Bob Ryan with the 1st pick in an all time draft selects...

[indeedproceed]

I think the OP misconstrued Ryan's exchange a little.*

He was asked if he could have any one player all time to win one seven game series he'd pick Bill Walton. Not necessarily an 'All-Time Draft'

That doesn't mean all the rest of the picks are all-time players. Just that first pick. Who knows who the rest of the picks are.

*I learned this while investigating who else was in the all-time draft. Who was picking second? How many rounds? I'm a nerd.

perhaps you missed this

With the first pick in all time draft for winning a 7 game series, Bob Ryan selects a healthy Bill Walton.

No, I got that. Maybe I misunderstood you. I took it to be like, assemble a full team, NBA DRAFT.

Not just everyone gets one guy NBA draft. Maybe I overthought it.

[Moranis]

This is such great advertisement for the 2013 CB Historical Draft.....coming your way in May 2013

my suggestion.  All years available but you can't draft any player that was drafted in the top 13 in any draft.  Will make it very interesting since that eliminates the vast majority of the all time greats.

[Moranis]

I think the OP misconstrued Ryan's exchange a little.*

He was asked if he could have any one player all time to win one seven game series he'd pick Bill Walton. Not necessarily an 'All-Time Draft'

That doesn't mean all the rest of the picks are all-time players. Just that first pick. Who knows who the rest of the picks are.

*I learned this while investigating who else was in the all-time draft. Who was picking second? How many rounds? I'm a nerd.

perhaps you missed this

With the first pick in all time draft for winning a 7 game series, Bob Ryan selects a healthy Bill Walton.

No, I got that. Maybe I misunderstood you. I took it to be like, assemble a full team, NBA DRAFT.

Not just everyone gets one guy NBA draft. Maybe I overthought it.

Ah.  I see.  Yeah the question he was asked was who would you take if you had to win a 7 game series.  He chose Walton, which I still find preposterous.

[BballTim]

I don't like the overly personal, snarky, and childish tone the thread has taken. Next post directed personally or even implying someone's bias or lack of basketball knowledge gets the thread locked, with possible discipline to follow.

  To get it back on track I'm tempted to scoff at the choice of a healthy Walton. Then I remember that NCAA finals game where he scored 42 points or so and I'm not so sure. That was one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. Walton was something like 20-22 from the field and one of the misses was a late game offensive goaltend when he held the ball over the basked and dropped it in.

[wdleehi]

Certainly a little outside the box but I could see where Ryan is coming from.  A healthy Walton was certainly one heckuva basketball player.  Arguably the best passing big man of all time. 

I'd probably go in the same direction and pick a center myself although Russell or Chamberlain would probably be the first choice to come to mind.

You're talking a 7 game series.  Gotta have yourself a top 5 big man.

I think Wilt or Jordan are the only acceptable answers here.

I'm never going to discount Bill Russell. I might not pick him in this scenario but he's in the discussion.  The talk is about 7 game series and Russell was a perfect 10-0 in Game 7's, not to mention one of the alltime greats.  He belongs in the conversation.

Not to mention that these are going to be loaded teams. 


Having Russel who was so successful as the leader and best player of the team with the longest winning stretch of an NBA franchise would be a great start. 


I would likely choose him 1st or 2nd along with Jordon.

Sure these are loaded teams, but that just means you have plenty of time to take "glue" guys and thus you don't need to go "less" (and I use that word hesitantly since Bill is an all time great) talented but a better team player in the first couple of rounds.  You use your later picks to fill in the gaps and make the players work as a team.  Jordan and Chamberlain are widely regarded as the two best players in NBA history.  They have also had plenty of monster games in the post season and played for two of the greatest teams in NBA history.  In this type of situation, I really believe they are the only two acceptable answers.

Right, better player.


So give me the two guys that dominated their era's titles.


Jordon and Russel.   

