SBLII: What Did the Butler Do?

[Eddie Jurak]

IMO, that's the time you, as the head coach, pull people aside, let cooler heads prevail, and then sit the player down and tell him you need him, it's the biggest game of his life, and while he may not be starting, he's going to matter...You don't just fucking bench him, and then let the rest of your defense, and by extension, everyone in the organization that worked their asses off all year, suffer because of an emotional blow up. Just no. They're adults, they're not children. And when you add in the fact that the guy is gone after the game, what are you hoping to gain by disciplining him to that extent? I don't know. I just don't get it, unless it was a really, really, really bad confrontation with broken teeth, blood and foreign objects.

Your posts in this thread have all been great, including this one. If the blowup happened as rumored, it came, at least in part, from a place of wanting to compete. That should have factored into the decision making. A hefty fine would have been more appropriate discipline.

Another thing that hasn't been discussed so much in this thread is that the Pats defense was lacking in playmakers this year. But among the players they had, Butler was the leading one, with 2 interceptions and 3 forced fumbles (the Pats team as a whole only had 25 INT+FF). Also led the team with 12 passes defensed and chipped in a sack. And 4th on the team in solo tackles. Some of that is a function of playing time (Butler playing nearly every snap), but the comparison with McCourty who also played that much (1 INT, 0 FF) is notable.

In the end, to not even give him a limited opportunity was indefensible.

I think the coaching staff was done with Butler and had been for months, and that - along with a "straw that broke the camel's back" incident - led to some "motivated reasoning" around what the best defensive plan was and whether Butler should get a shot when the "best defensive plan" crapped the bed.

It is also worth noting that, for all his defensive and coaching genius, Belichick himself had one of hos career-worst coaching games. For those who subscribe to BSJ, cceck out Bedard's lastest column highlighting non-Butler problems.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Who designs third down defensive packages? I know Flores has the red zone.

 

[54thMA]

Who designs third down defensive packages? I know Flores has the red zone.

I hope and pray that person is now in Detroit.

They were abysmal on third down.

It was the main problem the first four games of the year, it seemed like they corrected it and then it came back with a vengeance in the biggest game of the year.

What a massive disappointment; almost a week later and I'm still fuming.

This loss is going to pass for me like a kidney stone.

I keep going back to there are no guarantees in life or in sports, so if this is the last kick at the SB can for Brady, it's infuriating that it went down like it did, he played his ass off and deserved a much better outcome. What a horrible defensive game plan, the second half seemed no better than the first, just a total no show.

It's mystifying.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'm telling you.... one of the biggest reasons for the offensive explosion is the fact that the refs called zero offensive holding calls all game long. There was only the one sack, and that came obviously in the last two minutes or so. And it was barely a sack. There were few hits on either QB. Both guys tended to have lots of time to throw.

Neither Philly nor NE were called for any offensive holding penalties all playoffs long. Now look at their passing stats. Crazy good for both Brady and Foles.

Brady of course is phenomenal but I'm sorry - as good as the Pats offense is, you'd never expect them to put up 505 yards passing and 613 total yards of offense against that defense unless the refs were....uh....letting the offensive line do some pretty serious mauling and grabbing.

So this isn't a "the refs screwed New England" type deal. It benefitted both offenses tremendously. Foles is fine, but with his already good OL able to do anything they wanted he had all day to sit back there and throw dimes.

Not many defenses are going to do much against quality NFL offenses when the O-lines are allowed to do whatever they want.

So sure some blame goes to the Pats defense of course. But a HUGE factor IMO is that the refs let both lines get away with murder. Both defenses had been playing well until the Super Bowl, and it's just not reasonable to think they both on their own completely went to hell. The way the game was officiated had a lot to do with it.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I would argue that no holding calls made the game better. The dramatic tension never ebbed out of the game. And both Brady and Foles got rid of the ball in a hurry.

The SB against Atlanta last year was an outlier in terms of calling penalties. That crew was known to call a tight game. Most of the time, in the Super Bowl, holding is rarely called.

