SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
Death, do you really think the guy playing third corner was the difference last night? I wish that were our only problem, but the pass rush, run defense and linebackers in coverage were almost uniformly a disaster on a play to play basis.

That's NOT a defense of Bill, mind you, as he ultimately picks the groceries and decides how to cook them, Sunday night being attributable to deficiencies in both areas. It's definitely viable to argue that reinserting Butler would've helped as a desperation move, but you're overrating the importance of Butler to this defense.

I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
To answer the question, I don't know. Bill never gave us a chance to find out.

The only thing I know is that Malcom Butler played 98% of the snaps this year, and the defense never looked like it did on Sunday night. He played 0 snaps on Sunday night. You tell me, what was so different about the Eagles offense or the Patriots defense that resulted in 500+ yards and 41 points against a team that was giving up an average of about 16 points a game over the previous 13 weeks?

Even if Butler doesn't make a single play in coverage that Rowe, Richards or Bademosi didn't make, do you really believe he whiffs on every tackle like they did? Do you think he gets beat on the very first third down play of the game where Jeffrey turned outside, and Rowe went flying to the inside? Do think he plays the ball and knocks it away instead of tackling an already diving Torrey Smith on the second third down play of the game? Do you think he misses the tackle on third down that Bademosi whiffed on? We're talking about a game that was literally decided by 1, 2, maybe 3 plays. If the Pats defense can get off the field one more time, it probably changes everything.

The point is Butler didn't need to be an All Pro for the Pats to win the game. He could have been one play, just one, better than his replacements and it may have changed the outcome of the game, and yes, I believe that Butler would have been at least one play better than what we got out or Rowe, Richards and Bademosi (and Chung, who is getting a free pass for his disastrous play). We don't even have a way of knowing how many communication breakdowns there were in the secondary as a result of guys not knowing their assignments. The defender playing on his side of the field was getting beat over and over again. How many times did we see Foles lob a pass down the right sideline to a receiver that just roasted someone at the LOS?

I'm saying this in all honestly, I do not believe for one second that the defense could have played any worse with Butler in the game. They forced one punt. So, if they couldn't have played worse, what harm would it have done to put Butler in and see what happens? The game plan was wrong from the start. Putting Rowe on Jeffery was wrong. Putting Richards or Bademosi anywhere near the field was wrong. Bill fixed one issue, but he failed to do anything to even try to fix the others.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
To answer the question, I don't know. Bill never gave us a chance to find out.

The only thing I know is that Malcom Butler played 98% of the snaps this year, and the defense never looked like it did on Sunday night. He played 0 snaps on Sunday night. You tell me, what was so different about the Eagles offense or the Patriots defense that resulted in 500+ yards and 41 points against a team that was giving up an average of about 16 points a game over the previous 13 weeks?

Even if Butler doesn't make a single play in coverage that Rowe, Richards or Bademosi didn't make, do you really believe he whiffs on every tackle like they did? Do you think he gets beat on the very first third down play of the game where Jeffrey turned outside, and Rowe went flying to the inside? Do think he plays the ball and knocks it away instead of tackling an already diving Torrey Smith on the second third down play of the game? Do you think he misses the tackle on third down that Bademosi whiffed on? We're talking about a game that was literally decided by 1, 2, maybe 3 plays. If the Pats defense can get off the field one more time, it probably changes everything.

The point is Butler didn't need to be an All Pro for the Pats to win the game. He could have been one play, just one, better than his replacements and it may have changed the outcome of the game, and yes, I believe that Butler would have been at least one play better than what we got out or Rowe, Richards and Bademosi (and Chung, who is getting a free pass for his disastrous play). We don't even have a way of knowing how many communication breakdowns there were in the secondary as a result of guys not knowing their assignments. The defender playing on his side of the field was getting beat over and over again. How many times did we see Foles lob a pass down the right sideline to a receiver that just roasted someone at the LOS?

I'm saying this in all honestly, I do not believe for one second that the defense could have played any worse with Butler in the game. They forced one punt. So, if they couldn't have played worse, what harm would it have done to put Butler in and see what happens? The game plan was wrong from the start. Putting Rowe on Jeffery was wrong. Putting Richards or Bademosi anywhere near the field was wrong. Bill fixed one issue, but he failed to do anything to even try to fix the others.
While you were typing, I was searching. When I saw the headline for this, I assumed the player was Browner. Well it was Nink, and this is strong:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/former-patriots-player-rips-malcolm-butler-benching-‘coaches-lose-games’/ar-BBIMQJM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
As to this paragraph, Zach Ertz is a player, no doubt about that. But Alshon Jeffery? The guy had 57 catches on 120 targets this year. Brandon Cooks (who folks think wasn't worth a first round pick) had 65 catches on 114 targets. Cooks had 300 more yards on 6 less targets. How many other teams had a #1 wide receiver with worse numbers? And for most of the season, Alshon was catching passes from the leading MVP candidate, so let's not act like he wasn't playing with a good QB, the go to excuse for his shitty play in previous years. He was good in the red zone catching the same slant pass out of the RPO over and over again all season, but aside from that, he never did anything all season that he did in the Super Bowl.

