To answer the question, I don't know. Bill never gave us a chance to find out.Death, do you really think the guy playing third corner was the difference last night? I wish that were our only problem, but the pass rush, run defense and linebackers in coverage were almost uniformly a disaster on a play to play basis.
That's NOT a defense of Bill, mind you, as he ultimately picks the groceries and decides how to cook them, Sunday night being attributable to deficiencies in both areas. It's definitely viable to argue that reinserting Butler would've helped as a desperation move, but you're overrating the importance of Butler to this defense.
I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
But even fewer are willing to admit it.Nobody knows anything.
While you were typing, I was searching. When I saw the headline for this, I assumed the player was Browner. Well it was Nink, and this is strong:To answer the question, I don't know. Bill never gave us a chance to find out.
The only thing I know is that Malcom Butler played 98% of the snaps this year, and the defense never looked like it did on Sunday night. He played 0 snaps on Sunday night. You tell me, what was so different about the Eagles offense or the Patriots defense that resulted in 500+ yards and 41 points against a team that was giving up an average of about 16 points a game over the previous 13 weeks?
Even if Butler doesn't make a single play in coverage that Rowe, Richards or Bademosi didn't make, do you really believe he whiffs on every tackle like they did? Do you think he gets beat on the very first third down play of the game where Jeffrey turned outside, and Rowe went flying to the inside? Do think he plays the ball and knocks it away instead of tackling an already diving Torrey Smith on the second third down play of the game? Do you think he misses the tackle on third down that Bademosi whiffed on? We're talking about a game that was literally decided by 1, 2, maybe 3 plays. If the Pats defense can get off the field one more time, it probably changes everything.
The point is Butler didn't need to be an All Pro for the Pats to win the game. He could have been one play, just one, better than his replacements and it may have changed the outcome of the game, and yes, I believe that Butler would have been at least one play better than what we got out or Rowe, Richards and Bademosi (and Chung, who is getting a free pass for his disastrous play). We don't even have a way of knowing how many communication breakdowns there were in the secondary as a result of guys not knowing their assignments. The defender playing on his side of the field was getting beat over and over again. How many times did we see Foles lob a pass down the right sideline to a receiver that just roasted someone at the LOS?
I'm saying this in all honestly, I do not believe for one second that the defense could have played any worse with Butler in the game. They forced one punt. So, if they couldn't have played worse, what harm would it have done to put Butler in and see what happens? The game plan was wrong from the start. Putting Rowe on Jeffery was wrong. Putting Richards or Bademosi anywhere near the field was wrong. Bill fixed one issue, but he failed to do anything to even try to fix the others.
As to this paragraph, Zach Ertz is a player, no doubt about that. But Alshon Jeffery? The guy had 57 catches on 120 targets this year. Brandon Cooks (who folks think wasn't worth a first round pick) had 65 catches on 114 targets. Cooks had 300 more yards on 6 less targets. How many other teams had a #1 wide receiver with worse numbers? And for most of the season, Alshon was catching passes from the leading MVP candidate, so let's not act like he wasn't playing with a good QB, the go to excuse for his shitty play in previous years. He was good in the red zone catching the same slant pass out of the RPO over and over again all season, but aside from that, he never did anything all season that he did in the Super Bowl.I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
It doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone who thinks this didn't have an effect on the rest of the team is fooling themselves. If you're on that offense, and playing your ass off, and your defense can't stop a nose bleed, and one of your best, most consistent players is standing on the sideline for no apparent reason, it's got to piss you off. I think it was McCourty that said after the game "You almost wish you lost three weeks ago, than to lose like this..." These guys sacrifice everything, and the coach makes a move that might have tied a hand behind their backs...Uggh, I'd be ripshit too.While you were typing, I was searching. When I saw the headline for this, I assumed the player was Browner. Well it was Nink, and this is strong:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/former-patriots-player-rips-malcolm-butler-benching-‘coaches-lose-games’/ar-BBIMQJM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
KC, Carolina, Houston (Watson was still playing), New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, San Diego...What 6 or 7 offenses were better? Just curious.
Seriously?I wonder if there's some sort of psychological phenomenon that makes people want to live in alternate realities like this thread. There's no saying Butler would've played any better, especially if he was still sick. We had dozens of opportunities to win the game. We couldn't stop the run. We couldn't get off on 3rd down. We couldn't block the pass rush on the second to last drive. We couldn't execute on special teams. We lost.
