Patriots Rumor Malcolm Butler Mega Thread

[signbabybrady]

When “IBBIT” is what you’re falling back on, you’re in trouble. Given what we know today and the quotes from the players, there doesn’t seem to be a good reason why he was benched the entire game. I judge people on a case by case basis. BB has certainly done a lot right. He’s also made his fair share of mistakes. He’s admitted as much himself (even when this board was falling all over itself to deify him). This was one of them. Unless you can say with absolute confidence that, given what we know today and given what players have said about the situation, you would 100% have rather stuck with Richards on the field and the Big Nickel (which had McCourty playing close to the LoS and Chung covering Agholor) over going into more base Nickel and even dime situations with Butler on the field, you must think this was an error on BB’s part. So let’s get you on record...

You were in favor of Richards as the extra DB and the Big Nickel over Butler. Yay or nay?

See that's the problem you qualify by saying given what we know. Which fully admits that there is more to the story than is fully known. And I see no fault in the absence of all the facts that IBBIT be applied. Bottom line is whatever he had to deal with I want no one else making that choice.

Now if I change your qualifications to given what I know yes I'm in favor of the decision. Given what I was told he was right not to play Butler.

 

[aluminum seats]

Wrong. In the 18 years he has run this team, in all his decisions the man has been thorough and comprehensive.

I'm not going to suddenly say he made a major decision like sitting Malcolm in a knee-jerk, willy-nilly manner when there is zero evidence he did.

Except the point here is not whether it was "willy-nilly" or not, whatever that means. It's whether any set of facts justifies what occurred, and nobody has come up with one, not even hypothetically.

 

[signbabybrady]

I don’t think there was anything knee-jerk about it. I think he truly felt that he was right. The question is: was he? Given what we know now, I don’t think there is any question that he was wrong. I don’t think you do, either. That’s why you keep having to fall back on the premise of “IBBIT”.

What's the problem with IBBIT? Whatever the football topic might be is there anyone else you would trust more with the decision?

 

[RobertWeathers]

Considering how hard he was crying (the real show of emotion) prior to pre-game, it’s highly doubtful that he actually felt that way. He also said he knows he could have helped. He wouldn’t have said that if he truly felt he wasn’t locked in.



If it was for health, he wouldn’t have dressed at all. Emotional? Lol.



And this brings me back to my original question: What package did they employ in the Super Bowl that Butler, all 98% defensive snaps of him, didn’t play in during the regular season? It’s a simple question and yet you keep dodging it, Rob. Could that be because you know as well as I do that Butler was familiar with the defenses they ran in the Super Bowl and, thus, could have contributed and would have been a better option as the last DB on the field than Jordan Richards was in the Big Nickel?



I’ve read it. It still doesn’t answer my question or establish that they used a personnel package or alignment that Butler wasn’t familiar with. Nor does it establish that Butler hadn’t played previously in said package.

Let’s just admit it: sticking with the Big Nickel and, thus, keeping Richards on the field over Butler was a mistake that played a part in the team losing the Super Bowl.

I'm not answering your question because I don't think that was the core issue.

Just because someone knows how to do a job doesn't mean they will do it well-being especially if there are circumstances in which make the manager believe that employee will not perform.

BB sat him because he wasn't confident Malcolm could help him at any level. Focus, Cover 3, basket case, whatever.

I'm done, Kontra. I respect your position but we will never see this the same way.

 

[Kontradiction]

See that's the problem you qualify by saying given what we know. Which fully admits that there is more to the story than is fully known. And I see no fault in the absence of all the facts that IBBIT be applied. Bottom line is whatever he had to deal with I want no one else making that choice.

Now if I change your qualifications to given what I know yes I'm in favor of the decision. Given what I was told he was right not to play Butler.

So, just to clarify, either way you’re in favor of Jordan Richards on the field as essentially the last DB over Malcolm Butler in that game?

 

[Kontradiction]

I'm not answering your question because I don't think that was the core issue.

Of course you do if you’re buying the “locked in” excuse. The only way he couldn’t have been locked in is if the Patriots ran a defense that Butler had no prior experience in. Since that wasn’t the issue, I think we can say with confidence that Butler as the last DB on the field would have been an improvement over Richards and the Big Nickel.

I'm done, Kontra. I respect your position but we will never see this the same way.

I actually think, deep down, we do. But that’s fine.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I don’t think there was anything knee-jerk about it. I think he truly felt that he was right. The question is: was he? Given what we know now, I don’t think there is any question that he was wrong. I don’t think you do, either. That’s why you keep having to fall back on the premise of “IBBIT”.

I'll answer your question here. There is no doubt schematically speaking , benching MB put stress on lesser talented personnel to perform. There is no doubt here.

On that Sunday, for whatever well-thought out. Bill thought for 60 minutes, MB could not be trusted to do his job.

 

[Kontradiction]

I'll answer your question here. There is no doubt schematically speaking , benching MB put stress on lesser talented personnel to perform. There is no doubt here.

On that Sunday, for whatever well-thought out. Bill thought for 60 minutes, MB could not be trusted to do his job.

Thanks. Like I said, we’re in agreement then. He was wrong. And it likely played a very large part in the fact that the Patriots won’t be dropping a banner on opening night in September of this year.

 

[signbabybrady]

So, just to clarify, either way you’re in favor of Jordan Richards on the field as essentially the last DB over Malcolm Butler in that game?

I don't know what you mean by either way?

If you mean given the facts I know then yes. And if you mean if ignore what I've been told and simply apply IBBIT then yes.

If you mean that I have to assume BBs reasons were not valid enough than obviously no.

