Captain Caveman

I don't believe Kern said no, I haven't seen anywhere that he was offered the job.

Did he actually say the Bills offered to bring him in and he said no, or just that he's not signing here. Based on the other punter already being in town today I'd guess Kern maybe wasn't their first choice.

I wouldn't really have expected us to claim a punter, I'd expect they try to sign one today at a possibly lower rate.

So of the guys we were worried about, looks like we lost McCloud (and Tenuta, Tanner Owen and Kingsley Jonathan) but Blackshear and Hodgins were not picked up?

It seems to me you're going in circles here. Yes I watched the press conference - my critique of how the Bills handled this isn't about the use of the words "thorough investigation." If their only excuse is - our investigation wasn't really thorough - my question is why not? Lots of information was available to them, and as you said the only thing that changed was the claim being filed formally. If the claim being filed formally actually changed things, why come out with a statement that seems to indicate he's gonna stay on the team? IMO the most likely opinion is that they did have the same information 2 weeks ago that was released on Thursday, but they were hoping they could get away with keeping him. I also wonder (based on McDermott's first press conference after the Carolina game) if he maybe wasn't aware of the full details of the complaint, and made a decision after reading them that he didn't want the kid on the team. I'm not going to get into it about Allen except to say that at the time I WAS disappointed that they drafted him, and since that time I believe he's proven himself as a decent person, and I was wrong. There's a world of difference between what Allen did and what Araiza has been accused of. And maybe I'm wrong about Araiza, but based on the conversation I believe he did have with the victim, it seems like he's a POS, and I'm glad he's off the team.

If that's the case why did they come out on Thursday and say they had already performed a thorough investigation and made it seem like they intended to keep him on the team?

WTF Her claim is that she was ordered to perform a sex act, was too drunk to consent, and was then passed around by multiple attackers afterwards. The statutory rape is a part of it, but I don't really understand why you're focusing on it.

Guilty of having sex with an underage girl who said she was drunk beyond the point of consent and raped.

The article makes it clear that there is a credible accusation of gang rape at SDSU and that athletes (and people on the football team) knew about it. The victim's attorney gave details about a phone conversation monitored by police where Araiza came off looking very guilty. Did the police confirm these recordings to the Bills? Probably not, but to me it seems exceptionally risky for the Bills to not take that claim at face value, if the attorney is claiming this was a police led phone call. I'm not saying this is enough proof to convict him - I am saying IMO this should have been enough for the Bills to move on - in the end, what was the new information that came out after Thursday that they didn't have back in July?

He can't go on PUP, he will likely be on IR, the question is if we have the roster space to add him to the initial roster, after which he could go to short term IR (otherwise if we don't have him on initial 53 man roster he has to go on season ending IR.)

I am saying the below article, available in June, along with the details that were included in the victim's attorney to the Bills (including details of the police led phone conversation between Araiza and the victim) should have been enough information for them to make this decision earlier. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-03/sdsu-san-diego-state-football-players-claim-rape-girl

Not sure if I was unclear or if this is just crayonz type stuff, but just to clarify - they should have done this on the day that the victim's attorney contacted them, and should have quickly had enough information to make an informed decision.

1. What does him being hispanic have to do with it? 2. The issue is they didn't investigate as best they could. No one is saying they should have immediately cut him, but they had most of the details, and could have easily followed up to get more, but hoped that it wasn't true or would go away. There were stories published in the LA Times as early as June with many details of the assault, all they had to do was a quick google search for San Diego State Rape and it would have been on the top page. So either they did no investigation, or they did, they knew many of the details, and still hoped it might stay quiet. They should have performed an actual thorough investigation, and at that time should have had enough details to part ways with him - it shouldn't have needed to go public for that to happen.

I think it's fair to recognize that this has indeed been a terrible week for Beane (primarily for how they stuck their heads in the sand over Araiza, also the signing of Howard definitely has backfired) and also recognize he has positioned us as Super Bowl favorites, and is one of the top GMs in the league. Both of those things can be (and I would say are) true.

This comment seems completely out of left field - what exactly about Cook makes you think this? (It's also a little laughable any more pointing to culture after the events of the last week.)

2 starting punters were released today, so we really don’t need to do that.

I'd prefer 6-11 honestly just so they don't have a top 5 pick... Let's keep them in those middling years we had so frequently during the drought for as long as possible.

https://www.sportingnews.com/us/nfl/news/nfl-practice-squad-salary-rules-2022/xfsq4rhj3ro6sdw8p4y6hzia $19,900 max salary (weekly x18) this year

A little, but not much - maximum I believe for 2022 is about 20k per week - still a 600k pay cut from being on the roster.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2022/08/28/brian-daboll-tyrod-taylor-should-be-ok/

He could choose to stay on the practice squad (not subject to waivers) but the difference in pay between practice squad and active roster is at least $600k Maybe that's not worth it to him, but the chance to actually play in games as the primary backup could be worth making a change. This is true, but non-vested players (I think less than 4 years) do go through waivers before being able to be signed to the practice squad. Barkley is not subject to this though as a vested veteran.

It's already spent, his full contract is guaranteed.

Is there? From what I can tell his entire contract this year ($3.5 million is guaranteed) and he's off the books after this year. https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/case-keenum-10079/

In the 1st and 3rd games Keenum played with our 2nd string against the other teams 1st - 2nd string. In the one game where he played with our starters he looked good. Aside from that, Keenum and Barkley both have large books of work (including training camp this year) that indicate Keenum is the better option. There's also a salary cap / financial implication to cutting Keenum. Keenum's gonna be the backup, with Barkley on the practice squad. It is https://lmgtfy.app/?q=nfl+practice+squad+salary Practice Squad minimum salary: $9,200 per week or $165,600 for 18 weeks. Practice squad salary for veterans with 2+ years of experience: Approximately $14,000 per week or $252,000 for 18 weeks.

I think the fact that yesterday McDermott said in his interview that he learned things in the last 24 hours, and they held him out of the game after originally planning to play him says all that needs to be said about the thoroughness of the Bills' investigation.