Bills show what a class organization they are

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:

 

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.

 

 

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

[T master]

1 minute ago, NickelCity said:

 

Almost nothing. At this moment in time there was no viable alternative to their decision.

 

 

As i asked if it was Josh (or maybe even Diggs) would there be a different out come or would there be more time granted to a investigation as to what the facts were or would it be the same for all ? I'm just asking questions to the what if ...

 

The Texans put Watson on the shelf until more evidence or more of the same testimony's were given to basically incriminated him which i believe he is that scum bag & did what was said but at first they gave him the benefit of the doubt to see what was what before a decision was made .

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

is it reasonable if the victim said she was 18 in your opinion?  Btw don’t you think an NFL bound dude should have enough brain cells to protect himself  from such a situation? He is an idiot regardless. 

College age people, including student athletes often make impulsive decisions. Especially at parties. She probably appeared to be another college student and that was that. It’s not like seeing the visible difference between a teen and a 35 year old. The vast majority of college folk must be idiots in your view. 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

 

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.

[BurpleBull]

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

[Boatdrinks]

7 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

They did, they handled this the right way. I honestly think that this team and this organization would have loved to trash Matt Araiza in a more public way, but politics are politics.

Why would they love to trash Araiza - who hasn’t been convicted of anything -publicly? Weird take imo.  

[NickelCity]

3 minutes ago, T master said:

 

As i asked if it was Josh (or maybe even Diggs) would there be a different out come or would there be more time granted to a investigation as to what the facts were or would it be the same for all ? I'm just asking questions to the what if ...

 

The Texans put Watson on the shelf until more evidence or more of the same testimony's were given to basically incriminated him which i believe he is that scum bag & did what was said but at first they gave him the benefit of the doubt to see what was what before a decision was made .

 

These are different questions than the one you asked and I answered, to be fair.

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, BurpleBull said:

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

I hope that this isn’t true, and that they recently became aware of something that didn’t jibe with what they were told to that point. 

[Steptide]

Serious question, and I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but if the civil suit gets dropped and no criminal charges get pressed, would the bills re sign him?

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Serious question, and I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but if the civil suit gets dropped and no criminal charges get pressed, would the bills re sign him?

Seems possible , but unlikely ? Something made them change their mind and my guess is that they’ve moved on at this point. Maybe they told him to get this cleared up and he’d be invited back to camp next year ( whatever option they go with for 2022 is likely to be more expensive than the rookie) but only Beane, McD and Araiza know what was said. 

[Motorin']

12 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

 

How do you give a guy a second chance at redemption over something he is denying that you don't know the truth about?  

[UKBillFan]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Alpha, I think you're mostly correct here, except that you assume the Bills did all they could have under the circumstances when they first learned of the lawsuit.  If they'd thought it out, I think they would have seen that they were leaving themselves out to dry by cutting Haack.  Once they cut him, they were stuck with however the Araiza situation played out.  It was a gamble.  And it really wasn't worth it - they could have kept Haack until this weekend, and decided now.  And the right decision would have been to keep Haack, because the Bills still might not have known enough.  Cut Araiza, go with Haack, don't worry any more about your exposure.  

 

Now, in an odd way, it may work to the Bills favor, because they may find a better punter than hunk in a couple of days.  

 

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.

[dollars 2 donuts]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

 

Graphic details can sometimes be…pretty graphic, which these were.

 

I eat steak knowing someone killed it.

 

You showing me a video of someone doing it to my ribeye just before I sit down at the table…is different.

 

Additionally, 10+ weeks since we have heard or seen anything from somebody in the Bills organization (who is doing well, and thank you for all your support) who probably would have been very vocal and decisive in this earlier had she been available.

 

…but as usual that’s a question around these parts we are forbidden to ask anymore because, you know…F the “president” part as this is a family issue and it is none of anybody’s damn business.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by dollars 2 donuts

[Alphadawg7]

17 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Alpha, I think you're mostly correct here, except that you assume the Bills did all they could have under the circumstances when they first learned of the lawsuit.  If they'd thought it out, I think they would have seen that they were leaving themselves out to dry by cutting Haack.  Once they cut him, they were stuck with however the Araiza situation played out.  It was a gamble.  And it really wasn't worth it - they could have kept Haack until this weekend, and decided now.  And the right decision would have been to keep Haack, because the Bills still might not have known enough.  Cut Araiza, go with Haack, don't worry any more about your exposure.  