 

[Al Zarilla]

I'm telling you.... one of the biggest reasons for the offensive explosion is the fact that the refs called zero offensive holding calls all game long. There was only the one sack, and that came obviously in the last two minutes or so. And it was barely a sack. There were few hits on either QB. Both guys tended to have lots of time to throw.

Neither Philly nor NE were called for any offensive holding penalties all playoffs long. Now look at their passing stats. Crazy good for both Brady and Foles.

Brady of course is phenomenal but I'm sorry - as good as the Pats offense is, you'd never expect them to put up 505 yards passing and 613 total yards of offense against that defense unless the refs were....uh....letting the offensive line do some pretty serious mauling and grabbing.

So this isn't a "the refs screwed New England" type deal. It benefitted both offenses tremendously. Foles is fine, but with his already good OL able to do anything they wanted he had all day to sit back there and throw dimes.

Not many defenses are going to do much against quality NFL offenses when the O-lines are allowed to do whatever they want.

So sure some blame goes to the Pats defense of course. But a HUGE factor IMO is that the refs let both lines get away with murder. Both defenses had been playing well until the Super Bowl, and it's just not reasonable to think they both on their own completely went to hell. The way the game was officiated had a lot to do with it.

When you watch a game on TV, you get to see the quarterback and whoever else is in the backfield as plays develop. It’s in the peripheral vision, if there is such a thing watching a game, that you see what the linemen and all the other players captured by the camera are doing. It seems to me that I saw Pats linemen getting held more blatantly, and more often. That could be partially, or a lot due to my devotion to one team and dislike for any other. I have a copy of the game on my DVR, if I can ever get myself to watch it.

I would argue that no holding calls made the game better. The dramatic tension never ebbed out of the game. And both Brady and Foles got rid of the ball in a hurry.

The SB against Atlanta last year was an outlier in terms of calling penalties. That crew was known to call a tight game. Most of the time, in the Super Bowl, holding is rarely called.

I don’t know about calling nothing as far as holding goes (you did say no holding calls). How about the strangle-hold on Chris Long last year. If that isn’t called (I know, that and about a hundred other plays had to go our way) and there is a good probability no SB 51 win for the Pats. Calling holding and all other infractions is part of the game and the game can’t be better if it’s thrown out because it’s the super bowl.

 

[Garshaparra]

I would argue that no holding calls made the game better. The dramatic tension never ebbed out of the game. And both Brady and Foles got rid of the ball in a hurry.

The SB against Atlanta last year was an outlier in terms of calling penalties. That crew was known to call a tight game. Most of the time, in the Super Bowl, holding is rarely called.

No offensive holding, and no illegal contact (once again). And the game was exciting, interesting and fun. The NFL (and XFL, for that matter) should take note. Allow offensive holding (holding a defender in place), penalize offensive tackling (hauling down a defender in motion) for 15 yards. Do away with illegal contact to give defenses a tit-for-tat. We'll see a faster paced game, with room for both run and pass offenses to flourish.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Calling penalties differently in the playoffs and SB than the regular season just.plain.sucks. Holding...Pass Interference...Legal Receptions...

Can you imagine if umpires called a different strike zone in the playoffs? Different boundary calls?

If the routine is acceptable in the post season, it should be accepted all season long. What's the point of refining play over 16 games if the field calls change from 17 on? If true, the practice needs to stop.

 

[j44thor]

Calling penalties differently in the playoffs and SB than the regular season just.plain.sucks. Holding...Pass Interference...Legal Receptions...

Can you imagine if umpires called a different strike zone in the playoffs? Different boundary calls?

If the routine is acceptable in the post season, it should be accepted all season long. What's the point of refining play over 16 games if the field calls change from 17 on? If true, the practice needs to stop.

NHL regularly calls games differently in the post-season.
Livan Hernandez certainly knows what a different strike zone looks like.

There should be a happy medium between what we saw in the SB and the flag fest that is the reg season.

 

[Reverend]

NHL regularly calls games differently in the post-season.
Livan Hernandez certainly knows what a different strike zone looks like.

