# McMillan quickly making it known Blazers will be made in his image



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Nate responds to some of the comments coming from Seattle in this article.


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

finally i feel like once again the coach has the final say and the players cannot and will not even attempt to hold him hostage (so to speak) because they know they will lose

NATE IS THE MAN!

nate is going to restore order and bring back RIP CITY!


----------



## riehldeal (May 11, 2003)

talk about a breath of fresh air

and i can feel it even way over here in Italy

cannot wait to get back in december and go to as many games as possible


----------



## Utherhimo (Feb 20, 2005)

we can only hope


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

> "We're all following his lead," said Darius Miles, who had epic run-ins with former Blazers coach Maurice Cheeks. "It seems like he's going down the right path. I would give him the same respect as I would give a Phil Jackson or a Larry Brown. I haven't had any problems with his discipline, except for maybe his ban on headbands."


heh.


----------



## Talkhard (May 13, 2003)

I've wanted a coach like McMillan for as long as I can remember. He reminds me of Jack Ramsay with his dedication to X's and O's, his commitment to doing things the right way, and his emphasis on "team." Whatever the result in the win-loss column, I think we're going to be happy with the execution and style of play we see on the court. These guys will do it Nate's way, or they will sit on the bench. Period.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I'm still not convinced that Nate will be anything more than what he was in Seattle: a mediocre coach. He talks a good game to a franchise and some fans who have been longing for structure and discipline following the Whitsitt and Cheeks regimes, but I don't think that wins will necessarily follow as a result of him being in charge.

It's also interesting that he confirmed that the running game "is not what he wanted" in Seattle. I would guess he will continue his half court predilection in Portland, as well.

But fortunately he's got his rookies concerned about what clothes to wear! As an aside, does anyone find his stance on "focusing on the game" interesting? On the one hand, he says, "It's [wearing headbands] more of a fashion statement than focusing on basketball. The focus should be on the game." But it seems he's happy that Jack is concerned with dress code for the game? Bizarre.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> But fortunately he's got his rookies concerned about what clothes to wear! As an aside, does anyone find his stance on "focusing on the game" interesting? On the one hand, he says, "It's [wearing headbands] more of a fashion statement than focusing on basketball. The focus should be on the game." But it seems he's happy that Jack is concerned with dress code for the game? Bizarre.
> 
> Ed O.


I too, was a little confused about what that was getting at, although I assumed that it meant that Nate was glad that Jarrett was asking what the dress code was instead of just trying to stick out. ?

I think playing the right way (if they end up playing that way) will help them win games more than almost anything else (outside of trades that are unlikely to happen).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I too, was a little confused about what that was getting at, although I assumed that it meant that Nate was glad that Jarrett was asking what the dress code was instead of just trying to stick out. ?


Personally, I think it's less about fashion and more simply about having control of the players. Not in a sinister way, necessarily, but in that they're listening to him and respecting his authoritay.

That certainly has some value, and probably even more on a young team, but saying that the reason headbands aren't allowed is because they're a distraction seems like a stretch... but I guess it's more politic than simply saying, "They can't wear them because I say so."

This gets back to my uncertainty over whether this will work... this approach works for Popovich because he has a great player, and for Larry Brown because he's a coaching genius. With this Blazers team so young and (IMO) so bad, any essential failures of Nate's message will be obscured for some time.

Ed O.


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

we're seeing a massive swing in the coaching pendulum in both Seattle and Portland. there's really only so long a team can put up with most strict disciplinarian-style coaches, and there's only so long a team can survive with a free-wheeling open court style. both teams are going opposite directions on the pendulum, but each will probably swing back the other way in three or four years. 

unless, of course, you've got a truly great coach. if you want to look at which type of coaches tend to last the longest in an organization, you've got:
Disciplinarians: Larry Brown, Gregg Popovich, Jerry Sloan
Free wheelers: Don Nelson (retired), Rick Adelman
Arguable: Phil Jackson, Flip Saunders

Nate isn't in that class yet of these guys, but he is a lot closer to Larry Brown than Mo Cheeks ever likely will be to Rick Adelman.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

I think that dress is very important. People behave differently and have different focus depending on what they, and others, are wearing. Headbands are just a flashy way to draw attention to yourself. If this is going to be a team, the players should not be trying stand out *except* in their ability to play ball. Leave the stupid attitudes and streetball garbage out.

I am all for a disciplinarian coach; the team needs it. And this kind of input *now* is the only thing that can save a borderline case like Darius Miles.

iWatas


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

While I personally think the headband rule is silly, I am glad to see a rookie like Jack approach his coach (not his pals, not even his teammates) about issues of conduct.

