SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
Not that I would know, but I imagine that even really really smart people can make a decision which they believe is based only on fact and observation, but maybe is tinged with an overlay of emotion, or maybe they did not adequately factor in unintended consequences of the decision. .

Not giving Butler one defensive snap after watching his game plan and replacement rotation get routinely torched seems more emotionally based, than one based in correctly assessing reality.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I'm not questioning BB's football acumen. In fact, it is because I have so much respect for his football acumen that I don't understand the explanation.

If you believe it was a football decision and nothing else was behind Butler's benching other than matchups and game plan, then you have to believe that somehow he had come to the conclusion that Butler could not help the defense in any possible situation they might have faced in the Super Bowl, even if the guys playing in his place were getting absolutely torched. The Bill Belichick I know does not take a guy who was good enough to play 98% of the snaps in the regular season and staple him to the bench in the Super Bowl when his defense is getting ravaged. Butler only got the chance to be the hero in 49 because Arrington was playing like shit so Bill switched it up. I just can't understand why he didn't switch it up for even a series to see if Butler might be able to make a play.

I'm not calling for him to be fired, I don't think he lost it, I'm not even saying it was necessarily a bad decision, or that the outcome would have been different if he had put Butler in. I am just saying the explanation makes no sense given what we know about Bill Belichick.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
I am just saying the explanation makes no sense given what we know about Bill Belichick.
You can only say that in hindsight. Surely Belichick/Patricia made other defensive adjustments during the game that he thought would work. Obviously they didn't work, but that doesn't mean they didn't try anything else.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
e.g. We know they flip-flopped Rowe and Gilmore, which seemed to help. Per the USA Today article, they dropped Jordan Richards from the dime package and replaced him with Bademosi -- that didn't help, but BB's explanation (that Bademosi had practiced that particular role more than Butler) seems understandable.
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
62,312
I guess the other thing to consider is when the move could've been made, especially in light of what AB in DC cites above. They made the initial Gilmore adjustment. Then they made halftime adjustments, then the Bademosi adjustment. After that, wasn't it mostly a one score game through the 4th Quarter? If you put Butler in then cold and he gives up a huge play, then there's not much time to recover.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,633
Springfield, VA
That's reasonable. I'm still not convinced that it was the right decision, for a couple of reasons. Notably, if the extra safety (or two) was supposed to help provide more run support, Richards wasn't nearly talented enough to pull that off. And Bademosi in dime being left one-on-one against Agholor or Torrey Smith feels like a mismatch, even without seeing the missed tackle in hindsight.

But at least I think I understand BB's train of thought now -- particularly if Butler was still dealing with health issues.
 

Greekca

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 26, 2017
89
Has anyone seen a good film breakdown of how the Pats deployed their secondary? I think that would go a long way in understanding the “football decision”.

Going into the game I expected the Pats to be in quite a bit of nickel. Big ticket on big ticket (Gilmore on Jeffrey), Butler on Smith, Chung on the TE, McCourty sort of floating, and Harmon back to prevent the big plays that killed the Vikings. I think pretty much everyone expected the same thing. Besides Butler that is pretty much what they switched to at the end of the game. So to me, the initial game plan seemed overly cute.

However, tough to say for sure what all was going on back there without 11 vs 11 footage.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Not that I would know, but I imagine that even really really smart people can make a decision which they believe is based only on fact and observation, but maybe is tinged with an overlay of emotion, or maybe they did not adequately factor in unintended consequences of the decision. .

Not giving Butler one defensive snap after watching his game plan and replacement rotation get routinely torched seems more emotionally based, than one based in correctly assessing reality.
I don't think the decision to not start Butler was emotional. Bill and Patricia (as he was most certainly involved in that decision, no matter what the radio trolls claim) decided based on the evidence in front of them that Butler wasn't going to be their best option for starting CB. I believe all the factors that *may* have went into that decision have been discussed already, so I won't rehash them, other than that it definitely appears to be truly based on football reasons, not hubris, emotion, arrogance, or Butler's contract (note: I'm lumping in any possible disciplinary issue into football reasons here, as they would be closely intertwined).

The decision to not sub Butler in when things were going badly is one that is well worth dissecting. That is where perhaps some "unconscious emotion" was in play. Let me try to explain: Belichick and Patricia are prepared to play the game without Butler, barring, of course, injury. So, at the strategic level, there is never any thought of "Let's play Bulter in the event these things start happening....". So, when the adjustments are made, they never include Butler, even if evidence was mounting that Butler may have helped. There was some deep rooted bias, a bias of which they were unaware, that simply prevented them from doing the necessary outside-the-box thinking that would have been required. This is a bias that happens to the best organizational leaders, so Belichick would not necessarily be immune to it.

