Shaw66

Well, fair enough, but having made a career of covering the Bills for the Buffalo market is the same as having made a career of covering western New York news on local TV. There's a reason they aren't covering the Patriots or the Giants or the Rams, just like the Buffalo TV news people aren't on the NBC nightly news. That's because the Globe and the Times and the Times (the other one) and NBC can afford to hire the best, and they aren't hiring the Buffalo beat writers. They are in the relative minor leagues for a reason. That doesn't mean they aren't good writers, smart people, good journalists, but it does definitely mean they're second string. Either they did it or they didn't. That's what's binary. That doesn't make it pass-fail. If the number is two teams knew and 30 didn't (I know, we don't know that, but if that's what it is), then I don't think the Bills failed. They did what more or less everyone else did, which means they did what's standard. The fact that two teams figured it out may set a new standard for investigating the draft class, but it doesn't mean everyone else failed. Minor point. I don't disagree with what you're saying.

This is really good. Thanks for taking the time to put it together. I do have some quibbles. By putting "or not" in parentheses, you're suggesting that it probably was willful. There is no evidence that they willfully ignored any information, and that's exactly contrary to what Beane has said. They did not know anything about this before the end of July, at which point they didn't ignore it. Yes, they could have had more regular contact with plaintiff's counsel, but what was that supposed to be? A phone call asking if there was more information? I agree, that would be a good thing to do, but in this case (and most) it would not have turned up anything new. There wasn't any reason to believe that this long after the event, new information would arise. But if that's the best criticism you can come up with, then I'd say the Bills did a pretty good job. I agree completely that cutting Araiza was the expedient and correct thing to do. It will end the media circus. And I agree that it wasn't done, as Beane said, because it was the best thing for Araiza. It wasn't. But it was done for culture. There had to be players (or wives) who were troubled by the allegations and who were troubled to have deal with having the guy as a teammate. McDermott is promising these guys an ideal environment in which to become better football players, and having that kind of distraction goin on is not conducive to an ideal environment. So, culture was one of the reasons they did what they did.

Well, yeah, I'm one who's quick to criticize the press, but the fact is this is as tough a situation for them as for the team. For one, their editors are telling them THIS is the story, get something on it. Their editors know more people will read about this story than up the upcoming cuts, so this is the story that they have to report on. Given that, just like Beane and McDermott are just a GM and a coach, these guys are just second-string sports beat writers, not investigative journalists. Just like McDermott has never done a press conference like these before, these guys have never dug into this kind of story before, either. They don't know what questions to ask, what angles to pursue, and what people want to read. They don't want to piss off the Bills, their editor, their readers. Point is, it isn't easy for them, either.

Even with your numbers, it's hard to say the Bills dropped the ball on this in the pre-draft period. Yes, it would have been nice had the Bills uncovered more information, but it doesn't sound like it was information that was obvious or the kind of information that teams would usually find. Would they like to have found the info? Absolutely. And will they change their procedures? I'd bet they will, to increase the likelihood that they find it. If we try to imagine what teams doing due diligence were seeing, it was something like this: Araiza is saying nothing about this, at all. He's embarrassed it happened, and he wants it to go away. So, he's not talking, even though teams are probably asking if there's anything they need to know about. His college team isn't talking about it. They know something happened, but the facts are vague and they decided to take the easy route, which is to wait until something happens - the police give them more info, the woman complains directly to the program, something. But they aren't seeing or hearing anything more, they decide they're just waiting to see if it goes away. Maybe a few teams had an inside contact - like a scout played for a guy who's coaching at the school, and the scout goes out to dinner with the coach and, because of the nature of the relationship, gets a little more info than would usually turn up, and he finds out that there are rumors. Maybe the scout asks Araiza what he knows about the rumors, and Araiza tells the guy that he doesn't believe they're true, but he was at the party. As I said elsewhere, one thing I think will happen is that Beane will ask his people what people should have been contacted, and what questions should have been asked, in order to find out there were rumors. And those kind of people and those questions will become part of the process. But as to the original point, it seems like the Bills did the same amount of digging on Araiza as most other teams did. So, I don't think they dropped the ball.

