SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

[Hoodie Sleeves]

The essential problem in this case is that Butler could not have been worse than what was out there. I reminded myself of this on a few occasions when I wondered, “what would Wentz have done to us?!” And the answer is, “the same.” Because we yielded 41 points — none off turnovers — and we got a fortunate turnover of our down, and they punted only once.

This is only true in hindsight, and the last thing we should want is BB worrying about is whether his decisions look good in hindsight - that's the sort of shit that makes coaches punt down several scores instead of going for it.


Judging from the previous week's tape, it absolutely could get worse - Rowe had good coverage most of the game - and there were a lot of times where the only way the pass was completed was via a fantastic throw - but he was close enough to break up passes if the throws weren't perfect. There were just a lot of great passes because the lines were allowed to hold all day.

Butler, on the other hand, was 30 yards from the guy he was supposed to be covering on some plays. On some running plays he just completely gave up.

And he missed most of the film sessions because he was in the hospital during the week of.

It looks bad because they lost - and for no other reason. It's lazy, and results based.

I still wonder if the braintrust didn't think Butler was physically up for being in for a whole series without coughing up a lung.

I still wonder why people think this is far fetched, considering that we know he was too sick to do anything for most of the week.

 

[TheoShmeo]

A few thoughts on Butler follow.

I continue to think that BB made a terrible decision by not inserting Butler when he saw the results on the field. Whatever lead him to not start Butler should have given way to playing an available starter when he D was getting shredded.

I continue to have some concern that BB's decision could impact his effectiveness with his team going forward. I know that people will scoff at that but IF players think that Bill made a decision that contributed to the Pats losing the SB, it would be natural for them to be less willing to be all in. We know without Lane Johnson telling us that playing for the Pats requires a high level of commitment and the kind of players for whom winning and the prospect of same allows them to take whatever medicine Bill gives out. I could see that formula being disrupted in the aftermath of a decision that some of his team thinks cost them a ring. In the end, Bill is not Pete Carroll and has much more equity in the bank. So maybe this fades away much faster than the Pass Decision, which seemed to have left a taste in the mounts of many of the Seahawks for quite a while. But I will cop to to some concern about this and think it's possible we'll see some sort of hangover.

All that having been said, my overall takeaway is that the reality is that part of what Bill great is his extreme self-confidence. Bill has always followed his gut and made moves that less confident coaches would not have made. Or might not have made. We benefited from that when Bill didn't call TO against Seattle, stayed with Brady over a healthy franchise QB, had the stones to let Welker walk and signed Amendola instead, gave Gilmore what looked to be an excessive contract and made numerous other against the grain decisions. Just the way he handles his team in general and the media is not at all in line with most coaches. And the results are what they are: Preposterously good.

Maybe this is a variation of In Bill We Trust but as much as I can't make sense of the Butler decisions and worry somewhat about collateral damage, in the end I'm left with the idea that Bill has had the results he's had precisely because he doesn't give two shits about what conventional wisdom would say about his decisions. As a result, cherry picking what I deem to be the wrong calls is essentially wanting it both ways.

In short, I continue to look forward to the day -- which may never come -- when I get some clarity on what the hell Bill was doing on 2/4 but that's about where it ends. We have the good fortune to root for the team with the best HC/GM in the NFL, even if we can't always discern what he's doing and why.

Last, no doubt others have expressed the same general view and my comments may not be anything new. But it's kind of where I have landed and I thought I would share, for whatever it might be worth.

 

[uncannymanny]

Or they saw the Eagles doing exactly the things that Malcolm had struggled with in the limited time he’d practiced and knew it actually could get worse. Either something like that or his massive ego.

 

[Oil Can Dan]

I thought Belichick had lost his God damned mind when he refrained from using his timeouts at the end of SB49. It was ridiculous to not conserve clock so Brady could lead them down for a FG. Absolutely indefensible at the time. Had Seattle punched it in and won, I'd still be thinking that, but they didn't, his strategy worked, and it adds to the legend of BB.

We'll never know whether playing MB would have tilted the scale. We can speculate, but that's it.

