# Benedict Wallace in Pictures: Headband Love?



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The last couple of days, I've often read that Ben Wallace's headband is akin to skin or a part of his soul. 










Did they refuse to allow Ben to wear a head band in the allstar game? If so, why didn't he boycott it?










He must have left his headband in Detroit on accident this game. 










But here he is at at home with no headband. What? He must have left it on the road. He must have felt naked all day. Its like I am when I forget my belt or my watch.



















Boy, without his headband, where did he muster the enthusiasm for the game to be so vocal?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

_are we having fun yet? is this the fun part?_







:makeout: :smilewink


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

So...because he doesn't wear a headband every game it isn't an important part of his persona. Just like since he doesn't wear a fro every game that isn't an important part of his persona either or anything that is asscociated with him. Thanks for clearing that up.  

ACE


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## jnrjr79 (Apr 18, 2003)

Ugh.


I would note he is wearing the wrist and armbands that the Bulls promoted him with.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Why didn't he boycott Team USA?


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

But seriously, doubt he cares that much about that, but is fighting the bigger picture/message here, or is just some diva attention whore


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Where does he get the confidence for such strong play sans head band?


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

:biggrin:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Interesting way to refute a presumption about Ben and his essential headband.

Here are a few more:



























































































EDIT: I see some of these are repeats posted since I started my own search.  Sorry.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Even as an old school Piston. They had headbands back then, right?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)




----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

On the Magic.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

And even at Virginia Union.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

He looks like such tool without a headband!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I can do this all day. This is NOT about a headband.


----------



## badfish (Feb 4, 2003)

Post padder. :biggrin: 

Clearly this issue is about something beyond the headband. I just can't believe I snickered at Broussard when he made the comment about Ben's problems with coaches in the Bulls preview. The joke's on me I guess.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

I guess Paxson and Skiles must have only scouted the games/portions of games that Wallace decided not to wear a headband.

They're off the hook, then. Damn that Ben Wallace. Damn him.


----------



## ace20004u (Jun 19, 2002)

You can find just as many pictures WITH a headband, I don't really see what your point is.

ACE


----------



## mizenkay (Dec 29, 2003)

*once again, this time with feeling...*




this is the picture _on the ticket_ for the game tonight at the UC. sorry, but i have a major disconnect thing happening right now!















see you guys tonight in the thread. it's been a slice of....HEADBAND!!


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

His point is that Wallace doesn't _need_ the headband, and the only reason he's rebelling against the rule is that the team is losing and his play has been terribly disappointing. If he is playing well and the Bulls are winning, he wouldn't be complaining. He wasn't complaining at the beginning of the season, so why complain now? 

By choosing to stage his protest after the game in which he scored 0 points and grabbed 0 rebounds seems to insinuate that he is placing some of the blame of his poor play on the headband restriction. Ron Cey is pointing out that Ben has chosen not to wear the seemingly essential headband on a number of occasions.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

mizenkay said:


> *once again, this time with feeling...*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm hearing anecdotal reports of UC ticket takers REFUSING to accept the headbanded/armbanded season tickets. Stay tuned.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Question:

Doesn’t the fact that Big Ben didn’t play exclusively with the headband, and that there are so many examples of him playing without one fly in the face of the theory that the Bulls were either negligent or downright deceitful in not “warning” Ben that they had a no headband rule? If the headband was obviously a "take it or leave it" thing with Ben depending on mood, should the Bulls really have had to put a huge disclaimer in 20 point font red text at the top of the contract "Ben Can't Wear Headband?" Doesn’t it seem that the “headband is intimately intwined with Ben’s game/image, etc" is perhaps a bit overblown? Doesn’t it suggest that the concept that removing Ben’s headband is the equivelant of stealing his mojo is sort of ridiculous?

I certainly think so.

Some more fun with photos:










































































ACE: The fact that in the past he either wore his headband or didn't, apparently depending on his mood, goes to show that it is not some grave injustice that he is expected to follow the team "no headband" policy, just like the other players. It is clear from these photos that the headband is not somehow some essential component of his game, or the core of his being, or the pathway to his soul, or whatever it is that the people making such a big deal about his not being allowed to wear his little strip of terrycloth have blown this up to be.