 

Now, in an odd way, it may work to the Bills favor, because they may find a better punter than hunk in a couple of days.  

 

I agree with you, of all the things to question this is the fairest.  But 2 things...Haack sucks, I think they had no intention of entering the season with Haack as the starting punter regardless.  So I think that played into why they cut him, I mean a punter is as plug and play as it gets in the NFL in terms of a position.  

 

When they released Haack, they literally said they wanted to give him time to catch on with a team.  So I think that decision had everything to do with respecting Haack as a person and doing what was right for Haack because they had already decided they wanted to make a change there. 

 

And Beane also said, they aren't perfect, not every decision is easy when they make it.  And things can happen after the fact that make you rethink a previous decision.

 

To be honest, if I am Beane I am assuming I have more time before a civil suit gets filed to figure the situation out.  It was not in the best interest of the victim to file the suit when they did, so I don't think they expected this to escalate this soon either and caught them off guard.  And I think that is pretty evident in the timing of releasing Haack.  

[Bills2022]

18 hours ago, marck said:

Lets take the opportunity to congratulate the Buffalo Bills organization for the way they handled this very difficult issue with Matt Ariaza.

 

Each step was calculated, the response measured and the action swift and deceive.

 

Maybe organizations like the Browns and Dolphins can use this to learn that in player acquisition ethics, integrity and character are far more important then play on the field.

 

B+.  Bills should have done their homework. This was handled well, but nobody should be congratulating anyone.  It is like congratulating the Bills after losing to the Chiefs last year in the playoffs.  The team and the front office need to move from playoff caliber to championship caliber. Enough with the stupid errors due to being unprepared. This is right up there with not squibbing the kick at the end of the playoff game.  Unforced errors are killers. 

[Starr Almighty]

32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

Just a reminder. This is a football team not a Police Department. The actual Police and DA haven't come to a conclusion to what really happened 10 months later. But somehow you want a room full of football guys to have all the answers. They knew he was accused of something and tried to figure out if it was true or not with their limited resources to do so. Because again this is a football team. 

[marck]

So done with that continued about a player is no longer on the team.

 

it’s over people, roster is at 79, punters/holders are being brought in for tryouts.

 

Final player evals are being completed, review of other teams potential cuts and our front office seeing if any viable trade opportunities are out their.

 

So, can we now focus on football.

 

My rant is done

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I agree with you, of all the things to question this is the fairest.  But 2 things...Haack sucks, I think they had no intention of entering the season with Haack as the starting punter regardless.  So I think that played into why they cut him, I mean a punter is as plug and play as it gets in the NFL in terms of a position.  

 

When they released Haack, they literally said they wanted to give him time to catch on with a team.  So I think that decision had everything to do with respecting Haack as a person and doing what was right for Haack because they had already decided they wanted to make a change there. 

 

And Beane also said, they aren't perfect, not every decision is easy when they make it.  And things can happen after the fact that make you rethink a previous decision.

 

To be honest, if I am Beane I am assuming I have more time before a civil suit gets filed to figure the situation out.  It was not in the best interest of the victim to file the suit when they did, so I don't think they expected this to escalate this soon either and caught them off guard.  And I think that is pretty evident in the timing of releasing Haack.  

That's interesting. 

 

Bottom line, I think, is that in management, including football management, the only objective was to get it out of the news.  They want to do that as well as they can, but at the end of the day almost all that matters is to get the press to stop asking questions about it.   You do that by getting him off the team, because then you can begin to respond to the questions by saying the guy isn't on the team, we wish him well, we tried to handle it as well as we could.   When he's still on the team, the questions are still there.   The Niners wish they could move Garappolo, because all the time he's there, he'll be the question.  

 

Bills have succeeded in that.  Araiza's gone, and the story will die.  They'll pick up a decent to good punter, and he'll work like crazy to get up to speed with Bass.  Ten weeks from now, it'll be a dead story, almost as though your punter got injured and had to be replaced in a hurry.  

 

Bottom line, as Alpha said, is that management did a solid job getting through, this not perfect, but solid.  And they did it with as much respect for the positions of the people involved as they could.  

[K-9]

40 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

is it reasonable if the victim said she was 18 in your opinion?  Btw don’t you think an NFL bound dude should have enough brain cells to protect himself  from such a situation? He is an idiot regardless. 

The victim saying she was 18 is only one aspect of the type of proof a defendant may offer. Attire, appearance, venue where they met, like an adult party or bar, are others. 
 