Win some, lose some, but at the end of the day that guy knows more about the football than any of us. What's that saying about tugging on Superman's cape?

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Theo, other excellent coaches fuck up all the time in certain aspects of roster or game management. Has a chronic, oft-publicized clock management deficiency that undermined Andy Reid's ability to get his teams ready to play?

 

[Leather]

A few thoughts on Butler follow.


So maybe this fades away much faster than the Pass Decision, which seemed to have left a taste in the mounts of many of the Seahawks for quite a while. But I will cop to to some concern about this and think it's possible we'll see some sort of hangover.

All that having been said, my overall takeaway is that the reality is that part of what Bill great is his extreme self-confidence. Bill has always followed his gut and made moves that less confident coaches would not have made. Or might not have made. We benefited from that when Bill didn't call TO against Seattle, stayed with Brady over a healthy franchise QB, had the stones to let Welker walk and signed Amendola instead, gave Gilmore what looked to be an excessive contract and made numerous other against the grain decisions. Just the way he handles his team in general and the media is not at all in line with most coaches. And the results are what they are: Preposterously good.

I think it's already faded away except for Pats fans who need something to chew on until free agency opens up. It's not the same thing as Carrol's decision to pass because that was a single play people can point to and, with certainty, say "If that hadn't happened, the Seahawks win". It's also a highlight, so it gets replayed scores of times every season. Like the Falcons melt-down, this past Super Bowl didn't have a single play that encapsulates the whole game, or a highlight-reel worthy play, so all anyone will remember is it was a offensive shootout. Everyone who's not a Pats fan thought it was a great Super Bowl.

And I don't think you're quite right about Belichick and his self-confidence, and I think that's why I get rankled at people blaming his ego. Sure, he's self confident. But what makes him a good leader is that once he decides X gives the team the best chance on the field, then he won't let other, outside, issues get in the way of that. That requires confidence, but it also requires superhuman focus. I'm sure he has regrets, and decisions he'd take back. But the one thing Bill Belichick will probably never have to cop to is letting secondary concerns cloud his judgment. His one defining attribute is to block out the media, the fame, the affection of his players, even the fans, in order to focus on winning as his singular goal. And, as we've seen, some players don't like that. Some fans don't like that (when he doesn't win), and the media hates it. But he does not give a shit about any of the trappings around the NFL's machine. All he cares about is the game on the field. He does not get distracted.

As for "losing the team", the Patriots could purge the entire roster and have BB stand up and say "Hi. I've been to the Super Bowl 4 times in the past 7 years. Won twice. Who's with me?" and he'd have half the league signing up.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

He seems quite self-critical in his more candid moments. What immediately comes to mind is his comment at the end of 'Do Your Job' - which he relayed as wisdom from his high school coach - that 'players win 'em and coaches lose 'em...there's a lotta truth to that.'

And, honestly, it's difficult for me to imagine that he could sustain this level of success over many iterations of the roster, rule changes and a league framework designed to prevent team success this pronounced and long in duration if he wasn't routinely self-evaluating his performance.

 

[TheoShmeo]

I think it's already faded away except for Pats fans who need something to chew on until free agency opens up. It's not the same thing as Carrol's decision to pass because that was a single play people can point to and, with certainty, say "If that hadn't happened, the Seahawks win". It's also a highlight, so it gets replayed scores of times every season. Like the Falcons melt-down, this past Super Bowl didn't have a single play that encapsulates the whole game, or a highlight-reel worthy play, so all anyone will remember is it was a offensive shootout. Everyone who's not a Pats fan thought it was a great Super Bowl.

And I don't think you're quite right about Belichick and his self-confidence, and I think that's why I get rankled at people blaming his ego. Sure, he's self confident. But what makes him a good leader is that once he decides X gives the team the best chance on the field, then he won't let other, outside, issues get in the way of that. That requires confidence, but it also requires superhuman focus. I'm sure he has regrets, and decisions he'd take back. But the one thing Bill Belichick will probably never have to cop to is letting secondary concerns cloud his judgment. His one defining attribute is to block out the media, the fame, the affection of his players, even the fans, in order to focus on winning as his singular goal. And, as we've seen, some players don't like that. Some fans don't like that (when he doesn't win), and the media hates it. But he does not give a shit about any of the trappings around the NFL's machine. All he cares about is the game on the field. He does not get distracted.