Wrongfully accused.,,Alcibiades, favored son of Athens before becoming an enemy of the (city)state? [/nothing new under the sun dept.]
It must suck to have your abilities and intelligence evaluated on small sample probabilistic events.Just like no one second guessed him for not calling a time out towards the end of the Seattle Super Bowl to save clock, but instead choosing to let the thing play out and the result was a game clinching interception.
You're a genius when these things work out.........................
Shaddup, Socrates.Nobody knows anything.
Another possibility which hasn't gotten a lot of traction is that Butler was weakened by a serious flu and had a very bad week of practice. That coupled with the matchup thing sounds pretty reasonable to me.I have to say: I’m amazed at the number of people taking shots at Belichick. I’m not saying the guy is infallible or anything or that a guy can’t lose it when he gets older. But the theories and themes being presented here are amazing. Other than the curfew/weed stuff that seems to be debunked, they include:
A) He benched Malcolm to “satisfy his own ego”
B) He benched Malcolm due to a misguided belief the team was better without him.
C) He sat him because Malcolm yelled at him.
D) He refused to put Malcolm in because he thought his scheme would win the day and things would get better in the second half.
Am I missing anything?
About the only thing that has any resonance at all is B) with the Collins trade last year. So yeah, the “addition by subtraction” approach has been tried exactly one time during the Belichick era – and it was
I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.KC, Carolina, Houston (Watson was still playing), New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, San Diego...
Word. The Iggles were 10-1 with high end QB play, right? Before Wentz went down?I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.
The Pats defense struggled against some of those same teams, fwiw.
That's exactly right. At some point, if Butler really did merit being benched and not given a second look while the defense turned in the Patriots worst big-game defensive performance since Superbowl 20, that's an indictment of Belichick's decision to give him virtually every snap for 18 games.Giardi’s general characterizations do not trump Malcolm’s specific denials. Because if he was generally difficult to manage all season — you do not wait until the Super Bowl to bench him — THE most important game after which he is gone anyway.
Butler not starting wasn't a bombshell decision by any means. A game plan that didn't involve Butler seeing the field, regardless of how badly the defense actually performed, was absolutely a bombshell.He practiced aside Gilmore all week. That nobody said “Oh, hey, these packages we’re practicing a few days before the Super Bowl? Yeah, these are the ones we plan to use in the game.” doesn’t exactly scream “Oh my God it was a bombshell decision!”
Again, this explains why he didn't start. It doesn't explain the failure to adjust.That was consistent with what two of the team's captains said after the game, that they knew Butler wasn't going to be a significant part of the game plan.
Why that was the case remains unknown, although one person who was at each of the team's practices leading up to the Super Bowl relayed that Butler struggled with what the Patriots were asking him to do against the Eagles' complex scheme. Couple those struggles with a regular season that Butler admitted wasn't his best, and it might have been part of coach Bill Belichick's decision-making process.
I think this really is what it all boils down to. If it really was all-football, I think BB saw an opportunity to gain an advantage that turned out to be ill-conceived. Ill-conceived because it involved shifting too many of the guys who did play guys out of their typical roles (eg, Chung, McCourty), relying too heavily on lesser players (eg, Richards, Bademosi), and ignoring fundamentals (tackling) and continuity (the Pats' defense had essentially zero experience playing without Butler on the field). Then stubborn refusal to adjust after he saw how badly his approach was failing.I think the basic notion that in most people their best/greatest quality often has a way of turning into their biggest flaw -- er Achilles Heel, if we're sticking to the metaphor - is simply,...true. BB is an arrogant asshole and most often his singular focus is a great thing. In cases like this or benching Welker for the start of the Jets' playoff game it can be a negative. Obviously you take the whole package...but this game did expose a huge flaw.
Not a significant part of the game plan is wholly different than going from 98% of snaps to 0% except one FU play. The constant yammering about the complexity of the Pats scheme as a catch-all explanation for everything is just lame when it comes to a guy like MB who has always done all that was asked of him -- even as a rookie -- and given the overall failures of the Pats D and their DBs in this game. I hate the speculation game and who the F knows the inside dope, but the idea that this was simply a football decision fails the Occam's Razor test.
I think you underrate how narrow the margin was in this game (one more play from a defense that made precious few of them might have been the difference; 3 or 4 would absolutely have been), and that the defense was so bad that there wasn't much room for a different approach to have been worse (only 2 stops all game long, one of which was part fluke, part spectacular individual effort by Harmon).Death, do you really think the guy playing third corner was the difference last night? I wish that were our only problem, but the pass rush, run defense and linebackers in coverage were almost uniformly a disaster on a play to play basis.
