Malcolm Butler's response to his benching

[Anybodyhome]

On 2/6/2018 at 11:06 AM, thefuzz said:

Here's the way I look at it.  Butler was acting like a child, so he got treated like one.  It's no different than the tie incident with Cam.  You know the rules, you break them, you have to pay a debt.  

Now it's slowly coming out that there is quite a bit more to the story, involving drugs, women, and curfew....I don't know what to believe yet, but there is smoke.

I do think it was foolish to not play Butler at all, but I'm A-OK with punishing him in some way.

 

On 2/6/2018 at 12:33 PM, tondi said:

Those defending this clown are morons. He clearly broke team rules that everyone else appears to have followed. If they lost because of it, it's his fault not the coach. 

So, you guys were here to jump on the pile, but now the truth is out and suddenly all we hear are the crickets.

[thefuzz]

2 hours ago, Anybodyhome said:

 

So, you guys were here to jump on the pile, but now the truth is out and suddenly all we hear are the crickets.

You quoted where I said "I don't know what to believe yet".  That means I'm not sure I buy that BB was being truthful and it was a football decision, nor was I ready to buy Butler....was just too weird a move.

 

Also, I posted in this thread 2 posts above this one saying that it was getting weirder and weirder.  I was going off a news story that there was a curfew issue, pot issue, and a woman issue....I didn't know what to believe.

However, in this circumstance, there is a lot more history of players going crazy right before the game, than there is of coaches benching a starter for "football reasons".

[LinvilleGorge]

The whole situation is just weird. Okay, Belichick makes a "football decision" not to play Butler. Well, at halftime you've given up 215 passing yards and 22 points. Shouldn't you revisit that "football decision"?

I really think this was just Belichick's massive ego getting in the way of what was best for the team.