the garbage ass Reid piece he's referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/wizards/washington-wizards-should-think-about-john-walls-ink-before-signing-him-to-a-max-deal/2013/06/24/25aa2146-dd02-11e2-bd83-e99e43c336ed_story.html

http://theshadowleague.com/articles/john-wall-proves-and-disproves-the-validity-of-the-tattoo-stigma

It’s nearing July, meaning we don’t have too much to talk about, so Jason Reid’s column in the Washington Post on John Wall has become the topic du jour. Reid worries that Wall’s new tattoos – which adorn his trunk and won’t be visible when he’s in uniform – speak to decision-making unbecoming of a player in line for a max contract extension.

FYI, Dwight Howard is totally unmarked and he might be the worst decision-maker on Earth.

Know who else hasn’t shown they can make good decisions? The Wizards. It’s their fault, after all, that the decision of whether to give Wall a max contract is so convoluted.

They’re the team that hasn’t won 50 games since 1979, where young players with varying levels of potential have historically stagnated. They surrounded Wall with guys who, among other things, couldn’t remember which end of the damn floor to run to. Washington looked to Wall to take them to “the next level,” something Hall of Famers like Moses Malone and Michael Jordan, and likely Hall of Famer Chris Webber, couldn’t do. They hired Flip Saunders, whom Rasheed Wallace – another former Wizard/Bullet – once called “the worst coward I’ve ever seen.” Saunders promptly and predictably struggled to maintain control of the motley crew he was given.

Last season, the Wizards let go of JaVale McGee, Andray Blatche and Nick Young. A team that was previously bereft of talent and overrun with space cadets, became one simply bereft of talent. After missing the first two months of the season, Wall played the best ball of his career, with a slew of advanced statistics to speak to his improvement. The Wizards improved, too, going 24-25 with Wall, after going 5-28 without him.

Most point guards are asked to answer for their team’s successes and failures. Wall has been asked to answer for failures that seemed to happen to the Wizards over and over – some before Wall was even born.

Here’s what the Wizards have in Wall – a fierce, selfless competitor; so much so, that those around him warned college coaches of the dangers of asking him to play with guys who weren’t as dedicated as he is. As a teenager, he was unfailingly polite, the sort to call everyone older than him “sir.” He was the baby-face of Kentucky’s return to prominence, the guy who attended women’s volleyball matches to show support. He would stop by the media room at NBA Summer League to make sure no writers needed to speak with him before he left. If there was something bad to say about his character, it hasn’t turned up. If those things come out because he got some tattoos, that ink must be more powerful than any of us knew.

It would be easy to pile on this antiquated sentiment. Too easy, in fact, considering how much effort the NBA has put into divorcing itself from the first decade of the millennium, when Allen Iverson became the face of the NBA, whether the league wanted him to be or not. The NBA went as far as to implement a dress code to give itself more polish, and it’s hard to argue that it hasn’t been effective. Nine years after the Malice at the Palace, the league is healthier than ever and full of stars it can sell to the mainstream. Like it or not, a cleaner cut NBA has been good for business.

Of course, anyone should be allowed to do whatever he or she wants. In 2013, the notion that a man’s choice to get a tattoo would indicate any weakness is foolish. That said, let's not pretend that there aren't a lot of fools left , or that everyone will be beloved for body art like Chris Andersen.

Wall certainly entered college with baggage, but by and large, he was allowed to move past it once as he got to Kentucky. But imagine if Wall had emerged from high school with tattoos, something his former AAU coach and advisor, Brian Clifton, would not allow. Think of how Wall, with three high schools on his transcript and an adolescence marked by fits of anger, would have been seen as he arrived in Lexington in John Calipari’s first recruiting class. Can you see Wall, with ink up and down his arms, standing side-by-side with fellow freshman phenom DeMarcus Cousins, being easily embraced?

There’s a reason Kevin Durant and others have tattoos their jerseys can conceal. We can quibble about the rights and wrongs behind that, but we can’t deny that tattoos project an image that is alluring to some, threatening to others, and might not be worth the risk for those who wish to be pitchmen. If Wall is to be the franchise player so many envisioned him becoming, the player Reebok expected when it gave him a $25 million deal, pitching is part of the job.

And that’s why Wall’s tattoos will be under his jersey. After he worked so hard to prove himself, it’s silly to think that tattoos – which, according to those who know him, he always wanted – would mean more than what he’s shown and proven. But if Wall didn’t understand some of the points Reid made in his column, why aren’t his tattoos out for the world to see?

Wall hasn’t proven what kind of point guard he could be in the NBA. The questions about his jump shot will remain until it improves considerably, and that will determine how good Wall can be.

But many people, lazily, think tattoos speak to a man’s character. Wall has survived the sort of losing and dysfunction that can break a young player, and he appears to be trending upward. Tattoos won’t break a man like that, no matter what anyone thinks. All that matters is what he can make the Wizards, and what they can make him.

John is a good dude.

what's that from?

Reid literally wrote: "This ISN'T about the MERITS of body art. Wall, 22, has the right to put whatever he wants on his body, and one of the advantages of youth is that you can reinvent yourself."

He questioned Wall's flip-flopping on the issue of getting a tattoo, clearly suggesting that Wall is about to go buck fucking wild once he gets this contract...and he threw out Gilbert and Blatch as examples.

Now, I'm all for being indignant, but let's at least focus on what we supposed to be mad about.

Bomani just wasted a whole fuckin column arguing some shit that's not even the point.

Tatts are not the issue. It's Wall's state of mind on the eve of a big ass payday, the one he's been angling for since being drafted. And I do remember Wall carefully crafting a clean cut image for marketing purposes and saying he don't want tattoos. He coulda said he ain't want a gaudy ass luxury vehicle and Reid's column about Wall going back on his word about luxury vehicles would have been just as valid.

