SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

Ralphwiggum

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2012
9,824
Needham, MA
That's pretty much the perfect answer to the question from a business management standpoint. Encourage your managers to innovate and take risks, without fear of reprisal if they fail. Of course if you keep failing over and over eventually it'll cost you your job, but that's why he talks about BB's track record and Kraft's belief that BB knows more about football than anyone.

Also it's a glimpse into how the relationship has lasted as long as it has. Kraft resists the urge to run the team as a fan and defers to the dude he hired to run the football operations who knows way more about this shit than he or any other fan does.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
That's pretty much the perfect answer to the question from a business management standpoint. Encourage your managers to innovate and take risks, without fear of reprisal if they fail. Of course if you keep failing over and over eventually it'll cost you your job, but that's why he talks about BB's track record and Kraft's belief that BB knows more about football than anyone.

Also it's a glimpse into how the relationship has lasted as long as it has. Kraft resists the urge to run the team as a fan and defers to the dude he hired to run the football operations who knows way more about this shit than he or any other fan does.
Agree, but it's easier to say when it's Belichick though... much trickier when it's someone like Marvin Lewis, who's not obviously a failure but may not be the man to take you to the promised land
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Yeah, it's a good statement and I bet it's genuine. I think he's legitimately saying, "Bill wins because he's bold and the same sensibility that causes him to make very tough decisions is the sensibility that earned five banners, and there's no freaking way I'm going to squelch that."
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
Yeah, it's a good statement and I bet it's genuine. I think he's legitimately saying, "Bill wins because he's bold and the same sensibility that causes him to make very tough decisions is the sensibility that earned five banners, and there's no freaking way I'm going to squelch that."
As Butler himself pointed out, it took Belichick benching a 4th year vet in Arrington to play a UDFA in Butler in SB49. It was ballsy then, it was ballsy against the Eagles. One worked out. The other didn't.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
The difference between what he did in SB49 and SB52 is that in SB49 he benched a player who was getting toasted and that's how Butler got his start. When his non-Gilmore DBs were getting toasted in SB52, he didn't replace them.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I'd say that's about a strong of an endorsement one could get while also giving an honest answer. Yes, there will be someone in the media that starts parsing pieces of the statement for meaning that isn't there.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
One of the many accolades BB has received from his players over the years is he does not ask them to do what they can't do, and he puts them in the best position to succeed. IMO it seemed the personnel playing in the secondary on that sad Sunday in February were playing out of their normal position, and that had an unfortunate chain effect that the Eagles took advantage of.

It is what it is, and the pats were beaten, so be it. But absent any rational explanation, BB's decision to not materially change a flawed and failing defense and see if Butler could improve the defense, only leads one to wonder, that for some unawswered reason, that on its face makes no sense, why BB did not put his team in the best position to win.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
One of the many accolades BB has received from his players over the years is he does not ask them to do what they can't do, and he puts them in the best position to succeed. IMO it seemed the personnel playing in the secondary on that sad Sunday in February were playing out of their normal position, and that had an unfortunate chain effect that the Eagles took advantage of.

It is what it is, and the pats were beaten, so be it. But absent any rational explanation, BB's decision to not materially change a flawed and failing defense and see if Butler could improve the defense, only leads one to wonder, that for some unawswered reason, that on its face makes no sense, why BB did not put his team in the best position to win.
It goes back to the fundamental premise that Belichick and the coaching staff (Peter King and others have confirmed that the coaching staff was involved in the decision) did not believe Butler was the best option against that opponent on that particular day. Butler himself admitted he may not have been 100% and fully engaged during practice that week. So, BB was honestly believing he was putting the team in the best position to win by starting Rowe in Butler's position.

Why Butler was never put into the game is a separate question, and we will probably never get a satisfactory answer to that question unless and until either Belichick or Patricia write their autobiographies long after the sun has set on their careers. Even then, we'd probably find the answer to be less than satisfactory.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,144
I guess the biggest bummer about this situation is that it's a big "what if"?

There was no Tyree or Manningham catch to look at where you can sum up the game. No Welker missed catch. There was the fumble, sure...but overall the game was close and could have gone either way, and the Butler thing is the big unknown. Maybe we lose even more if he plays, who knows? It just sucks not knowing, and having this unanswerable question (due to the nature of BB) left over.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
We already have the answer. Some of us just don't take the man at his word.
Not true. I do not think Bill was motivated by non-football reasons or has otherwise lied to us.

I also have no problem with the decision not to start Butler. One, Bill had access to materially more inputs than me and two, Bill is a coaching genius and I’m some guy with a keyboard.

But one thing I can’t explain or make peace with is the decision not to try Butler as the game progressed when the D was getting shredded. Would it have solved all problems, such as the anemic pass rush? No. But not trying it in the face or Richards and Bademosi having pass after pass completed on them, and Rowe suffering the same in the early stages of the game, is inexplicable and remains upsetting.

That has zero to do with taking him at his word.
 

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Yet you aren't going to get an answer for all the questions you have. Sometimes you just have to accept that instead of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,403
around the way
Not true. I do not think Bill was motivated by non-football reasons or has otherwise lied to us.

