Who Will Change The Future Of Women's Basketball...

[MilfordHusky]

When Skylar starts to do things I have yet to see in a game and win a championship I just MIGHT consider her as one of the best. As for now, I don't think so. She is not even close to greats such as Carol Blazejowski, Ann Meyers, Cheryl Miller, Lisa Leslie, Diana Taurasi, Candace Parker, Maya Moore, etc. Now these women CHANGED the game in one way shape or form.

+1. Exactly.

 

[Icebear]

I was just going to make the same addition. She will raise the bar for shooters everywhere.

She has a wonderfully quick and fluid release. Have we ever seen that before? Hee, hee, hee.

 

[sarals24]

That's why I don't see Griner as a "game changer" as well. The direction of the game is not going to be seriously influenced by her, because legions of young girls will not be able to change their games to suddenly become 6"8. The most impressive part of her game is her shot-blocking and defensive prescence, IMO, but how will other teams be able to emulate that? They can't. She's a once-in-a-lifetime player, sure, but not a game-changer in the long term. Not like Cheryl Miller, or Rebecca Lobo, or D or Maya.

 

[MilfordHusky]

She has a wonderfully quick and fluid release. Have we ever seen that before? Hee, hee, hee.

From about 15' away last December. When she was wearing a Mater Dei jersey. Exceptional!

She does not have Maya's elevation, but Kaleena is so smooth and has fabulous hands.

We don't want to get carried away or put pressure on Kaleena, but she does remind me of the Magnificent One in a lot of ways.

 

[Icebear]

She does have Maya's quick release and a better ball flight.

 

[tigger]

All this about Skylar---ok, the truth is---you're gonna sell more tickets to WNBA games if you had a calendar with say...Marie Ferdinand-Harris, Sheryl Swoops, Sue Bird, Kelly and Coco Miller, Ashley Robinson, Lauren Jackson, Candice Wiggins Candace Parker (as much as I even dislike typing her name), etc. in various stages of (un)dressed every year and market it.

At the college level, that is not appropriate nor warranted.

All that aside, back to the thread, it appears that it could be interpreted two ways:
1 who will/might have the most impact on the GAME, causing coaches to adjust and try things they've never done...OR
2 who will/might have the most impact on the PUBLIC, thereby helping to maximize exposure and fan response.

as for #1, so far it's Griner
as for #2, I think that the game--=giving the public a quality product and the personalities of all players will sell the game (as well as that cited above)