Here is the theory on Dale and Holley. Got caught with the weed. They told him he would be sat for a quarter or whatever for this and associated problems in the run up to the game. He then went off on the coaching staff.
SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
Great sentiment: Tell me who makes a difference in the game from the inactive list. According to the vast majority in the various threads, the issue was tackling in the secondary, leading to not getting off the field on 3rd/4th down. Tell me who on this list resolves THAT problem? Thanks, I'll hang up and listen.
DT Alan Branch
RB Mike Gillislee
LB David Harris
OL Cole Croston
WR Kenny Britt
TE Jacob Hollister
WR Bernard Reedy
I can see him saying "they gave up on me" after doing this. I.e. fine instead of sitting for a quarter, you're not playing. Thus they gave up on him.
If that's the case, BB didn't cost the team, Butler did. Everything you're saying should be pointed at the person responsible for the actions.
By the way- all of this makes me think BB is here for several more years. If he was leaving soon, he might have let repercussions for actions slide to get the near term benefit.
Weren't there reports of a bunch of players partying before the first Giants SB loss?
The thing that doesn't reconcile with "benching" is he was only benched from playing D. He was out there for punt return and I assume he would have played more than one play had there been more punts. So he wasn't strictly benched in the sense that its punishment. But its possible those factors that we're hearing about made it nearly impossible to get him ready for the full defensive game plan.
Interesting thing is Chung left the game a few times for injury, so if Butler was on the slot depth chart, he wasn't second apparently. I think Butler was injury insurance for Rowe and Gilmore. Otherwise Reedy should have been active if Butler's only contribution was going to be special teams. I think you'd rather have Reedy on special teams than Butler. So my guess he was active as an "emergency" corner.
Interesting thing is Chung left the game a few times for injury, so if Butler was on the slot depth chart, he wasn't second apparently. I think Butler was injury insurance for Rowe and Gilmore. Otherwise Reedy should have been active if Butler's only contribution was going to be special teams. I think you'd rather have Reedy on special teams than Butler. So my guess he was active as an "emergency" corner.
If this is true BB's comment about how Bademosi had "practiced it more" (i.e., the nickel role) makes all the more sense
With the caveat that now we're riffing on something that could be complete bullshit I guess I just don't have a yardstick to measure this stuff. There's no one-size fits all model here. You can't just say, Jones did X, other player did Y, these are equivalent. Reactions, responsibility, prior episodes, relationships within the locker room, what a coach has or hasn't said in the past or that day. It's just not a one-size fits all.
This could be a football decision. Or it could in whole or part be a discipline decision. If it's the latter, I'll never second guess it. We all have our own way of dealing with excruciating losses and maybe that's mine, but in the end it's just not an area where I can really believe I'd have any insight that would matter. If it was a football decision, I feel differently. I think that's fair game. No different than discussing whether or not a coach should have used a challenge.
Is there a site that provides an average height for every team's top receivers? I see that Jeffrey is listed at 6'4" and Smith at 6'0". Eric Rowe is listed as 6'1", Gilmore 6'0" and Butler as 5'11".
I wonder (1) if the Eagles have a taller than average receiver set, (2) what other teams have taller-than-average receivers, (3) if the Patriots played those other teams this year and (4) if those were the games where Butler didn't perform well.
I wonder (1) if the Eagles have a taller than average receiver set, (2) what other teams have taller-than-average receivers, (3) if the Patriots played those other teams this year and (4) if those were the games where Butler didn't perform well.
This may or may not be at all relevant, but remember Mike Reiss' weird posts about the Butler situation last March? He made it sound like the team kind of questioned how mature and responsible Butler is without any specifics.
It is speculation and they characterized it as that. It might explain why he was active for the game, with the explosion coming after the inactive list had already been submitted.
But didn’t they have to carry him in case of injury if nothing else?
Butler doesn't strike me as the type of guy to "go off" on coaches about anything let alone getting caught red handed breaking team rules / the law.
I'm not listening so I don't know how they are presenting it but Holly has written books on the Pats, he certainly has sources. I do suspect in this case they are just talking crap though.
