Patriots Rumor Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[Kontradiction]

Not relevent.

The issue is the Super Bowl. Not the previous 18 games.

Bill determined Malcolm was not ready to play. If Bill thought he was ready he would have played every single snap.

Lol. Well, you can’t just label something irrelevant because it completely destroys your point. That’s not how this works. Indeed, the question is very relevant. Allow me to state why:

1. Your claim is that Butler wasn’t locked in. Butler states that himself. My claim is that it is nonsense intended to prevent him from throwing Bill under the bus.

2. In order for Butler to not be “locked in”, he would have to not know the defensive alignments and personnel packages they were playing in.

3. One qualifying factor of not knowing the aforementioned alignments and personnel packages is not actually playing in said alignments and personnel packages.

So, I return to the question: What formations/alignments/personnel packages did the Pats use in the Super Bowl that Butler wasn’t involved in throughout the season?

 

[aluminum seats]

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).

This thread is continuing primarily due to the bizarre cult-like unwillingness of a few to simply say Belichick screwed up, full stop, and the unwillingness of the sane opposition to just shrug our shoulders and accept the silly pu pu platter of flu/football decision/locked in nonsense being spouted after the misfit toys Pats defense got historically shredded in a Super Bowl that was there for the taking.

It's Grady Little part 2, with a twist.

It's Grady Little, but with a small but vocal group saying, "You're upset they lost, that's all. He didn't WANT to lose the game. He must have had a REASON."

It was a horrific decision the moment it happened, it's horrific now. As long as some try to rationalize it, the thread will continue.

 

[jimnance]

You can do one of two things.

Believe BB had legitimate football reasons (scheme plus Malcolm's lack of readiness)

Believe BB was on crack.

Rw- it's pretty common knowledge BB is a crackhead.

 

[signbabybrady]

Lol. Well, you can’t just label something irrelevant because it completely destroys your point. That’s not how this works. Indeed, the question is very relevant. Allow me to state why:

1. Your claim is that Butler wasn’t locked in. Butler states that himself. My claim is that it is nonsense intended to prevent him from throwing Bill under the bus.

2. In order for Butler to not be “locked in”, he would have to not know the defensive alignments and personnel packages they were playing in.

3. One qualifying factor of not knowing the aforementioned alignments and personnel packages is not actually playing in said alignments and personnel packages.

So, I return to the question: What formations/alignments/personnel packages did the Pats use in the Super Bowl that Butler wasn’t involved in throughout the season?

What reasons do you have that Butler didn't play? You seem really adamant knocking everyone else's reasons and your clearly mad at Bill.

 

[signbabybrady]

This thread is continuing primarily due to the bizarre cult-like unwillingness of a few to simply say Belichick screwed up, full stop, and the unwillingness of the sane opposition to just shrug our shoulders and accept the silly pu pu platter of flu/football decision/locked in nonsense being spouted after the misfit toys Pats defense got historically shredded in a Super Bowl that was there for the taking.

It's Grady Little part 2, with a twist.

It's Grady Little, but with a small but vocal group saying, "You're upset they lost, that's all. He didn't WANT to lose the game. He must have had a REASON."

It was a horrific decision the moment it happened, it's horrific now. As long as some try to rationalize it, the thread will continue.

I would argue it's way more bizarre the number of people that blindly assume BB made the wrong choice without even knowing why he made his choice. The motives are everything and until we know them the debate will rage on.

And maybe bizarre not the right word. Gross. Disloyal. Ungrateful. Brainwashed (by media who already dislike him because he's not nice to them).

 

[aluminum seats]

I would argue it's way more bizarre the number of people that blindly assume BB made the wrong choice without even knowing why he made his choice. The motives are everything and until we know them the debate will rage on.

...except there are ZERO "motives" that justify not changing course in the second half. Even HYPOTHETICAL ones. NO set of facts justifies what occurred, and that fact that nobody even tries to suggest such a set proves it.