Well, Beane seemed to think that most teams didn't know about this. From reading here, it sounds like there have been only two teams who said they knew before the draft, then the ball wasn't dropped. Two teams just had guys who made highlight-reel catches. What will happen, I'm sure, is that the Bills will ask themselves what questions should have been asked, or what people should have been contacted, and those questions and people will become part of the process going forward.

Point is that the Bills are not unfamiliar with media eruptions. Each media eruption is different, but I'm sure the PR people have general principles they use to guide them through each. One of the principles must be if it has the probability of a scandal is high enough, get out of the headlines as soon as possible. Bills might have decided in late July that the probability was high and simply cut him then. Obviously, they thought the probability was relatively small and they decided to keep their punter. When the story broke, the probability for scandal escalated, and the Bills did what was necessary to get out of the headlines.

Thanks. I hadn't heard that rumor.

Bills stuck with Josh when the news about his high school tweets broke the night before the draft. Bills stuck with Beas when he went anti-vax. Bills stuck with Araiza when they first heard the story in July. But when the story broke, it was clear they weren't going to get ahead of it and it was clear that Araiza wasnt as important as a QB or a slot receiver.

Two things about this: 1. You're absolutely right. This is just another day, another week in the life of a football team. Something unplanned and out of the blue hits, and every scrambles for a day or two or a week and then they get on with it. So, yeah, all of this is just a footnote in the history of 2022 season, significant only if NFL Films highlights the fact that the Bills punter made a touchdown-saving tackle in the playoffs and preserved the win, a punter who was on the team only because Araiza got cut. Other than that, it's over. 2. On the other hand, some of those odd events in the life of a football team are bigger than others. The day the Mike Vick story broke, that was a BIG day in the history of the Falcons. The Bills just had one that looked and felt like a big one one. Wasn't really, but it threatened to be a big story. How management performed in dealing with the event IS important to the future of the team. So, it's worth talking about.

That's interesting. Bottom line, I think, is that in management, including football management, the only objective was to get it out of the news. They want to do that as well as they can, but at the end of the day almost all that matters is to get the press to stop asking questions about it. You do that by getting him off the team, because then you can begin to respond to the questions by saying the guy isn't on the team, we wish him well, we tried to handle it as well as we could. When he's still on the team, the questions are still there. The Niners wish they could move Garappolo, because all the time he's there, he'll be the question. Bills have succeeded in that. Araiza's gone, and the story will die. They'll pick up a decent to good punter, and he'll work like crazy to get up to speed with Bass. Ten weeks from now, it'll be a dead story, almost as though your punter got injured and had to be replaced in a hurry. Bottom line, as Alpha said, is that management did a solid job getting through, this not perfect, but solid. And they did it with as much respect for the positions of the people involved as they could.

Thanks. This is excellent stuff. I'll respond to a few things. Do you know the Bills at all the hosses at work? It didn't sound that way to me. Sounded like Beane said "we looked at it at the end of July, learned what we could, and then we waited." We agree about running out to now with both punters on the roster. I would keep Araiza only if the problem had been resolved (claim goes away, or Araiza settles); otherwise, if the problem was still just hanging there, I keep Haack. Far-fetched? Probably. But by talking to the lawyer every week, you may learn more about their intentions. Finally, one chair or two. I think it was completely clear, both days, that McDermott was not comfortable delivering the agreed up messages. He was really struggling to find words. Someone in the organization, someone who was prepping McDermott or maybe McDermott himself, finally said no, we can't put him out there alone. I saw somewhere that Beane was flying into Buffalo yesterday afternoon - probably stayed in Carolina to be with friends or family. So, they rushed him back, because if it wasn't going to be McD and it wasn't going to be Pegula, it had to be Beane. I think you're correct, that he wasn't as well prepared as we're used to. He hadn't been in the room with people for the previous 24 hours, talking about it. I loved it when Beane said, "Look, Sean's a coach and I'm a GM, and we need help on stuff like this." From a management point of view, it's been an incredibly learning experience for them. They work so hard to be prepared for unexpected things, and part of the work is learning from your successes and failures when unexpected things happen. Beane and McDermott will get better at this, because they work to get better at everything.