Then there's the tactical situation. First drive starts with a couple of 3rd down conversions by the Eagles, but then, helped by a false start, the Eagles have to settle for a FG. OK, not a disaster yet; coaches are thinking that had the players executed on those two 3rd downs, defense would have gotten off the field. No need to break the Butler glass.

Second drive goes poorly (Philly TD in 3 plays). First adjustment is then made to have Gilmore cover Jeffrey from that point forward, IIRC.

Third drive is a 3-and-out. Butler comes in with the punt coverage team. But the coaches are perhaps thinking their adjustment worked. So give it another go without Butler.

Fourth drive is another disaster, which ends with Blount going 21 yards for a TD. OK, this is interesting. If I want to go into 2nd guessing mode, it was after this drive that an adjustment should have been made. However, I haven't rewatched the game, certainly haven't looked at film, so it's possible that adjustments were made that we just didn't see. And the game is still well in reach despite the Philly TD.

Fifth drive features a 21 yard run by Ajayi, but then ends in an INT. Yes, it was a fluke, but still, the coaching staff is still thinking that the new Rowe/Gilmore assignments are possibly working (2 stops in 3 drives).

Sixth drive is where they got bit on the wheel route to Clement. Not sure if Butler really helps that. Then, after the D did their bend-but-don't break routine for 3 plays, they get fooled by the pass to Foles. That's not really a personnel issue as it was the coaching staff just getting fooled.

Now we're at half time, and this is probably the next major opportunity to make any subs. The problem is that Rowe and Gilmore are not playing badly, and so they would be taking a bit of a risk by inserting a very emotional Butler into the CB2 position, and moving Rowe to the slot. Maybe they thought that if they could execute better on the next wheel route, they could at least contain the Eagles somewhat in the 2nd half and win the game. This is where those internal biases are possibly coming into play.

In the first drive of the 2nd half, the bottom falls out as Blount and Ajayi gash them up the middle, and Foles finishes by throwing a perfect strike to Clement, a pass that could have been ruled incomplete. By the time Philly gets the ball again, the Pats are only down by 3, and it's very late in the 3rd quarter. At that point, it's getting a bit late to take a guy that has played 0 snaps to that point and throw him out there. I won't bore anyone with rehashing the final 4 Philly drives.

From what I can tell, it does appear that tactically, the game may have gotten away from them, with the coaches ringing the same bell, thinking "We just need this unit to make one more stop on 3rd down, which we know they can do, despite the fact they haven't done it all game.".

Not defending Belichick and Patricia here; it's their job to overcome both their biases and the game situation and make the correct adjustments. Just trying to come up with a possible cause for the lack of in-game adjustments beyond "hubris and arrogance" or "idiocy", neither of which I feel apply.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
to lex

I'm not going to dissect and examine 11 guys playing D on 72 plays. But big picture benching Butler put a series of events into place that had guys playing positions that were seemingly not optimal. Rowe at corner, Chung in the slot, Richards anywhere, etc. Could Chung playing his usual safety in the box helping on run D, or on Ertz yielded better outcomes?

I don;t know.

But these sub optimal results were obvious to a fan like me and most of us here.

To keep Butler, who we are told was healthy enough to play, on the bench, in the face of Philly scoring just about every time they had the ball.was curious.

If you told me before the game the Pats needed to score 42 to win, I would have thought you nuts.

Buts thats what was needed.

6 fucking touchdowns against what was advertised as one of the NFL's best Ds.

And Brady almost delivered.

Rationalizng a defense that gave up over 500 yards and 41 points seems like rationalization for some poor decisions.

I think BB is a genuis at football, but absent some compelling facts not in evidence, I think he made a mistake.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
...
Rationalizng a defense that gave up over 500 yards and 41 points seems like rationalization for some poor decisions.

I think BB is a genuis at football, but absent some compelling facts not in evidence, I think he made a mistake.
FWIW, I'm not disagreeing that the coaching staff made a mistake. Or potentially 2 mistakes (one at the start, and one during the game). I was just trying to provide some context as to what may be behind that mistake. What can seem obvious as a fan looking at the box score, or even posting in a game thread, is not always obvious to the participants in real time. Some people will dismiss that as "rationalizing", even though that is not at all what I did.

