Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[Ring 6]

RW -
I am giving BB some benefit of the doubt. I accept that the game plan could have been to go big nickel and leave Bulter out because "it was best for the scheme" and nothing personal.
But- 30 minutes of Philly having their way with us should have prompted MP or BB or make SOME change. And yes, Butler is up there with Harmon in terms of aggressive tackling.
It doesn't have to be all or nothing, does it? I love my parents but I sometimes disagree with them...doesn't mean I want new parents or am ready to move into the neighbors house (I'm on the wrong side of 40 so that would be really weird).

Another aside: How much do I respect Butler's tackling? I think he made the 2 biggest plays to get us the #1 seed:
1. I think Tampa goes down and scores unless Butler rips down Desean Jackson and knocks him out of the game on that final drive.
2. I think the NYJ could have upset us if it weren't for Butler stripping Austin Sefaris-Jenkins at the pylon.

Butler not playing AT ALL wasnt due to scheme.

People are getting things all twisted around here.

The relevance of scheme is when people say their was a domino effect. If butler was truly in the mix, based upon the scheme the game plan was built on he would have played maybe 15-20 snaps. So scheme says it was Rowe or butler not a domino effect.

My opinion, based upon EVERYTHING we saw or heard was that butler struggled badly in practice and wasn’t getting the gane plan. That led to the decision to go into the gane with him at cb3. That happened a few days before the game.
It’s very possible he could have split time with rowe or that we used more regular nickel I’d he was available than we did with Bademosi.
But at some point something else happened. I’m sure not practicing with the 1s all week created a reaction in butler hence the rumors of attitude and fighting with coaches.
There are also rumors of weed or curfew which on top of demotion and a negative attitude toward it mean even more.
Then there was what we saw on tv. A guy who looked liked he was melting down.

For all those reasons as an example we can’t put this guy in the field if there is any way to avoid it comes into play.

Finally if you decided it was bad for the team to play him why would you later just throw him in there? I don’t get that logic.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Since you don't like your posts broken up, i'll make an accommodation and respond to the bolded

Where? Where did anyone actually say "Malcolm did nothing wrong"? What does any of this have to do with credibility anyway? We're talking about the decisions that were made, not who said what afterwards. I don't care if it was a vendetta or a football decision that led to the benching, and then the stubborn refusal to play the player when things were failing miserably right before your eyes. We refuse to accept that Malcolm wasn't ready to play and couldn't have helped anyway because the entire body of work of this team, this year, shows those assumptions to be false. So what if he was crying for a few minutes? He wasn't crying in the 2nd half and he couldn't have done any worse than what was put out there, again, based on the entire body of work, of this team, this year. I absolutely would have put him in and tried to win the game. I am still shocked and will never understand why BB didn't do so, whatever his motivations were at the beginning of the game. That is not how that man usually operates. If things aren't working he usually changes them up. He's not some first year coach that can't deviate from the game plan because he's out of ideas and in over his head. You are obviously okay with what he did, and the outcome of the Super Bowl. I and many other people are not.

The day Malcolm sent out the letter I had a dozen posters telling me to eat crow which implied Malcolm did nothing wrong. Deus and TomBradley were a couple of them. That is an example of posters thinking Malcolm's credibility in not "hurting the team" is preferred over BBs credibility in making a football decision that was best for the team.

BB made the decision not to play a player because he didn't think the player was in a position to help the team. Hes been operating that way for 18 years. Why are you thinking he'll all the sudden change? You apply Malcolm to the same standard (played 98% the the snaps, etc). Like I said, you are putting more credibility into Malcolm than BB and you are wrong for doing it. Why the two standards? Why is Butler's length of good performance warrant play and BBs length of coaching irrelevant and he is now suddenly an idiot?

I am not ok with the loss but at least I know BB did his best handling the situation which was a player who he relied on all year letting the team down.

You want to throw darts at the blame board, start with Malcolm.

I hope he goes to Cleveland.

