Fuck Minihane. He's been pushing the whole "there's something there" angle on the Wickersham story for weeks. Plus, this is exactly what he beat on Wickersham for-"anonymous sources" and an agenda.
SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?
- Thread starter ifmanis5
- Start date
The margin of error was approximately 0. I get that it's easy to look back and think that after we know they never got a stop, but during the game there's reason to believe they might get one. I'm not sure putting a cold Butler into the game in the heat of the 4th quarter was the best idea either, especially if your theory that he had been sick was correct.
I haven't lived in Boston since 2006 and I haven't listened to any Boston sports radio (save a certain SOSHers show) as well but even I know Minihane is a fucking hack.
I think there are rules but I also think BB has seen quite a bit of football. Someone mentioned up thread how the Cooks injury demonstrated how one play can take you out of the game and I think you have to dress MB, you just have to. Should have been Jones and it's a sticky disciplinarian spot to be in if the stories turn out to be true but in the end he's healthy so you dress him. Players get lost for the game or whole series far too often.
The rule is you're not playing except in the case of injury. Is that so far fetched?
"You're grounded. But you have to come with us to visit Grandma in the nursing home."
I don't know. Maybe it's like you have an employee that keeps fucking up and you've told that employee that this is the last warning--be on time, do your work, etc. Then that employee takes a 2 hour lunch and gets fired. Then complains to everyone that asks that he got fired because he took a little extra time at lunch.
I get it's harsh--but BB doesn't waver on his rules no matter the timing. Man, I kinda wish he did, because I really would have liked to have won (or at least seen what had happened) but BB is who he is.
It's like if you asked my kid why he got grounded that one time he'll say "Because I didn't take the trash out." No buddy, that wasn't it. That was just the final straw.
Well, I'm back to where I was before all these issues about him getting nailed with weed and yelling at coaches showed up.
The most recent reports, such as they are, are consistent with what the main players have said: "They gave up on me." "Packages." "Football decision."
I want it to be Butler's "fault." I don't want Belichick to have made what appears to be a big mistake. So, my biases are clouding what I want the answer to be.
But maybe this was just a non-disciplinary (or mostly non-disciplinary) coaches decision, and we're all going to have to fight really hard not to roast a beloved player who did an amazing thing once on the way out the door because we are sick to our stomachs about that answer.
The most recent reports, such as they are, are consistent with what the main players have said: "They gave up on me." "Packages." "Football decision."
I want it to be Butler's "fault." I don't want Belichick to have made what appears to be a big mistake. So, my biases are clouding what I want the answer to be.
But maybe this was just a non-disciplinary (or mostly non-disciplinary) coaches decision, and we're all going to have to fight really hard not to roast a beloved player who did an amazing thing once on the way out the door because we are sick to our stomachs about that answer.
To expand, I think it's reasonable to see a thought process where Belichick thinks that putting Butler out there at any point in the fourth quarter was a bigger liability due to a number a factors (sickness, lack of focus due to benching, lack of understanding of the gameplan) and choosing to stick with what he started with. I can easily imagine a scenario where Butler comes in and gets toasted all the same as the other guys. It was a systematic failure, not an individual failure last night.
There were several times last night when the coverage forced Foles to hold onto the ball forever, the front seven was trash all night. It's easy to blame Rowe, but it's near impossible to cover guys for that long. The secondary wasn't the problem.
There were several times last night when the coverage forced Foles to hold onto the ball forever, the front seven was trash all night. It's easy to blame Rowe, but it's near impossible to cover guys for that long. The secondary wasn't the problem.
It's not reasonable to argue both of these:
1. BB was justified in not playing Butler if there was a valid disciplinary reason for doing so.
2. BB "had to dress" Butler because there were only 3 other CBs on the roster.
Either he doesn't play for disciplinary reasons, or not. Can't have it both ways.
Anyway, I hope BB feels that giving up a chance to win a SB to make a point was a good deal.
1. BB was justified in not playing Butler if there was a valid disciplinary reason for doing so.
2. BB "had to dress" Butler because there were only 3 other CBs on the roster.
Either he doesn't play for disciplinary reasons, or not. Can't have it both ways.
Anyway, I hope BB feels that giving up a chance to win a SB to make a point was a good deal.
So in the non-discipline scenario,
What if, under the truth serum, BB says simply, "yeah they sucked, but based on practice and filmwork, I was as certain as ive ever been about anything that malcolm would be worse."
I'm not going to argue with him.