The fact that the Bulls publicity department and ticket design team weren't on the same page as Basketball Operations is interesting and perhaps amusing, but not really germane to the issue.


----------



## The Truth (Jul 22, 2002)

Great post TB#1. I completely agree.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> The fact that in the past he either wore his headband or didn't, apparently depending on his mood, goes to show that it is not some grievace injustice that he is expected to follow the team "no headband" policy, just like the other players. It is clear from these photos that the headband is not somehow some essential component of his game, or the core of his being, or the pathway to his soul, or whatever it is that the people making such a big deal about his not being allowed to wear his little strip of terrycloth have blown this up to be.


Sign a mentally brittle diva, live with the consequences. Preferably, you anticipate the consequences and take preemptive measures to diffuse them. This is the lesson of headbandgate.


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> I guess Paxson and Skiles must have only scouted the games/portions of games that Wallace decided not to wear a headband.
> 
> They're off the hook, then. Damn that Ben Wallace. Damn him.


Right. If they'd seen if twinkle in his eye during the games in which he did wear one they would realize it was the key to his soul, image, play, and everything else good in his life.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Question:
> 
> <b>Doesn’t the fact that Big Ben didn’t play exclusively with the headband, and that there are so many examples of him playing without one fly in the face of the theory that the Bulls were either negligent or downright deceitful in not “warning” Ben that they had a no headband rule? If the headband was obviously a "take it or leave it" thing with Ben depending on mood, should the Bulls really have had to put a huge disclaimer in 20 point font red text at the top of the contract "Ben Can't Wear Headband?" Doesn’t it seem that the “headband is intimately intwined with Ben’s game/image, etc" is perhaps a bit overblown? Doesn’t it suggest that the concept that removing Ben’s headband is the equivelant of stealing his mojo is sort of ridiculous?
> 
> I certainly think so.</b>


:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## JeremyB0001 (Nov 17, 2003)

ScottMay said:


> Sign a mentally brittle diva, live with the consequences. Preferably, you anticipate the consequences and take preemptive measures to diffuse them. This is the lesson of headbandgate.


Well I agree with you on the first part. I just don't expect Skiles/Paxson to have the mind reading skills or time maching that you seem to.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm getting anecdotal reports that Ben wasn't standing 450 yards out in Lake Michigan wearing a Bulls uniform and there wasn't actually a cartoonish red bull head floating several inches above Ben's head either.

You just can't trust anything anymore.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

the fact that he didnt wear it during the finals is the most telling of any of those finals. he didnt want to bring his biggest, baddest, thoughest mojo to the nba finals? i've been browsing a lot of ben wallace photos and more than the head band, i see him wear the arm bands around his biceps, which is now against the nba rules. maybe he should just quit the nba all together until they change the rule because that seems like a bigger part of his image than the head band

the fact that wallace was acting like a baby under flip saunders all of a sudden seems less minor.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Sign a mentally brittle diva, live with the consequences. Preferably, you anticipate the consequences and take preemptive measures to diffuse them. This is the lesson of headbandgate.


well, yeah, and mentally brittle divas, their attorneys and agents should think long and hard about signing with a team with a well known team and discipline first/tight ship reputation, and be prepared to adjust accordingly.

I think the Bulls reputation in that regard is certainly more clear and well known than the fact that Ben had such an intense bond with his headband.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

My point is to refute the following types of notions that have been floated repeatedy the last few days:



> That's really the key issue to me -- if you're going to have a headband ban in place, *and if you are wooing a player who could not be more famously linked to his headband if he tried,* then you have to have the courage to mention the ban before the deal is finalized.





> I don't know if Wallace *would have foregone $12 million to be able to wear the headband*. The phone calls to Detroit, the behind-the-scenes complaining, and *his undeniably diminished output between the lines* lead me to believe it's not that far-fetched. Something's certainly amiss; *the headband's as good an explanation as anything else*.