Also, the "facts not in evidence" could include some critical information known only to Patricia and Belichick. It's still only Wednesday.

BTW, other coaches have made similar mistakes. Belichick/McDaniels never adjusted to the Giants defensive schemes during the Game that Must Not Be Named until perhaps it was too late. Now I'm rationalizing....
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,661
where I was last at
FWIW, I'm not disagreeing that the coaching staff made a mistake. Or potentially 2 mistakes (one at the start, and one during the game). I was just trying to provide some context as to what may be behind that mistake. What can seem obvious as a fan looking at the box score, or even posting in a game thread, is not always obvious to the participants in real time. Some people will dismiss that as "rationalizing", even though that is not at all what I did.

Also, the "facts not in evidence" could include some critical information known only to Patricia and Belichick. It's still only Wednesday.

BTW, other coaches have made similar mistakes. Belichick/McDaniels never adjusted to the Giants defensive schemes during the Game that Must Not Be Named until perhaps it was too late. Now I'm rationalizing....
I think we will never have perfect information re the Butler decision. And anything materially different coming out now, should be taken with a large grain of salt.

But IMO we have enough info from what we saw during the year (Butler had an off year, but he played ok, and was the Pats 2nd best CB, and played 98% of the snaps) and what we learned (he had the flu, had a rough practice week and there may have been a modest team infraction) to pose the question, if he was on the game roster, and oked to play, why didn't he play, as the defensive game plan fell apart?

I think if we can accept the possibility that a decision was based on emotion rather than logic, (perhaps BB had had enough of dealing with Butler) makes the Butler decision, that when we put the known pieces together, a little more understandable, but still a mistake. The alternative of in "Bill we trust" just doesn't work on this one.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
I'm less 'In Bill We Trust' and instead I am more 'without knowing all the details behind the decision, Belichick has earned the benefit of the doubt.'

Did anyone else catch the flu this year? Because it sucked - big time. Much worse than previous years. If you or someone in your family didnt catch, you are lucky. If you haven't caught it, and you never got the flu shot, go and get the flu shot. Of all years, you do not want to catch the flu this year.
 

wnyghost

New Member
Aug 8, 2010
149
The loss of at 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th in 2017 really could have been the difference in winning the Super Bowl. The defense just couldn't make a play and those 2 lost players could have been upgrades to the unit.

But everyone knows the NFL only helps the Pats.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
The loss of at 1st round pick in 2016 and a 4th in 2017 really could have been the difference in winning the Super Bowl. The defense just couldn't make a play and those 2 lost players could have been upgrades to the unit.

But everyone knows the NFL only helps the Pats.
Hadn't thought about that until now, but, yes.
 

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,827
Needham, MA
I'm less 'In Bill We Trust' and instead I am more 'without knowing all the details behind the decision, Belichick has earned the benefit of the doubt.'

Did anyone else catch the flu this year? Because it sucked - big time. Much worse than previous years. If you or someone in your family didnt catch, you are lucky. If you haven't caught it, and you never got the flu shot, go and get the flu shot. Of all years, you do not want to catch the flu this year.
Maybe but they had every opportunity to leave him on the injury report and they didn’t. And if the flu made it so they doubted his ability to play Sunday and they aren’t saying that publicly that’s an incredibly shitty thing to do to Butler.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
If he practiced in full even if he was still suffering from the after effects I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have to be included.
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
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.
Further evidence for this is the 2007 game, where AJ Feeley was able to drive at will against a much better version of a Belichick defense. The results were less dramatic, but it was still possibly the defense's worst game of the season (the JAX playoff game was pretty bad too)
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,949
Butler played 97.8% of the team's snaps this year. Here is the list of guys in the NFL that played between 97.0%-98.0% of their teams snaps this year:

Deion Jones, Atlanta, Pro Bowl
Reshad Jones, Miami, Pro-Bowl
Eric Kendricks, Minnesota
Xavien Howard, Miami
AJ Bouye, Jacksonville, Pro Bowl
Harrison Smith, Minnesota, Pro Bowl, DPOY Finalist
Myles Jack, Jacksonville
Darius Slay, Detroit, Pro Bowl
Tashaun Gipson, Jacksonville

That's it. That's the list. That's the kind of company you keep when you play 97.8% of your team's snaps. Can you guys imagine if any other coach in the NFL got their team to the Super Bowl, benched one of those guys on the list and said it was a "football decision" and then watched their defense get fucking roasted?

