Mo, you have long held that Wilt was better than Russell, and significantly so.
And yet, youíre discounting Red because you seem to think Russell was essentially ďGod modeĒ. His greatness was so transcendent that coaching doesnít matter.
If Wilt is better than Russell, and Red added little value, why did Russell beat Wilt so much?
I've explained that many times because Bill was on a team with A LOT more great players. Wilt is better than Bill, but Bill is still a top 10 player in league history. The supporting cast makes a huge deal. When Wilt's supporting cast got anywhere near Bill's, Wilt put together the greatest single season to that point in league history, which is still among the top 5 greatest seasons ever.
Unless you are going to argue that rookie Meschery, old Arizin, Rodgers, Attles, Larese, and Gola are anywhere close to old Cousy, Heinsohn, Jones, Jones, Ramsey, and Sanders then it is easy to see why Wilt was better, but Bill's teams won more (those were the 62 ECF teams that went 7).
Basketball is a team game where talent matters. The late 50's/60's Celtics were quite simply far more talented top to bottom than the teams they played against. That is absolutely a credit to Red the GM, but I'm not sure how much credit Red the coach should get for coaching a team with 5 or 6 HOFers in their prime (including a top 10 player all time, a top 10 PG all time, etc.) and playing teams with at most 3 other HOFers, even if one of those teams had the 4th best player in league history.