 

[signbabybrady]

...except there are ZERO "motives" that justify not changing course in the second half. Even HYPOTHETICAL ones. NO set of facts justifies what occurred, and that fact that nobody even tries to suggest such a set proves it.

OK then you're right I'm wrong BB sat him for no justifiable reason at all.

 

[Kontradiction]

What reasons do you have that Butler didn't play? You seem really adamant knocking everyone else's reasons and your clearly mad at Bill.

Short of him assaulting a coach (drunk or not), I don’t see one good reason to sit him out the entire game. That’s the problem. With what we know today, BB made a mistake sitting him out that likely cost this team the Super Bowl. That several here can’t admit the simple and the obvious - that he made a mistake - is a problem.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Lol. Well, you can’t just label something irrelevant because it completely destroys your point. That’s not how this works. Indeed, the question is very relevant. Allow me to state why:

1. Your claim is that Butler wasn’t locked in. Butler states that himself. My claim is that it is nonsense intended to prevent him from throwing Bill under the bus.

2. In order for Butler to not be “locked in”, he would have to not know the defensive alignments and personnel packages they were playing in.

3. One qualifying factor of not knowing the aforementioned alignments and personnel packages is not actually playing in said alignments and personnel packages.

So, I return to the question: What formations/alignments/personnel packages did the Pats use in the Super Bowl that Butler wasn’t involved in throughout the season?

1. Speculative. What is not speculative is Malcolm admitting he was not locked in.

2. Not necessarily. It could be emotional. It could be health. He was limited in practice so perhaps he didn't fully comprehend or know the defensive game plan.

3. He was limited in practice.

You know as well as anyone Bill will change a scheme and personnel from game to game. If you are looking for football reasons why Malcolm sat read this.

A Closer Look At One Football Reason Why Malcolm Butler Didn't Play For Patriots In Super Bowl

 

[aluminum seats]

OK then you're right I'm wrong BB sat him for no justifiable reason at all.

Thank you. Mods, you may now close the thread.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Rw- it's pretty common knowledge BB is a crackhead.

Meth too.

 

[RobertWeathers]

1. Speculative. What is not speculative is Malcolm admitting he was not locked in.

2. Not necessarily. It could be emotional. It could be health. He was limited in practice so perhaps he didn't fully comprehend or know the defensive game plan.

3. He was limited in practice.

You know as well as anyone Bill will change a scheme and personnel from game to game. If you are looking for football reasons why Malcolm sat read this.

A Closer Look At One Football Reason Why Malcolm Butler Didn't Play For Patriots In Super Bowl

For clarification on my overall position regarding this topic. I am NOT saying BB was right. I am saying he used sound judgement and logic to sit Malcolm. This was not a Grady Littleesque, hair-brained decision as most want to believe.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

The logical explanation is because had the flu he was not in all the packages but was going to play. Once he was told he was not going to start before the game (he was dressed already) he freaked and was an emotional wreck. At that point it was too late to deactivate him but BB determined the Malcolm melt- down made him mentally checked out in that game.

That's consistent with the fact that players (a) said they knew days and days before that Butler would have a significantly reduced role, and (b) they only found out just before kickoff they he wouldn't be playing on defense at all.

 

[signbabybrady]

Short of him assaulting a coach (drunk or not), I don’t see one good reason to sit him out the entire game. That’s the problem. With what we know today, BB made a mistake sitting him out that likely cost this team the Super Bowl. That several here can’t admit the simple and the obvious - that he made a mistake - is a problem.

OK so we know where you stand. Assault or something worse would be a valid reason. So you admit there are reasons valid enough. You also readily admit you don't know the real reason. And yet you still judge BB giving him no benefit of the doubt. What has BB done over the last 18 years that you won't give it to him?

 

[aluminum seats]

For clarification on my overall position regarding this topic. I am NOT saying BB was right. I am saying he used sound judgement and logic to sit Malcolm. This was not a Grady Littleesque, hair-brained decision as most want to believe.

The only reason you're saying that and are clinging so blindly to it is that he has a different name.

