SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

[lexrageorge]

If it was the combination of Butler being sick (folks need to remember that he was too sick to fly with the team on Monday, and was limited in practice at times this week), plus him not being fully recovered (flu can take a while); plus him doing weed (not a huge deal, but not cool at all if you're too sick to practice fully), plus him missing curfew (bigger problem, IMO), plus him either going off on coaches or missing team meetings (totally inexcusable given the circumstances), then, yes, Butler was the one that cost the team the Super Bowl. Every coach has to draw a line in the sand at some point.

Folks keep mentioning Chandler Jones, but he did not violate team rules. In fact, he followed league and team protocol and reported his problem; and, as Rev noted, he acted very responsibly. The incident may have led to the trade, but there is a big difference between a trade and a benching, especially when it comes to a player not far from unrestricted free agency.

I'm thinking we'll get more of the story as time goes on. It's too big to be contained long term.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Browner's instagram:

He not the first to get caught with weed, ‍, curfew also meant we are not allowed to have guest especially women. I’ve ate chicken(Popeyes) in the room with a player and his wife after curfew. Bill seen that look in Toms eyes last night and thought we can win without our role players. Tom played the greatest game last name in super bowl history (statistically). But when you do wrong, nothing good can come out of that. Tom did everything he could do last night. Tom Brady was the goat last night. Malcolm’s present was missed and felt last night. #facts

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 

[JimD]

If some combination of the weed/missing meetings/going off on the coaches stuff is true, then BB is doing right by Butler in downplaying it (helping to preserve his reputation as a player) and taking the heat himself.

 

[tims4wins]

More from Giardi

 

[RetractableRoof]

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?"

Here's where I am:

Paragraph a) IF he is sick, name the player that comes off the inactive list that makes a difference in the secondary? He was dressed in case Rowe, or Bademosi or whomever were the player taken off the field like Cooks was - because they didn't have another secondary player available at all. So IF sick, there is still a case to be made that for emergency purposes he was best choice among the inactive alternatives.

Paragraph b) BB built this organization to run one way - team above all else. If this benching resulted from a behavior issue by Butler, then BB is the sole person to decide whether the long term good of the franchise is best served by being able to tell any player at any time "these are the rules, you break them and you will be out.". And those players will know that even in the moment before the biggest game of the year they have to put the team first. If BB decides that the player put himself first by direct or indirect choices - there is no one that is more qualified to decide what the impact of handling the situation is worth. The only person who can over rule that would be Kraft. And unless or until Kraft tells BB to operate different, or explain himself to the masses - BB doesn't owe the fans, or the media a damn thing in terms of explanation. As noted above Chandler Jones had some explaining to do, and was still allowed to take the field - so if this wasn't sickness then BB believes Butlers actions were worse then Jones. The only people who might have a case for asking for an explanation would be the players - and I'm betting they got some form of one when BB announced to the team that Butler wouldn't be playing defense yesterday. It would be easy to throw Butler under the bus by the way, to say there were X, or Y off the field reasons why he didn't play defense. This (imo) shows that he is still protecting Butler on some level by saying it was a football decision - and allowing himself to be second guessed. If these rumors are true, then it is weak sauce for Butler to stand there and cry and point and say the Pats gave up on him when his behavior put the Pats in that position.

When we say "in BB we trust", we accept the good times and the bad. One of the other tenets of the way he runs the organization is that he never sells out the long term health of the organization for one moment (Brady/JG being the closest exception - which may not have been his choice?). It's all part of the deal. It doesn't mean that we don't second guess him, but it does mean that we don't get to demand answers - because that isn't part of the deal. If we want the laundry aired, we should be Jets fans.

 

[twibnotes]

"Stay, Malcolm, stay!"

Whatever the reason Malcolm was tied to the sidelines, this is so damn sad.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

We're not certain of Butler's maturity level. We do know he was kicked out of college as a freshman for...something non-academic. The spectrum of reasons he didn't play and the reason he was in tears on national TV are so far outside our experience. I'm only bringing up the possibility of some abuse because that spectrum is incredibly wide. We'll find out one day, right?

