. You're just digging yourself into bigger holes by showing how little you actually know about that era.

What do you mean "Russell already had four titles"? The Celtics won titles, not Bill Russell.

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now?

You forget that the first title Bill Russell his team mate Bob Cousy was the league MVP. It's not like it was just Bill Russell and a bunch of role players.

There are so many factors that figure into Russell not winning MVP or ROY that season that I'm certain you know very little about. That's info you can't get from just looking at the Celtics' profile on bball-reference.com. Also, no one ever claimed that Russell was winning titles alone. No team becomes a dynasty with just one good player. Any dynasty has to have several good/ great players, but it is basically irrefutable that Russell was the best player on at least 8 if not more of his championship teams, including the first one. Even the coach, Red Auerbach, admitted that Russell was the best player on the first championship team (the season Cousy won the MVP.)

The following are quotes from teammates, coaches, and opposing players regarding Russell's impact. Observe that most of these quotes/ statements were from the 1960

[dh144498]

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now?

lebron d1ckriders always flip flop with their arguments.

Lebon without a ring: "rings are a team accomplishment."
lebron with a ring: "lebron won this all by himself."

[NumberSix]

The title of this thread created by you is, "Bill Russell's 11 Rings...", but when someone mentions the fact that Russell had already won titles before Sam Jones became an important contributor, all of a sudden the rings become the Celtics' now?

This is a intellectually dishonest point and you know it.

What do you mean "all of a sudden"? It was the initial point in the first place.

The entire point of the thread is that IMO, Bill Russell having 11 rings is over-valued. I'm obviously arguing against the idea of "Bill Russell's 11 Rings". Is it not pretty obvious that my entire point is that I don't agree with him single-handedly being credited for team success?

I mean, seriously, how else would you have me phrase it? If I were to say "Robert Horry's 7 rings" and explained how his rings alone don't make him an all time great, would you be like "Oh, you said the where Horry's rings but now you wanna argue that it's a team accomplishment" even though that was my initial point in the first place?

Again, how else would you propose I phrase? "The 11 championships that the Celtics won when Russell was a member of the team and being that Russell was a member of the team he received a ring to commemorate each title the team won is overrated in regards to Russell being credited as being single handedly the winner of 11 titles disregarding the fact that it is a team achievement"?