Anthony Cassino

Staff writer Anthony Cassino takes a look at Quincy Pondexter’s prospects for the upcoming NBA Draft.

by Anthony Cassino – Staff Writer

Quincy’s up-and-down career at UW has certainly given a roller-coaster ride to his draft prospects. He came in with many thinking he was a potential one-and-done player, and was electric at times as a freshman. He lost the favor of scouts as a sophomore, moved back onto their radar as a junior, then impressed with his play as a senior.

What the mock sites say: NBADraft.net has Pondexter going with the 36th pick to Sacramento, which would be cool for him. It’s close to his hometown of Fresno and he’d reunite with Huskies Spencer Hawes and Jon Brockman.

Draftexpress.com likes QPon more, slotting him as the 22nd pick to the Thunder – a nightmare for myself, as it would clash my hatred of the Thunder with my love of Quincy Pondexter.

What he needs to work on: Simply put, he needs to become a better shooter. At the next level he’s going to have to show that he can hit the three to be a major contributor. He shot it well as a senior, but 35% in a small sample isn’t going to win anybody over, especially when you add in the NBA’s longer three-point line.

He’d also be helped by showing that he can handle the rock. At UW he always had a Justin Dentmon, Isaiah Thomas, Venoy Overton or some combination thereof on the floor with him, so Quincy never really needed to help handling the ball in the full court. It’s a skill he may or may not have, he just hasn’t had the opportunity to display it.

Why isn’t he playing in postseason tournaments?: Pondexter’s stance is that he’s going to take some time to recharge before hitting the gym hard, so he’s skipping Portsmouth and other opportunities to showcase his skills. It looks like he’s already formulated a plan with his family as to what they’re going to do. But remember that he hasn’t signed with an agent yet, and once he does, things may change.

I think it’s a good thing that he’s not playing in the NABC All-Star game though. Those kind of games make nobody look good: the players are generally just trying to impress people, which leads to ball-hogging and turnovers from guys trying to make too many flashy plays.

Final thoughts: The genral feeling is that Quincy is likely a late-first or early-second round pick, though that could rise or fall depending on how he looks at the NBA Combine and in his individual workouts. There’s also the possibility that one team falls in love with him and he jumps quite a bit, some say even as high as the tail end of the lottery.

I wouldn’t get my hopes up for that. Odds are he’s picked somewhere in the 20-30 range, which will be good for Quincy, as he’ll get to play for a contender, work on his game, and adjust to the NBA.

Also of note, if Quincy falls into the second round, it wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world for him. Due to the NBA’s collective bargaining agreement, first round salaries are slotted and non-negotiable, something that doesn’t apply to players drafted in the second round. It’s not uncommon at all for players drafted at the end of the first round to make less money than players drafted in the second round.

Thanks for coming!

Staff writer Anthony Cassino takes a look at what effect, if any, the Huskies’ postseason run might have on the immediate futures of some of the team’s most valuable contributors.

by Anthony Cassino – Staff Writer

With the Huskies making a run into the Sweet 16 and potentially beyond, the excitement around the program is palpable. It’s certainly a lot of fun as a fan, but it will undoubtedly have an effect on the program beyond the feel-good aspect.

What does it mean for the coaches? The players? The recruits? Let’s take a look.

Lorenzo Romar: Sure, some have been critical of the job Romar has done, but let’s look at this realistically: Prior to hiring Romar in 2002, the Huskies had been to the NCAA Tournament 10 times (in 63 years of the Tournament’s existence). In eight seasons with the program, Coach already has five bids to go along with the school’s only two Pac-10 Tournament championships, and their first regular season title since the conference expanded to 10 teams.

Since LoRo’s arrival on Montlake, he’s taken the Dawgs to three Sweet 16’s — one more than Gonzaga and the same number as UCLA and Arizona in that time span. In short, the UW Basketball history books didn’t have much written in them before coach Romar was hired unless you want to hang your hat on the accomplishments of our 1953 Final Four squad. Now the dean of Pac-10 coaches, Romar can probably coach at UW for as long as he wants to. With the talent he brings to the program he should be able to get the team to the tournament on a yearly basis and challenge for conference championships regularly.