 

[brandonchristensen]

Whatever it is, there's more to it than we currently know. Are we going to learn it all?

No, probably not.

 

[RetractableRoof]

"Stay, Malcolm, stay!"

Whatever the reason Malcolm was tied to the sidelines, this is so damn sad.

Even more so if it was self inflicted.

 

[tims4wins]

We're not certain of Butler's maturity level. We do know he was kicked out of college as a freshman for...something non-academic. The spectrum of reasons he didn't play and the reason he was in tears on national TV are so far outside our experience. I'm only bringing up the possibility of some abuse because that spectrum is incredibly wide. We'll find out one day, right?

To refresh Reiss

Acknowledging that a lot happens behind the scenes that many are unaware of, and never will be, I have kept coming back to something Belichick has repeated often over his 18 years as coach:

When you bring a player on to your team, you get everything that comes with him -- on and off the field.

The Patriots weigh that with every decision they make, especially the ones that come with the greatest financial risk to them. If the largest contracts they have handed out under Belichick are analyzed as if they were stocks in a portfolio, the team's risk level (outside of Aaron Hernandez) would mostly be characterized as conservative.

Devin McCourty ... Dont'a Hightower ... Jerod Mayo ... Nate Solder ... Rob Gronkowski ... Logan Mankins ... Stephen Gostkowski ... Marcus Cannon ... Danny Amendola.

Why wouldn’t Butler, a 2015 Pro Bowl selection who has proved he can stay with some of the top receivers in the game, be included in that conservative category?

By most accounts, he's busted his butt, kept his mouth shut, and put the team first. Outside of not making it back for voluntary organized team activities on time in 2015, to the casual observer he seemed to be a poster child in reflecting what Belichick wants his program to represent.

So this is the true mystery.

Why is Gilmore, who has an injury history to consider, viewed as less risky to Belichick from the total-package standpoint than the durable-to-this-point Butler?

What is it about the 26-year-old Gilmore, who is married with two children, that gave the Patriots more comfort in investing so big in him when compared to the 27-year-old Butler, who is single?

When you bring a player on to your team, you get everything that comes with him — on and off the field.

Many wondered why I referenced marital status. In reading it back, I can see why. It was awkward.

What possible difference would Butler’s martial status have on the Patriots keeping him around? I never answered that.

Here is the point I was striving to make: The Patriots covet players who don’t have a lot of off-field variables. For instance, one of the things they liked about 2015 first-round draft choice Malcom Brown, who was married with two children when he entered the NFL, was that he was considered mature beyond his years. Vince Wilfork, too.

I’m not saying that a player who isn’t married is undependable, only that, chances are, the player with a wife and kids will have a more predictable day-to-day life and is more settled than a single person. Generally speaking. There are, of course, exceptions.

 

[lexrageorge]

Whatever it is, there's more to it than we currently know. Are we going to learn it all?

No, probably not.

If it was scheme or illness, probably not much more than we know today.

It if was discipline, we'll find out. Reporters are digging hard into this, and there will be plenty of folks that know what's going on that will no longer be part of the Patriots organization anyway.

 

[Marciano490]

To refresh Reiss

I don't know. Doesn't Edelman have the rep for carousing? I never saw Butler Instagrammed sleeping in a rando's bed. This seems like fishing.

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

Being married young with kids can also be a sign of irresponsibility imo. Seems like a dumb litmus test.

 

[Reverend]

"Stay, Malcolm, stay!"

Whatever the reason Malcolm was tied to the sidelines, this is so damn sad.

This.

I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about Butler basically slumping down in collapse when he realized what he had done in 49 and being held up by his teammates. And then his, “Gosh, gee,” response to Brady giving him the SBMVP truck...

It’s a tragic story arc.