What if, under the truth serum, BB says simply, "yeah they sucked, but based on practice and filmwork, I was as certain as ive ever been about anything that malcolm would be worse."
I'm not going to argue with him.
1. So rules matter unless someone gets hurt, got it.
2. Again, I thought it was "rules" and sending a message that they are not to be broken, but now it's a lack of focus? In that case if it wasn't about rules why not give him a shot in the second half since his replacements lacked both focus and talent? You're a moron.
It's a message board and nobody is expecting an apology from BB. We're just trying to understand a situation that seems incomprehensible. I guess you need to be a dorito dink to understand BB's complex logic. Or at least an ass kisser apologist.
All good, except, as has been stated about 150 times, BB didn't say it as for disciplinary reasons. He said it was a football decision. Now, that football decision likely stemmed in part from discipline, but not in the strict "You were late, you're benched" but more "You were late, you're practicing for shit--is this connected? You're not all in. You're benched".
Oh man, I hope the internet lords give you a few internet points for this.
If you can't follow what I, and Rev, and others have said, that's on you Kermit. You annoy me more than the game. I'm gonna let this go. Shoot me a PM if you'd like to chat more, think I'll throw you on ignore for a bit.
Have a great night.
Which rules are you talking about? What if the rule in BB-land is, "you won't dress unless there are no available backups" or somesuch. Then he is following his rules, but you just don't like his rules.
Are you guys spouting the breaking glass for injury = breaking glass for poor play thing serious?
If the whole point of benching a guy who breaks team rules is to keep the overarching organizational message consistent, what kind of message does it send to the team if you say, "Well, Eric Rowe was a good soldier this week and earned the start, but he sucked in his first five minutes, so we're going to backtrack and put in the guy we otherwise were hoping to punish." You've now made a mockery of a player you were hoping to hold as a positive example and acknowledged that some members of the team are above the law. You really don't see the difference between that and putting in the punished guy because the only alternative is someone out of position?
And for the record, I think Bill made a mistake here barring some real heinous behind the scenes shit by Butler. But reading Giardi and Rapoport's tweets and thinking anything but this is consistent with past Belichick decisions is pretty crazy.
If the whole point of benching a guy who breaks team rules is to keep the overarching organizational message consistent, what kind of message does it send to the team if you say, "Well, Eric Rowe was a good soldier this week and earned the start, but he sucked in his first five minutes, so we're going to backtrack and put in the guy we otherwise were hoping to punish." You've now made a mockery of a player you were hoping to hold as a positive example and acknowledged that some members of the team are above the law. You really don't see the difference between that and putting in the punished guy because the only alternative is someone out of position?
And for the record, I think Bill made a mistake here barring some real heinous behind the scenes shit by Butler. But reading Giardi and Rapoport's tweets and thinking anything but this is consistent with past Belichick decisions is pretty crazy.
This whole "football decision" thing. True, maybe, but still absolutely horrific bothc of a decision.
One has to thread an impossibly fine needly to explain why it made sense, from a football perspective, for Butler to play virtually every regular season and playoff defensive snap for 17 games and then 0% while the rest of the Pats D was shitting all over itself in the SB.
The time to have worked him on was the third quarter. I have traveled the same road as Denny — not disciplinary, disciplinary, not disciplinary.
Bottom line. I think he thought things would get better, and they never did. Real time moves fast and he never could take the exit ramp.
Then you make him inactive, period, end of story. I agree, there is no half pregnant on principle if that’s what motivated this. He either disqualified himself or not. No exceptions.
I can see BB deciding that MB is a combination of not physically ready, (based on facts we have - illness and the practices missed because of it) and not mentally ready (based on rumors of misbehavior and attitude towards coaches) to help the pats in this game, and therefore this really is a football decision.
I can also see how Malcolm thinks he's ready to go (even if he's not), and therefore some players think so too.
I agree it makes sense to keep him dressed for a CB injury.
But this "BB decision to bench MB cost the Pats the superbowl" Is nuts, because we don't have any way of knowing that he was in a condition to be a better choice than Rowe/Bademosi/Richards. We didn't see him on the field except for a punt return. If info comes out that this was disciplinary and not about his condition (which means that BB is lying in his public statements, fwiw), then we might be able to say this, but not now.
However, I'm puzzled by the question of why, if it's a football decision, it's announced to him that he won't play on D. Maybe it was 'be ready as always, but you are probably not going to play on D we don't think you are in a condition to help the team.' Just to be upfront and honest with a player.