But if he continues to do that, will he be tempted to take another job? In my opinion, probably not. Washington is his alma mater, he’s got his players in the program and the school is located in the most fertile basketball recruiting beds in the world (more NBA players come from Seattle per capita than any other city). It’d be a pretty tough package to walk away from. Add to that the fact that there aren’t any high profile jobs available – right now Oregon is at the top of the pile. It just doesn’t seem like Coach is going anywhere anytime soon.

Recruiting: Winning games certainly never hurts when teenagers are looking at the program and watching the tournament. When you look at Enes Kanter, he committed to the Huskies early when things looked really good, then opened it up when the team was dropping games in the middle of its schedule. Showing that the program is capable of making a deep run might go a long way toward showing him that he’ll likely get a chance to play on college basketball’s biggest stage.

The same is true with respect to Terrence Jones. When these kids imagine themselves playing college hoops, the first thing they probably think about is what they’re going to be doing in March. Ultimately, the recruits in the 2010 class have probably seen enough at this point so it’s going to come down to other things like location and coaching. We may actually see bigger returns in the 2011 class and further down the road due to this year’s tournament run.

Quincy Pondexter: He’s gotten the attention of many in the media for his play in the tournament despite putting up numbers below his season averages. He hasn’t the kind of monster tournament that would likely shoot him up draft boards, but by hitting big shots when they counted and leading his team to impressive victories, he certainly hasn’t done anything to hurt his draft stock either.

Isaiah Thomas: For Isaiah to get a look from the NBA, he’s going to have to show that he can hit the three-ball and be a distributor. In the past two games he’s done exactly that, but because of his size Thomas would probably have to do a lot more than he has to get onto the radar of scouts, and do it over the course of an entire season. The Tournament hasn’t changed the fact that I.T. will undoubtedly be back on Montlake next season.

Elston Turner: How good has Turner been in Tournament play? And where has this player been all season? You have to think that with his recent play he has at least cemented himself as the third guard on the team behind Thomas and Venoy Overton. He certainly ended any Turner/Suggs debate, and his play is clearly going to be very important for the success of the program over the next two years.

Matthew Bryan-Amaning: MBA may have moved closer to the radar of pro scouts with his play during the Dawgs’ winning streak, but he’s still not on it. For him to be viewed as a legitimate NBA prospect he’s going to need to start taking over games regularly, not just a couple of times a year. He could have that opportunity next year when he’s a more primary focus of the Huskies’ offense.

What do you think? What kind of upside can fans expect from a run like this through the Tournament? Or is there any danger of defections, swelled heads, or other negatives coming from the Dawgs’ recent success?

Thanks for coming!

New staff writer Anthony Cassino takes a thorough look at most of the teams the Huskies might see in the East Region if they can make a run through the NCAA Tournament. Thanks, Anthony, for the breakdown!

by Anthony Cassino – Staff Writer

Opening Round Opponent: Marquette (six seed)

What They Do Well: The Golden Eagles take care of the ball as well as anybody, turning it over just 15.8% of the time (fith best in the nation). They are an excellent shooting team. Nearly all of their players can shoot the three-ball, hitting 40.6% from three point range this season. Jimmy Butler is one of the most efficient offensive players in college basketball. His offensive rating of 131.4 is 3^rd best in the nation. He’s 6-6, and can score from anywhere on the floor.

Marquette’s weaknesses: Interior defense is a big issue for Marquette, as they are allowing their opponents to shoot 50% from inside the arc. Their lack of size (no regular players over 6’7″) means that teams with solid big men can give them fits. They are also lacking in depth, having only six players who log serious minutes, and a seventh who gives them around 10 minutes a game.

How They Match Up: The Huskies have a size advantage with Matthew Bryan-Amaning in the post, and the Dawgs will likely look to get the ball down low as often as possible. The matchup of Lazar Hayward and Quincy Pondexter will be one to keep an eye on, as they’re of similar size and do a lot of the same things for their team. Marquette doesn’t have much shot-blocking at all, so Isaiah Thomas should be able to score if he can penetrate the defense.

What to expect: This should be an interesting game because of the contrasting styles. Marquette plays slow; the Huskies push the tempo. Marquette shoots the three well; UW defends the three well. Marquette takes care of the ball; the Huskies are good at forcing turnovers. It seems like whichever team has the stronger will should have the upper hand.