Torrey Smith? Give me a break. Nelson Agholor? In the 46 games he's played in his career, the 84 yards he had against the Pats were the 4th most yards he's ever had. He literally had one of the best nights of his career. Blount and Ajayi? The Pats just put the clamps down on Leonard Fournette and Derrick Henry, two guys with similar styles to them, and big backs never, ever do what those guys did against the Pats.

I said all week that Corey Clement was a guy that scared me. After seeing the issues the Pats had with Grant in the 1st half of the Jags game, I thought Clement out of the backfield would be a problem for them, and he was, but aside from that, no, this Eagles offense should not have done what they did to this Pats team.

Since Foles took over, that offense has looked good exactly one time, two weeks ago, at home against a defense that was built to play in a dome. That #1 ranked Vikings defense is not the same when they play outside on the road. Under those conditions, they gave up 26 against the Steelers, 17 against the Bears, 30 against the Redskins, 31 against the Panthers, 0 against the Hundley led Packers, and then 38 against the Eagles. It really shouldn't have surprised anyone that the Vikings defense was going to lay an egg in that game, they'd done the same thing nearly every time they played outside this year.

Bottom line, the Eagles were not a "great" offense by any stretch of the imagination, and the Pats made them look like the 2007 Pats. In my opinion, the Pats faced at least 6, if not 7, offenses that were much better than what the Eagles had on the field on Sunday night, and nobody other than KC in the opener really came close to shredding them like that.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
41,948
While you were typing, I was searching. When I saw the headline for this, I assumed the player was Browner. Well it was Nink, and this is strong:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/former-patriots-player-rips-malcolm-butler-benching-‘coaches-lose-games’/ar-BBIMQJM?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=DELLDHP17
It doesn't surprise me at all. Anyone who thinks this didn't have an effect on the rest of the team is fooling themselves. If you're on that offense, and playing your ass off, and your defense can't stop a nose bleed, and one of your best, most consistent players is standing on the sideline for no apparent reason, it's got to piss you off. I think it was McCourty that said after the game "You almost wish you lost three weeks ago, than to lose like this..." These guys sacrifice everything, and the coach makes a move that might have tied a hand behind their backs...Uggh, I'd be ripshit too.
 

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,993
Newton
I have to say: I’m amazed at the number of people taking shots at Belichick. I’m not saying the guy is infallible or anything or that a guy can’t lose it when he gets older. But the theories and themes being presented here are amazing. Other than the curfew/weed stuff that seems to be debunked, they include:

A) He benched Malcolm to “satisfy his own ego”
B) He benched Malcolm due to a misguided belief the team was better without him.
C) He sat him because Malcolm yelled at him.
D) He refused to put Malcolm in because he thought his scheme would win the day and things would get better in the second half.

Am I missing anything?

About the only thing that has any resonance at all is B) with the Collins trade last year. So yeah, the “addition by subtraction” approach has been tried exactly one time during the Belichick era – and it was done on a bye week in the middle of the year.

Put another way, none of these things sound like Belichick to me. And other than anger and frustration that the Patriots lost a close (and winnable) Super Bowl, I’m not sure why so many people’s first reaction is to point the finger at the best coach in the history of pro sports.

I’m no more sure than anyone else why Butler didn’t see the field on Sunday. It’s a mystery to me and huge bummer that he wasn’t able to contribute. But the only reason I can imagine so many posters are blaming Belichick is that pointing to a lack of talent on the field and a poor in-game strategy makes it somehow easier to explain a loss of this magnitude.

Except it doesn’t really. The stuff people are arguing into the ground about Belichick stubbornly “playing a losing hand,” trusting scheme over talent and steadfastly refusing to put the best team on the field simply has no basis in how the guy has run his team for nearly twenty years.


Edit: I didn’t see that USA Today piece until I finished posting. And I have to say...it’s as good a theory as any that’s been posted in this thread: they wanted Foles to throw to get the ball in Brady’s hands more – and replacing Butler with Rowe and a more safety heavy package encouraged that (and discouraged the run).

The problem was: Foles was completing those passes (and the runs were almost as effective). It also helps explain why Belichick didn’t put Butler back in “when he realized he was wrong”: because Butler wasn’t going to be stopping these completions to bigger guys either.

Now if you want to argue that Belichick should’ve spent more time trying to figure out how to pressure Foles than baiting him into throwing the ball, fine. But if nothing else, that article makes me feel like Malcolm Butler wasn’t saving the day this time. It was a bad matchup for the D, plain and simple.
 