As for "losing the team", the Patriots could purge the entire roster and have BB stand up and say "Hi. I've been to the Super Bowl 4 times in the past 7 years. Won twice. Who's with me?" and he'd have half the league signing up.

I don't think the Butler thing has faded away to that extent or will any time soon. I work in NYC at a firm that has a huge Philly office. I also have Pats (and Sox, Bs and Cs) stuff all over my office. So I'm a bit of a magnet at work for Pats talk with fans of other teams. The two reactions I get routinely are, as you said, "great game" and "what the hell was BB thinking with Butler?" Sure, some folks are trying to tweak me but I think the the Butler question remains very much alive well outside of Pats fandom.

As to losing the team, you might be right. I hope you are. I remain concerned that what he did in that game COULD make him less effective. His resume remains what it is and in the end, I do think players will be mature enough to see the big picture. But we have never seen them react to him after he had what some will perceive to be a Grady Little Moment, so this is new ground. For me, it bears watching.

Last, we don't actually disagree on what makes BB great. I wrote that PART of his greatness is his self-confidence. I doubt you or many others actually disagree with that. Your focus points are well taken and are not mutually exclusive with the confidence angle. And I think the ego stuff is utter bullshit, too.

 

[Leather]

The thing is, do you really think the players are sitting around blaming Belichick? Literally any defensive player could have made a single play at any time in that game to be the difference maker. Gilmore aside, nobody really stepped up to do that.

So if the whole team buys into the "do your job" mentality, there's a whole lot of blame to go around. I don't think anybody on the defensive or special teams side of the ball can credibly cast stones at the head coach for losing that game. And I don't think players on the offensive side, who did do their job, would say the blame falls solely on BB, if they look to ascribe blame at all. Which, my guess is, they probably don't.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Theo, other excellent coaches fuck up all the time in certain aspects of roster or game management. Has a chronic, oft-publicized clock management deficiency that undermined Andy Reid's ability to get his teams ready to play?

That's a fair point/question.

I think the differences lie in that (a) BB is an incredibly demanding coach who arguably asks his players to sacrifice more than some other coaches and (b) this decision could be viewed as having a more linear connection with the outcome of a SB than some of Reid's decisions/moves. I am not projecting with that or making the statement that BB singularly f'd up the SB. I am saying that some players on the Pats could go there, as many others have outside the team.

Let me be clear. I raise this as a concern of a nervous, Patriots addicted fan. I totally get that memories fade, Bill is brilliant, Bill has a track record, the Pats will be well coached again next year, the Krafts run a first class operation and they have Tom Freaking Brady as the QB. This all could be a big nothingburger. And I hope it is. But I'm a professional worrier and this point will continue to worry me to some extent. And that said, it pales in comparison to the upcoming Gronk announcement.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The thing is, do you really think the players are sitting around blaming Belichick? Literally any defensive player could have made a single play at any time in that game to be the difference maker. Gilmore aside, nobody really stepped up to do that.

So if the whole team buys into the "do your job" mentality, there's a whole lot of blame to go around. I don't think anybody on the defensive or special teams side of the ball can credibly cast stones at the head coach for losing that game. And I don't think players on the offensive side, who did do their job, would say the blame falls solely on BB, if they look to ascribe blame at all. Which, my guess is, they probably don't.

I think it's possible that some players on both sides of the ball are thinking to themselves that the team's chances of winning that game would have been improved had BB inserted Butler into the line-up after he saw the D getting shredded and that the failure to do so contributed to losing. BB often says that players win games and coaches can lose them. Some players could view what happened that day as that. And it's not all or nothing. They would not have to hold him singularly accountable. That he might have contributed to the loss is something new and could get in their heads.

