New England Patriots Thread Mod Warning Post #253

TOss Sweep · 07-02-2018 02:17PM

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

If you don't understand what I meant, then engaging with you is a complete waste of time. I'm not fixating on Butler any more because as I've already said, one man didn't cost us the Superbowl, the defense did.

No I know what you meant but the thread naturally descended to Butler seen as what has gone on. If you don't want to talk about it fair enough. Have a great day!

Son Of A Vidic · 07-02-2018 02:21PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

TO, from the eye test, would you not say that Butler had a poor year? Seemed that Gilmore did get better as the season went on (given the pay check, he should!).

bruschi wrote: »

in a comparison with Gilmore, Butler was much better earlier on in the season, and Gimore finished stronger. If you were to draw a line graph of their respective seasons, Butler would have been flat all the way along, just about average. Gilmore would have an upward trend, starting from a low base and finishing just above average.

So I'm not going mad then, because I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

I have previously said that if Butler was sulking over a contract, rather than playing to earn one? Then that's not good enough. But maybe that was a bit harsh on him. I suppose it's important to look at things from both sides of the coin and if I put myself in Butler's shoes. Then bringing in Gilmore with the big money contract, must have been an awful kick in the teeth for the kid.

TOss Sweep · 07-02-2018 02:33PM

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

So I'm not going mad then, because I thought I was the only one that noticed that.

I have previously said that if Butler was sulking over a contract, rather than playing to earn one? Then that's not good enough. But maybe that was a bit harsh on him. I suppose it's important to look at things from both sides of the coin and if I put myself in Butler's shoes. Then bringing in Gilmore with the big money contract, must have been an awful kick in the teeth for the kid.

Where did the sulking stuff come from though? There was nothing all season long mentioning him sulking from anyone official other than Patsd fans and some reporters calling it

Has anyone actually stopped and asked yourselves if this was Butler at his best? I mean because of the Superbowl we put him on a pedastal and one good season to boot. As for both players Gilmore towartds the end of the regular season did improve but overall their body of work was identical over the whole regular season. Our defense was horrendous overall and Butler, Gilmore and Rowe were all responsible for that.

But I will stick to my point though Butler was not as bad as our "Eye tests" would have us believe. PFF and the stats show us that.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-02-2018 03:19PM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Where did the sulking stuff come from though? There was nothing all season long mentioning him sulking from anyone official other than Patsd fans and some reporters calling it

Has anyone actually stopped and asked yourselves if this was Butler at his best? I mean because of the Superbowl we put him on a pedastal and one good season to boot. As for both players Gilmore towartds the end of the regular season did improve but overall their body of work was identical over the whole regular season. Our defense was horrendous overall and Butler, Gilmore and Rowe were all responsible for that.

But I will stick to my point though Butler was not as bad as our "Eye tests" would have us believe. PFF and the stats show us that.

I did think he was as bad as the eye test showed. Felt he got beat a lot more this season than last. Maybe last season was the anomaly?

BTW, I'm not contributing his poor play to missing out on a contract. He did get some significant money. And I don't think any 'sulking' was evident, just bad play (in comparison to his previous form).

We're now in a situation where we have one corner who can start. Rowe may be ok as a 3rd, but clearly not a No2. The safety play will also need to be looked at. But given the lack of a substantial pass rush, that may be the first issue to address.

TOss Sweep · 07-02-2018 03:23PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I did think he was as bad as the eye test showed. Felt he got beat a lot more this season than last. Maybe last season was the anomaly?

I agree to some extent I am not one for completely throwing people under the bus though until I compare what I think I saw to their numbers and Butler and Gilmore got beat pretty the same all season long including towards the end. We set the bar so high for Butler that anything less than previous for for us was him playing bad when realistically it seems like he got found out.

We're now in a situation where we have one corner who can start. Rowe may be ok as a 3rd, but clearly not a No2. The safety play will also need to be looked at. But given the lack of a substantial pass rush, that may be the first issue to address.

I agree they will fix the front 7 first and then maybe hit the FA for an experienced CB to replace Butler and add to the our safeties.

bruschi · 07-02-2018 03:42PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I did think he was as bad as the eye test showed. Felt he got beat a lot more this season than last. Maybe last season was the anomaly?

BTW, I'm not contributing his poor play to missing out on a contract. He did get some significant money. And I don't think any 'sulking' was evident, just bad play (in comparison to his previous form).

We're now in a situation where we have one corner who can start. Rowe may be ok as a 3rd, but clearly not a No2. The safety play will also need to be looked at. But given the lack of a substantial pass rush, that may be the first issue to address.

