Alphadawg7

Except you're wrong, so there's that too.

Well to be fair, accusations and lawsuit threats more often than not don't move forward. Its one thing to threaten a civil suit to induce a settlement, its another to actually file it. And the fact the civil attorney contacted a football team is reason enough for a red flag because they have no involvement or relation to the suit. Its a clear tactic to shake the tree and ruffle the leaves to try and get Matt scared and come to the settlement table with a big checkbook. The attorney has openly admitted to trying to settle this without it coming out for money. Yeah but her journal directly contradicts her civil suit and claims. In her own hand writing, she writes the day after the assault and again in the days following she doesn't know who took her to the room or who was in the room. Yet in the civil suit the attorney filed, it magically states it was Matt and he was in the room. Not to mention, there are other sworn statements by eyewitnesses that say Matt wasn't there at the time of the assault. So point is...a civil suit is one side of the story, the side of the story that is in pursuit of money from the accused and is always going to be embellished to their bias. And if Bills were getting Matts side, the info in the civil suit, conflicting accounts in her journal, conflicting info from witness statements, etc...its no wonder they would have taken pause to see what was shaping up to be truth before rushing to a judgement. I recommend people watch the press conference because they cover all of this. In fact, they were asked this questions multiple times, and gave thorough answers each time. Prior to the civil suit...it was just an accusation which is drastically different than an actual criminal case or civil suit. The Bills at that time, while knowing this is serious, still don't know if it will actually go to a civil suit, are her accusations substantiated by any evidence, is this a jaded ex doing a money grab, or is this player a monster that no one realized. There is a lot that is not known at the stage of just being accused. Beane said this verbatim too...there were no criminal chargers, and still are none. There was no civil suit. It was an accusation only, and one they took serious, but also wanted to see what they could find out before making decisions. They went further and said we are just a GM and football coach, there were things they were trying to get their hands on, but were not able to. And without that, there was nothing they could really do anymore to determine the truth. And with the filing of the civil suit, they had no choice here but to cut him and let him go deal with this.

Josh and Davis showing the KC game was just the beginning all camp long and the one brief drive stands out and hasn't been mentioned yet. But I get, its more about the lesser knows...best of the preseason has to be Shakir who really had about as good a camp and preseason you could ask for in a rookie WR. Like others have said, both young corners showed a lot of potential. I know he won't get mentioned because he got a little dinged up, but I really liked what I saw from Tim Settle early and in camp. I said it when we signed him, I think he could be one of those over under the radar moves that really pans out. I do also think Shaq, especially in this last game, really went from unlikely to make the team, to making a case to stick around. I am not sold he still does, we are just deep at DE, but his last game he was a stand out against Car starters.

No disrespect, but this is my point. People keep posting stuff like this that is inaccurate. Your post here is not accurate, its not your fault, but its not correct. Your outrage is being guided at incorrect info.

People need to stop with the predraft stuff, its been overwhelmingly confirmed that it was not known predraft by the Bills, the NFL, or other teams. This is the stuff that drives me crazy...no disrespect Dingus, I really mean no disrespect. But people keep saying things like this that cause false information to persist. I get you may not have been privy yet to these facts, but its a dead issue...no one knew before the draft, and according to Beane neither Matt or his agent even knew until this summer about it or the potential civil case. And that is because the criminal case had not even gotten started yet, so there had been no authorities or anyone contacting Matt either prior to the civil matter getting started.

100%. Class act all the way. Not just today, but even not rushing to judgement on Matt and trying to find out facts recognizing this was an accusation prior to this. I completely applaud everything they have done in the handling of this. Even how McD handled the post game PC refusing to talk football and only talk about this because this is bigger than a game. Beane and McD handling of the press conference too was all class act despite some sleezy attempts by reporters to force narratives to try and paint a bad picture for click bait headlines. Proud this is the team I am a massive fan of.

Geezus, they keep asking the same questions they already answered, some they have answered several times. There is a female reporter who has asked the same question 3 times now. Literally several people asking the same questions over again...despite always the same thorough answer by Beane and McD. These reporters are a joke in this PC 100% agree on all accounts

Not this one.