[As for people behaving differently depending on how they are dressed, IMO that has more to do with what they are doing than how they are dressed. I sure behave differently at a ballet than I do at a baseball game, but it's not because I'm wearing a skirt and heels instead of T shirt and cap, it's because the type of appropriate behavior is very different. I mean, I can't see someone during _Swan Lake_ chanting "let's go Siegfried" and banging thunder sticks, and no one gets their hands kissed by their partner in baseball.]


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

What is interesting is practically no one wore headbands in the late 80's early 90's...So why are they suddenly a functional thing?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> What is interesting is practically no one wore headbands in the late 80's early 90's...So why are they suddenly a functional thing?


Who says it's functional? Why does everything players do have to be utilitarian?

While there's a lot to be said about players being disciplined, there's also a lot to be said for them being comfortable and motivated... and if a team feels like a coach is more worried about whether they wear headbands or not (or, from a different angle, that he's trying to crush their individuality in the name of discipline) there's a real chance that they will tune him out when he's talking about things that ACTUALLY matter.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who says it's functional? Why does everything players do have to be utilitarian?
> 
> While there's a lot to be said about players being disciplined, there's also a lot to be said for them being comfortable and motivated... and if a team feels like a coach is more worried about whether they wear headbands or not (or, from a different angle, that he's trying to crush their individuality in the name of discipline) there's a real chance that they will tune him out when he's talking about things that ACTUALLY matter.
> 
> Ed O.


we're talking about headbands. It's not like he's making them all have the same hair-cuts or thoughts.

It's headbands. Don't we have more important things to complain about this team? So the guys can't wear headbands, big deal. It not like thats going to cause the guys to wilt and wither away..and if it does, it just shows that the guys didn't have the mental makeup to be a good player to begin with.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> we're talking about headbands. It's not like he's making them all have the same hair-cuts or thoughts.
> 
> It's headbands. Don't we have more important things to complain about this team? So the guys can't wear headbands, big deal. It not like thats going to cause the guys to wilt and wither away..and if it does, it just shows that the guys didn't have the mental makeup to be a good player to begin with.


It's not a big deal to me. It might not be a big deal to any of the players.

But Nate's the one who made it a rule. While stressing such a minor thing can tighten his control over some players, it can also have the effect of alienating players or reducing the effective communications time he has with his team in the long run.

Nate's the one who is changing the rules. That it's a minor thing should be something that should be used as an argument for a deviation from the norm (i.e., banning them) rather than for players to simply follow unthinkingly or for fans to not question its relevance.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who says it's functional? Why does everything players do have to be utilitarian?
> 
> While there's a lot to be said about players being disciplined, there's also a lot to be said for them being comfortable and motivated... and if a team feels like a coach is more worried about whether they wear headbands or not (or, from a different angle, that he's trying to crush their individuality in the name of discipline) there's a real chance that they will tune him out when he's talking about things that ACTUALLY matter.
> 
> Ed O.


No I've heard the argument that the reason players feel they needed is because they keep sweat out of their eyes. I don't doubt that to be true, but it wasn't a factor for quite a while.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> It's not a big deal to me. It might not be a big deal to any of the players.
> 
> But Nate's the one who made it a rule. While stressing such a minor thing can tighten his control over some players, it can also have the effect of alienating players or reducing the effective communications time he has with his team in the long run.


the difference is, the players that are on this team who wear headbands, Zach and Darius, need this kind of discipline to begin with. The rest are either rookies or 2nd and 3rd year players (and Joel and Theo) who hopefully A: don't feel the need to put much into wearing a headband and B: won't complain.

If this was a team full of vets who "bonded" together by wearing headbands, that's one thing..but this is a team of basically 3 guys who wore headbands (Zach, Telfair and Darius). 

BFD.



> Nate's the one who is changing the rules. That it's a minor thing should be something that should be used as an argument for a deviation from the norm (i.e., banning them) rather than for players to simply follow unthinkingly or for fans to not question its relevance.
> 
> Ed O.


there are certain things worth fighting over. if he banned hair over 3 inches long, that's one thing. If he demanded that everyone had the same shoes, socks, pants, and color of clothing, thats another thing.

But this is something that's trivial in nature. It's a headband, that a small # of Blazer players use, of which it's questionable if it's done for anything other than "being cool" (which is a big thing thats wrong with the NBA. Trying to fit in with the cool kids and ESPN, instead of playing the game).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> there are certain things worth fighting over. if he banned hair over 3 inches long, that's one thing. If he demanded that everyone had the same shoes, socks, pants, and color of clothing, thats another thing.