Alpha, I think you're mostly correct here, except that you assume the Bills did all they could have under the circumstances when they first learned of the lawsuit. If they'd thought it out, I think they would have seen that they were leaving themselves out to dry by cutting Haack. Once they cut him, they were stuck with however the Araiza situation played out. It was a gamble. And it really wasn't worth it - they could have kept Haack until this weekend, and decided now. And the right decision would have been to keep Haack, because the Bills still might not have known enough. Cut Araiza, go with Haack, don't worry any more about your exposure. Now, in an odd way, it may work to the Bills favor, because they may find a better punter than hunk in a couple of days.

So, what were they supposed to do? Believe me, I'm not arguing. Let's play out the scenario. So, the Bills circle back five or seven days later and ask if there's anything new? The Bills are told "no, we continue to work on our civil complaint." Now what? Bills ask if they can interview the woman, and the lawyer says either no or yes, but on the following condition: NOTHING she says in your interview can be used as part of your defense if she chooses to sue you. At which point the Bills say, "whoa, you're thinking of suing US? We're out of here, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers." And if they just get nothing when they circle back, what then? Circle back in another week? And the week after that? How long do the Bills hang in limbo, wondering what to do? Worst case, I suppose, is that with everything still in limbo in November her lawyer says, "Okay, we intend to commence the litigation in two weeks, unless Araiza settles right now." Maybe they try to hold up Araiza - and the Bills - by threatening to make them the number story in their market. I guess that would be a pretty bad outcome. We can create a lot of possible scenarios, but they wouldn't have been materially better. Well, yes, a better one goes like this: Suppose the Bills got serious corroborating evidence on, say, August 7 (there apparently was no such evidence available then, but just assume there was). Bills waive him then. They keep Haack. There's a flurry of news coverage that is over by now. That's the best possible outcome. Not sure it really matters all that much. Bills will have a Haack-equivalent punter into another few days, and it will be out of the news in a week. So, I think I just convinced myself. Bills should have been more proactive after first learning of it in July. They should have checked with her lawyer, and Araiza's lawyer, asking if there are any developments. That way, at least, they might get advance notice of the filing of the suit. Keep pursuing it in any way you can, just the way your scouts track down old coaches and other people. Talk to the coaches at his college, talk his teammates. Keep Haack on the team. Then, when you get to this weekend, when final cuts are made, you make a decision. Maybe you've learned enough to know that the whole thing is dying, or has settled quietly. You keep Araiza. Or, you've learned nothing new (where the Bills were a few days ago), and decide you don't want to risk a November scenario, so you cut him and keep Haack. Instead, the Bills waited for the episode either to die or come alive. It came alive, and the Bills dealt with it. Team will be way past it in a day or two, and the press will be, too. Not the best possible outcome, but in no way is it devastating to the team. I also think you have to assume that their decision making was guided (not directed, but guided) by the League. Beane did mention being in touch with the League, and you can be sure the league was over it. All of the NFL's marketing has the Bills shown as a marquee name, and they don't want a sex scandal associated with that marketing. It's a good bet that the Bills dug exactly as deep as the NFL suggested. Beane didn't say, "the NFL made some suggestions, but we decided they weren't overkill." The NFL was no doubt very clear about how they thought it should be handled, and I can't imagine that these managers - Beane and McDermott - would not do at least what the league suggested. One final thought, off the subject. Where was Terry Pegula in this? Did he tell Beane and McD to handle it and keep him out of it? I might have thought he would have participated in a press conference, saying how important these issues are in the country, and how concerned Kim and Terry are about them. Which leads to the bigger question: Where's Kim? Was there news that I missed one day? We haven't heard a word, so far as I know, and now Terry is AWOL. I wonder if Beane and McDermott have been left in charge of the place while Terry and Kim are dealing with some tough stuff. Beane and McDermott probably are working under a lot of pressure. That may explain why even Beane had trouble handling that press conference.