There should be a happy medium between what we saw in the SB and the flag fest that is the reg season.

Serious question, as I number among the unrepentant unwashed who never got back into the Bruins after Jacobs turned me away:

How did they handle the problem of teams taking advantage of that, as with the neutral zone trap deployed by NJ?

 

[Salem's Lot]

Serious question, as I number among the unrepentant unwashed who never got back into the Bruins after Jacobs turned me away:

How did they handle the problem of teams taking advantage of that, as with the neutral zone trap deployed by NJ?

They call the grabbing and interference in the playoffs like they do in the regular season. They don't call as many ticky tack slashes (although that might change this year) and face washes after the whistle around the net.

 

[Reverend]

They call the grabbing and interference in the playoffs like they do in the regular season. They don't call as many ticky tack slashes (although that might change this year) and face washes after the whistle around the net.

So, did they just get better at achievekng the balance through practice? Because the hooking and grabbing was a huge problem and I remember everyone liked the swallowing the whistles... until the game ground to a halt.

So, just basic pragmatism?

 

[kelpapa]

I don't think I noticed Butler blowing this coverage in the AFC title game.

 

[Salem's Lot]

So, did they just get better at achievekng the balance through practice? Because the hooking and grabbing was a huge problem and I remember everyone liked the swallowing the whistles... until the game ground to a halt.

So, just basic pragmatism?

No, it took them calling everything the 2-3 years out of the lock out, and eventually the big slow veteran guys who made a living playing that way were getting phased out by the young fast kids.

 

[lexrageorge]

Re NHL: The removal of the two line offside pass also helped eliminate the trap.

The officiating in the Super Bowl was classic "let them play unless it's egregious". Kept the game flowing and they avoided the ticky tack calls.

 

[BaseballJones]

I would argue that no holding calls made the game better. The dramatic tension never ebbed out of the game. And both Brady and Foles got rid of the ball in a hurry.

The SB against Atlanta last year was an outlier in terms of calling penalties. That crew was known to call a tight game. Most of the time, in the Super Bowl, holding is rarely called.

Yeah I was fine with it. My point is simply that when we evaluate the defense (both of them really) this needs to be taken into consideration. It's hard to play defense when the offensive line can do whatever they want. Know what I mean?

 

[Deathofthebambino]

When you watch a game on TV, you get to see the quarterback and whoever else is in the backfield as plays develop. It’s in the peripheral vision, if there is such a thing watching a game, that you see what the linemen and all the other players captured by the camera are doing. It seems to me that I saw Pats linemen getting held more blatantly, and more often. That could be partially, or a lot due to my devotion to one team and dislike for any other. I have a copy of the game on my DVR, if I can ever get myself to watch it.

I don’t know about calling nothing as far as holding goes (you did say no holding calls). How about the strangle-hold on Chris Long last year. If that isn’t called (I know, that and about a hundred other plays had to go our way) and there is a good probability no SB 51 win for the Pats. Calling holding and all other infractions is part of the game and the game can’t be better if it’s thrown out because it’s the super bowl.

I made a post a number of weeks ago that in games where the refs put the flags away, it has an inordinate negative effect on the Pats. I don't know how anyone can argue that the Pats are not a disciplined team. It's who they are, and it's who they've always been. They have a coach who clearly has no problem yanking guys off the field for committing penalties. IMO, when refs stop calling things like offensive holding, it hurts the Pats more because the Pats by and large, don't commit offensive holding. Maybe I'm biased and I just don't see it, but maybe they are coached, and trained not to do so. And if that's the case, they aren't all of a sudden going to start holding guys because the refs aren't calling it.

