SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,647
Unless #32 was used on a CB or front 7 player... yeah, I probably agree. Although I will say Jon Jones actually reminded me a lot of Butler this year, but of course he got hurt too.
I forget who it was in this forum, but when Jones got hurt, someone called that a "sneaky significant injury", or something along those lines. And I couldn't agree more. He played pretty well this year and I sure as hell would rather have had him out there than Bademosi. Turned out to have a pretty major impact.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,183
I agree. I want to hear what guys like Christian Fauria have to say. After all, he knows BB better than any of us do, he played for the guy, and his feeling was that he has no doubt in his mind that if Belichick made a decision to bench him, he would stick by that decision regardless of what happened on the field. Yeah, it flies in the face of what's in the "best interests of the team on the field," but that's who Belichick is and that's who he is always going to be. For better or worse.

And it sucks, IMO, for everyone not named Malcolm Butler. Great, he was punished. Now, he only has 2 Super Bowl rings instead of 3, and will soon have tens of millions in the bank, while the rest of his team, including a bunch of guys that have never been there and may never get back there, members of the staff and the organization, as well as millions of fans, get screwed. But Bill got to be a man of his word (a word he won't share with anyone else apparently) and stick to his guns, and that's one of the reasons he's been so successful and blah, blah...

It sucks and it stinks and it sucks.
I ignored my own advice this morning and turned on WEEI for a few minutes. Fauria was on with Merloni and Ordway. He surprisingly didn't offer much insight beyond the talking points being already raised here and elsewhere. It was hard because Merloni was ranting for most of the segment, so I didn't get to hear much of Fauria. He seemed to agree with Ordway that once the decision was made that Butler wasn't going to play, they never really intended to put him in unless someone actually got hurt. Then it started to get repetitive and so I moved on.

To your other points: if Butler was ineffective in practice all week due to the flu, noone got "screwed". If Butler was missing team meetings this week (which really is a big deal), then he's the one that caused the fans, staff, teammates to get screwed, not Bill.
 

CCR

New Member
Apr 2, 2013
50
Bademosi was next man up and played well earlier this year. Is there this much hand wringing if he makes that tackle on 3rd and 7? Jordan Richards, on the other hand, is just a dumpster fire...
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,409
I wonder how many decisions per game are such that we would be confused or aghast, we simply can’t actually spot them or have any knowledge thereof—whereas we fixate in the few “obvious” calls like personnel simply because we actually feel like we can identify what we are seeing?
 

HomeBrew1901

Has Season 1 of "Manimal" on Blu Ray
SoSH Member
I wonder how many decisions per game are such that we would be confused or aghast, we simply can’t actually spot them or have any knowledge thereof—whereas we fixate in the few “obvious” calls like personnel simply because we actually feel like we can identify what we are seeing?
This is a great point. Unfortunately, this one was glaring considering the final score, how horrible Riddick and Bademosi were, and the presumption that one stop on any Eagles drive on 2nd or 3rd and Long would have changed the game.

If the score is 17-10 or had the Patriots won there wouldn't be this much hand wringing. Butler is the one piece that most of us can point to and say WTF?

Broken record time:
Telling the players just before kick off
Dressing Butler at all
Allowing him to play on Special Teams
Non Answers from the team and player

All of that only exacerbates the issue
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,325
Hingham, MA
Giardi radio transcript. Emphasis mine. http://da.radio.cbssports.com/2018/02/06/giardi-malcolm-butler-benching-was-culmination-of-events/

Bill Belichick claims that Butler’s benching was not discipline-related. Should we believe him?

“No, I believe this story is multi-layered,” NBC Sports Boston’s Patriot Insider Mike Giardi said on The DA Show. “I think this was a culmination of a variety of things that have popped up with Malcolm over the course of this season and maybe even others in the past. I think that clearly, to me, based on reading the tea leaves with Malcolm himself, once he got into Minnesota – he was sick and he wasn’t able to fly with the team. As far as I’ve been told, there was no B.S. there. He didn’t miss the flight. That was, ‘We’re quarantining you because we do not want you in that little tube with everybody else.’ He was in a phenomenal mood. Knowing Malcolm the way I know Malcolm, he’s an incredibly emotional kid. There was no way in hell that he would have been able to hide that he was not part of the plan when we talked to him Wednesday and Thursday. It’s not in his DNA at all.”

