Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[sb1]

The baby logic 0f "you either trust Belichick or you don't" is laughable.

How about you think Bill Belichick is capable of making a bad decision or you think he is an infallible deity who never has made a mistake. That's how stupid that line of reasoning is.

And lol at the people who don't understand how the defense works and think just saying "Butler wasn't as good this season is a justification".

Butler was still our number 2 CB at worst and by a greater margin than Rowe. As mentioned by another poster having Butler in the game accomplished this.

-putting our second best CB on the field.
-taking Richards and Bademosi who are not good out of the game.
-having Chung and McCourty play on their regular assignments.

That format has worked all but the first few weeks of the season. That was a format that made the defense the best in points since week 5 and a top 5 in points for the entire season despite a historically bad start.

Anybody who doesn't think him being in their wouldn't make a difference is off the reservation.

Like I said before... if this was such an egregious crime to leave Butler on the bench... why wasn't BB fired after the game? If it is so black and white and clearly the wrong decision was made and BB singlehandedly blew the Super Bowl - that's a no-brainer fireable offense no matter who you are.

Unless of course the team knows it wasn't egregious at all and they agree with the decision.

 

[Kontradiction]

That's just not true. Since Nov 2011 in Denver in the first half, BB's Ds have done fine in this area.

Where they don't do well, and this happens with a lot of teams, is first time QBs who mare mobile. Without much film on them, yes, BB's D have issues, as do a lot of Ds.

It's not uncommon.

Foles is not much of a runner so I don't know where this is coming from.

They have a winning record because of Tom Brady but those defenses have underperformed against some lackluster quarterbacks. I can pull numerous examples starting from 2011 if you would like, but I doubt you want to go down this road. Foles in the Super Bowl is just another example of that. And Foles is mobile. We've seen that in the past. They just chose not to have him carry the ball as often this season because the last man standing on that roster if he got injured was Sudfeld.

 

[captain stone]

Like I said before... if this was such an egregious crime to leave Butler on the bench... why wasn't BB fired after the game? If it is so black and white and clearly the wrong decision was made and BB singlehandedly blew the Super Bowl - that's a no-brainer fireable offense no matter who you are...

Bill could've channelled his inner Ray-Ray at halftime and Killed a Guy, and Kraft wouldn't fire him now; so this particular What If has no meaning.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

They have a winning record because of Tom Brady but those defenses have underperformed against some lackluster quarterbacks. I can pull numerous examples starting from 2011 if you would like, but I doubt you want to go down this road. Foles in the Super Bowl is just another example of that. And Foles is mobile. We've seen that in the past. They just chose not to have him carry the ball as often this season because the last man standing on that roster if he got injured was Sudfeld.

Sorry. But, Tom Brady is not infallible as you suggest, especially with some putrid play for a long stretch in that very 2011 season throughout November, even at home.

Matt Schaub (not athletic) dusted the Pats 2005 D in Atlanta for a reason. They'd never seen him play on film except for 1 start from 2004.

Any 1st time QB or QBs that present a lot of wild cards in terms of athleticism, absolutely is a problem. It's also why Tyrod Taylor can dust a SB winning D early in Sept, but then had faded with more and more film on him, as the run based QBs always do.

Foles is not a run first QB. At some point the gimmick of the RPO will fade and he'll be compromised on whichever new team trades for him and starts paying him 27 mil per, into cap hell.

 

[bormio]

They have a winning record because of Tom Brady but those defenses have underperformed against some lackluster quarterbacks. I can pull numerous examples starting from 2011 if you would like, but I doubt you want to go down this road. Foles in the Super Bowl is just another example of that. And Foles is mobile. We've seen that in the past. They just chose not to have him carry the ball as often this season because the last man standing on that roster if he got injured was Sudfeld.

At times Geno Smith and Tyrod Taylor have looked competent against us. ‘Nuff said.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

At times Geno Smith and Tyrod Taylor have looked competent against us. ‘Nuff said.

Right, as first time starters or early in seasons.

