BB to Butler: Get a Clue

[MentalDisabldLst]

I don't know how many Super Bowls BFB is going to have to win before people trust his methods, but apparently "four" is not the correct answer.

 
There's a spectrum of "trust", it's not binary.  And the "unquestioned obeisance with no critical thought" end of the spectrum is, I think, reserved for our own parents before we hit the age of 5 or so.
 
Trustworthy people can go overboard.  More likely, though, there are other factors at play here that we just don't know about. (edit: like the ones Otto contributed...)

 

[Jimbodandy]

 
There's a spectrum of "trust", it's not binary.  And the "unquestioned obeisance with no critical thought" end of the spectrum is, I think, reserved for our own parents before we hit the age of 5 or so.
 
Trustworthy people can go overboard.  More likely, though, there are other factors at play here that we just don't know about.

 
Understood.  Frankly if he took a dump at the 50 yard line in the first quarter of game 1, I'd assume that there was a reason for it.  But nobody is infallible.

 

[lostjumper]

 
Understood.  Frankly if he took a dump at the 50 yard line in the first quarter of game 1, I'd assume that there was a reason for it.  But nobody is infallible.

If its opening night with Goodell in the stadium I think we would all know the reason and approve.

 

[Shelterdog]

 
There's a spectrum of "trust", it's not binary.  And the "unquestioned obeisance with no critical thought" end of the spectrum is, I think, reserved for our own parents before we hit the age of 5 or so.
 
Trustworthy people can go overboard.  More likely, though, there are other factors at play here that we just don't know about.

 
Put me in camp unquestioned obeisance.  I religiously follow the team and I've come to firmly believe that I have nowhere near the information, technical knowledge, or vision of how to put together a football team to intelligently critique his decisions.  I think we're deluding ourselves if we think we can reasonably apply any meaningful amount of critical thought to his decisions. And I've also found that as we learn more information over time his earlier decisions that we questioned at the time make a lot more sense--e.g. Logan Mankins was great and a bunch of other teams (the 49ers, the Ravens) would have drafted him in the second, there was a deal of some sort in place with Cardona so you weren't just throwing away a pick on a guy going to the navy, Welker was on his last legs, there was ultimately enough talent on the o-line last year for it to coalesce without Mankins, etc.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe 11m11 minutes ago
Malcolm Butler said he has been practicing all week (Monday, Tuesday, today), so his official tally of missed practices was six.
 
 
 
6 missed practices? I'm now on the "no big deal" side of this argument.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

Jeff Howe ‏@jeffphowe [URL="https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/609054655990099968

https://twitter.com/jeffphowe/status/609054655990099968"]11m11

link to tweet minutes ago[/url]
Malcolm Butler said he has been practicing all week (Monday, Tuesday, today), so his official tally of missed practices was six.
 
 
 
6 missed practices? I'm now on the "no big deal" side of this argument.

He spent those missed days with the team doing film work and working out with the teams trainers. Butler, like every other player on the Patriots, was responsible to be at practice. He should have been aware of the forecast and made alternative plans to be where he needed to be when he needed to be there. This has always been a core part of The Patriot Way.

If Revis can be held out of practice during the season then Butler can be held out of a few in June.

 

[RG33]

This certainly sounds reasonable. That said, doesn't the Players Association need to fight this, not even for Butler, but to show leading up to the next CBA that voluntary might not really mean voluntary the way everyone thinks and use that to extract concessions at the table?

The voluntary part is that the players don't have to be there if they don't want to be. Does it say anything in the CBA about teams being forced to allow players that show up to participate? I'm not sure what the NFLPA would be arguing for here, as I don't think the Patriots are required to let anyone practice, regardless if they show up or not.

I am also amused by everyone in this thread that questioned Bill Belichick on anything. Really, I don't see how anyone can question this guy on anything. He's smarter and better than you. And me. At everything. Just kneel down, bow your head in awe, and never EVER question him. Seriously. He's playing chess with invisible pieces and is 3 games ahead of all of us.

 

[Leather]

Seriously. It's like openly questioning Stanley Kubrick's casting choices after "The Shining."

"I known Kubrick is great and all, but hear me out: I dunno about this D'onofrio guy. This next movie is supposed to be about the Marines or something and, well, nothing I've seen suggest he can do that kind of role justice. Even Kubrick can't just stick any old guy in any role! Always gotta be the smartest guy in the room!"