Butler was seen with his hand over his eyes during the national anthem Sunday. He was likely hiding his emotions about being benched.

“I definitely feel like that was, ‘I can’t believe this is likely my last game with the New England Patriots, and I’ve been informed that I was going to be a part of the plan last week, and now I’m being informed that I’m not part of the plan for the game day,’” Giardi said.

Butler, though, played special teams in Super Bowl LII. It seems odd that he would play on one unit but not another, no?

“If he violated team rules, why isn’t he just sent home?” Giardi asked. “Talking to a couple of ex-players, if you violate the rules, you’re gone. It doesn’t really matter who you are. I think bottom line is if they didn’t dress him, they would have had three active corners on the roster, and they didn’t feel like that was smart business against that team that lines up with at least three wide receivers on almost every single play. If something were to happen to Stephon Gilmore or Eric Rowe or Johnson Bademosi, you can’t turn around and throw Danny Amendola out at cornerback in the Super Bowl. I think Malcolm was a break-glass-in-case-of-emergency player on that day.”

DA wondered if Butler was punished for, say, using marijuana or missing curfew the night before the game – something more serious than, for example, being a few minutes late to practice.

“As far as marijuana goes, I’ve had different people say yes, no – so I’m not reporting that,” Giardi sad. “I’ll just say this: When it comes to marijuana, I don’t think it’s a big deal. I don’t think it’s a big deal for the team. It is part of the NFL culture. It’s actually part of a lot of the sports’ cultures, and I don’t think that would be something that would lead them to say, ‘You’re not playing.’”

But what about missing curfew?

“The curfew thing is real,” Giardi said. “I don’t know how dramatic the curfew miss was, but I will tell you that in talking to players both current and past that Bill has a few rules, and that is a big one. There is a no tolerance for missing curfew, just as if there’s no tolerance for having (non-team members) on your floor during game week. Nobody’s supposed to be up there. That is a team space and it’s for team personnel and players only.”

Giardi believes the true story behind the benching will come out.

“For sure,” he said. “For sure. First of all, I think there are too many good reporters who have been already burning the midnight oil over here the last 24 hours to find answers, and we’ve gotten pieces here and pieces there. I think the other thing, too, is Malcolm is someone that has frustrated them for a long time. I think that contributed to the fact that they weren’t willing to extend him to the length that he wanted to be extended to at the end of last season. I think that’s what prompted them to go out and get Stephon Gilmore. I think his response to Stephon Gilmore’s signing sort of hammered home the point to them that there’s at times a lack of maturity with Malcolm and that they felt good about their decision to not do that.

“And just listen to Malcolm himself,” Giardi continued. “We’ve sat here and criticized him for the better part of the year for being on a roller coaster all year, and he finally straight up admits on Thursday that ‘I’ve had a bleep season.’ Well, yeah, no kidding – I think in part because you were distracted at times. He’s always been someone that they’ve had to put in extra work with to get him to be part of the program, to participate in the program the way they wanted him to participate in the program. I think this is a culmination of a lot of events and a lot of frustration that, unfortunately for him – and unfortunately, I guess, for the team – reared its head Super Bowl week.”

It appears some Patriots are frustrated that Belichick would take such a hard line with Butler during the Super Bowl, while others are frustrated that Butler couldn’t maintain order for one last game.

Said Giardi, “I think the frustration is kind of split down the middle.”
 

TheRooster

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 3, 2001
2,489
Good point Rev. I'd say over 100. The "correctness" of most decisions is only obvious after the play. A draw play looks like genius UNLESS the DE stunts up the middle and stuffs it for a 4 yard loss.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,106
UWS, NYC
I forget who it was in this forum, but when Jones got hurt, someone called that a "sneaky significant injury", or something along those lines. And I couldn't agree more. He played pretty well this year and I sure as hell would rather have had him out there than Bademosi. Turned out to have a pretty major impact.
I've been calling out the Jones loss... I'm a big Jonathan Jones fan.