Last edited:

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,032
I wonder if there's some sort of psychological phenomenon that makes people want to live in alternate realities like this thread. There's no saying Butler would've played any better, especially if he was still sick. We had dozens of opportunities to win the game. We couldn't stop the run. We couldn't get off on 3rd down. We couldn't block the pass rush on the second to last drive. We couldn't execute on special teams. We lost.
Seriously?

You mean, like, reality itself?


Alcibiades, favored son of Athens before becoming an enemy of the (city)state? [/nothing new under the sun dept.]
Wrongfully accused.,,

F0EDCC3F-B43B-4078-94A9-EB5144E4D600.jpeg


Just like no one second guessed him for not calling a time out towards the end of the Seattle Super Bowl to save clock, but instead choosing to let the thing play out and the result was a game clinching interception.

You're a genius when these things work out.........................
It must suck to have your abilities and intelligence evaluated on small sample probabilistic events.


Nobody knows anything.
Shaddup, Socrates.
 

Jettisoned

Member
SoSH Member
May 6, 2008
1,059
I have to say: I’m amazed at the number of people taking shots at Belichick. I’m not saying the guy is infallible or anything or that a guy can’t lose it when he gets older. But the theories and themes being presented here are amazing. Other than the curfew/weed stuff that seems to be debunked, they include:

A) He benched Malcolm to “satisfy his own ego”
B) He benched Malcolm due to a misguided belief the team was better without him.
C) He sat him because Malcolm yelled at him.
D) He refused to put Malcolm in because he thought his scheme would win the day and things would get better in the second half.

Am I missing anything?

About the only thing that has any resonance at all is B) with the Collins trade last year. So yeah, the “addition by subtraction” approach has been tried exactly one time during the Belichick era – and it was
Another possibility which hasn't gotten a lot of traction is that Butler was weakened by a serious flu and had a very bad week of practice. That coupled with the matchup thing sounds pretty reasonable to me.

It's also a bit frustrating that people think the loss implies that the Butler decision was wrong.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
KC, Carolina, Houston (Watson was still playing), New Orleans, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, San Diego...
I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.

The Pats defense struggled against some of those same teams, fwiw.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,032
I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.

The Pats defense struggled against some of those same teams, fwiw.
Word. The Iggles were 10-1 with high end QB play, right? Before Wentz went down?

Well, in the playoffs, they had high end QB play again. I mean, I can’t have been the only one who watched that first long completion which was perfectly thrown and thought, “Nuts—This guy showed up.”
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,476
Melrose, MA
Giardi’s general characterizations do not trump Malcolm’s specific denials. Because if he was generally difficult to manage all season — you do not wait until the Super Bowl to bench him — THE most important game after which he is gone anyway.
That's exactly right. At some point, if Butler really did merit being benched and not given a second look while the defense turned in the Patriots worst big-game defensive performance since Superbowl 20, that's an indictment of Belichick's decision to give him virtually every snap for 18 games.
QUOTE="Smiling Joe Hesketh, post: 2664839, member: 269"]In two days the takes are going to be "The would have won with Butler playing," which frankly given the way the game we saw played out is not a thing I can say with any sort of confidence.[/QUOTE]I'm truly surprised by these kinds of takes. Beyond surprised. This wasn't a "Chiefs game" blowout. The Pats' offense put 33 points on the board while the defense was an absolute disaster, managing only 2 stops all game, one of which was part fluke (the Harmon pick). The margin here was thin enough that a single 3rd down stop or turnover could have been the difference.
He practiced aside Gilmore all week. That nobody said “Oh, hey, these packages we’re practicing a few days before the Super Bowl? Yeah, these are the ones we plan to use in the game.” doesn’t exactly scream “Oh my God it was a bombshell decision!”
Butler not starting wasn't a bombshell decision by any means. A game plan that didn't involve Butler seeing the field, regardless of how badly the defense actually performed, was absolutely a bombshell.
That was consistent with what two of the team's captains said after the game, that they knew Butler wasn't going to be a significant part of the game plan.

Why that was the case remains unknown, although one person who was at each of the team's practices leading up to the Super Bowl relayed that Butler struggled with what the Patriots were asking him to do against the Eagles' complex scheme. Couple those struggles with a regular season that Butler admitted wasn't his best, and it might have been part of coach Bill Belichick's decision-making process.
Again, this explains why he didn't start. It doesn't explain the failure to adjust.
I think the basic notion that in most people their best/greatest quality often has a way of turning into their biggest flaw -- er Achilles Heel, if we're sticking to the metaphor - is simply,...true. BB is an arrogant asshole and most often his singular focus is a great thing. In cases like this or benching Welker for the start of the Jets' playoff game it can be a negative. Obviously you take the whole package...but this game did expose a huge flaw.

