Geno states "Still looking where to play .... Lou."

[meyers7]

I've been using the 4 to designate the wing who shoots 3's (KML last year, KLS this year): 1. the point guard; 2. the shooting guard; 3. the power forward; 4. the small forward; 5. the center. Those are the names you use, and for a typical team they work. But UConn was short of bigs last year lacking a true center (5) and had only smallish forwards in Tuck and Gabby. Stewart played the 5 for the most part.

Yea, no.
1 - PG
2 - SG or Off guard
3 - Small forward, Wing
4 - Power Forward
5 - Center, Post

Stewart has been playing the 4 position pretty much her entire career here (while she may be a 4/3 type player). Defensively on occasion she'll guard the opposing 5/center (if they have one).
Tuck, while more naturally a 4/3, has been playing the 5.

 

[Kibitzer]

I have never bought in to the rigid slotting of players into the 1 (PG), 2 (SG), 3 (SF), 4 (PF), and 5 (C, or Post). Even a casual observer of UConn has seen Geno pay no apparent attention to the 1-5 designation as he subs freely.

More recently I was drawn to the manner a bb writer on The Boston Globe organized the Celtics' roster into four categories: ball-handlers, wings, swings, and bigs.

So I tried to apply this concept to our Huskies, thus:

• Ball-handlers: Jefferson, Nurse, Chong, Polido.
• Wings: Stewie, KLS, Ekmark.
• Swings: Gabby, Pheese, Lawlor.
• Bigs: Tuck, Butler, Boykin.

As I watched last night's game, it worked for me. Only one strict rule: Must have one ball-handler on court at all times. With the others, mix and match For example, with all bigs out in second half, two swings (Gabby & Pheese) got more PT. And the starting lineup comprised two BH's, two wings, and one big.

These designations seem more logical than 1-5, so I'll stay with it.

 

[BroadwayVa]

Yea, no.
1 - PG
2 - SG or Off guard
3 - Small forward, Wing
4 - Power Forward
5 - Center, Post

Stewart has been playing the 4 position pretty much her entire career here (while she may be a 4/3 type player). Defensively on occasion she'll guard the opposing 5/center (if they have one).
Tuck, while more naturally a 4/3, has been playing the 5.

Sure looks like Geno has no concept of what position his player should play????? When will he use Mo Jefferson as a 5??
I am facetious but I wouldn't put money on Geno not doing that if he thought a fast player would beat their Center!!

 

[HoopsFan21]

Yea, no.
1 - PG
2 - SG or Off guard
3 - Small forward, Wing
4 - Power Forward
5 - Center, Post

Stewart has been playing the 4 position pretty much her entire career here (while she may be a 4/3 type player). Defensively on occasion she'll guard the opposing 5/center (if they have one).
Tuck, while more naturally a 4/3, has been playing the 5.

That's how I view the position assignments as well. Didn't realize there could be this much debate as UConn stuck pretty closely to the same lineup last year: 1=Mo, 2=Kia, 3=KML, 4=Stewie, 5=Tuck.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

Can you be a little more specific. I saw several players tonight. In order of most impressive ( Stewie,Kia, Gabby, MoJeff, Morgan, Collier, KLS, Lawlor, Courtney & Pulido).

I'd like to, but I forget. Naw, just kidding. I was making reference to KLS with that remark, but it could also reference Gabby, who pleased me very much last night. I would not agree with your rankings, but I'm a lover, not a fighter, so I take the 5th on the balance of our mutual thoughts(some being more mutual than others, some not so much).

 

[BroadwayVa]

I have never bought in to the rigid slotting of players into the 1 (PG), 2 (SG), 3 (SF), 4 (PF), and 5 (C, or Post). Even a casual observer of UConn has seen Geno pay no apparent attention to the 1-5 designation as he subs freely.

More recently I was drawn to the manner a bb writer on The Boston Globe organized the Celtics' roster into four categories: ball-handlers, wings, swings, and bigs.