As to the rest of it, yeah, I’d like to think a 21 year old man has enough sense to avoid bad situations. But I’m not debating that one way or the other here. I’m just addressing the narrow scope of what California law provides under their statutory rape laws. 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, marck said:

So done with that continued about a player is no longer on the team.

 

it’s over people, roster is at 79, punters/holders are being brought in for tryouts.

 

Final player evals are being completed, review of other teams potential cuts and our front office seeing if any viable trade opportunities are out their.

 

So, can we now focus on football.

 

My rant is done

Two things about this:

 

1.  You're absolutely right.  This is just another day, another week in the life of a football team.   Something unplanned and out of the blue hits, and every scrambles for a day or two or a week and then they get on with it.   So, yeah, all of this is just a footnote in the history of 2022 season, significant only if NFL Films highlights the fact that the Bills punter made a touchdown-saving tackle in the playoffs and preserved the win, a punter who was on the team only because Araiza got cut.  Other than that, it's over. 

 

2.  On the other hand, some of those odd events in the life of a football team are bigger than others.   The day the Mike Vick story broke, that was a BIG day in the history of the Falcons.  The Bills just had one that looked and felt like a big one one.  Wasn't really, but it threatened to be a big story.  How management performed in dealing with the event IS important to the future of the team.  So, it's worth talking about.

[Mango]

26 minutes ago, Bills2022 said:

 

B+.  Bills should have done their homework. This was handled well, but nobody should be congratulating anyone.  It is like congratulating the Bills after losing to the Chiefs last year in the playoffs.  The team and the front office need to move from playoff caliber to championship caliber. Enough with the stupid errors due to being unprepared. This is right up there with not squibbing the kick at the end of the playoff game.  Unforced errors are killers. 

C. Im grading on a bell curve. I don’t think they did anything extraordinary here. They let it play out. It became a PR nightmare. They let him go. Outside of Cleveland and maybe Andy Reid, most other teams do the same thing.

 

Thats part of my frustration. These guys spent forever talking about community, culture, family, and that this was different. But it’s not. They behaved just like every other NFL team. The Buffalo Bills are just another NFL franchise. 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Mango

[Alphadawg7]

32 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said:

Just a reminder. This is a football team not a Police Department. The actual Police and DA haven't come to a conclusion to what really happened 10 months later. But somehow you want a room full of football guys to have all the answers. They knew he was accused of something and tried to figure out if it was true or not with their limited resources to do so. Because again this is a football team. 

 

Surprisingly, I feel like a lot of people here are very much missing this very fact and just have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of the reach and investigative prowess of a sports organization.  

 

Very well said, and I think this is a post worth pinning to be honest.  

[Inigo Montoya]

I don't see what the Bills should have done differently.

 

They heard of an allegation.  It might be true, it might be completely fabricated.  They have no way to know.  They start to look into the matter because Araiza totally denies the accusations.  He is entitled to some due process by the Bills.

 

The civil case is filed and now it becomes a media issue and it becomes a huge dark cloud and distraction hanging over the team.  Beane and McDermott make the judgement that it is better for the team to release Araiza instead of dragging this anchor around for the entire season.

 

This is a Super Bowl caliber roster and having this distraction could put the season in jeopardy.  They cut Araiza for the good of the team.  

 

At this point no one knows if these allegations are true or not.  If a lawyer calls your place of work and alleges a heinous crime against you that you adamantly deny, what would you want your company to do?  I think Beane gave it as much time as he could to look into the matter and try to figure out the truth but ultimately the clock ran out when the civil suit was filed.  

 

I think they played it straight and have nothing to apologize for.

[Alphadawg7]

19 minutes ago, Mango said:

C. Im grading on a bell curve. I don’t think they did anything extraordinary here. They let it play out. It became a PR nightmare. They let him go. Outside of Cleveland and maybe Andy Reid, most other teams do the same thing.

 

Thats part of my frustration. These guys spent forever talking about community, culture, family, and that this was different. But it’s not. They behaved just like every other NFL team. The Buffalo Bills are just another NFL franchise. 

 

 

 

Hard disagree...honestly I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.  Very few, if any, other HC's would have come to the press conference and initiate the discussion of Matt and then refuse all football questions to focus only on this subject. If they even took questions at all, they would have maybe taken a few and then moved on to questions about the game.  

 

Then after cutting him, most GM's and HC's would not have given a face to face press conference for 30 min takin any and all questions from reporters out for blood trying to force any negative narrative they can for clicks.  Most teams the GM would have released a written statement or maybe a short video where they controlled the message and that is it.  They would have hidden behind being able to say they cant comment on an active investigation.  