Watching the press conference...god I hate sleezy reporters. They are asking Beane such stupid questions. They are just trying to get a click bait sound bite, its disgusting. Going out of their to just try and make them look bad and look for the shock and awe moments they can create. F THEM Thank god we have Beane and McD who don't bite and are as a class act as they get.

Her lawyer warned him of that because he was using the opportunity to prevent the civil suit as leverage to both get a settlement and the most from it. Here is what I find interesting...why is her attorney ONLY attacking Matt and his attorney? Where are all the public attacks aimed at the other men who allegedly were the ones physically hurting her and gang raping her? Why isn't he in going after any of them who may have had a bigger role, or even the only roles in this...yet nothing. Answer: They can't pay his client, or himself, any money. So, not one word about them from him. On the other side...Matt's attorney is clearly quick to the cameras and seems to be wanting the publicity. Neither of these guys are doing much for the overall image of lawyers/attorneys.

I am rooting for Hodgins too, but ultimately he is averaging under 9 yards per catch through 3 games while leading the team in targets and receptions and facing backups and guys who won't make rosters. Yeah, some of his catches have been pretty, but a WR avg under 9 yards per catch isn't exactly making a case to be kept above all other factors. He certainly has a chance to make this team, but if he does, it will because they feel good about what he can contribute on ST because that will absolutely be his primary role. Like I have said in other threads/posts...no one past WR 4 on the depth chart has had any relevant production the past 2 seasons while fielding the #1 offense in the AFC. So WR6 better be able to play ST or they won't make the team. I like Hodgins, so I hope he showed enough on ST, otherwise he won't make the final 53...and Beane has not only recently stated that, but also had that stance (as do all coaches) about the deeper bench players. Its why its a well known fact that young players stuck behind guys on the roster need to win a role on ST if they want to assure themselves a roster spot.

I think all of this is a very plausible scenario.

You guys are not alone, I have firmly been of the same mindset this entire thing. You have to keep a level head at times like this. I see a lot of outrage here often posting about things that are not actually factual or accurate. That is what always happens with outrage though, the story takes on a life of its own and gets skewed. Not everyone is doing that, but its been prevalent in this thread. Keeping a level ahead, respecting the victim, and waiting to hear more to understand how Matt may or may not be connected to the attack is where I prefer to be. I have no doubt this woman's accusation of being sexually assault is credible, all of it seems very credible and I do not personally doubt it happened. But I have reservations that Matt participated because there is reportedly things such as eyewitness sworn statements that contradict the plaintiffs claim he was involved. Totally agreed, you can respect her and the tragic event and still be undecided if he is accurately being named or not as a participant. And the actions of her lawyer are really puzzling too. I mean he posted that full page rant about justifying trying this case in the court of public opinion, which he always does on his cases if you look at his twitter. And why does he do that, because he is civil attorney whose only job is to obtain the most money for his client. So he is using public pressure to try and force a settlement and at the highest amount he can. But what I found really bizarre is her attorney posting the screen shots of text messages proving he was pushing for a cash settlement, and threatening Matts lawyer to do so or else, and also messaging both Matt and the Bills direct, something he really had no business doing other than to apply pressure to Matt to pay them. Then the lawyer also posts her private journal pages from the day after the attack and the days following which completely contradict his own civil suit filing. She repeatedly writes she does not know who took her to the room or who was in the room. But in the civil suit, they suddenly know every detail, exactly who took her there (claims Matt) and exactly who was in the room assaulting her (Matt and the 2 other football players). Even more odd, the number of attackers has not even been consistent, where I have seen it referenced as 3, 4, and 5 attackers. None of this means the victim is lying about the event, but none the less, it shows contradiction between the victims direct account the day after and days following with the civil attorneys filing of what he is saying happened 10 months later. And it may be accurate, but I don't know why any attorney would put info out there that would put into question the version of events they are claiming in a case.