Bademosi was really good on special teams most of the year, and the game or two that he had a lot of DB reps he handled reasonably well too. I like him, that one terrible non-tackle notwithstanding. That said, he didn't get a block on the kick-off return end around to Burkhead that maybe would've made a difference.

Jordan Richards, on the other hand, can go straight into coaching.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,013
Mansfield MA
Unless #32 was used on a CB or front 7 player... yeah, I probably agree. Although I will say Jon Jones actually reminded me a lot of Butler this year, but of course he got hurt too.
Eh, definitely none of the second-round CBs (King, Jones, Wilson, Tabor, Awuzie) would have been an upgrade for 2017. Maybe Dalvin Tomlinson among the DL? People overrate how much rookies will help (which is why, even with all the picks they have in the '18 draft, I don't expect much for next season).

And yeah, Jones would have helped. He would have been the best matchup for Agholor, who hurt them even after the Rowe / Gilmore switch basically neutralized both Jeffery and Smith after the first quarter.

Bademosi was really good on special teams most of the year, and the game or two that he had a lot of DB reps he handled reasonably well too. I like him, that one terrible non-tackle notwithstanding. That said, he didn't get a block on the kick-off return end around to Burkhead that maybe would've made a difference.
Yeah, I think Bademosi is almost a perfect fifth corner for them - a good special teams player who doesn't kill you if he has to play. Also a different body type than Jonathan Jones or Cyrus Jones. It's too bad he missed a play in the Super Bowl because his unexpected strong play when Gilmore was out helped a lot - especially, ironically, his excellent tackling.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,409
Serious question I don’t have an answer for:
What happens if Butler doesn’t dress after not appearing on the injury report?

Besides immediately broadcasting to the other team he’s not playing. Like, would there be trouble over the injury report?
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,652
Melrose, MA
What we talk about as “the Butler decision” could be looked at as about 7 different decisions:

1. Rowe starting and covering Jeffrey, Butler not starting.
2. Safety-heavy approach, with Chung covering the slot WR and Richards getting regular snaps.
3. When Gilmore was switched onto Jeffrey, not putting Butler in, either as slot or outside guy (with Rowe taking the other role).
4. When Pats needed to move Ching onto Ertz (which was both necessary and effective), not going to Butler then.
5. When Chung went out injured, going to Bademosi and not Butler.
6. After 3 quarters of watching Foles shred the Patriots sorry excuse for a defense, when Philly got the ball back and the worst possible thing the Pats could do is allow a long, sustained, clock-killing TD drive, Butler didn’t play and the Pats allowed a long, sustained, clock-killing TD drive.
7. Not Butler related. At some point or another, during that last drive, people I was watching the game with started saying “let them score”, so that Brady has time. Pats didn’t do that (just as they didn’t in 2014). Not that surprising. Still kind of bizarre, though, that they didn’t take some risks there. Why not shake things up there with corner blitzes and what not? Seems like they just stick with the same vanilla approach that Philly wrecked through the rest of the game.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,652
Melrose, MA
Serious question I don’t have an answer for:
What happens if Butler doesn’t dress after not appearing on the injury report?

Besides immediately broadcasting to the other team he’s not playing. Like, would there be trouble over the injury report?
Nothing, unless they claimed it was for injury reasons.
 

DegenerateSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 11, 2006
2,068
Flagstaff, AZ
This is a great point. Unfortunately, this one was glaring considering the final score, how horrible Riddick and Bademosi were, and the presumption that one stop on any Eagles drive on 2nd or 3rd and Long would have changed the game.

If the score is 17-10 or had the Patriots won there wouldn't be this much hand wringing. Butler is the one piece that most of us can point to and say WTF?