Whereas teams that are less disciplined, and who normally commit holding and sometimes get called for it and sometimes don't get called for it, have an advantage when the flags stay in their pocket. There were at least 2 separate big plays early in the game where James Harrison clearly had the edge on the offensive lineman, and the only reason he didn't get to Foles was because the offensive lineman reached out and grabbed him. No call. Look at the TD to Jeffrey on the video above at the 4:00 mark, and tell me Harrison, and probably more egregiously, the defender to his inside aren't both grabbed just as they are turning the corner on the offensive linemen, and that's not even one of the plays I was thinking about. I thought the most egregious holding actually took place in the Eagles running game. The Pats just don't get gashed like that, especially by big running backs. It never happens, but the Eagles were able to do anything they wanted. One of two calls somewhere along the way probably has them thinking a little bit before they keep grabbing guys, but the calls never came, and I think in the end, it hurts the Pats in these types of games. It doesn't level the playing field when they don't call penalties either way, unless both teams are committing the same amount of penalties that aren't being called. I don't believe the Patriots normally commit a lot of penalties, whether they are called or not, so I think in most cases, this kind of officiating hurts them.

 

[BaseballJones]

To this holding point... In 2017, the Eagles were called for 26 offensive holding penalties during the regular season, 7th most in the league (two behind the league leaders, Dal and Oak). So their offensive line (and receivers blocking downfield) were one of the most egregious in the entire league in terms of holding. Those penalties accounted for the 5th most penalty yards from offensive holding (246).

In the regular season, Foles took over week 15, against the Giants. He played against NY, then against Oakland in week 16, and then played sparingly in week 17 as the Eagles let the third string QB play most of the game.

Against woeful New York, Foles had a huge game: 24-38, 237 yards, 4 td, 0 int. In that game, the Eagles were called for zero holding penalties.

Against Oakland, they weren't as fortunate. They were called for four offensive holding penalties, and the Oakland pass rush - with Philly unable to grab and maul freely - got to Foles. Foles' passing stats against Oakland: 19-38, 163 yards, 1 td, 1 int.

We won't bother with the final game as Foles only played in it partially (but his stats weren't good).

Then we come to the playoffs, and a team which had been flagged for close to 2 offensive holding penalties a game went three consecutive games without drawing a single OH penalty. In those three games, Foles put up these numbers:

23-30, 246 yards, 0 td, 0 int, 100.1 rating
26-33, 352 yards, 3 td, 0 int, 141.4 rating
28-43, 373 yards, 3 td, 1 int, 106.1 rating

Now this isn't an argument that Foles isn't a capable passer. He is. Recall his entire 2013 season where he was insanely good for Philly. This isn't to say that a lack of holding penalties can make a crappy quarterback be a great one. This IS to say that a lack of holding penalties - letting the linemen do whatever they want to neutralize a pass rush - can make a good quarterback a great one.

Nick Foles has proven to have the ability to be a quality passer in this league. He has ABILITY. And when the linemen are free to do whatever they want to keep Foles totally clean, if he's at the top of his game, he absolutely WILL pick you apart. And obviously, he did in the Super Bowl - and really, all playoffs long.

Brady also benefitted from this lack of holding calls. But the Patriots, to Deathofthebambino's point, only were called for 18 holding penalties all season. Much more disciplined.

When you give the GOAT time to throw, the result is 505 yards, 3 touchdowns, 0 interceptions against a great defense. When you give a good QB time to throw, the result is 376 yards, 3 touchdowns, and one unlucky interception against a mediocre defense not having its best day.

It makes for fun football, but we can pump the brakes a little on how "bad" the Patriots defense was, because while it certainly wasn't a game they want to repeat, it wasn't all on them.

 

[Super Nomario]

It makes for fun football, but we can pump the brakes a little on how "bad" the Patriots defense was, because while it certainly wasn't a game they want to repeat, it wasn't all on them.

The plural of anecdote is not data. You are going to need to do more research to make these kind of conclusions.

To this holding point... In 2017, the Eagles were called for 26 offensive holding penalties during the regular season, 7th most in the league (two behind the league leaders, Dal and Oak). So their offensive line (and receivers blocking downfield) were one of the most egregious in the entire league in terms of holding. Those penalties accounted for the 5th most penalty yards from offensive holding (246).

Brady also benefitted from this lack of holding calls. But the Patriots, to Deathofthebambino's point, only were called for 18 holding penalties all season. Much more disciplined.

