I agree with you on many things.... But experimenting with breaking gender lines? What is there to break? We are all equal and I hold each person in high regard (unless you prove to me otherwise). She has experience it's not her first go round. If she can help to provide direction, then by all means sign her up. Never underestimate the perspectives that other people bring. If anything, she can talk about the difficulties of entering the NBA as a woman with all odds against her. A lot of our roster is from less than modest backgrounds, Cousins included. He can relate to hardship and he will respect her all the more for it.
Whether or not she pushes too much is not related to her gender. There has to be a line that can't be crossed and if she was new to the NBA I would be more worried. However, she was in the NBA before most of these guys were even born. I'm not worried and I'll choose to trust in Vlade.
because in non-idealistic world these things have potential consequences.
Now I'm not going to go too far into my feminist creds or whatever, but suffice it to say that Kayte would be sitting in Jerry's spot if it were up to me, and while I think what Vlade has been able to accomplish here is something maybe only possible for a former NBA player, you wouldn't even had made me blink if we had interviewed a woman for his spot. Women are rampantly underrepresented around NBA front offices and media boards for no other reason than sexism/good ole boy assumptions.
But coaching is a tougher alley, because coaching isn't just about analysis of the game, which anybody of any gender can do equally well. Its also about, even primarily about, interpersonal relationships. About reaching guys and making them listen. About knowing who to press and how to press, when to be a friend when to be a taskmaster etc. All things which a woman could be really good at too, but now you make this a woman coaching men in a testosterone laden sport fool of rich young dudes with huge egos who have never been coached by a woman...and it just adds in a level of uncertainty of result that I'm not sure is warranted right now. We're fighting for our lives, we've got a brand new team with totally unformed chemistry and a potential head coach issue, now is not the time I want to introduce an extra element that may not work. Like I say, do this in 2003, back when it should have been done in the NBA btw, and there's no risk at all for us. Our culture and chemistry is established, just as the Spurs is. You can afford to take a chance and open this door and there is no down side.
Thing is too, we have to be clear: Nancy Lieberman is being hired BECAUSE she's a woman. She's got almost no coaching resume at all. She's a legendary player from back in the day and a talking head, but this is not a woman who has spent decades coaching. Her grand total of coaching experience appears to be: 3 years in the WNBA from 1998-2000 in which she went 46-48 and made the playoffs 1 of 3 years. And 1 year in the NBDL where she went 24-26. That's it. She apparently played Kayte's role for OKC last year, would have liked to have heard her. I assume she knows the sport very well indeed. But there's really not much proof she's much of a coach, and obviously the NBA is a whole new landscape. Who knows, maybe that's better. If we had say brought in Tara VanDerveer you'd be 100% convinced she could coach, but there could have been ego clashes that maybe won't be there with Lieberman. Nancy has a lot less to be arrogant/this is how I do things and its always worked, about.
Chances are it doesn't matter much at all. She's just an assistant coach, and basically the last one added to an already full staff. She could be more of an observer than anything else.