Potential Second Round Opponent: New Mexico (three seed)

What They Do Well: The Lobos are a phenomenal defensive rebounding team, allowing opponents to get offensive rebounds just 26.9% of the time (fifth best in the nation). They’re one of those teams that does pretty much everything well: they’re above average at shooting the three, they block shots, they don’t turn the ball over and they get to the free throw line.

Weaknesses: Their free throw shooting leaves something to be desired (67.7%) and like Marquette, you can score inside the arc against them (allowing opponents to shoot 49.1% from two).

How They Match Up: Because New Mexico does so many things well, they’re a tough matchup for most teams. Since Lorenzo Romar arrived at UW, the Dawgs have hung their hat on their offensive rebounding, yet that’s one of the things that New Mexico is best at preventing. Should the Huskies meet New Mexico, scoring inside would be key, so it would be imperative for Matthew Bryan-Amaning to stay out of foul trouble.

Potential Second Round Opponent: Montana (fourteen seed)

What They Do Well: Another good three-point shooting team, at 39.8% (11^th in the nation), but really, they shoot the ball well from anywhere, connecting at a rate of 52%. The best thing they did all season, though, was get hot and win the Big Sky tournament to get the automatic bid – if they hadn’t they wouldn’t be dancing.

Weaknesses: They don’t force many turnovers, and allow teams to shoot the lights out against them. They don’t really have the talent to play with the upper echelon teams in the tournament for more than a game or two. (Although, Montana did give the Huskies all they could handle in a 63-59 UW win earlier this year.)

How They Match Up: Montana threw a zone at the Huskies that gave them fits for most of the game earlier this year. If not for a spurious foul on Brian Qvale which forced him to the bench, they could have beaten the Huskies. However, this is definitely not that same Husky team, and UW would be the favorite by a longshot on talent alone. For Montana to get by New Mexico, Anthony Johnson would have to get hot so the Grizzlies could ride him like they did in their conference tournament. If they were to meet the Huskies the same would be true, though that may not be enough against any of these teams.

Potential Sweet 16 Opponent: West Virginia (two seed)

What They Do Well: They create a ton of second-chance opportunities as the second-best offensive rebounding team in the natio.  They take care of the ball and block their fair share of shots. They have the talent to match up with just about any team in the nation.

Weaknesses: Relative to their seed, their defense isn’t overwhelming. Their field goal defense doesn’t blow you away, and they don’t force that many turnovers. They also tend to put their opponent on the line quite a bit.

How They Match Up: They play at an incredibly slow tempo, which is curious for a team with as much talent as WVU. Their size would be troublesome for the Dawgs as their starters go 6’2″, 6’7″, 6’7″, 6’8″, 6’9″, and there’s not a player in their rotation under 6’2″. This is a team that could very easily have been a one seed, so the Dawgs would need to play their best ball to beat them.

Potential Sweet 16 Opponent: Clemson (seven seed)

What They Do Well: Force a lot of turnovers and don’t give their opposition good looks at three-pointers. A very good defensive team.

Weaknesses: They turn the ball over a lot and aren’t a good free throw shooting team. The Tigers will let you beat them on the offensive glass.

How They Match Up: The Huskies would be really lucky to see Clemson in the Sweet 16. Two of the biggest things you can’t do against the Huskies (allow offensive rebounds and turn the ball over) are Clemson’s two biggest faults.

Potential Sweet 16 Opponent: Missouri (ten seed)

What They Do Well: Defense, defense, defense. Missouri presses and traps to force a ton of turnovers. If you’re not prepared for the pressure they apply they will run you out of the building. If they get rolling, they use their defense to score quickly, and can play themselves right back into a game it looked like they were out of.

Weaknesses: One of the worst defensive rebounding teams in the nation as a result of their style. If you can break their full court defense, you can get a lot of easy baskets.

How They Match Up: Missouri is annoying for anybody to play, but the UW has three capable point guards, and forwards who can handle the ball well which is a must against Missouri’s pressure. UW’s speed getting the ball upcourt would make it tough for the Tigers to get their defense set up. A UW/Mizzou matchup would be incredible to watch because of how quickly the teams would play.

