McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released

[BillsShredder83]

7 hours ago, Beast said:

 

Yeah, I haven’t ***** an underage girl at a college party or even been at one where there has been a gang rape.

 

Guess I haven’t lived a full life by your standards, huh?

Did you check ids of every girl you banged when you were 18-22?

 

I'd bet never once, so technically you dunno.

6 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Hypothetically if he raped a girl I’d cut him.  I ‘d be enormously sad but ultimately football does not trump crimes.

I'd bet my life that they would've suspended him long enough to get all the facts.

[UKBillFan]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Absolutely.  So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?

 

This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed.  I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.

 

It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape.  They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.

 

So what changed?  It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times.  What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit.  That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".

 

When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen?  What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?

 

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.  (I'm assuming you mean plaintiff's attorney, as Araiza is the defendent)

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do, because this is actually a relatively good time for this to come out, vs. during the regular season.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

 

I guess overall, I don't think Beane would bet that poker hand.  It obviously had a huge impact on the mood of the team and on McDermott and his ability to coach/focus.

 

I think the Bills Brain Trust, meaning in this instance Gregg Brandon and legal, and Raccuia with Beane being in the loop, honestly assessed this as a "cash grab" move and did not believe that a civil lawsuit would be filed.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[Bangarang]

13 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Absolutely.  So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?

 

This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed.  I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.

 

It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape.  They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.

 

So what changed?  It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times.  What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit.  That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".

 

When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen?  What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?

What changed was the law suit was actually filed and it became a national story. The team became heavily scrutinized and it obviously became a distraction. If none of that happens then I’m sure Araiza is still on the team. 

[UKBillFan]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.  (I'm assuming you mean plaintiff's attorney, as Araiza is the defendent)

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do, because this is actually a relatively good time for this to come out, vs. during the regular season.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

 

I guess overall, I don't think Beane would bet that poker hand.  It obviously had a huge impact on the mood of the team and on McDermott and his ability to coach/focus.

 

I think the Bills Brain Trust, meaning in this instance Gregg Brandon and legal, and Raccuia with Beane being in the loop, honestly assessed this as a "cash grab" move and did not believe that a civil lawsuit would be filed.

 

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

What changed was the law suit was actually filed and it became a national story. The team became heavily scrutinized and it obviously became a distraction. If none of that happens then I’m sure Araiza is still on the team. 

 

Right.  But Beane kind of cast this as "they wanted time to investigate/due process/only allegations/boulders not details"

 

My point is exactly what you stated: they seem to have cut Araiza because it had become a national story with huge negative PR and a distracting/distressing impact on the coaches and team.

 

Of course, I can not rule out that they uncovered some new information that contradicted Araiza's story and made him less credible, or information that criminal charges are likely.

 

2 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

 

Well, there was that text where Araiza's lawyer said his parents wanted to know what amount the client had in mind.  So I'm inferring that Araiza did not have a conversation with them saying "I will not settle".

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Right.  But Beane kind of cast this as "they wanted time to investigate/due process/only allegations/boulders not details"

 

My point is exactly what you stated: they cut Araiza because it had become a national story with huge negative PR and a distracting/distressing impact on the coaches and team.

 

 

Well, there was that text where Araiza's lawyer said his parents wanted to know what amount the client had in mind.

 

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient.

 

So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media. Some comments seem to contradict other things being said.

Edited August 28, 2022 by UKBillFan

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

I actually buy this, and it doesn’t change my opinion of Beane at all.. because I truly believe he has no clue if Araiza did it or not. 
 

That makes sense to cut Haack after learning about this, to speed up the lawyers timeline of playing his hand.  
 

Thus allowing us to be in the position we are now, which is the ability to get a good punter off cutdowns or via trade if the lawyer pulled the trigger. 
 

Also, avoiding this happening the day before a game. 
 

It’s calculated af, but I’m not passing any moral judgments because Beane likely feels like most us do… sickened by the allegation, but with no clue whether any of it pertaining to Araiza is accurate. 
 

I think the holier than thou crowd may be a little surprised at how many times that approach to a player (banking on allegations never going public) panned out. 

[Beck Water]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

 

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient.

 

So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media.