Broken record time:
Telling the players just before kick off
Dressing Butler at all
Allowing him to play on Special Teams
Non Answers from the team and player

All of that only exacerbates the issue
I dunno. The quotes from the Eagles afterward make it pretty clear that “WTF” was their reaction when they realized that Butler wasn’t playing. And that they were happy as pigs in shit about it. I’ll find the links if people want, but I think everyone’s seen them.

Butler may have had an uneven year, but he was perfectly capable of turning it on and blanketing an opponent’s #1WR, and as discussed upthread, an excellent tackler. He better have still been pretty sick or have done something pretty bad, or I’m pretty comfortable saying the greatest mind in the game screwed the pooch. We pretty much heard it from the opponents’ mouths.

The whole thing stinks.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,183
Serious question I don’t have an answer for:
What happens if Butler doesn’t dress after not appearing on the injury report?

Besides immediately broadcasting to the other team he’s not playing. Like, would there be trouble over the injury report?
There are 7 inactives every game, and there's no real rule about who can be inactive or why.

The only issue would be if Butler was inactive due to injury; the league would want the Pats to explain the situation. Sure, stuff sometimes happens between practices and the game.

Contrary to popular belief, the Pats are normally quite clean and consistent when it comes to their practice participation lists, injury reports, and guys inactive due to injury.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,409
.
The only issue would be if Butler was inactive due to injury; the league would want the Pats to explain the situation. Sure, stuff sometimes happens between practices and the game.
Does anyone not think this would have been an unholy disaster?

Hell, maybe Bill’s only goal is to get past this without losing more draft picks...
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
625
I think this goes back to Rapoport's assertion that this was a decision based on a number of factors. Butler was mediocre this year and was coming off a practice week killing illness - Brady and Gronk are just in a different stratosphere of talent and importance at this point. A fairer comparison is probably Chris Hogan or Lewis, to which I'd react the same as I am now - I disagree with the decision, but I can see it as in character for a Coach who deserves the benefit of the doubt.
One of the points of the question is, if it is Brady or Gronk does BB act the same? If he does how do people feel about it? Not finding a comparable offensive player to Butler.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,586
Lesterland
At some point or another, during that last drive, people I was watching the game with started saying “let them score”, so that Brady has time. Pats didn’t do that (just as they didn’t in 2014). Not that surprising. Still kind of bizarre, though, that they didn’t take some risks there. Why not shake things up there with corner blitzes and what not? Seems like they just stick with the same vanilla approach that Philly wrecked through the rest of the game.
I agree that a CB blitz might have been a nice idea. Of course, Butler might be their best CB blitzer, so here we go again.

Time, though, was not a problem. The Pats got the ball back down 5 with over 2 minutes to go. That was just about perfect (though an extra TO or 2 would've been nice) -- plenty of time to drive the field and score, while leaving Philly with little or nothing on the clock. The fumble shit-canned that plan, though.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,183
Does anyone not think this would have been an unholy disaster?

Hell, maybe Bill’s only goal is to get past this without losing more draft picks...
I can picture Bill telling all the players: "Look, no getting hurt between the final practice and game time. Or, if you get hurt, get hurt really bad on your own so it's obvious we didn't screw with the injury report.".
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,013
Mansfield MA
Time, though, was not a problem. The Pats got the ball back down 5 with over 2 minutes to go. That was just about perfect (though an extra TO or 2 would've been nice) -- plenty of time to drive the field and score, while leaving Philly with little or nothing on the clock. The fumble shit-canned that plan, though.
I disagree time was not a problem. The limited time meant the Patriots had to throw, which meant Philadelphia didn't have to respect the run one iota, which is why Graham kicked inside on Shaq Mason instead of playing DE like he normally does on early downs. The Pats get the ball with five minutes left and they have more options on the table. The time also meant, after the fumble, they had an extremely challenging time / score situation to come back from.
 

Pandemonium67

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
5,586
Lesterland
Yes, more time earlier would've meant more time after the fumble and field goal.

And I don't disagree with your point that more time would've let the Pats run more (a full allotment of TOs would've helped here, too), which could've helped with the pass rush.

