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

[venecol]

Deleted

 

[Sicilian]

Don't be an ass. This article the OP posted clearly has some new information.

Never said don't make the thread. Never said don't talk about the subject. Never said the information wasn't new. But I've read four pages so far and not a single person seems to have changed their mind either way. So I look forward to a continuation of what has always been a very fruitful debate.

 

[Kdo5]

I can believe it and it remains an absolute dog shot decision that still could have been altered in the second half,

 

[Kdo5]

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

JJ getting injured is all the more reason why it’s ridiculous that Butler didn’t play. Bill went with Johnson Bademosi. No excuse.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

+

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.

They played great, for sure. But there's a fine line between being one-upped by the superior team and incompetence. The eagles scored on EVERY drive in half 2, after scoring on 4 of 6 drives in half one. that is incompetence no matter how good the opponent is. They ‘only’ scored 41 because our offense consistently drove the ball well too and protected the ball for the most part. Heck, it’d probably be hard to find a tb12 game where he converted 80% of his drives, and this is Nick Foles we are talking about. I'm sure it happens in madden a bit but that is not supposed to happen against anybody in the professional realm, something is very wrong in these cases. And I'm sure anyone who's been in that position is willing to admit that beyond tipping the cap.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

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.

In 2004 Hank Poteat was signed days before the divisional round game vs. Indy, one of the most potent offenses of all time. He was activated and saw garbage time snaps. if this article is accurate and you're already thinking about playing BY FAR your 2nd best corner in a limited role before he steps on a practice field, given the extremely weak depth at the position, you would think BB who is known widely for his due diligence is looking at bringing someone in who can fill in during an emergency.

 

[VectorPrime]

In that second half the Pats defense literally could not have played worse. If Butler was in there instead there is absolutely no downside.

 

[PATSYLICIOUS]

In that second half the Pats defense literally could not have played worse. If Butler was in there instead there is absolutely no downside.

That's what kills me about the 'if butler were in it probably would have just been worse' takes. There is no worse

 

[Ring 6]

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?

Players dress all the time that would only play if there were injuries.

If this story is to be believed you are asking a coach to insert a player who missed practice and evidently practiced poorly and with a bad attitude. I don’t think many coaches would do that.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Players dress all the time that would only play if there were injuries.

If this story is to be believed you are asking a coach to insert a player who missed practice and evidently practiced poorly and with a bad attitude. I don’t think many coaches would do that.

You forgot to add Butler was on drugs or whatever crap you touted the day he was benched.

.

 

[Simpelton]

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.

Butler even at his peak is nowhere near as crucial to the team as Brady so just stop it.

 

[venecol]

Players dress all the time that would only play if there were injuries.

If this story is to be believed you are asking a coach to insert a player who missed practice and evidently practiced poorly and with a bad attitude. I don’t think many coaches would do that.

You're correct, Bill would not play a player with a bad attitude, even if it cost us the SB. Bill shipped Bennett out of town for messing with one of his coaches.

Butler told his kid off and so he benched him to teach him and the rest of the team that you don't mess with little Steven.

Can you imagine how Pats fans would react if this came out? There's a reason why this has been so secretive. Bill's arrogance cost us a three-peat.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

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.

Good intent on the post but no. Badmosi and Jordan Richards SUCK. Butler puking everywhere with a leg cut off was better than 100% of Richards or Bademosi. To make zero adjustments in-game is so demoralizing it's almost as if they were throwing the game.

 

[Simpelton]

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?

I don't think it's unreasonable to take a player who's under the weather, but a good player if healthy, dress him in the absence of a viable replacement, and hope that he might be feeling better/well enough to play in the second half.

I mean heck, it's a different sport I'll grant you, but that amazing walkoff by Kirk Gibson in the 88 Series wouldn't have happened if your "bench them unless they're absolutely definitely 100% good to go" philosophy held water.

I think there was some hope that Butler would be feeling better at some point and be able to play a few key snaps, and I think the call was made only after the deadline that no, that definitely wasn't going to end up happening. I can't fault Bill for keeping his options open as long as possible either way.

 

[Simpelton]

Good intent on the post but no. Badmosi and Jordan Richards SUCK. Butler puking everywhere with a leg cut off was better than 100% of Richards or Bademosi. To make zero adjustments in-game is so demoralizing it's almost as if they were throwing the game.

Butler is only gonna replace one of those guys. even with him on the field, that secondary needed a complete overhaul before it could be competent. A Butler at 50% out there on the field wasn't going to suddenly mean we had a competent secondary that year. As it is we barely snuck past Jacksonville, we honestly probably didn't deserve to be in 52 at all.

We got beat by the better team in 52, putting a sick man on the field doesn't push the scale very much either way

There's a reason Bill went out that offseason and invested in guys like Gilmore and JCJ.

This is an extra special flavor of pathetic given that the team won the year before AND the year after. To have any fans crying -- at all -- about losing in the Superbowl to a team that simply outplayed us is honestly kinda sad. especially after we won the next year and put on a clinic doing it.

 

[venecol]

I don't think it's unreasonable to take a player who's under the weather, but a good player if healthy, dress him in the absence of a viable replacement, and hope that he might be feeling better/well enough to play in the second half.

I mean heck, it's a different sport I'll grant you, but that amazing walkoff by Kirk Gibson in the 88 Series wouldn't have happened if your "bench them unless they're absolutely definitely 100% good to go" philosophy held water.

I think there was some hope that Butler would be feeling better at some point and be able to play a few key snaps, and I think the call was made only after the deadline that no, that definitely wasn't going to end up happening. I can't fault Bill for keeping his options open as long as possible either way.

Didn't Butler play a ST snap?

 

[Patriot Missile]

Eagles drives:
2/2 on third down, FG
TD
Punt
1/1 on third down, TD
1/1 on third down, Foles intercepted at the Pats 4 yard line
1/2 on third down, 1/1 on 4th down, TD
3/3 on third down, TD
FG
1/3 on third down, 1/1 on 4th down, TD
FG

So keeping Butler on the bench all game at face value meant the coaches believed Jordan Richards and company and the guys playing out of position were more likely to make the one or two plays on third down that would have changed the outcome of the game than Butler who was our best tackling corner? He didn’t have to dominate, just make the one or two plays that flip the outcome, and he wasn’t the best guy to put in there that can do that? I have a hard time believing the GOAT head coach and the staff believed that.

If there was a problem with him you play him and tell him to clean out his locker when he gets back to Foxboro. The public humiliation of your Super Bowl 49 hero by making him a very noticeable presence on the bench tells me this was personal. That’s a lousy reason to throw away a SB and so are all reasons I can think of why it might have happened.

It’s a dead horse and I’m getting over it. But yeah, pretty much my take as well. That was a superbowl of just a handful of plays making the difference. We’ve been mostly on the other side of it, our team just making a couple of plays more in most of the wins. Butler only had to make 1 or 2 third down stops and the outcome would of been different possibly. 6 Superbowl wins erases a lot of the pain though. Just not the 18-1.

 

[Brotherblues]

I'll never

Butler is only gonna replace one of those guys. even with him on the field, that secondary needed a complete overhaul before it could be competent. A Butler at 50% out there on the field wasn't going to suddenly mean we had a competent secondary that year. As it is we barely snuck past Jacksonville, we honestly probably didn't deserve to be in 52 at all.

We got beat by the better team in 52, putting a sick man on the field doesn't push the scale very much either way

There's a reason Bill went out that offseason and invested in guys like Gilmore and JCJ.

This is an extra special flavor of pathetic given that the team won the year before AND the year after. To have any fans crying -- at all -- about losing in the Superbowl to a team that simply outplayed us is honestly kinda sad. especially after we won the next year and put on a clinic doing it.

I heartily disagree. I find it very realistic to think MB could have moved the needle big time. Just batting down one pass, or forcing Foles to make an extra read that leads to an incomplete, or one third down tackle short of the sticks, *anything*... They only needed 1 or 2 stops in the second half. Literally as few as 2 plays. They got zero.

 

[DropKickFlutie]

Butler is only gonna replace one of those guys. even with him on the field, that secondary needed a complete overhaul before it could be competent. A Butler at 50% out there on the field wasn't going to suddenly mean we had a competent secondary that year. As it is we barely snuck past Jacksonville, we honestly probably didn't deserve to be in 52 at all.

We got beat by the better team in 52, putting a sick man on the field doesn't push the scale very much either way

There's a reason Bill went out that offseason and invested in guys like Gilmore and JCJ.

This is an extra special flavor of pathetic given that the team won the year before AND the year after. To have any fans crying -- at all -- about losing in the Superbowl to a team that simply outplayed us is honestly kinda sad. especially after we won the next year and put on a clinic doing it.

Terrible post. If the Pats had made just ONE defensive stop that game the Pats win the Superbowl. Want me to post clips of Richards chasing guys who repeatedly blew by him ?

.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Butler is only gonna replace one of those guys. even with him on the field, that secondary needed a complete overhaul before it could be competent. A Butler at 50% out there on the field wasn't going to suddenly mean we had a competent secondary that year. As it is we barely snuck past Jacksonville, we honestly probably didn't deserve to be in 52 at all.

We got beat by the better team in 52, putting a sick man on the field doesn't push the scale very much either way

There's a reason Bill went out that offseason and invested in guys like Gilmore and JCJ.

This is an extra special flavor of pathetic given that the team won the year before AND the year after. To have any fans crying -- at all -- about losing in the Superbowl to a team that simply outplayed us is honestly kinda sad. especially after we won the next year and put on a clinic doing it.

Horrible take on all levels.

Also, the team already had Gilmore for that game, who was playing at a high level. They had McCourty. The problem was beyond that, they has guys who didn’t belong on the roster, as evidenced by Bill dumping them. And JC Jackson was an UDFA, which just goes to show how much you’re reaching on this narrative.

As for fans “crying,” only a total spoiled brat (apparently like yourself) would make that point while downplaying the value of a championship because they won others. I can assure you that players, staff, everyone who makes sacrifices to win, do not see it the way you see it. “Honestly kinda sad” to have a strong opinion about your favorite sports team and one of its most controversial, aggravating, heartbreaking losses ever? Words of someone who knows his argument is pitiful and desperate.