I don't see a big distinction here. It's the same attempt by Nate to exercise control. Whether it's headbands or goggles or long socks or facial hair or cornrows or hair length.

I agree that we each have our own "line" of where we chafe under authority... none of us are pure doormats and few of us reject authority altogether. Because headbands are so trivial, I just wonder whether Nate is gaining or losing capital with players by banning them.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't see a big distinction here. It's the same attempt by Nate to exercise control. Whether it's headbands or goggles or long socks or facial hair or cornrows or hair length.


well, because socks can add comfort to your feet. Facial hair might be a cultural or religious thing, same with hair lengths.

a head-band is just a dorky headband.



> I agree that we each have our own "line" of where we chafe under authority... none of us are pure doormats and few of us reject authority altogether. Because headbands are so trivial, I just wonder whether Nate is gaining or losing capital with players by banning them.
> 
> Ed O.


it's about the team ed. team is more important than individuality.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I distinctly recall Bill Walton wearing a headband in his playing days.
Not to mention a pony tail.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> well, because socks can add comfort to your feet. Facial hair might be a cultural or religious thing, same with hair lengths.
> 
> a head-band is just a dorky headband.


You're making a distinction without a difference, drawing a bright line where one doesn't exist merely because it makes your position easier to defend.



> it's about the team ed. team is more important than individuality.


Then ban tatoos. Cornrows. Long socks. Pay all players equally, and divvy up the minutes little league style to ensure that everyone gets an equal chance to play.

Ignoring individualism in sports--and ESPECIALLY professional sports--is foolish. Players should understand that they need to sublimate their individual interests in important areas (run back on defense even if it's not your man who's open, make sure you try to run the plays that are called even if it's not going to be your shot if the play works, etc.) and, ultimately, the team IS more important than any given individual.

But the guys aren't robots. They're not going to do anything and everything that's asked of them. Heck, in the previous paragraph you'd said that socks and hairstyles are inherently different than headbands... while I reject that, some players would definitely agree with you and refuse to get their hair cut even as they would abstain from wearing a headband.

I'm not sure that I'm complaining about Nate's rule--he's doing what he thinks is best, and as a new coach I totally respect and allow his space as he puts his system in place. I just don't see it as an inherently good thing, and I believe that it's possible that it will be a negative (as it was in Seattle, it turns out) before too long.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I distinctly recall Bill Walton wearing a headband in his playing days.
> Not to mention a pony tail.


in the 70's


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> I distinctly recall Bill Walton wearing a headband in his playing days.
> Not to mention a pony tail.


I distinctly recall Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson not wearing headbands.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The yankees players have a image guideline. They aren't allowed beards, and IIRC goatees fit that, they must be clean shaven, no 5 o'clock shadow, hair must be trim (note lack of big mullet), tattoos can not be visible when in uniform, etc etc...

As much as I despise the Yankees they are the epitome of a class organization


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's also interesting that he confirmed that the running game "is not what he wanted" in Seattle. I would guess he will continue his half court predilection in Portland, as well.
> 
> Ed O.


Not neccesarily. 

McMillan's problem with Seattle wasn't that they were pushing the ball, it's that they weren't defending on the other end. 

"Our first option on offense will be to push the ball and try and get something easy. I think a good running team is a team that can defend, get stops and rebound." - Nate McMillan, on the Portland Trailblazers

Portland can't get away with relying on the three, like Seattle did, so they'll have to try to get their points with stifling defense and easy transition hoops.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> You're making a distinction without a difference, drawing a bright line where one doesn't exist merely because it makes your position easier to defend.


not really.



> Then ban tatoos. Cornrows. Long socks. Pay all players equally, and divvy up the minutes little league style to ensure that everyone gets an equal chance to play.


not the same. a tatoo doesn't get thrown into the crowd when a player is pissed. A tat doesn't get tilted or slanted like a headband does. 



> Ignoring individualism in sports--and ESPECIALLY professional sports--is foolish. Players should understand that they need to sublimate their individual interests in important areas (run back on defense even if it's not your man who's open, make sure you try to run the plays that are called even if it's not going to be your shot if the play works, etc.) and, ultimately, the team IS more important than any given individual.
> 
> But the guys aren't robots. They're not going to do anything and everything that's asked of them. Heck, in the previous paragraph you'd said that socks and hairstyles are inherently different than headbands... while I reject that, some players would definitely agree with you and refuse to get their hair cut even as they would abstain from wearing a headband.
> 
> ...


