UKBillFan

Yes, if they had said 'continuing' investigation or that they were taking stock of ongoing events which would shape future decisions then it would have bought them a lot more time.

There has been a lot of back and forth on the 270+ page Araiza thread since Thursday about this. General agreement, from those who have looked in to Californian law, seem to be that, if Araiza has good reason to think she was 18 then that charge may not be placed, dependant on witness statements etc. Additionally, the age gap suggested that it could be treated as a misdmeanour rather than a felony as the alleged offender is 21 or under and the alleged victim is not 16 or under.

Regarding the person or persons to take the 'fall' for this - Beane specifically said that he and McDermott needed more help. Have to wonder who that was aimed at.

One night stands when drunk happen every evening. The question will be what age he thought she was, and what is believed.

Temporarily. No criminal charges, or found not guilty in criminal court, and either settling out of court or being found not guilty in civil court and he'll have the chance to return to the NFL.

Probably? If he has found not guilty in a criminal charge setting, or none are bought, and he settles out of court then he's back. Not sure how you can deem his behaviour as being 'typically' impulsive either, unless we're going down the guilty before being proven innocent route again.

Regarding Araiza not being issues criminal charges, it was a belief posted by a defence attorney on here on the basis that a civil case has been raised, as putting the alleged victim in front of a civil court raises the risk of testimony which undermines the criminal case.

Looks like Mims has picked up an injury.

Then go to a jeweller's.

Though I see where you're coming from, would the civil case have been raised had Araiza not become the clear punter for the team? It could be that they cut Haack as part of the final cuts and then the civil case was issued, leaving us nine days from opening night without a punter. I agree, keep Haack and cut Araiza would have been the more obvious situation. I get from that that Haack was never going to be our punter this season; they had at least decided that by last Tuesday.

Several team mates were criticial of him when he was released by the Raiders in 2018. Not sure how well he'll fit the dressing room culture or whether he may get under the skin of others.

I wonder if they were going through steps to see if there was any way they could keep hiim on the team but remove him from the roster - administration lead, suspension, exempt list etc. As every avenue closed they came to the only conclusion. That doesn't explain what was an absolute mess of an original statement from the Bills or why they seemed to be prepared to play him on Friday until late on. McDermott did say that he had learned something in the prior 24 hours to the post Panthers press conference. They seem to be wanting to hold on to this as the reason why they made the decisions they did.

Think the score might be with Araiza's attorney rather than Araiza himself.

From memory they travelled to Carolina on Wednesday, which was before the civil lawsuit was issued. It could have been something in the lawsuit or reading the journal entries posted on Twitter, that's my feeling anyway when McDermott said, post Panthers game, that he had learned something he wasn't aware of in the past 24 hours. I think him playing then not playing on Friday was potentially down to discussions with the rest of the team and McDermott. Possibly because of how quickly and viciously the social media blow up occured. I think the cut may have been decided at that point too; Araiza was seen at the stadium in his street clothes rather than wearing anything with Bills branding. I don't think his locker has his name on it either; it was removed prior to kick off.

Because they had doubts about Araiza's holding and hang time, but didn't see a reason to bring in another punter whilst they were testing him out. I don't think we ever intended to go into the season with Haack as punter, but that's just my opinion.

Said it before, probably on another thread, but cynically have to wonder if we cut Haack when we did to see if the defense attorney did anything to cause an issue moving forward. We had over two weeks to sort this out when he did, compared to nine days if we waited until Tuesday.

Back injury, accordinfg to the sideline reporter.

Think they cut Haack because they had no intention of going into the season with him as punter either way. It was a case of Araiza or another.

Learned new information from the moment the civil lawsuit was released which they were not aware of previously.

They claim they did, so are you saying Beane and McDermott are lying?

This is putting two and two together and I could well make five from this. I think this is the case, for the defense attorney, which broke the camel's back. He has seemingly overseen more than one case where there have been alleged rape's and/or sexual assualts where Araiza's attorney has helped to get the defendants off; he referred to "two predators" in a previous tweet. Now there's a third, with one of the alleged perpetartors being plastered over the thread as "Punt God" and "Hold God". Araiza's attorney is presumably taking a similar approach which he took previously. The DA department has just received the material and is going through it but, based on the civil charge, there may already be an implication that Araiza, at least, will not be charged. He's had enough of what he sees sports people and/or men get off on crimes he believes they've committed, especially after having to deal with vulnerable alleged victims, who may be upset, blaming themselves, and under pressure from society who deem them as "not being able to keep their legs shut", a comment which has been posted on here today. It has tipped him over the edge and his emotion has taken over reason. His intention might have been to hurt Araiza's career. In the long term I am concerned, by arguably letting his emotions run unchecked, he's hurt his client's case more.

I'm not sure if He can help in this case.

This is painful to watch from a QB point of view. Hope Taylor is ok.

Can you explain how they tried to sneak one under the bench?

Yes, I feel the whole thing was to get Araiza cut, but I'm not sure if it's the best for this client long term.