OT - It's offseason, but just wondering what people think. Best Boston Athlete

[PatsWickedPissah]

I have to go with Brady. The reason is that I'm 35 so outside of Bird when I was in fifth grade I did not see any of the others play.

Now I see the problem!
Do you have your Mom's permission to post on the inter webs?

 

[fnordcircle]

Brady has had to play in a league in an era of parity and won championships.

If Brady had played on a Pats team where like 50% of his teammates were all-pros and HoFers he would have won a billion championships.

The only one on that list who I'm not sure if you can say that about or not is Orr because for all my attempts to follow hockey I haven't been able to get into it until playoffs.

I know the arguments about Russell that he was the only constant at the beginning and end of his career and I respect that, I really do. But he started with some great players and the NBA was not a league with the same parity you see in the NFL.

Because the NFL is so much harder to win on a consistent basis and yet we've watched Brady amass a winning percentage that just looks gaudy compared to other teams in the league over the same period I've got to go with Tom.

I'm biased, though.

 

[OhExaulted1]

I am going with Bobby Orr. He changed the way hockey was played. He changed the way defenseman played the game.

No one could take over a game like him before or since. Not even the Great One. He was one of a kind.

 

[primetime]

No one could take over a game like him before or since. Not even the Great One. He was one of a kind.

Yeah, and there's a compelling argument (I'd make it) that Lemieux was as good as Gretzky.

Orr was so far ahead of every one of his peers when he played that it's not even close.

Brady has Manning, Russell had Wilt, Ted Williams had a number of players (Dimaggio, Mantle, Musial, later Mays) and played in a segregated league for most of his career. That's not to take anything away from those guys - they're all extraordinary athletes - but Orr was a transcendental player. The comparable guys in other sports would be Ruth, Jordan (maybe Shaq when healthy), and Rice.

I read this line a lot....and there was an era where teams valued a scoring defensemen.....but that era is long gone.

I don't know, a big part of the US loss in the Olympics was the lack of a good puck-moving defenseman who could quarterback the power play.

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

Yah, the NBA as a league was not a parity league. But Russell faced all time greats every post season. Game after game. Jerry West, Elgin Baylor of LA and the ever challenging big man even by today's standards Wilt Chamberlain to name just a few. And back then it was basketball skills, not a showboat league. Russell was a consistent champion year after year. Clutch all the way.

 

[50-yard-line]

I've spent my whole life playing, watching and loving hockey.

Bobby Orr was one of those once-in-a-lifetime athletes for a sport. As others have said, he was so far ahead of the game that it didn't even seem fair. Hockey is a team game and so that might not translate into championships (see Dryden, Ken), but Orr did things that just made your jaw drop.

He'd kill off half a penalty or more just skating around in circles.

There was no one like him.

 

[borg]

I don't know, a big part of the US loss in the Olympics was the lack of a good puck-moving defenseman who could quarterback the power play.

I saw it differently. The US had no centers capable of occupying space by the net. The US speed game was neutralized/kept in the corners. Scoring zero goals in their last two games shows the problem was much bigger than a weak power play. It was playoff hockey and speed gets neutralized by solid defense.....and USA had no answer in front

 

[Zeus]

A brief history lesson for those unfamiliar with Bill Russell ...

NBA.com: Timeless Excellence

 

[Patsrock]

I don't know, a big part of the US loss in the Olympics was the lack of a good puck-moving defenseman who could quarterback the power play.

That and the fact the roster was poorly made.

I would have brought Ryan,Seth Jones,Yandle and Saad over Orpik,Wheeler,Brown and Faulk.

But anyway sorry for off topic rant

 

[borg]

I've spent my whole life playing, watching and loving hockey.

Bobby Orr was one of those once-in-a-lifetime athletes for a sport. As others have said, he was so far ahead of the game that it didn't even seem fair. Hockey is a team game and so that might not translate into championships (see Dryden, Ken), but Orr did things that just made your jaw drop.

He'd kill off half a penalty or more just skating around in circles.

There was no one like him.

For those that never saw Orr play....it was amazing...how he could take over a game. Jordan could do it.....Lawrence Taylor could do it.
But something about how Orr did it.......playing the position unlike it was ever played before. In any sport I ever played...I had to be #4.
Eighteen years ago, I played in a Dana Farber charity golf tournament loaded with Boston greats..........Williams, Yaz, Hondo, etc etc etc....and BOBBY ORR. I was on the chipping green practicing and out of nowhere, I get nailed in the hip by a golf ball......Orr comes running over apologizing to me....I was caught speechless....#4 nailed me.....I might never wash the bruise...ever. That night, spent $350 on an autographed Dan Marino Ball....just to have a place for Orr to autograph. He only signed the ball because he remembered that he nailed me on the green. staring at it right now...priceless. Wish his knees held strong.....a crying shame

 

[AQPE]

The Pats are by far my favorite team, football is by far my favorite sport. Brady has been the leading player in an era that I never in my wildest dreams imagined would happen. So, it's a killer for me to not pick Brady, but ...

I grew up playing and loving hockey, and Bobby Orr was - and still is, in my mind - the most purely exciting player I've ever seen playing for a Boston team (and right there with Jordan, in my mind, as the most purely exciting player I've seen in team sports). So, it's equally a killer for me to not pick Orr, but ...

In a team sport, the goal is to win the championship, and thus, in spite of all arguable perceptions of talent (both their own and that of their competition) and externalities (configuration of the league, playoff structure, officiating, existing state-of-the-art for travel, diet, conditioning, "sports medicine," etc.), in my view it comes down to the most simple of things: who was the leading player on the team that won the most. The answer is absurdly simple, regardless of whether we are discussing Boston teams or any team in any sport. 11 championships in 13 seasons. 'Nuff said.

 

[JPsPats]

Whether he's an overall athlete is debatable -- he's skilled at swinging a bat. He doesn't belong anywhere near this list.

Brady is the best overall -- skill, physical tools, smarts, leadership, consistency and drive. Russell is close.

Swinging a bat with consistency is one of the hardest things to do in all sports, michael jordan even said it himself. I agree he's not really an "athlete" in terms of being athletic. Baseball is pretty boring but he deserves to be mentioned because of how long he's been a red sock and what he's brought to the city in terms of championships.

Bottom line is he's still a major league player.

 

[YearbookCurfew]

I have to go with Brady. I mean, we are on a Patriots forum! But seriously, I think Brady is the best Boston sports person.

 

[50-yard-line]

The Pats are by far my favorite team, football is by far my favorite sport. Brady has been the leading player in an era that I never in my wildest dreams imagined would happen. So, it's a killer for me to not pick Brady, but ...

I grew up playing and loving hockey, and Bobby Orr was - and still is, in my mind - the most purely exciting player I've ever seen playing for a Boston team (and right there with Jordan, in my mind, as the most purely exciting player I've seen in team sports). So, it's equally a killer for me to not pick Orr, but ...

In a team sport, the goal is to win the championship, and thus, in spite of all arguable perceptions of talent (both their own and that of their competition) and externalities (configuration of the league, playoff structure, officiating, existing state-of-the-art for travel, diet, conditioning, "sports medicine," etc.), in my view it comes down to the most simple of things: who was the leading player on the team that won the most. The answer is absurdly simple, regardless of whether we are discussing Boston teams or any team in any sport. 11 championships in 13 seasons. 'Nuff said.

Not to go against Russell - EVER! - but there were 8, count 'em, 8 teams in the NBA in 1960...bumped up to 12 by 1969. There are 30 now.

I was on the first NATIONAL CHAMPION Dekhockey team, Cadet (16-18) division! Woot...there was a rink in Leominster, one in Roslindale, Niagara Falls, Penn Hills and...that's about it.

So we won a tournament with four teams (and half the guys from the other teams wearing ice hockey pads) and became champions.

I'm not trying to diminish what the Celtics did, but it was a different world altogether...and Russell was surrounded by some of the greatest talent and coaching of the era.

 

[dalero]

Rocky Marciano.

 

[50-yard-line]

Rocky Marciano.

Marvelous Marvin Hagler. And yes, he beat Sugar Ray Leonard like a rented mule...

 

[DocHoliday]

The fact that Russell won 11, in my mind, says more about how immature and undeveloped the NBA was back then rather than say how great Russell is.

 

[SB39]

When someone says "who was the best athlete" they usually mean "best athlete in the context of the sport they played" so I am going to assume that is what the OP meant in this question - otherwise fact is your average Olympic decathlete is light years ahead of all those guys in terms of pure athletic ability.

So, in the context of the sports they played, I have to say Bobby Orr is the greatest, edging out Ted Williams by a splinter (pun intended). Russell wasn't even the best in his day. He won plenty of championships, but was on loaded Celtics teams. I have no doubt if we magically traded Russell for Chamberlain, then it's Chamberlain with 11 titles (or maybe more) and not Russell.

 

[1960Pats]

I think Ortiz should be on this list, even if he doesn't get votes he should still be mentioned. He's got 3 rings, Boston loves him, and he has a famous quote…

"THIS IS OUR F#CKING CITY"

That is one of the reasons that I hate the DH.

Ortiz couldn't carry their jocks.

 

[1960Pats]

Bill Russell will always be underrated because offense was not his biggest asset. He was an absolutely dominant defender and the best rebounder in the league (a key aspect of the Celtics devastating fast beak offense). Russell had unparalleled shot blocking skills and also directed his blocks to players on the break (in contrast to today's players who like to smash the ball out of bounds so the crowd will ooh and ah).

The Celtic dynasty started the day he got there and ended the day he left. 11 NBA championships in 13 years (he was out with an injury when the Celtics lost to the St Louis Hawks in the finals in 1958). Two NCAA championships. One Olympic gold medal.

Bill Russell - the greatest champion in the history of sports.

I feel truly blessed to have seen all of those great players play, and Russell was the greatest of them all.

For less than $5.00, we could grab a couple of Joe and Nemo's burgers or dogs, hop on a train and head into Boston Garden, buy a general admission ticket and see Bill Russell play NBA basketball. It just doesn't get any better than that.