That's NOT a defense of Bill, mind you, as he ultimately picks the groceries and decides how to cook them, Sunday night being attributable to deficiencies in both areas. It's definitely viable to argue that reinserting Butler would've helped as a desperation move, but you're overrating the importance of Butler to this defense.
I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
I think that you've answered this question - the difference was a whole bunch of other roles in the defense had to change to accomodate Butler not being in the game. Chung on Ahgolor instead of Ertz, key coverage snaps for Richards and Bademosi, etc.The only thing I know is that Malcom Butler played 98% of the snaps this year, and the defense never looked like it did on Sunday night. He played 0 snaps on Sunday night. You tell me, what was so different about the Eagles offense or the Patriots defense that resulted in 500+ yards and 41 points against a team that was giving up an average of about 16 points a game over the previous 13 weeks?
Interesting article except for the fact that one of the primary premises is that it made sense to use Bademosi over Butler as the 3rd CB since he had more practice time there. Only problem is Rowe was never an outside corner until he started the SB this year. Also I hate articles that cherry pick plays to prove their narrative. Sure Butler got washed out on a running play. I'm also sure you can find a clip of every Pats defender getting washed out on a running play this year given they were generally poor against the run.I don't know if this was posted already but here's an interesting football take on what Bill might have been thinking -
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-super-bowl-lii-patriots-eagles-macolm-butler-beching-bill-belichick-explanation
I'll let you guys who are better at the X's and O's dissect it.
PHI finished the regular season #8 in offensive DVOA behind LA, NO and PIT and just ahead of ATL (no idea where HOU was when Deshaun Watson was playing). Of course, before the game one would have said that relatively vanilla drop-back passing offenses like NO, LA and ATL are a far better matchup than either mobile QB-based offenses or misdirection-based offenses, so PHI might well have been a top-5 offense against NE.I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.
The Pats defense struggled against some of those same teams, fwiw.
In terms of DVOA, the Eagles were pretty bunched up in the 5-9 group with the Vikings and both LA teams just above them, and the Falcons below them. I don't agree with the DVOA ranking of the Eagles running game, however, which just highlights the problem of using a proprietary formula. Carolina, btw, was 17th.PHI finished the regular season #8 in offensive DVOA behind LA, NO and PIT and just ahead of ATL (no idea where HOU was when Deshaun Watson was playing). Of course, before the game one would have said that relatively vanilla drop-back passing offenses like NO, LA and ATL are a far better matchup than either mobile QB-based offenses or misdirection-based offenses, so PHI might well have been a top-5 offense against NE.
Aside from the very first one ... which is a team that runs the same scheme as the Eagles and where Pederson used to coach. And a team that hung 40 on the Pats a couple years ago. Occam's Razor to me is that Andy Reid (and tree) OWNS Bill Belichick's defense.See, we had 17 games this year where Butler played, and aside from the very first one, we didn't see the defense look anywhere close to this bad for 60 minutes. Maybe they were bad for a drive or two in the 1st half of some games, but nothing like this, and the only real difference between the team that played on Sunday night and the team that played the other 17 games was Butler not playing, so Occam's Razor.
I kind of agree with you on the Eagles O. Good skill players, not great. Foles is a great backup, suspect as a starter. Really good OL, albeit missing its left tackle. This is a good offense; it's not a unit that should be dropping 40 on anybody. But I would have said the same thing about both Chiefs teams that torched the Pats in similar fashion. That's why I keep going back to Reid / Pederson having Belichick's number.Nick fucking Foles, a good tight end, 2 washed up receivers and a never has been, a couple of running backs that we usually swallow whole, and a third down rookie back that did next to nothing all year, absolutely shredded the Pats defense for 60 minutes.
McCourty is not in position to do anything on this play. He was bracketing Ertz and reacted to the ball in the air; his presence is 100% irrelevant unless the throw is terrible. It's a really good throw to Clement. It's also a play where the LB has to run with his back to the ball and the FS (Harmon) is nowhere in sight.Again, two defenders right there - the throw is absolutely perfect. Now the refs got this one wrong - it should have been an incomplete - but still...absolutely perfect throw and a very nice catch.
