Malcolm Butler sort of talks about his SB benching

[aluminum seats]

Complete nonsense. Defend that wall baby

Yep. It’s insane.

 

[signbabybrady]

Sorry, genuinely don’t know what you’re saying

I'll use hyperbole. You're basically saying Butler could have killed someone and you think Bill still should have started him.

Obviously that's extreme but how can you say indefensible without knowing why?

 

[RobertWeathers]

And the Eagles were missing their starting QB and their starting LT. And still smoked what Bill put out there on the field instead of Butler.

Complete nonsense. Defend that wall baby

There are two discussion points here and you are blending them.

There is WHAT IF Malcolm played and WHY he didn't play.

Why he didn't play is a mystery. The argument of, "Malcolm should have played" has holes because no one has any idea why he didn't. Even Malcolm admits he wasn't prepared to play. When a player says that.....alarm bells should go off.

Fozzy is not wrong. Going in and during, the Philly O was a bad matchup vs the Pats run D. With Branch, High, Jones out the already 31st D vs the run was facing the #1 rushing offense. Losing Chung made it much worse. Let's be clear, Foles was an upgrade over Wentz. He proved it in the reg season and in the playoffs.

If Malcolm played, would he have helped? In theory, yes because he was better than Rowe, Richards, and Badmosi but let's not state as fact he was or would have been THE difference-maker.

I firmly believe Bill wanted to play Malcolm but for reasons none of us know or will ever appreciate..... he couldn't.

 

[lancerman]

You can't call something indefensible if you don't know what you're defending

You can call what the outcome was indefensible even if the reasons haven’t been revealed. Belichick hired Butler back a couple years later.

Unless he did something that should blackball him from the league, it’s hard to defend keeping the player on defense you felt comfortable enough all season getting the most snaps out of the most significant game, watching that unit get torched and not going back to what you were dancing with all season.

 

[lancerman]

I'll use hyperbole. You're basically saying Butler could have killed someone and you think Bill still should have started him.

Obviously that's extreme but how can you say indefensible without knowing why?

Because what Butler did, it didn’t get him blackballed from the league and didn’t stop Bill from signing him again. The stakes were too big at that point for it to be something other than a career killer.

 

[signbabybrady]

You can call what the outcome was indefensible even if the reasons haven’t been revealed. Belichick hired Butler back a couple years later.

Unless he did something that should blackball him from the league, it’s hard to defend keeping the player on defense you felt comfortable enough all season getting the most snaps out of the most significant game, watching that unit get torched and not going back to what you were dancing with all season.

I sure hope you never serve as juror in any case I'm involved in

 

[PP2]

This is also my conjecture.

I believe that prior to practice week for the SB, the coaching staff told Butler he was being moved inside. I believed that BB had designed this both to address Butler's liability against taller receivers, and also to bushwhack Philly with a surprise tweak.

But as you say, Butler, who was already stewing/stressed about the lack of a long term contract which would have assured him of long term security, took this the wrong way (e.g., viewed this as a demotion) and did one or more, or all of the following: had a mental breakdown, confronted SB or Patty, threatened either or both, called in sick, partied, refused to learn the game plan, and missed the team flight.

This would plausibly explain why BB benched Butler for a championship game. Starting a player who doesn't know/refused to learn the game plan is just as bad as not starting him, even if it's a championship game.

Not for a moment do I believe that BB had ever intended to leave Rowe on an island. BB is not that dumb. His hands were forced because he decided to leave Butler out of the rotation, and put Bademosi, a pure ST player in at star. Richards was also left on an island and got torched as well. Leaving a major cog out of the rotation meant a lot less help for other players, especially those left in single coverage. In absolutely no way was this an intended design.

That most corners and safeties were left with a lot of one on one coverage responsibilities, to me, points to a defense gameplan that had to be radically redesigned at the last minute, and rather than risk total disarray, the staff went with safe and simple.

Of course, as we all saw, Philly went right at Rowe from the outset. They also attacked Bademosi and burned him.

Actually I will amend this theory on one small point. I now theorize that Butler found out that he was being put inside, in a lesser role, rather than being told outright. This would make his being very upset all the more plausible, than if he was told, face to face.

As far as assigning fault, I would put it at 50/50. Butler for reacting the way he did, but also BB for not attempting to communicate or reason with him during practice week leading up to the superbowl. Something like "Hey we're going to put you in star because we believe this is the best way to win this particular game."

To find out right before the big game that you've been benched is particularly atrocious.

The only hole in my theory is what Rowe had to say afterwards, after being named starting corner, a move that surprised even Rowe himself: “No, that wasn’t the plan,” Rowe said (via NFL.com). “It wasn’t official until kickoff. … I feel for [Butler].”

So Rowe was alleging that this was a very last minute move, rather than something that occurred during the week or prior to it.