The spread here is pretty small - between the Eagles being one of the "worst" teams at 26 and the Patriots being one of the best at 18. That sounds like noise to me. Certainly too to draw a lot of conclusions about who is coached to do what or who benefits more or less from strict or loose reffing.

 

[BaseballJones]

The plural of anecdote is not data. You are going to need to do more research to make these kind of conclusions.


The spread here is pretty small - between the Eagles being one of the "worst" teams at 26 and the Patriots being one of the best at 18. That sounds like noise to me. Certainly too to draw a lot of conclusions about who is coached to do what or who benefits more or less from strict or loose reffing.

I've argued all along that both offenses benefitted from no holding calls and I don't know how that's debatable. If you let the lines hold, the QBs will have more time to throw and they will be more accurate. There's a reason they don't allow holding.

Did it help Philly more? I don't know. It's hard to say in any given instance. The Pats tend to be called for holding less frequently but I agree - it's a small enough spread to maybe not mean much. Though it's possible in a game like that that just ONE holding call could have been a game changer. Witness Chris Long against Atlanta last year.

Edit: I thought I gave some data in my previous post.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

I'd be curious to know how many of those holding penalties were called on the offensive line on passing plays versus running plays, because, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember 18 holding penalties called against the Pats this year when Brady dropped back.

 

[BaseballJones]

I'd be curious to know how many of those holding penalties were called on the offensive line on passing plays versus running plays, because, and I could be wrong, but I don't remember 18 holding penalties called against the Pats this year when Brady dropped back.

One would have to go through the game logs to figure that out. I don't feel like doing it, but that's a good question. But of course, it still matters because holding on running plays kills drives too.

 

[Harry Hooper]

I'm telling you.... one of the biggest reasons for the offensive explosion is the fact that the refs called zero offensive holding calls all game long. There was only the one sack, and that came obviously in the last two minutes or so. And it was barely a sack. There were few hits on either QB. Both guys tended to have lots of time to throw.
...
So sure some blame goes to the Pats defense of course. But a HUGE factor IMO is that the refs let both lines get away with murder. Both defenses had been playing well until the Super Bowl, and it's just not reasonable to think they both on their own completely went to hell. The way the game was officiated had a lot to do with it.

IIRC, when the Patriots made their second trip to the Super Bowl (under Parcells), there were stories indicating the coaching staff had specifically prepped the players for limited whistles/more physical play than in the regular season. However, some players still expressed surprise at what was let go in the game. Kind of cuts against you point in one way, but also supports it in another way.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

I've argued all along that both offenses benefitted from no holding calls and I don't know how that's debatable. If you let the lines hold, the QBs will have more time to throw and they will be more accurate. There's a reason they don't allow holding.

Did it help Philly more? I don't know. It's hard to say in any given instance. The Pats tend to be called for holding less frequently but I agree - it's a small enough spread to maybe not mean much. Though it's possible in a game like that that just ONE holding call could have been a game changer. Witness Chris Long against Atlanta last year.

Edit: I thought I gave some data in my previous post.

This is from an ESPN tweet from before the playoffs - so it doesn't have data for Foles:

But I think its easy given that data to make the argument that Tom Brady is less effected by pressure than any other quarterback in the game - so when you remove pressure almost entirely from the game, the Patriots are going to see the least advantage.


Which is pretty much the problem with different rules in the playoffs - it rewards a completely different set of skills.

 

[BaseballJones]

This is from an ESPN tweet from before the playoffs - so it doesn't have data for Foles:

But I think its easy given that data to make the argument that Tom Brady is less effected by pressure than any other quarterback in the game - so when you remove pressure almost entirely from the game, the Patriots are going to see the least advantage.


Which is pretty much the problem with different rules in the playoffs - it rewards a completely different set of skills.

That's an interesting piece of data. I know that Brady excels basically in all circumstances, and I knew he's great against the blitz. But yes, if he is an A passer with pressure, or an A+ passer with no pressure, removing pressure isn't really going to help him all that much. But if you have a guy that's a D passer with pressure and an A passer with no pressure, removing pressure will help him a TON.

