Um … que?

Worst. Idea. Ever.

David Stern told SI’s Ian Thomsen that the NBA could see a woman playing for it within the next decade.

“I think we might,” said Stern. “I don’t want to get into all kinds of arguments with players and coaches about the likelihood. But I really think it’s a good possibility.”

Apparently Dirk Nowtizki, whose lack of aggression and physical toughness does resemble that of a female’s, agrees somewhat.

“Skills-wise, yeah,” he said, meaning they could shoot and handle the ball at an NBA level. “But physical-wise, it’s tough. Even all the little guys are pretty strong in this league and pretty athletic.”

Said Mavs assistant coach Dwayne Casey: “That’s right, the guys trying to guard her won’t want to get beat.  I see the women’s game coming closer and closer to the men’s game. You see NBA coaches who are now coaching in the WNBA and you see them using a lot of the same principles — offensive schemes, pick and roll, defensive sets. The physical part will be the worst for a woman, and it will be on defense more than anything else.”

Um, no. A million times no.

As I’ve stated before, I DO have respect for women’s basketball. But let’s be serious.

The women’s game is grounded. The women can pass and shoot, yes. But defensively, they’d be superbly overmatched. They just do not have the quickness, agility or leap that men do. That’s a fact.

Take a NBA “scrub” like Brian Scalabrine. He would completely overwhelm the likes of a Diana Taurasi, or Sue Bird or Candace Parker.

He’s a benchwarmer by NBA STANDARDS. This is a man who thrived at USC, averaging 15 points, six rebounds and almost three assists per game.

And now he can barely get off the bench for the Celtics, albeit a top-three team. You’re telling me Parker or Taurasi can take his minutes?

EVERYBODY in the NBA can pass, defend and shoot to where they can make themselves a threat offensively. Parker might be able to get out in transition in the NBA, maybe pick up a stray rebound and get a couple of steals because she has nice length and she’s athletic. But she wouldn’t score. No way she’s getting inside the paint, and her shot isn’t good enough to where she can make people pay.

Taurasi is interesting. She can shoot, handle, defend, and she definitely plays intensely. But she’s not quick enough, and she would get BURNED on defense. I MIGHT be able to see her as a spot shooter, nothing more.

It’s two vastly, completely, entirely different games. You can’t compare, and it boggles the mind to even know that Stern is entertaining the idea. I suppose “all it takes is one fool”, and I could completely see the Grizzlies or Clippers signing a woman as a gimmick and a way to get attention.

But let’s be realistic. The NBA game is too fast, too physical and too coordinated for the women. I love the WNBA, and Taurasi and Parker are otherworldly talents, but they would not make it.

It’s an insult to the NBA game. I’m sorry, ladies, but it is. Obviously, in this day and age, people don’t understand how hard it is to play the game of NBA basketball.

I thought the freakin’ Commish knew. Apparently not.

You can read Thomsen’s article here:

I recommend that you not drink anything while doing so.


One response to “Um … que?

  1. Pingback: Today’s Celtics Links 12/5 « Flceltsfan’s Weblog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s