McCourty is close enough that the pass can't be underthrown at all or it's picked (or tipped anyway). Flowers has terrific coverage, back turned or not, and Foles drops the ball PERFECTLY in the right spot.McCourty is not in position to do anything on this play. He was bracketing Ertz and reacted to the ball in the air; his presence is 100% irrelevant unless the throw is terrible. It's a really good throw to Clement. It's also a play where the LB has to run with his back to the ball and the FS (Harmon) is nowhere in sight.
Well of course. I'm already seeing hot takez out there saying that BB's not that good of a coach, he's lost to the the NYG twice and didn't dress Butler! It's all Brady, lol!The Pats had the ball with more than 2 minutes left, down 5.
At that point, I would have bet the deed to my house that Brady was going to take them down and win the game, and I would guess many of you felt similarly.
Funny how one blown-up pass attempt turned Belichick from the greatest coach of all time into "well, I'm not saying fire him, but..."
I mean, we can acknowledge that this thread is not active today if the Pats won, right?
If you're going to judge purely on results, then the only result that matters at all is 5-3, which still puts BB in the 99.9th percentile of NFL coaches. If you want to take it further, contrary to what the idiots on talk radio will tell you, none of the games were against tomato cans; all the opponents beat some quality teams themselves to get there.Well of course. I'm already seeing hot takez out there saying that BB's not that good of a coach, he's lost to the the NYG twice and didn't dress Butler! It's all Brady, lol!
This is being judged purely on results, and hell, we all do it. We're about 20 total points from having the Pats be either 8-0 or 0-8 in Super Bowls in the BB era.
No, McCourty is not that close. It would have to be badly underthrown or thrown much too far inside for him to be a factor. And Flowers is shaded to the outside which gives Foles a sizeable window to the inside. It's a great throw because Foles starts his progression to the right, so by the time he comes to the wheel he has to fit it in before the backline of the end zone, but it is also bad defense by the Patriots. It is fair to argue that it is better than the defense they played most of the night, however.McCourty is close enough that the pass can't be underthrown at all or it's picked (or tipped anyway). Flowers has terrific coverage, back turned or not, and Foles drops the ball PERFECTLY in the right spot.
Let's not forget that it wasn't actually a legal catch, because that fact doesn't change the skill employed by Foles on that play.
I will acknowledge that.The Pats had the ball with more than 2 minutes left, down 5.
At that point, I would have bet the deed to my house that Brady was going to take them down and win the game, and I would guess many of you felt similarly.
Funny how one blown-up pass attempt turned Belichick from the greatest coach of all time into "well, I'm not saying fire him, but..."
I mean, we can acknowledge that this thread is not active today if the Pats won, right?
The ball would only have had to be under thrown by a yard and McCourty could make a play on it. I'm re-watching the pass in slow motion right this moment. When Clement is one yard deep into the end zone, McCourty is at the goal line. One yard on a throw that travels about 39 yards (Foles is standing on the 32 when he releases, and Clement's initial touch is about 7 yards into the end zone with the receiver running full speed is a really accurate throw. That's not much margin for error.No, McCourty is not that close. It would have to be badly underthrown or thrown much too far inside for him to be a factor. And Flowers is shaded to the outside which gives Foles a sizeable window to the inside. It's a great throw because Foles starts his progression to the right, so by the time he comes to the wheel he has to fit it in before the backline of the end zone, but it is also bad defense by the Patriots. It is fair to argue that it is better than the defense they played most of the night, however.
I have it at closer to 2 yards behind and another 2-3 yards to the inside.The ball would only have had to be under thrown by a yard and McCourty could make a play on it. I'm re-watching the pass in slow motion right this moment. When Clement is one yard deep into the end zone, McCourty is at the goal line. One yard on a throw that travels about 39 yards (Foles is standing on the 32 when he releases, and Clement's initial touch is about 7 yards into the end zone with the receiver running full speed is a really accurate throw. That's not much margin for error.
Right, an offense led most of the way by an MVP candidate, not the guy who shredded the Patriots on Sunday.I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats.
By rule, it’s not a penalty. But it absolutely should be.I'm still pissed the Cooks hit didn't result in a penalty.
Belichick owns the fact that this team is 12-4 or better EVERY YEAR and in a position every year to contend for a Super Bowl. For two decades.I will acknowledge that.
It is unfair to say that the criticisms are based solely on results and 20/20 hindsight. The game thread puts the lie to that. Bambino’s posting alone puts the lie to that.
