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

[4merper4mer]

15 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

For my own part I'm not going to go digging for procedural ways to accomplish what I proposed even though nothing short of doing that would satisfy some posters here... 

 

Related to leaves of absence, Tom Brady was gone for 11 days.

 

Maybe someone here can explain the technical procedure for that.

 

 

 

You’re not going to go digging?  You’re just going to list 37 things the Bills should have done even though zero of them were viable?  
 

Why not propose that you get to win Powerball every week even if you pick the wrong number?.  Then don’t go digging around for reasons why you won’t win.  Boom: Billionaire
 

Technical procedures for Brady being granted personal leave:

 

1.  He won 6 Superbowls

2. He asked for personal leave

3. Leave was granted

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You just re-read that and you don’t think it looks like you’re calling people stupid?  Shirley.

 

I’ll grant you that “ many of you” doesn’t equal “all of you” but come on.  Now you’re implying I don’t want to understand what you’re  saying…another shot at my intelligence and/or honesty.   I do understand what you’re saying though.  You’re just wrong.

 

To the July 31 comment:  In the worldview you just described, any lawyer with any story could call any team and target any player at any time.  You’d have that player go away for a while.  Can you see any circumstances where this approach might not work out all that well?  In this case at this time there appears to be something very real at the root.  But even now it is not fully understood from any objective source of information anywhere.
 

Just in Araiza’s case….McDermott walks into the locker room on August 1 to a few questions like: where’s Matt?  His answer?  Well a lawyer called with a story that we have no objective information about but we told Matt to stay away for a while anyway.   Fast forward two weeks and for the sake of argument say the whole thing turned out to be a hoax.  You’re McDermott:  let’s hear what you tell the team.  Oh also let’s hear what you told the NLFPA in the first place when Araiza complained and you had just broken 717 union rules.
 

Seriously dude you sound like the professor in Back to School trying to explain business to Thornton Mellon. 

 

To the first bolded, I was definitely calling some people stupid but I wasn't calling you stupid. Full disclosure: I'm not very smart but it's my observation that there are a lot of stupid people out there (and in here).

 

To the second bolded, I'm not into diving into that level of detail. I've made my broad strokes take very clear. I think there's simple and elegant way the Bills could have handled this. You disagree... that's fine.

 

To the third bolded... "Well call me sometime when you have no class"

 

 

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

To the first bolded, I was definitely calling some people stupid but I wasn't calling you stupid. Full disclosure: I'm not very smart but it's my observation that there are a lot of stupid people out there (and in here).

 

To the second bolded, I'm not into diving into that level of detail. I've made my broad strokes take very clear. I think there's simple and elegant way the Bills could have handled this. You disagree... that's fine.

 

To the third bolded... "Well call me sometime when you have no class"

 

 

Point 1. There are stupid people in the world but I have always found it counterproductive to try and make an argument by calling people stupid before I lay out the points of the argument.  I make an exception to this only when Canadians are involved.

 

Point 2. I believe if that you feel there was a simple and elegant way it could have been handled you need to explain that in detail, not in broad strokes.  You can’t just wish something true.

 

Point 3. Although flattered, I’ll have to pass.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Beck Water]

I found this PFT with Mike Florio and Chris Simms to be a solid take on the topic.

 

I know a number of people don't like Florio, but he is a lawyer and he knows his stuff on the legal options in the NFL.

 

Some key points in this and a previous segment

-he confirms that the NFL could not act under the Personal Conduct Policy including Administrative Leave (commissioner's exempt list) because events happened before he was drafted

-he explains that the NFL no longer has a Team-controlled Administrative Leave procedure, it was bargained away in 2006 after teams misused it against Terrell Owens and others

-He and Simms have (to my ears) a rational discussion about why you don't just throw the guy out of the building the minute the plaintiff's lawyer calls Kathryn D'Angelo, the Bills lawyer - you drafted him, you've gotten to know him, you want more information, maybe he was at the party but not really involved, learn what you can

-Some discussion of whether D'Angelo didn't do a good job of explaining the likely progression of this to the "Football People" in a way that would make them pay attention, or whether she did make that case and they didn't listen (knowing the Bills org chart, I have a hypothesis involving Gregg Brandon there, but never mind)

-They do refer to cutting Haack when Araiza had this hanging over him as the Bills "committing an unforced error" and talk about the "pressure" the Bills are under to win.  I'm on record agreeing about the Haack/Araiza puzzle but I'm on Simms side about the pressure.