> Right. In their haste to make use of Cap Space and sign the best free agent in team history, *the Bulls neglected to mention a critical issue that probably would have caused Wallace to reconsider leaving Detroit.*


You might recognize those lines, ScottMay. You wrote them. And many others have written similar posts and even more insist that what has happened is because of a "stupid head band rule".

Its not about a head band. That is the point. Its about Wallace. 

Skiles: "Hey, Ben - you can't wear a head band here."

Benedict: "No Problem!"


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> well, yeah, and mentally brittle divas, their attorneys and agents should think long and hard about signing with a team with a well known team and discipline first/tight ship reputation, and be prepared to adjust accordingly.
> 
> I think the Bulls reputation in that regard is certainly more clear and well known than the fact that Ben had a bond with his headband stronger than my 4 year old's attraction to his blanky.


yeah, but all nba money is guaranteed and by the time this contract is expired, big ben will be well over the hill anyways. he just signed where the money was and didnt care about the consequences.

maybe you can convince mchale to trade kg for big ben. that would be a solution to this whole mess


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> My point is to refute the following types of notions that have been floated repeatedy the last few days:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you got me, counselor! When I have a chance, I'll go back and look up what you said when posters warned that Wallace would be a handful and that a clash like this was inevitable.

Newsflash -- if it hadn't been the headband, it would have been about touches in the offense, about re-entering games when he didn't want to, about not accepting suggestions regarding free-throw shooting (there's a peach of an article about this by Southtown Paul today), etc. PaxSkiles were woefully unprepared to deal with Ben Wallace. But they had to spend the Cap Space on something (and then ship away a guy who today looks pretty jib-worthy for a bag of rice and fish hooks).

I do apologize for erroneously assuming that Wallace was attached to the hip with his headband. Although it was also a mistake made by the Bulls' marketing department.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

I have nothing else to add by way of explanation for why I posted the pictures as TomB has explained it perfectly.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> well, yeah, and mentally brittle divas, their attorneys and agents should think long and hard about signing with a team with a well known team and discipline first/tight ship reputation, and be prepared to adjust accordingly.


John Paxson is the GM of the Chicago Bulls. Not Ben Wallace.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

ScottMay said:


> Sign a mentally brittle diva, live with the consequences. Preferably, you anticipate the consequences and take preemptive measures to diffuse them. This is the lesson of headbandgate.


I don't know. I think there are two seperate questions in play here :

a) Should the Bulls have signed a mentally brittle diva in the first place?

and

b) Now that they have, should they let him wear a headband on the court, regardless of team rules?

I think you can make a pretty damning argument that signing Wallace and assuming he'd buy into the system was a substantial miscalculation on Paxson's part and that the answer to the first question is no.

That said, it seems fairly obvious to me that Wallace's unhappiness runs way deeper than headbands. Letting him wear one is essentially putting a bandaid on a gaping wound - I don't know what it accomplishes other than undermining Skiles' authority/credibility/etc. I would hope that Paxson and Skiles are focused on the illness here, and not the symptoms.


----------



## lgtwins (May 18, 2004)

jbulls said:


> I don't know. I think there are two seperate questions in play here :
> 
> a) Should the Bulls have signed a mentally brittle diva in the first place?
> 
> ...


You nailed it.:clap:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> John Paxson is the GM of the Chicago Bulls. Not Ben Wallace.


Thanks for clearing that up.

Ben Wallace is the player who left Detroit and signed a contract with the Chicago Bulls.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Thanks for clearing that up.
> 
> Ben Wallace is the player who left Detroit and signed a contract with the Chicago Bulls.


True, but Wallace has had problems with every coach he's ever had - including Flip Saunders, a guy who by all accounts is about as much of a player's coach as anyone. I'm not letting Wallace off the hook, he's responsible for his actions, but the fact that we're seeing this stuff 12 games into the season suggests pretty strongly to me that Paxson and/or Skiles didn't come up with a particularly good way to manage his personality.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

jbulls said:


> True, but Wallace has had problems with every coach he's ever had - including Flip Saunders, a guy who by all accounts is about as much of a player's coach as anyone. I'm not letting Wallace off the hook, he's responsible for his actions, but the fact that we're seeing this stuff 12 games into the season suggests pretty strongly to me that Paxson and/or Skiles didn't come up with a particularly good way to manage his personality.