 

Actually, the best explanation to all this might be "Unpredictable Behavior of Crazed Rabid Litigator"

 

I think that guy is trolling Araiza in the media, same has he's trashing Beane in the Bills

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

I actually buy this, and it doesn’t change my opinion of Beane at all.. because I truly believe he has no clue if Araiza did it or not. 
 

That makes sense to cut Haack after learning about this, to speed up the lawyers timeline of playing his hand.  
 

Thus allowing us to be in the position we are now, which is the ability to get a good punter off cutdowns or via trade if the lawyer pulled the trigger. 
 

Also, avoiding this happening the day before a game. 
 

It’s calculated af, but I’m not passing any moral judgments because Beane likely feels like most us do… sickened by the allegation, but with no clue whether any of it pertaining to Araiza is accurate. 
 

I think the holier than thou crowd may be a little surprised at how many times that approach to a player (banking on allegations never going public) panned out. 

 

The thing that wouldn't make sense to me about all this is....

 

.....the Bills could have simply kept Haack, scrutinized the cut-down list and potential trades/FA for an upgrade punter, and *totally avoided* all the distress and angst that McDermott plainly went through and that the team went through (judging by Barkley and Keenum)

 

I'm sure you're correct that the "banking on allegations not going public" approach has worked more often than we know, and teams have gambled on it to obtain a competitive advantage from a superior player.  Is Araiza really such a superior punter that the competitive advantage he provides to the Bills is worth the PR Sword of Damocles hanging over him?  As people have said, we didn't punt that much last year, and there are other aspects to punting where he's "developing" (like directional control, ability to punt short and pin a team deep, and of course holding)

[SCBills]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

The thing that wouldn't make sense to me about all this is....

 

.....the Bills could have simply kept Haack, scrutinized the cut-down list and potential trades/FA for an upgrade punter, and *totally avoided* all the distress and angst that McDermott plainly went through and that the team went through (judging by Barkley and Keenum)

 

I'm sure you're correct that the "banking on allegations not going public" approach has worked more often than we know, and teams have gambled on it to obtain a competitive advantage from a superior player.  Is Araiza really such a superior punter that the competitive advantage he provides to the Bills is worth the PR Sword of Damocles hanging over him?  As people have said, we didn't punt that much last year, and there are other aspects to punting where he's "developing" (like directional control, ability to punt short and pin a team deep, and of course holding)

I think naming Araiza the starter and cutting Haack was the trigger.  They, potentially, wanted to see what the lawyer would do when they did that.  
 

As far as not cutting him immediately … Maybe they truly believe Araiza…. Reading between the lines, they definitely didn’t say they don’t.
 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, CSBill said:

The issue is not what they did Thursday, the issue is what they didn’t do for three weeks before with admittedly having the  “boulders” of the accusations. Those seem to be some pretty big boulders to ignore for three weeks. …. Reporters have the right and responsibility to ask those questions. 
 

 

 

 

They didn't ignore anything.

 

They clearly investigated it all.  

 

They did not reach a determination that Araiza was guilty or innocent.  And maybe there was an NFLPA issue.  

 

 

People need to understand something that is sadly not going to matter because he's already a rapist.  Araiza's livelihood was literally in their hands - releasing him before their own investigation and before anything came to the surface would have cemented this kid as guilty 

 

If the Bills cut him some August 5th afternoon completely out of nowhere - they've just told the public he's guilty.  

 

 

 

The more I think about this the more convinced I am the Bills couldn't have handled it any better.   

[T master]

Okay I have some questions .

 

So what happens if this is a case of a gold digger (which we have seen before) & Ariaza is exonerated of any of these accusations & it is found out that this person is nothing but a gold digging liar will the Bills take a hit for not standing behind a innocent person a team mate that is suppose to be part of the family as it is ?

 

It just strikes me as very funny that when someone comes into a lot of money then & only then the accusations come about & IF IF IF this is that case it can very well ruin his life . 

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ? I know the Bills & the NFL have a image to uphold & these accusations are very VERY bad but if there is the  possibility that he is innocent will this be a knock against what Beane & McD have preached about family & having each others back in this teams culture .