But the question is how much time. If the Pats had 5+ minutes and scored in 3, that leaves 2+ minutes for the Eagles to kick a field goal (which would've given them the lead or a tie, depending on the outcome of the 2-point conversion the Pats would've tried). Assume the Eagles started at around the 20 or 25 -- what's the likelihood of the Pats D holding them under 60 yards (the Eagles get to use all four downs)? I'd say minimal. I imagine the most likely scenario would be the Eagles driving, maybe running down the clock in close FG position, then kicking the game-winner as the clock expired.

I'd have to ponder this more, but I'd almost prefer TB getting the ball back with 2+ minutes than with, say, 6+ minutes. The time thing cuts both ways.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,325
Hingham, MA
I disagree time was not a problem. The limited time meant the Patriots had to throw, which meant Philadelphia didn't have to respect the run one iota, which is why Graham kicked inside on Shaq Mason instead of playing DE like he normally does on early downs. The Pats get the ball with five minutes left and they have more options on the table. The time also meant, after the fumble, they had an extremely challenging time / score situation to come back from.
I call BS. The Pats run draws and things like that plenty in hurry up. On the 2nd and 2 play, the clock had stopped because Gronk was out of bounds after the first down catch. They could have easily run a draw or something there to pick up the first down. Hell sometimes after the 2 minute warning they purposefully run to get the clock moving. It was 2nd and 2 from the 33 with 2:15 left. There was so much time, especially considering how the Pats had gashed them all half.
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,752
I disagree time was not a problem. The limited time meant the Patriots had to throw, which meant Philadelphia didn't have to respect the run one iota, which is why Graham kicked inside on Shaq Mason instead of playing DE like he normally does on early downs. The Pats get the ball with five minutes left and they have more options on the table. The time also meant, after the fumble, they had an extremely challenging time / score situation to come back from.
I 100% disagree...before the fumble time was not an issue. They had a 2nd and 2 with 2:17, a perfect time for a run to take them to the 2 minute warning. The way the Pats were moving the ball they almost had too much time and had to be concerned about scoring too early and leaving the Eagles with enough time for a FG.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,013
Mansfield MA
I call BS. The Pats run draws and things like that plenty in hurry up. On the 2nd and 2 play, the clock had stopped because Gronk was out of bounds after the first down catch. They could have easily run a draw or something there to pick up the first down. Hell sometimes after the 2 minute warning they purposefully run to get the clock moving. It was 2nd and 2 from the 33 with 2:15 left. There was so much time, especially considering how the Pats had gashed them all half.
They could have run, but the Eagles didn't have to respect the run. That's the issue. The Pats run a draw for 7, who cares? They aren't getting beaten that way. They could pin their ears back and go after Brady, and finally they got him.
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
31,006
6 miles from Angel Stadium
I'd venture that BB's decision to announce the cornerback switch at the last minute is to gain a small advantage. The Eagles' coaches didn't know about the switch until the game was being played, so they had little time to adjust. Pretty consistent with how BB operates.
The only adjustment the Philly coaches needed to make was to restrain from high fiving each other. And send in multiple plays to pick on Rowe.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
One of the points of the question is, if it is Brady or Gronk does BB act the same? If he does how do people feel about it? Not finding a comparable offensive player to Butler.
I agree that this is a key question for those suggesting that Belichick gets the benefit of the doubt on disciplinary matters, because disciplinary matters are just another strategic decision not much different than if he had sat Malcolm for non-disciplinary reasons. If Brady missed curfew and Belichick sat him for the Super Bowl (or, heck, even a single drive) would people be equally ok with giving him the same benefit of the doubt they are giving him on the Butler decision?

If the answer is yes, then you are saying that Belichick's rules are the end-all be-all and it doesn't matter if those rules decrease your chance of winning a championship from, say, 50% to 5% (in the Brady hypothetical). I don't really see how you could say that given that the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl, but I guess you could differ.