Just...stop sweating it and enjoy the process while it lasts.

 

[HomeRunBaker]

The voluntary part is that the players don't have to be there if they don't want to be. Does it say anything in the CBA about teams being forced to allow players that show up to participate? I'm not sure what the NFLPA would be arguing for here, as I don't think the Patriots are required to let anyone practice, regardless if they show up or not.

I am also amused by everyone in this thread that questioned Bill Belichick on anything. Really, I don't see how anyone can question this guy on anything. He's smarter and better than you. And me. At everything. Just kneel down, bow your head in awe, and never EVER question him. Seriously. He's playing chess with invisible pieces and is 3 games ahead of all of us.

Yeah as long as the Pats are paying him his per diem and allowed access to film work and the trainers which he did I'm not sure the PA has a leg to stand on here.

 

[Section15Box113]

Butlers are never late.

Butlers are tardy.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Seriously. It's like openly questioning Stanley Kubrick's casting choices after "The Shining."

"I known Kubrick is great and all, but hear me out: I dunno about this D'onofrio guy. This next movie is supposed to be about the Marines or something and, well, nothing I've seen suggest he can do that kind of role justice. Even Kubrick can't just stick any old guy in any role! Always gotta be the smartest guy in the room!"

Just...stop sweating it and enjoy the process while it lasts.

As someone wrote above, it doesn't have to be binary.
 
To me, some decisions are curious.  And given, for example, that some draft picks over the years were busts, BB is clearly not infallible.  There's no one I would rather have and I think we are incredibly fortunate to have him.  But he can err, as I know everyone knows. 
 
The spirit of the question is "I know I am probably missing something (for the reasons Shelterdog enumerated) but this LOOKS odd and perhaps questionable.  What am I missing?"  
 
The Vereen non-signing is an example.  I think Vereen was an important piece.  He was one of the several guys Brady frequently looked for.  Over 50 receptions in the regular season and that excellent performance in the biggest game of the year.  And Tom has always gone to a back in generally the same mold (Faulk and Woodhead).  Cadet seems like a different kind of player (more of a WR in a RB body) and who knows if he can block.  White didn't exactly stand out in admittedly very limited duty.  Gaffney is unknown.  Is there anyone else in the mix?
 
Now like all things BB, it's probably going to work out swimmingly.  But questioning while at the same time realizing that Bill knows more than us and is the best in the world at his job isn't exactly hand wringing.  It's thinking along with the HC/GM with a healthy amount of respect thrown in.
 
 

 

[Leather]

Right, but to paraphrase that Great American Donald Rumsfeld: there are known unknowns and unknown unknowns.  
 
So while I think it's sometimes fun to play around with the facts we do know (e.g. the thin DB roster) and give BB's decisions context, there's just too much shit we will simply not ever know, either because being the NFL is a completely alien culture to all of us, or because we happen to root for a team that is among the most opaque organizations in the United States.
 
And, honestly, I'm not faulting you or anyone else who likes to play the "what if" or "maybe this" game, but it's just never going to get you anywhere except to a place of pointless frustration.  We will probably never know the real reasons behind BB's decision to punish some players certain ways, or why he makes certain roster decisions.  I realize that's totally un-fulfilling, but there we are.   The Kraft/BB regime will make mistakes, but in the aggregate they will be at least moderately successful every year.  That's the only truth.

 

[dcmissle]

This also is not as cut-and-dry a situation as the NFLPA may present it.
 
I understand the union's position -- you cannot punish people for blowing off voluntary activities.  Butler was free to attend -- or not -- and he is not supposed to be disciplined for not going.  Keeping him off the field arguably is discipline.
 
But it cannot be that players are free to disrupt OTAs.  By, for example, saying that they will attend, and then not showing.  These are "organized" team activities.  The very least the team is entitled to is an indication whether a player will be there on a particular day, so it can "organize" them.
 
The union is free to say that 6 practices for one miss is disproportionate, but now you are into line drawing that hardly seems worth the fight.  There may be juicier low hanging fruit for the NLFPA in Philly right now on this issue.