 

[lexrageorge]

I don't know. Doesn't Edelman have the rep for carousing? I never saw Butler Instagrammed sleeping in a rando's bed. This seems like fishing.

Carousing is excusable. Missing team meetings the week of the Super Bowl is not.

 

[Reverend]

Being married young with kids can also be a sign of irresponsibility imo.

Tell Tatum and his mom, who lives like next door.

There are many ways to do things—it’s about HOW.

 

[Harry Hooper]

If this is true BB's comment about how Bademosi had "practiced it more" (i.e., the nickel role) makes all the more sense

Well, that's a bit of a dodge by BB. Rowe's taken many snaps as the 3rd CB with the Pats.

Nink on Dale and Holley now. If it was discipline, i disagree with it. You need your best players on the field.

Pretty much the standard response you hear from players when one of these benching situations comes up. Players aren't management.

 

[RetractableRoof]

I don't know. Doesn't Edelman have the rep for carousing? I never saw Butler Instagrammed sleeping in a rando's bed. This seems like fishing.

True, but as a totality - was Edelman on time for meetings after his carousing? Did he miss OTAs or flights or ? I'm not pretending to know any of this, just saying BB doesn't do anything in a vacuum. Giardi is saying the stuff in Minnesota was the last straw - which indicates a pattern.

This whole situation reminds me of a saying about parent who is about to spank the child... "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you".

 

[Captaincoop]

If this was indeed disciplinary, then Belichick was entirely within reason benching him. Coaches should get the benefit of the doubt on disciplinary policy, and it shouldn't matter what player it was or what game is coming up. Rules are rules.

Suggesting that it would have been okay to bench him for a quarter but not for the whole game, or whatever...that's missing the point, IMHO.

 

[DJnVa]

I don't know. Doesn't Edelman have the rep for carousing? I never saw Butler Instagrammed sleeping in a rando's bed. This seems like fishing.

Was Edleman's the week of the Super Bowl?

The word is clearly leaking out--Butler has been difficult and *something* happened this week that was the last straw. We can't laud BB when his ways work and get pissed when they don't when I assume every player knows the deal.

 

[tims4wins]

 

[tims4wins]

Was Edleman's the week of the Super Bowl?

The word is clearly leaking out--Butler has been difficult and *something* happened this week that was the last straw. We can't laud BB when his ways work and get pissed when they don't when I assume every player knows the deal.

Right - we were all laughing at Tomlin with the Le'Veon Bell stuff and then the Steelers falling behind 21-0. Can't have it both ways.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

IF Butler did miss a team meeting and/or get caught with weed in the Week of the Super Bowl preps, BB was 100% right to bench him.

BB is playing the long game even if it means sacrificing Butler's abilities for the SB.

We have seen it too many times, from Adalius Thomas to Welker to Jones to Gray.

 

[Reverend]

This is potentially an awesome case study in rational/strategic choice theory within a rule based environment and the decision of whether or to relax rules in a repeat play scenario.

Standard economic theory for Belchick’s degree, fwiw. And it is not a simple problem—playing the guy one time may cost you the ability to garner value from having the rule in the future.

Sure, maybe we could have won this one. But do we lose some of the past outcomes if B.B. had not had his rules in place all along.

As it stands, in the absence of further evidence, I’m unhappy with this outcome, but I am still highly satisfied with the entire “population” of outcomes overall.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good, and we’ve been having it pretty good for some time now.

 

[Reverend]

IF Butler did miss a team meeting and/or get caught with weed in the Week of the Super Bowl preps, BB was 100% right to bench him.

BB is playing the long game even if it means sacrificing Butler's abilities for the SB.

We have seen it too many times, from Adalius Thomas to Welker to Jones to Gray.

This guy gets it.

 

[RedOctober3829]

IF Butler did miss a team meeting and/or get caught with weed in the Week of the Super Bowl preps, BB was 100% right to bench him.