 

[Boston Brawler]

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2018/02/devin_mccourty_no_truth_to_malcolm_butler_reports.html#incart_river_mobile_index

McCourty says that players knew all week Butler wouldn't start, and that there is no truth to the disciplinary theories.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

http://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2018/02/devin_mccourty_no_truth_to_malcolm_butler_reports.html#incart_river_mobile_index

McCourty says that players knew all week Butler wouldn't start, and that there is no truth to the disciplinary theories.

Anybody know if there was more of the wrong coverage stuff in the AFC title game than is in the video posted by kelpapa? If that sort of shit was regularly occurring (and god, I hate TV coverage of football), then benching him makes sense without even the illness/discipline/etc.

 

[jsinger121]

Anybody know if there was more of the wrong coverage stuff in the AFC title game than is in the video posted by kelpapa? If that sort of shit was regularly occurring (and god, I hate TV coverage of football), then benching him makes sense without even the illness/discipline/etc.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

That looks like the same play (at least the photos). The article does mention a bunch of other plays where he just seemed to play really poorly though.


The author is funny - he argues that Butler as a whole played pretty well despite getting pancaked by WRs in the running game a couple of times, running himself out of a couple of plays, and playing man while everyone else was playing zone.

 

[bankshot1]

There's a big difference bewteen "didn't start" and "didn't play"

IMO assuming there was no major disciplinary issue, the refusal to adjust to a failing game plan, remains damning.

 

[genoasalami]

Maybe it's nothing more than BB thinking he is smarter than he is. There is no doubt he is a great coach, but there have been some head scratchers along the way. Look no further than some of his second round draft picks.

 

[brandonchristensen]

Yeah the word start sticks out for me.

 

[southshoresoxfan]

Maybe it was 107 passer rating against this season that led to his benching.

The CBS weren’t the issue. Jordan Richards and the LBs were the issue. That and no pressure. Butler was not good this season, I know that’s hard to comprehend.

 

[DJnVa]

That looks like the same play (at least the photos). The article does mention a bunch of other plays where he just seemed to play really poorly though.

Uh, it is the same play. That's the point. Showing how he followed the TE across, how this left acres of space, and where he was when pass was thrown.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Uh, it is the same play. That's the point. Showing how he followed the TE across, how this left acres of space, and where he was when pass was thrown.

I was asking if he'd done this multiple times - posting the same play doesn't really answer that question. If he did it a bunch of times, that's enough to decide he's not worth playing.

 

[DJnVa]

I was asking if he'd done this multiple times - posting the same play doesn't really answer that question. If he did it a bunch of times, that's enough to decide he's not worth playing.

Sure. That's why there's an article that he linked with more examples in the twitter post that has limits on the amount of information you can post.

 

[Hoodie Sleeves]

Which is basically what I said - what's the friggen issue?

 

[RedOctober3829]

Maybe it was 107 passer rating against this season that led to his benching.

The CBS weren’t the issue. Jordan Richards and the LBs were the issue. That and no pressure. Butler was not good this season, I know that’s hard to comprehend.

It's not hard to comprehend that Butler not being in there led to a trickle down effect of Chung covering the slot WR and Richards covering the TE. If Butler was in there, Chung would have been on Ertz a ton and Richards wouldn't have been out there at all. So yeah, Butler's absence had a big effect on the defense.

 

[Reverend]

Interesting piece.

If the issue was that he Didn't Do His Job at times, then the only reason he was even on the sideline was that Belichick couldn't trade him after the AFCCG.

On the other hand, some of the bad play examples are just getting beat/outrun, and Belichick has a rep for not getting on players for not being as fast and athletic as others as long as they do their job.

Now, the ones that suggest a lack of engagement or effort--those could go either way.

 

[DJnVa]

Which is basically what I said - what's the friggen issue?

No issue. It just seemed a really weird comment. Like you were pointing out something that was extremely obvious.

