Certainly some are doing this. My issue is that you flat out had nothing to lose by putting him in. He played 98% of the snaps this season. He isn't inept, he's not a rookie, he isn't lacking in personal pride. If he sucks, you say "I told you so" and and it's not an issue. To me, it's like losing a game seven of the World Series without using your dominant closer because you never had a save situation present itself.
That's not to say Butler is comparable to Mariano Rivera, my point is from a risk vs. reward standpoint. What reward can you possibly expect from keeping him on the bench when you literally can't stop the other team's offense? It wasn't as if the defense was just bad, they were pretty much as bad as they could have possibly been. There's also no risk at that point.
I just don't feel like there's any way around that logic. Belichick *had* to have thought exactly what I just posted at some point in this game and something caused him to uncharacteristically disregard his typically risk/reward focus thought process.
Something overrode Bill Belichick's ability to make the rational decision in the Superbowl. It's not the end of the world, but there's no way to spin it otherwise.