 

Anyway, sort of like the GMFB take, I found it to be balanced, to bring some facts to the matter I didn't know, worth a listen if you're not tired of the issue yet.

 

 

[UKBillFan]

5 hours ago, Beck Water said:

 

Watson wasn't charged with anything.  There were several cases where charges were under consideration, but no charges were filed.

https://nypost.com/2022/03/11/deshaun-watson-will-not-face-criminal-charges/

 

Correct that the allegations Watson faced were "sexual misconduct", not rape

Thanks. Apologies, bad phrasing, civil charges bought but then settled prior to court?

[Doc Brown]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

The Bills have stated they wanted to base their decision on facts but that it was difficult to gather all facts on this timeline and that Araiza has more to worry about than football.  Although skepticism is warranted on any topic like this, nothing they have done publicly has proven their statement false.  They are also constrained in how much they can share about what they did and how.  Their track record is strong as well.  
 

They weren’t perfect and they stated this, but the skewering they are getting is beyond unwarranted. 

I wonder in general how many calls teams get each year from lawyers warning them of potential accusations against players.  How common is it?  How seriously do they take it knowing they have employees making millions of dollars?  Should the Bills beef up their legal staff so something like this doesn't happen in the future?  One other question I have is how thorough was Beane/McDermott in asking Araiza about the lawyer's phone call?  Did they ask him why he didn't bring it up in the pre draft interview as I assume it's part of the vetting process before they draft a guy?  They have to alter their procedures to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Doc Brown

[4merper4mer]

44 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I wonder in general how many calls teams get each year from lawyers warning them of potential accusations against players.  How common is it?  How seriously do they take it knowing they have employees making millions of dollars?  Should the Bills beef up their legal staff so something like this doesn't happen in the future?  One other question I have is how thorough was Beane/McDermott in asking Araiza about the lawyer's phone call?  Did they ask him why he didn't bring it up in the pre draft interview as I assume it's part of the vetting process before they draft a guy?  They have to alter their procedures to make sure something like this doesn't happen again.

They sure should make sure something like this could never happen again.  Maybe right after they finish up cold fusion and the weather machine.

[Doc Brown]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

They sure should make sure something like this could never happen again.  Maybe right after they finish up cold fusion and the weather machine.

I don't understand sarcasm but I do wonder what steps they're taking internally to beef up their vetting process.  They're lucky it happened with a rookie 6th round punter.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't understand sarcasm but I do wonder what steps they're taking internally to beef up their vetting process.  They're lucky it happened with a rookie 6th round punter.

They scout hundreds of people.  To expect nothing like this to ever happen is unreasonable.  Could they have caught something here?  Maybe.  Can any team catch everything every time?  No.  They could employ 100 detectives full time and something could still happen.  Actually maybe it did, we can’t really know.  They could very well have had guys off their board based on research but Araiza was not one.  Holding other people to unreasonable standards is simple so perfection in vetting is no place to stop.  Cold fusion would provide green energy forever.  

[Ralonzo]

On 8/28/2022 at 11:08 AM, Big Blitz said:

 

Skurski is a POS - nice work Team Virtue Signal - you enable this trash

 

 

Thinking that doing what the media wants will make the media your buddies… lol. LMAO.

[UKBillFan]

The likes of Skurski, Fairburn and Maiorana need to watch GMFB and see the class and dignity they treated the subject matter with compared to the shock jock approach they’ve taken. The difference between true journalism and sensationalism.

[PromoTheRobot]

12 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I've said from the beginning that the Bills did some things well and other things not so well. I also said you could probably give them a numerical grade if you wanted to. I have never said the Bills botched this but I have said they've made at least two missteps.

 

 

Do you think that posters should be giving advice to others about how to communicate their thoughts?