 

[TheoShmeo]

drleather, I don't think we actually disagree.  And I think you would also agree that if you eliminate second (or really first) guessing, there's not all that much to talk about.  Or the spectrum much more limited.  I object to folks acting as if BB is an idiot when he makes a move that they disagree with or don't understand.  We've all heard and read that. 
 
I think most of what we read here about his decision making starts from a place of tremendous respect.  And sometimes we get lucky and get an insight like Otto's that gives us a perspective on something that looks off but probably really isn't if we knew all of the relevant facts.  In my book, if the price of getting something like that dropped on us is having to read a few questions, it's all worth it.
 
I will now go back to contemplating my navel without burdening you with same,,,, 

 

[Shelterdog]

As someone wrote above, it doesn't have to be binary.
 
To me, some decisions are curious.  And given, for example, that some draft picks over the years were busts, BB is clearly not infallible.  There's no one I would rather have and I think we are incredibly fortunate to have him.  But he can err, as I know everyone knows. 
 
The spirit of the question is "I know I am probably missing something (for the reasons Shelterdog enumerated) but this LOOKS odd and perhaps questionable.  What am I missing?"  
 
The Vereen non-signing is an example.  I think Vereen was an important piece.  He was one of the several guys Brady frequently looked for.  Over 50 receptions in the regular season and that excellent performance in the biggest game of the year.  And Tom has always gone to a back in generally the same mold (Faulk and Woodhead).  Cadet seems like a different kind of player (more of a WR in a RB body) and who knows if he can block.  White didn't exactly stand out in admittedly very limited duty.  Gaffney is unknown.  Is there anyone else in the mix?
 
Now like all things BB, it's probably going to work out swimmingly.  But questioning while at the same time realizing that Bill knows more than us and is the best in the world at his job isn't exactly hand wringing.  It's thinking along with the HC/GM with a healthy amount of respect thrown in.
 
 

Brandon Bolden is in the mix as well. And running back is a position where you can pick up a productive players (like a Woodhead) off of waivers.
 
Isn't the answer to why they let Vereen go pretty obvious? Vereen's a nice player but you can't pay everyone, Vereen was paid a good amount for a running back, and BB thinks the marginal returns (whatever Vereen is likely to give you over and above what Bolden/White/Cadet give you) isn't worth the marginal cost of 3 million a year or so.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The question is whether the differences are truly marginal and whether the $3 mm gap is worth it.
 
If another coach/GM had made this move, I would be much more inclined to answer "no" and "yes" to those questions.  Knowing BB, those answers are probably wrong.
 
I do think, however, the notion that you can find someone to give you essentially what Vereen gave them is incorrect.  No doubt, they found Woodhead, and plugged Vereen into the Faulk role.  And used JR Redmond to some extent in that role.  But that they have been able to do it with 3-4 guys doesn't mean that it will always be thusly.
 
Now watch Gaffney, Cadet, Bolden or someone else step in and make Vereen seem like a luxury item they did not need to extend themselves for.

 

[Stitch01]

Not to take this off topic, but blocking was not a very important part of Vereen's role.  He blocked less than almost any other running back in the league who got material playing time.

 

[Super Nomario]

As someone wrote above, it doesn't have to be binary.
 
To me, some decisions are curious.  And given, for example, that some draft picks over the years were busts, BB is clearly not infallible.  There's no one I would rather have and I think we are incredibly fortunate to have him.  But he can err, as I know everyone knows. 
 
The spirit of the question is "I know I am probably missing something (for the reasons Shelterdog enumerated) but this LOOKS odd and perhaps questionable.  What am I missing?"  

This is my perspective, too: when Belichick does something I don't understand, I wonder what I am missing. I would not say I agree with every he does or that he doesn't make mistakes, but I know he's giving his decisions considerable thought, so when's it's not obvious what the logic is I try to figure out what it might be (not always successfully).
 

The Vereen non-signing is an example.  I think Vereen was an important piece.  He was one of the several guys Brady frequently looked for.  Over 50 receptions in the regular season and that excellent performance in the biggest game of the year.  And Tom has always gone to a back in generally the same mold (Faulk and Woodhead).  Cadet seems like a different kind of player (more of a WR in a RB body) and who knows if he can block.  White didn't exactly stand out in admittedly very limited duty.  Gaffney is unknown.  Is there anyone else in the mix?
 
