Mr Puddles wrote:For point 2. No, she should not be hired because she's a woman. If she gets hired, it's probably because she has a strong track record as an assistant coach in the NBA and as a head coach in the WNBA, and has been under the tutelage of one of the most venerated head coaches of all time - whose proteges have a pretty strong record as NBA head coaches. It's not like people are arguing for a member of the cheerleading squad to be promoted or something, she's clearly paid her dues.
Because people just don't want it to happen and will talk in circles and kick the can down the road.
1. If players say they're completely okay with having literally anybody coach them, it'll be attributed to them being "woke" and not them wanting the best available candidate for the team. The bottom line should be winning no matter the gender.
2. There are always caveats: "If you hire a woman, you'll have to fire a woman too which gives you bashlash!" .. which means .. it can never happen? Or my favorite, "What about all the other assistants that should be hired before her?" while not speaking a peep about lame duck coaches like Nash or guys like Billups who never were an assistant/assistant for a year.
If there was a woman physically able to keep up with the physicality of the NBA while having the talent of a LeBron or Jordan, they'd be in the league because of their talent. The issue is that genetically it is harder for that to happen which is why it hasn't happened. Coaches have to have game knowledge, be smart, empathetic, flexible, be good at X's and O's, a motivator .. all of these are things are not gender specific traits which is why it's a dumb argument that it can't happen.
Put in the work and get rewarded. Hammon has more than done that.