 

Was there a good reason you feel compelled to suggest edits to my posts?

 

Would you like me to proofread your material and make suggestions?

 

 

Firstly the Watson situation isn't very similar to the Araiza situation and to your comment that the "Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted"  I'd say that this belief of yours brings your judgement and competency into question. 

 

As far as what the Bills should have done, I think they should have placed Araiza on administrative leave/paid suspension on August 1st when they first heard from the plaintiff's lawyer. I think they should have done this and not issued a statement other than saying that it was a private matter.

 

YES, a paid leave/suspension for Araiza would have been the right move if they were really concerned about protecting their culture and their reputation for integrity. Following this move would be a firestorm of discovery by the media outlets as to why Araiza was placed on leave and then possibly hastened statements and actions by the lawyers involved. This move from the Bills on August 1st would have initiated a sequence of actions which would have resulted in a resolution of the situation by around mid-August. The pendulum would have swung to guilt and then maybe back towards innocence and either way the team would be positioned to proceed appropriately. In addition, by placing him on leave/suspension they could have said that they didn't rush to judgement and that they protected the spirit of due process as much as was possible. 

 

You said you were a reporter. I was one as well for a few years. First for a weekly community paper. Then as a sports stringer for the local daily, mainly covering high schools. Nothing hard hitting.

 

I'm struck at how much you seem to judge how the Bills handled the Matt Araiza situation and have strong opinions on what should have happened. But you ignore factors like what the Bills are contractually allowed to do under the CBA, what was said by whom and misconstrued as facts.

 

@4merper4merraised a good point, that statements from Jane Doe's attorney are being touted as "direct quotes." From the attorney, not from Araiza! 

 

I 100% agree that any free nation depends on a free press, but with that comes the responsibility to present the facts accurately and honestly as best you can. Or else you end up with the virtual version of a mob with pitchforks.

 

Reporters report. They aren't supposed to pontificate.

 

[Ralonzo]

On 8/28/2022 at 1:39 PM, 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)

That competition was over when they spent the draft pick. Haack was terrible and overpaid.

[Dr. Who]

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

You said you were a reporter. I was one as well for a few years. First for a weekly community paper. Then as a sports stringer for the local daily, mainly covering high schools. Nothing hard hitting.

 

I'm struck at how much you seem to judge how the Bills handled the Matt Araiza situation and have strong opinions on what should have happened. But you ignore factors like what the Bills are contractually allowed to do under the CBA, what was said by whom and misconstrued as facts.

 

@4merper4merraised a good point, that statements from Jane Doe's attorney are being touted as "direct quotes." From the attorney, not from Araiza! 

 

I 100% agree that any free nation depends on a free press, but with that comes the responsibility to present the facts accurately and honestly as best you can. Or else you end up with the virtual version of a mob with pitchforks.

 

Reporters report. They aren't supposed to pontificate.

 

I think the institution of journalism has lost objectivity for a long time now. But in general, this is correct.

[PromoTheRobot]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Who said:

I think the institution of journalism has lost objectivity for a long time now. But in general, this is correct.

 

 

Theory vs Practice. There's supposed to be a hierarchy where reporters gather facts and present them, while columnists write opinions.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Ralonzo said:

Thinking that doing what the media wants will make the media your buddies… lol. LMAO.

So sayeth the Skurski, so sayeth the flock.

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

You said you were a reporter. I was one as well for a few years. First for a weekly community paper. Then as a sports stringer for the local daily, mainly covering high schools. Nothing hard hitting.

 

I'm struck at how much you seem to judge how the Bills handled the Matt Araiza situation and have strong opinions on what should have happened. But you ignore factors like what the Bills are contractually allowed to do under the CBA, what was said by whom and misconstrued as facts.

 

@4merper4merraised a good point, that statements from Jane Doe's attorney are being touted as "direct quotes." From the attorney, not from Araiza! 

 

I 100% agree that any free nation depends on a free press, but with that comes the responsibility to present the facts accurately and honestly as best you can. Or else you end up with the virtual version of a mob with pitchforks.