I can't deny that the Bulls could probably have handled what has apparently been leading up to this hissy fit better. However, I still maintain that Ben bears just as much responsibility for this mess, because he signed up with a strong discipline team, knew what he was getting into, and is/was apparently unable to or unwilling to manage his OWN personality accordingly.


----------



## jbulls (Aug 31, 2005)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I can't deny that the Bulls could probably have handled what has apparently been leading up to this hissy fit better. However, I still maintain that Ben bears just as much responsibility for this mess, because he signed up with a strong discipline team, knew what he was getting into, and is/was apparently unable to or unwilling to manage his OWN personality accordingly.


Wallace does deserve some blame and it seems to me that he's getting it, the national and local media are tearing him to shreds pretty much unanimously. But shouldn't Paxson have forseen the difficulties Wallace would have fitting into the Bulls' culture? You don't sign Jalen Rose and expect him to play defense. You don't sign Ron Artest and expect him not to flip out. You don't sign Baron Davis and expect him to stay healthy. And apparently you don't sign Ben Wallace and expect him to become a team player.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> When I have a chance, I'll go back and look up what you said when posters warned that Wallace would be a handful and that a clash like this was inevitable.


So because Wallace is inevitably going to be a mutinous jerk, we should blame Paxson or Skiles or both for the insubordination? No.

We blame Wallace. Because its Wallace who is doing it. 

Like I wrote to MikeDC in another thread earlier today - if you make a "Looks Like Paxson Screwed The Pooch In signing Ben Wallace Club" I'll be at the top of the membership pending evidence to the contrary. 

Benedict has disappointed me and destroyed my evidently naive expectations in the extreme. I admit it. Cuff me! 

I certainly think its fair game for fans to currently criticize Paxson for even bringing Wallace to town. I'm becoming one of them. But to blame him for Wallace's actual conduct? No. That is on Wallace. Skiles and Paxson share none of the blame for Wallace's disgraceful, public, and selfish one-man insurrection.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Skiles and Paxson share none of the blame for Wallace's disgraceful, public, and selfish one-man insurrection.


You can't treat Ben Wallace like Ronald Dupree. This is where PaxSkiles is culpable -- they did not make accommodations for a superstar player who has earned the right to have his idiosyncracies.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> You can't treat Ben Wallace like Ronald Dupree. This is where PaxSkiles is culpable -- they did not make accommodations for a superstar player who has earned the right to have his idiosyncracies.


But the thing, Scott, is that it doesn't appear to me as though they had any idea that Wallace expected such an accommodation. If Wallace would have gone to them up front four months ago, and they'd refused, then I would probably (not definitely) agree with you. But based on what we know, that doesn't appear to be the case.

It looks like Ben just wigged out. If he gets it together, I'll drop the whole Big Benedict schtick for now and accept the fact that he's just going to be a *****ly pear. I just don't want any more senseless public defiance like that. It simply isn't good for the *team*.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)




----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

Mr. T said:


>



That's GREAT! :yay: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :lol: :worthy: :worthy: 

Mr. T. You've got MAD skillz!!!

This deservers the bananallama!

:bananallama:


----------



## LegoHat (Jan 14, 2004)

:rofl:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

:rofl2: :rofl2: 

:worthy:


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> You can't treat Ben Wallace like Ronald Dupree. This is where PaxSkiles is culpable -- they did not make accommodations for a superstar player who has earned the right to have his idiosyncracies.


I will go to my grave believing that superstars do not earn the right to have "idiosynchracies" to the point of openly defying team rules and showing up the coach and GM in such a public, petulant display.

Certainly, better communication by both sides probably could have diffused the situation before it boiled over, but puh-leeeze, don't equate his acts with some sort of superstar entitlement.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I will go to my grave believing that superstars do not earn the right to have "idiosynchracies" to the point of openly defying team rules and showing up the coach and GM in such a public, petulant display.