Cutting peoples' responses into little pieces and making assumptions yourselves (he wasn't ready, he couldn't help at all) that fly in the face of everything we actually DO know (that he played 98% of the defensive snaps for this Super Bowl caliber team prior to the Super Bowl over a 16 game span) deserve a complaint. And yes, I do know it's a fan board.

Again, you are assuming Malcolm was able to help the team and a coach with 5 Super Bowl titles and 270+ career wins screwed up.

You admit Malcolm did something but refuse to believe he did something for BB to not trust him out there.

 

[Ring 6]

So now it is okay to speculate. Disregard what the two coaches said, disregard what the player said. Because simply speaking Bill is not capable of making a bad decision. So assasinate was he kid’s character even when they guy you are defending said otherwise.

It’s not really speculation to say belichick would need a reason to make such a drastic move. It’s common sense. Every discussion should start from that assumption or we are just being stupid.

 

[Ring 6]

This is why your point is irrelevant:

Huh?

 

[mb6592]

Huh?

Ivan was suggesting Butler benching was due to scheme and he used the KC game as possible proof, I used your post because you spelled out why "Butler not playing AT ALL wasnt due to scheme"

 

[makoute]

It’s not really speculation to say belichick would need a reason to make such a drastic move. It’s common sense. Every discussion should start from that assumption or we are just being stupid.

Actually that is exactly what you are doing. The only thing I need to assume is what the people involved said. I am not going to go in their heads and translate, or interpret their words because I believe they are all adults who are more than capable of talking. The coach said it wasn’t disciplinary, the D coordinator goes further and states it was schematic. The player puts a statement out stating all the reports out there about behavioral and disciplinary issues are false. A lot of his teammates co-sign his statement, when they don’t have to. Brady had no reason to get involved. These are all on the record statements. But yet you want to speculate that he had to have done something wrong to someone, he had to have had a blow up with the coaches. Because simply speaking you don’t believe that the decision was a good one.

 

[captain stone]

Ray Lewis is always crying. I think the Ravens won a super bowl with his crying...

...and with his killing a guy (or 2)...

 

[mb6592]

It’s not really speculation to say belichick would need a reason to make such a drastic move. It’s common sense. Every discussion should start from that assumption or we are just being stupid.

This is why this discussion has lasted 200 pages - because your point is obvious but some are disputing it and pointing to scheme, big nickel, bad practices, the KC game, blah, blah, blah... The only points that matter are Belichick decided, for reason(s) unrelated to winning the Super Bowl, to bench Butler and this decision probably cost the Pats a Super Bowl win. Notwithstanding, both Belichick and Butler saying it wasn't related to disciplinary reason(s) your point remains obvious.

 

[Ivan]

This is why your point is irrelevant:

That makes no sense. You said there was way that offense would put up 41 with Butler on the field and KC did just that.


Make up all the excuses you want, the fact remains that the Eagles won because they earned it and deserve it. “ if, if, if....” is for losers.

 

[Ring 6]

Actually that is exactly what you are doing. The only thing I need to assume is what the people involved said. I am not going to go in their heads and translate, or interpret their words because I believe they are all adults who are more than capable of talking. The coach said it wasn’t disciplinary, the D coordinator goes further and states it was schematic. The player puts a statement out stating all the reports out there about behavioral and disciplinary issues are false. A lot of his teammates co-sign his statement, when they don’t have to. Brady had no reason to get involved. These are all on the record statements. But yet you want to speculate that he had to have done something wrong to someone, he had to have had a blow up with the coaches. Because simply speaking you don’t believe that the decision was a good one.

That leaves you with Bill Belichick, for absolutely no reason after playing butler 98% of the snaps all season and every single one for over 2 months just changed his mind in Sb Sunday and decided butler was now a zero snap guy, again for no reason whatsoever.
Thinking that, simply, is moronic.

I wouldn’t assume that from Ben Macdonald, chuck pagano, hue Jackson, or whatever awful coach you want to put in there. And I would t even think there was a 0.00001% chance with Bill Belichick.