Yeah, neither can I.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The decision to not sub Butler in when things were going badly is one that is well worth dissecting. That is where perhaps some "unconscious emotion" was in play. Let me try to explain: Belichick and Patricia are prepared to play the game without Butler, barring, of course, injury. So, at the strategic level, there is never any thought of "Let's play Bulter in the event these things start happening....". So, when the adjustments are made, they never include Butler, even if evidence was mounting that Butler may have helped. There was some deep rooted bias, a bias of which they were unaware, that simply prevented them from doing the necessary outside-the-box thinking that would have been required. This is a bias that happens to the best organizational leaders, so Belichick would not necessarily be immune to it.
Assuming it truly was a "football reason" to bench Butler. I do think they thought about the bolded, but the problem was that the game never evolved. I mean, you have to think about the bolded, in case someone gets hurt or something. For instance, maybe they didn't like Butler's run defense in the slot, but they thought he could do a good job covering Agholor. Well, Agholor was doing pretty well, but the Eagles were also running the ball well, and they never got in a position where the score or situation dictated that the Eagles had to pass. They just could never get it to the point where it was a different situation.

Butler was the most extreme example, but not the only curious substitution pattern in the game. Deatrich Wise played only 6 snaps - his lowest total of the season. Eric Lee played only 16, his lowest since joining the team. Adam Butler was at 13, one of his lower totals. Marquis Flowers played only 18 snaps. Meanwhile, Trey Flowers played wire-to-wire, Harmon and Harrison almost did, Guy and Malcom Brown played more than they usually do. I think they worried about the Eagles running the ball, so they played their best run D lineup, and the Eagles did run the ball effectively and kept having a lead, so they never felt like they could go to a lesser run D lineup even though the Eagles were also beating them with the pass. Like, they sucked so bad at everything that they could never sacrifice from one area to help another.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
You can only say that in hindsight. Surely Belichick/Patricia made other defensive adjustments during the game that he thought would work. Obviously they didn't work, but that doesn't mean they didn't try anything else.
The Pats strategy was probably to force Philly into long drives where they needed to execute a bunch of plays. BB probably felt the defense was completely unable to stop Philly’s RPO, so the objective was to avoid long TD passes (like the two 70+ yarders KC had in game 1), hope for the periodic mistake by Philly (penalty, overthrow, dropped pass, etc), and force the offense to score from the red zone, where NEs defense was at its best
The opening drive of the game, and the three long drives by Philly in the second half are probably what the defense was trying to force. In those 4 drives, Philly scored 2 TDS, 2 FGs.
Only on one of those drives did Philly make a mistake (false start in 1st quarter).

The problem was that Philly executed almost flawlessly. The refs weren’t throwing flags. And in the first half, the defense allowed a quick score (3 plays, 1:46,TD). If that drive is 2 minutes longer, maybe Philly doesn’t get that final drive at the end of the first half. Philly also had 6 first half drives, compared to 4 in the 2nd half.

As for Butler, maybe BB thought he wasn’t disciplined enough to adhere to this game plan, putting them at risk of a big play, which BB wanted to prevent above all else. In such a case, a guy going off the reservation could be disastrous.
Or, maybe Butler chafed at the idea of sacrificing his personal stats for such a kooky game plan when free agency is looming, and he made that known. This would indicate that he could not be relied upon.

Obviously, this is all wild speculation. But it seems to me that BB thought the defense couldn’t stop the RPO, so they tried to slow them down and force them to execute. Philly executed.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The Pats strategy was probably to force Philly into long drives where they needed to execute a bunch of plays. BB probably felt the defense was completely unable to stop Philly’s RPO, so the objective was to avoid long TD passes (like the two 70+ yarders KC had in game 1), hope for the periodic mistake by Philly (penalty, overthrow, dropped pass, etc), and force the offense to score from the red zone, where NEs defense was at its best
The opening drive of the game, and the three long drives by Philly in the second half are probably what the defense was trying to force. In those 4 drives, Philly scored 2 TDS, 2 FGs.
Only on one of those drives did Philly make a mistake (false start in 1st quarter).

The problem was that Philly executed almost flawlessly. The refs weren’t throwing flags. And in the first half, the defense allowed a quick score (3 plays, 1:46,TD). If that drive is 2 minutes longer, maybe Philly doesn’t get that final drive at the end of the first half. Philly also had 6 first half drives, compared to 4 in the 2nd half.