I'm not predicting that, I think it's probably not going to happen and I really hope it will not. But it could.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

I think it's possible that some players on both sides of the ball are thinking to themselves that the team's chances of winning that game would have been improved had BB inserted Butler into the line-up after he saw the D getting shredded and that the failure to do so contributed to losing. BB often says that players win games and coaches can lose them. Some players could view what happened that day as that. And it's not all or nothing. They would not have to hold him singularly accountable. That he might have contributed to the loss is something new and could get in their heads.

I'm not predicting that, I think it's probably not going to happen and I really hope it will not. But it could.

Players are always going to question playing time decisions by coaches when they lose. If BB has instilled the "Do Your Job" culture that we've been led to believe, they need to recognize they shouldn't be relying on the excuse of "well, if only he had played Malcolm...". And further, we don't know it can be singularly attributed to BB. Patricia I'm sure had a say in it. If McCourty is to be believed, they knew all week he wasn't playing and why and it wasn't a "you pushed my kid in practice" type decision. We obviously will never know, but idle speculation like this is kind of a waste of time and most certainly hyperbolic. He's not losing the team. He didn't lose them when he didn't trust the defense in Indy and the players are well aware of the fact it seems it was an ineffectiveness/sickness situation; not hubris.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Players are always going to question playing time decisions by coaches when they lose. If BB has instilled the "Do Your Job" culture that we've been led to believe, they need to recognize they shouldn't be relying on the excuse of "well, if only he had played Malcolm...". And further, we don't know it can be singularly attributed to BB. Patricia I'm sure had a say in it. If McCourty is to be believed, they knew all week he wasn't playing and why and it wasn't a "you pushed my kid in practice" type decision. We obviously will never know, but idle speculation like this is kind of a waste of time and most certainly hyperbolic. He's not losing the team. He didn't lose them when he didn't trust the defense in Indy and the players are well aware of the fact it seems it was an ineffectiveness/sickness situation; not hubris.

Well that settles it! Next time I deign to speculate or wonder about whether there might be a cause and effect in any area of the sports world, I'll just check in with you.

I do hear you about the 4th and 2 decision. He most certainly did not lose the team when he did that or when he cut Lawyer Milloy, traded Richard Seymour, traded Jamie Collins, traded Chandler Jones or traded Logan Mankins, among other gutsy decisions. Of course, I'm not going so far as to say he would lose the team now. So often these discussions are set up as all or nothing propositions when a poster -- in this case me -- is not suggesting anything so extreme. What I wonder about -- sorry man, avert your eyes if need be -- is whether there might be an affect, or something that makes doing his job more difficult, after arguably erring in the Super Bowl. I think it's fair game to bat that around on a message board in the off season, even if we would all (including me) ultimately conclude that it's highly unlikely.

 

[Leather]

He's lost three Super Bowls. He has made mistakes in Super Bowls before (4th and 15?). Most coaches who make it to the Super Bowl and lose are praised as having a good year. The team will not react differently to him on the basis of one game.

I know you say you aren't, but what you write reads as wish-casting. Or the plot to a lost season of Friday Night Lights.

 

[tims4wins]

Did Dan Quinn "lose" the Falcons because he didn't play LI conservative enough?

 

[joe dokes]

He's lost three Super Bowls. He has made mistakes in Super Bowls before (4th and 15?). Most coaches who make it to the Super Bowl and lose are praised as having a good year. The team will not react differently to him on the basis of one game.

I know you say you aren't, but what you write reads as wish-casting. Or the plot to a lost season of Friday Night Lights.

That would require BB's daughter or girlfriend to be carrying Malcolm's baby.

 

[bankshot1]

I'm at a loss why its seems so hard for some people to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe BB could have possibly made a mistake in benching Butler.

In Bill I trust too, but I reserve the right from time to time, to scratch my head and say, WTF?

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I'm at a loss why its seems so hard for some people to accept the possibility that maybe, just maybe BB could have possibly made a mistake in benching Butler.

In Bill I trust too, but I reserve the right from time to time, to scratch my head and say, WTF?

Well we're all operating under a huge cloud of incomplete information. The people who have the most information are the coaching staff.