Now like all things BB, it's probably going to work out swimmingly.  But questioning while at the same time realizing that Bill knows more than us and is the best in the world at his job isn't exactly hand wringing.  It's thinking along with the HC/GM with a healthy amount of respect thrown in.

At the risk of derailing the topic, the role of the "pass-catching back" fluctuates quite a bit. Vereen had 12 targets and 11 catches in the Super Bowl, but he also had five games with one catch or fewer. That variation exists year-to-year, too. In 2011, Woodhead only had 18 catches in 15 games, because the Patriots often ran a 0 RB, 2 TE, 3 WR set in passing situations. With Scott Chandler in the fold, we could see similar patterns this year - obviously he's not a one-for-one replacement for Vereen, but he can be a matchup problem for LBs and S that already have to worry about Gronk. So I think the question is not just "do we have a pass-catching back to replace Vereen?" but "do we have enough options in the passing game to replace the dynamic Vereen brought to the offense?" Belichick and McDaniels may or may not have an answer to the first question, but I'm fairly optimistic on the second one.

 

[Shelterdog]

The question is whether the differences are truly marginal and whether the $3 mm gap is worth it.
 
If another coach/GM had made this move, I would be much more inclined to answer "no" and "yes" to those questions.  Knowing BB, those answers are probably wrong.
 
I do think, however, the notion that you can find someone to give you essentially what Vereen gave them is incorrect.  No doubt, they found Woodhead, and plugged Vereen into the Faulk role.  And used JR Redmond to some extent in that role.  But that they have been able to do it with 3-4 guys doesn't mean that it will always be thusly.
 
Now watch Gaffney, Cadet, Bolden or someone else step in and make Vereen seem like a luxury item they did not need to extend themselves for.

 
I'm trying to use marginal like an economist--simply the difference between the two--and I'm not trying to say there is only a small difference. There's probably a pretty big difference between what you'd expect out of Vereen and what you'd expect out of Cadet (although Vereen's injury history closes the gap) but $3 million is a good chunk of change (you're getting Scott Chandler with a little change left over).

 

[tims4wins]

Not to take this off topic, but blocking was not a very important part of Vereen's role.  He blocked less than almost any other running back in the league who got material playing time.

 
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have stats to show the % of pass plays where he was out in a pattern vs. blocking?

 

[Granite Sox]

This certainly sounds reasonable. That said, doesn't the Players Association need to fight this, not even for Butler, but to show leading up to the next CBA that voluntary might not really mean voluntary the way everyone thinks and use that to extract concessions at the table?

 
 

The voluntary part is that the players don't have to be there if they don't want to be. Does it say anything in the CBA about teams being forced to allow players that show up to participate? I'm not sure what the NFLPA would be arguing for here, as I don't think the Patriots are required to let anyone practice, regardless if they show up or not.

 
I know it might be semantics, and many would argue this is just the "Patriots being the Patriots", but a players attendance may be voluntary, however it is still the team's choice whether to allow that voluntary attendee to participate.  Can it be as simple as that?
 
If Butler decided to show up, but there were some team rules broken along the way, then it is still the team's prerogative to address this in some fashion, n'est-ce pas?

 

[joe dokes]

Ben Volin has it all figured out (except for that whole ass/elbow conundrum).
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/11/patriots-again-push-rules-limit-malcolm-butler-punishment/HBg4FWuJwDZu8NPZq4e6qN/story.html

 

[mwonow]

Ben Volin has it all figured out (except for that whole ass/elbow conundrum).
 
https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2015/06/11/patriots-again-push-rules-limit-malcolm-butler-punishment/HBg4FWuJwDZu8NPZq4e6qN/story.html

 
Read the article. Should have taken my cue from ass/elbow. How can a guy whose job it is to know about a team be so consistently wrong about the very limited number of facts he's supposed to keep track of? I feel dumber after having read the piece.

 

[MentalDisabldLst]

SB Nation: a history of Belichick sending players home from practice.
 
Summary: he does this so often, and the standards for being excused are so high (Tom Brady actually getting in a car accident), that perhaps there's nothing more to this than the reported facts (a late arrival due to flights).  I stand corrected.
 
Rich Hill likewise explains the dispute the NFLPA may have over the voluntary-ness of OTAs as a result.  Summary: they may try to make a claim, but it'll be just for show, and go nowhere.
 