I also have no problem with the decision not to start Butler. One, Bill had access to materially more inputs than me and two, Bill is a coaching genius and I’m some guy with a keyboard.

But one thing I can’t explain or make peace with is the decision not to try Butler as the game progressed when the D was getting shredded. Would it have solved all problems, such as the anemic pass rush? No. But not trying it in the face or Richards and Bademosi having pass after pass completed on them, and Rowe suffering the same in the early stages of the game, is inexplicable and remains upsetting.

That has zero to do with taking him at his word.
I understand your frustration.

But he said that he put in the guys that gave them the best chance to win, in his opinion. There is your answer.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
I understand your frustration.

But he said that he put in the guys that gave them the best chance to win, in his opinion. There is your answer.
I understand that answer. Not how he got there. But I have no doubt that’s true. That’s why, as much as I am troubled by Bill’s decision making in this case, I think Kraft’s recent take on 2/4/18 is the right one.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
But one thing I can’t explain or make peace with is the decision not to try Butler as the game progressed when the D was getting shredded. Would it have solved all problems, such as the anemic pass rush? No. But not trying it in the face or Richards and Bademosi having pass after pass completed on them, and Rowe suffering the same in the early stages of the game, is inexplicable and remains upsetting.

I understand that answer. Not how he got there. But I have no doubt that’s true. That’s why, as much as I am troubled by Bill’s decision making in this case, I think Kraft’s recent take on 2/4/18 is the right one.
How he got there? What does that mean? Let's say BB came here and said, "Look Theo, here's the deal. Based on practice and what I saw during the game, I think Butler actually would have made things worse."

Would you accept his answer? Would that be "how he got there."? I hope so, because that's really the likely answer.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I understand that answer. Not how he got there. But I have no doubt that’s true. That’s why, as much as I am troubled by Bill’s decision making in this case, I think Kraft’s recent take on 2/4/18 is the right one.
Honest question (and not directed at you, but the majority of us here and the fanbase) - if he explained how he did get there, would you even be able to understand it? Certainly considering none of us was at two weeks of practice and meetings, how do you expect him to explain it to a layman? Even if he broke down practice film for you, explained what he saw and how that led to his decision, would you be able to process it and find it satisfactory? Judgement calls are pretty hard to accept even with common levels of knowledge.
 

PayrodsFirstClutchHit

Bob Kraft's Season Ticket Robin Hoodie
SoSH Member
Jun 29, 2006
8,319
Winterport, ME
Honest question (and not directed at you, but the majority of us here and the fanbase) - if he explained how he did get there, would you even be able to understand it? Certainly considering none of us was at two weeks of practice and meetings, how do you expect him to explain it to a layman? Even if he broke down practice film for you, explained what he saw and how that led to his decision, would you be able to process it and find it satisfactory? Judgement calls are pretty hard to accept even with common levels of knowledge.
I think the fans would like to understand why he stuck with the "No Butler" approach given the results on the field. Did he really believe that Butler was a worse option than what he was seeing on the field? Most of us get that he was trying something new for SB. What many of us can't wrap our heads around is why would he not even try Butler for a series when the Eagles were scoring at will?
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
I think the fans would like to understand why he stuck with the "No Butler" approach given the results on the field. Did he really believe that Butler was a worse option than what he was seeing on the field? Most of us get that he was trying something new for SB. What many of us can't wrap our heads around is why would he not even try Butler for a series when the Eagles were scoring at will?
Yes, I understand the question. My question is why "HE THOUGHT HE WASN'T THE BEST OPTION" isn't good enough? I'm asking what exactly are you looking for? And what is your threshold for how technical he would need to get to stop asking?

I know it's frustrating and while "in Bill we trust" isn't very satisfying, the truth is, he's forgotten a shit load more than anyone here knows, he was there every day and we've confirmed that other coaches agreed. Given the way he answers the average question, I'm not sure what people are looking for beyond "he didn't give us the best chance", regardless of the outcome and what we saw, how is anyone here being consoled by his explanation? WE've established he didn't try to kill BB's kid and even he admits he was sick and way behind on the game plan.

Trust me, I get it. It doesn't seem to make sense. But I think it's really that simple.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Honest question (and not directed at you, but the majority of us here and the fanbase) - if he explained how he did get there, would you even be able to understand it? Certainly considering none of us was at two weeks of practice and meetings, how do you expect him to explain it to a layman? Even if he broke down practice film for you, explained what he saw and how that led to his decision, would you be able to process it and find it satisfactory? Judgement calls are pretty hard to accept even with common levels of knowledge.
I do think I would be able to follow his logic and rationale. That does not mean that I would fully grasp it (I probably would not), or find his explanation to be satisfactory or, more importantly, that an accomplished, intelligent football coach hearing the same presentation would find those comments to be satisfactory.