Not a significant part of the game plan is wholly different than going from 98% of snaps to 0% except one FU play. The constant yammering about the complexity of the Pats scheme as a catch-all explanation for everything is just lame when it comes to a guy like MB who has always done all that was asked of him -- even as a rookie -- and given the overall failures of the Pats D and their DBs in this game. I hate the speculation game and who the F knows the inside dope, but the idea that this was simply a football decision fails the Occam's Razor test.
I think this really is what it all boils down to. If it really was all-football, I think BB saw an opportunity to gain an advantage that turned out to be ill-conceived. Ill-conceived because it involved shifting too many of the guys who did play guys out of their typical roles (eg, Chung, McCourty), relying too heavily on lesser players (eg, Richards, Bademosi), and ignoring fundamentals (tackling) and continuity (the Pats' defense had essentially zero experience playing without Butler on the field). Then stubborn refusal to adjust after he saw how badly his approach was failing.

The one thought I keep coming back to is... did BB expect his defense to be completely overmatched and unable to get off the field? If he did, that might explain why he was willing to change things up so radically, although it still doesn't explain why he chose to ride out his flawed scheme for the full 60.
Death, do you really think the guy playing third corner was the difference last night? I wish that were our only problem, but the pass rush, run defense and linebackers in coverage were almost uniformly a disaster on a play to play basis.

That's NOT a defense of Bill, mind you, as he ultimately picks the groceries and decides how to cook them, Sunday night being attributable to deficiencies in both areas. It's definitely viable to argue that reinserting Butler would've helped as a desperation move, but you're overrating the importance of Butler to this defense.

I also think you're greatly underrating how good the Eagles offense has looked, they were 2 weeks fresh off dismantling the best defense in football. They have a legitimately good offensive line, Ertz is a matchup nightmare, and Jeffery is not "washed up".
I think you underrate how narrow the margin was in this game (one more play from a defense that made precious few of them might have been the difference; 3 or 4 would absolutely have been), and that the defense was so bad that there wasn't much room for a different approach to have been worse (only 2 stops all game long, one of which was part fluke, part spectacular individual effort by Harmon).
The only thing I know is that Malcom Butler played 98% of the snaps this year, and the defense never looked like it did on Sunday night. He played 0 snaps on Sunday night. You tell me, what was so different about the Eagles offense or the Patriots defense that resulted in 500+ yards and 41 points against a team that was giving up an average of about 16 points a game over the previous 13 weeks?
I think that you've answered this question - the difference was a whole bunch of other roles in the defense had to change to accomodate Butler not being in the game. Chung on Ahgolor instead of Ertz, key coverage snaps for Richards and Bademosi, etc.
 

RoyHobbs

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 13, 2005
1,800
Pg. 35 of "Win it For"
The USAToday piece provides for me the most cogent explanation. It was the “Buffalo game plan” redux, only this time it didn’t work and instead of being put on display in Canton it’s the center of a firestorm.

VanEveryman’s point about MB being too undersized to stop the bleeding makes sense too.

I guess the one problem with the game plan theory is, why would MB be crying if the team had been scheming that way all week in practice and meetings.
 

j44thor

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
10,961
I don't know if this was posted already but here's an interesting football take on what Bill might have been thinking -

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/02/nfl-super-bowl-lii-patriots-eagles-macolm-butler-beching-bill-belichick-explanation

I'll let you guys who are better at the X's and O's dissect it.
Interesting article except for the fact that one of the primary premises is that it made sense to use Bademosi over Butler as the 3rd CB since he had more practice time there. Only problem is Rowe was never an outside corner until he started the SB this year. Also I hate articles that cherry pick plays to prove their narrative. Sure Butler got washed out on a running play. I'm also sure you can find a clip of every Pats defender getting washed out on a running play this year given they were generally poor against the run.

The idea of a 6'1 205 guy being stronger against the run than someone 5'10 190 also doesn't make sense. Someone that tall and lean is going to have a higher center of gravity which may make him much worse defending the run. Many of the hardest hitting safties have been smaller guys. Rodney Harrison is not tall, Bob Sanders was barely over 5'8".
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
24,652
where I was last at
"Ahh, but Butler that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that Rowe at corner and Chung in the slot worked and I'd have produced that win if...

combat fatigue

It wasn't BB's best game or game plan nor the secondary's.
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,832
I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats. And they had one of the league's best running games. Pittsburgh's offense may have more star power, but the Eagles were more balanced, and have a superior OL to the Steelers. Carolina does not belong anywhere on that list, btw. I'd say the Eagles were at least the equal to the Falcons and Chiefs this season.