Well, where do you draw the line, then? Is it okay to defy rules and show up the coach and GM so long as it's out of the public eye?

Because that's what that MJ guy did. A lot.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I know it's not really in keeping with the tone of the thread, but this picture that's been in it twice is possibly the greatest picture of all time.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Yes, he did. He showed up coach, GM, owner, belittled teammates and so on. And I don't think that was OK.

Certainly though, better in private than in public -- and during a game, no less.


The only time I can remember MJ defying a coach during a game is when he would abandon the triangle during team struggles and take over a game, willing the team to a win, singlehandedly.

"Sorry 'bout the triangle, Tex..." is a quip I can remember from him in at least one postgame interview.


I can forgive him that one, I guess.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

You see, while I consider the headband rule silly, Ben's method of dealing with it was intentionally disruptive to a regular season game. That's the part that really bothers me. 

That is by far the worst part of it. It goes down on the list of team harming in-game fits headed by Pippen's 1.8 second travesty.

And Pippen was at least throwing _his_ prima donna fit over a game decision. It wasn't making a public mockery of team rules for no other reason than he "felt like it."

That is the part that is the hardest for me to get over. Not that he isn't "sorry." That he did what he did for no reason other than he "felt like it."


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

ScottMay said:


> Well, where do you draw the line, then?


Rick Telander asks this question today in the Sun-times:

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/152892,CST-SPT-rick29.article

Wallace takes one (off) for team 

November 29, 2006
BY RICK TELANDER Sun-Times Columnist
It was either authority meets principle or petty meets dumb or discipline meets rebellion or old-fashioned meets arrogant or Abbott meets Costello. 
Maybe it was all those things.

But for now the Great Headband Controversy is resolved -- or at least it is buried like Ben Wallace's winning effect on the Bulls and Scott Skiles' good-humor bone.

To clue you in, Wallace, the $60 million defensive star signed by the Bulls this last summer, wore a headband -- twice -- last Saturday night, and that is against team rules.

More important, it's morally against the teamwork concept that coach Skiles and general manager John Paxson have been working desperately to create, in hopes that such cohesion and unity someday can lead to Bulls Dynasty II, A.M. (After Mike).

Why a no-headband rule, you ask?

How in the hell does that fit into any team-building concept?

Well, uh, um.

This is where it gets sticky, where it becomes gradually manifest that this is not about a dress code at all but about a form of philosophical adherence that springs from conservative management concepts about discipline, priorities, worldview, culture, age, work, fashion and, yes, that pesky pop-up imp, race.

The people at the United Center -- OK, at least some media folks -- were all aflame waiting to see if Wallace would come out for the game Tuesday against the New York Knicks with a taboo headband on his noggin.

He did not.

Twelve minutes before tipoff, Wallace trotted out with the rest of his mates, wearing only cornrows above his warmups.

He had two rolled-up T-shirts in his hands, and the big man tossed them one after the other high into the stands to screaming admirers.

Then he jumped center, and the game was on.

Skiles had benched Wallace twice Saturday for insubordination, and this is not what you want to do to your highest-paid player, supposed leader and captain.

Why, many wondered, did Wallace wait until the 13th game to do something he knew would create tension and irritate his bosses no end?

The fact is, the veteran tough guy Wallace always has been a man who clashes with his coaches, and his conflict with the farmboy-rugged Skiles has been inevitable and slowly building since the preseason.

Is the conflict resolved now?, Wallace was asked.

''I think so,'' he replied.

Will he abide by the rules now?

''I think so.''


Memories of McMahon
Not since Jim McMahon baited Pete Rozelle with endorsement headbands in the Bears' Super Bowl era has a head adornment meant so much in Chicago.
As you'll recall, McMahon one-upped the privately furious NFL commissioner by wearing a headband that endorsed a charity.

Rozelle was forced to publicly chuckle, and the fines stopped.