Of course BB isn't perfect and makes mistakes, and sometimes the mistakes are gambles that don't work out, and sometimes they're not the mistake we think they are. For example, on 4th and 2 in Indy, the real mistake in my mind wasn't the decision to go for it on 4th and 2. The mistake was throwing on the play beforehand, because that incomplete stopped the clock and didn't force Indy to call a TO, and if it really was four down territory at that point then running the ball made more sense to me.

Similarly, as noted above, BB's refused to his his timeouts at the end of the Seattle Superbowl would have most likely been considered a huge mistake...except that the Pats won, and BB later said he had seen confusion on the Seattle sidelines on that final drive and didn't want to let them off the hook by calling a time out and giving them a breather.

 

[TheoShmeo]

He's lost three Super Bowls. He has made mistakes in Super Bowls before (4th and 15?). Most coaches who make it to the Super Bowl and lose are praised as having a good year. The team will not react differently to him on the basis of one game.

I know you say you aren't, but what you write reads as wish-casting. Or the plot to a lost season of Friday Night Lights.

Wish-casting would require me to actually want to be right, no?

I get that what I’ve raised as a possibility for discussion is not something that most people see as a legitimate concern. My wish is that you and others who share your view are correct.

Ironically, perhaps, the point about potential residual affects was noted as a only a building block. The main point I was making was that the Butler decision should be viewed in the wider context of Bill’s decision making, and that the same confident, gutsy and focused (borrowing from your post) process that resulted in so many good results can also backfire once in a while. Even still, it’s all part of one very successful whole. I’ll take some backfires along with what Bill has accomplished and consider myself to be a very fortunate fan.

 

[bankshot1]

SJH I appreciate your recitation of some of Bill's most memorable/controversial decisions, and BB has earned the benefit of the doubt, but he has not earned infallibility.

I suspect the coachs will remain mum. There's no upside in either killing Butler, (and risking player speaking out supporting Butler) or casting doubt on either the game plan or personnel usage. So the hope is remain quiet, and the issue will die.

Nontheless, I find the reaction in this thread to questioning BB's Butler benching is mind-boggling.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I am looking for the posts declaring Belichick infallible. I've yet to find any. I do think people are willing to offer him the benefit of the doubt, and quite reasonably so.

 

[bankshot1]

Within the context of this discussion there's a fine line between BoD and infalliability and its a long thread.

BB has the BoD he doesn't get infallibility.

Butler was oked to play, but never saw one defensive snap, for what we were told was not disciplinary reasons, but football reasons. Those reasons and reasoning are fair game for scrutiny and questioning.

YMMV

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

Well that settles it! Next time I deign to speculate or wonder about whether there might be a cause and effect in any area of the sports world, I'll just check in with you.

I do hear you about the 4th and 2 decision. He most certainly did not lose the team when he did that or when he cut Lawyer Milloy, traded Richard Seymour, traded Jamie Collins, traded Chandler Jones or traded Logan Mankins, among other gutsy decisions. Of course, I'm not going so far as to say he would lose the team now. So often these discussions are set up as all or nothing propositions when a poster -- in this case me -- is not suggesting anything so extreme. What I wonder about -- sorry man, avert your eyes if need be -- is whether there might be an affect, or something that makes doing his job more difficult, after arguably erring in the Super Bowl. I think it's fair game to bat that around on a message board in the off season, even if we would all (including me) ultimately conclude that it's highly unlikely.

Jesus man, drop the martyr act. You yourself state he's done much bigger things that didn't work out and not lost the team, but you're complaining when I say it's a waste of time to speculate and/or hyperbolic if this is some kind of straw that breaks the camel's back? I'm pretty sure the player know his MO; they know that a team that was talked about as perhaps going undefeated suffered injuries and a lot of underperformance (especially on D and especially from Butler, who had one foot out the door before the season even started) and he still got them to the Super Bowl. I'm pretty sure they saw Butler get torn apart in film review every week - we've seen his was playing the wrong coverage in the AFCCG, I'm sure that was not ignored; then he got sick and missed the week before the game for the most part. It's just as likely they agreed with the decision. Regardless, I think it's a bridge too far that he could "lose" the team over it. Might certain players be upset or question it? Sure.