The Pats defense struggled against some of those same teams, fwiw.
PHI finished the regular season #8 in offensive DVOA behind LA, NO and PIT and just ahead of ATL (no idea where HOU was when Deshaun Watson was playing). Of course, before the game one would have said that relatively vanilla drop-back passing offenses like NO, LA and ATL are a far better matchup than either mobile QB-based offenses or misdirection-based offenses, so PHI might well have been a top-5 offense against NE.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
PHI finished the regular season #8 in offensive DVOA behind LA, NO and PIT and just ahead of ATL (no idea where HOU was when Deshaun Watson was playing). Of course, before the game one would have said that relatively vanilla drop-back passing offenses like NO, LA and ATL are a far better matchup than either mobile QB-based offenses or misdirection-based offenses, so PHI might well have been a top-5 offense against NE.
In terms of DVOA, the Eagles were pretty bunched up in the 5-9 group with the Vikings and both LA teams just above them, and the Falcons below them. I don't agree with the DVOA ranking of the Eagles running game, however, which just highlights the problem of using a proprietary formula. Carolina, btw, was 17th.

The 3 teams above that group (outside the Pats) included the Saints, Steelers, and Chiefs, all of whom achieved >400 yards against the Pats defense.

For the record, I'm certainly not pumping the tires on the Pats defense. It wasn't a good unit in 2017. Just saying that I think the Eagles are better offensively than we're giving them credit for. And they were definitely a worse matchup for the Pats than any other team in that 5-9 bunch mentioned above.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
See, we had 17 games this year where Butler played, and aside from the very first one, we didn't see the defense look anywhere close to this bad for 60 minutes. Maybe they were bad for a drive or two in the 1st half of some games, but nothing like this, and the only real difference between the team that played on Sunday night and the team that played the other 17 games was Butler not playing, so Occam's Razor.
Aside from the very first one ... which is a team that runs the same scheme as the Eagles and where Pederson used to coach. And a team that hung 40 on the Pats a couple years ago. Occam's Razor to me is that Andy Reid (and tree) OWNS Bill Belichick's defense.

Nick fucking Foles, a good tight end, 2 washed up receivers and a never has been, a couple of running backs that we usually swallow whole, and a third down rookie back that did next to nothing all year, absolutely shredded the Pats defense for 60 minutes.
I kind of agree with you on the Eagles O. Good skill players, not great. Foles is a great backup, suspect as a starter. Really good OL, albeit missing its left tackle. This is a good offense; it's not a unit that should be dropping 40 on anybody. But I would have said the same thing about both Chiefs teams that torched the Pats in similar fashion. That's why I keep going back to Reid / Pederson having Belichick's number.

Again, two defenders right there - the throw is absolutely perfect. Now the refs got this one wrong - it should have been an incomplete - but still...absolutely perfect throw and a very nice catch.
McCourty is not in position to do anything on this play. He was bracketing Ertz and reacted to the ball in the air; his presence is 100% irrelevant unless the throw is terrible. It's a really good throw to Clement. It's also a play where the LB has to run with his back to the ball and the FS (Harmon) is nowhere in sight.

They ran that wheel on third down twice (beating Richards with it on another play). They knew the Pats defenders would bite on the flat route in that situation and get toasted downfield. It was shooting fish in a barrel.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
The Pats had the ball with more than 2 minutes left, down 5.

At that point, I would have bet the deed to my house that Brady was going to take them down and win the game, and I would guess many of you felt similarly.

Funny how one blown-up pass attempt turned Belichick from the greatest coach of all time into "well, I'm not saying fire him, but..."

I mean, we can acknowledge that this thread is not active today if the Pats won, right?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
McCourty is not in position to do anything on this play. He was bracketing Ertz and reacted to the ball in the air; his presence is 100% irrelevant unless the throw is terrible. It's a really good throw to Clement. It's also a play where the LB has to run with his back to the ball and the FS (Harmon) is nowhere in sight.
McCourty is close enough that the pass can't be underthrown at all or it's picked (or tipped anyway). Flowers has terrific coverage, back turned or not, and Foles drops the ball PERFECTLY in the right spot.

Let's not forget that it wasn't actually a legal catch, because that fact doesn't change the skill employed by Foles on that play.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,733
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The Pats had the ball with more than 2 minutes left, down 5.

At that point, I would have bet the deed to my house that Brady was going to take them down and win the game, and I would guess many of you felt similarly.

Funny how one blown-up pass attempt turned Belichick from the greatest coach of all time into "well, I'm not saying fire him, but..."

I mean, we can acknowledge that this thread is not active today if the Pats won, right?
Well of course. I'm already seeing hot takez out there saying that BB's not that good of a coach, he's lost to the the NYG twice and didn't dress Butler! It's all Brady, lol!

This is being judged purely on results, and hell, we all do it. We're about 20 total points from having the Pats be either 8-0 or 0-8 in Super Bowls in the BB era.
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,099
Well of course. I'm already seeing hot takez out there saying that BB's not that good of a coach, he's lost to the the NYG twice and didn't dress Butler! It's all Brady, lol!