Again, I much more understand the deference you are getting at given his superior knowledge and the countless inputs he uniquely had as it relates to the decision not to start Butler. Once the game got rolling and the results were what they were, I think the prior knowledge, additional inputs, years of experience and coaching genius became less important as it related to whether to try something different. None of that would ever be irrelevant, of course, but just like my children knew that leaving Pedro in was highly questionable, a lot of average joe NFL fans could see that whatever the Pats were doing on D was not working very well, and that when the substitution choices are Butler and Bademosi, that leaving your 98% starter on the bench for every defensive snap was hard to countenance.

How he got there? What does that mean? Let's say BB came here and said, "Look Theo, here's the deal. Based on practice and what I saw during the game, I think Butler actually would have made things worse."

Would you accept his answer? Would that be "how he got there."? I hope so, because that's really the likely answer.
I'm surprised that phrase caused you such confusion. It was shorthand for his decision making process and his rationale for the series of Butler decisions. As noted, how he got there on the first decision is not all that hard to imagine. The other ones were.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Clearly the answer was BB saw what some of us just couldn't come close to understanding, the in-game success of his defensive strategy and personnel decisions that gave up over 500 yards, 41 points, couldn't get off the field. This was a real time game time decision, comprising over 70 observations and data points to assess, 70 plays where his D was repeatedly gashed, and to the ugly end BB ordained his strategy and personnel decisions gave the Pats the best chance to win.

No reason to question his decisions.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Yes, I understand the question. My question is why "HE THOUGHT HE WASN'T THE BEST OPTION" isn't good enough? I'm asking what exactly are you looking for? And what is your threshold for how technical he would need to get to stop asking?

I know it's frustrating and while "in Bill we trust" isn't very satisfying, the truth is, he's forgotten a shit load more than anyone here knows, he was there every day and we've confirmed that other coaches agreed. Given the way he answers the average question, I'm not sure what people are looking for beyond "he didn't give us the best chance", regardless of the outcome and what we saw, how is anyone here being consoled by his explanation? WE've established he didn't try to kill BB's kid and even he admits he was sick and way behind on the game plan.

Trust me, I get it. It doesn't seem to make sense. But I think it's really that simple.
It's not good enough for many reasons. In no particular order:

- Precisely because BB is so damned good at his job. When Grady blew it, I was infuriated and my anger was in no small part because I expected that nitwit to screw up. Worst fears realized and all that. Conversely, one of the wonderful things about rooting for the BB Pats is that we have a HC who is wicked smart. When he does something that seems to be the opposite of wicked smart, it's as fascinating as it is frustrating. I hate this phrase but fascinating things are things I want to "unpack."

- One of the reasons why baseball and football are my favorite sports is that I get to think along play by play with the Manager/HC. So telling me not to second guess a set of decisions of this magnitude is to take away one of the very reasons why I spend countless hours watching. We can do that with hockey and basketball decisions too, but less on a play by play basis.

- In Bill I Trust is boring.

- Unlike with many other Bill decisions, my sense was that this decision was not something that a lot of Bill guys believed in or agreed with. I tend to doubt that Matt Patricia agreed if the reports that he was trying to sign Butler are true. I tend to doubt that Mike Vrabel thought this was the right call. The reactions of Bill's players and former players seemed to be less deferential than in the past (say with the 4th and 13 call). I can't prove any of that and maybe both Patrica and Vrabel thought Butler was worth signing and just was having a bad few weeks. But my gut tells me that this decision is unique in how it is viewed by Bill guys. That itself makes me want to dig deeper.

- Others have poo poo'd this, but I think there is some possibility that this decision, like Carroll's call in SB 49, will have a hangover affect. No need to rebut the "losing the team" argument as I am not going that far. But I do think that something like this COULD reduce Bill's effectiveness. Maybe not, and I sure hope not, but if that does happen -- if -- then looking back on it with a "In Bill I Trust" lens will be unsatisfying.

In short, first guessing and second guessing decisions, and imagining what I would have done in Bill's shoes, is PART of why I enjoy sports. I don't think I am remotely alone. So when a decision seems wildly out of character, is wholly unexpected and arguably plays a role in the outcome of a SB, your answer isn't good enough for me. Not that Bill Belichick gives two shits if it is or it isn't and not that you or anyone else should.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,087
I, for one, would like to know what Belichick thinks Jordan Richards does well as a defensive player.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I guess the biggest bummer about this situation is that it's a big "what if"?

There was no Tyree or Manningham catch to look at where you can sum up the game. No Welker missed catch. There was the fumble, sure...but overall the game was close and could have gone either way, and the Butler thing is the big unknown. Maybe we lose even more if he plays, who knows? It just sucks not knowing, and having this unanswerable question (due to the nature of BB) left over.
Yup, it's the not knowing that's still killing me.

If Butler was sick and Belichick felt he could not play to the level needed and he benched him, then fine.

But once the defense was a total tire fire, not to put him in there is what kills me; if he put him in and he was horrible, then so be it.

He never put him in, so we'll never know.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
It's not good enough for many reasons. In no particular order:

- Precisely because BB is so damned good at his job. When Grady blew it, I was infuriated and my anger was in no small part because I expected that nitwit to screw up. Worst fears realized and all that. Conversely, one of the wonderful things about rooting for the BB Pats is that we have a HC who is wicked smart. When he does something that seems to be the opposite of wicked smart, it's as fascinating as it is frustrating. I hate this phrase but fascinating things are things I want to "unpack."