And let me be really clear, since niggas love being emotional: Argue Reid's actual fucking premise and put your emotions about athletes and tatts to the side. As for what I think about all this: I didn't care until Bomani wrote all that unnecessary shit and D12 and Birdman and Durant and Iverson, as if Reid didn't explicitly say tatts are not the issue...WALL CHANGING HIS STANCE on tatts is the issue, because it all looks calculated, like "NOPE...I'm bout to get maxed...fuck this marketing shit...I want my tatts now."

And, yes, I get that Wall was 19 when he said tatts would harm the marketing of his image. He was a kid and he has the right to flip-flop. I completely agree. And that's why I think Reid's column was trivial and unnecessary. However, I didn't think it was about tatts. I thought it was a clear shot as Wall's state of mind, that after a nice 6 week run, Wall thinks he's a superstar, max player now...and given the Wizards history, that's a bad sign of things to come. I don't agree with Reid on that, because John Wall isn't Gil or Blatch. However, At least I fucking understand what I'm disagreeing with.

If Wall disappoints, he'll be able to say that his flip-flopping on tattoos was the first sign... but it's a really WEAK sign right now so he's really just writing to be writing.

Wall is still maintaining the spirit of his earlier promise to present and maintain a marketable image. The tattoos won't be visible while he's in a jersey, so unless you follow him on instagram, you likely will never see them.

And tattoos are more accepted than ever... there are even very marketable celebrities out there who get away with visible tattoos (they're, of course, exceptional at what they do, which Wall isn't yet).

I think Wall's original promise was a bit naive about how tattoos are perceived... but his actions show some savvy and maturity. The immature move would be to get some neck and face tattoos on some "I'm rich (now), Bitch!" .... or to, you know, actually DO something immature or worng like soliciting a tranny or shitting in someone's shoes.

>If Wall disappoints, he'll be able to say that his
>flip-flopping on tattoos was the first sign... but it's a
>really WEAK sign right now so he's really just writing to be
>writing.

that's how i viewed it right away. it was such a cheap shot. there are plenty of plenty who don't think wall worth the max with or without tatts. so if he disappoints, him changing his mind on tatts ain't got shit to do with anything. reid always writing bamma shit, ol' john beck cysing ass nigga.

The Wiz have a nack for bubbling to the top on weak drafts lol.

Anyway, I don't think he's built to be THE guy (very few PG's are) but I think he's aware of the criticism and is using it as motivation. He can be a very important player for the Wiz but they still need a true star to have any hopes of contending.

>
>Reid literally wrote: "This ISN'T about the MERITS of body
>art. Wall, 22, has the right to put whatever he wants on his
>body, and one of the advantages of youth is that you can
>reinvent yourself."
>
>He questioned Wall's flip-flopping on the issue of getting a
>tattoo, clearly suggesting that Wall is about to go buck
>fucking wild once he gets this contract...and he threw out
>Gilbert and Blatch as examples.

>Tatts are not the issue. It's Wall's state of mind on the eve
>of a big ass payday, the one he's been angling for since being
>drafted. And I do remember Wall carefully crafting a clean cut
>image for marketing purposes and saying he don't want tattoos.
>He coulda said he ain't want a gaudy ass luxury vehicle and
>Reid's column about Wall going back on his word about luxury
>vehicles would have been just as valid.
I'm not so sure it's about the payday per se. Like you said, he's only 22, and is allowed to change his stance. What he's flip-flopping about seems trivial. I completely agree, it's not like D12, where his flip-flopping can change the landscape of teams, and parts of the league. Wall changed his mind about tattoos, and I guess he's figured he's already got some marketing $, and looking at Durant, can do the same thing with his tatts and still get the same $.

>And let me be really clear, since niggas love being emotional:
>Argue Reid's actual fucking premise and put your emotions
>about athletes and tatts to the side. As for what I think
>about all this: I didn't care until Bomani wrote all that
>unnecessary shit and D12 and Birdman and Durant and Iverson,
>as if Reid didn't explicitly say tatts are not the
>issue...WALL CHANGING HIS STANCE on tatts is the issue,
>because it all looks calculated, like "NOPE...I'm bout to get
>maxed...fuck this marketing shit...I want my tatts now."
I don't know if I can make that leap. The changing his stance is him going from 19 to 22, and seeing a star like Durant have the tattoos and not affect his marketing $. I think him looking at the stars of right now, especially Durant and Lebron, and seeing them being inked up is telling him that tattoos or not he can get this $. I don't have a problem with him changing his stance on tattoos at all. He just was in a commercial with Jrue and Lillard, so he's probably gonna get more marketing chances. If he changed his stance on re-signing, coaching, or other things, then it might have more credence. It doesn't really seem calculated in my opinion

>>And, yes, I get that Wall was 19 when he said tatts would harm
>the marketing of his image. He was a kid and he has the right
>to flip-flop. I completely agree. And that's why I think
>Reid's column was trivial and unnecessary. However, I didn't
>think it was about tatts. I thought it was a clear shot as
>Wall's state of mind, that after a nice 6 week run, Wall
>thinks he's a superstar, max player now...and given the
>Wizards history, that's a bad sign of things to come. I don't
>agree with Reid on that, because John Wall isn't Gil or
>Blatch. However, At least I fucking understand what I'm
>disagreeing with.
You said it in your first sentence, and I agree with that.
I also agree with Wall MIGHT having his head a little gassed after his little run. If he's thinking he's a max player after that, then you're absolutely right. I just think the article pointing out tattoo's is a bad starting point, and veils his point with hate, rather than an interesting pov (being that is Wall a max player)