UKBillFan

If the alleged victim’s attorney was confident of criminal charges he wouldn’t be pushing a civil case. I think the statue is 12 months so he could have held back another eight weeks if the criminal charge was moving at a glacial pace.

There is also no evidence that the Bills did not conduct a thorough examination but I highly doubt they would have been able to access the alleged victim’s journal or the text messages between the attorneys, for example.

Araiza’s defence is that he led her to a room to rest, left her alone, and there are witnesses saying he was not in the house when the rape took place IIRC. I’m not saying he’s being truthful or lying - just laying out the defence.

Surely they wouldn’t take the gamble at this stage? We’ll see if he is cut, I guess. There is a feeling of guilty before being proven innocent around all of this.

Or, even though it wasn’t during college days, the likes of Watson and Roethlisberger.

Asked this earlier but could we put him on the practice squad until he is cleared/settles or charged/sentenced?

How about a star QB where something comes out about an incident during his college days?

That doesn’t explain the statement from yesterday, though I suppose McDermott letting slip new information has been discovered over the past 24 hours might explain why they could have changed course.

Agreed. In both directions.

Because he’ll be cut due to the position he plays rather than the actions he has reportedly undertaken. If I could believe a rookie first round QB would be treated the same way I’d more than willingly accept it. So many people saying “he’s just a punter…” If he mislead the Bills he deserves to be cut. In fairness, my first post yesterday was questioning the front office decision making in cutting Haack and keeping Araiza when this was running in the background. And the front office should have fronted up before now - not released a mess of a statement then throw McDermott to the wolves.

Exactly. Star players get treated with kid gloves no matter what they do whilst others are cast to the wolves.

I highly doubt we properly vetted pre-draft though it’s interesting that Warwow indicated that some teams were aware of the allegations at that point. I imagine the biggest cloud is what has happened after 30th July. Also, who cut Haack? If it was McDermott, what information dud he have on Araiza prior to making that decision and what did he find out in the last 24 hours?

The decision should be based on what he did, not the role on the team. If he was a rookie first round QB it’d be “ah well, let’s see if he’s actually guilty first”.

But talk about undermining him - sure, release the statement, and the first guy who’s going to get asked about it won’t be told it’s going to happen. Even if Araiza is not charged, and either settles or is found not guilty in civil court, I’m not sure if McDermott will want to work with him.

As said, McDermott should not have been put in a position where he was the first member of the franchise to answer questions. Where’s Beane?

That was uncomfortable to watch. McDermott didn’t say much yet was pretty damning.

Going off the interview, I feel that if it was purely down to McDermott, Araiza would be cut.

I bet Keenum and Barkley are delighted.

So’s he guilty then? Thanks for letting us know.

Last time the Bills lost a pre-season game was exactly four years ago to the day - 26-13 at home to the Bengals. Last time we were shut out was just over a month later, on 30th September 2018, when losing 22-0 at the Packers.

Feels like Hodgins and Blackshear have done themselves no harm at all tonight, but will it make a difference?

Yep, the headlines will be focusing on tonight's defeat. Absolutely nothing else going on at all...

Get Allen in there? Actually, considering how people are picking up injuries tonight perhaps not!

Yes, I agree. I was responding to the post which said the civil case would have blindsided them. It wouldn't have done. I could have just phrased my response better.

I read the OP as saying there was no lapse of judgement from the Bills as the civil case blindsided them. I disagree, partly for the reason you say.