 

Put me in camp unquestioned obeisance.  I religiously follow the team and I've come to firmly believe that <blah blah blah>

 
Strong argument.  I'll just say that even if Bill Belichick may be as infallible in football matters as the Pope speaking ex cathedra, I just find it a lot more fun to follow sports when we can second-guess and pore over the team's decisions.  I mean, everyone pretty much agrees Terry Francona was the best Sox manager we can recall, based on us watching his day-to-day tactical decisions (not to mention his media panache and player relationships).  But I still found it interesting to go over his lineups or bullpen moves and debate "hey, was this really the right thing here?  ...oh, OK, I guess it was, I see what he was doing."  In this case, I'm not sure l'affaire Malcolm Butler is quite as teachable a moment as, say, trading Logan Mankins or the decision to (not) re-sign Revis, but it's in the same category for me of "things worth discussing on a sports message board."

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

 
Can you elaborate on this? Do you have stats to show the % of pass plays where he was out in a pattern vs. blocking?

 
Last year he played 606 offensive snaps and blocked on 56 of them -- or less than 10%. Not sure how that compares to other pass catching backs, but it seems low. He only allowed 4 pressures on the 56 blocking attempts so that seems pretty good.
 
https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2015/03/11/giants-sign-shane-vereen/

 

[KiltedFool]

Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres

 

[Corsi]

The NFL Players Association has filed a complaint against the New England Patriots for not allowing Malcolm Butler to participate in on-field activities because the cornerback missed a voluntary session on May 26, sources told ESPN.
 
The complaint by the union was filed Wednesday and done without Butler's approval following an initial review, according to sources. Butler became renowned for his interception of a Russell Wilson pass that secured the Patriots' Super Bowl win over the Seahawks.
 
The union cited Article 21 of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), alleging the Patriots disciplined a player for missing a voluntary workout, which indicated the workouts were not voluntary, and, as the CBA states, an absence from a voluntary activity cannot result in "adverse consequences affecting his working conditions."
 
Butler missed the Patriots' voluntary organized team activity (OTA) on May 26, per the union complaint, and was punished by not being allowed to participate in on-field practices from May 28 through June 5. Butler reportedly had a travel problem that caused him to miss the team's OTA session on May 26.
 
Butler reportedly was allowed to participate in team meetings and in strength workouts, but not in on-field practices during the period cited in the complaint.
 
The complaint was filed with the NFL Management Council and requests all video tape, any other recorded evidence and documentation that would include the team's player attendance and participation lists.
 
The union has asked that all information it has requested be provided no later than July 1.
 
 

http://espn.go.com/boston/nfl/story/_/id/13147107/nfl-players-association-files-complaint-vs-new-england-patriots-malcolm-butler

 

[txexile]

 

Butler reportedly was allowed to participate in team meetings and in strength workouts, but not in on-field practices during the period cited in the complaint.

 
How can this be the basis of a complaint? Let's say there are three quarterbacks in camp. They all want reps but the coach decides he only wants to see two of them play. Isn't it totally within the purview of the coaches (and therefore management) who gets to practice on field during OTA?

 

[joe dokes]

Let's say the PA "wins." What's the remedy?

 

[NortheasternPJ]

Seattle was fined $300k and lost 2 practices for illegal practices. Not exactly the same, but I'd imagine that'd be the basis for the fine. Then again this is the NFL so they'll probably fuck it up.

 

[amlothi]

Draft picks and fines.

 

[Saints Rest]

Let's say the PA "wins." What's the remedy?

The Patriots have to take a 2016 1st round pick and a 2016 4th round pick.
To insure maximum camp competition.
For the integrity of the game.

 

[( . ) ( . ) and (_!_)]

It all goes back to how you define Voluntary.  I am sure the CBA is not explicit in it's definition.  I bet the Pats define it as, the player has the option to show up or not show up, but if they elect to be here then all of the normal rules apply.  Butler said he would be there and then broke a team rule, so he got held out.  
 
That is a perfectly logical way to read the rules here.  But I am sure that Patriots are going to get fucked for applying their own definition onto an open ended rule.  

