Bad news...Ed Morrow Jr. Sidelined

[Fullbacksympathy]

6 hours ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Assuming he can stay out of foul trouble he's going to get 20 minutes. The pattern of him playing more minutes when Ed plays less is fairly straightforward. Considering how well Ed has played (and Jacobson recently) it's not super surprising that the very big but raw Jordy hasn't seen much PT. Did anyone notice Barret Benson played 0 minutes against us for NW?

 

His best game easily was Kansas where he put up 10pts and 8reb in 19 minutes so he is capable. He also has 6 games this year where he has more fouls than points.

 

I think the foul trouble has a little to do with anticipating not having many minutes on the floor.  The "I have to make plays or I won't play" mentality that young bigs often get.  It's understandable that his minutes have gone down of late because Jacobson has been playing so well (relieved to see this, actually).  I don't really think Jordy is that raw as much as he just needs to get more explosion.  I've been pretty amazed at some of the low post position he can get with that big frame, but finishing is another story.  It's gonna be scary how easy those buckets will be with some more S&C.  

[Norm Peterson]

16 hours ago, brfrad said:

Don't get me wrong, I'd much rather have Morrow on the court.  He does a bunch of the dirty work for us.  It's why we are among the conference leaders in offensive rebounds.  However, in our wins, he is averaging 10.7 and 6.7.  In our losses, he is averaging 9.3 and 9.4.  Watson, in our wins has 16.8 PPG.  In our losses, he is avg. 11.9 PPG. 

 

Not sure your point, and I don't say that to be mean.  I think your point seems to be that our success or lack of it seems to be more related to how Glynn Watson plays; therefore, Ed's not as important as Watson, and that might be true in a sense.

 

But what you do when you take Ed out of the lineup is that you take 10 and 8 out of the lineup on almost a nightly basis.  We were competitive in the loss to Clemson, for example, in part because Ed Morrow was a beast on the inside and got a double-double.  We probably don't beat Indiana without another Ed Morrow DD.

 

There are a few parts on this team that have backups who could step in and function pretty well.  There are basically three non-replaceable parts where we're a totally different team without them, and Ed is one of those 3.

Edited January 12, 2017 by Norm Peterson

[Lifetimesker]

29 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Not sure your point, and I don't say that to be mean.  I think your point seems to be that our success or lack of it seems to be more related to how Glynn Watson plays; therefore, Ed's not as important as Watson, and that might be true in a sense.

 

But what you do when you take Ed out of the lineup is that you take 10 and 8 out of the lineup on almost a nightly basis.  We were competitive in the loss to Clemson, for example, in part because Ed Morrow was a beast on the inside and got a double-double.  We probably don't beat Indiana without another Ed Morrow DD.

 

There are a few parts on this team that have backups who could step in and function pretty well.  There are basically three non-replaceable parts where we're a totally different team without them, and Ed is one of those 3.

 I agree 100% Norm.  I am having a hard time seeing where other players can shift and take on different roles that could possibly fill the void that Ed leaves in the middle.  But, I'm optimistic that by Saturday, coach will have something figured out! ?

Edited January 12, 2017 by Lifetimesker

[Dean Smith]

1 hour ago, LK1 said:

 

I think the foul trouble has a little to do with anticipating not having many minutes on the floor.  The "I have to make plays or I won't play" mentality that young bigs often get.  It's understandable that his minutes have gone down of late because Jacobson has been playing so well (relieved to see this, actually).  I don't really think Jordy is that raw as much as he just needs to get more explosion.  I've been pretty amazed at some of the low post position he can get with that big frame, but finishing is another story.  It's gonna be scary how easy those buckets will be with some more S&C.  

Yes he has no explosiveness but boy I hope he's raw and we are not looking at the finished product.

 

Some play by play? said he predicted Jordy would be really good before he was done because he has the size and most importantly, he wants to be good and is willing to work to be good. Great compliment. Before he is done he will be more explosive, wil not always have to turn right shoulder, will consistently catch the ball and start finishing at a much higher rate. 

 

I can see guys looking at him open in the post (one thing he does do fairly well now is seal), and you can see them thinking, "What are the odds something good will happen if I throw him the ball? And then they pass it somewhere else. 

 

On the the other hand I've seen Glynn throw him lobs and Tai threw him a full court pass. As it's happening I'm thinking, "He's not going to catch that." Now he didn't catch either but it's a good sign that his teammates have some trust in him and as he developes, that trust will grow. 

[Huskerpapa]

Jordy is an upper body away from being pretty good.  We can also talk about experience, et al.  But when you watch Jordy it appears he is thinking, and that creates hesitation.  He has to let it flow and live with what happens.  He comes out of the game and it looks like his head is spinning.  He is asking questions, getting input and then sits and thinks about it.  If and when he reenters, he is even more mechanical rather than spontaneous, taking what is available to him. 

[brfrad]

4 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Not sure your point, and I don't say that to be mean.  I think your point seems to be that our success or lack of it seems to be more related to how Glynn Watson plays; therefore, Ed's not as important as Watson, and that might be true in a sense.

 

But what you do when you take Ed out of the lineup is that you take 10 and 8 out of the lineup on almost a nightly basis.  We were competitive in the loss to Clemson, for example, in part because Ed Morrow was a beast on the inside and got a double-double.  We probably don't beat Indiana without another Ed Morrow DD.

 

There are a few parts on this team that have backups who could step in and function pretty well.  There are basically three non-replaceable parts where we're a totally different team without them, and Ed is one of those 3.

Yeah, I was thinking that Watson seems to be up and down.  When he is up, like Indiana, Maryland, and Iowa we win.  When he is down, Northwestern, Kansas, and Creighton, we lose.  I also seem to be cutting Morrow's contribution down.  I think he was hurt against Northwestern.  A healthy Morrow, would have given us a better chance for a victory. 

 

I think between Horne, McVeigh, Roby, and Jordy we can get that extra 10 points out of them.  The question is where are we going to find the 8 rebounds a game (although reading the story of the injury, Morrow has been hurt for a few games, and his rebounding numbers have not been as good)?

 

Again, I'm hoping we can find a way to 2-1 and get Morrow back by the Northwestern game in 2 weeks. 

[hhcmatt]

13 hours ago, brfrad said:

get Morrow back by the Northwestern game in 2 weeks. 

 

Miles mentioned Purdue in his presser in regards to not knowing their lineup. Seems possible we might not get back Morrow until at least February.

[aphilso1]

9 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Miles mentioned Purdue in his presser in regards to not knowing their lineup. Seems possible we might not get back Morrow until at least February.

 

Or maybe Zay has worked his way into the starting lineup by then?  Or maybe Tim's tinkering with the idea of giving Chimichanga the start to match up with Purdue's giant frontline?  It's possible that not knowing our lineup against Purdue is a good thing, rather than an indication of Ed having a lingering injury...

 

But yeah, Ed still being out is the most likely reason, unfortunately.