IT'S A ****ING HEADBAND ED..get over it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> I distinctly recall Michael Jordan, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson not wearing headbands.


Were they banned from wearing them? Were they better because they didn't wear headbands?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> IT'S A ****ING HEADBAND ED..get over it.


Ah, the "get over it" position. There's no comeback for that, I guess.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Ah, the "get over it" position. There's no comeback for that, I guess.
> 
> Ed O.


which is more important. what the player wants, or what the team wants?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Were they banned from wearing them? Were they better because they didn't wear headbands?
> 
> Ed O.


they didn't wear them because they weren't fashionable. thats all they are now, is something fashionable, and "bigger" than the game.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't really care if they wear headbands or not. They are all about fashion statement so if Nate feels unity is more important than individuality on the floor, then more power to him for trying to make the team more cohesive. Individuality should be a last priority on the floor.


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Hap said:


> we're talking about headbands. It's not like he's making them all have the same hair-cuts or thoughts.
> 
> It's headbands. Don't we have more important things to complain about this team? So the guys can't wear headbands, big deal.


If it's not a big deal, why ban them at all? Wearing whatever brand of shoe you like or have an endorsement contract with is a fashion thing as well, so why not ban that too? Why doesn't he just make this team do what you do in high school and everyone wears the same shoe?

I mean this is ridiculous, and I don't consider this in any shape or form, "coaching".


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Fork said:


> Not neccesarily.
> 
> McMillan's problem with Seattle wasn't that they were pushing the ball, it's that they weren't defending on the other end.


Really? Nate: "The running game is not what I wanted. If they want to play a different style now, they're more than welcome. But I wasn't comfortable with that."



> "Our first option on offense will be to push the ball and try and get something easy. I think a good running team is a team that can defend, get stops and rebound." - Nate McMillan, on the Portland Trailblazers
> 
> Portland can't get away with relying on the three, like Seattle did, so they'll have to try to get their points with stifling defense and easy transition hoops.


This sounds like eating your cake and having it, too.

Or, for a more concrete example, like being financially responsible, focused on character AND competitive.

It's easy for a coach to SAY that he wants to run and he wants to play great defense. When push comes to shove, though, very few teams in NBA history have been able to do that (the Celtics and the Lakers in the 1980's seem to be excellent examples of that) and most coaches have to make a decision: slow it down to focus on defense or get out and run to outgun the other team.

While the latter approach seems to be generally more successful in the regular season, as others have pointed out, the former path seems to have been much more successful in winning titles.

I predict, based on Nate's playing days as well as his history with the Sonics, that the Blazers will end up slowing the pace down and focusing on defense to keep games close.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> they didn't wear them because they weren't fashionable. thats all they are now, is something fashionable, and "bigger" than the game.


They DID, however, wear custom colored shoes. To the point that the NBA nixed some that Jordan was wearing.

If that wasn't detrimentally "fashionable", if that wasn't "bigger than the game," then how can wearing a headband be considered either?

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> which is more important. what the player wants, or what the team wants?


It depends on how you define "more important". Providing a blanket answer to your question opens up inherent inconsistencies... either way I answer I can instantly conjure up a dozen examples where I'm incorrect.

Ed O.


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Ed O said:


> It's easy for a coach to SAY that he wants to run and he wants to play great defense. When push comes to shove, though, very few teams in NBA history have been able to do that (the Celtics and the Lakers in the 1980's seem to be excellent examples of that) and most coaches have to make a decision: slow it down to focus on defense or get out and run to outgun the other team.
> 
> While the latter approach seems to be generally more successful in the regular season, as others have pointed out, the former path seems to have been much more successful in winning titles.
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about 'running' a la Dallas, Phoenix or somebody like that. But a transition game that is better (not that it would be possible to be worse) than the Blazers were last year. 

It's absolutely possible to play good defense and run some of the time. You play hard nosed defense, rebound, quick outlets, get up the court and LOOK for the easy hoop. If it isn't there, you don't force it, you back it up into the half court set. (Did Phoenix even do that ONCE last year? Or Seattle for that matter.)

Opportunistically pushing the ball and pushing it every possession are two totally different scenarios. And I think we can certainly run the ball a lot more with guys like Telfair, Miles, Outlaw, etc on the team.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> They DID, however, wear custom colored shoes. To the point that the NBA nixed some that Jordan was wearing.
> 
> If that wasn't detrimentally "fashionable", if that wasn't "bigger than the game," then how can wearing a headband be considered either?
> 
> Ed O.


