JGfromtheNW
Well-known member
It's one of the biggest stories today after a great Super Bowl -- Why did the Patriots bench Malcolm Butler?
I think it's actually worth discussing for various reasons, first and foremost being that it potentially lost them the game. Super Bowl 52 was highly entertaining thanks to record breaking offensive numbers and it wasn't until the 4th quarter that I realized there was only one punt all game (which would end up being the final number of punts total). There were missed kicks, etc. that potentially change the outcome, but both teams were essentially going blow-for-blow driving the field and scoring points.
One punt, two turnovers, and a WHOLE lot of scoring. A lot of scoring in a game where one possession/turnover ultimately decided the entire thing. I look at the stats and the two teams and can only wonder how that game plays out with Butler getting some defensive play time. Butler played on special teams throughout the game, but received 0 defensive snaps for what was described as "football reasons." I think these "football reasons" aren't actually as related to football as reported, but that's complete conjecture at this point.
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playo...er-benched-mystery-super-bowl-eagles-patriots
Of course we can't and won't actually know what the outcome of this game would be if Butler plays, but I think it's pretty obvious you want your best guys on the field during a Super Bowl. Benching Butler meant the Patriots were playing their 3rd-5th corners the entire game, and his replacement was torched early and often (something around 70 yards and TD given up in the first quarter). How in the world do you go from 97.8% of defensive snaps to 0%? The fact that the Pats never "adjusted" and put Butler back in at even half time just boggles the mind. He's a great tackler, has a knack for defending passes and making impact plays... In a game where just one or two scoring possessions separates the two teams, it's just baffling that you would essentially bench your most valuable defensive back and refuse to play him when his replacements are getting burnt for almost the entirety of the contest.
There are rumors out there that this is some type of power play by BB to spite Kraft or try to devalue Butler's negotiating leverage as he will be a FA this year, there's rumors that it was disciplinary (broken curfew, possibly found with marijuana), there are rumors that Butler ding-dong-ditched BB's hotel room at 2AM (ok I just made that one up). I just find this situation intriguing, and honestly I'd probably be butt hurt as an Iggles fan if we just won the big one and the biggest story airing the next day is basically more Patriot knob-slobbing saying they lost the game for themselves by not playing Butler.
Did the Patriots cut off their nose to spite their face?
I think it's actually worth discussing for various reasons, first and foremost being that it potentially lost them the game. Super Bowl 52 was highly entertaining thanks to record breaking offensive numbers and it wasn't until the 4th quarter that I realized there was only one punt all game (which would end up being the final number of punts total). There were missed kicks, etc. that potentially change the outcome, but both teams were essentially going blow-for-blow driving the field and scoring points.
One punt, two turnovers, and a WHOLE lot of scoring. A lot of scoring in a game where one possession/turnover ultimately decided the entire thing. I look at the stats and the two teams and can only wonder how that game plays out with Butler getting some defensive play time. Butler played on special teams throughout the game, but received 0 defensive snaps for what was described as "football reasons." I think these "football reasons" aren't actually as related to football as reported, but that's complete conjecture at this point.
https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playo...er-benched-mystery-super-bowl-eagles-patriots
Of course we can't and won't actually know what the outcome of this game would be if Butler plays, but I think it's pretty obvious you want your best guys on the field during a Super Bowl. Benching Butler meant the Patriots were playing their 3rd-5th corners the entire game, and his replacement was torched early and often (something around 70 yards and TD given up in the first quarter). How in the world do you go from 97.8% of defensive snaps to 0%? The fact that the Pats never "adjusted" and put Butler back in at even half time just boggles the mind. He's a great tackler, has a knack for defending passes and making impact plays... In a game where just one or two scoring possessions separates the two teams, it's just baffling that you would essentially bench your most valuable defensive back and refuse to play him when his replacements are getting burnt for almost the entirety of the contest.
There are rumors out there that this is some type of power play by BB to spite Kraft or try to devalue Butler's negotiating leverage as he will be a FA this year, there's rumors that it was disciplinary (broken curfew, possibly found with marijuana), there are rumors that Butler ding-dong-ditched BB's hotel room at 2AM (ok I just made that one up). I just find this situation intriguing, and honestly I'd probably be butt hurt as an Iggles fan if we just won the big one and the biggest story airing the next day is basically more Patriot knob-slobbing saying they lost the game for themselves by not playing Butler.
Did the Patriots cut off their nose to spite their face?
