Patriots Rumor Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[chasa]

You and your IF statement arguments are perplexing. But I'll play along.

IF that were the case then No BB wouldn't have cut him because BB would have known that the player either never truly made a mistake or he would've benched him to prevent such a mistake.

what

 

[TBR]

Stop it? Yikes. Hope you weren't stomping while you were typing that.

Impressive how you can type with your head up Belichick's ass.

 

[Clonamery]

Impressive how you can type with your head up Belichick's ass.

I get it, your emotions are still raw. I'm going to leave talking to you until you can get a grip.

 

[TBR]

Phew boy..

My point is very clear and I'm ok if you don't like it or agree with it but belching out "Straw man" or "dishonest" or " lazy" or any other disparaging adjectives you'd like to use to belittle my position in this argument instead of actually arguing is embarrassing yourself.

You don't have an argument. You did post a big straw man and I don't care whether you dislike the fact that I told you so. You are being lazy and dishonest by avoiding the crux of this matter by resorting to things like "well he's the best coach of all time so I trust in him" and broad statements like "he has a history of making tough decisions".

I've already raised my points and arguments in this thread during the off-season. There's no counterargument to what you're saying because you're not putting forth an argument. What you're doing is shifting the conversation to Belichick's credibility & achievements, away from the Super Bowl benching.

 

[TB_Helmet]

You don't have an argument. You did post a big straw man and I don't care whether you dislike the fact that I told you so. You are being lazy and dishonest by avoiding the crux of this matter by resorting to things like "well he's the best coach of all time so I trust in him" and broad statements like "he has a history of making tough decisions".

I've already raised my points and arguments in this thread during the off-season. There's no counterargument to what you're saying because you're not putting forth an argument. What you're doing is shifting the conversation to Belichick's credibility & achievements, away from the Super Bowl benching.

I think he does have an argument but I'm not sure I agree with it.

The argument is essentially

"Belichick makes tough / unorthodox decisions. Those decisions have led to multiple Super Bowls. You can be mad at him for benching Butler (an example of such a decision) but if you don't want him to be making decisions like that, then you have to give back the other Super Bowls as well. Can't have it both ways."

My counterargument would be that there's no similarity between the Butler benching and anything BB has done in the past (this isn't an intentional safety for example, or even a cold-blooded move like cutting Milloy). The closest you can get is the Welker benching (which also backfired) and something like sending Adalius Thomas home which didn't happen before the Super Bowl.

Even if you want to say that this is Belichick's way of showing no player is above the team and this is the latest example of implementing the "Patriot Way" or whatever, and that mentality is what's led to success in the past, I still say that there's no resemblance between this and any other such implementation. And as has been iterated ad nauseum, you can still bench Butler for part of the game until it's clear he's needed, and the point has been made.

 

[signbabybrady]

You don't have an argument. You did post a big straw man and I don't care whether you dislike the fact that I told you so. You are being lazy and dishonest by avoiding the crux of this matter by resorting to things like "well he's the best coach of all time so I trust in him" and broad statements like "he has a history of making tough decisions".

I've already raised my points and arguments in this thread during the off-season. There's no counterargument to what you're saying because you're not putting forth an argument. What you're doing is shifting the conversation to Belichick's credibility & achievements, away from the Super Bowl benching.

So it's ok for you to argue it's BBs fault but we can't argue it's Butler's fault?

 

[aluminum seats]

I think he does have an argument but I'm not sure I agree with it.

The argument is essentially

"Belichick makes tough / unorthodox decisions. Those decisions have led to multiple Super Bowls. You can be mad at him for benching Butler (an example of such a decision) but if you don't want him to be making decisions like that, then you have to give back the other Super Bowls as well. Can't have it both ways."

My counterargument would be that there's no similarity between the Butler benching and anything BB has done in the past (this isn't an intentional safety for example, or even a cold-blooded move like cutting Milloy). The closest you can get is the Welker benching (which also backfired) and something like sending Adalius Thomas home which didn't happen before the Super Bowl.

Even if you want to say that this is Belichick's way of showing no player is above the team and this is the latest example of implementing the "Patriot Way" or whatever, and that mentality is what's led to success in the past, I still say that there's no resemblance between this and any other such implementation. And as has been iterated ad nauseum, you can still bench Butler for part of the game until it's clear he's needed, and the point has been made.

Good post. I’d go further and say that the logic behind that position is so elastic it essentially becomes meaningless and turns it into a non argument. It’s literally cult-like.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Good post. I’d go further and say that the logic behind that position is so elastic it essentially becomes meaningless and turns it into a non argument. It’s literally cult-like.

Thanks! I don't mind his reasoning though, but taken to its logical extreme it does say that we should never question anything Belichick does that seems unorthodox. Maybe that's what you're saying too.

My point of view is that I'll always give BB the benefit of the doubt when he does something unusual (which I did when he traded Jamie Collins), but sometimes what he does is too unusual and I no longer give him that benefit. The Butler benching is one such example of the latter.

 

[signbabybrady]

My counterargument would be that there's no similarity between the Butler benching and anything BB has done in the past (this isn't an intentional safety for example, or even a cold-blooded move like cutting Milloy). The closest you can get is the Welker benching (which also backfired) and something like sending Adalius Thomas home which didn't happen before the Super Bowl.

BB has made thousands of similar decisions to the Butler one at the end of the day it was just a personnel decision. He has a very good track record of chosing the right guys that have earned the opportunities. While not every personnel decision are the same BB has more than a good proven track record that it's nuts not to trust him.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Is it possible that these can all be true?