Potential Elite 8 Opponent: Kentucky (one seed)

What They Do Well: Pretty much everything.

Weaknesses: Not many. Could be better with turnovers (forcing and preventing) and shoot the three better, but that’s picking nits.

How They Match Up: There’s a reason Kentucky’s a one seed. They have a ton of talent and are well coached. They’re young though, so they’re not always consistent. But, neither are the Huskies. It would take a great effort to beat them.

Potential Elite 8 Opponent: Temple (five seed)

What They Do Well: One of the best defensive teams in the nation. Best effective field goal defense of anybody in college basketball.

Weaknesses: Don’t force turnovers and don’t get to the free throw line.

How They Match Up: They’re a lot like the Cougars under the Bennetts. They play good defense and really slow, so it’s hard to blow them out, but they also let teams hang around. Lorenzo Romar didn’t have a lot of success against that style of play. Expect every Temple game in the tourney to be pretty close.

Potential Elite 8 Opponent: Wisconsin (four seed)

What They Do Well: They’re a typical Bo Ryan team: defense and rebounding. They very rarely turn the ball over.

Weaknesses: They’re not great on the offensive glass, but mostly because they’re a “get back on defense” type of team.

How They Match Up: Stylistically, they’re the exact opposite of Washington. The Badgers would be a matchup nightmare because they do everything the exact opposite way the Huskies do, and they’re better at doing it their way than we are at ours.

Thanks for coming!

Mark J. Terrill / AP

Here’s some analysis on last night’s 59-52 win over Oregon State in the quarterfinals of the Pac-10 Tournament. Today, we hear from Anthony Cassino, who also writes for another great Huskies’ site: UW Dawg Pound.

by Anthony Cassino

We’ve all heard the cliché that this team’s offense is fueled by its defense, and last night the defense got an assist from an unlikely source: the rim. With Josh Tarver and Jared Cunningham on a two-on-none break, Tarver threw a dunk off the back of the iron, and almost as quickly as the ball shot out of the cylinder, the momentum of the game changed.

The Huskies came out with no energy, and played (in my estimation) their worst half of basketball this season to open the game. The shots weren’t falling, and when the Dawg defense was sound, Oregon State bailed themselves out by knocking down desperation three-pointers (the Beavers hit on their first six from deep).

Isaiah Thomas and Quincy Pondexter combined for just six points in the first half on only one made shot. There were scoreless stretches for the Huskies of 7:01 and 4:11.

The second half didn’t look like it was starting any better, with the Dawgs going scoreless for the first 2:46. But, almost on cue, Tarver missed his breakaway dunk and the real Huskies decided to show up and play some basketball. The team started getting to the free throw line, forcing turnovers and getting offensive boards, as Thomas and Turner knocked down threes and Oregon State’s three-point shooting came back down to earth.

A 27-8 run commenced and the Dawgs never looked back, as they made liars of those who say it’s hard to beat a team three times in one season. (In fact, the Pac-10 has had three teams go 3-0 against an opponent this year. And that number will be four if the Huskies can beat Stanford.)

Player of the Game: Isaiah Thomas. He didn’t have his best game (4/16 from the field) but he made some big threes and fueled the team in the second half. Once he got rid of the glove, his shot improved.

Play of the Game: Justin Holiday made a slick pass from the top of the key to a cutting Quincy Pondexter, who laid the ball in and got fouled. The play brought the game to within three points, and made it feel like the Huskies had taken control.

Unsung Hero: Elston Turner. The sophomore kept the team from digging itself into too big a hole by hitting back-to-back shots in the first half (one of them a three). He also hit the three pointer that gave UW the lead they never relinquished.

Headscratcher of the Game: When the Dawgs were struggling in the first half, Lorenzo Romar tried a lineup of Abdul Gaddy, Elston Turner, Scott Suggs, Darnell Gant and Matthew Bryan-Amaning. Individually, I like all of those players a lot. As a group? Not so much. I don’t know how Coach expected that group to create shots.

Stat of the Game: Tyreese Breshers did not commit a foul. This is the first time that’s happened since the Portland State game in which, I should add, Breshers did not play.

Thanks for coming!