Russell

["Josh Ozersky" <jozersky1@nyc.rr.com>]

Hey Bob,

Great to have you in the group again.  You're the only reason I visit the
fellowship of the miserable on the usenet.

that's a great story about Russell.  I remember seeing him do a similar
feat around the same time on a "Red on Roundball."  (Which every American
should own.)  Red's guests were Russell and Tiny Archibald, around the time
he
was leading the league in assists and scoring.  Red said, "go on, Tiny!  Try
to
score on him.  Really."  Tiny drove on Russ twice and was rejected each
time.
I don't even recall Russell moving his feet.  I never got to see him play
but he
seems to have been the greatest basketball genius in history.

Just out of curiosity, do you think it goes without saying that he would
dominate
today?  I mean, obviously, he would be an MVP-caliber player, but do you
think
he would have his way night in and night out against all the ultra-quick big
players
we have today?  Or pull down 25 rebounds a night?  No blasphemy intended;
just curious.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob McChesney" <rwmcches@uiuc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.sports.basketball.nba.boston-celtics
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:46 PM
Subject: In Defense of Joe Johnson, and recalling Kevin Gamble


> I think we are being premature in casting Joe Johnson to the Michael
> Smith wasteland of lame-ass no. 1 draft choices. Joe Johnson showed in
> the first few weeks of the season that he can play. In a few games
> early on he looked like a solid NBA starter with definite all-star
> potential down the road. He looked like he had a real feel for the
> game. The only weak spot was that he never got to the line. And he
> just turned 20 in July. He isn't much older than 3 of the 4 high
> school kids taken in the lottery who so far have done next to nothing.
>
> His game collapsed after that great start, and he has looked dreadful
> ever since. But he has game.
>
> So far my only possible criticism of Jim O'Brien would be that his
> manic desire to win today overwhelms his ability to do the sorts of
> things that might help him win in ten weeks, not to mention two years.
> JJ may be a case in point. It may not be. Maybe O'Brien has done
> everything possible and JJ just has truly lost it. In any case, he
> once had it. I saw those games where he played well and there was
> nothing fluky about his game. He wasn't hitting lucky shots. He looked
> like a natural.
>
> Recall Kevin Gamble. Late in the 88-89 season DJ got injured and
> Gamble went into the starting line-up. He was a revelation. Over the
> last six or seven game he played 40 mpg, scored around 22 or 23 ppg,
> and shot over 50 percent. He was 23 years old and looked like a stud.
> In the off-season we were thinking, hey, this guy Gamble played like
> an all-star.
>
> The following season he looked like a very different, and much worse,
> player. Jimmie Rodgers had little interest in him and cut his minutes
> way back.
>
> When Chris Ford (an assistant to Rodgers during those years) replaced
> Ridgers the first thing he did was put Gamble in the starting line-up.
> Gamble gave the Cs several decent years as a starter, though he never
> again approached his brilliance at the end of the 88-89 season. Maybe
> Gamble was just lucky those two weeks, or maybe Rodgers managed to
> strip Gamble of his confidence. Who knows?
>
> At any rate, unless Joe Johnson has suffered a permanent nervous
> breakdown, I bet he is going to have a decent career in this league. I
> suspect, based on what seems to be the Cs management's impatience and
> idiocy, it will be with another team. A la Chauncey Billups.