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

53 minutes ago, Lost said:

 

Growing up I always assumed news reporters were purely objective I had great respect for people like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Lester Holt.   It wasn't until the last 7 years when it became very obvious how blatantly biased even the most respected(at the time) news anchors are.   The framing of questions in press conferences are always worded in a way to get confirmation of the pre-drawn conclusion from the reporter/outlet and automatically demonize the interviewee if they provide an unapproved response.  This goes for right and left leaning outlets.   The job of a reporter is to gather facts/information and present them to the viewer and let the viewer make judgements on their own.   

 

The most honest reporters provide both the opponent and proponent viewpoints.   Very few do that anymore.  

Good take. I may be older than you as it seems it’s been going on longer than that. It certainly has gotten worse in the last ten years or so. 

[muppy]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Who said it’s bad publicity?   That’s all in the eye of the beholder.  
 

Oh and on the “style of rhetoric”…

 

PAGING MUPPY VAN WINKLE!   PAGING MUPPY VAN WINLE!   

This is nothing new. 

Bottom line for me is that  this woman receive justice  in this situation. Is airing the case playing  to the court of public opinion on twitter an effective approach? *shrugs*  for me it came off as unprofessional 

Edited August 28, 2022 by muppy

[Beast]

36 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Did you check ids of every girl you banged when you were 18-22?

 

I'd bet never once, so technically you dunno.

 

I didn't need to check the ID because I knew who I was having sex with. Novel idea, huh?

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beast

[hemma]

1) The only mistake with cutting Haack is that it should have been done last year.

 

2) What are the Bills supposed to do that will placate the ‘vetting nazis’?  Dig through players’ trash at 3 AM?  Assign 3 man teams to tail them for a year?  Genetic testing done by disguised Dutch scientists?  If anything, the NFL should be in charge of all background vetting for all teams so that there is a standard, with a grade of Pass or Fail. It makes no sense for 8 different teams to do investigations on one prospect, each with different results.  Individual teams can then interview and make their own judgements on attitude, coachability, etc.

 

3). The Bills pay for 1 or more lawyers to help protect their interests and keep them from stumbling into legal quagmires.

The Bills aren’t perfect but because of the Pegulas, Beane & McDermott,  I personally give them the nod over click bait muckrakers here and in the media.

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

 

I didn't need to check the ID because I knew who I was having sex with. Novel idea, huh?

 

 

This makes sense, but today it’s an outdated concept. 

[Airseven]

Please unpin this my lord

[Beast]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

This makes sense, but today it’s an outdated concept. 

 

Right. I guess expecting to suffer the consequeces is also outdated for the up and comers.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Airseven said:

Please unpin this my lord

I don’t think the lord has forum privileges to do that. 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Airseven said:

Please unpin this my lord

 

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

[aristocrat]

So does he still get his contract paid out?

[TC in St. Louis]

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

So does he still get his contract paid out?

No. 

[aristocrat]

1 minute ago, TC in St. Louis said:

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

reminds me of Michael avenatti. I think this ends with him getting the pants sued off him by the victim and araiza 

[Coach Tuesday]

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

[UKBillFan]

Just now, TC in St. Louis said:

It appears that the Bills believed Matt's story.  

I don't know who or what to believe.  But I think the young woman's lawyer is a piece of *****.  I don't believe that he wasn't looking for money.  He's trashing the Bills.  They're not involved in the lawsuit.  What did they do wrong?  

He makes Saul Goodman look like Clarence Darrow.

 

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.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

12 minutes ago, hemma said:

3). The Bills pay for 1 or more lawyers to help protect their interests and keep them from stumbling into legal quagmires.

Hell, even lawyers for the Bills have been booted for conduct unbecoming a team executive, coach, or player.

[hemma]

2 minutes ago, Ridgewaycynic2013 said:

Hell, even lawyers for the Bills have been booted for conduct unbecoming a team executive, coach, or player.

 

Now?

These lawyers?

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

Heh.  I think if it's random - if you have 2 purple balls, and you remove at least 10 balls out of a basket initially holding 32 balls - your odds of not pulling a purple ball in 10 removals are something like 45%.  Check me on that.  It's a ratio of factorials.

 

It's probably not random - Beane probably has closer connections to some teams than others,

AP writer Rob Maadi, who I believe is Tampa-based, likewise probably has closer connections to some teams than others.

They may not be the same teams.