BB is playing the long game even if it means sacrificing Butler's abilities for the SB.

We have seen it too many times, from Adalius Thomas to Welker to Jones to Gray.

Agreed, but all the explanations to this point don't point definitively to a disciplinary issue.

 

[pedroia'sboys]

If some combination of the weed/missing meetings/going off on the coaches stuff is true, then BB is doing right by Butler in downplaying it (helping to preserve his reputation as a player) and taking the heat himself.

Board has been unreadable today. All the Belichick hate is laughable. Fuck Malcolm Butler. He Didn't get his contract had his feelings hurt and proceeded to have a shit season. He wasn't half the player he was last year. Then he pulls a stunt the week of the superbowl.

 

[RetractableRoof]

If this was indeed disciplinary, then Belichick was entirely within reason benching him. Coaches should get the benefit of the doubt on disciplinary policy, and it shouldn't matter what player it was or what game is coming up. Rules are rules.

Suggesting that it would have been okay to bench him for a quarter but not for the whole game, or whatever...that's missing the point, IMHO.

Beyond the "in BB we trust" stuff, I agree with this.

If more coaches would hold the line and make players be accountable to the team and the people around them then a lot of the off the field stuff might be lessened. The Cowboys 90's dynasty seemed to run amok in Dallas - the stories are there. Isolated exceptions aside - we don't see that stuff here under BB. I'm ok with a coach or an organization saying "that's not how we do it here", and backing it up. I'm maybe naive, but if BB did bench him for the speculated reasons - I'm more supportive of him.

That said, I know that Harrison was nailed with PEDs, etc. I'm not saying the organization is 99.9 percent pure or anything of the like. I'm just saying Stallworth's quotes from above make it clear there are only a few rules in the organization, and holding the players to those rules is a positive - even if they lost the game because of it.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

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.

Isn't it true that the only reason we know Rowe was taking snaps with the 1s all week because Rowe told us last night? But this was after he said he wasn't, and didn't know he was starting until kickoff? Maybe someone got to Rowe and said "we're going with football decision, and you practiced all week with the 1s rather than throw Malcolm under the bus and tell everyone what happened."

 

[RetractableRoof]

Right - we were all laughing at Tomlin with the Le'Veon Bell stuff and then the Steelers falling behind 21-0. Can't have it both ways.

+1, that's it in a nutshell, right?

 

[DJnVa]

Agreed, but all the explanations to this point don't point definitively to a disciplinary issue.

Sure, but as has been said, 1 quarter benching may be disciplinary but *if* he did fire back at coaches it could be said that it goes beyond that and they think he simply isn't as prepared as he should be. Not to mention, if BB says it's disciplinary that opens up a ton more questions as well.

 

[wiffleballhero]

If this was indeed disciplinary, then Belichick was entirely within reason benching him. Coaches should get the benefit of the doubt on disciplinary policy, and it shouldn't matter what player it was or what game is coming up. Rules are rules.

Suggesting that it would have been okay to bench him for a quarter but not for the whole game, or whatever...that's missing the point, IMHO.

IF Butler did miss a team meeting and/or get caught with weed in the Week of the Super Bowl preps, BB was 100% right to bench him.

BB is playing the long game even if it means sacrificing Butler's abilities for the SB.

We have seen it too many times, from Adalius Thomas to Welker to Jones to Gray.

Except that this is not the business of teaching life lessons and there is no long game.

It is a four hour season. That is it. There is no future, there is no past. Damn, we have been hearing this from Belichick for almost 20 years, maybe he could apply that in a meaningful way during, I dunno, the Super Bowl!

Discipline is a means to an end -- winning the Super Bowl. Therefore there is no heuristic value to discipline in this situation since the discipline directly, immediately works against the ultimate goal. And there is more than one way to bring down the hammer here, including summarily running him out of town after the game. But to hold the line on the game really is putting the individual (Belichick's absolute power) over the good of the team.