I wouldnt consider his takings this year (in relative terms!) to be significant. He was the 36th highest paid corner in the league and 0% guaranteed or future payment. I dont think he was sulking over Gilmore, but he was pi$$ed over his contract in his own right, not because of what Gilmore was getting.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-02-2018 04:11PM

bruschi wrote: »

I wouldnt consider his takings this year (in relative terms!) to be significant. He was the 36th highest paid corner in the league and 0% guaranteed or future payment. I dont think he was sulking over Gilmore, but he was pi$$ed over his contract in his own right, not because of what Gilmore was getting.

I thought it was a good amount of money (~$5m mark). But this was ~9 months ago when I heard it discussed.

Maybe he was right to be pissed given he was the No1 CB before Gilmore and it didn't reflect in his pay. But I didn't see laziness from him, or not trying; I just thought he was getting beat. Maybe it was being found out as suggested by TO.

And I don't blame the Pats for not giving him the contract either. They felt they could have a No1 corner on lower money. And despite clearly being ok with trading him (the Saints), no one was reported as being very interested.

Pity to see it end like this. But time changes things. We've had bigger names and better players leave, and it's ok. I don't hold anything against the guy, wish him well, and everyone will move on.

bruschi · 07-02-2018 05:09PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I thought it was a good amount of money (~$5m mark). But this was ~9 months ago when I heard it discussed.

Maybe he was right to be pissed given he was the No1 CB before Gilmore and it didn't reflect in his pay. But I didn't see laziness from him, or not trying; I just thought he was getting beat. Maybe it was being found out as suggested by TO.

And I don't blame the Pats for not giving him the contract either. They felt they could have a No1 corner on lower money. And despite clearly being ok with trading him (the Saints), no one was reported as being very interested.

Pity to see it end like this. But time changes things. We've had bigger names and better players leave, and it's ok. I don't hold anything against the guy, wish him well, and everyone will move on.

it was $3.9. But the Patriots didnt seem to open any negotiations with him for a contract extension and it looked like last pre season that they didnt want him and put a tender on him to secure him and make another team give up a first round draft pick for him. Thats a tough environment to be working in, knowing your team dont want you but still expect the best out of you. Butler never gave off a diva type impression to me, considering some of the tools we have had on the team on much bigger money, causing much bigger problems and not performing at all, I thought it was lousy how the whole thing was handled and its an utter shame that one of the biggest superbowl legends in New England is leaving in a huge shroud of controversy and apathy.

Yes, it is a business and bigger and better players have been moved on, but this one stunk IMO. At least those other players were either paid well her or traded for big contracts. Butler didnt get his value paid for his time here. For his 4 years here, with 11 games started as a rookie and an impressive 100% record for the 3 seasons after that, he has a career total earnings of $5.4m. There are far worse players than him who have got that in one season.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-02-2018 06:31PM

bruschi wrote: »

it was $3.9. But the Patriots didnt seem to open any negotiations with him for a contract extension and it looked like last pre season that they didnt want him and put a tender on him to secure him and make another team give up a first round draft pick for him. Thats a tough environment to be working in, knowing your team dont want you but still expect the best out of you.

Well, I don't know that it was a case of the team not wanting him. I think they did want him, and they could keep him cheaper than on a new contract. They used the tender to say "ok, you can have him for a first". I mean, that's the business side of it. And nobody flinched. The market decided that he wasn't worth a first. So why pay him like a first when you don't have to?

I know that's maybe a bit unfair on Butler. SB winning play and then performed very well for you as a No1 corner. But Bill hasn't gotten us to repeated SBs by being nice/friendly/emotional with these type of players when it comes to the contract.

It does stink that the system is setup that way. Butler should have way more money by now. But, is it going to change for any of the teams?
Hope Butler does get a good contract and does well wherever he goes.

AbusesToilets · 07-02-2018 07:14PM

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Well, I don't know that it was a case of the team not wanting him. I think they did want him, and they could keep him cheaper than on a new contract. They used the tender to say "ok, you can have him for a first". I mean, that's the business side of it. And nobody flinched. The market decided that he wasn't worth a first. So why pay him like a first when you don't have to?

I know that's maybe a bit unfair on Butler. SB winning play and then performed very well for you as a No1 corner. But Bill hasn't gotten us to repeated SBs by being nice/friendly/emotional with these type of players when it comes to the contract.

It does stink that the system is setup that way. Butler should have way more money by now. But, is it going to change for any of the teams?
Hope Butler does get a good contract and does well wherever he goes.

I agree on the methodology that the team employed with Butler, but I would worry that it could hurt them long term in attracting other talented players.

StringerBell · 07-02-2018 07:32PM

In what way?

AbusesToilets · 07-02-2018 07:47PM

A hard working player, who gives it his all, ends up getting shafted (from his point of view), both financially and in terms of the SB. I could see a player who observes this and decides against signing on.