 

 

I've been talking about this with a guy who may know a guy.  And the best we can come up with, is a disconnect between the Bills legal department, PR departments, FO and coaching and a misunderstanding of what this was.

 

Kathryn D'Angelo's boss is....Gregg Brandon, brother of Russ Brandon.  So when she took the convo to her boss Brandon, his reaction may have been colored by "the way things were" (where people had more of a "players will be players, big deal" attitude).  And from that view, the first step was to contact Araiza and his attorney and get their take.  His attorney painted this publicly as a "cash grab" and may have been in settlement talks with the victim's attorney per the leaked texts.

 

If it was a "cash grab", actually filing the suit and publicizing the pictures is the nuclear option that would separate the cash cow from its lucrative grazing field. And apparently civil lawsuits are often nowhere near that specific and graphic if their intent is to be successful civil lawsuits, because that leaves the litigators more "wiggle room".

 

Believing it was a "cash grab" may have focused the Bills internal investigation (which I think they did conduct) on verifying Araiza's account of his involvement - reaching out independently to witnesses confirming the girl represented herself as in college, and that Araiza was not involved in the alleged rape -vs- actually trying to suss out the plaintiff's attorney's intentions and learn more about his intentions for the case, then conducting a broader review.

 

Also, it seems incredible to me, but I don't think the Bills actually had someone performing the due diligence of Googling LA Times articles and reading them.  Because if they did, it only takes the most rudimentary PR chops to plug Araiza's name into the details that were provided in the July 29th article and to see that the optics of "Civil suit filed against Bills punter Matt Araiza and others for gang rape which left 17 year old girl with bloody clothes, bleeding from her *****, and with bruises on her neck and legs" are gonna be Very Very Bad.

 

I think the Bills were honestly blindsided by the filing and the shitstorm which followed, and that McDermott was honestly horrified and distressed by the details in the lawsuit. He reacted like they were totally novel to him, and he had no idea Araiza might be linked to something like that.  But far from being "boulders" all those details were published in the press back in late July, just not linked to Araiza.

 

Clearly, we still only have allegations.  The lawsuit is only allegations.  Nothing likely changed in that regard between the lawyer's call, Monday when the Bills cut Haack, and Friday.

This is consistent with everything that I've hypothesized in smaller chunks here (save for GGGB blowing off D'Angelo).  I'll add that both of those corporate counsels are basically inexperienced litigators.  GGGB, to the best of my understanding, was a patent attorney and had a genetic advantage in getting the job.  How he survived his brother's BS is beyond me.  D'Angelo was a low-level ADA who later worked at a law firm that does some work the Bills, and then went in-house with the Bills.  My theory here is that scouting/player personnel didn't properly vet in the draft process, and that legal really screwed up when P's attorney got ahold of them.  Beck Water's friend is right.  The cash component of this case (which will be used to fund efforts to damage Araiza) now is part of the complaint against the landlord.  The goal of this case now is to destroy Araiza, to encourage the SD DA to act and, ultimately, to send Araiza a housewarming gift in prison.  That's the plan.  

 

The prior PR guy got clipped for Doug Whaley's "privy" press conference, which was embarrassing but a lot less humiliating than this fiasco.  The advice to D'Angelo here is to back up your emails, because GGGB is going to be pointing that finger directly at you.  The advice to GGGB is to start looking for a new job.  Someone is going to take the fall for this.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by SectionC3

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

Today?.. Our POS journalists like Fairburn and Skurski going after Beane and McDermott. 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 minute ago, hemma said:

 

Now?

These lawyers?

A blast from the past, a real crowd pleaser, and a truly fine individual:

Just ask him.

[K-9]

12 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

What exactly is everyone so furious about?

I’m furious that I don’t have more places to vent my self righteous indignation. 

[Billsatlastin2018]

3 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Very disappointed in Sal M. and Jay Skurski this morning.

 

 

Uhhhh… no… not disappointed in the questioning at all!

 

The real answer is found in the Athletic this morning:

“On Friday, coach Sean McDermott said the Bills had learned new information about the case with the filing of the lawsuit. They did know about the allegations, at least, before cutting incumbent punter Matt Haack on Monday. “That’s a tough one. You can second-guess whether that was the right move,” Beane said about the decision to hold onto Araiza.”