As you pointed out the NBA nixed it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> As you pointed out the NBA nixed it.


Temporarily. Of course, Jordan kept wearing them and Nike picked up the tab. (see http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/050220/050220jordan_rookie.html)

Did the shoes adversely impact Jordan's game, though? Did the NBA improve him or the Bulls by attempting to deny him that expression of individuality?

It's conceivable that any player short of a great one like MJ would have been hurt by such a deviation from the team concept. I think that is almost certainly poppycock.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> I don't really care if they wear headbands or not. They are all about fashion statement so if Nate feels unity is more important than individuality on the floor, then more power to him for trying to make the team more cohesive. Individuality should be a last priority on the floor.


As it's been pointed out countless times before, headbands are not "all about a fashion statement"... they serve a very useful function for keeping the sweat out of the eyes. It seems that the Sonics players are all wearing them tonight as a statement of *their* unity and to usher in a new era where they aren't banned from wearing them by a guy who they apparently viewed as overcontrolling. I'd guess that their next game it will just be the guys who want to wear them that do (for whatever the reason). 

I'd guess that when Portland someday gets a new coach (no I'm not calling for Nate's head or anything like that), that they'll likely get a guy who brings different things to the table then his predecessor... a good way to reach guys is to take a different course, change helps keep things fresh. It seems both the Sonic and the Blazer clubs were ready for a change.

STOMP


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Temporarily. Of course, Jordan kept wearing them and Nike picked up the tab. (see http://www.usaweekend.com/05_issues/050220/050220jordan_rookie.html)
> 
> Did the shoes adversely impact Jordan's game, though? Did the NBA improve him or the Bulls by attempting to deny him that expression of individuality?
> 
> ...


shoes, and therefore shoe color, really are a different concept. Shoes actually are important to playing the game. Cause you know...you actually have to wear shoes to play.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I think people are totally missing the point in many angles...

This isn't about affecting performance, it isn' about being power hungry, it's very simple. It's about unity. Basketball is a team game and being a team is more than simply the jersey on your back, it's about being part of the system. NBA basketball has a huge problem with individuality outweighing team unity. Individual performances, individual stats, individual recognition. Team effort wins in basketball, and part of team effort is putting the team ahead of yuourself, and buying into a coach and his program. If a player isn't willing to give up something as insignificant as a headband you then can tell that it is indivuality that is more important that unity. 

Let's face it a headband is very insignificant in the scheme of things. I'm more concerned about wehter the team wins or leses than if they are allowed to wear headbands or not.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if headbands are truely needed for sweat...maybe the players should start wearing towels on their uniforms to wipe their hands.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> shoes, and therefore shoe color, really are a different concept. Shoes actually are important to playing the game. Cause you know...you actually have to wear shoes to play.


That makes no sense. Because shoes are needed, players can wear any color shoe they want?

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

STOMP said:


> As it's been pointed out countless times before, headbands are not "all about a fashion statement"... they serve a very useful function for keeping the sweat out of the eyes. It seems that the Sonics players are all wearing them tonight as a statement of *their* unity and to usher in a new era where they aren't banned from wearing them by a guy who they apparently viewed as overcontrolling. I'd guess that their next game it will just be the guys who want to wear them that do (for whatever the reason).
> 
> I'd guess that when Portland someday gets a new coach (no I'm not calling for Nate's head or anything like that), that they'll likely get a guy who brings different things to the table then his predecessor... a good way to reach guys is to take a different course, change helps keep things fresh. It seems both the Sonic and the Blazer clubs were ready for a change.
> 
> STOMP


As I said before is the functionality all that important? If it was headbands wouldn't have virtually disappeared in the 80's and 90's really to be introduced again by the Blazers and one Bonzi Wells. The 2 swweatiest players I can recall are Paatrick Ewing and Shaq, niether of whom has ever donned a headband.

BTW I agree with the rest of your sentiment.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> That makes no sense. Because shoes are needed, players can wear any color shoe they want?
> 
> Ed O.


1. Did I say that players can 'wear any shoe color they want'?

2. No I didn't.

you do understand the difference between wearing a shoe by a different company, and wearing a headband which isn't needed, right?

One is a thing that the players generally can't wear different colors on (notice that most teams all wear the same colors of shoes) and the other is something players are wearing for a fashion or "notice me" aspect.

What happens if the player has a shoe that's only in 1 color, and say it's not matching the teams colors? Well, besides the fact that's not too terribly likely..um..he actually HAS to wear the shoe (or he can wear another shoe), whereas he doesn't actually have to wear the headband.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> This isn't about affecting performance, it isn' about being power hungry, it's very simple. It's about unity.