 

[Soliel]

They will never tell us. I’m at the point where I don’t care what he did, they should have played him anyways. They get one stop with butler

 

[bormio]

Right, as first time starters or early in seasons.

They do not look good versus other teams. Besides there are no excuses in the SB. First time seeing Foles - you still cannot let him do what he did. If this was medicine, Belichick would be sued for malpractice.

 

[sb1]

Bill could've channelled his inner Ray-Ray at halftime and Killed a Guy, and Kraft wouldn't fire him now; so this particular What If has no meaning.

Oh no question he would be unemployed at least as a coach. It wouldn't have to be being fired in public. Kraft would have at least asked him nicely to resign and they would have let him do that gracefully. Or perhaps even a move to another position in the organization.

If of course this really was seen by the team as one of the biggest coaching blunders of all time like it's being made out to be. Benching Butler and singlehandedly blowing the Super Bowl? Yes that would cost a coach his job, I don't care who he was.

Which tells me it's not seen that way at all.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

They will never tell us. I’m at the point where I don’t care what he did, they should have played him anyways. They get one stop with butler

That's insane to think that. Why is Butler some miracle worker? I don't think so. He was up and down all year.

If he was crappy in practice had the flu and was being outperformed by other players AND didn't trust him, it doesn't really matter with the what-ifs.

 

[bormio]

Oh no question he would be unemployed at least as a coach. It wouldn't have to be being fired in public. Kraft would have at least asked him nicely to resign and they would have let him do that gracefully. Or perhaps even a move to another position in the organization.

If of course this really was seen by the team as one of the biggest coaching blunders of all time like it's being made out to be. Benching Butler and singlehandedly blowing the Super Bowl? Yes that would cost a coach his job, I don't care who he was.

Which tells me it's not seen that way at all.

We have people here arguing Butler would not have been better. Maybe Kraft agrees. So maybe he would not have fired BB. No doubt Butler was benched - the disagreement comes over whether it cost the game.

 

[sb1]

That's insane to think that. Why is Butler some miracle worker? I don't think so. He was up and down all year.

If he was crappy in practice had the flu and was being outperformed by other players AND didn't trust him, it doesn't really matter with the what-ifs.

They didn't get that stop in the Chiefs game and he played. I know the circumstances were different but still.... he was on the field in week 1 and he was not very good. So there's no reason why it's a stone cold lock he would have made a difference in the outcome of this game. He might have for sure, but it's not a guarantee.

 

[sb1]

We have people here arguing Butler would not have been better. Maybe Kraft agrees. So maybe he would not have fired BB. No doubt Butler was benched - the disagreement comes over whether it cost the game.

That's what I mean. If it was such a crime to bench him...and the decision was a lost title...that would cost any coach his job, IMO. The fact it didn't tells me it's not as black and white as it's being made to be and the organization agrees with the decision.

 

[Kontradiction]

Sorry. But, Tom Brady is not infallible as you suggest, especially with some putrid play for a long stretch in that very 2011 season throughout November, even at home.

Matt Schaub (not athletic) dusted the Pats 2005 D in Atlanta for a reason. They'd never seen him play on film except for 1 start from 2004.

Any 1st time QB or QBs that present a lot of wild cards in terms of athleticism, absolutely is a problem. It's also why Tyrod Taylor can dust a SB winning D early in Sept, but then had faded with more and more film on him, as the run based QBs always do.

Foles is not a run first QB. At some point the gimmick of the RPO will fade and he'll be compromised on whichever new team trades for him and starts paying him 27 mil per, into cap hell.

Starting off your post with a logical fallacy (the old reliable straw man, in this case) makes me automatically not take your post seriously. You also ended it with another one. I never argued that Brady is "infallible" or that Foles is a "run-first QB". When you have to rely on logical fallacies to support an argument, that should tell you that your argument is trash.

The following are games in which the defense underperformed against non-elite, but mobile quarterbacks...