The genesis of the Bulls' headband rule was as a guidleine to prevent more distracting displays from immature, lazy or disinterested players such as former knucklehead Eddie Robinson and current Knicks center Eddy Curry, who used to wear their headbands sloped, low, high and around the neck.

Headbands are unneccesary no matter what, being merely fashion statements that come and go, from Wilt Chamberlain to Slick Watts to Vince Carter to LeBron James to, well, not the Bulls.

The NBA has been in on this fashion crackdown, with David Stern's edicts about jerseys, coats and ties and superfluous armbands.

It seems likely that without some kind of dress rules, players eventually would come out in Timberland boots and hubcap medallions with bottles of Cristal in hand.

But Paxson's and Skiles' cultural benchmarks are not the same as those of young, largely African-American players.

The problem is we all feel most comfortable with people who look and dress and act like us, even if there is no business reason for this.


Where do you draw the line?
The hard part is determining where style and attitude part ways.
When is discipline undermined by something like a stretchy piece of cotton -- something, after all, that All-Star Wallace has worn most of his career?

''We're not the only team that has this rule,'' said Skiles, who appears to have won the opening round. ''Some people made it seem like we're over-the-top with this.''

Conservative critics such as writer Stanley Crouch will say headbands and the like are signs of Western society's demise.

''Our culture has been overwhelmed by the adolescent cult of rebellion that emerges ... from the world of rock n' roll,'' Crouch, a black man, wrote last week in an attack on young, immature black males. ''That simple-minded sense of rebelling against authority descended even further when hip-hop fell upon us from the bottom of the cultural slop bucket in which punk rock curdled.''

Is that what's going on here?

Or does Wallace, a proud black man who is richer than God, just want to be his own independent self?

It's calm on the Bulls now -- a 102-85 home blowout of the Knicks can do that -- but it's not wrong to ask where this Circus Trip-weary club is headed.

And whether the headband has been buried or just put aside


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

I'd love for Big Ben to wear a red bandana during the next home game on the final important defensive stop of the game and we'll see if Skiles is "Man Enough" to take him out of the game. Ben didn't even know this was against team rules before he signed. Anyway, A bandana isn't a headband but I'm sure Skiles/Pax would still be pissed. Ben could fight the "punishment" though saying there wasn't a rule about a bandana, just a headband.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> I'd love for Big Ben to wear a red bandana during the next home game on the final important defensive stop of the game and we'll see if Skiles is "Man Enough" to take him out of the game.


Clearly, you know very little of Scotty Skiles. Without question, he would immediately bench Wallace and probably advocate a suspension at this point. 

Skiles is a big picture guy (according to what he thinks the picture is), and he's more than willing to sacrifice a game - or several games - if he thinks it will improve the team down the road. 

I don't think there is a single Bulls fan in the world that would disagree with me about that.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

You're talking about long-haul but listen to this.


Let's say Skiles suspends him, and Ben *****es about it like a dog. Ben Wallace is a classy veteran that's respected around the league. He isn't 20 year old Tyrus Thomas. If Pax and Skiles give Ben Wallace a big fight over this headband issue it will discourage other quality free agents from wanting to play under Skiles/Pax. This is a longterm issue as well, because it could impact other free agents' interests on joining this ballclub. It obviously won't be this big of an issue if Ben doesn't make it one, but if he goes and does like I said and wears a bandana, which I'm sure skiles-pax would consider worse then a headband and gets suspended and makes an issue out of it. I'm sure that's something Skiles-Pax could get screwed on as far as future FA's are concerned.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> *Ben Wallace is a classy veteran* that's respected around the league.


I've learned that the bolded part isn't true.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> Clearly, you know very little of Scotty Skiles. Without question, he would immediately bench Wallace and probably advocate a suspension at this point.
> 
> Skiles is a big picture guy (according to what he thinks the picture is), and he's more than willing to sacrifice a game - or several games - if he thinks it will improve the team down the road.
> 
> I don't think there is a single Bulls fan in the world that would disagree with me about that.