Just a thought.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero · 07-02-2018 08:14PM

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

The problem is you're talking there about the 2016 Malcolm Butler and not the 2017 version of him. If you look at it again, Rowe's coverage on the TD he gave up was absolutely excellent. He could not have covered his man any better. Now Rowe is 2 inches taller than Butler, so I'm going to go ahead and say Butler couldn't have done any better. But as I've already said, I do think Butler should have play a lot more than he did.

I'm talking about the 2017 version. He would've made a big difference, don't see how that's even debatable with hindsight, despite what your "eye-test" tells you.

Anyway I don't really see the point in debating it anymore. Neither of us will change our opinion.

On another note Gronk thinking of retiring to pursue his acting career?? I know there's not much else he can achieve in the game, and he obviously has to take his health into account (both mental and physical), but christ, he has a sporting career, personally I wouldn't sacrifice something like that for anything.
I do think he'll play another year at least fwiw, but I suppose if he does go, no one can really blame him. That hit he took in the championship game alone was frightening.

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-02-2018 08:27PM

For Gronk, it might be the off season recovery stuff. I’d reckon the work to over come the injuries must be a nightmare. We saw Brady’s doc on Facebook (in terms of the off season training), what Gronk went through might be on his mind (should he get injured again).
That said, Gronk is Gronk due to his football profile; I expect him to play week 1.

Son Of A Vidic · 07-02-2018 09:14PM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Where did the sulking stuff come from though?

The sulking would come from me just expressing my opinion/speculating, that I thought he was. And I thought he was because his drop off in form coincided with Gilmores arrival. And I'm done with Butler and what I said yesterday sums up my opinion.

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

I think Butler should have played but I don't think it would have made any difference, because the defeat is on the defense as a whole, but in particular Belichick and Patricia.

Son Of A Vidic · 07-02-2018 09:18PM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Josh decides to stay. Bill's replacement...................

I think that's a great bit of news and I think Josh is well position to take over from Bill. I think under the CBA nothing can be set in writing, but there must be a gentlemen's agreement in place for Josh to do a U turn like that.

paulie21 · 07-02-2018 09:49PM

Think this Gronk stuff is trying to get himself a new contract. Getting 8m this year and 9m the next. Grossly underpaid

TOss Sweep · 07-02-2018 10:10PM

Son Of A Vidic wrote: »

I think that's a great bit of news and I think Josh is well position to take over from Bill. I think under the CBA nothing can be set in writing, but there must be a gentlemen's agreement in place for Josh to do a U turn like that.

A lot of reports coming out of the Patriots saying it was a bucket o cash thrown at Josh convincing him to stay and no guarantee he gets the job when Bill retires

j8wk2feszrnpao · 07-02-2018 10:45PM

paulie21 wrote: »

Think this Gronk stuff is trying to get himself a new contract. Getting 8m this year and 9m the next. Grossly underpaid

If he plays a full season, yes.
But he's missed time as well.
The contract was going to over pay him if he got injured, but underpaid him if he played a full season. He signed it.

Doogs27 · 07-02-2018 10:48PM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

A lot of reports coming out of the Patriots saying it was a bucket o cash thrown at Josh convincing him to stay and no guarantee he gets the job when Bill retires

Even if he wasn't guaranteed to get the job post Bill, for the sake of continuity and familiarity with systems/personnel etc, I don't know what coach gets the job ahead of josh.

TOss Sweep · 07-02-2018 10:57PM

Doogs27 wrote: »

Even if he wasn't guaranteed to get the job post Bill, for the sake of continuity and familiarity with systems/personnel etc, I don't know what coach gets the job ahead of josh.

Plenty of coaches out there using systems similar to Bill. He is not doing anything out of the ordinary. It is how he runs it.

Besides no team is going to lock themselves into coaches that know the current system. They will look for the best guy and he will bring his own system. And chances are a lot of the guys we have now will be gone by the time that change is made.

Players learn new systems all the time unless you are like Brady or Gronk where your only team has been the team you are on now.

BizzyC · 08-02-2018 08:35AM

Reports are that Gronk isn't concerned with money at this point, apparently he hasn't spent any of his contract money, he lives off of endorsements.
I think health is the major reason these days, even if you forget about his incredibly damaged back, he's racked up enough injuries elsewhere to have some concerns.
Add in that apparently Sly Stallone wants him to do action movies and he's got a new career waiting without putting his body through hell....

eagle eye · 08-02-2018 09:15AM

He might just have been fooling around. Like the question that was put to him was a little unfair after just losing a Superbowl. He didn't asked him about the game at all.

Doogs27 · 08-02-2018 09:37AM

TOss Sweep wrote: »

Plenty of coaches out there using systems similar to Bill. He is not doing anything out of the ordinary. It is how he runs it.

Besides no team is going to lock themselves into coaches that know the current system. They will look for the best guy and he will bring his own system. And chances are a lot of the guys we have now will be gone by the time that change is made.