 

[signbabybrady]

Because what Butler did, it didn’t get him blackballed from the league and didn’t stop Bill from signing him again. The stakes were too big at that point for it to be something other than a career killer.

This goes both ways. Since Butler was willing to work for him again he obviously doesn't feel Bill mistreated him.

 

[aluminum seats]

I'll use hyperbole. You're basically saying Butler could have killed someone and you think Bill still should have started him.

Obviously that's extreme but how can you say indefensible without knowing why?

Ah ok. Yes, that’s why it’s indefensible. If he had killed or raped someone, something else would’ve had to have been done. So he didn’t do those things

 

[lancerman]

I sure hope you never serve as juror in any case I'm involved in

If you were on trial for costing the Patriots a Super Bowl, straight to death row

 

[lancerman]

This goes both ways. Since Butler was willing to work for him again he obviously doesn't feel Bill mistreated him.

Or time heals wounds and things are more heated when something happens that week than they are a few years later

 

[aluminum seats]

And with that I’m going to try as hard as I can to bow out of this, because the people defending it will never change their mind, and it is what it is

 

[RobertWeathers]

Actually I will amend this theory on one small point. I now theorize that Butler found out that he was being put inside, in a lesser role, rather than being told outright. This would make his being very upset all the more plausible, than if he was told, face to face.

As far as assigning fault, I would put it at 50/50. Butler for reacting the way he did, but also BB for not attempting to communicate or reason with him during practice week leading up to the superbowl. Something like "Hey we're going to put you in star because we believe this is the best way to win this particular game."

To find out right before the big game that you've been benched is particularly atrocious.

The only hole in my theory is what Rowe had to say afterwards, after being named starting corner, a move that surprised even Rowe himself: “No, that wasn’t the plan,” Rowe said (via NFL.com). “It wasn’t official until kickoff. … I feel for [Butler].”

So Rowe was alleging that this was a very last minute move, rather than something that occurred during the week or prior to it.

Keep in mind McCourty said everyone knew Malcolm was not starting the whole week. That conflicts with what Rowe said.

 

[signbabybrady]

Ah ok. Yes, that’s why it’s indefensible. If he had killed or raped someone, something else would’ve had to have been done. So he didn’t do those things

Logical but not provable in a court of law

 

[signbabybrady]

And with that I’m going to try as hard as I can to bow out of this, because the people defending it will never change their mind, and it is what it is

I'll consider changing my mind when I actually know what happened. All I've ever said is I don't know how anyone reaches the conclusions that they do without knowing what happened.

 

[Wozzy]

And yet he was an upgrade over what they had out there. Yep his presence would have won that game.

Bill blew it. Coaches can't win games but they can lose them and Bill did.

Eric Rowe was a better player then and going forward.

Butler got benched as a Titan by Vrabel, what you said is patently false.

 

[Wozzy]

And the Eagles were missing their starting QB and their starting LT. And still smoked what Bill put out there on the field instead of Butler.

Nick Foles was about as good as Carson Wentz, who hasn't been a starter in years.

Complete nonsense. Defend that wall baby

If it makes BB look like the bad guy SB1 will be here promoting it.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Eric Rowe was a better player then and going forward.

Butler got benched as a Titan by Vrabel, what you said is patently false.

Rowe was graded out as one of the worst CB’s in the NFL that season and the media said during Super Bowl week that the Eagles were going target him whenever he made it on the field which was odd why Bill still put him out there.

Butler wasn’t that good in 2017, but we’ve seen way worse. He also played in the AFCCG game two weeks prior. If he was such a liability, they would’ve benched him sooner.

He clearly did something during the week that Bill didn’t like and the decision was made to put Rowe on Jeffrey and Gilmore on Agholor instead.

 

[XLIX]

I'll use hyperbole. You're basically saying Butler could have killed someone and you think Bill still should have started him.

Don't be ridiculous. Killing someone gets you suspended for the first quarter.

 

[lancerman]

Rowe was graded out as one of the worst CB’s in the NFL that season and the media said during Super Bowl week that the Eagles were going target him whenever he made it on the field which was odd why Bill still put him out there.

Butler wasn’t that good in 2017, but we’ve seen way worse. He also played in the AFCCG game two weeks prior. If he was such a liability, they would’ve benched him sooner.

He clearly did something during the week that Bill didn’t like and the decision was made to put Rowe on Jeffrey and Gilmore on Agholor instead.

The whole "Butler wasn't that good anyways" thing falls apart when you realize the Patriots spent a whole Super Bowl season that year consistently deciding he was going to get the most snaps on defense. You don't win one way all year, switch it, watch your team have the worst defensive game since the opener where you objectively **** your pants vs the Chiefs and then stay with your new plan when the way you went about things all season was more successful.

Nobody would be questioning this if the Pats defense were having an average game or Butler was in and out of the line up all year. They made a change that was against what they did all year and then stuck with it when they were melting.