Edit: dcmissle cleared it up, pure speculation.
And you base this off your close personal relationship with him?
We don't know jackshit about any of these guys. Speculating on what they are or aren't capable of is just as bad as radio hosts doing it.
I've never heard that. It's certainly not impossible and lots of players do party before the superbowl but I've never heard about Pats players partying before the superbowl.
The difference could be (*if* this happened) is that it's not just the weed. It's weed+curfew+going off on coaches.
Now, I could see BB describe that not as discipline, but a football decision. He didn't like Butler's head was in the game if that's what he was out doing, and made the change.
Nothing goes smoothly with NE. Keeps it interesting.
Here's my thought: A one quarter benching would have been discipline. If he did go off on coaches, then they say "he clearly has different priorities right now, we're not using him" and it moves to "football decision".
I've been a Pats fan since the beginning of the AFL. That doesn't credential me in any way, but it confirms that I've experienced world-class stinkers - say, Rod Rust, or the Michael Jackson Victory Tour. Maybe that has given me a different perspective, and a greater understanding (if not tolerance) for world class screw ups. Every time I'm tempted to fulminate about something - the game who's name must not be spoken - I think back to the days of Tony Eason and that calms me a little.
My point was simply this: yesterday's game was a real dogs breakfast for NEP fans, but we can criticize it and the planning for it without descending to the level of white hot anger and the personal attacks that we're experiencing in this thread. Buck is an experienced commentator and often has interesting insights I wouldn't have come up with myself, but this time he was over the top.
My p.o.v., anyway.
Edit: meaningless language change.
I generally agree that disciplinary decisions are harder to judge, and I definitely agree that they shouldn't be judged if the facts aren't known, but I think those decisions can still be criticized like any other. If it turns out (just hypothesizing) that the only reason Butler was not played was because he was caught with a small amount of weed, I think it's fair game to question whether the punishment fit the crime, especially given the potential negative effects on the team itself.
At a certain point, the beneficial aspects of discipline are outweighed by their negative effect on the on-field product, no? Let's say Gronk was caught with weed and benched for the game - would we feel as comfortable saying that Belichick was justified? What if it was Brady? If the answer is at some point discipline has to take a backseat to the team's ability to win the game in front of it, then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line. And obviously different people will have potentially wildly different answers but to just trust Belichick blindly when it comes to disciplinary issues strikes me as a bit naive.
At a certain point, the beneficial aspects of discipline are outweighed by their negative effect on the on-field product, no? Let's say Gronk was caught with weed and benched for the game - would we feel as comfortable saying that Belichick was justified? What if it was Brady? If the answer is at some point discipline has to take a backseat to the team's ability to win the game in front of it, then it just becomes a question of where to draw that line. And obviously different people will have potentially wildly different answers but to just trust Belichick blindly when it comes to disciplinary issues strikes me as a bit naive.
Sounds like whatever the story is we would all agree that benching Butler was the right move?
There had to have been circumstances under which BB would have played him - otherwise dressing him for the game was monumentally stupid.
Hard to know what that situation was given the egg laid by the defensive players BB did choose to play.
Maybe it was injury insurance, but that is weird - makes it seem as if whatever caused Butler to be benched was more important than winning under some circumstances but not others.
Hard to know what that situation was given the egg laid by the defensive players BB did choose to play.
Maybe it was injury insurance, but that is weird - makes it seem as if whatever caused Butler to be benched was more important than winning under some circumstances but not others.
One thing that got lost in the Jones saga was that, if you bracket the whole freaking out on drugs thing, he responded incredibly responsibly.
I would have recommended a Hospital over a police station, but hey, I wasn’t there.
I am wondering similarly—there is a point where you just don’t know if you can rely on the guy. Did Butler qualify? I dunno. But it would suck to think he managed to hold his shit in an entire season just to lose it at the last moment.
Although that’s often how people do these things. It’s why it goes down like that in the movies, yeah?