This is being judged purely on results, and hell, we all do it. We're about 20 total points from having the Pats be either 8-0 or 0-8 in Super Bowls in the BB era.
If you're going to judge purely on results, then the only result that matters at all is 5-3, which still puts BB in the 99.9th percentile of NFL coaches. If you want to take it further, contrary to what the idiots on talk radio will tell you, none of the games were against tomato cans; all the opponents beat some quality teams themselves to get there.

EDIT: To clarify, that doesn't mean we can't criticize individual decisions the coach makes.
 

Dick Drago

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2002
1,311
Also thought they missed Butler's enthusiasm and feisty attitude, in addition to his tackling ability. There's no way to quantify it, but he SEEMS to get everyone a bit more fired up.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
McCourty is close enough that the pass can't be underthrown at all or it's picked (or tipped anyway). Flowers has terrific coverage, back turned or not, and Foles drops the ball PERFECTLY in the right spot.

Let's not forget that it wasn't actually a legal catch, because that fact doesn't change the skill employed by Foles on that play.
No, McCourty is not that close. It would have to be badly underthrown or thrown much too far inside for him to be a factor. And Flowers is shaded to the outside which gives Foles a sizeable window to the inside. It's a great throw because Foles starts his progression to the right, so by the time he comes to the wheel he has to fit it in before the backline of the end zone, but it is also bad defense by the Patriots. It is fair to argue that it is better than the defense they played most of the night, however.
 

pappymojo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2010
6,667
Here's my take:

The guy got sick. It's unfortunate but, really, no ones fault.

Faced with a sick player who had a poor showing in practice, the coach made his decision. Whether his decision was correct or not, Belichick was doing his best to manage a tricky situation. The defense played poorly, but the game itself was right down to the wire and the coach put this team in a position to be able to win this game. It just didn't go our way.

I can't get too worked up finger pointing after the fact. From the coaches to the players, I'm proud to be a fan of this team despite feeling disappointment with the final outcome of the final game.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
The Pats had the ball with more than 2 minutes left, down 5.

At that point, I would have bet the deed to my house that Brady was going to take them down and win the game, and I would guess many of you felt similarly.

Funny how one blown-up pass attempt turned Belichick from the greatest coach of all time into "well, I'm not saying fire him, but..."

I mean, we can acknowledge that this thread is not active today if the Pats won, right?
I will acknowledge that.

It is unfair to say that the criticisms are based solely on results and 20/20 hindsight. The game thread puts the lie to that. Bambino’s posting alone puts the lie to that.

Also, I am not posting any deed to any house on the results of a final drive. Go back to the game thread. Three or four posts before the strip fumble, I posted — be sure to take care of the football.

Shit happens. If somebody said Shaq was going to mess up once, resulting in a turnover, and that the o-line would bring it’s A game, I’d have taken it going in.

Again, that’s the problem with the defense sucking this badly. There is no margin for error. That’s one hell of a hole to put yourself into.

One way or another, B.B. owns the defensive deficiencies. The downside of obsessing about the Butler decision is obscuring the larger problem, as explained in the roster thread yesterday.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
No, McCourty is not that close. It would have to be badly underthrown or thrown much too far inside for him to be a factor. And Flowers is shaded to the outside which gives Foles a sizeable window to the inside. It's a great throw because Foles starts his progression to the right, so by the time he comes to the wheel he has to fit it in before the backline of the end zone, but it is also bad defense by the Patriots. It is fair to argue that it is better than the defense they played most of the night, however.
The ball would only have had to be under thrown by a yard and McCourty could make a play on it. I'm re-watching the pass in slow motion right this moment. When Clement is one yard deep into the end zone, McCourty is at the goal line. One yard on a throw that travels about 39 yards (Foles is standing on the 32 when he releases, and Clement's initial touch is about 7 yards into the end zone with the receiver running full speed is a really accurate throw. That's not much margin for error.

I thought the D on that play was pretty solid and it took basically a perfect throw - yes, considering the back of the end zone as well - to make the touchdown (which actually wasn't, but whatever).
 