 

Both McD and Beane did not hide from this and went out there and took responsibility and addressed the press directly and took what ever heat they wanted to throw at them.  And they were clearly emotionally affected by the severity and gravity of the situation for the victim and did nothing but do their best to respect everyone involved.  

 

Sorry, you are categorically wrong if you think that is the behavior or just any other franchise.  And that is just a flat out fact.  

Edited August 28, 2022 by Alphadawg7

[Gugny]

21 minutes ago, Mango said:

C. Im grading on a bell curve. I don’t think they did anything extraordinary here. They let it play out. It became a PR nightmare. They let him go. Outside of Cleveland and maybe Andy Reid, most other teams do the same thing.

 

Thats part of my frustration. These guys spent forever talking about community, culture, family, and that this was different. But it’s not. They behaved just like every other NFL team. The Buffalo Bills are just another NFL franchise. 

 

 

 

Had they drafted him after they knew about the incident/before the lawsuit, I would agree with you.

 

But they didn't.  They learned about it in July and let it play out in the most responsible way possible.  And once the news came out about the lawsuit, they moved as swiftly and properly as anyone could hope for.

[Bills2022]

17 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Surprisingly, I feel like a lot of people here are very much missing this very fact and just have unrealistic and unreasonable expectations of the reach and investigative prowess of a sports organization.  

 

Very well said, and I think this is a post worth pinning to be honest.  

 

Come on.  They knew about this when they cut Haack.  The Bills were well aware this guy had a criminal investigation for rape hanging over his head.  They just did not know the specifics.  If TMZ can figure out this type of thing, any NFL organization can figure it out.  My guess is they didn't see it as their job.  But don't for a second believe they could not have gotten the specifics of the alleged story.  If this was a star Quarterback they would have known what he was wearing and had for dinner the night of the incident.  There are a ton of former police, FBI, and other intelligence community members that can get their hands on anything they want if someone with deep pockets is willing to pay them.

 

The Bills did a good job.  But it could have been dealt with a little better. 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Bills2022

[SCBills]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Hard disagree...honestly I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.  Very few, if any, other HC's would have come to the press conference and initiate the discussion of Matt and then refuse all football questions to focus only on this subject. If they even took questions at all, they would have maybe taken a few and then moved on to questions about the game.  

 

Then after cutting him, most GM's and HC's would not have given a face to face press conference for 30 min takin any and all questions from reporters out for blood trying to force any negative narrative they can for clicks.  Most teams the GM would have released a written statement or maybe a short video where they controlled the message and that is it.  They would have hidden behind being able to say they cant comment on an active investigation.  

 

Both McD and Beane did not hide from this and went out there and took responsibility and addressed the press directly and took what ever heat they wanted to throw at them.  And they were clearly emotionally affected by the severity and gravity of the situation for the victim and did nothing but do their best to respect everyone involved.  

 

Sorry, you are categorically wrong if you think that is the behavior or just any other franchise.  And that is just a flat out fact.  

Just tell anyone who disagrees with your spot on analysis to watch the Browns HC, GM and Owners vomit all over themselves in their pressers. 
 

Bills showed 100x more contrition and concern and they don’t even know if the allegations against Araiza are true. 
 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[UKBillFan]

4 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Well I guess his typical impulsive behavior probably cost him a career in the NFL.  Maybe a prison sentence.  Dude was not just a regular student at a regular party. 

 

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.

Edited August 28, 2022 by UKBillFan

[nucci]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

No disrespect bud, and really not singling you out on this, but what did you expect them to do?  And to be clear, I don't have an exception with your post here, its a good one.  I am just asking about the stayed quiet for a bit.  Others are really stuck on that, so this reply is more about addressing that staying quiet from the overall thread than your post here.  

 

This was a sensitive subject they had no idea that was true or not.  They were just accusations, and we live in a country where false accusations are made every day.  Heck, let's be real, it so common that our own politicians and media on both sides of the aisle literally lie and make false accusations daily to the entire country.  

 

My point really is there were no criminal chargers (still aren't) and there was no civil case (just got filed).  A civil attorney, who is someone working to get money for his client, contacted the accused employer to push pressure on Matt that he has something massive to lose here to incentivize a settlement and for the most he can get for his client.  

 

Anyone would be reckless to take that at face value, assume guilt, and throw the player under the bus making public statements on something they don't not yet know are credible accusations.  Bills not only respected the seriousness of the accusations and victim, but also the seriousness of the accused and working to figure this out behind the scenes before making any decisions or statements.  