As for Butler, maybe BB thought he wasn’t disciplined enough to adhere to this game plan, putting them at risk of a big play, which BB wanted to prevent above all else. In such a case, a guy going off the reservation could be disastrous.
Or, maybe Butler chafed at the idea of sacrificing his personal stats for such a kooky game plan when free agency is looming, and he made that known. This would indicate that he could not be relied upon.

Obviously, this is all wild speculation. But it seems to me that BB thought the defense couldn’t stop the RPO, so they tried to slow them down and force them to execute. Philly executed.
This doesn't make sense. The Patriots were trailing the whole second half. So "making" Philly execute long drives would be incredibly stupid, because the Patriots were the ones who needed extra drives to have a chance to catch up. The offense literally needed to score a touchdown on every single second-half drive to win the game and when they failed to do so once, they were left with only a desperate minute-plus with no timeouts.
 

troparra

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 3, 2007
1,921
Michigan
It only makes sense if you believe that they had no other choice, that Belichick believed they couldn’t stop them any other way.
It almost worked, they got the lead, and then Philly had to execute a 14 play TD drive to retake the lead. Then NE got the ball back with 2+ min down 5.

As I said, I’m speculating but this sort of makes sense to me.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
It only makes sense if you believe that they had no other choice, that Belichick believed they couldn’t stop them any other way.
It almost worked, they got the lead, and then Philly had to execute a 14 play TD drive to retake the lead. Then NE got the ball back with 2+ min down 5.

As I said, I’m speculating but this sort of makes sense to me.
They didn't stop them that way, either. The final drive was just about the worst of all possible outcomes. If they had let the Eagles score in, I don't know, four minutes, they might not have had to be perfect. They almost came back in spite of the Eagles shortening the game and consuming tremendous amounts of clock, not because of it.
 

Bellhorn

Lumiere
SoSH Member
Aug 22, 2006
2,328
Brighton, MA
They didn't stop them that way, either. The final drive was just about the worst of all possible outcomes. If they had let the Eagles score in, I don't know, four minutes, they might not have had to be perfect. They almost came back in spite of the Eagles shortening the game and consuming tremendous amounts of clock, not because of it.
Also, the fact that the Eagles defense got such a long breather during the long TD drive may have given Brandon Graham and co a chance to find a second wind. Any way you look at it, allowing the Eagles to have lengthy offensive possessions during the second half was absolutely the last thing that the Patriots wanted to do.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
Butler played 97.8% of the team's snaps this year. Here is the list of guys in the NFL that played between 97.0%-98.0% of their teams snaps this year:

Deion Jones, Atlanta, Pro Bowl
Reshad Jones, Miami, Pro-Bowl
Eric Kendricks, Minnesota
Xavien Howard, Miami
AJ Bouye, Jacksonville, Pro Bowl
Harrison Smith, Minnesota, Pro Bowl, DPOY Finalist
Myles Jack, Jacksonville
Darius Slay, Detroit, Pro Bowl
Tashaun Gipson, Jacksonville

That's it. That's the list. That's the kind of company you keep when you play 97.8% of your team's snaps. Can you guys imagine if any other coach in the NFL got their team to the Super Bowl, benched one of those guys on the list and said it was a "football decision" and then watched their defense get fucking roasted?

Yeah, neither can I.
A case could be made that some of that was injury-related. Gilmore missed time, Rowe missed a lot of time, etc.

But not all of it.

I think, in the end, he was being too cute. (A rare Parcells criticism of BB). He had legitimate reasons for thinking it was better to shift everyone around and not start Butler, but at some point he wound up giving more than a third of the defense snaps to Richards and Bademosi while letting a better player rot on the bench. Too cute.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
I think they worried about the Eagles running the ball, so they played their best run D lineup, and the Eagles did run the ball effectively and kept having a lead, so they never felt like they could go to a lesser run D lineup even though the Eagles were also beating them with the pass. Like, they sucked so bad at everything that they could never sacrifice from one area to help another.
This description reads like paralysis by analysis.

Problem: Can't stop the run, can't stop the pass.
Solution: Keep right on not stopping the run, and not stopping the pass?

Seems like they should have at least tried something, risky or not.

Do you think they went into the game expecting Philly to score on almost every drive and put up 40+? That sounds dumb, but it would sort of explain why they stayed vanilla throughout.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
That Malcolm Butler of all people would be a pivot point in a painful SB loss is almost surreal and it makes me sad.