But here's another scenario:

The offseason, Butler spent half his time trying to land in NO. He didn't participate to his full ability in offseason workouts and was a distraction for the rest of the defense. He whined about getting paid and not getting respected. When he was stuck back in NE and demoted to #2 after Gilmore got the money he thought he deserved, he dropped off in film review, wasn't cooperative as much with coaches or study as much and his performance suffered. He quit on plays or missed coverages and other players grew frustrated with him because of it. After a season of expressing it reached it's apex in the AFCCG and the other players expressed to Patricia and BB they felt he was hurting more than helping. So especially when he got sick, they benched him. And BB earned the players' loyalty even more. Let's toss that scenario around.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I continue to think that BB made a terrible decision by not inserting Butler when he saw the results on the field. Whatever lead him to not start Butler should have given way to playing an available starter when he D was getting shredded.

Exactly right.

Or they saw the Eagles doing exactly the things that Malcolm had struggled with in the limited time he’d practiced and knew it actually could get worse. Either something like that or his massive ego.

How exactly could it have gotten worse?

BB should have also taken note of the things his defense was doing exceptionally poorly that Butler doesn't struggle with (tackling).

And the penalty his team suffered by shifting several guys out of roles they were better suited for in order to cover for Butler's absence.

He got it wrong here. Indefensibly wrong. He doesn't usually. Why we will never know.

He also got it wrong in season, when he played Butler 98% of the snaps rather than trying to develop alternatives.

 

[mikeot]

"NFL combine: Matt Patricia lets Malcolm Butler mystery linger..."

From today's WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/02/28/nfl-combine-its-not-just-roger-goodell-vs-jerry-jones-this-time-cousins-vikings-rumblings/?utm_term=.d0e93c17958e&wpisrc=nl_break&wpmm=1

 

[E5 Yaz]

From today's WaPo:

NFL combine: Matt Patricia lets Malcolm Butler mystery linger;

So does this link

 

[lexrageorge]

Couldn't get the above link to work, so here's another:

https://www.boston.com/sports/nfl/2018/02/28/lions-matt-patricia-malcolm-butler-nfl-combine

Can't imagine anyone would expect Patricia to say anything different. There's nothing for him to gain discussing on the record specific moves made when he was with the Patriots.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

How exactly could it have gotten worse?

Rowe was actually close to the guys he was supposed to be covering.

The week before, Butler wasn't, because he was playing man on plays where zone was called.

 

[dcmissle]

They scored on 8 of 10 possessions. Philly punted once.

If somebody wants to argue the fortuitous interception doesn’t happen with Butler on the field, or Philly would not have punted at all, have at it.

Maybe it would have been better because if Butler sucked so badly, Philly would have scored faster, saving clock for us and perhaps squeezing out an additional possession or two.

In any case, the defense could not realistically have been materially worse.

 

[Eddie Jurak]

Rowe was actually close to the guys he was supposed to be covering.

The week before, Butler wasn't, because he was playing man on plays where zone was called.

i don’t think anyone is insisting that Rowe should have been benched for Butler.

 

[Van Everyman]

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

That's kind of an awesome quote from Malcolm. Thank God he didn't wind up with the Jets, as his loveability could not have survived that.

 

[dcmissle]

Constructive, mature and helpful to everyone involved in the unfortunate situation. First class guy.

 

[brandonchristensen]

Wow. Quite a statement.

 

[boca]

Absolutely class statement from Butler.

 

[Over Guapo Grande]

And mediots will focus on "I never got a reason" not "I got ...sick. I went to the hospital... I was kind of late on the game plan."

 

[ilol@u]

Perfect Patriot and Belichick just packed his bags for him. Huge BB fan, but he too is prone to making mistakes and poor decisions - he's not perfect. Not playing Butler in the Superbowl was a bad decision. Nobody is saying to fire him.

 

[lexrageorge]

It was a classy statement from Butler, and it will put the issue to bed on his side as he moves on to the Titans.

 

[DJnVa]

EDIT: misread

 

[Reardon's Beard]

Maturity. Not sure it was there before the Superbowl, but this tells me it is there now at the very least. Good job kid, and good luck.

 

[nolasoxfan]

"They probably thought I was kind of late on the game plan; I wasn’t as locked in as I should be..” really stands out to me in that statement. It’s no full on mea culpa, that’s for sure.

 

[joe dokes]

Perfect Patriot and Belichick just packed his bags for him. Huge BB fan, but he too is prone to making mistakes and poor decisions - he's not perfect. Not playing Butler in the Superbowl was a bad decision. Nobody is saying to fire him.

It's just one mistake after another with that guy.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Maybe this is what he means by prone

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Given that the team openly quit on him during the game, I am reasonably certain Belichick watched the game from that position when the cameras weren't trained on him.

More importantly, good on Butler. He deserves and should get a ton of love when he comes back to the Blade.

 

[Bowhemian]

Given that the team openly quit on him during the game, I am reasonably certain Belichick watched the game from that position when the cameras weren't trained on him.

More importantly, good on Butler. He deserves and should get a ton of love when he comes back to the Blade.

I can only assume that this is sarcasm.

 

[tims4wins]

Robert Kraft was asked if he received a satisfactory explanation on the decision not to play Malcolm Butler on defense in Super Bowl LII. His answer: "With my fan hat on, you can come up with all kinds of reasons or things, but here's the deal: We in New England are privileged to have, I believe, the greatest coach in the history of coaching. We're involved in a number of businesses in our family – we're in 95 countries in the world – and we try to encourage to have good managers and we want them to be bold, we want them to take risks. Sometimes they work out, sometimes they don't. I have faith in Bill as a coach that I don't think there is anyone who has the football knowledge and expertise combined with understanding personnel – no one can merge those two worlds [like him]. He's done pretty well for us over the last 18 years. So, as a fan, I can question some of the moves. As someone who is privileged to be owner of this team, I encourage him to keep going with his instincts and doing what he thinks is right. There is no doubt in my mind, even if he made an error – and this is true with any of our managers – that if they're doing it for the right reason, then I support it 100 percent. I've never had one instance in the 18 years where Bill hasn't done what he believes is in the best interest of our team to help us win games."

 

[BaseballJones]

Hot take headline: "Kraft believes Belichick cost the Patriots the Super Bowl with error in judgment"

 

[Otis Foster]

Robert Kraft was asked if he received a satisfactory explanation on the decision not to play Malcolm Butler on defense in Super Bowl LII. His answer: "With my fan hat on, you can come up with all kinds of reasons or things, but here's the deal: We in New England are privileged to have, I believe, the greatest coach in the history of coaching. We're involved in a number of businesses in our family – we're in 95 countries in the world – and we try to encourage to have good managers and we want them to be bold, we want them to take risks. Sometimes they work out, sometimes they don't. I have faith in Bill as a coach that I don't think there is anyone who has the football knowledge and expertise combined with understanding personnel – no one can merge those two worlds [like him]. He's done pretty well for us over the last 18 years. So, as a fan, I can question some of the moves. As someone who is privileged to be owner of this team, I encourage him to keep going with his instincts and doing what he thinks is right. There is no doubt in my mind, even if he made an error – and this is true with any of our managers – that if they're doing it for the right reason, then I support it 100 percent. I've never had one instance in the 18 years where Bill hasn't done what he believes is in the best interest of our team to help us win games."

Taken as a whole, that statement parses as follows: I think he made a mistake by not playing Malcolm, and it may have cost us, but like any of my managers, they'll have my support whether they win or lose - at least until the losses begin to outweigh the wins.

 

[joe dokes]

Taken as a whole, that statement parses as follows: I think he made a mistake by not playing Malcolm, and it may have cost us, but like any of my managers, they'll have my support whether they win or lose - at least until the losses begin to outweigh the wins.

I think that's close. It needs a "he also knows a lot more about this shit than I do" in there somewhere.

 

[tims4wins]

I think that pretty much sums it up.

I mentioned it in the 2018 roster thread, but effectively benching Wise (6 snaps) has gotten very little play but was also possibly a coaching misstep.