 

Also, lets not forget these are football coaches and football executives.  They are not professional investigators, lawyers, etc...this could not have been, and clearly was not, easy for them to deal with and figure out what the right thing was to do.  And there is 0% chance any decision they made would have been seen 100% of all people approve of.  Had they just cut him over an accusation from a civil attorney working on a settlement, they would have looked bad to for not giving it a chance to shake out and see if this is credible or not.  

 

So people just need to give these guys a break (not really talking to you on that, you seem to be pretty level headed on this whole thing, just saying to the board in general)...they did what they felt was the best they could in a really bad spot.

 

Now lets all move on and get back to football.  This is in the rear view mirror and they guys did the right thing.  

 

I think they made the right move by being quiet. I agreed with it

[Mango]

13 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Hard disagree...honestly I couldn't disagree more with this assessment.  Very few, if any, other HC's would have come to the press conference and initiate the discussion of Matt and then refuse all football questions to focus only on this subject. If they even took questions at all, they would have maybe taken a few and then moved on to questions about the game.  

 

Then after cutting him, most GM's and HC's would not have given a face to face press conference for 30 min takin any and all questions from reporters out for blood trying to force any negative narrative they can for clicks.  Most teams the GM would have released a written statement or maybe a short video where they controlled the message and that is it.  They would have hidden behind being able to say they cant comment on an active investigation.  

 

Both McD and Beane did not hide from this and went out there and took responsibility and addressed the press directly and took what ever heat they wanted to throw at them.  And they were clearly emotionally affected by the severity and gravity of the situation for the victim and did nothing but do their best to respect everyone involved.  

 

Sorry, you are categorically wrong if you think that is the behavior or just any other franchise.  And that is just a flat out fact.  

 

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

Just tell anyone who disagrees with your spot on analysis to watch the Browns HC, GM and Owners vomit all over themselves in their pressers. 
 

Bills showed 100x more contrition and concern and they don’t even know if the allegations against Araiza are true. 
 

 

I literally said outside of the Browns and maybe Andy Reid. 
 

Almost every one of the 30 other orgs in the NFL let this play out until it becomes a media schyte storm. Then cuts Araiza. They had two press conferences. Your bar for excellence is quite low. 
 

Comparatively the Bills found out about this. Sat in their hands. Then cut the guy once it spun out of control. 
 

It’s what most NFL teams do. I don’t find their handling of this anything other than average when compared to a majority of their peers. 

[nedboy7]

6 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

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.

 

I am not.  It was sarcasm.  Also I was commenting on her being under age.  Not the other accusations.  Point is he should have been way smarter and cautious at the least.  Btw the idea that he was not found guilty is not accurate from what I am reading.  He could end up facing statutory rape charges if the District Attorney feels the evidence is strong enough. Based on the alleged facts in the civil complaint, the evidence may end up persuading prosecutors to file formal charges.

Edited August 28, 2022 by nedboy7

[SCBills]

Just now, Mango said:

 

 

I literally said outside of the Browns and maybe Andy Reid. 
 

Almost every one of the 30 other orgs in the NFL let this play out until it becomes a media schyte storm. Then cuts Araiza. They had two press conferences. Your bar for excellence is quite low. 
 

Comparatively the Bills found out about this. Sat in their hands. Then cut the guy once it spun out of control. 
 

It’s what most NFL teams do. I don’t find their handling of this anything other than average when compared to a majority of their peers. 

What would you like them to do?  Hear about an allegation towards one of their players and immediately cut them?

[UKBillFan]

1 minute ago, nedboy7 said:

 

I am not.  It was sarcasm.  Also I was commenting on her being under age.  Not the other accusations.  Point is he should have been way smarter and cautious at the least. 

 

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

[nedboy7]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

 

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

 

While it is unclear if the accuser was in fact raped, the crime of rape is measured differently when the accuser is a minor. This is because minors cannot consent to sex with an adult. Therefore, there is never a question of whether the accuser consented. Sex with a minor is automatically rape in most jurisdictions and particularly in San Diego where Araiza is accused. Hence why it is called statutory rape. It is rape, as a matter of law, when an adult has sex with a minor. Depending on the age difference, the rape would be a misdemeanor or a felony. If there is more than a three year age difference between perp and victim, it is generally charged as a felony. In San Diego, whether to charge the crime as a felony or misdemeanor is up to the prosecutor’s discretion. It appears at least that if the alleged victim was 17 and Araiza was in fact 21 at the time, then the four-year age difference could warrant a felony charge, depending on the evidence. A felony charge could carry up to three years in jail, if there is a conviction.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, T master said:

 

As i asked if it was Josh (or maybe even Diggs) would there be a different out come or would there be more time granted to a investigation as to what the facts were or would it be the same for all ? I'm just asking questions to the what if ...

