Reply With Quote
Ah, noted.
In my defense, the original statement could be interpreted in several ways.
Ah, noted.
In my defense, the original statement could be interpreted in several ways.
You're not playing the game right. That wasn't the only qualification I was holding against her.
No , that's the point. It makes your statements look stupid. In fact, I'd argue that Hammon is more qualified to coach on the bench than Watson.
Rules please?
Ok, how is she more qualified than Watson in terms of the NBA? I'd definitely hire her over him for a WNBA gig.
Like this move. He'll be a Spurs assistant at some point in the future.
Just to be clear, I haven't nor will speculate on how valuable her contributions were. My points were that a) she put in her time the previous season, and b) the coaches' and players' feedback on her time is well-do ented.
That is enough evidence to counter any arguments that she has no NBA experience.
That's an unfair statement to make considering she was still an active player and the WNBA season was going on during that time.
Doesn't matter. She applied on time. He didn't.Why?I'd definitely hire her over him for a WNBA gig.
lol she was playing for the Stars in Seattle.
Basketball is basketball. Hammon knows the game well having played on all levels, college, pro and olympics. She is the floor leader when she steps onto the court. If you ever bothered watching a WNBA game, you'll see sets and schemes being run just like in a NBA game...She's been immersed into many schemes and her basketball knowledge is pretty good I'd bet...better and more in depth than Watson, imo. The only difference between both games is obviously athleticism. Everything is more or less similar to the game we love to watch.
Why? Are you serious or are you still being a smart ass?
Serious.
Why?
Lol, then why weren't her incredibly invaluable contributions mentioned by anyone during the speeches?
The best addition to this forum since the Spork thread.
Still not the right kind of experience, or enough of it, to justify hiring her instead of a dude, I'm guessing.
Why is this a requirement for being hired by a team one has already worked for?
Please explain your logic here.
Was Forcier mentioned by name? What about Udoka? What about Boylen? What about Engelland?
This is a logically shaky argument you're making. You'll need to show proof that the other coaches were mentioned by name in the speeches if you're going to go down this path.
Anyone not mentioned by name in the speeches should be fired.
It's only logical.
Ok, I'll bite. Hammon has more of an understanding the speed that's played at the WNBA. She knows the athletic restrictions a female basketball player has and what they use to compensate for those restrictions. She knows tendencies certain players have having played with and against them. Watson can watch all the video in the world of the WNBA but it can't replace the in-game experience of the WNBA game that Hammon has over him.
It's a well established fact that a principal qualification for getting that first NBA coaching gig is to have already been lauded for your contributions to a championship team in a public celebration.
The scouts, analytics guys, and video coordinators would be ting their pants at this.
You are really hung up on gonads tbh.
So Dan Hughes should never have gotten his job.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