 

[joe dokes]

Seattle was fined $300k and lost 2 practices for illegal practices. Not exactly the same, but I'd imagine that'd be the basis for the fine. Then again this is the NFL so they'll probably fuck it up.

 
ahhhh, thanks.

 

 

[Ed Hillel]

Draft picks and fines.

 
Malcom Butler suspended 4 games.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

So...I have to go through this thread and delete fucking stupid deflategate jokes? Really?

 

[Myt1]

 
How can this be the basis of a complaint? Let's say there are three quarterbacks in camp. They all want reps but the coach decides he only wants to see two of them play. Isn't it totally within the purview of the coaches (and therefore management) who gets to practice on field during OTA?

Do you not think there's a difference between punishing a player for his failure to comply with team directives and making a decision based on on the field considerations? Like, we can't distinguish between those two?

 

[RG33]

I can understand why the NFLPA filed the complaint on Butler's behalf, but I really don't see where they would have any ground to stand on here. He wasn't penalized for not showing up to the voluntary practice, he was penalized for showing up late to the voluntary practice.

I mean, if he had caught his flight and made it to Foxboro on time, practiced with the team for an hour, then decided to go to Dunkin Donuts for an hour to check his emails and have some coffee, and then came back to the Stadium mid-practice, would the Patriots be expected to allow him to practice as usual? It seems to me that the actual precedent that would be set here would be that players could do whatever the hell they damn well please during "voluntary" workouts without the fear of any repercussions (at least during the voluntary period, but the NFLPA could even push this argument and claim team retribution if they wanted to if a team cut a guy during training camp).

The Patriots argument will probably be something to the effect of "it's voluntary up until you tell us you are voluntarily participating, and then you need to follow the rules like everybody else on the team." right?

 

[dcmissle]

I think that is right. These are organized team activities, with emphasis on the first two words. You don't have to show, but if you choose to, you have to be dependable if the mission is to be accomplished.

I also don't blame the Union for being aggressive on this. NFL teams are untrustworthy and are apt to take advantage at every turn.

Butler did not authorize this grievance. The Union may file it whether the player wants to or not.

 

[Myt1]

I would agree. Notwithstanding the fact that they're voluntary, we'd all say that Butler could be disciplined if he showed up and started a fight or wearing hockey skates or whatever. The question is just where on the spectrum this sort of thing falls.

 

[joe dokes]

Notwithstanding the fact that they're voluntary, we'd all say that Butler could be disciplined if he showed up and started a fight or wearing hockey skates or whatever. The question is just where on the spectrum this sort of thing falls.
 

 
And that's probably why the Union filed the grievance.  In the face of often-insane coaches with differing versions of "voluntary," I think it helps the PA (and probably coaches) to have markers laid out as to the "voluntary" angle.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

The right for OTAs to be truly voluntary was apparently one of the major things the Union fought for in their CBA negotiations.

 

[Hiller]

The right for OTAs to be truly voluntary was apparently one of the major things the Union fought for in their CBA negotiations.

I can't imagine they are so voluntary that you can come and go as you please....."No thanks coach, I have had enough for today. See you tomorrow, or maybe Wednesday."

He wasn't there when he said he would be, so they went without him.

 

[lambeau]

What else about the system does Malcolm not understand? And what is the system? As impressive as Butler was in preseason last year, I hope Bradley Fletcher proves a capable starter.

 

[I12XU]

What else about the system does Malcolm not understand? And what is the system? As impressive as Butler was in preseason last year, I hope Bradley Fletcher proves a capable starter.

Please read and keep up with the pertinent information. Butler did not file this grievance, this complaint was made by he NFLPA on behalf of its members without the desire or concerns of Butler considered.

 

[lambeau]

My simple point was Butler's inexperience showed up in not understanding there is no reason to be late--no excuses. I worry about him carrying the load as starting CB if Fletcher is not up to it.

 

[bradmahn]

My simple point was Butler's inexperience showed up in not understanding there is no reason to be late--no excuses. I worry about him carrying the load as starting CB if Fletcher is not up to it.

I think you are making a bigger deal out of this than it is. BB's locker room management style looks a lot like good classroom management from this distance: expectations have to be communicated and the failure to meet those expectations has to be treated with a consistent policy. Weather has never been an excuse and I don't think it says any more about Butler's inexperience than it did Randy Moss's when he was punished similarly.