To me its not about unity, it seems to me more like Nate is laying down the foundation of his coaching scheme: discipline.
Unity would be more like sending the team on one of those workplace style retreats, doing stupid trust exercises to show you're not alone, you're part of a "team".


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Schilly said:


> As I said before is the functionality all that important? If it was headbands wouldn't have virtually disappeared in the 80's and 90's really to be introduced again by the Blazers and one Bonzi Wells. The 2 swweatiest players I can recall are Paatrick Ewing and Shaq, niether of whom has ever donned a headband.


The part of your previous post I agreed with the most was... _'I don't really care if they wear headbands or not"_. As far as I'm concerned, if guys want to wear them for function or fashion reasons, go for it. I care the same amount about wrist bands, the bicept band that MJ wore, eye black or no eye black, or the amount of sock that a baseball player shows. To me, what matters infinitely more is a player's production. 

It seems a very petty thing for a coach to make an issue of and that instituting such a ban may be more of a distraction then the wearing of them ever could be, but whatever...

STOMP


----------



## mook (Dec 31, 2002)

man, am I the only one or did this thread get pointless about three pages ago?


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> man, am I the only one or did this thread get pointless about three pages ago?


it was pointless from the get-go (no offense mgb). Somehow I think we fans are making a bigger stink out of it than the players have, will or ever would.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> 1. Did I say that players can 'wear any shoe color they want'?
> 
> 2. No I didn't.
> 
> you do understand the difference between wearing a shoe by a different company, and wearing a headband which isn't needed, right?


Who cares about shoe companies in the context of this conversation? You brought up Bird, Magic and Bird as a counter to carndc's Walton headband point.

Well, they each wore shoes that were individualized. Bird and Magic had their converse shoes that were colored differently and Jordan had shoes that were unique to him to the point of being fined by the NBA because of them.

When I brought this up, you said it was different because players need to wear shoes. The logic escapes me, and you're either getting confused or you're just being difficult in your approach here.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Who cares about shoe companies in the context of this conversation? You brought up Bird, Magic and Bird as a counter to carndc's Walton headband point.
> 
> Well, they each wore shoes that were individualized. Bird and Magic had their converse shoes that were colored differently and Jordan had shoes that were unique to him to the point of being fined by the NBA because of them.
> 
> ...



I must've missunderstood what you meant.

But as for shoes vs headbands, it's still something you have to wear, and something you don't have to wear.

simple as that.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

I f nothing else, maybe fat white dudes will stop wearing them to games.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

theWanker said:


> man, am I the only one or did this thread get pointless about three pages ago?


Leave it to Hap and Ed


----------



## gatorpops (Dec 17, 2004)

My thoughts on banning/not banning of Headbands.

I do not have the benifit of some of your logic skills but it seems to me that the player may wear the headband as functional to keep sweat from the eyes partly because they have a shaved head. 
Other players may wear them for "looks" only while 
others may do it for both reasons. 

What Nate is probably wanting to get across to the players is that 
"he is in control" and I would want that to be known if I was the new coach. If they will not see him as boss then there is no control and each player can begin to do what he thinks is best. That is where Cheeks went wrong. 

John Wooden, who I am sure you know about, was a stickler for the team cleaning up after themselves in the locker room after games, even at the visiters house. Was that just control or did it have a broader application? Wasn't he getting them to pay attention to detail in everything and learn that that wins championships. 
His thinking it seems, was attention to detail, and not being sloppy, translates to doing detail in game areas. 
Headbands are a small thing but the detail of conformity to the coach as leader is crutial to this team being the best they can be. 
If Nate is a really good coach he will allow individual expression within the context of the team game. 
If I were coach and the players really chaffed under this I would begin giving back headbands as a reward to those who consistantly earned them, maybe on a per game basis. This would show to everyone, team, fans, and to the indvidual that he has been very diligent in application of principles that the coach chooses. 
Anyway i probably didn't say it very well but there it is.

gatorpops


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

gatorpops said:


> My thoughts on banning/not banning of Headbands.
> 
> I do not have the benifit of some of your logic skills but it seems to me that the player may wear the headband as functional to keep sweat from the eyes partly because they have a shaved head.
> Other players may wear them for "looks" only while
> ...


Ok I agree with this assertation 100%


----------



## YardApe (Mar 10, 2005)

You know Ed O, for such a proclaimed always posting Blazer fan you seem to be negative on just about everything going on with this current team. From players, to coaches to wins and losses, everything just seems to suck for you.

