UKBillFan

I agree. Can’t believe how close he came to starting against the Panthers after the allegations were made public. But the constant changes of wishes and posts on Twitter which seem to counter what is being claimed, in terms of the civil case, makes me uncomfortable as well.

Oh please. We released Araiza because he was ‘only’ the punter. Do you honestly think we would have cut Josh in the same circumstances?

I’d want more than an apology and a donation to a rape charity. I’d be desperate for justice. And how can he try denying he wasn’t after money when he released texts on Twitter over the last couple of days indicating the opposite?

Just had a look at who we might be able to pick up on waivers on Tuesday and the only real option there is whoever is released between Kern and Stonehouse by the Titans. Otherwise it will be a case of picking up someone via free agency.

I don’t think they would have covered it; they would have gone down the route of “no comment” or “due to legal issues, we do not want to discuss background conversations”. In answering a further question, Beane even went out of his way to stress again that Araiza’s story hadn’t changed. That’s not to say which side is telling the truth, just that Araiza has been consistent with what he told the Bills.

Beane made clear Araiza’s story has not altered at any point. More may come out via a civil or criminal case which reveals he has but, for now, neither said they were lied to by him.

Cynically, did we cut Haack when we did to see if being named as the punter would result in a civil case against Araiza, giving us enough time to sort things out prior to the 53 man cut and additional players available via the waivers if need be?

Oh definitely. 45 yards is a breeze…

Or, as stated elsewhere, they were always going to move on from Haack. Either Araiza would punt or they were happy enough that some of those under free agency/waivers would be an upgrade.

Possibly. They could have held on to both until Tuesday and cut Haack then though; bought some time to see if anything else came out. As you say, perhaps they decided there were enough free agent punters and those who will appear on waivers that we considered ourselves in a better position cutting Haack whatever the outcome with Araiza.

In fairness, most mock drafts had Araiza as the third or fourth punter to go due to doubts surrounding hang time and holding.

The only misstep for me is cutting Haack over Araiza. If they knew this was hanging over the latter, why cut the former when they did?

Beane said Araiza’s story has not changed at any point, so he was as open at the start as he was at the last.

Just to verify - Beane confirmed Araiza’s story has not changed from the first time he asked for it to the last.

12 days for it to wash off. I'm only guessing but, if I'm right, I can understand both Beane and McDermott's point of view. And it doesn't sit right that, had it been someone of more importance to the team than the punter then it would have been treated very differently (and that goes across the NFL, not just the Bills).

And I think this has been the problem since Thursday, which came to a head last night. Beane and McDerrmott were in disagreement on how to proceed - Beane was fixed on innocent until proven guilty and wanted it to play out; McDerrmott felt it was setting a bad example and unduly influencing the team.

Morally it needs to play out through due process. If charges are not bought, he is found not guilty and/or settles then he will probably turn up for a NFL team again. If found guilty, he'll have more things to worry about than punting and rightly so.

That last question was ridiculous - there's an ongoing civil process with a potential criminal process, of course they will have to say no comment to some questions. I think both were as open and honest as they could be considering the circumstances, though I don't think cutting Haack and keeping Araiza was addressed?

Allegedy. So many in this thread have decided he is guilty.

Beane seems to be saying that Araiza's defence has not changed, so no 'lies' or holding back from him. This all seems based on the civil charges being bought.

Thanks (and to others who answered). Administrative leave?

Two seats - McDermott and Beane?

Think the allegations are a pretty good reason to suspend him on pay. So we risk putting him on waivers; it'd be interesting to see if any other team would be interested in picking up his package - they'd get a greater backlash than the Bills. I agree, I hope he lied to the front office at some point to be cut, otherwise what has changed from Tuesday other than the court of public opinion?

At least he would have still be paid and part of a NFL squad. By the sounds of it, it's a straight cut now so he won't be.

Individuals don't matter now. If they benefit the team then they're in. In they don't then they don't deserve a second thought.