- One of the reasons why baseball and football are my favorite sports is that I get to think along play by play with the Manager/HC. So telling me not to second guess a set of decisions of this magnitude is to take away one of the very reasons why I spend countless hours watching. We can do that with hockey and basketball decisions too, but less on a play by play basis.

- In Bill I Trust is boring.

- Unlike with many other Bill decisions, my sense was that this decision was not something that a lot of Bill guys believed in or agreed with. I tend to doubt that Matt Patricia agreed if the reports that he was trying to sign Butler are true. I tend to doubt that Mike Vrabel thought this was the right call. The reactions of Bill's players and former players seemed to be less deferential than in the past (say with the 4th and 13 call). I can't prove any of that and maybe both Patrica and Vrabel thought Butler was worth signing and just was having a bad few weeks. But my gut tells me that this decision is unique in how it is viewed by Bill guys. That itself makes me want to dig deeper.

- Others have poo poo'd this, but I think there is some possibility that this decision, like Carroll's call in SB 49, will have a hangover affect. No need to rebut the "losing the team" argument as I am not going that far. But I do think that something like this COULD reduce Bill's effectiveness. Maybe not, and I sure hope not, but if that does happen -- if -- then looking back on it with a "In Bill I Trust" lens will be unsatisfying.

In short, first guessing and second guessing decisions, and imagining what I would have done in Bill's shoes, is PART of why I enjoy sports. I don't think I am remotely alone. So when a decision seems wildly out of character, is wholly unexpected and arguably plays a role in the outcome of a SB, your answer isn't good enough for me. Not that Bill Belichick gives two shits if it is or it isn't and not that you or anyone else should.

So do you doubt that Belichick thought that Butler would not have helped/made it worse? (people can disagree with that, but we're talking about Belichick's "thought process" here, right?)

And other than "these guys in the game are sucking, Butler can't possibly be worse," (which is perfectly rational and acceptable) what would your rationale for putting Butler in be?
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
So do you doubt that Belichick thought that Butler would not have helped/made it worse? (people can disagree with that, but we're talking about Belichick's "thought process" here, right?)

And other than "these guys in the game are sucking, Butler can't possibly be worse," (which is perfectly rational and acceptable) what would your rationale for putting Butler in be?
For whatever it's worth, I consider Bill to be the best coach of a team that I have ever rooted for. Red Auerbach was before my time. Who else is even in the conversation?

And no, I don't doubt that Bill thought that Butler would not have helped or made it worse.

But sorry, that Belichick thought that makes NO sense to me, even with my massive Belichick appreciation level. And because it makes no sense to me, and because the Pats matter to me a lot, and probably more than they should, I would like to understand why he was thinking what he was thinking and everything else around his thought process. I hope to hell he one day writes a book and spells it out in detail. Or is candid in an interview after he retires.

Edit: My rationale for putting Butler in is what you said. What they were doing was not working very well and Butler might have helped. It's not binary and my thought would not have been that Bill had to commit to keeping Butler in the game from whatever point he inserted him. But not trying it? I'd like to know how you don't try a seemingly obvious potential solution (or partial solution) to a very big problem.
 
Last edited:

kenneycb

Hates Goose Island Beer; Loves Backdoor Play
SoSH Member
Dec 2, 2006
16,090
Tuukka's refugee camp
Clearly the answer was BB saw what some of us just couldn't come close to understanding, the in-game success of his defensive strategy and personnel decisions that gave up over 500 yards, 41 points, couldn't get off the field. This was a real time game time decision, comprising over 70 observations and data points to assess, 70 plays where his D was repeatedly gashed, and to the ugly end BB ordained his strategy and personnel decisions gave the Pats the best chance to win.

No reason to question his decisions.
Yeah this is a mischaracterization. We're questioning the people that are asking the same question over and over and expecting it to be sufficiently answered when it's obvious they are looking for some truth that they will probably never be fully satisfied with. This thread has been one big circle for a while now and it's annoying to read.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
...
- In Bill I Trust is boring.

- Unlike with many other Bill decisions, my sense was that this decision was not something that a lot of Bill guys believed in or agreed with. I tend to doubt that Matt Patricia agreed if the reports that he was trying to sign Butler are true. I tend to doubt that Mike Vrabel thought this was the right call. The reactions of Bill's players and former players seemed to be less deferential than in the past (say with the 4th and 13 call). I can't prove any of that and maybe both Patrica and Vrabel thought Butler was worth signing and just was having a bad few weeks. But my gut tells me that this decision is unique in how it is viewed by Bill guys. That itself makes me want to dig deeper.
I personally understand the second guessing, especially of the decision that was made to not substitute Butler into the game when the defensive game plan was clearly not working. My best guess is that one of the following happened:

- Belichick really didn't believe, for whatever reason, that Butler would help the situation. We can criticize this decision all we want, but if that is what happened, there's not much more to say about it other than Bill did what he thought was right, even if in retrospect it was the wrong decision. It could also be true it was the right decision, but one that didn't work out, something that happens all the time in sports.