So I tried to apply this concept to our Huskies, thus:

• Ball-handlers: Jefferson, Nurse, Chong, Polido.
• Wings: Stewie, KLS, Ekmark.
• Swings: Gabby, Pheese, Lawlor.
• Bigs: Tuck, Butler, Boykin.

As I watched last night's game, it worked for me. Only one strict rule: Must have one ball-handler on court at all times. With the others, mix and match For example, with all bigs out in second half, two swings (Gabby & Pheese) got more PT. And the starting lineup comprised two BH's, two wings, and one big.

These designations seem more logical than 1-5, so I'll stay with it.

The term used in unimportant as most designations for people are--It has been apparent that Geno uses talent and motivation where he determines it is best used. Nothing about UConn is "rigid". If anything is close to rigid within Geno's system it may be point guard.
This old brain is locked into the old format of player positions, and these new grouping/designation and the intra-usage of these term is confusing. I understand two of the terms you use---BIGs (I'm certain that isn't Jefferson) and Ball handlers (I'm certain this is Jefferson)--wings--not an angel among them, and my swing was on my front porch.

Never disagree with Kibitzer--just a comment.

 

[CocoHusky]

I have never bought in to the rigid slotting of players into the 1 (PG), 2 (SG), 3 (SF), 4 (PF), and 5 (C, or Post). Even a casual observer of UConn has seen Geno pay no apparent attention to the 1-5 designation as he subs freely.

More recently I was drawn to the manner a bb writer on The Boston Globe organized the Celtics' roster into four categories: ball-handlers, wings, swings, and bigs.

So I tried to apply this concept to our Huskies, thus:

• Ball-handlers: Jefferson, Nurse, Chong, Polido.
• Wings: Stewie, KLS, Ekmark.
• Swings: Gabby, Pheese, Lawlor.
• Bigs: Tuck, Butler, Boykin.

As I watched last night's game, it worked for me. Only one strict rule: Must have one ball-handler on court at all times. With the others, mix and match For example, with all bigs out in second half, two swings (Gabby & Pheese) got more PT. And the starting lineup comprised two BH's, two wings, and one big.

These designations seem more logical than 1-5, so I'll stay with it.

Kib for media like the Boston globe these designations will work just fine. The primary use of the position designations (by Numbers) is a shorthand for the purpose of drawing up basketball plays. Think of it this way =to military symbology so instead of writing out the unit designation like Calvary you use the crossed sabres and suddenly everyone knows what type of unit you are talking about.

 

[CocoHusky]

That's how I view the position assignments as well. Didn't realize there could be this much debate as UConn stuck pretty closely to the same lineup last year: 1=Mo, 2=Kia, 3=KML, 4=Stewie, 5=Tuck.

I'm actually not sure there is "much debate". But this is the Boneyard and there is always at least one outside the box-not that's a bad thing.

 

[BroadwayVa]

I'd like to, but I forget. Naw, just kidding. I was making reference to KLS with that remark, but it could also reference Gabby, who pleased me very much last night. I would not agree with your rankings, but I'm a lover, not a fighter, so I take the 5th on the balance of our mutual thoughts(some being more mutual than others, some not so much).

Some may think KLS was not up to her standards, maybe--but to me the major break through was making the 3 in the 3rd quarter. I'm pretty sure Geno said keep shooting. I liked what I saw.
Gabby, hit 6 of 7 free throws--huge break through compared to last year. 10 Rebounds 16 points in 20 something minutes.
Now let us see if she makes a jumper from 15 and rebounds against Bigs. Yet I am very much impressed.
Maybe for another thread----Did Geno make some kind of statement starting KLS and his first and second off the bench were Gabby then Collier??

 

[huskeynut]

I have never bought in to the rigid slotting of players into the 1 (PG), 2 (SG), 3 (SF), 4 (PF), and 5 (C, or Post). Even a casual observer of UConn has seen Geno pay no apparent attention to the 1-5 designation as he subs freely.