 

[Ring 6]

This is why this discussion has lasted 200 pages - because your point is obvious but some are disputing it and pointing to scheme, big nickel, bad practices, the KC game, blah, blah, blah... The only points that matter are Belichick decided, for reason(s) unrelated to winning the Super Bowl, to bench Butler and this decision probably cost the Pats a Super Bowl win. Notwithstanding, both Belichick and Butler saying it wasn't related to disciplinary reason(s) your point remains obvious.

They were not reasons unrelated to winning the Sb. They were reasons that he felt gave the team the best chance to win.
That’s why this argument is so ridiculous.
People want to believe that belichick didn’t care about winning before accepting that something was going on that led him to believe butler would hurt the team.

And please stop with calling belichicks comments something factual. He will NEVER give reasons. No coach does. Butler could have literally put a poisonous snake in his hoodie or lit Rowe’s room on fire and he would have said it wasn’t disciolinary.

 

[makoute]

That leaves you with Bill Belichick, for absolutely no reason after playing butler 98% of the snaps all season and every single one for over 2 months just changed his mind in Sb Sunday and decided butler was now a zero snap guy, again for no reason whatsoever.
Thinking that, simply, is moronic.

I wouldn’t assume that from Ben Macdonald, chuck pagano, hue Jackson, or whatever awful coach you want to put in there. And I would t even think there was a 0.00001% chance with Bill Belichick.

I only have to think that if I believe that Bill and the coaching staff are human beings. Once I accept that simple fact, I know that they are capable of making mental errors. I take them st their words, and not trash a player by making up stories and scenarios in my mind to defend a decision that in my mind was a bad decision.

 

[Ring 6]

Ivan was suggesting Butler benching was due to scheme and he used the KC game as possible proof, I used your post because you spelled out why "Butler not playing AT ALL wasnt due to scheme"

The heavy use if big nickel over regular nickel which would have limited butlers snaps is he had made himself eligible to play was scheme related.

 

[mb6592]

That makes no sense. You said there was way that offense would put up 41 with Butler on the field and KC did just that.


Make up all the excuses you want, the fact remains that the Eagles won because they earned it and deserve it. “ if, if, if....” is for losers.

I hear you. You can't quantify how Butler's absence impacted the game. Significantly? Not Significantly? Certainly (and pointlessly) debatable. What you can't dispute is the point AndyJohnson, PatsDeb, myself and others are making - that Butler being benched the whole game was not related to trying to win this Super Bowl.

 

[Ring 6]

I only have to think that if I believe that Bill and the coaching staff are human beings. Once I accept that simple fact, I know that they are capable of making mental errors. I take them st their words, and not trash a player by making up stories and scenarios in my mind to defend a decision that in my mind was a bad decision.

How can you know it’s a bad decision if you don’t know the reason it was made?

Instead you will trash the coach who brought a dynasty here?

 

[makoute]

How can you know it’s a bad decision if you don’t know the reason it was made?

Instead you will trash the coach who brought a dynasty here?

Because I have been told by two coaches why it was made. Unless you think Bill and Matt are both lying.

 

[mb6592]

The heavy use if big nickel over regular nickel which would have limited butlers snaps is he had made himself eligible to play was scheme related.

Maybe Butler plays less if it was due to scheme. Not playing at all - THE WHOLE GAME - makes that point irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[Ivan]

Ivan was suggesting Butler benching was due to scheme and he used the KC game as possible proof, I used your post because you spelled out why "Butler not playing AT ALL wasnt due to scheme"

That’s not what I said at all. You said they would never put up 41 with Butler on the field and I pointed out that Pederson’s old offense did just that in the opener.

 

[Ivan]

That makes no sense. You said there was way that offense would put up 41 with Butler on the field and KC did just that.


Make up all the excuses you want, the fact remains that the Eagles won because they earned it and deserve it. “ if, if, if....” is for losers.

.........

 

[Ring 6]

I hear you. You can't quantify how Butler's absence impacted the game. Significantly? Not Significantly? Certainly (and pointlessly) debatable. What you can't dispute is the point AndyJohnson, PatsDeb, myself and others are making - that Butler being benched the whole game was not related to trying to win this Super Bowl.

Of course it was related to trying to win the SB. There was no other reason to make the decision