Maybe you should take a break from hoops till it's a joy again, otherwise STOP DEPRESSING EVERYONE WHO WANTS THIS TEAM TO ACTUALLY SUCCEED!!!


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

YardApe said:


> Maybe you should take a break from hoops till it's a joy again, otherwise STOP DEPRESSING EVERYONE WHO WANTS THIS TEAM TO ACTUALLY SUCCEED!!!


This board would be real boring if everyone agreed on everything.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> it was pointless from the get-go (no offense mgb). Somehow I think we fans are making a bigger stink out of it than the players have, will or ever would.


To tell you the truth I was quite surprise when I check to see if there were any replies to this thread and there were four pages! Most were about the head band ban which to me is like the cell ph, they can become a nuisance when players use them inappropriately such as throwing them into the crowd when mad. Nate wants the team to be mentally tough and not throwing 'fits'.

I think a lot of what is coming out of Seattle is actually a reflection of how much they'll miss Nate though I think it's true that players will eventually tune him out especially a vet team which is why he's perfect for us at least in my opinion.

It does make for a exciting game tonite! I can't wait!! I have never been as excited about a season as I have this one.


----------



## graybeard (May 10, 2003)

guys, guys, guys

If you really want to understand what Nate is trying to do (take a group of individuals and make them into a superior team), you would do well to take a look at the the *ultimate team "sport"*-The Military. These guys aren't playing for trivial basketball wins, losses and fat contracts, they're playing for their lives and the lives of their families and country.
The formula for building the best teams is probably as old as the milatary itself is.(and that is very very old). You take a group of individuals and strip them of their individualty,(ie... shave their heads, make them dress alike,) break them down mentally and physically, instill discipline, push them beyond what they think they are capable of, and build them back up again as a team. This is a simplistic explanation of it, but it's the basics none the less.
Believe me, what Nate is doing to turn these individuals into a team is child's play compared to what our boys go through in military boot camp or basic training. Banning headbands and cell phones will instill a little more of the "team" concept into the blazers. You military men know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

mgb said:


> To tell you the truth I was quite surprise when I check to see if there were any replies to this thread and there were four pages! Most were about the head band ban which to me is like the cell ph, they can become a nuisance when players use them inappropriately such as throwing them into the crowd when mad. Nate wants the team to be mentally tough and not throwing 'fits'.
> 
> I think a lot of what is coming out of Seattle is actually a reflection of how much they'll miss Nate though I think it's true that players will eventually tune him out especially a vet team which is why he's perfect for us at least in my opinion.
> 
> It does make for a exciting game tonite! I can't wait!! I have never been as excited about a season as I have this one.


you guys do know you can change it so more posts appear per page, right?


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

> As it's been pointed out countless times before, headbands are not "all about a fashion statement"... they serve a very useful function for keeping the sweat out of the eyes.


Isn't that why God gave us eyebrows?...Personally I never see a player wearing a headband to keep sweat out of his eyes.....The most common reason IMO most players wear them is to keep the hair out of their eyes when they're playing, other than that I see no need for them...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

zagsfan20 said:


> Isn't that why God gave us eyebrows?...Personally I never see a player wearing a headband to keep sweat out of his eyes.....The most common reason IMO most players wear them is to keep the hair out of their eyes when they're playing, other than that I see no need for them...


Funny thing is Charlie Villanueva, who apparently has no hair, doesn't wear a headband.



> Via Charlies Website
> He suffers from Alopecia Areata, an autoimmune skin disease resulting in hair loss on the scalp and elsewhere in the body. The disease is actually relatively common, affecting over four million Americans. It is not a life-threatening disease, nor contagious.


----------



## CanJohno (Feb 11, 2005)

Gotta love the part about it not being contagious. I mean, "no **** Sherlock," right?


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

I *wish* I had that disease... or at least isolated to my back. Ugh...


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

CanJohno said:


> Gotta love the part about it not being contagious. I mean, "no **** Sherlock," right?


That's for his groupies, I'm sure


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Isn't that why God gave us eyebrows?...Personally I never see a player wearing a headband to keep sweat out of his eyes.....The most common reason IMO most players wear them is to keep the hair out of their eyes when they're playing, other than that I see no need for them...


IMO it's more then a little farfetched to claim that you can somehow tell by looking at a player wearing a headband that they're never doing it to keep the sweat out of their eyes... it also sounds like you don't sweat very much.