Forward looking, it’s depressing to see this fatal weakness on defense, systemically and talent wise. Haven’t felt since 2000 that we’re behind the curve in any significant aspect of the game. I’m feeling it now and don’t have a ton of confidence that it’s going to be cleaned up anytime soon. I only hope I am making more of this than is warranted. It’s not a Butler problem.

Edit. That’s why I wanted an outside view and voice of someone who commands Belichick’s respect, but with Schiano staying put, are we going to get it?
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
This description reads like paralysis by analysis.

Problem: Can't stop the run, can't stop the pass.
Solution: Keep right on not stopping the run, and not stopping the pass?

Seems like they should have at least tried something, risky or not.
Belichick's Ds always try to take away something. If they said at the outset, "we can't get beat with the run" and put out their best run D lineup (and that kind of looks like what they did put out there), it would sort of make sense to stick with that because a) Philadelphia was running the ball well and b) the game situation (Eagles lead) dictated that they would continue to run the ball often. If they decided stopping the run is the key to the game, and the Eagles are running the ball and running it effectively, does it make sense to downgrade the run-stopping capabilities of the lineup?

There's a lot of conjecture in the above paragraph (and I'm not saying I agree with what they did), I'm just trying to reason through the why here. If priority #1 was stopping the run (and maybe it shouldn't have been), I'm not sure what move would make sense to make. Most of the adjustments they make are to specific problems rather than general ones and the problems were everywhere. (I remember one game maybe five years ago where they double-teamed Julio Jones on every play and let Tony Gonzalez do what he wanted and he just killed them, and finally they said screw it and put two guys on Gonzalez just to maul the crap out of him at the line of scrimmage. But that's an simple adjustment if one guy's killing you. What we saw Sunday was Ertz getting his, Agholor getting his, the run game producing, Clement getting big plays, no pressure, and at that point, where do you even start?)

Do you think they went into the game expecting Philly to score on almost every drive and put up 40+? That sounds dumb, but it would sort of explain why they stayed vanilla throughout.
I don't know, it seems like you would want to try totally crazy stuff in that case. Like, if you don't think you can ever stop them straight up, why not run a bunch of nutty zero blitzes and see if you can at least get them to screw up?

I think they thought if they stopped the run and kept forcing third downs, eventually the Eagles would screw one up, but the problem was that Pederson had a bunch of stuff dialed up specifically for those downs (in which most defenses use man-to-man and most offenses are running execution-based stuff because there's no run threat), and the Patriots were completely unprepared. It sounds crazy to say it, but Pederson outcoached Belichick situationally - by a mile.
 
Aug 20, 2017
2,085
Portland
That Malcolm Butler of all people would be a pivot point in a painful SB loss is almost surreal and it makes me sad.

Forward looking, it’s depressing to see this fatal weakness on defense, systemically and talent wise. Haven’t felt since 2000 that we’re behind the curve in any significant aspect of the game. I’m feeling it now and don’t have a ton of confidence that it’s going to be cleaned up anytime soon. I only hope I am making more of this than is warranted. It’s not a Butler problem.

Edit. That’s why I wanted an outside view and voice of someone who commands Belichick’s respect, but with Schiano staying put, are we going to get it?
I remember the shock when Ronnie Brown an Co. absolutely embarrassed the Pats in 2006 ( not to mention numerous times after). If the Pats make one stop last Sunday, we aren’t even discussing these issues.

Also, Lolz at those questioning which franchise would be better for McD post BB. Don’t let the Dolphin troll sway your better judgement people.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I remember the shock when Ronnie Brown an Co. absolutely embarrassed the Pats in 2006 ( not to mention numerous times after). If the Pats make one stop last Sunday, we aren’t even discussing these issues.

Also, Lolz at those questioning which franchise would be better for McD post BB. Don’t let the Dolphin troll sway your better judgement people.
I think it was 2008 and I think it was the Wildcat, which a few in this space were convinced would change football forever. After a decent run that year, the Ravens annihilated it, twice, as did the Pats in their second meeting with the Dolphins that season in Miami.

The problem under discussion here this week has a longer and more distinguished lineage.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,048
Assuming it truly was a "football reason" to bench Butler. I do think they thought about the bolded, but the problem was that the game never evolved. I mean, you have to think about the bolded, in case someone gets hurt or something. For instance, maybe they didn't like Butler's run defense in the slot, but they thought he could do a good job covering Agholor. Well, Agholor was doing pretty well, but the Eagles were also running the ball well, and they never got in a position where the score or situation dictated that the Eagles had to pass. They just could never get it to the point where it was a different situation.

