Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="hoophuskee, post: 5086133, member: 3535"] For me I look at it - there is a pg, sg, sf, pf, and center. Within these categories there is simplicity in calling a sg/sf a possible Wing. Or calling a PF a possible “Stretch 4." I can't imagine it any other way. And every position can be accounted for by UCONN players within this structure in which multiple players can play multiple positions. . The term used to account for a player playing across multiple positions is called being "versatile;" all within the structure of pg, sg, sf, pf, and center. For me identifying Paige as an example a Point-Forward this past year makes logic sense within this simple structure for me. Possibly some can view this as "positionless" but I refer to it as being "versatile." In my context/ I don't believe in "positionless' when imo it's clear there are easy identifiable positions that fit within a simple structure. Thus when someone says for example that Paige did not play pg, I will always have a problem with that, She was versatile and played different positions and one was pg imo. And the fact she can do both pg and play other positions such as Stretch 4 pretty seamlessly just further highlights her greatness in that you can put her in multiple positions and the team can still remain elite. As a result, allowing others with not as much versatility to more of a defined role/positions that they can succeed at which can give the best opportunity for overall team success. [B]This point of context "positionless" vs "versatile" is porbably just a question of semantics for me. I'm just more in tune with calling it "versatile." [/B] [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach