Good lord, I don't need help reading - I read and interpret for a living. The three statements are of increasing specificity. First he says we haven't had a good graduate transfer in a while. This statement covers all players, all positions. "In a while" is vague but presumably means some number of years. The second clause of that sentence goes on to clarify that it has been years since we have had a guard. It is poorly worded and unclear but, as part of the same sentence, should be read as a clarification of the first clause - so, we haven't had any good grad transfer players in a while, and, more specifically, we haven't had a [good] guard [grad transfer] in years. I am not sure how 'in years' is different from 'in a while', but whatever. Finally, to really nail the point home, the last sentence further clarifies that, in fact, Coron Williams is the last good transfer guard we have had. So now we know the timeframe we are talking about when he says we haven't had a good guard grad transfer in years - since when Coron played.
So, in his opinion, Coron Williams was the last grad transfer guard we had that was good. Therefore he either thinks Austin was not a guard or was not good. Is there some other possible interpretation that I am missing?
BTW - this is fun to me and I am not really taking it seriously - in case there was any confusion on that point...