Butler was the most extreme example, but not the only curious substitution pattern in the game. Deatrich Wise played only 6 snaps - his lowest total of the season. Eric Lee played only 16, his lowest since joining the team. Adam Butler was at 13, one of his lower totals. Marquis Flowers played only 18 snaps. Meanwhile, Trey Flowers played wire-to-wire, Harmon and Harrison almost did, Guy and Malcom Brown played more than they usually do. I think they worried about the Eagles running the ball, so they played their best run D lineup, and the Eagles did run the ball effectively and kept having a lead, so they never felt like they could go to a lesser run D lineup even though the Eagles were also beating them with the pass. Like, they sucked so bad at everything that they could never sacrifice from one area to help another.
These radical departures in total would seem to support your contention that Belichick didn’t know how to deal with this version of an RPO offense insofar as it suggests he was self-consciously trying different things—and, of course, failing.
 
Aug 20, 2017
2,085
Portland
I think it was 2008 and I think it was the Wildcat, which a few in this space were convinced would change football forever. After a decent run that year, the Ravens annihilated it, twice, as did the Pats in their second meeting with the Dolphins that season in Miami.

The problem under discussion here this week has a longer and more distinguished lineage.
I had the wrong year, but how many times have we been burned by the RPO? How long does this phenomenon last? Recency bias seems to be at work to my eye.
 

kelpapa

Costanza's Hero
SoSH Member
Feb 15, 2010
4,639
Butler played 97.8% of the team's snaps this year. Here is the list of guys in the NFL that played between 97.0%-98.0% of their teams snaps this year:

Deion Jones, Atlanta, Pro Bowl
Reshad Jones, Miami, Pro-Bowl
Eric Kendricks, Minnesota
Xavien Howard, Miami
AJ Bouye, Jacksonville, Pro Bowl
Harrison Smith, Minnesota, Pro Bowl, DPOY Finalist
Myles Jack, Jacksonville
Darius Slay, Detroit, Pro Bowl
Tashaun Gipson, Jacksonville

That's it. That's the list. That's the kind of company you keep when you play 97.8% of your team's snaps. Can you guys imagine if any other coach in the NFL got their team to the Super Bowl, benched one of those guys on the list and said it was a "football decision" and then watched their defense get fucking roasted?

Yeah, neither can I.
Not that it changes your conclusion, but Devin McCourty is also on this list.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
Michael Rothstein ESPN Staff Writer
Asked Matt Patricia if he would have played Malcolm Butler more in the Super Bowl. Patricia: "Those are good questions for the Patriots. I'm just going to steer away from all that."

Michael Rothstein ESPN Staff Writer
Also asked Matt Patricia about the Super Bowl. He said that yes, he did watch and break down what happened. "Yeah, I watched the tape. I went through all of it. Yeah, you know what, I think, for me, I'm not going to dive into all that. I'm going to let the Patriots handle that and kind of their business there...."
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,480
Melrose, MA
These radical departures in total would seem to support your contention that Belichick didn’t know how to deal with this version of an RPO offense insofar as it suggests he was self-consciously trying different things—and, of course, failing.
If that is true then they had better figure it out, and soon.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,100
Michael Rothstein ESPN Staff Writer
Asked Matt Patricia if he would have played Malcolm Butler more in the Super Bowl. Patricia: "Those are good questions for the Patriots. I'm just going to steer away from all that."

Michael Rothstein ESPN Staff Writer
Also asked Matt Patricia about the Super Bowl. He said that yes, he did watch and break down what happened. "Yeah, I watched the tape. I went through all of it. Yeah, you know what, I think, for me, I'm not going to dive into all that. I'm going to let the Patriots handle that and kind of their business there...."
That is both the expected answer, and the correct answer. Patricia is with the Lions; he doesn't gain anything discussing the Malcolm Butler situation on the record.

If that is true then they had better figure it out, and soon.
I have to believe that Belichick is certainly thinking about how he can improve the defense. Keep in mind that it wasn't just teams that ran the RPO that gave the Pats trouble on defense; the D struggled against the Saints and Steelers this season, as well as the Panthers and Texans. Add in 409 yards to the Bucs and 400+ to the Jets, 27 points to the Dolphins. Dissecting the reasons in detail is probably for a different thread. But it's those numbers that tell me the personnel was a huge part of the problem.