I'm fine with how all this is playing out, but I can't say that I think the Bills did a great job, especially in dealing with the press. The Bills drafted a player who had a problem brewing in his personal life. The Bills didn't know about the problem, and apparently the great majority of other teams didn't know about it, either. There's a limit to how much due diligence the team can do on the dozens and dozens of players they have on their board. And the amount of investigation depends on how high the guy is likely to be drafted and what position he plays. They did, I'm sure, the investigation they thought was appropriate for a punter they might take in the later rounds. Araiza knew about the problem but believed, apparently, that he had no legal responsibility and that it would go away, or perhaps had already gone away. If he knew it was worse than that, then he should have told teams when they asked, but he didn't. In any case, the Bills did what they were supposed to do. In July, they learned of the allegations that the woman was making. The Bills apparently talked to the league, talked to the local police, and didn't learn anything more than what they learned from the woman's lawyer. So, at that point they were looking at the woman saying these things happened and Araiza saying they didn't. It was not public. The team can't be expected to cut a guy just because one person says something happened - if teams did that, all kinds of stupid crank accusations would come up. Suppose the week of the Bills-Chiefs playoff game a woman in KC claims Tyreek Hill raped her - at the Chiefs supposed to cut him, right then and there? The Bills didn't need to call the woman's lawyer back. He'd already told the Bills the woman's version of the facts, and the lawyer wasn't going to have more facts in August. They didn't need to talk to the woman - in fact, her lawyer probably wouldn't let them talk to her, because she'd never tell the story exactly the same, so there would be contradictions that arose, maybe innocent, but still contradictions. The Bills didn't have any obligation to make the whole thing public when they got the news in July. It was up to the woman and Araiza to decide whether to go public about it. In the meantime, the Bills make their decisions and move on. Might it have made sense to hold on to Haack for a few more weeks because it was possible something broke? Well, yeah, I suppose, but the Bills had no way to know if or when anything would break. But frankly, it's a minor decision. The guy is a punter, and if something happens that forces the Bills to release him, they can always find another punter. When they let Haack go, they decided they'd go with the best punter, and if something happened, then they would deal with it. Something happened. She sued Araiza. The news broke late on Thursday, the Bills were on the road and had a game Friday. The Bills benched Araiza for the game and cut him on Saturday. Could they have acted faster? Well, maybe, but really, they were on the road, they had to talk to lawyers and to the NFL and to Araiza and his lawyers and to the union. I'm fine with all of that. I think McDermott was pretty bad in his solo press conference after the game, and I think both Beane and McDermott did a poor job in the press conference Saturday night. McDermott clearly was afraid to say the wrong thing and wasn't comfortable with what he should say. Beane, to his credit, powered through as well as he could. The best thing he said, twice, was that he and McD are just football people and they don't know how to handle all of this. They're just trying to do the best they can. The worst thing he said, over and over, was that the Bills decided to cut him because it would be best for Matt to focus on dealing with this problem. That's pure BS. If you have a job, and you get sued, the worst thing that can happen to you is to get fired from your job. You want to keep your job, if for no other reason because you'll need to pay your lawyers. Watson didn't get fired - he practiced all last season, just didn't play in any games. He has some serious allegations going on, and he didn't need to quit his job to deal with them, and Araiza didn't, either. The Bills cut Araiza for one simple reason - once they cut him the press will stop talking about it as an issue. The only story the press question the press has that people are interested is "why do you continue to have this bad man on your roster?" As soon as you cut the guy, the question goes away. Nobody, at lest nobody who's getting national coverage, is asking the Texans why it took them so long to get rid of Watson. To the extent anyone cares are bad men in the NFL, they're asking the Browns that question now. Nobody is going to be asking three weeks from now why the Bills didn't cut Araiza in July. The Bills know that, and the NFL PR people told them that. The Bills knew if they cut the guy, they'd have a press conference to stumble through, some follow up questions in the following days, and then it will be over. So, that's what they did. Beane and McDermott did stumble, but they got through it. They'll have a few more questions, but they'll be telling the press that the team is moving on. The press, for their part, were as bad as you'd expect, smelling blood in the water and going after it, trying to make a story out of why the Bills didn't do more in July or learn about this before the draft or something, but really, it sounds like throughout the whole thing the Bills did what a football team is supposed to do.

