Are we too small?

[jackdaniel]

With people now days seemingly getting taller,not that far back 6'2" #5 post player was considered tall enough.More and more,they have to go up against 6'3",or taller defender.In fact,players accross the board are getting taller while still maintaining the necessary skill level at their position except maybe point guards

I'm not a taller is better person,but it is a distinct advantage in basketball if everything else is equal.I do not advocate height over skill by no means.We get the most skilled players we can get,regardless of height (within reason, of course)

We are the giants in the Summit League,but post season,against the BCS teams we face ,we seem a little too short,not much,just a little.

If we can't get the tall athletic #5,maybe we can get quicker ,more agile, better shooting,better ball handling wings and forwards around 6'2" instead.That's what I'm seeing i think, in the tallest players we have now.We'll never get a 6'4" Breanna Stewart or the 6'5" Elena Delle Donne who can dribble drive to the hoop,post up, or shoot the three ,but we are getting quicker, more agile ,able to dribble drive ,better ball handling players in the paint.We are progressing ever so slightly,but we're getting there.I'm pretty happy with our recruiting ,all in all.

[OldHare]

Re: Are we too small?

It is not any different when looking at any of the men's programs who do not have an athletic, fast, and talented 6'10"-7' post player. Many very top rated teams may not have that player on the floor either. You cannot say the Lady Jacks will not ever bring a 6'4" or taller player, but at this time there are not a surplus of these women around or the high major programs would all have the talent plus one on the bench. There is likely a few that might be projects available for recruiting, but I would agreee that the coaches are bringing in good athletes for the positions irregardless of height. Although the height is edging upward a bit, the athletic ability is more pronounced as women's athletics continues to mature in talent. I expect an improved and more physical team for the Lady Jacks this next season. There will also be about 4 other teams in the Summit able to say the same. We have been able to enjoy the winning tradition for the women and hope that the preseason favorite for the conference will be the SDSU women.

[zooropa]

Re: Are we too small?

Without being too harsh on the 6'-4+ girls that play basketball around here...

Think back to the best posts SDSU has produced: Katie Lingle is about the biggest 'bruiser' that SDSU has put on the court.

AJ has a certain type of post player that he prefers: One that's capable of picking up enough body control to be able to execute the up-and-unders, turnarounds, in-traffic layups and midrange shots that are part and parcel of SDSU's offense.

6'-4" and up players with that kind of coordination in this game are not going to be playing for SDSU. They're going to be playing for UConn, Stanford, etc.

As with Nagy, AJ hasn't picked up size at the expense of the overall offensive scheme.

And when you figure SDSU is going to lose the last game of the season every time they make the NCAA tournament, I guess it doesn't really matter whether they've got a 6'-4" big that can't run the floor, can't post-up, or one that can--except that it's sooooo much more fun to watch one who can.

[krak-r-jacks]

Re: Are we too small?

i would argue you wouldn't even have to list UConn, Stanford (pair of best women's programs in the country). i would state that any 6'4" young lady with the kind of talent you seem to be mentioning---odds are an FBS school is at the top of her list. i would think it would be a huge coup to get someone with that kind of talent to wear a jackrabbit uni. too many choices out there for that talent.

[91jack]

Re: Are we too small?

I look back at some of our NCAA tourney loses and I don't know how much height has to do with it. Xavier might have been an exception but they had the twin towers. I think the losses to Baylor and Oklahoma came down to out PG not being able to contain their PG. I know that there was more to if than that but I don't mind our bigs being a little shorter. Indiana had a gal that was 6'5" when we played them in the WNIT and she couldn't hang with our posts. They could out run her and hit the 3's over her. I know that doesn't happen all the time but it does work most of the time.
I don't remember how tall Sam Ostrello is but she might have been a tall athletic post that could shoot, handle the ball, etc.. that got away but it is what it is.
I'm not saying I'm against a 6'4" player I'm just saying that we could have won a game or 2 without it in the past.

[rabidrabbit]

Re: Are we too small?