I am not even convinced yet is was a discipline issue, and Retractable Roofs' point about the lack of viable options if you scratch Butler for illness is a good one -- maybe you are stuck with him, even if you seem him as a flu-zombie.

I just can't get past the point that they were doing nothing effective on D so it simply boggles the mind to not give him some reps simply to see if he can play his position in a way that could contribute.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This is potentially an awesome case study in rational/strategic choice theory within a rule based environment and the decision of whether or to relax rules in a repeat play scenario.

Standard economic theory for Belchick’s degree, fwiw. And it is not a simple problem—playing the guy one time may cost you the ability to garner value from having the rule in the future.

Sure, maybe we could have won this one. But do we lose some of the past outcomes if B.B. had not had his rules in place all along.

As it stands, in the absence of further evidence, I’m unhappy with this outcome, but I am still highly satisfied with the entire “population” of outcomes overall.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good, and we’ve been having it pretty good for some time now.

I wonder whether, for Belichick, any of this would even be conscious. It might not be. It might just be simple -- you do X, Y happens. And while the combination of experiences and analysis that got him to where he is may have been a calculus, it may just be that some of this stuff is internalized and goes back to his mentors and what he learned when he learned the game.

What I do know is this. If this really was disciplinary, Belichick must be absolutely batshit crazy angry this morning.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I don’t know if Browner is in the know here or speculating, but if he is and Malcolm Butler missed curfew and was fucking around with drugs after being sick three days before the Superbowl, I don’t know how anyone but Butler takes the blame. And, if that’s the case, Bill is actually going out of his way to help Butler make more money in free agency.

 

[JokersWildJIMED]

Treat him like Eugene Robinson for a team rules violation...severely damaging the chances to everyone on the team a legitimate opportunity for the SB, costing real dollars to all...I'm sure that's going over well. No wonder BB didn't tell Butler or Rowe about this until kickoff..

 

[Marciano490]

I don’t know if Browner is in the know here or speculating, but if he is and Malcolm Butler missed curfew and was fucking around with drugs after being sick three days before the Superbowl, I don’t know how anyone but Butler takes the blame. And, if that’s the case, Bill is actually going out of his way to help Butler make more money in free agency.

Fucking around with drugs? It's weed....

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Like some of the other posters have mentored, I think BB genuinely likes Butler and taking the bullets himself before the corner goes into free agency.

The leaks we are getting may be from other staffers, who are pissed off at Butler and hate seeing BB get portrayed as making a SB costing mistake.

That's all I got.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Isn't it true that the only reason we know Rowe was taking snaps with the 1s all week because Rowe told us last night? But this was after he said he wasn't, and didn't know he was starting until kickoff? Maybe someone got to Rowe and said "we're going with football decision, and you practiced all week with the 1s rather than throw Malcolm under the bus and tell everyone what happened."

There's no need for this nonsense conspiracy theory.

Butler is on the injury report for Wednesday. We know he had limited practice, and the reports from practice were that in the reps he did get, he looked visibly sick. There's no question on whether or not Rowe was practicing with the 1s because Butler was throwing up in the tent.

I can't find any reference to Rowe saying he wasn't practicing with the 1s - just that he didn't know he was starting.

 

[nolasoxfan]

Giardi should have written ‘injury,’ rather than ‘emergency,’ because last night seemed a lot like a god-damned emergency to me.

 

[pedroia'sboys]

I don’t know if Browner is in the know here or speculating, but if he is and Malcolm Butler missed curfew and was fucking around with drugs after being sick three days before the Superbowl, I don’t know how anyone but Butler takes the blame. And, if that’s the case, Bill is actually going out of his way to help Butler make more money in free agency.

I need to read more post about Grady little and Belichick legacy destroyed. Wish jon jones was healthy so they could of kept him inactive

 

[Ed Hillel]

Fucking around with drugs? It's weed....