If the answer is no, then you are admitting that disciplinary decisions are NOT a clear cut case of "he broke the rules, here's the punishment" but rather that talent level factors in as well. Which brings us back to the question of whether Butler's talent level was sufficient to warrant a lesser punishment than he got. I would say yes, at least by the second half, but it doesn't really matter since the larger point is that you can't just say "I defer to Belichick on discipline" and leave it at that if you think he would have applied different punishments to different players who did the same thing because one is better or more important than the other.
 

jmanny24

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 6, 2003
625
If the answer is yes, then you are saying that Belichick's rules are the end-all be-all and it doesn't matter if those rules decrease your chance of winning a championship from, say, 50% to 5% (in the Brady hypothetical). I don't really see how you could say that given that the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl, but I guess you could differ.
Agreed OFC. To the quote here if Belichick is end-all-be-all then at least in this case in my eyes he didn't practice what he preaches (team first) and leaving everything out on the field, things he rightly asks of his players. I had a friend say if this was an attitude issue you can't let Butler infect the locker room with it. I said to him if 1 player infects THAT locker room then perhaps a lot of things we've heard about the way it is run (by the players) isn't exactly truthful.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,325
Hingham, MA
They could have run, but the Eagles didn't have to respect the run. That's the issue. The Pats run a draw for 7, who cares? They aren't getting beaten that way. They could pin their ears back and go after Brady, and finally they got him.
Well if they ran for 7 then they are at the 40 at the 2 minute warning. The Pats could have easily driven the field gaining "only" 7-8 yards a play with that amount of time.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,030
Would we care at all about this had the Patriots scored and not fumbled on that drive, and held on?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,013
Mansfield MA
Well if they ran for 7 then they are at the 40 at the 2 minute warning. The Pats could have easily driven the field gaining "only" 7-8 yards a play with that amount of time.
Maybe you can argue they could have or should have run, but it is clear the Eagles didn't respect them running, or they wouldn't have lined up a 265-pound DE head up on the Patriots' best run blocker. Does that happen if there are four or five minutes left? I tend to doubt it.
 

Norm Siebern

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2003
7,136
Western MD
I was screaming at the TV to call a run play at 2:15 on second and 2. Clock stops at the 2 minute warning so it doesn’t matter that it won’t stop after a running play. Make the two yards, (probably more because you catch them by surprise) get the first down, and you’re all set up just needing 60-65 yards in two minutes. Pats’ offense does that in its sleep. But it didn’t turn out that way....
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,325
Hingham, MA
Maybe you can argue they could have or should have run, but it is clear the Eagles didn't respect them running, or they wouldn't have lined up a 265-pound DE head up on the Patriots' best run blocker. Does that happen if there are four or five minutes left? I tend to doubt it.
I wouldn't argue they should have run, but I would argue they have run in these situations in the past, successfully.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Would we care at all about this had the Patriots scored and not fumbled on that drive, and held on?
Maybe in an academic sense. Same with the Butler benching.

I have been thinking about a related aspect of this drive. The fumble occurs, and of course a few here immediately point out that White was open for what I assume was a more modest gain than what Brady thought he had. I’m typically very adverse to this kind of second guessing, and believe me, I know you HAVE to score. If you see a TD, you have to take it. But I’m thinking at the same time, chunk play after chunk play — is that the way to approach this? With two timeouts, run some clock. Because honestly, there was no basis for assuming we could have held them defensively if we leave them any meaningful time in that game.
 

Norm Siebern

Member
SoSH Member
May 12, 2003
7,136
Western MD
I agree that this is a key question for those suggesting that Belichick gets the benefit of the doubt on disciplinary matters, because disciplinary matters are just another strategic decision not much different than if he had sat Malcolm for non-disciplinary reasons. If Brady missed curfew and Belichick sat him for the Super Bowl (or, heck, even a single drive) would people be equally ok with giving him the same benefit of the doubt they are giving him on the Butler decision?

If the answer is yes, then you are saying that Belichick's rules are the end-all be-all and it doesn't matter if those rules decrease your chance of winning a championship from, say, 50% to 5% (in the Brady hypothetical). I don't really see how you could say that given that the ultimate goal is to win a Super Bowl, but I guess you could differ.

