catent
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2013
- Messages
- 4,045
- Reaction score
- 8,627
These Butler threads are terrible but I'll throw in my 2 cents.
There is absolutely no way of knowing if Butler would've changed the outcome of that game. It can't be known because the claim is based entirely on a hypothetical. It's not as if there was not an 80-yard long-bomb because of a busted coverage. There is simply no way to know.
Some of the critiques of Belichick perplex me when it comes to this Butler discussion. We can safely assume Belichick didn't think Butler was prepared to play/gave them the best shot to win, otherwise Butler would've played. I think that's a fairly straightforward position, and the claim that Belichick intentionally sabotaged the team can be entirely ignored. With that said, I do think it's fair to say: "based on how the game was unfolding, it would've made sense to insert Butler in the game and not doing so was a mistake by Belichick". Totally fair argument which I take no issue with. (Whether it would've changed the outcome of the game cannot be known).
Here's where folks lose me: The claim that the Butler decision (as it relates to the decision to not play him before the game, and/or the decision to leave him benched during the game) was rooted in Belichick's ego. That really doesn't make any sense to me at all. What does someone with an excessively large ego care about? Success, personal fame/glory, being known/well recognized, etc. If ego, winning, success, fame, and historical legacy all matter to Belichick above all else, then he would've made the decision(s) that he felt gave the team (and by extension, himself) the best chance to add another Super Bowl to their/his legacy, correct?
TLDR:
1. Claiming that benching Butler (and refusing to insert him during the game) was a mistake is a reasonable position to take and is a fair criticism.
2. Claiming Butler playing would've resulted in a Patriots' win seems reasonable but is entirely hypothetical and cannot be known.
3. To extrapolate that Belichick was making decisions based on his ego that were not in the best interest of the team, knowingly decreasing their odds of winning and sabotaging them, seems illogical and unbelievable.
There is absolutely no way of knowing if Butler would've changed the outcome of that game. It can't be known because the claim is based entirely on a hypothetical. It's not as if there was not an 80-yard long-bomb because of a busted coverage. There is simply no way to know.
Some of the critiques of Belichick perplex me when it comes to this Butler discussion. We can safely assume Belichick didn't think Butler was prepared to play/gave them the best shot to win, otherwise Butler would've played. I think that's a fairly straightforward position, and the claim that Belichick intentionally sabotaged the team can be entirely ignored. With that said, I do think it's fair to say: "based on how the game was unfolding, it would've made sense to insert Butler in the game and not doing so was a mistake by Belichick". Totally fair argument which I take no issue with. (Whether it would've changed the outcome of the game cannot be known).
Here's where folks lose me: The claim that the Butler decision (as it relates to the decision to not play him before the game, and/or the decision to leave him benched during the game) was rooted in Belichick's ego. That really doesn't make any sense to me at all. What does someone with an excessively large ego care about? Success, personal fame/glory, being known/well recognized, etc. If ego, winning, success, fame, and historical legacy all matter to Belichick above all else, then he would've made the decision(s) that he felt gave the team (and by extension, himself) the best chance to add another Super Bowl to their/his legacy, correct?
TLDR:
1. Claiming that benching Butler (and refusing to insert him during the game) was a mistake is a reasonable position to take and is a fair criticism.
2. Claiming Butler playing would've resulted in a Patriots' win seems reasonable but is entirely hypothetical and cannot be known.
3. To extrapolate that Belichick was making decisions based on his ego that were not in the best interest of the team, knowingly decreasing their odds of winning and sabotaging them, seems illogical and unbelievable.