More recently I was drawn to the manner a bb writer on The Boston Globe organized the Celtics' roster into four categories: ball-handlers, wings, swings, and bigs.

So I tried to apply this concept to our Huskies, thus:

• Ball-handlers: Jefferson, Nurse, Chong, Polido.
• Wings: Stewie, KLS, Ekmark.
• Swings: Gabby, Pheese, Lawlor.
• Bigs: Tuck, Butler, Boykin.

As I watched last night's game, it worked for me. Only one strict rule: Must have one ball-handler on court at all times. With the others, mix and match For example, with all bigs out in second half, two swings (Gabby & Pheese) got more PT. And the starting lineup comprised two BH's, two wings, and one big.

These designations seem more logical than 1-5, so I'll stay with it.

Have to agree here. The "old" monikers of the 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 are disappearing. Players once thought of as 4's or 5's because of their height are disappearing. We are seeing players like Stewie who can play more than one spot. These bigger players are also coming to the college game with the ability to be decent 3 point shooters, much like a lot of European players. KLS will probably be one such player. And remember, Stef developed that foul line jumper that expanded her game and made her more than just a post or 5 player.

The only old name that is still needed is the 1 or point guard. No matter how much talent you have, without the playmaker you are going to have trouble on the court. A remember, Geno likes his guards to run the offense and shot - the combo guard. And we have MoJeff and Kia plus Cong so we are fine.

 

[CocoHusky]

I'd like to, but I forget. Naw, just kidding. I was making reference to KLS with that remark, but it could also reference Gabby, who pleased me very much last night. I would not agree with your rankings, but I'm a lover, not a fighter, so I take the 5th on the balance of our mutual thoughts(some being more mutual than others, some not so much).

I would be very disappointed if you agreed with my rankings and even more disappointed if you though I would actually fight you over them.

 

[Kibitzer]

Kib for media like the Boston globe these designations will work just fine. The primary use of the position designations (by Numbers) is a shorthand for the purpose of drawing up basketball plays. Think of it this way =to military symbology so instead of writing out the unit designation like Calvary you use the crossed sabres and suddenly everyone knows what type of unit you are talking about.

Point well taken, but coaches draw up plays in the huddle, not Boneyarders here. Too bad for the Confederates that Lee lost track of his Cavalry at Gettysburg.

 

[RockyMTblue2]

I would be very disappointed if you agreed with my rankings and even more disappointed if you though I would actually fight you over them.

Eagles don't do well trying to fly off with huskies of any color, unless they are babies.

 

[TitleTown]

Have to agree here. The "old" monikers of the 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 are disappearing. Players once thought of as 4's or 5's because of their height are disappearing. We are seeing players like Stewie who can play more than one spot. These bigger players are also coming to the college game with the ability to be decent 3 point shooters, much like a lot of European players. KLS will probably be one such player. .

These players are now called stretch 4s.

 

[CocoHusky]

Point well taken, but coaches draw up plays in the huddle, not Boneyarders here. Too bad for the Confederates that Lee lost track of his Cavalry at Gettysburg.

Boneyarders have made several suggestions to Geno regarding starters , playing time and bad language so drawing up plays might be the next logical evolution. Lee losing track of the Cav at Gettysburg was not nearly as fatal a mistake as was his very vague order to Ewell to "Take that hill, if practicable." As I'm sure you know taking a hill is hard work and it is never going to be practical.

 

[JRRRJ]

I would be very disappointed if you agreed with my rankings and even more disappointed if you though I would actually fight you over them.

There'll be no disapointment for you on the first point from this quarter...

 

[Gus Mahler]

Regarding position designations: John Wooden once said, with tongue-somewhat-in-cheek, that he didn't think he could coach today because of all the specialization. He said when he coached he just had guards and forwards and centers.