I doubt he'll do that, either. When he comes back, he'll be free agent, and he won't want to feel restricted. He'll talk to the Bills, sure, he's not committing anything now.

Bills wouldn't agree to that. They'll say when he's ready to get back to the game, the Bills certainly will consider him. But the Bills will have moved on, and who knows what commitments the Bills might have to their then current punter. Plus, if the case goes the wrong way, and the evidence against him gets worse, the Bills aren't going to want a commitment hanging out there that they'd take him back.

I think you're right. From a football point of view, it's just a punter, for Pete's sake. Replace him and move on. There's just no reason to keep him around and keep having to deal with a media circus. Some media circuses are unavoidable and can't be stopped, but this one can be. The broadcast coverage team will to talk about it each week Araiza is on the team; they will have no real reason to talk about in November if he's off the team now. How to replace him? Well, you want to be sure that you don't violate his contract, so you bring in lawyers and you negotiate a deal between Araiza and the Bills. I have to believe it's going on right now, and there is a deadline, which may be the end of business Monday, in advance of the cuts. As I said above, they're negotiating what's going to be said about this - why he's getting cut, mutual agreement, no admissions, nothing might put the Bills or the punter in a bad light. Araiza's going to say he's leaving the team - and football - voluntarily to take time to clear his name. He's going to say how how much he appreciates the opportunity to work with the Bills, including through this problem. Once all of that happens, there may be lingering questions about whether the Bills should have known earlier, acted more quickly, been more sensitive to the victim, and Bills public relations people will help the Bills manage that. They'll be doing it all in consultation with the NFL office. The NFL knows how to do this. Not likely to become some kind of ongoing national scandal, unless the news breaks that Gabriel Davis is a named defendant, too. I don't know any of this, but it sure seems likely.

I agree. Operationally, on a strictly football basis, all that's happening for the team is that they'll replace their punter. It's not a big deal from that perspective. They'll just get another punter, as if Araiza had pulled his hammy. They'll tell the players and coaches to get focused and they will. At the higher level, they're scrambling, no doubt talking to the NFL's people who have been there before, and they'll work through the process professionally. They're probably already having lawyer to lawyer discussions with Araiza's attorney about how the Bills let him go, what the financial arrangements will be, what the agreement will be about what's said to the press. It's not easy, and there's pressure to get the story under control quickly, get it in the past or at least postponed. But I don't see that it's going to cause turmoil. It's just a major, unexpected disruption, and they are prepared to deal with those things. It's high-level management decision making, and Terry Pegula is at the management pyramid. I agree, in November it will be a footnote, or maybe a milestone.

Bill's fans are showing up everywhere! Thanks for the video.

I don't disagree that we haven't seen enough of Hart, but what you say here simply is not and cannot be the standard. If he could win against 1s, he'd be starting. All teams are thin in oline depth - that's why these guys move around and around, so it's unreasonable to expect the Bills' depth to be better. The reason the Bills value guys like Hart is that they can rely on him to what he can do, to do it as well as he can, and do it consistently. If he can do that, then if he needs to play, the Bills will make adjustments for the fact that he may not be starter caliber. But they know what they're going to get when they put him in the lineup. And that, I think, was the problem with Ford. The Bills never could count on him to give consistent, solid effort to the best of his ability. McDermott is willing to plan around second-line talent, but he won't tolerate inconsistent play from an equally or more talented player.

They will NOT bring him back early, not at this point in the season. He will be 100% when he comes back.

He does a good job. He knows he has to be entertaining, and he exaggerates some, but he watches the games and he thinks about what's happening. And he gets interesting guests.

I'm not talking about when is the right time to bring him back. What you say is correct. But if he's healthy and can play in week 2, then the Bills will want him available to play. If they've put him on the PUP, then he's not available. They don't want him on the PUP if he can play. So, they'll wait as long as they can before they do that.

Absolutely. Putting him on the PUP makes him unavailable for several weeks. Sounds like they think he may be available in the first few weeks of the season.

I think this exactly correct. I think McD worked with him for years, but he simply wasn't a character fit. In his farewell post, I heard Ford saying thnk you for all that he learned. He sincerely appreciated what the coaches put in to help him, but it wasn't enough.