When I'm running up and down the court in a hot gym, I do. Though I've got a full set of eyebrows, sweat drips into my eyes if I don't wipe my forehead. As a scorer, it does get in annoying at times. Generally I use my shirt to mop up, but NBA players get fined for having theirs untucked. 

So basically... though I don't use them, from personal experience I can see a headband as a practical solution to this problem.

STOMP


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

Edo, these guys aren't babies. Athletes are pampered enough as it is. If they can't deal with not being allowed to wear headbands then they aren't the kind of player we need anyway. Heck, the guy at Taco Bell can't sport a headband and he makes minimum wage. 

As for the "functionality" thing, just wear a wristband, wipe your head, end of story. 

Someone else mentioned the Yankees and that's a good point. Little rules like this may seem pointless but in the bigger picture it's all part of being a cohesive and well run organization.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Hap said:


> you guys do know you can change it so more posts appear per page, right?


I generally go by default. I guess I could have said I was surprise there were 58 replies, especially to a 'pointless thread' like this one. Though the thread wasn't just about headbands in the beginning.


----------



## furball (Jul 25, 2004)

Ed O said:


> I'm still not convinced that Nate will be anything more than what he was in Seattle: a mediocre coach. He talks a good game to a franchise and some fans who have been longing for structure and discipline following the Whitsitt and Cheeks regimes, but I don't think that wins will necessarily follow as a result of him being in charge.
> 
> It's also interesting that he confirmed that the running game "is not what he wanted" in Seattle. I would guess he will continue his half court predilection in Portland, as well.
> 
> ...


Has anyone ever seen Ed O. ? :reporter: **DELETED**


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

furball said:


> Has anyone ever seen Ed O. ? :reporter: **DELETED**


Is this really an appropriate post? Agreed and edited 

I state my position to the best of my ability over the span of several posts and you make some half-assed joke about me as a person?

If you disagree with me, that's fine. If you want to compare me to people in a backhanded fashion please at least do it via PMs.

Ed O.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

STOMP said:


> IMO it's more then a little farfetched to claim that you can somehow tell by looking at a player wearing a headband that they're never doing it to keep the sweat out of their eyes... it also sounds like you don't sweat very much.
> 
> When I'm running up and down the court in a hot gym, I do. Though I've got a full set of eyebrows, sweat drips into my eyes if I don't wipe my forehead. As a scorer, it does get in annoying at times. Generally I use my shirt to mop up, but NBA players get fined for having theirs untucked.
> 
> ...


IMO its just as farfetched that by looking at a player that they use their headband to keep sweat out of their eyes, or if there actually using it as some kind of fashion statement or to look "cool" or unique on the court....

Most players in the NBA play without a headband and do just fine....Name me a Spur that wears a headband?....I think the main reason that players wear them is for fashion.....

Also do you ever notice how when Zach gets pissed or serious in the middle of a game he usually takes his headband off? If its keeping the sweat out of his eyes, I doubt he would want to take it off when he gets serious or PO'd....


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> Most players in the NBA play without a headband and do just fine....Name me a Spur that wears a headband?


Nick Van Exel wears one sometimes. Last year Devin Brown was wearing a headband every time I saw him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

furball said:


> Has anyone ever seen Ed O. ? :reporter: **DELETED**


Ive met Ed, at least twice...... Ive never met Mixum, so...

but than again, I've never met Peter Vescey...


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

RP McMurphy said:


> Nick Van Exel wears one sometimes. Last year Devin Brown was wearing a headband every time I saw him.


Stephen Jackson wore one when he was a Spur also.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

zagsfan20 said:


> IMO its just as farfetched that by looking at a player that they use their headband to keep sweat out of their eyes, or if there actually using it as some kind of fashion statement or to look "cool" or unique on the court....


of course I never said that. I said they *could* be wearing one for practical purposes. I never claimed that by looking at a player I could tell what their inner motivations are, thats your nonsense... has anyone ever seen Zagsfan and Miss Cleo at the same time?



> Also do you ever notice how when Zach gets pissed or serious in the middle of a game he usually takes his headband off? If its keeping the sweat out of his eyes, I doubt he would want to take it off when he gets serious or PO'd....


Players can certainly play without them. No question about it. They can wipe their forehead with the back of their wrists or pull their jersey up. Both of those actions do take their eyes/focus off of the game though (at least momentarily), and I'd imagine that some are just used to wearing one as their prefered sweat managing device. Maybe wristbands bother some players. My point is... whatever, why care why a player wears one... and that they should be judged on their production on the court.

STOMP


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Maybe sweat was in their eye/s I mean the shooting was pretty bad.


----------