- The game situation could have gotten away from BB and Patricia, either late in the first half or early in the second, and so the call was never made. Not sure this is an entirely satisfactory explanation either.

As for Patricia, it's been said before, and it bears repeating: the coaching staff and the defensive squad captains were fully aware that Butler was unlikely to start during the Super Bowl. McCourty had no reason to lie about it. That fact doesn't preclude Patricia from thinking that Butler could be a useful player for the Lions and therefore worth pursuing. The SB decision and free agency pursuit are separate decisions. Also, Patricia's rumored interest in pursuing Butler adds support to the fact that Butler's illness had a lot to do with the initial decision to not start Butler.

- Others have poo poo'd this, but I think there is some possibility that this decision, like Carroll's call in SB 49, will have a hangover affect. No need to rebut the "losing the team" argument as I am not going that far. But I do think that something like this COULD reduce Bill's effectiveness. Maybe not, and I sure hope not, but if that does happen -- if -- then looking back on it with a "In Bill I Trust" lens will be unsatisfying.
Did you listen to what Kraft had to say? If anything, his statements should put this theory to rest.

In short, first guessing and second guessing decisions, and imagining what I would have done in Bill's shoes, is PART of why I enjoy sports. I don't think I am remotely alone. So when a decision seems wildly out of character, is wholly unexpected and arguably plays a role in the outcome of a SB, your answer isn't good enough for me. Not that Bill Belichick gives two shits if it is or it isn't and not that you or anyone else should.
I will agree with you that discussing coaching decisions is part of, and will continue to be the subject of SoSH posts and sports dialog in general. Just saying that sometimes there will be no "satisfactory" public answer to the decisions that were made, and so we need to read between the lines. And, in this case, we have quite a few clues that indicate that Bill (and his staff) made a coaching decision that they truly thought was the correct one, even if it turns out it wasn't. What's indeed different is that we have lots of evidence that the coach's decision making process is quite sound, and, as a result, it's more probable than not that the correct decision will get made. But no decision process is 100% foolproof from bad decisions made for the right reasons or decisions that don't work out for whatever reason. And, until we hear otherwise, we have to assume that the Butler decision is one example of the above.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
As for Patricia, it's been said before, and it bears repeating: the coaching staff and the defensive squad captains were fully aware that Butler was unlikely to start during the Super Bowl. McCourty had no reason to lie about it. That fact doesn't preclude Patricia from thinking that Butler could be a useful player for the Lions and therefore worth pursuing. The SB decision and free agency pursuit are separate decisions. Also, Patricia's rumored interest in pursuing Butler adds support to the fact that Butler's illness had a lot to do with the initial decision to not start Butler.


Did you listen to what Kraft had to say? If anything, his statements should put this theory to rest.
I think we're largely in agreement and I'll limit my response to two aspects.

One, it's possible that Patricia agreed with the decision not to start Butler AND thought that the decision not to try him when all else was failing was wrong. I get that game usage and free agency are different things but at the same time, I have some trouble believing that anyone who thought that using Richards and Bademosi over Butler in the 4th quarter of that game would want to lavish big dollars on Bulter as a free agent. It's definitely possible but it seems like a stretch to me.

Two. Kraft's statements reflect the context with which Kraft views BB's decision making. They do not necessarily reflect how players view that decision making. As a result, I don't see how A puts B to rest. I'd like to believe it does.
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,651
where I was last at
Yeah this is a mischaracterization. We're questioning the people that are asking the same question over and over and expecting it to be sufficiently answered when it's obvious they are looking for some truth that they will probably never be fully satisfied with. This thread has been one big circle for a while now and it's annoying to read.
I agree people are looking for the truth/rationale, as given the facts as we know them, none seem to make a lot of sense.

The best I've come up with is that consistent with his game-day behavior, BB is Bettor X.

jk
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
I think we're largely in agreement and I'll limit my response to two aspects.

One, it's possible that Patricia agreed with the decision not to start Butler AND thought that the decision not to try him when all else was failing was wrong. I get that game usage and free agency are different things but at the same time, I have some trouble believing that anyone who thought that using Richards and Bademosi over Butler in the 4th quarter of that game would want to lavish big dollars on Bulter as a free agent. It's definitely possible but it seems like a stretch to me.

Two. Kraft's statements reflect the context with which Kraft views BB's decision making. They do not necessarily reflect how players view that decision making. As a result, I don't see how A puts B to rest. I'd like to believe it does.
Kraft's statement represents an organizational philosophy. Mistakes will be made, and will even be tolerated. If you're given the opportunity to make a decision, it will not be second guessed if it doesn't work out. That's a philosophy that is likely to stick with people.

There are already quite a few new players, with more to come via the draft. The key veteran players like Brady, McCourty, Edelman, Hightower, aren't going to start tuning out their coach over this one decision. There are other guys that will be fighting for jobs, and then fighting to keep those jobs. They're not tuning out the coach either.

