to come by. I guess our biggest hope, which didn't pan out was Nick Cicic. He was going to be that great wing shooter we have always wanted. Well, we know how that turned out. Brandon Patterson was a solid player, but not an outside threat. Most of our good shooters have been in the 5'10" to 6" range. Maybe Barky a little taller than that. He might have been our tallest great shooting guard I can recall. Nick Zachary was probably in the 6' range, and going back to Malik, I seem to recall him around 6' also. Maybe some of you old timers can remember really good shooting guards who were taller than our current crop.

(12-30-2010 11:25 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  Maybe some of you old timers can remember really good shooting guards who were taller than our current crop.

You're probably the oldest timer on this board. Now there are some younger, who have been fans longer. Maybe that's what you were talking about.

ouch. That hurt.

We have not always had small guards. Here's a few that come to mind with a listed height of 6'2 or better since I've been following the team. I'm sure there are others as well:
Myron Jackson 6'3
Eddie Powell 6'5
Derrick Owens 6'3
James Scott 6'2
Derrick Hall 6'5
Tony Martin 6'5
Freddie Morgan 6'3
Sherman Lusk 6'3
Robert Greene 6'2
Alan Barksdale 6'4
Laverne Smith 6'3
Mark Green 6'2
They're out there, we just have to go sign them and get them on campus.

Damn. We're obviously shrinking.

(12-30-2010 11:25 AM)outsideualr Wrote:  to come by.

Impossible for us. For us, when they are 6-5, they play center.

Seriously, you are exactly right. A 6-5 players with good guard skills will get snapped up pretty quickly.

I can recall Western always having one of those tall guards who could shoot the 3. I don't know if they have any this year, but I've seen a lot of them throughout the years. Tristen Thompson of North Texas fits that mold.

Maybe Topper can correct me, but I don't think those 6-5 guys are playing the 1 or the 2, at least not most of the time. It is arguable whether the 3 is a guard or a forward.

If they play on the wing, I would call them a guard. If they play more around the basket, I'd call them a forward. I'm not sure there's a perfect answer. Maybe I should have said they have had a lot of good 6'5"-6'6" wing players who could shoot the ball. Probably more accurate.

(12-31-2010 02:45 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  Maybe I should have said they have had a lot of good 6'5"-6'6" wing players who could shoot the ball. Probably more accurate.

Now there you are exactly correct. WKU has had a stablefull of wing players in the 6-4 to 6-7 range who could shoot lights out.

And whose fault that we don't is it? Oh I know. Those horrible facilities we have to recruit to. That Barton is a dump and people are afraid to go out there, so our crowds are bad and recruits don't want to play there. Wait. Now that I think of it, we don't play there anymore do we? Well, there goes that excuse.

(12-31-2010 02:56 PM)outsideualr Wrote:  And whose fault that we don't is it?

It is a recruiting issue. No doubt. Part of it is Shields' evident concept of the 3 position. He seems to regard it as a primarily defensive cog in the wheel. Rebounding and defense have been the primary duties of our 3's. Our scoring rests mainly on the 2, with some help from the 4 or the 5, depending upon who was in those spots. In most schemes, the 3 is primarily an offensive player. In Shields' it is primarily defensive.

(12-31-2010 02:49 PM)MICHAELSPAPPY Wrote:  WKU has had a stablefull of wing players in the 6-4 to 6-7 range who could shoot lights out.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that when you think of WKU basketball, what you first tend to think of it mid-sized players who shoot exceptionally well.

Just for comparison Arkansas Techs point guard is 6'4 and ALL-GSC first team. He's from Heber Springs, as far as I know we didn't look at him. Our 2 is 6'1 and our 3 is a 6'5 shooter. Bigger at every position than UALR. I know there is a difference in D2 and D1 , but Tech was the No. 1 D2 team in the country for 6 weeks last season and they have players that can play and have some height. I don't think its to much to ask to find a shooter over 6'0 tall.

(12-31-2010 03:07 PM)Karl B Wrote:  I don't think its to much to ask to find a shooter over 6'0 tall.

He is on the way. And he is WAY over 6 feet tall.

My politically correct filter is in place, so I can't comment further on this one.

(12-31-2010 03:07 PM)Karl B Wrote:  Just for comparison Arkansas Techs point guard is 6'4 and ALL-GSC first team. He's from Heber Springs, as far as I know we didn't look at him. Our 2 is 6'1 and our 3 is a 6'5 shooter. Bigger at every position than UALR. I know there is a difference in D2 and D1 , but Tech was the No. 1 D2 team in the country for 6 weeks last season and they have players that can play and have some height. I don't think its to much to ask to find a shooter over 6'0 tall.

Just a guess, because I have no hard facts, but I would think that one of the main differences in the two levels would be quickness.

I've been told that a lot of players at the D2 level are D1 players who could not qualify academically to play D1. And from some of the D2 players I've seen in the past, several could have started for UALR.