[Moranis]

I don't like the overly personal, snarky, and childish tone the thread has taken. Next post directed personally or even implying someone's bias or lack of basketball knowledge gets the thread locked, with possible discipline to follow.

  To get it back on track I'm tempted to scoff at the choice of a healthy Walton. Then I remember that NCAA finals game where he scored 42 points or so and I'm not so sure. That was one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. Walton was something like 20-22 from the field and one of the misses was a late game offensive goaltend when he held the ball over the basked and dropped it in.

Kareem and Oscar are almost always regarded as the two greatest college players of all time and they both had far better pro careers than Walton did.  That is one of the reasons I find so odd about Ryan's statement.  What is also odd is that Walton was never healthy as a pro.  This so called healthy Walton just doesn't exist.  I mean he won the MVP in a year he played in just 58 games.  The prior year when Portland won the title he played in just 65 games. His stats in those years are no where near the other all time greats and he was no where near the defender that a lot of those guys were.

It is a totally preposterous statement from Bob Ryan. 

[Moranis]

Certainly a little outside the box but I could see where Ryan is coming from.  A healthy Walton was certainly one heckuva basketball player.  Arguably the best passing big man of all time. 

I'd probably go in the same direction and pick a center myself although Russell or Chamberlain would probably be the first choice to come to mind.

You're talking a 7 game series.  Gotta have yourself a top 5 big man.

I think Wilt or Jordan are the only acceptable answers here.

I'm never going to discount Bill Russell. I might not pick him in this scenario but he's in the discussion.  The talk is about 7 game series and Russell was a perfect 10-0 in Game 7's, not to mention one of the alltime greats.  He belongs in the conversation.

Not to mention that these are going to be loaded teams. 


Having Russel who was so successful as the leader and best player of the team with the longest winning stretch of an NBA franchise would be a great start. 


I would likely choose him 1st or 2nd along with Jordon.

Sure these are loaded teams, but that just means you have plenty of time to take "glue" guys and thus you don't need to go "less" (and I use that word hesitantly since Bill is an all time great) talented but a better team player in the first couple of rounds.  You use your later picks to fill in the gaps and make the players work as a team.  Jordan and Chamberlain are widely regarded as the two best players in NBA history.  They have also had plenty of monster games in the post season and played for two of the greatest teams in NBA history.  In this type of situation, I really believe they are the only two acceptable answers.

Right, better player.


So give me the two guys that dominated their era's titles.


Jordon and Russel.

Teams win titles not players.  Chamberlain was the greatest player of his generation.  He is also the only player in NBA history that has led the league in points, rebounds, and assists.  No one else has even come close to doing that. 

[BballTim]

I don't like the overly personal, snarky, and childish tone the thread has taken. Next post directed personally or even implying someone's bias or lack of basketball knowledge gets the thread locked, with possible discipline to follow.

  To get it back on track I'm tempted to scoff at the choice of a healthy Walton. Then I remember that NCAA finals game where he scored 42 points or so and I'm not so sure. That was one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. Walton was something like 20-22 from the field and one of the misses was a late game offensive goaltend when he held the ball over the basked and dropped it in.

Kareem and Oscar are almost always regarded as the two greatest college players of all time and they both had far better pro careers than Walton did.  That is one of the reasons I find so odd about Ryan's statement.  What is also odd is that Walton was never healthy as a pro.  This so called healthy Walton just doesn't exist.  I mean he won the MVP in a year he played in just 58 games.  The prior year when Portland won the title he played in just 65 games. His stats in those years are no where near the other all time greats and he was no where near the defender that a lot of those guys were.

It is a totally preposterous statement from Bob Ryan.

  I didn't see Kareem (or Lew) or Oscar in college. It doesn't surprise me that they're regarded as the best. Walton was the best I saw. I agree that he was never healthy as a pro, but the thought of him as a healthy pro is fairly intriguing. He could have easily cracked the (arguable) top 10 list.

[wdleehi]

Certainly a little outside the box but I could see where Ryan is coming from.  A healthy Walton was certainly one heckuva basketball player.  Arguably the best passing big man of all time. 

I'd probably go in the same direction and pick a center myself although Russell or Chamberlain would probably be the first choice to come to mind.

You're talking a 7 game series.  Gotta have yourself a top 5 big man.

I think Wilt or Jordan are the only acceptable answers here.

I'm never going to discount Bill Russell. I might not pick him in this scenario but he's in the discussion.  The talk is about 7 game series and Russell was a perfect 10-0 in Game 7's, not to mention one of the alltime greats.  He belongs in the conversation.

Not to mention that these are going to be loaded teams. 


Having Russel who was so successful as the leader and best player of the team with the longest winning stretch of an NBA franchise would be a great start. 


I would likely choose him 1st or 2nd along with Jordon.

Sure these are loaded teams, but that just means you have plenty of time to take "glue" guys and thus you don't need to go "less" (and I use that word hesitantly since Bill is an all time great) talented but a better team player in the first couple of rounds.  You use your later picks to fill in the gaps and make the players work as a team.  Jordan and Chamberlain are widely regarded as the two best players in NBA history.  They have also had plenty of monster games in the post season and played for two of the greatest teams in NBA history.  In this type of situation, I really believe they are the only two acceptable answers.

Right, better player.


So give me the two guys that dominated their era's titles.


Jordon and Russel.

Teams win titles not players.  Chamberlain was the greatest player of his generation.  He is also the only player in NBA history that has led the league in points, rebounds, and assists.  No one else has even come close to doing that.

11 titles in 13 years. 

Clearly best player on that team.



Sorry, I consider Russel the 2nd best player in NBA history (and sometimes wonder if he was actually better then Jordon)



Wilt was the most gifted player, but not the best player.  (much like AI was possible the most gifted small guy, but was not the best small guy) 

[moiso]

My Choice barring any injury would be a healthy 7'5 Ralph Sampson! Could run like a gaurd, shoot like a gaurd, move on defense like a small forward, nice ball handling for a big. And yet he still possessed all the attributes needed to dominate the paint. Early before the injuries claimed him he had his way with Kareem on many nights & I think woulda went down as a top 2 center & top 5 player all-time barring injury. Sampson could do it ALL! Also dominated Patrick Ewing in college absolutely destroyed him playing with a far inferior team.

I could think of like 70 guys I would pick before Sampson in his prime.

[nickagneta]

My Choice barring any injury would be a healthy 7'5 Ralph Sampson! Could run like a gaurd, shoot like a gaurd, move on defense like a small forward, nice ball handling for a big. And yet he still possessed all the attributes needed to dominate the paint. Early before the injuries claimed him he had his way with Kareem on many nights & I think woulda went down as a top 2 center & top 5 player all-time barring injury. Sampson could do it ALL! Also dominated Patrick Ewing in college absolutely destroyed him playing with a far inferior team.

I could think of like 70 guys I would pick before Sampson in his prime.

Unfortunately, Ralph Sampson hit his prime in college. He coulda been an all time great. Never was.

[Fred Roberts]

Walton, while he was mostly before my time . .. was one of those ultimate tease guys. He showed flashes, even won a title between injuries . . .but never got it going fully healthy for a sustained number of years.

Even a 5 year period of dominance would have been great to have in the history books. He only played 80 games 1 season .. . in his second to last w/ the Celtics! Ugh. Injuries really do suck.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/waltobi01.html

[BballTim]

Walton, while he was mostly before my time . .. was one of those ultimate tease guys. He showed flashes, even won a title between injuries . . .but never got it going fully healthy for a sustained number of years.

Even a 5 year period of dominance would have been great to have in the history books. He only played 80 games 1 season .. . in his second to last w/ the Celtics! Ugh. Injuries really do suck.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/waltobi01.html

  The guy won an mvp award in a season where he missed 24 games due to injury. That's fairly impressive, and gives a hint about how dominant he could have been. Basketball in the late 70s was pretty bad, he could have made a lot of hay at the time.