I'm more optimistic than some here, because with an offense led by Tom Brady, the defense just has to be average. The D was slightly better than average in 2014, and very much in the middle of the pack last season.

Scheme-wise, there is plenty of film of teams using the RPO, and opposing defenses stopping it. The harder problem is getting the right personnel, and staying healthy (an underrated aspect of success in today's NFL).
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
That Malcolm Butler of all people would be a pivot point in a painful SB loss is almost surreal and it makes me sad.

Forward looking, it’s depressing to see this fatal weakness on defense, systemically and talent wise. Haven’t felt since 2000 that we’re behind the curve in any significant aspect of the game. I’m feeling it now and don’t have a ton of confidence that it’s going to be cleaned up anytime soon. I only hope I am making more of this than is warranted. It’s not a Butler problem.

Edit. That’s why I wanted an outside view and voice of someone who commands Belichick’s respect, but with Schiano staying put, are we going to get it?
Injuries happen to every team, but does the return of Hightower and Rivers alleviate some of the concern?
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Injuries happen to every team, but does the return of Hightower and Rivers alleviate some of the concern?
Yes.

But one of the greatest sources of disappointment in life is to assume best case scenarios that are contrary to recent experience. That is a loser’s game fans play again and again. So with Hightower particularly, that is an important qualification.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,094
Injuries happen to every team, but does the return of Hightower and Rivers alleviate some of the concern?
We have no idea what Rivers is capable of so he really can’t be counted on next year. We obviously know what Hightower can do when healthy. However, we need a lot more than the return of those guys. No Kony Ealy reclamation projects. This front 7 needs a reliable and proven difference maker. Or 3.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
For next year they need two guys that can bring pressure. I think the shitty performance on 3rd down and the lack of turnovers is a direct result of the QB not feeling pressure. They also need a CB2. That alone will bring them up to league average, which would be enough.

For years after that, as stated, they need to start looking at a long-term S and whatever other pieces that invariably fall off.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,701
Bow, NH
I think they need linebackers, like desperately. We have zero speed, and zero pass coverage skill at that position right now. Until that need is filled, the D will continue to get slashed and gashed by wheel routes, RPO plays, etc.
Hightower coming back is great and all, but it does not fill that need.
 

Dick Drago

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2002
1,311
I think one of the things that made last year's D adequate is that there was more versatility. McCllelin, Nink, Hightower etc weren't great at any one thing---but could do a few thinks reasonably well. M. Flowers, Lee etc---are pretty one-dimensional.

Also, T. Flowers played inside more on 3rd down, and that helped the rush.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
I think they need linebackers, like desperately. We have zero speed, and zero pass coverage skill at that position right now. Until that need is filled, the D will continue to get slashed and gashed by wheel routes, RPO plays, etc.
Hightower coming back is great and all, but it does not fill that need.
Here is an article about Nick Saban’s evolution. It is just shy of 2 and one half years old, and Saban’s two recruiting classes before publication had begun to feature smaller and quicker linebackers.

Evolve or perish.

http://www.al.com/alabamafootball/index.ssf/2015/10/how_alabama_has_tried_to_evolv.html
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,668
They have three picks in the first two rounds of the upcoming draft, and their top two picks from last year (2nd round pick Rivers; 3rd round pick Garcia) and their top pick from the 2016 draft (2nd round pick C Jones) will be coming back from injury (all missed the entire year to injuries).

Plus if they make the cuts suggested in this article, https://www.patspulpit.com/2018/2/8/16982218/2018-nfl-free-agency-6-potential-new-england-patriots-salary-cap-casualties-bennett-branch-gillislee, they will have the 15th most cap room in the league (article suggests cutting M Bennett, D Allen, A Branch, D Harris, M Gillislee, & K Britt).

Overall, the team would create roughly $17.62 in additional salary cap space (considering that six other players would take their spots on the top-51 roster). Combined with the $13.14 million already available, the Patriots would therefore have $30.76 million to work with entering free agency before any additional cuts or restructures – the 15th most in the NFL. Not the worst spot to be in.
All while coming off a 13-3 season where they made the Super Bowl.

The sky is not falling.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
The Butler situation brought to light for me a comment Ernie Adams made in "Do your Job part one" when he said "Games are won or lost in practice"................Butler obviously did not practice well in the two week lead up to the Super Bowl which resulted in him being benched, or more to the point, when the scheme they tried without him did not work, he was still not put into the game.

This Super Bowl was lost in practice, at least in my opinion.

Ernie is right.