Players learn new systems all the time unless you are like Brady or Gronk where your only team has been the team you are on now.

All valid points, I would just look at Josh as having the best audition, obv not the most head coaching experience. And of the coaches who would potentially be available, I don't know how many I would pick ahead of him.

StringerBell · 08-02-2018 03:29PM

eagle eye wrote: »

He might just have been fooling around. Like the question that was put to him was a little unfair after just losing a Superbowl. He didn't asked him about the game at all.

Definitely didn't come across like that watching it. I got a sincere tone from him during the answer.

TOss Sweep · 08-02-2018 03:44PM

I actually wouldn't be surprised if he retired. His body has taken a beating and he has plenty of money and he will always make money outside football.

BizzyC · 09-02-2018 08:49AM

Most plausible sounding explanation for the case of the missing Butler so far....BB wanted to play a bigger, more stout secondary to bolster the run and force Eagles to throw.
Butler is smaller than Rowe/Bademosi/Richards and has been prone to getting washed out by physical receivers on run blocks. BB wanted to avoid the scenario of Brady being kept on the sideline for large sections of the game due to a dominant run game draining the clock, so sacrificed pass coverage.
The Eagles game plan though didn't fall in line with Bill's expectation and they came out all guns blazing...
He probably expected the Eagles to move towards the run as the game went on to try and control the lead, but Pederson didn't let up, so Bill is then caught - if he chucks Butler in, they'll run out the clock, if he doesn't they'll keep getting torched in the pass....
So that makes the whole thing a bad pre-game call that BB made that he was effectively forced to stick with.

All pure speculation of course, but as far as the theories out there I've seen so far go, it makes the most sense

j8wk2feszrnpao · 09-02-2018 09:30AM

BizzyC wrote: »

Most plausible sounding explanation for the case of the missing Butler so far....BB wanted to play a bigger, more stout secondary to bolster the run and force Eagles to throw.
Butler is smaller than Rowe/Bademosi/Richards and has been prone to getting washed out by physical receivers on run blocks. BB wanted to avoid the scenario of Brady being kept on the sideline for large sections of the game due to a dominant run game draining the clock, so sacrificed pass coverage.
The Eagles game plan though didn't fall in line with Bill's expectation and they came out all guns blazing...
He probably expected the Eagles to move towards the run as the game went on to try and control the lead, but Pederson didn't let up, so Bill is then caught - if he chucks Butler in, they'll run out the clock, if he doesn't they'll keep getting torched in the pass....
So that makes the whole thing a bad pre-game call that BB made that he was effectively forced to stick with.

All pure speculation of course, but as far as the theories out there I've seen so far go, it makes the most sense

I still think it makes no sense. We were getting killed in the passing game. Let them run it.

bruschi · 09-02-2018 09:41AM

BizzyC wrote: »

Most plausible sounding explanation for the case of the missing Butler so far....BB wanted to play a bigger, more stout secondary to bolster the run and force Eagles to throw.
Butler is smaller than Rowe/Bademosi/Richards and has been prone to getting washed out by physical receivers on run blocks. BB wanted to avoid the scenario of Brady being kept on the sideline for large sections of the game due to a dominant run game draining the clock, so sacrificed pass coverage.
The Eagles game plan though didn't fall in line with Bill's expectation and they came out all guns blazing...
He probably expected the Eagles to move towards the run as the game went on to try and control the lead, but Pederson didn't let up, so Bill is then caught - if he chucks Butler in, they'll run out the clock, if he doesn't they'll keep getting torched in the pass....
So that makes the whole thing a bad pre-game call that BB made that he was effectively forced to stick with.

All pure speculation of course, but as far as the theories out there I've seen so far go, it makes the most sense

yeah I dont buy that either. Bill is notorious for his half time adjustments, and the plan clearly wasnt working. To not even attempt put Butler in made no sense. But the biggest factor against that theory is that both Rowe and Butler only found out coming up to kick off. If Bills plan was that, then surely he didnt just think of it coming up to the game. And another point I'd argue against it, most of the teams the Patriots have played in "big games" (Steelers, Titans, Jags) have superior run games (granted, argument for the steelers away from that) but they would be similar to the Eagles with dependency on the run. So if Butler was good enough against them, why all of a sudden change it?

BizzyC · 09-02-2018 09:47AM

Apparently he did a similar thing with the Giants against the Bills, decided to give up a chunk of yards in the run game and played only told the D before the game that they were going with a 2 man front.
Against the Jags, Butler was exposed....could be that that changed his mind.... I dunno, I didn't say it was the reason he did it, but at least I can see some logic behind that theory compared to others.
We'll never know until Bill gives us an explanation, probably in 20 years time if we ever get one....

New England Patriots Thread Mod Warning Post #253

Comments