1. 2011: Bills, Raiders, Eagles.
2. 2012: 49ers. (I would put the Seattle game on here as well, but it's debatable that Wilson falls into the "non-elite" category).
3. 2013: Bengals, Texans, Browns, Dolphins, Panthers.
4. 2014: Chiefs, Jets (first game). I could also point out the Packers game and the DL just standing there and watching Rodgers. But for the Packers game, see: 2012 Seahawks game.
5. 2015: Bills, Jets x 2, Dolphins (final week of the season, though).
6. 2016: Dolphins, Bengals.
7. 2017: Chiefs, Texans, Panthers, Eagles.

I took into account score, passer rating, yards thrown for, and incompletions forced. Some of those QBs on that list (like Smith) are better than others, but there's more than enough data on hand to suggest that the game plan of contain up front and Cover-3 or Cover-4 in the secondary has kept some much lesser teams, with much lesser quarterbacks, in the game against us.

 

[Tunescribe]

and here we have the world leader in worthless gibberish.........I understand all to well that so many of you don't know what the f.ck you're talking about

That's why we all rely on your sagacious insight to lead the way, as your posts are veritable beacons of light piercing the ubiquitous gloom and confusion.

 

[bormio]

That's what I mean. If it was such a crime to bench him...and the decision was a lost title...that would cost any coach his job, IMO. The fact it didn't tells me it's not as black and white as it's being made to be and the organization agrees with the decision.

If that is the case, many feel they incorrectly assessed the situation. It is hard to defend them though, because the product actually on the field was horrible.

 

[sb1]

1. 2012: 49ers. (I would put the Seattle game on here as well, but it's debatable that Wilson falls into the "non-elite" category).

I think Kevin Kolb (Cardinals) was mobile too. Cardinals beat the Pats at home that year.

 

[Kontradiction]

I think Kevin Kolb (Cardinals) was mobile too. Cardinals beat the Pats at home that year.

Kolb didn't have a good game by any of those measurements, though.

 

[Chris Stevenson]

Starting off your post with a logical fallacy (the old reliable straw man, in this case) makes me automatically not take your post seriously. You also ended it with another one. I never argued that Brady is "infallible" or that Foles is a "run-first QB". When you have to rely on logical fallacies to support an argument, that should tell you that your argument is trash.

The following are games in which the defense underperformed against non-elite, but mobile quarterbacks...

1. 2011: Bills, Raiders, Eagles.
2. 2012: 49ers. (I would put the Seattle game on here as well, but it's debatable that Wilson falls into the "non-elite" category).
3. 2013: Bengals, Texans, Browns, Dolphins, Panthers.
4. 2014: Chiefs, Jets (first game). I could also point out the Packers game and the DL just standing there and watching Rodgers. But for the Packers game, see: 2012 Seahawks game.
5. 2015: Bills, Jets x 2, Dolphins (final week of the season, though).
6. 2016: Dolphins, Bengals.
7. 2017: Chiefs, Texans, Panthers, Eagles.

I took into account score, passer rating, yards thrown for, and incompletions forced. Some of those QBs on that list (like Smith) are better than others, but there's more than enough data on hand to suggest that the game plan of contain up front and Cover-3 or Cover-4 in the secondary has kept some much lesser teams, with much lesser quarterbacks, in the game against us.

OK?

Did we win these games? Chiefs, Texans, Panthers were all in September. I just said it.....BB's Ds are NEVER locked down tight in Sept. He's still tinkering and usese it as extended preseason to see what he has up against live competition.

I am talking about Halloweenish, no 1st time starting run based QB, etc, the D prepares well and plays well. It's the element of the unknown factor where the D may struggle. Context is important on this topic. Not everything in the world is so black and white.

Also, we didn't see the D struggle vs the RPO because it didn't mean anything. Foles was on fire and was throwing darts all over the field. That's why they lost. I saw no broken coverages or egregious coverages from the LBs or back end.

 

[Soliel]

Foles did have a hell of a game. I wish my coworkers would shut up about him being a back up. The guys a pro bowl level qb