1. Benching Butler was probably the wrong move, though we don’t know everything. His benching caused a ripple effect and caused Rowe to player a bigger role than he should have and caused Matthews to play.

2. It’s highly unlikely that ONE non-QB player (no matter how good, and Butler was not good for most of the season) is capable of making a tremendous difference, like a difference of 8-10 points, in the overall performance. If you were live in-getting betting in Vegas, and Butler has blown out his ACL minutes prior to the game, the spread may or may not have moved a half point, and probably not. These defensive players are professionals who dedicate their lives to the game and are expected to adjust their roles frequently. Even a sudden benching of Von Miller or an in-his-prime Darrelle Revis should not effect the game by more than a few points, according to virtually every statistical model. There are 22 players on the field, and only two who can really alter an outcome by a full touchdown.

3. The Eagles offense was really, really good, with arguably the best offensive line in the NFL, and their offense was inevitably going to dictate the game against this defense, Butler or not. Call Nick Foles a backup or whatever, but he made great decisions and was accurate all game. Their offensive pay calling was fantastic. They had just put up 38 on arguably the best defense in the league in Minnesota, a defense so far superior to New England’s it is laughable.

 

[TB_Helmet]

BB has made thousands of similar decisions to the Butler one at the end of the day it was just a personnel decision. He has a very good track record of chosing the right guys that have earned the opportunities. While not every personnel decision are the same BB has more than a good proven track record that it's nuts not to trust him.

Can you give an example of what you consider similar to "benching a player for the Super Bowl who took 97% of snaps during the regular season, and continued to keep him on the bench while his replacements were being beaten at a historic level"?

 

[TB_Helmet]

Is it possible that these can all be true?

1. Benching Butler was probably the wrong move, though we don’t know everything. His benching caused a ripple effect and caused Rowe to player a bigger role than he should have and caused Matthews to play.

2. It’s highly unlikely that ONE player (no matter how good, and Butler was not good for most of the season) is capable of making a tremendous difference, like a difference of 8-10 points, in the overall performance. If you were live in-getting betting in Vegas, and Butler has blown out his ACL minutes prior to the game, the spread may or may not have moved a half point, and probably not. These defensive players are professionals who dedicate their lives to the game and are expected to adjust their roles frequently.

3. The Eagles offense was really, really good, with arguably the best offensive line in the NFL, and their offense was inevitably going to dictate the game against this defense, Butler or not. Call Nick Foles a backup or whatever, but he made great decisions and was accurate all game. Their offensive pay calling was fantastic. They had just put up 38 on arguably the best defense in the league in Minnesota, a defense so far superior to New England’s it is laughable.

I agree with 1 and 3, but you can argue that if the Patriots had one third or fourth down stop in that 10 minute drive in the fourth quarter, they win, and that Butler significantly increases the chances of getting that stop. Honestly I think that's the main point on one side of the argument that's led to this 299-page thread. (300 here we come!)

 

[signbabybrady]

Can you give an example of what you consider similar to "benching a player for the Super Bowl who took 97% of snaps during the regular season, and continued to keep him on the bench while his replacements were being beaten at a historic level"?

Gronk only played %75 in SB46 after playing well over %90 during the year.

Every week we have 53 players and can only dress 45. So 8 times 250 some odd games. Minus how ever many guys weren't actually available.

Is there a perfect comparison? No probably not but BB has proven more than capable of making personnel decisions.

 

[TB_Helmet]

Gronk only played %75 in SB46 after playing well over %90 during the year.

Every week we have 53 players and can only dress 45. So 8 times 250 some odd games. Minus how ever many guys weren't actually available.

Is there a perfect comparison? No probably not but BB has proven more than capable of making personnel decisions.

I don't think Gronk's playing time being reduced by 15% in the Super Bowl, when he had sustained a fairly serious injury, is equivalent to Butler's being reduced by 97%.

I agree with you that he has a great track record, and that's why I say that I almost always give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm just saying that this decision was too extreme deserve that benefit.

 

[Ras-IR Dowling]

Come on guys almost to 300 pages we can do this!

 

[signbabybrady]

I don't think Gronk's playing time being reduced by 15% in the Super Bowl, when he had sustained a fairly serious injury, is equivalent to Butler's being reduced by 97%.

I agree with you that he has a great track record, and that's why I say that I almost always give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm just saying that this decision was too extreme deserve that benefit.

Not equivalent but similar.
We know the reason for Gronks reduction in play we don't know the reason for Butler. Butler's play was reduced more. But still a little similar.

 

[Tony2046]

Impressive how you can type with your head up Belichick's ass.

Nice counter point. hahaha

 

[Tony2046]

Good post. I’d go further and say that the logic behind that position is so elastic it essentially becomes meaningless and turns it into a non argument. It’s literally cult-like.

I would consider "cult-like" to be a follower despite the counter evidence. In this case we do not know why he was benched. I choose to give BB the benefit of the doubt because of his historic record over the last two decades. I think we all agree that there was a reason but disagree whether the unknown reason could have been enough to warrant a benching.

 

[aluminum seats]

Not equivalent but similar.
We know the reason for Gronks reduction in play we don't know the reason for Butler. Butler's play was reduced more. But still a little similar.

Not remotely similar.

 

[aluminum seats]

I think we all agree that there was a reason but disagree whether the unknown reason could have been enough to warrant a benching.

There is absolutely no set of facts that justified what occurred. If he assaulted someone you kick him off the sidelines and don’t let him play. He played. Anything short of that, you go win the damn Super Bowl.