Also, I am not posting any deed to any house on the results of a final drive. Go back to the game thread. Three or four posts before the strip fumble, I posted — be sure to take care of the football.
Shit happens. If somebody said Shaq was going to mess up once, resulting in a turnover, and that the o-line would bring it’s A game, I’d have taken it going in.
Again, that’s the problem with the defense sucking this badly. There is no margin for error. That’s one hell of a hole to put yourself into.
One way or another, B.B. owns the defensive deficiencies. The downside of obsessing about the Butler decision is obscuring the larger problem, as explained in the roster thread yesterday.
Nobody is disputing the overall record or calling for his dismissal.Belichick owns the fact that this team is 12-4 or better EVERY YEAR and in a position every year to contend for a Super Bowl. For two decades.
I get that people are disappointed about the results, but come on. This guy is a certifiable football genius. He literally knows more about football than every other human being on the planet.
Reading this thread, you come to the conclusion that there are actually Patriot fans who think that they noticed that the Pats defense was getting torched, and Bill Belichick didn't, and that's why he didn't just put Malcolm Butler in the game and win.
Correct; I think it was mentioned in the broadcast that he was considered a runner at the time of the hit, not a defenseless receiver, so no call.By rule, it’s not a penalty. But it absolutely should be.
The NFL will have taken a huge step forward if they adopt the targeting rule used in college football.
Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.Correct; I think it was mentioned in the broadcast that he was considered a runner at the time of the hit, not a defenseless receiver, so no call.
Doesn't make it ok, but that's the rule and agreed, they need to fix that so that anytime, anyplace on the field there is helmet to helmet, it's a penalty regardless.
I remember it, but I don't think Edelman does.Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.
Butler being sick is one possible explanation for him playing at all on special teams. If they thought Malcolm would be totally winded after 3 or 4 plays in one series, then they could steer away from him for defensive snaps but have him go out there for a special teams play every once in a while.Here's my take:
The guy got sick. It's unfortunate but, really, no ones fault.
Faced with a sick player who had a poor showing in practice, the coach made his decision. Whether his decision was correct or not, Belichick was doing his best to manage a tricky situation.
I still think the late hit on Vereen was a makeup call for that. He was out of bounds but that isn't called 100% of the time (aka not THAT out of bounds).Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.
On top of that, it's starting to sounds like BB's game plan put Butler in a different position that he usually played, and Butler couldn't adjust to it -- possibly because of the illness, possibly other reasons.Here's my take:
The guy got sick. It's unfortunate but, really, no ones fault.
Faced with a sick player who had a poor showing in practice, the coach made his decision. Whether his decision was correct or not, Belichick was doing his best to manage a tricky situation. The defense played poorly, but the game itself was right down to the wire and the coach put this team in a position to be able to win this game. It just didn't go our way.
Belichick told us why Butler wasn't in.Nobody is disputing the overall record or calling for his dismissal.
If we’re in a world where the overall record trumps everything always, provides an excuse for muting any criticism, then what’s the point of any of this? Lock the 2017 Defense thread, the 2018 Defense thread and heavily censor the Roster and Goat threads — for starters.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bill may be in the 99.9th percentile in terms of coaches but that doesn't mean he's perfect. It's worth discussing if he actually did make a mistake (and what we learn from it), or if he made a reasonable decision that just didn't work out, or what.The whole thread is an examination of BFBs overall judgement, which frankly should be beyond reproach.
I don't see an argument that the decision worked out. Maybe if Bademosi makes that tackle (but the Eagles convert on the next play or whatever) then I could be more comfortable saying #2. Otherwise either the decision failed or it didn't matter.And possibility 2 was almost reality
Or I guess that is what 4 would be
Mistakes, certainly. In game tactical decisions like timeouts, kick vs. go for it, challenging a call.Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bill may be in the 99.9th percentile in terms of coaches but that doesn't mean he's perfect. It's worth discussing if he actually did make a mistake (and what we learn from it), or if he made a reasonable decision that just didn't work out, or what.
And remember at least half this thread is "Does anyone have any more information to help us understand and process what happened?", which is never a waste.
Belichick told us why Butler wasn't in.
If you don't accept that, then you either think that you know better that the greatest football genius that we have ever seen, or you think that he cares so little about winning the Super Bowl that he would prefer to assert his big swinging dick and bench the better player.
This isn't questioning 4th and 2. This decision was not made without deliberation. The whole thread is an examination of BFBs overall judgement, which frankly should be beyond reproach.