However, I still wouldn't rank him above Duncan, Malone, Nowitski, Garnett, McHale, Barkley, etc. due to his offensive limitations. Russell was great defensively because he could put all his energy into the defensive end of the floor. He could only do this because his team didn't need him to score, and even when they did, he wasn't very good at it. Most of the other PFs minus Nowitski, were both a premier defender for their position and their teams #1 offensive threat, consistently drawing double teams. They were asked to do much more with less than Russell was.

In todays game, Russell would be a smaller version of Joakim Noah (who is 1-2 inches taller and 10 lbs heavier) or Serge Ibaka (who is 1-2 inches taller and 25 lbs heavier). They are both listed as centers on ESPN, but Noah is an undersized center and Serge actually plays PF. I am sure that to many such an idea is blasphemy, but Noah is an excellent player who plays hard all the time, he is in the top 10 in rebounding (despite being undersized compared everyone else in the top ten, except for K Love), a very good passing big man (doubling the assists of all the other top rebounders except for K Love, and averaging more assists than Russell) and he holds his own in blocks being on par or better with the other top rebounders. My point is Noah is a very good all around player, but who has offensive limitations.

If Russell played on a team, like Noah does, that has no other all-stars (or maybe one when Rose is healthy), much less multiple HOF players, then he would not have been winning championships, that simple. Garnett was a better player in Minnesota than he was in Boston, yet he won his title in Boston because he finally had all-star teamates. Kobe (considered one of the all-time greats) was losing in the first round when he didn't have another all-star on the team.

Who someone plays with is the most underrated aspect of evaluating a player, and it is why I believe Russell is overated. K Love (to my knowledge) has never had an all-star team mate, despite being one of best passing big men in the game (he is averaging over 4 assists this year). Yet when he is on the court his team is the second best offensive team in the NBA. When he doesn't play, they are dead last offensively (yes, even behind the 76ers). And they are statistcally a better defensive team with him on the court (not that he is great defensively). How can he realistically be compared to his own peers, many of whom are playing with other all-stars, some even have HOF teamates.

The most difficult aspect of evaluating players across eras is in comparing stats. Obviously the rebounding and pt totals during the 60's were inflated due to the teams averaging a lot more possessions per game. But shooting % is one stat that doesn't necessarily change over time. The fact is, despite not being depended on offensively or double teamed, Russell shot it at alarmly low rate, especially for a PF or Center. His overall game benefitted more than practically any other player by having HOF teamates, because they were able to cover up his biggest weakness.

One could argue that if he played today, he would have developed an offensive game, but that is something I don't think can be assumed. There are a slew of great athletes who never developed good offensive skills. I think that arguement works for Wilt, who dominated so he didn't need to add new offensive skills, but not for Russell who was offensively limited in his day and thus should have developed at least some offensive skills during his playing days.

Russell was great in his day and has his place, but players are bigger, stronger, faster, and more skilled than any previous generation. I don't think that he would have near the impact in todays game. I don't think that is true for all players in his generation. Wilt, Jerry West and Oscar Robertson based on their size and weight and/or skills would still compete at the highest levels in todays game.