Is this why Malcolm Butler didn't play in the Super Bowl?

[catent]

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.

 

[farn]

I think if Butler had had a limb amputated he could still have played better than Jordan Richards.

Since this thread is already heading in a certain direction, I’ll go on a tangent.

I’d find it super interesting to sit down with BB and listen to him go through the reasoning behind the Richards pick. Like, who BB thought he’d become, what he thought Richards ceiling / floor was.

I know poster love to hate Richards, but I’d still love to hear the analysis from BB.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

That's a great observation as well. If he was being disciplined for not taking his reduced role well (which was prompted by him missing practice time due to sickness) then why dress him at all and waste a roster spot. I mean things could not have gone worse for the secondary than they actually did, and if we're not going to play him in even that scenario, then why was he dressed for the game.

the other thing that gets overlooked is taking too long to put Gilmore on jeffrey. Lets face it our staff was not at their finest that day , maybe they should’ve been more ‘dialed in’. a defensive effort like that doesn’t happen without a massive failure(s).

 

[JMC00]

Butler gave up 700 yards (11th most) and 6 TD (3rd most) that season.
Jonathan Jones getting injured 2 weeks earlier was a bigger loss

 

[catent]

the other thing that gets overlooked is taking too long to put Gilmore on jeffrey. Lets face it our staff was not at their finest that day , a defensive effort like that doesn’t happen without a massive failure(s).

Sometimes the other team plays well.

I'm sure Belichick and the coaching staff debriefed and feel they could've coached better in that game, but you gotta tip your cap to the other team sometimes.

Foles played extraordinary well, the Philly offensive line was very good, and their offensive play-calling and approach was very well constructed. Philly played the game of their life offensively and it was barely enough because TB12 and the Pats' offense was that good, too.

 

[catent]

Butler gave up 700 yards (11th most) and 6 TD (3rd most) that season.
Jonathan Jones getting injured 2 weeks earlier was a bigger loss

Yep, Butler wasn't great that season - definitely not as good as the previous year. That's not to say with certainty that he wouldn't have played better in the Super Bowl if given the opportunity, but suffice to say that wasn't a great season for him.

100% agreed that Jones was the bigger loss (or, setting aside comparisons, a BIG loss). Such a good slot CB, freakishly athletic, and has gone a long way towards neutralizing Hill and the KC offense when we've played them. Given his level of play that season and his role in the defense, Jones was a big loss and could've had a meaningful, positive impact in the Super Bowl had he played, IMO.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

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.

Fair points.

The reasons given for benching Butler from BB & co. have only served to increase suspicion. If the reasoning was sound, why cover it up with a wall of silence from fhe organization? Why the widely panned, absurd pretzel twisting presser from Patricia? Why were players contradicting each other about the gameplan? Why all the immediate rumors immediately after the game about various violations?

It’s not normal to have a guy who played 98% of snaps, crying right before the game, being active, and not playing.

Were they really protecting Butler? Yeah, right! You know what would have been the best way to protect him? Say he was sick and keep him inactive. Instead, we saw some bizarro clown show.

The Patriots policy is to keep these things a secret? BS. They told/leaked immediately about why Welker was benched in 2010, numerous disciplinary issues about players (the snowstorm with Moss, Adalius, etc.), their problems with Jamie Collins, etc. If it’s disciplinary, we hear about it. If it’s injury/illness, we hear about it. It sure seems like the reason here would reveal an atrocious decision.

If you’d like to know why Bill is looked at under suspicion, and why the worst is assumed (making a point cost them a 3 peat), you’ll have to ask Bill to enlighten everyone on the reason Butler didn’t play. Don’t blame the fan base for theorizing after being stonewalled.

 

[Ivan]

Sometimes the other team plays well.

I'm sure Belichick and the coaching staff debriefed and feel they could've coached better in that game, but you gotta tip your cap to the other team sometimes.

Foles played extraordinary well, the Philly offensive line was very good, and their offensive play-calling and approach was very well constructed. Philly played the game of their life offensively and it was barely enough because TB12 and the Pats' offense was that good, too.

This post is right on, but I also believe that whether Butler was sick or not he tanked when he found out he was playing part time in the slot in the Super Bowl when it was his last game before free agency. He wasn’t mentally ready to play that game and Belichick knew it.

 

[VectorPrime]

If anyone wants to know where Breer got this and why now it’s because he has a review copy of the Seth Wickersham book which by different accounts is basically Belichick or someone on his side just spilling gossip to Seth the whole time. It looks like the people here who’ve now turned on Brady and hate him are gonna have to do mental gymnastics to explain why they believe Wickershsm is good now.

 

[farn]

If anyone wants to know where Breer got this and why now it’s because he has a review copy of the Seth Wickersham book which by different accounts is basically Belichick or someone on his side just spilling gossip to Seth the whole time. It looks like the people here who’ve now turned on Brady and hate him are gonna have to do mental gymnastics to explain why they believe Wickershsm is good now.

Serious question : what constitutes « turning on Brady » ?

For instance, I love Brady as a player - tough, smart, winner, leader… I love the SBs and the improbable comebacks ! He was an exceptional teammate for almost two decades and his production is second to none. Clearly the greatest player ever.

Yet, I’m ok with Brady moving on to a more SB-ready team in his last few seasons and not only do I not blame BB for the split, I think it’s fair to say both BB and Brady were fine to move on from an association that rolled for so long. Does that make me a Brady hater who turned on him ?

