Basketball positions

[Anonymous]

That's why if my kids are playing a travel sport, it is never on a parent coached team. It's a lot easier for a coach to have a philosophy and stick to it when it doesn't mean their kid won't be the star.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why if my kids are playing a travel sport, it is never on a parent coached team. It's a lot easier for a coach to have a philosophy and stick to it when it doesn't mean their kid won't be the star.

I understand that concern and it is so frustrating because there is another head coach but they defer to the parent coach. There are about 5 PGs on this team though but it is all based on height. The "bigs" all play in the back. Is this normal? How does one change this? I just want my DC to develop more skills and while they score plenty--it is all based on one move they are being taught.

[Anonymous]

That's not normal and the solution is finding another team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's not normal and the solution is finding another team.

Sadly true. Some parent coaches suck that way. When I coached, I went out of my way to make sure I had another parent as an assistant and specifically tasked them with being a check on my evaluation of players, positions, and playing time, especially my own daughter's.

Question for the pp with 5 point guards -- are the short girls the better ball handlers? You seem over-fixated on height and have given no indication that any of the tall girls are actually capable of playing the point (or the wing) only that you want your big to develop other skills. If your (or any of the bigs) are actually superior ball handlers and shooters, they should have the opportunity to play up top. But if not, and the best value they offer the team is down low (rebounding and scoring from there) that is where they should play. If you want your player to develop other skills, that is what camps and clinics (and working on your own) are for. I would love for my 6 foot daughter to develop a good outside game, but I completely support her coaches' decisions to play her at 4-5 where she can use her height to best help the team. I should add, for the purpose of this paragraph, I am thinking primarily of travel/AAU level ball. Rec is another discussion (though I would argue that by 5th/6th grade even rec players should be put in positions where they are most likely to succeed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not normal and the solution is finding another team.

Sadly true. Some parent coaches suck that way. When I coached, I went out of my way to make sure I had another parent as an assistant and specifically tasked them with being a check on my evaluation of players, positions, and playing time, especially my own daughter's.

Question for the pp with 5 point guards -- are the short girls the better ball handlers? You seem over-fixated on height and have given no indication that any of the tall girls are actually capable of playing the point (or the wing) only that you want your big to develop other skills. If your (or any of the bigs) are actually superior ball handlers and shooters, they should have the opportunity to play up top. But if not, and the best value they offer the team is down low (rebounding and scoring from there) that is where they should play. If you want your player to develop other skills, that is what camps and clinics (and working on your own) are for. I would love for my 6 foot daughter to develop a good outside game, but I completely support her coaches' decisions to play her at 4-5 where she can use her height to best help the team. I should add, for the purpose of this paragraph, I am thinking primarily of travel/AAU level ball. Rec is another discussion (though I would argue that by 5th/6th grade even rec players should be put in positions where they are most likely to succeed).

I am the poster with the team that has 5 point guards. I am fixated on height only because that's what seems to be the breakdown on the court for our team--shorts play the ball handling positions while the talls play by the hoop. And it does make sense strategically and my player isn't a superior ball handler by any means but all the other posts about parents fixating on finding teams that will provide PG opportunities is what had me wondering if I was doing a disserservice to my kid by not finding such a team for them so that they can develop those skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not normal and the solution is finding another team.

Sadly true. Some parent coaches suck that way. When I coached, I went out of my way to make sure I had another parent as an assistant and specifically tasked them with being a check on my evaluation of players, positions, and playing time, especially my own daughter's.

Question for the pp with 5 point guards -- are the short girls the better ball handlers? You seem over-fixated on height and have given no indication that any of the tall girls are actually capable of playing the point (or the wing) only that you want your big to develop other skills. If your (or any of the bigs) are actually superior ball handlers and shooters, they should have the opportunity to play up top. But if not, and the best value they offer the team is down low (rebounding and scoring from there) that is where they should play. If you want your player to develop other skills, that is what camps and clinics (and working on your own) are for. I would love for my 6 foot daughter to develop a good outside game, but I completely support her coaches' decisions to play her at 4-5 where she can use her height to best help the team. I should add, for the purpose of this paragraph, I am thinking primarily of travel/AAU level ball. Rec is another discussion (though I would argue that by 5th/6th grade even rec players should be put in positions where they are most likely to succeed).

I am the poster with the team that has 5 point guards. I am fixated on height only because that's what seems to be the breakdown on the court for our team--shorts play the ball handling positions while the talls play by the hoop. And it does make sense strategically and my player isn't a superior ball handler by any means but all the other posts about parents fixating on finding teams that will provide PG opportunities is what had me wondering if I was doing a disserservice to my kid by not finding such a team for them so that they can develop those skills.

I think the question would be whether or not they are working on it in practice and whether or not you think they would be given the opportunity if they were capable.

[Anonymous]

DC have always been tall (off the charts tall). In Rec they were always told to run down and wait for the ball. Early on they got lots of points that way plus with rebounds. However they never learned good dribbling skills. DS could compete after first year or two in MS, despite being over 6’ in 8th grade. DD is still a great center (5’9” in 8th grade) but despite playing on county and AAU teams, she plays separate Rec team and I negotiate with coach to provide her opportunities to be a guard.

Push Rec coaches to play taller kids in multiple positions.

[Anonymous]

Like soccer, everyone should be capable of dribbling well first and foremost until they are strong enough to develop their shots, passing and spacing.

[Anonymous]

So back to the OP--is it ok that my kid doesn't play PG or should I be advocating for this? Why is everyone obsessed with this position when strategically can make more sense for taller players to play by the hoop?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So back to the OP--is it ok that my kid doesn't play PG or should I be advocating for this? Why is everyone obsessed with this position when strategically can make more sense for taller players to play by the hoop?

Because the kids who are tall now may not be tall two years from now and you are doing them a big disservice by not letting them play other positions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the OP--is it ok that my kid doesn't play PG or should I be advocating for this? Why is everyone obsessed with this position when strategically can make more sense for taller players to play by the hoop?

Because the kids who are tall now may not be tall two years from now and you are doing them a big disservice by not letting them play other positions.

So are there really teams that coach and let ALL the players be PG? I find that hard to believe. I guess I just don't know what to think of our kids team anymore after all these posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So back to the OP--is it ok that my kid doesn't play PG or should I be advocating for this? Why is everyone obsessed with this position when strategically can make more sense for taller players to play by the hoop?

Because the kids who are tall now may not be tall two years from now and you are doing them a big disservice by not letting them play other positions.

So are there really teams that coach and let ALL the players be PG? I find that hard to believe. I guess I just don't know what to think of our kids team anymore after all these posts.

DDs team plays without set positions. It helps that everyone can dribble, but yes, the bigs to bring the ball up and there are plays where the 5 end up with the ball at the top of the key and gets to make the decision on where to go.

[Anonymous]

When you are trying out for teams, how do you know if a team will be “positionless” before you accept an offer?

[Anonymous]

We have tried to avoid any team where the coach’s kid is a PG. that seems to be like 90% of teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you are trying out for teams, how do you know if a team will be “positionless” before you accept an offer?

You ask the coach about their philosophy