JokersWildJIMED

Blinded by Borges
SoSH Member
Oct 7, 2004
2,742
BB went with a defensive game plan that did not work and he did not adjust. The D couldn't come up with the one or two key stops, and even when they did, Philly countered with fourth down conversions that killed them. The Pats D was actually pretty good on second down, forcing Philly into lots of 3rd downs, which in the end killed them in time of possession. Seems like the plan was expecting a Foles mistake, but without consistent pressure Foles tore them apart on 3rd down. The coverage sacks that were there all year evaporated without Butler.
Even with all of the defensive woes, all of the special team mistakes, all of the poor coaching decisions, one of the key (if not the key) plays of the games was Cooks going Edwin Moses inside the 10. A player of his ability has to know better in that situation.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The ball would only have had to be under thrown by a yard and McCourty could make a play on it. I'm re-watching the pass in slow motion right this moment. When Clement is one yard deep into the end zone, McCourty is at the goal line. One yard on a throw that travels about 39 yards (Foles is standing on the 32 when he releases, and Clement's initial touch is about 7 yards into the end zone with the receiver running full speed is a really accurate throw. That's not much margin for error.
I have it at closer to 2 yards behind and another 2-3 yards to the inside.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
I think you're underselling the Eagles offense. They were 3rd in the NFL in points scored, only 1 point behind the Pats.
Right, an offense led most of the way by an MVP candidate, not the guy who shredded the Patriots on Sunday.

Don't get me wrong, Foles is in the NFL for a reason, he's one of the 64 best QB's or else he'd be doing something else.

The part about this that is killing me is in a league where there are not 32 quality starters, with two weeks to prepare, the end result is this defense got torched by a back up QB.

Maybe he's a star in waiting; if he gets traded and goes somewhere else and has a stellar career, then fine.

My guess is the Iggles caught lighting in a bottle for two weeks; it's pro sports and it happens all the time, but it doesn't make this loss any easier to accept.

The part that is really eating at me is there are no guarantees in life, who knows if the Patriots will ever get back to another Super Bowl, just ask Dan Marino.

This was one that they let get away, it was right there for the taking.

A real shame.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Foles transition to starter is yet another testament to Pederson being the real deal.

And to think Eagles’ fans were lukewarm because he doesn’t carry himself like Buddy Ryan, and that early this season word was that Schwartz was laying the groundwork for a coup.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
I will acknowledge that.

It is unfair to say that the criticisms are based solely on results and 20/20 hindsight. The game thread puts the lie to that. Bambino’s posting alone puts the lie to that.

Also, I am not posting any deed to any house on the results of a final drive. Go back to the game thread. Three or four posts before the strip fumble, I posted — be sure to take care of the football.

Shit happens. If somebody said Shaq was going to mess up once, resulting in a turnover, and that the o-line would bring it’s A game, I’d have taken it going in.

Again, that’s the problem with the defense sucking this badly. There is no margin for error. That’s one hell of a hole to put yourself into.

One way or another, B.B. owns the defensive deficiencies. The downside of obsessing about the Butler decision is obscuring the larger problem, as explained in the roster thread yesterday.
Belichick owns the fact that this team is 12-4 or better EVERY YEAR and in a position every year to contend for a Super Bowl. For two decades.

I get that people are disappointed about the results on Sunday, but come on. This guy is a certifiable football genius. He literally knows more about football than every other human being on the planet.

Reading this thread, you come to the conclusion that there are actually Patriot fans who think that they noticed that the Pats defense was getting torched, and Bill Belichick didn't, and that's why he didn't just put Malcolm Butler in the game and win.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Belichick owns the fact that this team is 12-4 or better EVERY YEAR and in a position every year to contend for a Super Bowl. For two decades.

I get that people are disappointed about the results, but come on. This guy is a certifiable football genius. He literally knows more about football than every other human being on the planet.

Reading this thread, you come to the conclusion that there are actually Patriot fans who think that they noticed that the Pats defense was getting torched, and Bill Belichick didn't, and that's why he didn't just put Malcolm Butler in the game and win.
Nobody is disputing the overall record or calling for his dismissal.

If we’re in a world where the overall record trumps everything always, provides an excuse for muting any criticism, then what’s the point of any of this? Lock the 2017 Defense thread, the 2018 Defense thread and heavily censor the Roster and Goat threads — for starters.
 
Last edited:

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
By rule, it’s not a penalty. But it absolutely should be.

The NFL will have taken a huge step forward if they adopt the targeting rule used in college football.
Correct; I think it was mentioned in the broadcast that he was considered a runner at the time of the hit, not a defenseless receiver, so no call.

Doesn't make it ok, but that's the rule and agreed, they need to fix that so that anytime, anyplace on the field there is helmet to helmet, it's a penalty regardless.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Correct; I think it was mentioned in the broadcast that he was considered a runner at the time of the hit, not a defenseless receiver, so no call.

Doesn't make it ok, but that's the rule and agreed, they need to fix that so that anytime, anyplace on the field there is helmet to helmet, it's a penalty regardless.
Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.
 

54thMA

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2012
10,154
Westwood MA
Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.
I remember it, but I don't think Edelman does.
 

Harry Hooper

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
34,368
Here's my take:

The guy got sick. It's unfortunate but, really, no ones fault.

Faced with a sick player who had a poor showing in practice, the coach made his decision. Whether his decision was correct or not, Belichick was doing his best to manage a tricky situation.
Butler being sick is one possible explanation for him playing at all on special teams. If they thought Malcolm would be totally winded after 3 or 4 plays in one series, then they could steer away from him for defensive snaps but have him go out there for a special teams play every once in a while.
 