If the answer is no, then you are admitting that disciplinary decisions are NOT a clear cut case of "he broke the rules, here's the punishment" but rather that talent level factors in as well. Which brings us back to the question of whether Butler's talent level was sufficient to warrant a lesser punishment than he got. I would say yes, at least by the second half, but it doesn't really matter since the larger point is that you can't just say "I defer to Belichick on discipline" and leave it at that if you think he would have applied different punishments to different players who did the same thing because one is better or more important than the other.
I respectfully think the point you’re missing is this: Brady wouldn’t do that. The scenario is moot. Brady would never do that. Butler did. Belichik is NOT the problem here. Butler is.
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
46,890
Hartford, CT
Maybe in an academic sense. Same with the Butler benching.

I have been thinking about a related aspect of this drive. The fumble occurs, and of course a few here immediately point out that White was open for what I assume was a more modest gain than what Brady thought he had. I’m typically very adverse to this kind of second guessing, and believe me, I know you HAVE to score. If you see a TD, you have to take it. But I’m thinking at the same time, chunk play after chunk play — is that the way to approach this? With two timeouts, run some clock. Because honestly, there was no basis for assuming we could have held them defensively if we leave them any meaningful time in that game.
White wasn't his initial read, and it looked like he was coming to White after going through his reads before the strip.

They weren't at midfield or anything, so I think it was unlikely a TD drive would have ended with much more than 30-45 seconds remaining.

Basically, they didn't need to manufacture any clock killing because short of back to back 20 yard gains or something they're at greater risk of running out of time than they are of leaving over a minute for the Philly offense.
 

jablo1312

New Member
Sep 20, 2005
975
I wonder how many decisions per game are such that we would be confused or aghast, we simply can’t actually spot them or have any knowledge thereof—whereas we fixate in the few “obvious” calls like personnel simply because we actually feel like we can identify what we are seeing?
Way, way more then fans, media covering the team, "analysts" on ESPN or for other sites, and pretty much anyone else not directly involved with any NFLorganization want to admit. Maybe the correct wording isn't "confused or aghast", but coaches and front office's have access to an order of magnitude more information than us- not just the intricacies of scheme, but medical data, practice report, in-house analytics, etc. These are people who have spent their life in football; we are people that watch TV broadcasts of it, read about it from other public sources, and talk about it with other fans. The gulf is WAY bigger then most people would like to admit considering how much time so many people spend following the league and their favorite team.
 

weeba

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
3,540
Lynn, MA
Reddit comment:
The quotation mark at the end of the second paragraph leads me to believe his agent sent him that statement in an email with quote around it, and he forgot to remove the ending quotation.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
So if we are to believe him then it comes back to Bill and Patricia labeling his benching a football decision.
He just killed them softly and diplomatically. Kirk Cousins is nodding appreciatively.

He almost certainly is telling the truth. He simply can not afford to be caught in a lie on the cusp of FA. It is THE worst thing he could do, and he and his agent damn well know it.
 

RedOctober3829

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
55,433
deep inside Guido territory
He just killed them softly and diplomatically. Kirk Cousins is nodding appreciatively.

He almost certainly is telling the truth. He simply can not afford to be caught in a lie on the cusp of FA. It is THE worst thing he could do, and he and his agent damn well know it.
Yup my thoughts exactly. Bill simply wanted to sit him because he thought it gave the team the best chance to win which is stupidity of the highest degree. The players have every right to be pissed off that the coaching staff made them play with one hand behind their back.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,488
Santa Monica, CA
So if we are to believe him then it comes back to Bill and Patricia labeling his benching a football decision.
If you read it carefully, he specifically denies certain things that have been reported, but other things that have been reported are not addressed in his note. That probably is meaningful.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
If you read it carefully, he specifically denies certain things that have been reported, but other things that have been reported are not addressed in his note. That probably is meaningful.
Yeah, but the things he denied — those are the bad ones.