Yes, Xavier is probably the one game where the opponent bigs were the decisive difference. Most of the WNBA quality players vs Jacks, IIRC, Jacks are about 40% (to lazy to look it up) wins.

Taller, quality centers, if the Jacks get them will be projects, and their last two years, they will be difference makers. Jacks WBB has a LOT of HIGH talent, that is virtually interchangeable. Which is great for the type of platooning system AJ employs to wear down opponents. The system works because there is such a minute difference between the players in quality, typically only in experience levels. Will the Jacks see an WNBA draft quality player again? Likely. But if so,that player will have to be incredibly talented to be on the floor over 30 min/game. Vogel is the closest one I've seen in the D-I era.

[goon]

Re: Are we too small?

Personally i think at the college level you have a have a elite point guard more then anything if you want to win. a great post player is great but for mens or womens programs usually it seems to come down to point guards being the difference makers. I think we have always had really really good point guards but that seemed to be the issue for the women is stopping a quick point guard, also until recently that was always a problem for the mens team not being able to stop um.

[Nidaros]

Re: Are we too small?

All I am going to say, but BB is about speed and maybe less about height.

[91jack]

Re: Are we too small?

All I am going to say, but BB is about speed and maybe less about height.

I guess that this is what I was trying to say stated much more clearly.

[Southeast]

Re: Are we too small?

All I am going to say, but BB is about speed and maybe less about height.

More than anything, this is what I have noticed in our five losses in the NCAA tourney.

[goon]

Re: Are we too small?

More than anything, this is what I have noticed in our five losses in the NCAA tourney.

Seems to be that way in college football too.

[SkippyJack]

Re: Are we too small?

Generally the extremely tall ball players ARE somewhat project material out of highschool - it can take a long time for a 6'3" plus lady or a 6' 10" plus guy to grow into their body and be fully co-ordinated. The trick is picking the ones who have a good foundation and who will mature and develop as needed. I think AJ and Nagy do a good job recruiting the right sort of players for their programs and both try to recruit local talent. Our job is to breed bigger stock for them to recruit.

[Prairiehaas]

Re: Are we too small?

Seems to be that way in college football too.

Speed kills?

[jackdaniel]

Re: Are we too small?

Are the Jacks finaly "growing up" a little?I mean getting taller instead of the other meaning.
We have for 2013-2014 (9) players 6 ft or taller,,,but, going thru the rosters of our OOC game opponents,that's not too unusual for most of the teams we play .Stanford has (9),the tallest being 6-5,6-4,a bunch at 6-3.
ND has (6), tallest at 6-4,6-3.
I went thru each teams roster and the shortest team was FGCU with (2)players,tallest (6-3).
Remember when we played Xavier with Phillips and Harris,well,Penn State has (9) 6 footers with a 6-5 and 6-6 player.
Georgetown has (8) with a 6-5 player(I'm sure she blocked a layup on our game highlite reel,went right to Stewert off the backboard though for a put back)

We might be growing up some , but, I like our roster the way it is for now,but in the future ,we might just "grow up" a little more yet.Georgetown was taller,but they couldn't match our ability to shoot.We have a good mix of shooters,athletes and fairly tall players with an inside and perimeter game and deep bench.We are well balanced and we will be a tough win for anyone I think. AJ's done a lot during his tenure at the helm and this years roster really looks good..wish Steph would have played last year with Eide ,Lingle and Dietel,sure would have given the gamecocks something more to worry about..wasn't to be however...."let the games begin"...First exhibition the 27th...Go Jacks!

[OldHare]

Re: Are we too small?

Size might matter to many matchups, but I think that speed and athletic is an important component as well. Yes, an athletic 6' player is preferable to a 5'6" athletic player. Although the speed and ball handling is very important to any matchup as much as height only. The emphasis on high school girl athletics has developed more and more players to the college ranks as an equalizer against the large school programs and a few elite 6'5" women. SDSU has had a decent history for women basketball in the last 20 years and they are at the front of the mid major D1 for recruiting good student athletes who are very athletic (and 6'). 2013-14 ought to be continuing to "grow" this program. The future Jackrabbit women appear to also have many 6'+ in common.