The last few pages have been the same argument as the first 200+. There are two schools of thought on the issue that are mostly irreconcilable.
I do think it’s really interesting that Amendola had comments that fell squarely on one of those two sides.
But is it all truly irreconcilable if broken down into the basics?
Reason(s) for BB's decision? Decided on what
he felt was best for the team (Is there anyone with even a modicum of seriousness arguing BB made a decision for reasons other than what
he thought was 'best for the team'?)
The reasons? Unknown (the certain reason/s for the decision still rest within the integrated circuit boards between and above the two bolts protruding from the neck of BB).
The consequence of BB's decision? Unknown. It's a hypothetical. Anyone saying the Patriots would have given up less points is estimating (seems likely to me but it is still an estimate).
Can BB make a mistake -- even a major mistake? Yes (IMHO this was one of them).
What is irreconcilable is the whys and the coulda-shoulda-woulda hypotheticals. And by their very nature they usually are irreconcilable. And you can add to the 'what if Butler plays': what if Philly doesn't get that friggin
extremely fortuitous strip sack against an otherwise unstoppable Patriot offense? Patriots score a TD, win the SB, and the Butler argument becomes just an aside.
Continue to argue away ad nauseum if it is what one enjoys -- but the Patriots lost the SB and Butler didn't play. Nothing is gonna change that. At some point, much like a certain Feb 2008 game that dare not be spoken, moving on is a really good option (much like eating a plate of kale: foul and bitter to digest but great for a healthy bursa sac and islets of Langerhans).