Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[Love The Drake]

This is similar to Mcdaniels trading Hillis for hitting on his wife.
These things happen players fall out of favor sometimes self inflicted sometimes not.
Does anybody think we were a better team without Terry Glenn?
Remember him and Tom took over that Chargers game?
Terry wanted paid BB moved him.
Maybe all the belly aching before the season started?
Maybe BB is a spiteful coach?
Maybe as one poster stated they found Malcom high and drunk in his hotel room?
If the latter I agree with benching him.
Having Jordan Richards take meaningful snaps in any game unforgivable.
Someone who breaks down film please break down Jordan Richards tape and show me 3 good plays hes made in his career.
Thank you

 

[RobertWeathers]

Maybe one day bill will give us a good answer as to why butler was benched. Some media members like Shaughnessy want a good answer from bill.

Bill owes Shank and the media nothing.

 

[Ring 6]

This is similar to Mcdaniels trading Hillis for hitting on his wife.
These things happen players fall out of favor sometimes self inflicted sometimes not.
Does anybody think we were a better team without Terry Glenn?

Of course we were.

Remember him and Tom took over that Chargers game?
Terry wanted paid BB moved him.
Maybe all the belly aching before the season started?
Maybe BB is a spiteful coach?

There is nothing in his history that says he is spiteful. Nothing at all.

Maybe as one poster stated they found Malcom high and drunk in his hotel room?
If the latter I agree with benching him.
Having Jordan Richards take meaningful snaps in any game unforgivable.
Someone who breaks down film please break down Jordan Richards tape and show me 3 good plays hes made in his career.
Thank you

The game plan said the Richards was out there whether butler was or not.
Richards played in the 4 safety dime, which was what the game plan called for situationally. If butler were prepared to play he would be in Rowe’s place in that scheme.

 

[Kontradiction]

You keep saying this like no one has suggested possibilities you just haven't accepted any hypothetical or any of the rumors
Doesn't really matter what I answer because you've already predetermined that nothing warrants it. I'm not going to start throwing out random guesses to see if you think the punishment fits. Let's just say that I think the story I was told was enough to warrant it.

Actually, I've mentioned a couple of situations that would warrant benching him. They would both also warrant not dressing him altogether and not playing him on 1 ST snap.

He left him on the 45 to push the controversy as far back as possible so his team didn't have to deal with. I would also say that what ever the problem was the STs coaches trusted him more than the defense and decided to use him.

You're reaching badly here. If Bill didn't want him to play a ST snap, he wouldn't have played a ST snap.

Bottom line is you refuse to accept that Butler is ultimately the one that started this chain reaction. With hindsight BB probably should have handled it differently but without knowing for sure what happened it's difficult to know what other options there were and if you truly do agree with BBs reasons. But I know I want no one else making those choices and for that I have to live with the results.

Something happened. I've never denied that. But it can't be logically pieced together that Butler deserved to be benched for the entire game thus sinking any hope of winning the Super Bowl. Especially when you take into account that:

• He dressed.
• He played on ST.
• He was quickly signed to a big money deal by an organization led by a coach in which the Patriots and BB have a close working relationship.

Oh and it hasn't been fully disposed of. You still can't explain how if there is nothing that warrants what happened then how do you justify that it happened? You just need to admit that your not in a better place with enough information to answer this and you either accept BB had valid reasons or you dont but if you don't I have no idea how you continue to root for him and his team knowing that he could do this again just for kicks.

I've thoroughly disposed of this and crapped it out multiple times. There is absolutely nothing that would warrant benching him for the entire game and yet dressing him and allowing him to play one ST snap. Nothing. It is what it is... a big mistake. And it cost the guys, and especially Brady (who was tasked with bailing the coach out for the decision), another championship. That's why guys like Amendola weren't happy with the decision and deemed it a problem in the immediate wake of the game.

 

[Kontradiction]

You can certainly argue the defensive gameplan sucked and the selection of players playing was bad judgement but to say he intentionally put players out there purposed to diss the rest of the roster and reduce the chances of victory is ridiculous.

That poster was not making that inference.

 

[RobertWeathers]

That poster was not making that inference.

He said Bill intentionally made the team weaker. That implies Bill knew Malcolm could help the team win but didn't play him anyway.

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

He said Bill intentionally made the team weaker. That implies Bill knew Malcolm could help the team win but didn't play him anyway.

Well he was suited up. He could have gone to him at any minute. Defense couldn’t stop a nosebleed. I doubt he did it intentionally but his ego got in the way of putting butler in the game.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well he was suited up. He could have gone to him at any minute. Defense couldn’t stop a nosebleed. I doubt he did it intentionally but his ego got in the way of putting butler in the game.

What do you mean ego?

Malcolm said himself he was weakened and not completely locked in. That and other reasons (what they are I don't know) factored into Bill holding Malcolm out of the defense.

I'll buy Bill making a bad decision and not trying MB in the game but to say Bill's ego got in the way is crap.

 

[signbabybrady]

Actually, I've mentioned a couple of situations that would warrant benching him. They would both also warrant not dressing him altogether and not playing him on 1 ST snap.



You're reaching badly here. If Bill didn't want him to play a ST snap, he wouldn't have played a ST snap.



Something happened. I've never denied that. But it can't be logically pieced together that Butler deserved to be benched for the entire game thus sinking any hope of winning the Super Bowl. Especially when you take into account that:

• He dressed.
• He played on ST.
• He was quickly signed to a big money deal by an organization led by a coach in which the Patriots and BB have a close working relationship.