Also, it's lazy to blame Seattle's decline on the interception and the team's reaction to it. The team got older, more expensive, hurt, something that happens to all teams in the NFL. Denver fell even harder and faster, and they WON their last Super Bowl appearance.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
Kraft's statement represents an organizational philosophy. Mistakes will be made, and will even be tolerated. If you're given the opportunity to make a decision, it will not be second guessed if it doesn't work out. That's a philosophy that is likely to stick with people.

There are already quite a few new players, with more to come via the draft. The key veteran players like Brady, McCourty, Edelman, Hightower, aren't going to start tuning out their coach over this one decision. There are other guys that will be fighting for jobs, and then fighting to keep those jobs. They're not tuning out the coach either.

Also, it's lazy to blame Seattle's decline on the interception and the team's reaction to it. The team got older, more expensive, hurt, something that happens to all teams in the NFL. Denver fell even harder and faster, and they WON their last Super Bowl appearance.
Context matters here. ONE reason why I keep turning over the Butler decisions -- I know, to the irritation of some -- is that I think it MIGHT have some kind of residual affect. I did not write, nor do I even think, that it's even likely to have such an affect. But that this set of decisions (perhaps combined with other factors that have been bandied about) even could affect the future is enough for me to add it to a list of reasons why "In Bill I Trust" doesn't work for me.

We could debate/discuss whether it might impact the future over a beer. I don't see doing that further as advancing the ball much in this particular thread, and I do see your points.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
For whatever it's worth, I consider Bill to be the best coach of a team that I have ever rooted for. Red Auerbach was before my time. Who else is even in the conversation?

And no, I don't doubt that Bill thought that Butler would not have helped or made it worse.

But sorry, that Belichick thought that makes NO sense to me, even with my massive Belichick appreciation level. And because it makes no sense to me, and because the Pats matter to me a lot, and probably more than they should, I would like to understand why he was thinking what he was thinking and everything else around his thought process. I hope to hell he one day writes a book and spells it out in detail. Or is candid in an interview after he retires.

Edit: My rationale for putting Butler in is what you said. What they were doing was not working very well and Butler might have helped. It's not binary and my thought would not have been that Bill had to commit to keeping Butler in the game from whatever point he inserted him. But not trying it? I'd like to know how you don't try a seemingly obvious potential solution (or partial solution) to a very big problem.
So, it ok for you to have no rationale other than "what the hell, he couldn't have been worse."

But if BB thought "this sucks, but I think Butler is likely to make it worse," you need some extra-prime numbers to make the math work.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,087
Seriously. I still can't believe Brady didn't march down and win that fucking game.
No doubt in my mind that we take the lead if that strip sack doesn’t happen. If there was sufficient time left, we probably would have gotten Giants’d.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
Maybe, but I also remember the drive at the end of the SB XLVI loss to the NYG when a hobbled Gronk was sprinting downfield on the last drive with separation and Brady's heave was three feet in front of him. We had a chance there and it just didn't come up Millhouse.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,087
Maybe, but I also remember the drive at the end of the SB XLVI loss to the NYG when a hobbled Gronk was sprinting downfield on the last drive with separation and Brady's heave was three feet in front of him. We had a chance there and it just didn't come up Millhouse.
That play happened early fourth but was just awful. 1st and 10 at our like 43 and Brady decides to pull a Rex Grossman. Of course, if Gronk’s ankle weren’t so messed up, he would have at least broken the play up.
 

TheoShmeo

Skrub's sympathy case
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
12,890
Boston, NY
So, it ok for you to have no rationale other than "what the hell, he couldn't have been worse."

But if BB thought "this sucks, but I think Butler is likely to make it worse," you need some extra-prime numbers to make the math work.
Nah. My continuing view is that Butler is a shit ton better than the likes of Bademosi and Richards, and he’s better than Rowe, and he played 98 percent of the defensive snaps all season (which was either the most or near most played by any Pats player), so not trying him when the D was getting lit up made no sense.

I don’t need higher math to make that point. It’s actually pretty elementary. Yep, Bill is Bill and I get that I’m just a fan, but I will continue to hope that I one day get an explanation for something that makes zero intuitive sense to me.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
8,878
Dallas
Nah. My continuing view is that Butler is a shit ton better than the likes of Bademosi and Richards, and he’s better than Rowe, and he played 98 percent of the defensive snaps all season (which was either the most or near most played by any Pats player), so not trying him when the D was getting lit up made no sense.

I don’t need higher math to make that point. It’s actually pretty elementary. Yep, Bill is Bill and I get that I’m just a fan, but I will continue to hope that I one day get an explanation for something that makes zero intuitive sense to me.
Hey Theo, mind if I take a crack at an explanation?

I think there are two primary reasons for Butler's benching. 1) Butler's limitations as a player and his availability in the two weeks up to the Super Bowl and 2) the challenges the Eagles offense presented and how Andy Reid style offenses have been torching the Patriots for a few years now. That (2) unique challenge is crucial contextual information.

