Jacobson Gone?

[Blindcheck]

We are going to miss Jacobsen...every team needs guys like him....He did his job when he was in the game, he boxed out...which often led to other guys getting the rebound, but without guys like Jacobsen doing their job,  guards like Tai Webster aren't grabbing those rebounds, the offensvie player that is being boxed out is grabbing the ball.

 

Is Jacobsen replaceable, yes.....but we need guys on the team to complement the more talented players.

[nustudent]

33 minutes ago, LK1 said:

 

Roby is a better 4 than Jacobson.  I think he and Copeland would've taken the 3-4 spots over with no Ed and Jacobson would've been relegated to spot minutes at the 4 and 5, where he belonged.  I think he knew the writing was on the wall.  Agree on McVeigh.  I hate him at the 4.  If Copeland is cleared--and I think he will be--we are better off at the 4 than last season.  At this very moment in time, though--prior to Copeland's eligibility--we're not better off, I guess.  

Thinking in terms of upside though...you want Roby and Copeland on the floor...meaning one of them is playing the 3.  Regardless...subbing Copeland out of the mix, assuming he doesn't get the waiver...Roby alone at the 4 is not a better situation.   Roby and Jacobson would each bring different assets to the table.   Regardless whether Roby would be better at the 4 than Jacobson...you need depth.

[Norm Peterson]

I agree Jacobson is a good role player who would have added important depth.  I didn't have him in my starting lineup even back in early March before he announced his transfer.  But, yes, he would have been a good 6th man and would have provided depth in the low post.

 

Take Copeland out of the equation and maybe MJ starts and maybe he doesn't.  Either way, MJ was far from an impact player and the gap his loss creates can be spread among a number of other players.

 

I still think we can field a very solid and respectable starting 5 even without Copeland in the early part of the season (better, obviously, if Copeland plays.)   I think our top 8 or 9 rotation with Copeland is very good and, without Copeland, is at the very least solid and respectable.

 

We got this.

[Navin R. Johnson]

20 minutes ago, Blindcheck said:

We are going to miss Jacobsen...every team needs guys like him....He did his job when he was in the game, he boxed out...which often led to other guys getting the rebound, but without guys like Jacobsen doing their job,  guards like Tai Webster aren't grabbing those rebounds, the offensvie player that is being boxed out is grabbing the ball.

 

Is Jacobsen replaceable, yes.....but we need guys on the team to complement the more talented players.

 

I agree, every team needs guys like MJ to fill a role.  Turns out though he was not that type of player because he did not want to be that type of role player.

[nustudent]

8 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

I agree Jacobson is a good role player who would have added important depth.  I didn't have him in my starting lineup even back in early March before he announced his transfer.  But, yes, he would have been a good 6th man and would have provided depth in the low post.

 

Take Copeland out of the equation and maybe MJ starts and maybe he doesn't.  Either way, MJ was far from an impact player and the gap his loss creates can be spread among a number of other players.

 

I still think we can field a very solid and respectable starting 5 even without Copeland in the early part of the season (better, obviously, if Copeland plays.)   I think our top 8 or 9 rotation with Copeland is very good and, without Copeland, is at the very least solid and respectable.

 

We got this.

 

IMO....with Copeland there is a ton of upside and ceiling to the team.   Losing him, even for just the non-con kills that.   Especially considering the lack of depth in the front court without him.  We'd be pulling guys from the wing to try to play the stretch 4 full time.   It'd require more from a guy like Taylor, who we really should be seeing less of if we are really improving.   Taking Copeland out of the equation would require a pretty remarkable development from someone to compensate, one, that I'm not sure is very realistic to expect.  We can't keep losing contributors and just shrug it off.  I agree that Jacobson probably lost his starting spot.   That doesn't mean there still wasn't 18-24 mpg for him

Edited May 25, 2017 by nustudent

[Norm Peterson]

On ‎5‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 10:20 AM, 49r said:

Michael Jacobson: “I want to make some NCAA Tournaments”

https://cyclonefanatic.com/2017/05/recruiting-jacobson-hopes-transfer-to-isu-helps-him-reach-ncaa-tournament/

 

sick burn...

 

Michael is the kind of player who could be a star player on a RPI 150 or lower ball club.  He'd be a good role player for an NIT level team.  He'd only start for an NCAA tourney team that had better players at every other spot on the floor, including a couple of studs.  And that team probably doesn't advance.  He's a bench player for any team that would hope to slip into the round of 32.

 

So, if he wants to make some NCAA Tournaments, he wants to do it with some of the best seats in the house.

[hhcmatt]

7 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

So, if he wants to make some NCAA Tournaments, he wants to do it with some of the best seats in the house.

 

Wasn't that going to be his fate here with less odds on making the tournament and without a free year to work on his shot?

If the team flames out this year he's spending his senior year with whomever we would hire for a new coach.

[atskooc]

29 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

Wasn't that going to be his fate here with less odds on making the tournament and without a free year to work on his shot?

If the team flames out this year he's spending his senior year with whomever we would hire for a new coach.

He had a free year to work on his shot if he wanted it.  Guys can redshirt at any time.

[Neon Budreau]

In some other roster news... Someone who is helping with off season work outs told me that Shultis and Elradi won't be on the team next year. He said the walk ons will be Borchardt, Costello, and possibly a returning Johnny Trueblood.  

[khoock]

That would be a solid trio of walk-ons

[Norm Peterson]

2 hours ago, khoock said:

That would be a solid trio of walk-ons

 

Potentially the best walk-ons in the conference!

[Jacob Padilla]

3 hours ago, Neon Budreau said:

In some other roster news... Someone who is helping with off season work outs told me that Shultis and Elradi won't be on the team next year. He said the walk ons will be Borchardt, Costello, and possibly a returning Johnny Trueblood.  

 

Borchardt and Costello for sure. Malcolm Laws still has another year of eligibility. I know Trueblood expressed interest in coming back during the season like Borchardt did, but Johnny isn't 6'8" 275 so they weren't willing to take him back at that point.

[Huskerpapa]

Interview with MJ.  He has nothing against Miles, just didn't feel like Nebraska was a right fit.  I guess this still puzzles me.  But I guess the grass must always be greener on the other side of the transfer fence.

 

https://www.landof10.com/nebraska/former-nebraska-cornhuskers-f-michael-jacobson-didnt-issues-tim-miles

[aphilso1]

19 hours ago, huskercwg said:

Interview with MJ.  He has nothing against Miles, just didn't feel like Nebraska was a right fit.  I guess this still puzzles me.  But I guess the grass must always be greener on the other side of the transfer fence.

 

https://www.landof10.com/nebraska/former-nebraska-cornhuskers-f-michael-jacobson-didnt-issues-tim-miles

 

Mostly a bunch of coach-speak and clichés.  The only takeaways I got out of it were:

1. MJ was asked a couple of questions that could've prompted him to take shots at Nebraska's coaches and fans.  He didn't take the bait.

2. MJ and EM didn't collude on both leaving the team together.