Woodson was a great shooter from his Freshman year.
Bates has the shooter's mentality, but I'm not sure he can back it up with results consistently.
Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Bates has the shooter's mentality, but I'm not sure he can back it up with results consistently.
Hulls or Roth would not be recruited under Archie or Woody because they're not great defensive players.
I sort of doubt Yogi would be recruited by them because of his size and the fact he played for a small school.
That's one thing I'll give Crean credit for - he had an eye for talent. Probably why he had a great run at MSU. But coaching against a zone...... no.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Here's the thing, though: maybe he'd be better off recruiting players who aren't as talented on the defensive end and coach them up/use a scheme to hide their weaknesses.
I don't know the answer to this but I find it a fascinating problem that cuts across all organizations. Do you recruit/hire to your strength and focus on being the best at one thing (that seemed like Archie's approach) or do you cut across the grain and try to be more well-rounded?
How did Knight hide Alford on defense? How do teams with big guards not post up Steph Curry every time? Can you do it with more than one defensive liability? I'd ask these questions on the basketball board, but there fewer people looking to have substantive conversations there than here.
Exactly.
Defense was Knight's hallmark, but he always had the best shooters in the Big Ten.
You can design a defense to hide defensive weaknesses. You can't hide bad outside shooting.
Not every guard that played for Knight was a good shooter….he just didn’t let them shoot. That’s the difference.
Now the forwards compared to other teams….yeah that was usually an advantage.
Brad, here is a question on originalism for you. On one of my trips to Williamsburg, it was explained that people were not sentenced to time in jail. The citizens of the era felt that locking people away would be cruel and unusual. Instead, they would be whipped, mutilation, or death. Some Google searching has confirmed that. Jails were only for keeping people in before a trial when bail was not made. So the biggest use was for debt. The first federal prisons were not even created until 1893.
The first use of jails as something to be sentenced to in America was in 1790 and it was started in Philadelphia by Quakers. The term "penitentiary" was due to their belief prisons were to be a time for penitence and self-reflection. Locking people in prison was not at all widespread at the time the Constitution was signed.
If we are to consider originalism, should our modern penal system be found unconstitutional and people released? Further, why was the Constitution somewhat vague on what is "cruel and unusual"? Those words seem to imply they are meant to evolve as society evolves.
Is there any chance any of our originalists are about to shut down prisons?
Originalism has a role, I am calling into question it is THE fundamental force. Because I like driving on roads and don't want everyone thrown out of prison tomorrow I think we all realize something other than originalism comes into play.
It cuts across all sports and stereotypes. Xavi and Iniesta made the two greatest central midfielders in history during Barcelona's from 2009 on. My old teammates and I used to joke that they wouldn't have recruited or ever stepped on the pitch at an ACC school.
Stereotypes infect much of life
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Yep. Both small. And quick but not fast. America likes big strong and fast
Not to get off topic but I'm pretty sure that all depended upon the state Marv. Perhaps Va. I could be wrong.
Bail was contemplated all the way back to the late 1600s.
And I know the topic is originalism but there are many topics around jail that are questionable from a constitutional perspective. Money. The idea behind it is public safety and to ensure attendance at court. I'm not sure money should be the measure for either
One of the sites I read earlier said bail was very common, that most inmates in jails were debtors. Even then they weren't longterm inmates.
I do see in Googling all this that there is a move to try and cap US jail sentences to 20 years. The idea is that someone that commits even a bad crime at 20 has outgrown it at 40. Countries that do this have lower recidivism rates than the US. I am skeptical that this would work for all crimes. Simply put, some people are just not going to grow out of a desire to kill or rape. But feeding the prison industry isn't exactly producing great results so new ideas are certainly needed. Maybe just not the 20 year one.
Woodson played at IU before I was born and I don't remember him playing in the NBA but I know he was a great player for IU. What IU player was most like Woodson since his time? Cheney? I was young but I remember him and he was a MVP like Woodson.
Last edited:
No, not released. "whipped, mutilation, or death"..... if you're considering originalism.
Woodson, like Calbert, could do it all. He was a very good rebounder and could create his own shots - probably not the spot-up shooter Calbert was, but there was no 3 pointer then.
The thing about Woody was, when you needed 2 points, he'd get you those points. His bank shot was classic and when the ball went up, you knew it was going in. Probably more of a slasher than Calbert - he had great body control.
He also didn't play with the talent Calbert did and there was a lot of turmoil on some of those teams.. After '76, Knight recruited some guys who wanted the results of '76 but didn't have the discipline to match it.
He did play with Landon Turner and Ray Tolbert, but Landon was a Soph and was still trying to figure it out. Isiah Thomas was a Freshman and also trying to fit into Knight's system.
So, Woody kind of carried all the teams he was on at IU after about midway through his Freshman year. The irony is, Butch Carter hit the biggest FTs to tie the Big Ten championship game with no time remaining - which we eventually won in OT - and hit the winning shot VS Purdue in the NIT championship.