Three days before the Superbowl, in a league where it’s illegal and against team policy. Doesn’t matter how tame the drug itself is or whether I think it should be legal.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

Treat him like Eugene Robinson for a team rules violation...severely damaging the chances to everyone on the team a legitimate opportunity for the SB, costing real dollars to all...I'm sure that's going over well. No wonder BB didn't tell Butler or Rowe about this until kickoff..

If the rules and consequences are clear, then it's not the fault of the guy who enforces them. It's the fault of the guy who breaks them.

More fundamentally, sometimes you just have to be about something and be prepared to stick to what you're about. Asking Belichick to be flexible about this, in this context just this one time because of the stakes, may be simply asking him to be something that he isn't -- and if that's the same something that enables him to be the greatest coach of all time, that's a very very big ask.

 

[Reverend]

Except that this is not the business of teaching life lessons and there is no long game.

This betrays a stunning lack of understanding of why Belichick has been so successful for so long.

 

[lexrageorge]

While we don't know what happened (I'm convinced we will soon enough), I will add that if Butler indeed missed team meetings due to either missing curfew or smoking weed, and doing this after being sick early part of the week with the flu, that's a pretty big deal. And deserving of a benching. Because that's the sign of a player that simply doesn't have his head in the game. Especially if it continued a pattern.

 

[Reverend]

I wonder whether, for Belichick, any of this would even be conscious. It might not be. It might just be simple -- you do X, Y happens. And while the combination of experiences and analysis that got him to where he is may have been a calculus, it may just be that some of this stuff is internalized and goes back to his mentors and what he learned when he learned the game.

What I do know is this. If this really was disciplinary, Belichick must be absolutely batshit crazy angry this morning.

Hard to say, because the long run equilibrium for good rules is generally, “leave it alone and don’t think about it” unless the conditions for the rule yielding utility change.

So putting in a system and not tinkering with it or even really thinking about it isn often optimal, so trying to figure out if it’s self-consciously implemented or not being thought about at all are basically observational equivalent—the outcomes are identical without further information.


Edit: That said, as I said above, guy grew up at Annapolis. This kind of approach to discipline is basically foundational to the approach. And our military is pretty good.

 

[pedroia'sboys]

While we don't know what happened (I'm convinced we will soon enough), I will add that if Butler indeed missed team meetings due to either missing curfew or smoking weed, and doing this after being sick early part of the week with the flu, that's a pretty big deal. And deserving of a benching. Because that's the sign of a player that simply doesn't have his head in the game. Especially if it continued a pattern.

His head clearly wasn't in it all year with the dip in his play. They should of dealt him to NO when they had the chance.

 

[TrotWaddles]

Except that this is not the business of teaching life lessons and there is no long game.

It is a four hour season. That is it. There is no future, there is no past.

There is no past but you bet your ass there is a future. The Pats opened as favorites for next year’s SB today. Any takers on anyone testing BBs rules next year?

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Except that this is not the business of teaching life lessons and there is no long game.

This is the exact opposite of how BB has run this team since he became the HC of NEP. If you don't agree, I don't know what to tell you.

Edit: beaten by Rev AGAIN.

 

[Captaincoop]

This is potentially an awesome case study in rational/strategic choice theory within a rule based environment and the decision of whether or to relax rules in a repeat play scenario.

Standard economic theory for Belchick’s degree, fwiw. And it is not a simple problem—playing the guy one time may cost you the ability to garner value from having the rule in the future.

Sure, maybe we could have won this one. But do we lose some of the past outcomes if B.B. had not had his rules in place all along.

As it stands, in the absence of further evidence, I’m unhappy with this outcome, but I am still highly satisfied with the entire “population” of outcomes overall.

The perfect is often the enemy of the good, and we’ve been having it pretty good for some time now.

Amen.

The thing with rules in the setting of a sports program, is that they have to be enforced all the time, or they quickly become worthless. Sometimes that means you have to play a championship game with a key player missing. As you say, it's worth it in the long run.