Except that this is not the business of teaching life lessons and there is no long game.
It is a four hour season. That is it. There is no future, there is no past. Damn, we have been hearing this from Belichick for almost 20 years, maybe he could apply that in a meaningful way during, I dunno, the Super Bowl!
Discipline is a means to an end -- winning the Super Bowl. Therefore there is no heuristic value to discipline in this situation since the discipline directly, immediately works against the ultimate goal. And there is more than one way to bring down the hammer here, including summarily running him out of town after the game. But to hold the line on the game really is putting the individual (Belichick's absolute power) over the good of the team.
I am not even convinced yet is was a discipline issue, and Retractable Roofs' point about the lack of viable options if you scratch Butler for illness is a good one -- maybe you are stuck with him, even if you seem him as a flu-zombie.
I just can't get past the point that they were doing nothing effective on D so it simply boggles the mind to not give him some reps simply to see if he can play his position in a way that could contribute.
I disagree here. How many other Coach/Owners have had a 17 year run of excellence in modern times? You don't get that by breaking the rules just for 1 game. You get that by being consistent with whatever the organizational philosophy is. You are right, maybe playing Butler in this game is the higher percentage play - but at what cost to the long term health of the team (or BBs) philosophy?
On some teams, the veteran retains his job when injured. In New England, the best player takes the field - regardless of reputation, contract, tenure, etc. Brady dethroned Bledsoe in great measure due to the opportunity he got and kept after the injury. It is adherence to that organizational philosophy that allows a player like Butler to arrive on the scene and turn his blood, sweat, and tears into the story that is "Go, Malcom, Go". He succeeded because of this team first approach. The fact that he may have turned his back on it, is a shame. As a fan, I want that superbowl win. But if BB or Kraft value the long game and the success it breeds higher than the value that fielding Butler gave them - then I'm on board.
And I'd argue that on any of those Malcom-less 3rd/4th downs - if Harrison or Flowers had gotten to the QB a single time the way the Eagles did late, the Patriots win. So the Superbowl in my opinion came down to 10-12 single plays (made or not made) that could have changed the result to a Pats friendly one. It didn't have to be about Butler - because for all the things we like about him on the field - we don't know if he would have been victimized by his own set of flaws that led to a similar result.