Let's start with 2 and the Eagles offense:

Masco, SuperNomario, and others have explained how Andy Reid offenses have given the Patriots trouble over the past few years. I won't rehash all the details but in particular the Patriots struggled stopping the run against 11 personnel all year. They gave up about 6 yards per run. The Eagles were one of the best teams running the ball out of 11 personnel. In the Super Bowl the Eagles were in 11 personnel 43/72 plays. They ran 70% of the time out of 11 personnel and, to some degree, the Pats strategy of playing 3 safeties helped limit their gains (from 6 yards to 5.4 which is still bad). The Eagles excellent skill position players spread out would prove to give the Patriots fits via both the run and the pass. Why did the Patriots play with 3 or 4 safeties?

Going into the game we knew the front 5/6/7's deficiencies were going to put pressure on the secondary. The Patriots front 7 was mediocre and not particularly athletic by the time of the Super Bowl due to injuries and roster choices/trade-offs and that was especially noticeable with the linebackers. Their defensive line did not do well against the run (look at the talent gap between Pats front 4 and Eagles O-line) and did not generate much pass pressure. Their linebackers are not the most athletic in coverage. Worse, guys like Roberts bite on everything. Foles was 5-5 for 77 yards against Patriot linebackers. Going against an RPO and 11 personnel heavy team, where you are already at a disadvantage talent vs talent, you need linebackers who can defend against the pass and the run especially when you are not going to get much of a pass rush, AND your front 4 is, again, at a talent disadvantage. The Patriots did not have linebackers that could do that so they tried the next best thing.

Belichick responded to the linebacking problem by playing big nickel packages and using 3-4 safeties. DMC, Chung, Richards, Harmon lined up and played traditional LB roles at some points in the game. They also made the decision to have Chung cover the slot or Agholor. That added a traditionally strong safety run defender to the mix but kept Butler off the field. Unfortunately Chung gave up 5/7 targets for 70 yards.

Quick word on Gilmore and Rowe: The outside corners, after the switch were good. That switch happened later than I wanted but it didn't decide the game. Smith still has the top end speed to beat Butler vertically. I would not have played Butler over these two. I think Belichick indicated he feared that speed by initially putting Gilmore on him (although Pats often play their #1 CB against the opponent's #2).

Going into the game the big nickel defense made sense. In the game the only spot Butler could have played was in the slot if you do not want him against Smith or Jeffery. Given you are at a disadvantage and want size against the run it would make sense to play a safety there. Remember, the Eagles are still gashing you there, the front 5/6/7 is not helping so many times stopping the run will fall to the secondary.

That brings us to Butler.

Slot cornerback is a hard position to play and many traditional outside corners struggle with a move to the slot and/or won't be moved there. Slot corner and boundary corner are different positions and require different skill-sets and have different responsibilities. The Patriots experimented with Butler in the slot but he did not perform well there. PFF seems to back that up as he had a 128.5 opposing QB rating in 225+ snaps in the slot from 2015-2016. He is not a guy who has succeeded against slot receivers. Agholor is a super-athletic and slightly larger slot receiver who Butler, I think, would have struggled against. Agholor was in the middle of a resurgence and career year. Butler also would have had to defend the run, which at his size is a large ask. The Eagles run a lot to the edge so Butler would have been challenged.

Butler was having an inconsistent season, had several glaring mental errors against JAX the week before, was physically recovering from the FLU (weakening an already small player) and missed a lot of practices. So he was unprepared going into the game in a season where he struggled. With the time that Foles had and how spread out their attack was one blown coverage could easily be a huge chunk gain. I've read, but can't find it, that Butler struggled with the mental aspects of the game and that the Patriots had to simplify his role on the defense before. Either way you would be putting him against a very good slot receiver, with limited practice/preparation, in a role he struggles with and a role that has complicated responsibilities. Butler is already going to be a liability against the run. In addition to his deficiency against the run 1) with not being prepared to go against a complex offense, 2) in a role (slot corner) he is ill-suited for, 3) when the Patriots secondary is already going to be stressed due to the deficiencies up front, and 4) where a blown coverage or mental error can easily result in a huge play (as we saw, a lot, in the game), Belichick added up the potential positives and negatives and came to the conclusion that he was not a viable option against the Eagles.

Final note: Richards and Bademosi were targeted 4 times. Bademosi was targeted once and gave up a crucial 3rd down conversion (whiff) for 14 yards. Richards was 3-3 for 81 yards but his big blunder was against Clement who Butler was not going to cover.

I think if Butler plays and your base package for the game is Gilmore, Rowe, Butler, DMC, Harmon/Chung with the way the linebackers and defensive-line played the Eagles would have run even more and probably had even more success.

I do not believe the Patriots defense would have played materially better against the Eagles with Butler in the slot or up against Smith. Their talent-gap in the front and on the trenches doomed them from the start against the Eagles offense.
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,807
Melbourne, Australia
Hey Theo, mind if I take a crack at an explanation?

I think there are two primary reasons for Butler's benching. 1) Butler's limitations as a player and his availability in the two weeks up to the Super Bowl and 2) the challenges the Eagles offense presented and how Andy Reid style offenses have been torching the Patriots for a few years now. That (2) unique challenge is crucial contextual information.