Woody also won the Big Ten MVP his senior year after missing most of the league season to back surgery. That should tell you what the rest of the league thought of him.
If I had to pick between him and Calbert...... I couldn't do it.
Last edited:
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
So first, I am ignorant of the history of prisons.
For an originalist, though, the question wouldn't be "was it wide spread?" The question would be "was it considered cruel and unusual?" If it was allowed in some places, but not others, that is evidence that at least some people did NOT think the 8th Amendment applied to those situations. It is also evidence that people thought the question should be left to the states, not dictated by the Feds (remember states thought of themselves as mini-nations back then). If after the 8th Amendment's passage, 100 years went by and no one challenged the constitutionality of prisons, then that would also be evidence (not sufficient in and of itself by the way) that those people didn't think they violated the 8th Amendment.
That things were not uniform as of the founding is nothing new and originalists understand that (tangentially, this mistake about how to ask the question is at the heart of the legal attack on the reasoning of Roe v. Wade).
They used the term "cruel and unusual punishment" because the 8th Amendment tracks the English Bill of Rights of 1689. This would be another avenue of inquiry for an orginalist--the founders adopted those words from that text for a reason--so what did the English think (which is important because our nation considered itself Englishmen for large portions of their lives). So if prisons were not thought to be cruel and unusual under the English Bill of Rights, that is another piece of evidence that the people who ratified the constitution did not believe they were enacting rules to fundamentally change that notion.
Now, if you could find newspaper articles, books, pamphlets, or speeches from the time of ratification that said "hey, this Constitution is great, we're finally outlawing prisons as cruel and unusual," that would be good counter evidence.
It's not enough just that Bates (or any of the others) should have talent, training, focus, game smarts, work ethic, diet, sleep habits, etc., for him to excel. In addition, Bates (and the others too) also needs to be in a system that he (1) understands, (2) accepts, and (3) fits.
It's a team game, which makes it very difficult for one guy to excel unless it helps the whole team do well.
The current interpretation of the Second Anendment demonstrates that originalism is a silly, even impossible concept:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That language places absolutely no restriction on what "Arms" are protected, whether interpreted under the viewpoint of the Founding Fathers or some later person's viewpoint. No one can rationally claim they know what the Founding Fathers would think of modern weapons that did not exist in 1776.
The benefits of the Second Amendment are not limited today to just members of a militia or the National Guard, even though the language clearly says its purpose is to further a militia.
Today's legal interpretation of the Second Amendment protects a person's right to "bear" revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and other weapons that did not exist in 1776 and were never even contemplated by the Founding Fathers.
Nonetheless, even though the Founding Fathers knew cannons/artillery existed and indeed were used by militias in those days, today's interpretation is that private citizens do not have a wide open Second Amendment right to own such "arms".
And, what could possibly be the sensible, rational "originalist" explanation why even Second Amendment supporters agree that private citizens are not permitted to own machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, F-18s and atomic bombs? Aren't those considered "arms," too? Don't militias use those weapons, too?
How does an original or literal interpretation explain these inconsistencies without inserting politics?
No, but I think it's fun to target shoot. I've shot 12 gauge shotgun, .22 rifles, target pistols (revolver and semiautomatic), a muzzle loader.
Guns have become things that no longer can be controlled by just relying on the responsibility and common sense of the populace.
BS. You’ve done so well with controlling fentanyl, haven’t you.
Probably a Trump supporter.
www.foxnews.com
Armed suspect arrested near Justice Kavanaugh home identified
Law enforcement sources confirm an armed man was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland.
But Democrats' words don't mean anything. It's only Republican talk that is dangerous.Probably a Trump supporter.
Armed suspect arrested near Justice Kavanaugh home identified
Law enforcement sources confirm an armed man was arrested near the home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in Maryland.
I'd love it if Kavanaugh brought a lawsuit against him for that statement.
Where are all the leftists screaming the Supreme Court is hanging by a thread?
Cmon man. We don’t even know why he was there. Probably just wanted to give Kavanaugh a hug.
I'll bet we don't hear shit from Chuckie Schumer.
Isn’t open carry legal there.? What’s the big deal? Mitch sure wants to move quickly on this threat, even though they already have protection" . Much more concerned about the threat than the loss of 19 children’s lives. For the record, he should have the book thrown at him but the hypocrisy is astounding.
So Schumer is threatening a Supreme Court Justice? He should be arrested and thrown in jail.
According to what I’ve read, he was taken into custody “after” telling cops he wanted to kill Kavanaugh.
I don’t believe open carry laws apply here, not that your reply was supposed to be serious.
This guy was a terrible assassin, by the way.
It doesn't have to be a contest. We can care about kids and also care that government officials aren't targeted for assassination at the same time.
For what?
Schumer's a jackass, and he knows he shouldn't have said what he said, which is why he was forced to retract it after he said it (in March, BTW). But it's not criminally actionable.
Cmon man. The real criminals were on 1/6 even though they had no weapons. But DUI...