I've thoroughly disposed of this and crapped it out multiple times. There is absolutely nothing that would warrant benching him for the entire game and yet dressing him and allowing him to play one ST snap. Nothing. It is what it is... a big mistake. And it cost the guys, and especially Brady (who was tasked with bailing the coach out for the decision), another championship. That's why guys like Amendola weren't happy with the decision and deemed it a problem in the immediate wake of the game.

BB obviously thought differently. I keep asking you if nothing warrants it happening then how do you justify that it did happen? and how do you live with it and continue to be fan of Bill and the team he coaches?

 

[PatriotsNumero1Fan]

What do you mean ego?

Malcolm said himself he was weakened and not completely locked in. That and other reasons (what they are I don't know) factored into Bill holding Malcolm out of the defense.

I'll buy Bill making a bad decision and not trying MB in the game but to say Bill's ego got in the way is crap.

If you don’t think he has some type of ego you’re mistaken. All the greats have some type of ego. Nothing was working so why not put the guy in the game? It was one of the biggest blunders in super bowl history. I am confident in saying that with butler in the game from the start that the eagles don’t score 41 points.

 

[Kontradiction]

He said Bill intentionally made the team weaker. That implies Bill knew Malcolm could help the team win but didn't play him anyway.

He did when he put out a lesser corner in Rowe and upped Richards' snaps. But the poster never made the inference that Bill did it as a slap in the face. Just said that it WAS a slap in the face. Big difference.

 

[Kontradiction]

BB obviously thought differently.

And he was wrong. The result was 41 points allowed and a loss in spite of the an absolutely record-setting performance by the offense on the world's biggest stage.

I keep asking you if nothing warrants it happening then how do you justify that it did happen?

I can't justify it. Many people can't. And, quite frankly, that includes you. You're a smart guy so I'm left to assume this act is you defending it at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the defense is, out of some misplaced sense of deep admiration and loyalty for the man in the hoodie. That would certainly explain this abomination of quote...

and how do you live with it and continue to be fan of Bill and the team he coaches?

And here in lies the problem with this forum when it comes to discussing issues with Belichick fans, Brady fans, and massive homers. I'm a fan of the laundry. The team itself. Pointing out that the guy made a massive mistake and lapse in judgment =/= that I'm no longer a fan of his or the team. This comes across as what looks like an attempt to begin to construct a very flimsy straw man which I will no doubt cut through like a hot knife through butter. Horrific logic applied right there, my friend.

 

[RobertWeathers]

If you don’t think he has some type of ego you’re mistaken. All the greats have some type of ego. Nothing was working so why not put the guy in the game? It was one of the biggest blunders in super bowl history. I am confident in saying that with butler in the game from the start that the eagles don’t score 41 points.

How did Bill's ego ensure the Patriots lose the Super Bowl? Be specific. in the 18 seasons coaching this team when has Bill let his ego get in the way of winning?

Again, I'm ok with faulty logic, bad analytics, bad strategy, crappy judgement and the proverbial brain fart came into play but when people say Bill's ego got in the way is where I have a problem.

 

[Joey007]

I’m glad BB didn’t address the media questions, because it isn’t their business.

But I damn well hope that he addressed it to his players as to why that move was made.

The lockeroom can be lost and lost fast if he can’t give those players an explanation.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Anybody think this argument will continue throughout the season?

I’m leaning towards yes.

 

[Kontradiction]

I’m glad BB didn’t address the media questions, because it isn’t their business.

But I damn well hope that he addressed it to his players as to why that move was made.

The lockeroom can be lost and lost fast if he can’t give those players an explanation.

I'm sure it will get addressed in the first team meeting. You can't let something like that linger.

 

[RobertWeathers]

He did when he put out a lesser corner in Rowe and upped Richards' snaps. But the poster never made the inference that Bill did it as a slap in the face. Just said that it WAS a slap in the face. Big difference.

Putting Rowe out there was not intentionally making the team weaker. He did it because he deemed Malcolm not in a position to help the team.

 

[chasa]

He said Bill intentionally made the team weaker. That implies Bill knew Malcolm could help the team win but didn't play him anyway.

So he accidentally had worse players play?

 

[Kontradiction]

Putting Rowe out there was not intentionally making the team weaker. He did it because he deemed Malcolm not in a position to help the team.

If you're putting a lesser player out there when a better player at the same position is now healthy and ready to go you're intentionally putting a lesser unit out there and are therefore intentionally making the team weaker. His fault was thinking that the team, as a whole, could still get the job done and the offense would be able to bail them out. They almost did.

 

[signbabybrady]

And he was wrong. The result was 41 points allowed and a loss in spite of the an absolutely record-setting performance by the offense on the world's biggest stage.

The results of the game don't determine right or wrong here. What Butler did does.

I can't justify it. Many people can't. And, quite frankly, that includes you. You're a smart guy so I'm left to assume this act is you defending it at all costs, no matter how ridiculous the defense is, out of some misplaced sense of deep admiration and loyalty for the man in the hoodie. That would certainly explain this abomination of quote...

I justify very easily by pointing out that it is Butler's fault and that he obviously did something that BB deemed warranted benching.

And here in lies the problem with this forum when it comes to discussing issues with Belichick fans, Brady fans, and massive homers. I'm a fan of the laundry. The team itself. Pointing out that the guy made a massive mistake and lapse in judgment =/= that I'm no longer a fan of his or the team. This comes across as what looks like an attempt to begin to construct a very flimsy straw man which I will no doubt cut through like a hot knife through butter. Horrific logic applied right there, my friend.

That's just disingenuous to say your not a fan of BB or Brady just the laundry. But I will say that I guess a valid answer is that the laundry means more to you. Still got to be tough rooting for the laundry when you think the HC will bench anyone for no warranted reason.