I can also see how Malcolm thinks he's ready to go (even if he's not), and therefore some players think so too.
I agree it makes sense to keep him dressed for a CB injury.
But this "BB decision to bench MB cost the Pats the superbowl" Is nuts, because we don't have any way of knowing that he was in a condition to be a better choice than Rowe/Bademosi/Richards. We didn't see him on the field except for a punt return. If info comes out that this was disciplinary and not about his condition (which means that BB is lying in his public statements, fwiw), then we might be able to say this, but not now.
However, I'm puzzled by the question of why, if it's a football decision, it's announced to him that he won't play on D. Maybe it was 'be ready as always, but you are probably not going to play on D we don't think you are in a condition to help the team.' Just to be upfront and honest with a player.
I am not a big Minihane fan but what he is saying isn’t too far fetched in my opinion. That type of benching on that stage can cause a rift in the locker room after he has played nearly 100% of the defensive snaps this year. It seems like Butler is well liked within the locker room, given how players have talked about him. And seeing how they played in the game, I think it’s logical for players and coaches to naturally come out of the game questioning if the head coach put them in the best position to win. Hell, look how we are reacting here. It also may not be that big of a deal.
I think once next season begins everyone is back on the same page, but yeah, superficially it's going to be a potential problem in the short term. You make us run these hills and do all this stuff and put the team always in the front, and you didn't hold up your end, Bill. You didn't give us the best chance to win -- we count on you to do that.
I wouldn't be surprised if that were some of the sentiment -- especially by the defensive players, because it avoids having to think about their own responsibility.
But, again, I think that all goes away when the next season starts. And, for all we know, Belichick will address it with them.
You win as a team and you lose as a team, and that's the bottom line. I think, in the end, they all know that.
Here’s what I’m stuck on...
Even if Butler “deserved” the benching and/or it was the right thing for the team, there HAS to be a better way to handle it. It’s clear that some players, including Butler, were surprised by the move, which may have been unsettling. Plus, it seems to imply they weren’t preparing for that unit to get all the mins.
Something is odd about the timing.
Even if Butler “deserved” the benching and/or it was the right thing for the team, there HAS to be a better way to handle it. It’s clear that some players, including Butler, were surprised by the move, which may have been unsettling. Plus, it seems to imply they weren’t preparing for that unit to get all the mins.
Something is odd about the timing.
Then why did you play him 98 pct of the snaps during the season?
If illness was a factor, why does he dress?
Tom E Curran was just on NBC Sports Boston and posited that they may have chosen to not tell the team in advance for fear of the players grumbling on Friday or Saturday. I don’t know how much sense that makes but it was his thought
As has been mentioned at least a dozen times, there was literally no one to replace him with - unless you think David Harris or Kenny Britt can play CB.
Or if he was late to/missed a team meeting on Saturday and that was the last straw that BB didn't think he was prepared it would have been hard to tell them before that.
You think the defensive players are going to be more upset? Imagine how Brady, Gronk and the offense that put up video game numbers and still lost "because of this" (if that's how they feel)
I know BB has no fear of making unpopular decisions, but if you are holding back the game plan for the Super Bowl until kickoff because you are afraid it is going to divide the locker room, then maybe that game plan kind of sucks.
Eh, I’m over it. We’ve won a lot of SBs. We lost this one. We had plenty of chances to win and couldn’t execute. There’s no saying Butler makes any difference. Maybe he pushes a receiver out of bounds right into Brady’s leg. Still have a good shot next year. Draft for the defense, get Edelman and High back. Win 6.
I don't think this is like Hoosiers where Gene Hackman benches Ray and when guys foul out leaving him with four guys on the floor, and Ray jumps off the bench and Hackman tells him to sit down and then says to the ref, "My team is on the floor."
I think it's entirely possible to bench Butler and because there's literally nobody left to play CB you only put Butler in if there's an injury. I'm not sure that's actually inconsistent.
I'm just pissed that whatever happened happened, because I think the Patriots win the Super Bowl with a healthy and fully functioning Butler playing in the game. I have to believe he's good for ONE frigging stop. Which is all they needed.
And when you're the head coach of an NFL team, you are welcome to make those the rules.
Last edited:
Yup...and having watched the game, we all know there is no “maybe.” The defensive game plan could not have been more ineffective.
I can definitely agree that the time to put him in was after the offense has scored so easily coming out of the locker room, but maybe he made adjustments that he thought would work too.