Either you know what happened and why in which case you make your own conclusions. Or you don't know what happened and why in which case you can either choose to trust BB or not.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Thanks. Like I said, we’re in agreement then. He was wrong. And it likely played a very large part in the fact that the Patriots won’t be dropping a banner on opening night in September of this year.

We have no idea how MB would have performed.

If we buy the article I added it would have been something to keep an eye on

 

[Kontradiction]

I don't know what you mean by either way?

If you mean given the facts I know then yes. And if you mean if ignore what I've been told and simply apply IBBIT then yes.

If you mean that I have to assume BBs reasons were not valid enough than obviously no.

Either you know what happened and why in which case you make your own conclusions. Or you don't know what happened and why in which case you can either choose to trust BB or not.

Then, no offense, but your opinion can’t be taken seriously as you’re now showing that you’re unable to apply logic and be critical of the man when the situation warrants it. There isn’t an alternate universe that exists in which Richards and the Big Nickel were the superior options over other defensive sets and Butler. ESPECIALLY in a game where they only needed one more stop. Richards on the field essentially had McCourty and Chung playing outside of their natural positions and assignments. The proof was in the pudding by halftime and yet BB stuck with it instead of adjusting. The result was 41 points allowed and an L.

 

[Kontradiction]

We have no idea how MB would have performed.

If we buy the article I added it would have been something to keep an eye on

Well, I can say with the best certainty that the defense would have performed much better with Butler on the field and two key cogs in the secondary back in their natural assignments and roles than with Richards on the field and those two playing outside of their normal assignments.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Well, I can say with the best certainty that the defense would have performed much better with Butler on the field and two key cogs in the secondary back in their natural assignments and roles than with Richards on the field and those two playing outside of their normal assignments.

If Bill felt the same way he would have played

 

[IcyPatriot]

Left out in this discussion:

1: Plays Butler may have made vs plays his subs did not.

2: Plays Butler would have not made vs plays his subs did make.

3: Adjustments the Eagles would have made to take advantage of a weakened (sick) Butler.

Those who are arguing logic here need a refesher on what logic actually is. You cannot only use the missed plays and apply them to what Butler would have done and assume that Butler would have performed just as well as his subs did in the plays that they made.

Round and round this subject goes too many variables that not even advanced algebra could solve.

Best to move on ... it's not like the Eagles got lucky - they played a great game and deserved a win.
How well the Eagles schemed and played also left out of this discussion - that is not logical.

 

[signbabybrady]

Then, no offense, but your opinion can’t be taken seriously as you’re now showing that you’re unable to apply logic and be critical of the man when the situation warrants it. There isn’t an alternate universe that exists in which Richards and the Big Nickel were the superior options over other defensive sets and Butler. ESPECIALLY in a game where they only needed one more stop. Richards on the field essentially had McCourty and Chung playing outside of their natural positions and assignments. The proof was in the pudding by halftime and yet BB stuck with it instead of adjusting. The result was 41 points allowed and an L.

BB stuck with it for no reason? Or again I'm going to assume with good reason.

This will always come back to why? I don't know why anyone who is a fan of Bills would assume he was wrong without knowing why?

 

[aluminum seats]

Left out in this discussion:

1: Plays Butler may have made vs plays his subs did not.

2: Plays Butler would have not made vs plays his subs did make.

3: Adjustments the Eagles would have made to take advantage of a weakened (sick) Butler.

Those who are arguing logic here need a refesher on what logic actually is. You cannot only use the missed plays and apply them to what Butler would have done and assume that Butler would have performed just as well as his subs did in the plays that they made.

Round and round this subject goes too many variables that not even advanced algebra could solve.

Best to move on ... it's not like the Eagles got lucky - they played a great game and deserved a win.
How well the Eagles schemed and played also left out of this discussion - that is not logical.

I think you might actually need a refresher on what logic is. Using cumulative knowledge, as well as seeing what's right in front of you, to analyze a situation is logical.

Blind faith=not logical.

 

[aluminum seats]

BB stuck with it for no reason? Or again I'm going to assume with good reason.

This will always come back to why? I don't know why anyone who is a fan of Bills would assume he was wrong without knowing why?

Because no one can even come up with a hypothetical that justifies what occurred.

 

[Deus Irae]

I would argue it's way more bizarre the number of people that blindly assume BB made the wrong choice without even knowing why he made his choice. The motives are everything and until we know them the debate will rage on.

And maybe bizarre not the right word. Gross. Disloyal. Ungrateful. Brainwashed (by media who already dislike him because he's not nice to them).

You keep posting stupid things. Stop doing that.

 

[Kontradiction]

BB stuck with it for no reason? Or again I'm going to assume with good reason.

This will always come back to why? I don't know why anyone who is a fan of Bills would assume he was wrong without knowing why?

He felt it was a good reason. He felt it was good enough to stick with the Big Nickel instead of inserting Butler in as the last DB and then sinking the Super Bowl on a historically pathetic defensive effort. Again, I don’t think there was anything knee-jerk about it. I think he felt he had good reason for doing it. I disagree given what we know today and what your source supposedly said. Neither situation warrants making your team worse throughout the entire game. Not if your goal is to win Super Bowls instead of having the more disciplined squad on the field.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Because no one can even come up with a hypothetical that justifies what occurred.

Still recovering from flu. Emotionally messed up when told he wasn't starting. Played like dog **** in AFCCG in Cover 3 thus BB losing confidence in him. Limited in W &Th practice. Didn't know newly installed defensive audibles.

Some or all justifies the decision-making logic.