 

Reporters report. They aren't supposed to pontificate.

 

One reporter in that presser asked Beane about “the direct quote from Araiza”.  That was either monumentally incompetent or monumentally antagonistic.  Either way, that reporter has no credibility whatsoever.

[Sierra Foothills]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

 

You said you were a reporter. I was one as well for a few years. First for a weekly community paper. Then as a sports stringer for the local daily, mainly covering high schools. Nothing hard hitting.

 

I'm struck at how much you seem to judge how the Bills handled the Matt Araiza situation and have strong opinions on what should have happened. But you ignore factors like what the Bills are contractually allowed to do under the CBA, what was said by whom and misconstrued as facts.

 

@4merper4merraised a good point, that statements from Jane Doe's attorney are being touted as "direct quotes." From the attorney, not from Araiza! 

 

I 100% agree that any free nation depends on a free press, but with that comes the responsibility to present the facts accurately and honestly as best you can. Or else you end up with the virtual version of a mob with pitchforks.

 

Reporters report. They aren't supposed to pontificate.

 

 

I never said I was a reporter. I said I worked in the news industry.

 

To your criticisms of me, I'm not "ignoring" anything nor am I "pontificating."

 

I'm a sports fan who has an opinion that differs from yours and most others here. IMO the homers here are giving the Bills a free pass and I'm not.

 

Again to the "direct quotes" criticism... for the 3rd time I'm judging the reporters work based on what they wrote, not what questions they were asking in the press conference. Did Graham write "direct quotes" in his The Athletic story?

 

And again, my criticism of the Bills is mild... I've said repeatedly the team did two things that I would have done differently.

 

My criticisms of the team's handling of Araiza doesn't even approach the levels of criticism leveled by every one of the Bills' beat writers.

 

But by all means keep taking shots at my opinions.

[Bob in STL]

5 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I don't understand sarcasm but I do wonder what steps they're taking internally to beef up their vetting process.  They're lucky it happened with a rookie 6th round punter.

It is a common thought that Beane and McDermott run a tight ship and place an extremely high value on team culture and all that goes with it.  

 

I suspect they will beef up background checks but there is no way this can ever be fool-proof.  As it stands today they had a very good track record so their vetting process, while not perfect, is probably very good. 

 

One thing they can add, I am not sure that they have it,  is a clause in the contract that voids the contract if all known criminal/civil investigations
(past and present) are not disclosed.   

 

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Bob in STL said:

It is a common thought that Beane and McDermott run a tight ship and place an extremely high value on team culture and all that goes with it.  

 

I suspect they will beef up background checks but there is no way this can ever be fool-proof.  As it stands today they had a very good track record so their vetting process, while not perfect, is probably very good. 

 

One thing they can add, I am not sure that they have it,  is a clause in the contract that voids the contract if all known criminal/civil investigations
(past and present) are not disclosed.   

 

 

I don't think that's a bad idea, but I kind of had the impression that rookie and UDFA contracts were pretty standard across the league.

So I wonder if that would need to take place at the League level if it's not already there, with NFLPA buy-in

 

And we still wouldn't get back the draft pick.

[ndirish1978]

4 hours ago, UKBillFan said:

The likes of Skurski, Fairburn and Maiorana need to watch GMFB and see the class and dignity they treated the subject matter with compared to the shock jock approach they’ve taken. The difference between true journalism and sensationalism.

 

I used to like Fairburn. Maybe he's been hanging out too much with Jerry Sullivan, but his coverage has been awful. Sal Maiorana and Jay Skurski have always been bottom of the barrel in terms of their takes so I don't find the fact that they continue to be terrible very surprising. Speaking "truth to power" is relevant in actual life situations, these three have been using the situation to style themselves as "serious journalists."

 

This is sports reporting, not covering the war in Ukraine, there isn't a "deeper level" to explore. Why didn't they reach out to the accuser? Maybe because the attorney laid out his case and gave them relevant documents and the team went out to try and corroborate or disprove the facts on their own, realized they weren't capable of getting to the bottom of things when the allegations and the player's version of events were so far apart and a suit was brought and decided to cut bait.