[Moranis]

I don't like the overly personal, snarky, and childish tone the thread has taken. Next post directed personally or even implying someone's bias or lack of basketball knowledge gets the thread locked, with possible discipline to follow.

  To get it back on track I'm tempted to scoff at the choice of a healthy Walton. Then I remember that NCAA finals game where he scored 42 points or so and I'm not so sure. That was one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. Walton was something like 20-22 from the field and one of the misses was a late game offensive goaltend when he held the ball over the basked and dropped it in.

Kareem and Oscar are almost always regarded as the two greatest college players of all time and they both had far better pro careers than Walton did.  That is one of the reasons I find so odd about Ryan's statement.  What is also odd is that Walton was never healthy as a pro.  This so called healthy Walton just doesn't exist.  I mean he won the MVP in a year he played in just 58 games.  The prior year when Portland won the title he played in just 65 games. His stats in those years are no where near the other all time greats and he was no where near the defender that a lot of those guys were.

It is a totally preposterous statement from Bob Ryan.

  I didn't see Kareem (or Lew) or Oscar in college. It doesn't surprise me that they're regarded as the best. Walton was the best I saw. I agree that he was never healthy as a pro, but the thought of him as a healthy pro is fairly intriguing. He could have easily cracked the (arguable) top 10 list.

The thing about Walton is was never truly great at anything except probably passing.  He wasn't a monster scorer and while he was a good rebounder he doesn't compare to the all timers in that category either (and I am adjusting for pace).  His defense was only average.  A more healthy Walton is probably a 17p/12r/4.5a/2.5b player for his career (with the natural progression and weaker starts and finishes that all greats have).  Certainly a very good career, but I just don't see that as an all time great career, which is what you have to have to be in the top 10.

[BballTim]

I don't like the overly personal, snarky, and childish tone the thread has taken. Next post directed personally or even implying someone's bias or lack of basketball knowledge gets the thread locked, with possible discipline to follow.

  To get it back on track I'm tempted to scoff at the choice of a healthy Walton. Then I remember that NCAA finals game where he scored 42 points or so and I'm not so sure. That was one of the most dominating performances I've ever seen. Walton was something like 20-22 from the field and one of the misses was a late game offensive goaltend when he held the ball over the basked and dropped it in.

Kareem and Oscar are almost always regarded as the two greatest college players of all time and they both had far better pro careers than Walton did.  That is one of the reasons I find so odd about Ryan's statement.  What is also odd is that Walton was never healthy as a pro.  This so called healthy Walton just doesn't exist.  I mean he won the MVP in a year he played in just 58 games.  The prior year when Portland won the title he played in just 65 games. His stats in those years are no where near the other all time greats and he was no where near the defender that a lot of those guys were.

It is a totally preposterous statement from Bob Ryan.

  I didn't see Kareem (or Lew) or Oscar in college. It doesn't surprise me that they're regarded as the best. Walton was the best I saw. I agree that he was never healthy as a pro, but the thought of him as a healthy pro is fairly intriguing. He could have easily cracked the (arguable) top 10 list.

The thing about Walton is was never truly great at anything except probably passing.  He wasn't a monster scorer and while he was a good rebounder he doesn't compare to the all timers in that category either (and I am adjusting for pace).  His defense was only average.  A more healthy Walton is probably a 17p/12r/4.5a/2.5b player for his career (with the natural progression and weaker starts and finishes that all greats have).  Certainly a very good career, but I just don't see that as an all time great career, which is what you have to have to be in the top 10.

  First of all a player with severe foot problems making consecutive 1st team all defense teams isn't "average defense". Secondly, you're basing your opinion on him on the best of his unhealthy years. That's kind of like projecting the careers of Andrew Toney or Sidney Moncreif based solely on their play after they were hobbled by foot problems.