Perhaps Wallace is a big picture guy too, and he's more than willing to sacrifice a game - or several games - if he thinks it will improve the team down the road. The coach isn't the only one who can be far-sighted and doing things for the long-term.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Perhaps Wallace is a big picture guy too, and he's more than willing to sacrifice a game - or several games - if he thinks it will improve the team down the road. The coach isn't the only one who can be far-sighted and doing things for the long-term.


I guess my parenthetical about Skiles sees "his" big picture was unclear.

I'm not saying that Skiles way is absolutely the right way. I'm saying that he will stick to it because *he believes* it is the right way.

The head band rule is stupid. I can certainly understand its origins, but I don't think this squad needs it. Of course, none of that is the point.


----------



## knicksfan (Jan 4, 2003)

Ron Cey said:


> I've learned that the bolded part isn't true.


Off of one incident in which the Bulls tried to screw him? He's certainly as classy as any decisionmaker in the Bulls front-office that's for sure. Is Ben wearing a headband the reason the Bulls have played so poorly this year? My Knicks have their own problems, so I won't blame the Bulls' lack of victories on anyone but this is rediculous to screw with a veteran who's considered the best at what he does in the league.


----------



## Mr. T (Jan 29, 2004)

knicksfan said:


> Off of one incident in which the Bulls tried to screw him? He's certainly as classy as any decisionmaker in the Bulls front-office that's for sure. Is Ben wearing a headband the reason the Bulls have played so poorly this year? My Knicks have their own problems, so I won't blame the Bulls' lack of victories on anyone but this is rediculous to screw with a veteran who's considered the best at what he does in the league.


Sorry, wrong on just about every point.

The Bulls didn't try to screw him. The rule preceded Wallace.

As classy? Insubordination when he played for the Pistons, the Bulls... funny stuff.

Headband = performance? Lots of pictures of Ben on this board doing it up just fine with no headband in sight.

Best at what he does in the league? Apparently not any more.

Knicks have their own problems? This one kept you from being wrong on every point.


----------



## Cocoa Rice Krispies (Oct 10, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Doesn’t the fact that Big Ben didn’t play exclusively with the headband, and that there are so many examples of him playing without one fly in the face of the theory that the Bulls were either negligent or downright deceitful in not “warning” Ben that they had a no headband rule? ... Doesn’t it suggest that the concept that removing Ben’s headband is the equivelant of stealing his mojo is sort of ridiculous?


Yep, dead on, and that's why this thread is brilliant. :clap:


----------



## BullSoxChicagosFinest (Oct 22, 2005)

"This Skiles character comes off as some sort of dictator"


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Perhaps Wallace is a big picture guy too, and he's more than willing to sacrifice a game - or several games - if he thinks it will improve the team down the road. The coach isn't the only one who can be far-sighted and doing things for the long-term.


Well, he did say that the only reason he did it was "he felt like it." He has never mentioned any master plan to uniify the team or improve the team or even improve his individual play.

I don't think there is any basis for supposing Ben did this because he is some "big picture guy."

Thatd be really cool and everything, but I think it is just wishful thinking on the part of someone who'd rather root for the player than side with management.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> I'm getting anecdotal reports that Ben wasn't standing 450 yards out in Lake Michigan wearing a Bulls uniform and there wasn't actually a cartoonish red bull head floating several inches above Ben's head either.
> 
> You just can't trust anything anymore.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

Eddie Van Halen is famous for playing guitar. I bet you can find pictures of him without a guitar.

I guess by the logic of this thread, he's not a guitar player, or the guitar isn't a big part of his fame.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Well, he did say that the only reason he did it was "he felt like it." He has never mentioned any master plan to uniify the team or improve the team or even improve his individual play.
> 
> I don't think there is any basis for supposing Ben did this because he is some "big picture guy."
> 
> Thatd be really cool and everything, but I think it is just wishful thinking on the part of someone who'd rather root for the player than side with management.


Perhaps that's what he just said to the press so he didn't have to further explain himself.