 

[sportnik]

one could argue what we saw in the first half was essentially an injury. It looked like 10 on 11, and only got worse

F no. If he practice poorly he would have replaced Baldemosi after he got beat for the 15th time. The rumor is far more nefarious...

 

[RobertWeathers]

The reality is Deflategate would have most likely been worse if Goodell weren’t commissioner. Naturally, we’ll never know because it never happened.

The outcome is not certain.

If Tagliabue or Rozelle were commish none of it would have happened.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Butler gave up 700 yards (11th most) and 6 TD (3rd most) that season.
Jonathan Jones getting injured 2 weeks earlier was a bigger loss

NOPE.

Malcolm Butler was still NFL 2nd team all pro that year. Look it up. He was the team's CB1. A defense that led the league in fewest points against and he was CB1. Don't even try to diss a CB who was covering the top receivers all year and the defense was #1 in points against.

Richards and Bademosi playing in the Superbowl was criminal. The Eagles offense DID NOT PUNT all game....


.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

If anyone wants to know where Breer got this and why now it’s because he has a review copy of the Seth Wickersham book which by different accounts is basically Belichick or someone on his side just spilling gossip to Seth the whole time. It looks like the people here who’ve now turned on Brady and hate him are gonna have to do mental gymnastics to explain why they believe Wickershsm is good now.

Yeah and Wickersham also called out the SH-TTY draft system that McDaniels/Caserio instituted for WRs and CBs since 2004-2019. A long long line of draft busts. Pure garbage that has f'd the Patriots for a long time. Drought from 2005-2013 and sh-t drafts from 2013-2019 that also led Brady to leave...

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

NOPE.

Malcolm Butler was still NFL 2nd team all pro that year. Look it up. He was the team's CB1. A defense that led the league in fewest points against and he was CB1. Don't even try to diss a CB who was covering the top receivers all year and the defense was #1 in points against.

Richards and Bademosi playing in the Superbowl was criminal. The Eagles offense DID NOT PUNT all game....


.

That was the year before, 2016. In 2017, Gilmore was the #1. It took them a lot of time to settle in. Butler did not have a good season in 2017, but the point he was still much, much better than the alternatives.

 

[Simpelton]

Sure. But it doesn't change the fact that BB made an awful decision that cost us the game. Yeah maybe he thought he could put all DBs in different positions, and they are all pros and they will handle it and manage, and if he had been right we'd have praised him and called him a genius not to put Butler on the field when he had missed practice from sickness etc, but since the product BB put on the field was so awful, he gets the blame as well. And clearly the blame lies with BB. He fcked up and cost us the Superbowl.

And if he puts Butler in and Butler's as not-field-ready as the rumors suggest, he gets dunked on and we're right back at the same place, only we're all blaming Butler rather than Bill.

People seem to have this what-if fantasy that says that if Butler is in the game he's playing it like a top 10 corner in the country. That's not the Malcolm Butler we had in SB52.

If I'm Bill, I put the lightning rod on my own head rather than leaving a sick, stressed-out, checked-out player on the field to die. It's my job as Head Coach to do what's best for the team, and if what's best for the team is not to play the guy who is, on paper, our best cornerback, but let's be honest, has played like 100% all natural recycled food for the past several weeks and is physically ill, you make the decision that will focus attention on you, rather than letting the player fall on his sword.

Bill's one of the best coaches in the history of the NFL. and I know how much he WANTS to win Superbowls. If there was any thought in his mind that Butler was the best option to put on the field against Foles, he would have been on the field. This is not Rich Kotite making decisions seemingly at random, this is one of the most methodical, logical, rational, prepared head coaches in the game. If he didn't think Butler could play, then I'm not going to give him a lot of griief because odds are, he was exactly right.

BTW I hate this blame-the coach narrative because we all KNOW that the eagles had a little something to do with how that Superbowl played out.

 

[Simpelton]

If so, OK not to start him. But as game goes on and you see TFB playing LIGHTS OUT to keep up with the Eagles scoring against our Hot Mess pass D, put Malcom (Clutch) Butler in there and give it a go to see what happens.

The fact that he's not starting in the first place means there's issues. Are you expecting those issues to magically disappear just because we wanted them to?

I'm just curious exactly what level of la-la land magical thinking I'm dealing with here.

 

[Simpelton]

Then why dress him?

Who were you going to grab on short notice to replace him?

Also if a guy is sick there's every chance he starts feeling better as the game rolls on. Maybe they were just hoping he could recover enough to come out for a play or two and it didn't wind up happening.

 

[TheRainMaker]

Here’s where politics unfortunately plays in. Let’s say Tom Brady had a down 2017, been sick, starting practicing on Wednesday and didn’t look good. Meanwhile, Hoyer takes all the reps with the 1st team. Does Bill bench him in favor of Hoyer? Of course not, because Kraft would intervene. Bill felt he could get away benching a CB (which Kraft allowed) because of the player hierarchy. This really goes against “The Patriot Way” of treating players equally which is really impossible to do.

 

[venecol]

The fact that he's not starting in the first place means there's issues. Are you expecting those issues to magically disappear just because we wanted them to?

I'm just curious exactly what level of la-la land magical thinking I'm dealing with here.

If everything you're "assuming" is true, then why would Bill dress a player "he knew" could not contribute on the field? Was he just a lucky charm?