Jump to content

Malcolm Butler situation


GSUeagles14

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, wwhickok said:

There's a couple reasons imo.

 

#1 He is just not that good.  He made one epic play and everyone thought he was the next Deion Sanders or something.

#2 He isn't going to be in New England next year, maybe there's some bad blood and they wanted to give the SB playing time to people who will be here next year.  I think it's more about the first reason but I also think there's a little bit of this.

It's the Super Bowl, you go with your best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jlowe22 said:

Absolutely not.  You play your best players in the Super Bowl, regardless of where they play next year.

I think that they simply didn't think Butler gave them the best chance to win.  And they might be right, although it couldn't have got much worse with him in there.

I disagree.  I don't think Bill Billicheck has that small of an ego.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, kramxel said:

That's a lot of hear-say, but it's inline with what I expect happened.

Guy doesn't get benched for no reason. BB isn't stupid.

I will say that if it is, in fact, what happened then Butler has absolutely demolished his value in free agency over the past 6 months. To heap something like this on top of what was a very mediocre year of play, I doubt anyone will pay him anything close to what was thought to be his market value at the start of the season. Hell, I'll be surprised if anyone even offers him a multi-year deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 11sanchez11 said:

only problem is, why wouldn't anybody just say that if it were the case? That's a reasonable explanation that people would take. Instead Butler is saying they gave up on him and 'football reasons' is the other explanation.

Because Belichick doesn’t owe anyone an in-detail explanation on anything? He said, paraphrasing, that he put the players out there that he thought would best help the team win. We’re seriously going to say “because Belichick didn’t do something I think he should’ve done, then he’s hiding something incendiary”? The logical fallacies going on in this thread are comical (albeit predictable). 

Of course Butler is going to say that. He clearly felt good to go based on his comments and yet he didn’t play meaningful snaps. How else is he supposed to react after essentially being benched in the super bowl? But sure, we’re just going to take his comments as gospel (that the Pats “gave up” on him) and toss the ones made by the coach because...well, that fits much better doesn’t it. 

Also, @J-ALL-DAY, go read a GDT in our forum if you have the time. If everlong ran the team, there’d be no one on it after the Chiefs game. Nobody with sense thinks Belichick should be fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

Because Belichick doesn’t owe anyone an in-detail explanation on anything? He said, paraphrasing, that he put the players out there that he thought would best help the team win. We’re seriously going to say “because Belichick didn’t do something I think he should’ve done, then he’s hiding something incendiary”? The logical fallacies going on in this thread are comical (albeit predictable). 

Of course Butler is going to say that. He clearly felt good to go based on his comments and yet he didn’t play meaningful snaps. How else is he supposed to react after essentially being benched in the super bowl? But sure, we’re just going to take his comments as gospel (that the Pats “gave up” on him) and toss the ones made by the coach because...well, that fits much better doesn’t it. 

Also, @J-ALL-DAY, go read a GDT in our forum if you have the time. If everlong ran the team, there’d be no one on it after the Chiefs game. Nobody with sense thinks Belichick should be fired.

No, I believe Bill and co. that they thought that they didn't think Butler was the best player in this position. To say the reason he didn't play was because the flu I think is also silly. They gave a reason, why would they lie about it if he was sick? Makes no sense to me as that is a reasonable reason to not play someone. Everybody was asked a bunch of times about it and no one mentioned that his sickness played a part. I think Butler even mentioned that he was fine since Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ILoveTheVikings said:

Bill wouldn't handicap himself in the Super Bowl by benching a player just for disciplinary issues, unless it was an unreported legal issue

Really?  I think Belichick is exactly the kind of coach that does that.  If Butler did the things they that are reported I can see that he would.  Hopefully, this all comes out in the coming weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, 11sanchez11 said:

No, I believe Bill and co. that they thought that they didn't think Butler was the best player in this position. To say the reason he didn't play was because the flu I think is also silly. They gave a reason, why would they lie about it if he was sick? Makes no sense to me as that is a reasonable reason to not play someone. Everybody was asked a bunch of times about it and no one mentioned that his sickness played a part. I think Butler even mentioned that he was fine since Friday.

We’re saying the same thing. 

Butler was sick. His conditioning was likely poor. Thus, he wasn’t one of the players that were going to help them win.

My initial comment was aimed at people saying Belichick made the call because of impending free agency, out of spite, or anything in between. 

Im willing to buy that he thought that Butler wasn’t a good matchup against Philly (even if he was wrong). Also willing to buy that Butler’s illness effected his conditioning. Not really willing to buy that Belichick would put a key defender on the bench in the super bowl because of spite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They probably benched him for the curfew story. Makes the most sense. And the Patriots are the type of organization that keeps things close to the vest. So they likely won’t come out publically and say anything about it either. We’ll have to wait for someone to leak the story down the road when the NFL needs a new headline.

Bellichick likely also didnt want to risk playing Butler and receiving penalties from the league after they do an investigation down (after the story is leaked).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, J-ALL-DAY said:

And if it was true, then Belichick could have just come out and said it was for non-football reasons. But when asked, he said it wasn't due to off field discipline. 

 

Even if it was for off-field discipline, he doesn't have to acknowledge that to the media.  He could say just what he said even if Butler did come late, have drugs and went off on the coaches like that report says he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...