If he said something like "because I want to change the team's culture". People are going to ask why, and the mess becomes uglier than it already is.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> Eddie Van Halen is famous for playing guitar. *I bet you can find pictures of him without a guitar.*


Not when he's playing guitar, you won't. I think this is the worst analogy in the history of the world.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> Perhaps that's what he just said to the press so he didn't have to further explain himself.
> 
> If he said something like "because I want to change the team's culture". People are going to ask why, and the mess becomes uglier than it already is.


So it was a covert operration, with Ben secretly planning to change team culture, while avoiding the ugliness of a lot of questions as to his motives?


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhhhht.

I think you are finding a conclusion you like and stretching reality to try to make it fit.


----------



## ScottMay (Jun 15, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> Not when he's playing guitar, you won't. I think this is the worst analogy in the history of the world.


You don't have to be so modest -- the Jeff Dahmer analogy was far, far worse.


----------



## rwj333 (Aug 10, 2002)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> "This Skiles character comes off as some sort of dictator"


Awesome.


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> Eddie Van Halen is famous for playing guitar. I bet you can find pictures of him without a guitar.
> 
> I guess by the logic of this thread, he's not a guitar player, or the guitar isn't a big part of his fame.


This is your "logic"???? I'm sure you can find pictures of Ben Wallace not playing basketball when he's not playing basketball. Perhaps the better Van Halen analogy would have been sometimes he uses a pick and sometimes he doesn't.

There is no "logic" in what you wrote. Horrible, horrible, simply horrible.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

fl_flash said:


> This is your "logic"???? I'm sure you can find pictures of Ben Wallace not playing basketball when he's not playing basketball. Perhaps the better Van Halen analogy would have been sometimes he uses a pick and sometimes he doesn't.
> 
> There is no "logic" in what you wrote. Horrible, horrible, simply horrible.


The bottom line is Wallace is so famous for wearing his headbands that the bulls put his picture on the tickets, on their WWW site, etc. It is soooo irrelevent if you can find some pictures of him on/off the court not wearing one.

I do notice his cornrows also violtae team rules.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

ScottMay said:


> You don't have to be so modest -- the Jeff Dahmer analogy was far, far worse.


You are smart enough to know that was written as a deliberately overstated symbolic analogy as opposed to a supposedly fact-based one.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBullz said:


> I do notice his cornrows also violtae team rules.


Is that a team rule? Or are you just full of ****?


----------



## Ruff Draft (Nov 21, 2004)

So what if he doesn't wear it ALL the time? He is a player who deserves what he wants. Especially wearing a headband when he wants to


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

XMATTHEWX said:


> So what if he doesn't wear it ALL the time? He is a player who deserves what he wants. Especially wearing a headband when he wants to


I hear he wants your girlfriend.


----------



## The 6ft Hurdle (Jan 25, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> So it was a covert operration, with Ben secretly planning to change team culture, while avoiding the ugliness of a lot of questions as to his motives?
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigghhhhht.
> 
> I think you are finding a conclusion you like and stretching reality to try to make it fit.


I'm not actively looking for any conclusion, I'm was just challenging the idea that because Ben made certain statements, therefore he's selfish, and more broadly the notion that PaxSkiles is the only entity who can think about the team and the long-term. I was just suggesting that IF he said something more than he did, he would get even more unnecessary questions fired at him.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

The 6ft Hurdle said:


> I'm not actively looking for any conclusion, I'm was just challenging the idea that because Ben made certain statements, therefore he's selfish, and more broadly *the notion that PaxSkiles is the only entity who can think about the team and the long-term. *


Was the "notion that PaxSkiles is the only entity who can think about the team and the long term" something that was actually expressed by someone in this thread?


----------



## fl_flash (Aug 19, 2002)

DaBullz said:


> I do notice his cornrows also violtae team rules.


Mmmmmmmmnope. Wrong again buckaroo. The whole cornrow thing was a Krause idea. Not ever sure it was a team rule under Krause.

Keep it up though. I've heard that if you throw enough **** against the wall, eventually some of it may stick.


----------



## ndistops (Oct 31, 2005)

BullSoxChicagosFinest said:


> "This Skiles character comes off as some sort of dictator"


Beautifully done


----------