And believe me, I get it. When someone has a long history of success, and we admire them and respect them, it creates significant cognitive dissonance to realize that all that happened was that they screwed up.

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.

 

[aluminum seats]

OK so we know where you stand. Assault or something worse would be a valid reason. So you admit there are reasons valid enough. You also readily admit you don't know the real reason. And yet you still judge BB giving him no benefit of the doubt. What has BB done over the last 18 years that you won't give it to him?

No, because assault would mean he would not suit up and play in the game.

 

[Kontradiction]

1. Speculative. What is not speculative is Malcolm admitting he was not locked in.

Considering how hard he was crying (the real show of emotion) prior to pre-game, it’s highly doubtful that he actually felt that way. He also said he knows he could have helped. He wouldn’t have said that if he truly felt he wasn’t locked in.

2. Not necessarily. It could be emotional. It could be health.

If it was for health, he wouldn’t have dressed at all. Emotional? Lol.

He was limited in practice so perhaps he didn't fully comprehend or know the defensive game plan.

3. He was limited in practice.

And this brings me back to my original question: What package did they employ in the Super Bowl that Butler, all 98% defensive snaps of him, didn’t play in during the regular season? It’s a simple question and yet you keep dodging it, Rob. Could that be because you know as well as I do that Butler was familiar with the defenses they ran in the Super Bowl and, thus, could have contributed and would have been a better option as the last DB on the field than Jordan Richards was in the Big Nickel?

You know as well as anyone Bill will change a scheme and personnel from game to game. If you are looking for football reasons why Malcolm sat read this.

A Closer Look At One Football Reason Why Malcolm Butler Didn't Play For Patriots In Super Bowl

I’ve read it. It still doesn’t answer my question or establish that they used a personnel package or alignment that Butler wasn’t familiar with. Nor does it establish that Butler hadn’t played previously in said package.

Let’s just admit it: sticking with the Big Nickel and, thus, keeping Richards on the field over Butler was a mistake that played a part in the team losing the Super Bowl.

 

[Kontradiction]

OK so we know where you stand. Assault or something worse would be a valid reason. So you admit there are reasons valid enough. You also readily admit you don't know the real reason. And yet you still judge BB giving him no benefit of the doubt. What has BB done over the last 18 years that you won't give it to him?

When “IBBIT” is what you’re falling back on, you’re in trouble. Given what we know today and the quotes from the players, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why he was benched the entire game. I judge people on a case by case basis. BB has certainly done a lot right. He’s also made his fair share of mistakes. He’s admitted as much himself (even when this board was falling all over itself to deify him). This was one of them. Unless you can say with absolute confidence that, given what we know today and given what players have said about the situation, you would 100% have rather stuck with Richards on the field and the Big Nickel (which had McCourty playing close to the LoS and Chung covering Agholor) over going into more base Nickel and even dime situations with Butler on the field, you must think this was an error on BB’s part. So let’s get you on record...

You were in favor of Richards as the extra DB and the Big Nickel over Butler. Yay or nay?

 

[RobertWeathers]

The only reason you're saying that and are clinging so blindly to it is that he has a different name.

And believe me, I get it. When someone has a long history of success, and we admire them and respect them, it creates significant cognitive dissonance to realize that all that happened was that they screwed up.

To see what is in front of one's nose requires a constant struggle.

Wrong. In the 18 years he has run this team, in all his decisions the man has been thorough and comprehensive.

I'm not going to suddenly say he made a major decision like sitting Malcolm in a knee-jerk, willy-nilly manner when there is zero evidence he did.

 

[Kontradiction]

Wrong. In the 18 years he has run this team, in all his decisions the man has been thorough and comprehensive.

I'm not going to suddenly say he made a major decision like sitting Malcolm in a knee-jerk, willy-nilly manner when there is zero evidence he did.

I don’t think there was anything knee-jerk about it. I think he truly felt that he was right. The question is: was he? Given what we know now, I don’t think there is any question that he was wrong. I don’t think you do, either. That’s why you keep having to fall back on the premise of “IBBIT”.