Not really my point. Everyone's upset. I think the offense, if they were on a lie detector, would admit they were pissed at the defense for not doing its job. I think human nature suggests a defensive player might be more apt to look toward the coaches to avoid having to take a hard look at his own play.
I don’t think Butler playing or not playing would have made much of a difference. The defense sucked all year long but were able to kind of hold things together enough, but it all fell apart last night and I don’t think one guy would have been able to fix it. I’m more trying to make sense of what happened.
In a 1 possession game, hard to say that Butler instead of the Bademosi/Richards vortex of suck wouldn’t have made a difference. We’ll never know but I doubt he would have been worse.
I'm still processing the concept of a 'BB apologist'.
I should really throw my lot in with Kirk Minihane at this point.
I should really throw my lot in with Kirk Minihane at this point.
I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that Butler not playing may have been a big reason for how bad the defense looked. The guy played 97% of snaps this year on a defense that seemed to have communication issues in the secondary early on and took some time to eventually gel. Of course it's possible that they would have played much better with him in there which allows the rest of the defense to play their normal roles.
It's anyone who doesn't understand that he should be held accountable for having the worst record of anyone to be the head coach in eight Super Bowls
Then he's a terrible coach. (Calm down, he's obviously not a terrible coach. This is just my way of saying this would never happen with a good one.
Simple. "Because I respect all of the hard work you have put in over this long season, and I know what your goal is, I am going to do what I need to do to give you the best chance of achieving it."
This too, I hope is false, because the alternative is that BB has lost his fucking marbles.
I think Devin McCourty could play CB. If winning the game is the top priority, then Butler should have gotten a look. If keeping Butler off the field was the highest priority (over and above winning the game), then they should have dressed someone else. Special teams sucked, for example, and they happened to have a core-4 guy scratched.
I can't believe people are actually taking anything Kirk Bleepin' Minihane has to say with any seriousness. He's nothing more than a cartoon character for the Joe's from Burger King set. I doubt he has a single source on the team that would give him anything either on or off the record. It's laughable to think he knows anything.
Belichick's the coach, and he's not playing a logic quiz game when he's making out the lineup. Just because Butler was benched for a "football decision", whatever that is, doesn't mean the coach cannot dress him or play him on the punt team. He's the coach, and he gets to make the rules.
Agree or disagree, Belichick felt that Butler wasn't going to be able to contribute to the defense given the game plan. Noone knows when the decision was made (Minihane certainly wouldn't; neither would Curran), but it may very well have been made late Sunday morning (remember how they tweak things almost right up until game time?). The reasons for that decision may very well be unsatisfying to us: bad practice week, flu, blowing off a team meeting, or combination of the above, etc. However, there are no other DB's on the roster, so Butler has to be active barring his being hospitalized or in jail.
Should Butler have been inserted sometime in the 2nd or 3rd quarter? Probably, given what was happening. That could have been something as simple as the game getting away from them. That is a decision that is probably worth dissecting, and criticizing. But it's ridiculous to make the claim that Bill "has lost his marbles" given all the information we don't have.
Belichick's the coach, and he's not playing a logic quiz game when he's making out the lineup. Just because Butler was benched for a "football decision", whatever that is, doesn't mean the coach cannot dress him or play him on the punt team. He's the coach, and he gets to make the rules.
Agree or disagree, Belichick felt that Butler wasn't going to be able to contribute to the defense given the game plan. Noone knows when the decision was made (Minihane certainly wouldn't; neither would Curran), but it may very well have been made late Sunday morning (remember how they tweak things almost right up until game time?). The reasons for that decision may very well be unsatisfying to us: bad practice week, flu, blowing off a team meeting, or combination of the above, etc. However, there are no other DB's on the roster, so Butler has to be active barring his being hospitalized or in jail.
Should Butler have been inserted sometime in the 2nd or 3rd quarter? Probably, given what was happening. That could have been something as simple as the game getting away from them. That is a decision that is probably worth dissecting, and criticizing. But it's ridiculous to make the claim that Bill "has lost his marbles" given all the information we don't have.
The switch needs to be jiggled every now and then ... nothing to worry about
He was atrocious, which is why he was moved to safety.
And when it comes to Belichick, you trust Giardi over Minnihane 5000% of the time. LOL @ Kirk Minnihane being a reliable news source. He’s pimping controversey for his shitty show.
Come on, man, this is getting ridiculous. In which ways was Special Teams bad? There was a bad snap (which really could have been handled) and a bad kick, right? Kickoff coverage was fine. Which inactive core Special Teamer was going to fix that?
Last edited: