It doesn't help your argument. Saying two specialty players mashed together equal one complete player doesn't diminish the complete player. You could do that with any great player.
But throwing Wallace in there is designed to highlight a player who rebounds but has essentially no offense. Russell wasn't*an offensive superstar like Wilt, but he had a decent offensive game and was phenomenal defensively. Russell averaged 3 times as many points as Wallace so they weren't the same type of player even.
As for Green, their games are different and play(ed) different positions so other than averaging a similar amount of points I don't see the comparison. Yet Green and Wallace combined don't average as many rebounds as Russell.
Why not just compare Russell to Duncan, who is a good offensive contributor and great on defense. Duncan averaged about 3.5 more points and 11 less rebounds. They played the same position with similar type games imo.
As for playing with a lot of good players like Russell did, that tends to hurt your numbers. Russell probably would have averaged more points on a lesser team.
Obviously you don't know much about the 60s era of the NBA.
I've watched a few documentaries on it and read Bill Simmons' Book of Basketball. Although I wasn't around back in that era, all of the resources share a very similar message. And that message is that it was very easy to have inflated stats during that era. The game was a very up and down, run and gun style of play. In fact they even mentioned recently while assessing the Warriors place history how back in the 1960s teams averaged over 150 possessions per game compared to the 95-100 of today.
That's 50% more possessions which equates to higher scores and higher rebounding numbers. Averaging 20+ rebounds during that era, while very impressive, doesn't carry a ton of weight with me. Plenty of 6'4" players in that era avg'd over 11 per game and a lot of the taller 6'8" types were pulling down around 17 per game. So clearly the style of play influenced the numbers. There are probably at least 5 players playing in the NBA today who would avg close to 20 rpg playing in that era under those playing conditions.
Also, I'll counter your argument about his numbers being hurt by playing with other Hall of Fame teammates by pointing this out. Carp already pointed out how Russell was a limited offensive player. He wasn't an efficient scorer. Which is weird because when you play with great teammates that tends to make things easier on you. It doesn't
"hurt your numbers". You get cleaner looks. Fewer double teams. Etc. Yet as a post player he still managed to put up pedestrian offensive numbers. How do you explain that?
I'll give him credit for being a great teammate and obviously one of the best winners ever, but he's still not top 10 overall in my book. On my list I'd rank him at 15.
If you want to put him 10 on your list, fine. It's your list.