Let's start with 2 and the Eagles offense:

Masco, SuperNomario, and others have explained how Andy Reid offenses have given the Patriots trouble over the past few years. I won't rehash all the details but in particular the Patriots struggled stopping the run against 11 personnel all year. They gave up about 6 yards per run. The Eagles were one of the best teams running the ball out of 11 personnel. In the Super Bowl the Eagles were in 11 personnel 43/72 plays. They ran 70% of the time out of 11 personnel and, to some degree, the Pats strategy of playing 3 safeties helped limit their gains (from 6 yards to 5.4 which is still bad). The Eagles excellent skill position players spread out would prove to give the Patriots fits via both the run and the pass. Why did the Patriots play with 3 or 4 safeties?

Going into the game we knew the front 5/6/7's deficiencies were going to put pressure on the secondary. The Patriots front 7 was mediocre and not particularly athletic by the time of the Super Bowl due to injuries and roster choices/trade-offs and that was especially noticeable with the linebackers. Their defensive line did not do well against the run (look at the talent gap between Pats front 4 and Eagles O-line) and did not generate much pass pressure. Their linebackers are not the most athletic in coverage. Worse, guys like Roberts bite on everything. Foles was 5-5 for 77 yards against Patriot linebackers. Going against an RPO and 11 personnel heavy team, where you are already at a disadvantage talent vs talent, you need linebackers who can defend against the pass and the run especially when you are not going to get much of a pass rush, AND your front 4 is, again, at a talent disadvantage. The Patriots did not have linebackers that could do that so they tried the next best thing.

Belichick responded to the linebacking problem by playing big nickel packages and using 3-4 safeties. DMC, Chung, Richards, Harmon lined up and played traditional LB roles at some points in the game. They also made the decision to have Chung cover the slot or Agholor. That added a traditionally strong safety run defender to the mix but kept Butler off the field. Unfortunately Chung gave up 5/7 targets for 70 yards.

Quick word on Gilmore and Rowe: The outside corners, after the switch were good. That switch happened later than I wanted but it didn't decide the game. Smith still has the top end speed to beat Butler vertically. I would not have played Butler over these two. I think Belichick indicated he feared that speed by initially putting Gilmore on him (although Pats often play their #1 CB against the opponent's #2).

Going into the game the big nickel defense made sense. In the game the only spot Butler could have played was in the slot if you do not want him against Smith or Jeffery. Given you are at a disadvantage and want size against the run it would make sense to play a safety there. Remember, the Eagles are still gashing you there, the front 5/6/7 is not helping so many times stopping the run will fall to the secondary.

That brings us to Butler.

Slot cornerback is a hard position to play and many traditional outside corners struggle with a move to the slot and/or won't be moved there. Slot corner and boundary corner are different positions and require different skill-sets and have different responsibilities. The Patriots experimented with Butler in the slot but he did not perform well there. PFF seems to back that up as he had a 128.5 opposing QB rating in 225+ snaps in the slot from 2015-2016. He is not a guy who has succeeded against slot receivers. Agholor is a super-athletic and slightly larger slot receiver who Butler, I think, would have struggled against. Agholor was in the middle of a resurgence and career year. Butler also would have had to defend the run, which at his size is a large ask. The Eagles run a lot to the edge so Butler would have been challenged.

Butler was having an inconsistent season, had several glaring mental errors against JAX the week before, was physically recovering from the FLU (weakening an already small player) and missed a lot of practices. So he was unprepared going into the game in a season where he struggled. With the time that Foles had and how spread out their attack was one blown coverage could easily be a huge chunk gain. I've read, but can't find it, that Butler struggled with the mental aspects of the game and that the Patriots had to simplify his role on the defense before. Either way you would be putting him against a very good slot receiver, with limited practice/preparation, in a role he struggles with and a role that has complicated responsibilities. Butler is already going to be a liability against the run. In addition to his deficiency against the run 1) with not being prepared to go against a complex offense, 2) in a role (slot corner) he is ill-suited for, 3) when the Patriots secondary is already going to be stressed due to the deficiencies up front, and 4) where a blown coverage or mental error can easily result in a huge play (as we saw, a lot, in the game), Belichick added up the potential positives and negatives and came to the conclusion that he was not a viable option against the Eagles.

Final note: Richards and Bademosi were targeted 4 times. Bademosi was targeted once and gave up a crucial 3rd down conversion (whiff) for 14 yards. Richards was 3-3 for 81 yards but his big blunder was against Clement who Butler was not going to cover.

I think if Butler plays and your base package for the game is Gilmore, Rowe, Butler, DMC, Harmon/Chung with the way the linebackers and defensive-line played the Eagles would have run even more and probably had even more success.

I do not believe the Patriots defense would have played materially better against the Eagles with Butler in the slot or up against Smith. Their talent-gap in the front and on the trenches doomed them from the start against the Eagles offense.
SMU, that was the best explanation I have read yet about why Butler would not have been used. So clear that even guys like me who never played football can follow well. I now completely understand why Butler did not get into the game, and it makes me wonder what the Patriots are doing to address the talent gap up front. From what we have seen so far, other than drafting a project QB and an OT, would you guess the Pats will focus on pass rushers and linebackers in the draft?