Hector Salamanca

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
358
Remember when Edelman made that catch over the middle in SB 49 and Chancellor nearly knocked him out with a H2H hit (Jules got up and kept running though!)? Not only was Edelman not a runner at that point, there was no flag thrown at all.
I still think the late hit on Vereen was a makeup call for that. He was out of bounds but that isn't called 100% of the time (aka not THAT out of bounds).
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,630
Springfield, VA
Here's my take:

The guy got sick. It's unfortunate but, really, no ones fault.

Faced with a sick player who had a poor showing in practice, the coach made his decision. Whether his decision was correct or not, Belichick was doing his best to manage a tricky situation. The defense played poorly, but the game itself was right down to the wire and the coach put this team in a position to be able to win this game. It just didn't go our way.
On top of that, it's starting to sounds like BB's game plan put Butler in a different position that he usually played, and Butler couldn't adjust to it -- possibly because of the illness, possibly other reasons.

I was all-in on the illness angle a few days ago, but it sounds like that was less of an issue on Sunday than the likelihood that he had bad practices (which could have been illness or could have been other reasons) and couldn't adjust to what BB had in mind. So a defensible decision, though not necessary a correct one.

That said -- and I think you're getting at this as well -- but a lot of the criticisms here (and elsewhere) are based in hindsight, as in "Bademosi/Richards sucked, so it was a wrong decision." Well yeah, but hindsight is always 20-20, and bad results don't automatically mean the that decision was wrong based on what BB knew at the time. That's how you measure how good a coach is. If the decision gives good results 90% of the time, but you end up falling into the 10% outcome, it's still a good decision at the time.

For any decision like this, there are six possibilities:
1) It was a good decision, and it led to a good result
2) It was a bad decision, but fortunately it worked out.
3) It was a good decision, but it didn't matter
4) It was a bad decision, but it didn't matter
5) It was a good decision, but unfortunately it didn't work out.
6) It was a bad decision, and that led to a bad result.

The only possibilities we can rule out are the first two.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
Nobody is disputing the overall record or calling for his dismissal.

If we’re in a world where the overall record trumps everything always, provides an excuse for muting any criticism, then what’s the point of any of this? Lock the 2017 Defense thread, the 2018 Defense thread and heavily censor the Roster and Goat threads — for starters.
Belichick told us why Butler wasn't in.

If you don't accept that, then you either think that you know better that the greatest football genius that we have ever seen, or you think that he cares so little about winning the Super Bowl that he would prefer to assert his big swinging dick and bench the better player.

This isn't questioning 4th and 2. This decision was not made without deliberation. The whole thread is an examination of BFBs overall judgement, which frankly should be beyond reproach.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,630
Springfield, VA
The whole thread is an examination of BFBs overall judgement, which frankly should be beyond reproach.
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bill may be in the 99.9th percentile in terms of coaches but that doesn't mean he's perfect. It's worth discussing if he actually did make a mistake (and what we learn from it), or if he made a reasonable decision that just didn't work out, or what.

And remember at least half this thread is "Does anyone have any more information to help us understand and process what happened?", which is never a waste.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,630
Springfield, VA
And possibility 2 was almost reality

Or I guess that is what 4 would be
I don't see an argument that the decision worked out. Maybe if Bademosi makes that tackle (but the Eagles convert on the next play or whatever) then I could be more comfortable saying #2. Otherwise either the decision failed or it didn't matter.
 

Jimbodandy

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
11,405
around the way
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Bill may be in the 99.9th percentile in terms of coaches but that doesn't mean he's perfect. It's worth discussing if he actually did make a mistake (and what we learn from it), or if he made a reasonable decision that just didn't work out, or what.

And remember at least half this thread is "Does anyone have any more information to help us understand and process what happened?", which is never a waste.
Mistakes, certainly. In game tactical decisions like timeouts, kick vs. go for it, challenging a call.

Also priority--screw the 2020 salary cap for a better chance now? I can see questioning such things. I have been concerned about our LB depth for two years now.

Benching Butler was not done cavalierly. Bill decided that shit and knew that people will notice. Doubt something like this, and you doubt the man completely. IMO
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Belichick told us why Butler wasn't in.

If you don't accept that, then you either think that you know better that the greatest football genius that we have ever seen, or you think that he cares so little about winning the Super Bowl that he would prefer to assert his big swinging dick and bench the better player.

This isn't questioning 4th and 2. This decision was not made without deliberation. The whole thread is an examination of BFBs overall judgement, which frankly should be beyond reproach.


So you agree -- threads questioning any considered judgment call by BB should be locked, or at least edited.

I'm happy we have agreement on the mindset. I didn't think it would be established so easily.