Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[RobertWeathers]

There is no question Bill thought what he did was right for the team at the time. In retrospect, he was probably wrong, but at the time he benched butler because he thought he would win.

We will never know.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Danny’s Revenge .... he had to know every sportswriter in New England was going to latch onto this.

He accomplished nothing.

 

[SHOWTIME15]

He accomplished nothing.

Except enlighten the fans...

 

[fxmallon]

I got blasted here for saying that BB should have held a press conf. post Superbowl to clear the air about Butler's benching. Now, he has to put up with this failure to do so. No one is a better source than Amendola for confirming what many of us thought all along: that the incredibly bizarre benching lost us the game, or at least positioned us to lose it. Many non-Patriots fans believe this and many Pat fans do to, and Amendola now joins with us to make our belief stronger.

But never a word from BB... he's stays aloof from the whole matter. His decision is his decision. He's the coach, he's the GM, he answers to no one, not Pat fans, not NFL fans, and certainly not to the press. All that may be ok if you win, but the Philly game should not have been lost.

 

[Deus Irae]

I guess I just don't understand how this notion of stupidity/error/stubborness plays out?

I guess Bill just woke up feeling like Simple Jack that day? (stupidity)

Or maybe he said sit Adam Butler and they sat Malcolm Butler? (error)

Or maybe he went up to Butler the morning of the game with a new contract and said sign this or you sit? (Stubborn)

It's been laid out for all to see about a million times. At this point, any ignorance on your part is willful, and your attempt at word play is pitiful. I'm not sure why you even went there, since you're not so stupid as to think BB is perfect as either a head coach or reader of people.

 

[aluminum seats]

I don't get how anyone is anti-BB without buying the ludicrous notion that he did this out if spite or malice.

Whatever his motives they were done with what he thinks is the best interest of the team. He didn't just suddenly before the grandest stage decide revenge was more important than football. zero percent chance of this.

And it was a colossal blunder that cost the Pats the Super Bowl victory that would have tied the Steelers.

 

[lancerman]

I don't get how anyone is anti-BB without buying the ludicrous notion that he did this out if spite or malice.

Whatever his motives they were done with what he thinks is the best interest of the team. He didn't just suddenly before the grandest stage decide revenge was more important than football. zero percent chance of this.

Or you can just think Belichick was highly arrogant, or stubborn, or unwilling to bend on a decision, or made a terrible decision and was unable to evaluate that it might have been wrong.

Look up what a straw man is. A lot of people here, including yourself, are trying to make the argument easier on yourselves by insinuating people think Belichick maliciously tried to throw the game. Nobody thinks that. Just like nobody thinks Carroll malicously or spitefully threw Super Bowl 49. They both just made stupid decisions

 

[signbabybrady]

And it was a colossal blunder that cost the Pats the Super Bowl victory that would have tied the Steelers.

So long as we agree the colossal blunder was Butlers.

 

[lancerman]

So long as we agree the colossal blunder was Butlers.

Butler didn’t make the decision

 

[Kontradiction]

I know how you feel Kontra and I respect it. I'm still pissed.

Malcolm said he wasn't 100% locked in to play. BB agreed. That's it.

Malcolm was also on the field during the KC game so not sure that's relevent?

He was in while they were in the Big Nickel. They don’t have the quality safety depth nor the depth up front to run the Big Nickel. They needed to sub out Richards and put another corner on the field.

As for “not being locked in”, that’s nonsense. It’s just him not trying to throw anyone under the bus. He played in 98% of defensive snaps. That means that he played in pretty much every single alignment that they used. That means he knew the defense. Furthermore, they acquired Bennett and played him in Denver in the same week. This locked in nonsense is just that... nonsense.

 

[signbabybrady]

It's been laid out for all to see about a million times. At this point, any ignorance on your part is willful, and your attempt at word play is pitiful. I'm not sure why you even went there, since you're not so stupid as to think BB is perfect as either a head coach or reader of people.

A million times? I haven't seen one reasonable explanation as to why Butler didn't play if he didn't do something to deserve it?

 

[lancerman]

A million times? I haven't seen one reasonable explanation as to why Butler didn't play if he didn't do something to deserve it?

That’s because you’ve been willfully ignorant of the actual arguments in this thread and made up your own so you can affirm your own beliefs

 

[signbabybrady]

Butler didn’t make the decision

With his actions he did. It's like blaming the judge for getting the Bubba treatment in jail.

 

[Kontradiction]

If Butler is his friend and he was concerned enough to ask about it (I read DA as saying he asked the team that question but not Butler that question), then why hasn't Butler told him the reason (Butler knows the short answer here - he just isn't offering it while playing the victim and not-so-silent good soldier after his big contract - and I like Butler, even if he screwed up here)?

Neither DA nor Butler are returning, so I would really like to hear actual answers rather than the "he would have helped" crap (try "he was sick, and was over that by Tuesday that week but was caught doing a line with a coach's wife after curfew on Friday so got benched" - How hard is that to write?). DA offers nothing in the way of actual observations as to whether Butler was practicing and healthy and when. The coaching staff will not answer this (if it is to spare Butler from public discussion of a disciplinary issue, then these players are being POS's for not explaining that knowing the team won't respond and clarify while taking shots publicly).

If Butler screwed up and violated team rules and got himself benched, then with this information we can lament the fact the Pats have and enforce rules in this loss and debate whether this was the time to let that slip (again, there is precedent in Welker for sitting a player for a series for a violation, but not a whole game). Barring the unlikely receipt of an accurate statement from a former player or current or former coach, this X-Files "smoking man" theorizing rolls on, with the coaching staff getting the scorn (they deserve it if sitting him was petty and vindictive, not if it was reasonable).

Short of assaulting a coach, I don’t see anything that Butler could have done that would have been worth benching him the entire game over. A quarter, maybe. But not the whole game. Not when, as a coach, you say your goal is to win championships. Then you choose to withhold one of your better corners and force the team to stay in an alignment that is getting shredded.

 

[signbabybrady]

That’s because you’ve been willfully ignorant of the actual arguments in this thread and made up your own so you can affirm your own beliefs

What is that argument?

 

[Deus Irae]

A million times? I haven't seen one reasonable explanation as to why Butler didn't play if he didn't do something to deserve it?

Your refusal to accept obviously reasonable explanations as reasonable explanations (even if you disagree with them) is not anyone's fault but your own.

 

[aluminum seats]

So long as we agree the colossal blunder was Butlers.

Belichick is capable of screwing up and he did so hugely here. Bizarre not to admit it. It's like a cult.

 

[aluminum seats]

Short of assaulting a coach, I don’t see anything that Butler could have done that would have been worth benching him the entire game over. A quarter, maybe. But not the whole game. Not when, as a coach, you say your goal is to win championships. Then you choose to withhold one of your better corners and force the team to stay in an alignment that is getting shredded.

Yep. There is literally no set of facts that fits suiting him up, letting him PLAY, but not on defense.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Except enlighten the fans...

Please.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He was in while they were in the Big Nickel. They don’t have the quality safety depth nor the depth up front to run the Big Nickel. They needed to sub out Richards and put another corner on the field.

As for “not being locked in”, that’s nonsense. It’s just him not trying to throw anyone under the bus. He played in 98% of defensive snaps. That means that he played in pretty much every single alignment that they used. That means he knew the defense. Furthermore, they acquired Bennett and played him in Denver in the same week. This locked in nonsense is just that... nonsense.

It's not nonsense.

For a player to publicly say he was not 100% ready for the SB is a big deal.