I was goofing on you. It’s all love brother.

 

[Leather]

Maybe it's nothing more than BB thinking he is smarter than he is. There is no doubt he is a great coach, but there have been some head scratchers along the way. Look no further than some of his second round draft picks.

This again.

Whenever B.B. makes a mistake, it’s due to hubris and ego. Not, like, simply overlooking something or guessing wrong.

 

[BaseballJones]

This again.

Whenever B.B. makes a mistake, it’s due to hubris and ego. Not, like, simply overlooking something or guessing wrong.

It really bothers me when people always attribute a BB mistake to "arrogance". As always, he did what he thought was best, even if we don't understand exactly what he was thinking. Nobody - not the best in any business - will get every decision right. It's not necessarily "arrogance" or "hubris" to make a call and be wrong.

 

[bankshot1]

I think the problem with saying that arrogance or ego or any other BB emotion wasn't involved in his personnel decision or the SB, was that this wasn't a single bad decision but rather was one that was repeated over and over again. If it was just one play, and the wrong coverage was called, ok thats a mistake, but when the personnel you put out for the first quarter and then the 2nd quarter, is not working or playing poorly, there is ample opportunity to adjust, or be reflective and say *(at least to yourself) "perhaps Butler can do a better job than (fill-in whoever)"

Lastly (sure-heh) was BB's decision so above reproach from Matty P, or was the SB personnel decisions (ie. Malcolm ain't playing) so set in stone that it was not subject to a rational discussion or in-game coaching staff in-put?

 

[lexrageorge]

This again.

Whenever B.B. makes a mistake, it’s due to hubris and ego. Not, like, simply overlooking something or guessing wrong.

It's still called "hubris and arrogance" when Bill makes the right decision, but the play doesn't work out for some reason. The Indy 4th-and-2 is the most classic example (math clearly says go for it).

The label is just a cop-out. I know you're not supposed to use this argument, but both Belichick and Patricia did have info that we did not have when making these decisions with Butler. Sometimes, when you see all the info that was available to the coaches, you can see how such mistakes can be made (I'm with those that think Butler should have been put in sometime 2nd quarter).

 

[Leather]

I think the problem with saying that arrogance or ego or any other BB emotion wasn't involved in his personnel decision or the SB, was that this wasn't a single bad decision but rather was one that was repeated over and over again. If it was just one play, and the wrong coverage was called, ok thats a mistake, but when the personnel you put out for the first quarter and then the 2nd quarter, is not working or playing poorly, there is ample opportunity to adjust, or be reflective and say *(at least to yourself) "perhaps Butler can do a better job than (fill-in whoever)"

Lastly (sure-heh) was BB's decision so above reproach from Matty P, or was the SB personnel decisions (ie. Malcolm ain't playing) so set in stone that it was not subject to a rational discussion or in-game coaching staff in-put?

But if he, and presumably the defensive staff, made the decision that Butler would be worse, why is there this presumption that sticking to that decision is "arrogance" vs just being (possibly) a bad decision?

There's this pervasive assumption made about BB that when he makes a decision that ends up being bad in hindsight, he made the decision despite being shown a clear and better alternative, but decided to stick with his own course of action out of spite. To me, that's what saying a decision is borne out of ego or arrogance means. There's never any evidence that's the case. But with BB, it always comes up. You never see Andy Reid or Mike Tomlin accused of arrogance or ego when they fuck up.

I believe there's still, and always will be, a sincere anti-intellectualism in pro sports generally, but in Football in particular, and people love to see the "Smartest Guy in the Room" get a come-uppance, so they jump on Belichick whenever he makes a mistake and claim that it was actually his intelligence that somehow worked to bring him down. "He thinks he's so smart! Well he was wrong!". This, of course, despite BB never saying or doing anything to suggest he honestly believes that he is, in fact, the "smartest guy in the room". It's the equivalent of shoving the class valedictorian into a locker.

 

[bankshot1]

But if he, and presumably the defensive staff, made the decision that Butler would be worse, why is there this presumption that sticking to that decision is "arrogance" vs just being (possibly) a bad decision?