 

The Texans put Watson on the shelf until more evidence or more of the same testimony's were given to basically incriminated him which i believe he is that scum bag & did what was said but at first they gave him the benefit of the doubt to see what was what before a decision was made .

Watson put himself “on the shelf” before he was sued.  He refused to play for them ever again.

 

Why do people keep getting this wrong?

[UKBillFan]

5 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

 

While it is unclear if the accuser was in fact raped, the crime of rape is measured differently when the accuser is a minor. This is because minors cannot consent to sex with an adult. Therefore, there is never a question of whether the accuser consented. Sex with a minor is automatically rape in most jurisdictions and particularly in San Diego where Araiza is accused. Hence why it is called statutory rape. It is rape, as a matter of law, when an adult has sex with a minor. Depending on the age difference, the rape would be a misdemeanor or a felony. If there is more than a three year age difference between perp and victim, it is generally charged as a felony. In San Diego, whether to charge the crime as a felony or misdemeanor is up to the prosecutor’s discretion. It appears at least that if the alleged victim was 17 and Araiza was in fact 21 at the time, then the four-year age difference could warrant a felony charge, depending on the evidence. A felony charge could carry up to three years in jail, if there is a conviction.

 

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.

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Starr Almighty said:

Just a reminder. This is a football team not a Police Department. The actual Police and DA haven't come to a conclusion to what really happened 10 months later. But somehow you want a room full of football guys to have all the answers. They knew he was accused of something and tried to figure out if it was true or not with their limited resources to do so. Because again this is a football team. 

It should be obvious that the only thing they figured out is they should have cut him as soon as the suit was made public, instead of inviting the predictable onslaught of bad public reaction before admitting the inevitable—Araiza had to go.  
 

Someone in the building, after knowing he was being sued for “gang rape” and “intoxicated rape” for a month, and then faced with the public release of the gross details, should have said: “ok that’s it.  Rook P has to go or we’re going to get creamed until we cut him”.

 

No one said this obvious truth….instead they double down on the bungling by announcing their decision (firing a radioactive player) was in HIS “best interest”. Lol wtf. 

[BigDingus]

1 hour ago, Bills2022 said:

 

B+.  Bills should have done their homework. This was handled well, but nobody should be congratulating anyone.  It is like congratulating the Bills after losing to the Chiefs last year in the playoffs.  The team and the front office need to move from playoff caliber to championship caliber. Enough with the stupid errors due to being unprepared. This is right up there with not squibbing the kick at the end of the playoff game.  Unforced errors are killers. 

 

This is exactly right. Unforced errors, and we're only a couple days removed from even hearing about this story... It definitely has room for more info to be brought to light, so let's just be happy they made the right decision & move on.

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

4 hours ago, ControllerOfPlanetX said:

So the executives that were aware of the incident, why didn’t they alert the NFL? Which in turn could alert all the teams? It’s not like it’s a minor offense.

 

 

No idea??  Do teams commonly share?  If some team finds out a player has some medical issue, would they share that, or keep it to themselves and let another team draft damaged goods?  If it were Al Davis, I'd think the answer would be no!

 

I really have no idea how much and of what type/criteria of pre-draft info would be shared amongst teams? On one hand the less other teams know the better, but the Araiza situation does as Roger would say "Damage the shield"  From that standpoint, you'd think they would alert others, but I don't know.

[uninja]

18 minutes ago, Ed_Formerly_of_Roch said:

 

No idea??  Do teams commonly share?  If some team finds out a player has some medical issue, would they share that, or keep it to themselves and let another team draft damaged goods?  If it were Al Davis, I'd think the answer would be no!

 

I really have no idea how much and of what type/criteria of pre-draft info would be shared amongst teams? On one hand the less other teams know the better, but the Araiza situation does as Roger would say "Damage the shield"  From that standpoint, you'd think they would alert others, but I don't know.

Pretty sure it’s just like any business sector. No one’s going to outwardly share but it’s a small world and I bet a lot of industry people know each other. If you have friends in the right places you can get some intel off the record.