Kinda hard to say until we know what that story is, no? I do find it really weird that multiple reporters (including Mike Reiss) have vaguely alluded to "issues" with Butler that apparently, if we only knew them, would make everyone go "ahhh, now I understand their decision-making." But, at the same time, none of these reporters feel comfortable giving any detail whatsoever into what those "issues" supposedly are - we don't know if it's drug use, something even more serious, or just a general lack of focus/lack of commitment. Just a really weird situation all around dating back at least to last offseason.
It says: Look, I love Malcolm Butler's story as much as the next guy. His competitiveness is admirable. But let's not make him out to be a martyr here. Lot to this story. Just because BB isn't giving you the rundown doesn't mean there's nothing there.
I'm basing that off of his generally humble demeanor, but, yes, I get that speculation about what is likely a false story is pretty useless. Then again I'm hardly the only one guilty of doing that here, but still you chose to hone in on my post... again. Just put me on ignore. TIA.
I'm sticking with BB on this and assuming Butler did something stupid. And he's had a pretty long line of stupid decisions the last couple of years.
He's got someone in his life giving him bad advice. Or he just a mess in general. It's a sad ending to a great story. And Rowe absolutely sucks. Next man up did not do his job.
And Alan Branch can go enjoy his next career.
They dressed all the DBs on the roster. Maybe if Ebner or Jones wasn't hurt, they would have made Butler a healthy scratch, but there were no alternatives.
Butler is a repeat offender at this point, keep in mind. He was late to OTAs in 2015 and sat out like a week and we have no idea what other issues might or might not have arisen between then and now, including if something happened this past week or two.
Here is what I want someone to ask Belichick:
"If Butler was too sick to be effective, why was he active and if you felt he was healthy enough to be active, why did you not make any in-game adjustments that included him in the secondary given the evidence that your packages were not working at any point in the game? Isn't it a mark of poor in-game coaching that you failed to explore the option of using a player you have used all year and that you have active on the sideline, especially in the context of your defense showing no signs of control in their phase of the game?"
If Belichick says, well its a longer answer, as he said this morning just say, "hey we are all ears, and if the longer story involves discipline doesn't it seem to punish more than just Butler to force that disciplining into the single biggest game of the year and, indeed, the biggest game of the career for many of the others players? How does that put the team in the best position to win the only remaining game?"
"If Butler was too sick to be effective, why was he active and if you felt he was healthy enough to be active, why did you not make any in-game adjustments that included him in the secondary given the evidence that your packages were not working at any point in the game? Isn't it a mark of poor in-game coaching that you failed to explore the option of using a player you have used all year and that you have active on the sideline, especially in the context of your defense showing no signs of control in their phase of the game?"
If Belichick says, well its a longer answer, as he said this morning just say, "hey we are all ears, and if the longer story involves discipline doesn't it seem to punish more than just Butler to force that disciplining into the single biggest game of the year and, indeed, the biggest game of the career for many of the others players? How does that put the team in the best position to win the only remaining game?"
It’s such a closed loop, I’m not shocked that guys with the inside info are reluctant to share what they know. It’s a fine tight rope to balance.
No. There were reports (and pictures) of Matt Light and Gronk partying after the 2nd SB loss to the Giants. Given that it was known to be Light's last game, noone was really bothered by it.
According to Howe, Foles was 6 for 7, 137 on third down, when targeting Rowe, Bademosi, or Richards.
Assuming for a moment this is true, then why play him at all? If you are taking a stand, this is not consistent with a punishment. Any avenue we go down doesn’t end well for the coaching staff.
According to butler he found out shortly before the game about not playing. Why was Rowe taking the snaps all week with the 1s? Feels to me like the rumor mill is in full swing.
Well, most reporters probably haven't yet had time to talk to the players individually and/or gather intel. I think it's just a matter of time before we know what happened. Like, by tomorrow morning.
How is he a repeat offender if you only pointed out 1 instance and we have no idea if this story is BS or true?
Press availability to the players is at 4:30 p.m. Eastern today (from Doug Kyed). That doesn't mean anything worthwhile will come out of that, though
Admittedly the story is moving away from this, but the story is all speculation at this point and his being sick was clearly part of the previous week.