I don't know if it was arrogance, ego, or any other emotion, and I said so in my post. Perhaps I should have used Einstein's (credited) famous line about about insanity, and doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,

Maybe "Malcolm ain't playing" was the optimal football decision. But I have my doubts.

Repeating the same elements of a strategy that was failing seemed a curious managerial choice.

But I've seen enough strange managerial decisons in my lifetime to understand sometimes, for all sorts of reasons, the boss fucked-up.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

But if he, and presumably the defensive staff, made the decision that Butler would be worse, why is there this presumption that sticking to that decision is "arrogance" vs just being (possibly) a bad decision?

There's this pervasive assumption made about BB that when he makes a decision that ends up being bad in hindsight, he made the decision despite being shown a clear and better alternative, but decided to stick with his own course of action out of spite. To me, that's what saying a decision is borne out of ego or arrogance means. There's never any evidence that's the case. But with BB, it always comes up. You never see Andy Reid or Mike Tomlin accused of arrogance or ego when they fuck up.

I believe there's still, and always will be, a sincere anti-intellectualism in pro sports generally, but in Football in particular, and people love to see the "Smartest Guy in the Room" get a come-uppance, so they jump on Belichick whenever he makes a mistake and claim that it was actually his intelligence that somehow worked to bring him down. "He thinks he's so smart! Well he was wrong!". This, of course, despite BB never saying or doing anything to suggest he honestly believes that he is, in fact, the "smartest guy in the room". It's the equivalent of shoving the class valedictorian into a locker.

The hubris or arrogance point usually comes up when he makes decisions that are very bold or unconventional. He makes more of those than most other coaches, except maybe for Jack Del Rio during a 5-game stretch two years ago. In the main, that's the coach you want -- the same guy that benched Butler is the guy who saw something and decided not to call a time out in 49 when every other coach would have.

I don't really care what anyone calls it. But when people use the labels "arrogant" or "hubris," I don't think the idea is that he was doing something out of spite. It's simply shorthand for what people say when he makes a very bold decision that, at least possibly, cost the team a big game when the more conventional what-all-the-other-coaches-do choice might have won it.

 

[dcmissle]

“Arrogance” is click bait, the go-to media term. It’s what happens when one is very smart, extraordinarily accomplished and does not cozy up to the media.

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.

When you’re getting stomped and it realistically can’t get worse, and you have somebody who played 98% of the team’s defensive snaps on the bench, you’d be nuts not to wonder. If people can’t question this decision — actually a series of the same decision played out over 3 hours and 10 Philly possessions — then people can’t reasonably question anything. We should all just ballwash or sit down and shut up.

 

[E5 Yaz]

I haven't revisited this issue for a while, but something I read made me wonder about all this.

It's in the JG thread on trade deadline day:

JasonLaCanfora
I also continue to hear the Pats still open to trading Malcolm Butler, who could be paired with that 2nd rnd pick for quality player

If that was true, then the dissatisfaction started long before Super Bowl week and while they could get through the regular season with Butler playing so much, something tipped the scales when there was just one game remaining.

Two other thoughts on hypotheticals:

- Jonathan Jones's injury might have hurt the defense more than we know.

- There's simply no way to ever determine how much of an impact Butler would have had. Just him being on the field on a regular basis could have led to Foles making different reads on so many passing plays that we don't know if those changes in game action would have helped the Patriots more, or whether it would have been a wash. The idea, though, that if Butler were in defensive position for Play X, it would have been better for the Patriots is nonsense -- because Play X might very well have become a different play ... with better, worse, or the same results.

 

[Harry Hooper]

All true, but given what transpired (no punts in the 2nd half) it's hard to imagine there's much room for worse results with Butler on the field. In BB we trust, but based on what's known to date, sticking with the "big secondary" gameplan remains questionable once it involved in the 2nd half playing a gimpy/stunned Chung and a flailing Richards. Rowe has played slot CB before, and could have done so again.

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.