 

[Rico]

2 hours ago, SCBills said:

They did the necessary thing, which is framed as “the right thing” for PR purposes. 
 

Nobody has any idea if Araiza did what he accused of doing.  You don’t, I don’t, and the Bills Front Office doesn’t. 
 

Im assuming they were aware that Matt Araiza had sex with an underage woman at a college party who was allegedly portraying herself as college age.  I have zero issue with them standing by him, and/or believing that would blow over.  
 

Also, the gang rape allegation dropped - which is the primary driver of the outrage - of which it doesn’t sound like anyone knows the level of his involvement (if any - victims lawyer included) aside from he’s alleged to have potentially set the stage for it and/maybe participated.  
 

Bills FO had the media and Twitter mob banging down their door and took their time to work through this situation.. coming to the conclusion they wanted, just not in the timeframe they demanded.  
 

With all due respect…**** the Twitter mob and **** the media.  Human beings are involved here and people who have the least access to the facts are the ones making the loudest judgments. 
 

Bills handled this about as well as they could after the clumsy initial statement.  They even took ownership of that mistake.  
 

Move on. 
 

Amen, but with no respect here, just ***** em. To the vast majority, they just don't matter.

[reddogblitz]

17 hours ago, Dick_Cheney said:

Undoubtedly, there will be a moment or two this season where something critically horrible happens because of a bad punt. Bills did the right thing here.

 

There's also no guarantee Matt wouldn't shanked off a couple himself being a rookie and all. We'll never know.

[JaCrispy]

4 minutes ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

Uhhhh… no… not disappointed in the questioning at all!

 

The real answer is found in the Athletic this morning:

“On Friday, coach Sean McDermott said the Bills had learned new information about the case with the filing of the lawsuit. They did know about the allegations, at least, before cutting incumbent punter Matt Haack on Monday. “That’s a tough one. You can second-guess whether that was the right move,” Beane said about the decision to hold onto Araiza.”

 

The move to release Haack, knowing of the allegations seems to be a moment of poor judgement, at best…if you are still in the stages of figuring out the truth, you would think you would want to retain Haack until you know for certain, just to protect yourself against things not working out…

 

I like McBeane a lot, and think they are  very upstanding men…But they are not infallible from making poor decisions from time to time- whether in-game or relating to personnel…

[Shaw66]

42 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

You're correct that none of us know what the Bills knew or when.

 

All of us can see the 29 July LA Times article that was published, with graphic and specific details about Jane Doe's condition and mention of the lawyer by name and his intention to file a civil suit.  So the Bills knew, or could have known, all of those details then. 

 

Then they received a phone call and a follow up email from the lawyer on July 30/August 1.

 

I'm not going to second-guess the Bills on not talking to that attorney again or asking to talk to the victim - her lawyer's words were they didn't "ask for her statement", there is very very low likelihood that the Bills would have been allowed by her lawyer to interview the victim

 

But it is a point that by not circling back to the lawyer or asking to talk to the victim, the Bills left some sources of information untapped.

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. 

 

 

[Beck Water]

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

They didn't ignore anything.

They clearly investigated it all.  

 

I mean, I believe (or hope) that they investigated and investigated hard and thoroughly... but that's my belief.

I can''t say "they clearly investigated it all", because if they did, and read the details in the 29 July LA Times article, why was McDermott so devastated?

 

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

People need to understand something that is sadly not going to matter because he's already a rapist.  Araiza's livelihood was literally in their hands - releasing him before their own investigation and before anything came to the surface would have cemented this kid as guilty 

 

If the Bills cut him some August 5th afternoon completely out of nowhere - they've just told the public he's guilty.  

 

I think this is a false dichotomy.  The Bills had the opportunity to quietly cut Araiza either with the initial roster cut-down to 85 almost 2 weeks ago or the second cut down to 80 on Tuesday.   All they had to do was release him and keep Haack and make a statement about both punting very well, but choosing the experienced holder and directional punter over the high-ceiling "boomer".

 

No one would have blinked, there would be no presumption of guilt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "he's already a rapist".  If you mean he's already convicted in the Court of Social Media, I sadly agree with you and think that's despicable.

 

43 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

The more I think about this the more convinced I am the Bills couldn't have handled it any better.   

 

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.