Honestly, while that all makes sense...I don't think there was any scenario Matt played last night. Lets say Matt was in good spirits and really wanted to play, I still do not see McD allowing that to happen. McD is 100% about the game is just a game, life is bigger than football, and he is absolutely sincere in that. McD felt the right decision was for him not to play because he knows the players in that locker room also are confused and don't have all the info, fans are hurting and confused, and all the families involved are as well. There was just no way McD was going to let him on the field while so much was still unknown. Maybe he lets him play if some news broke that strongly helped Matt's case, but that had not occurred yet and still has not. Under the circumstances of yesterday of what limited info was known, there was just no way that the high character of McD who values life more than the game was going to let him being on the field cause more hurt or confusion to anyone affected by this story.

I will be honest...I don't really care. Matt was exciting because he could do stuff other punters could not. Remove him, and well, I don't really care because any punter we bring in likely won't be any worse than Haack was last year. So it Matt is cut, and that looks probable at this point, then I am going to back to not really caring who the punter is, just as long as it wasn't Haack, who sucks. Although, I reserve the right to yell "We need to draft a punter" when that inevitable first shank comes though 😂

I think you are misreading what has been said. First, I think I can say confidently that really no one is questioning that she was attacked, that all seems credible and tragic. But, the question is did Matt have any involvement with the attack either as someone who helped facilitate it by taking her to them or participating in the actual attack. The word consensual is being used strictly in regard to the information out there that seems to point to a private encounter involving only Matt and the victim outside the house, where by all accounts so far, seems to have been non forceful and both parties willfully participating in it. I get where you are coming from, you are saying its still not consent if she is wasted. But, the issue is, there is a lot we do not know at this time still. We don't know the factual details of what they did or did not do outside the house. We don't know her intoxication level at the time of the first encounter. We know she was wasted, possibly drugged even, when she was being assaulted. But that does not also automatically mean she was in the same state when her and Matt allegedly had a prior encounter earlier in the night. I will say that both sides seem to have in some way acknowledged the prior encounter and it being consensual from what I gathered. Nothing I have seen has the plaintiff accusing Matt of a non consensual assault prior to the actual assault that occurred in the room. So for all practical purposes, until we know any definitive information about the alleged first encounter, consent was presumed because the plaintiff has not stated anything refuting that yet. I think all of us feel horrible for this woman, and no one here that I have seen is "slut shaming" her like you said previously.

Lol thats crazy man

Thats a fair point, and a valid one I agree with. However, my only counter would be that if the politicians and mainstream media on both sides of the aisle had not politicized him, there would not have been much media management moving forward. Like when Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf would sit during the national anthem in the NBA. When it became known in the media, the coverage didn't last long and he was able to keep doing it without being a disruption to the team. But nobody politicized him and people moved on. So, totally agree that your point is valid in the reality of Kaps situation, and that is really why he was blackballed because it was not going to go away. Which is getting back to my initial point of how Watson situation having no political value will just fade once he plays some games. Kap, being politicize by both parties made his case never ending and nobody wanted to touch that.

Thats a bit dramatic lol. I mean a 17 year old hooked up with a college kid, happens every day in every state in this country. Of all the things with this case, this is the least of the concerns. Not like he was 35 years old or something here. Not to mention, there are sworn statements from eyewitnesses stating she said she was 18 and went the local college that had the same name as her HS.

Tell that to all the people who have been falsely accused. Not saying he is or isn't, remember I replied to someone who presumed innocence and reference poor choices made him vulnerable.

Literally laughed out loud...post of the day. Kudos

This above statement presumes innocence but infers he made bad choices that led to being falsely accused of sexual assault. So if he is innocent, what was the bad choice? Having consensual sex while in college at a college party where he was living? Are you alluding that college kids should just abstain while in college in fear they could be accused of sexual assault later?

To be honest, I don't understand the plaintiffs lawyers choices and antics on a lot of things he has done. He has posted text messages of him threatening Matt's attorney to settle or else. He has posted photos of all her journal entries that were written by the plaintiff the day after and the days following that she literally does not have any memory of who took her to the room or who raped her. Why he did this is puzzling to me because it completely contradicts his own filing and claims in the civil suit act that not only names exactly who did those things, but the exact manner it happened, all contradictory to her own journal entries before retaining a civil attorney. The civil attorney was direct text messaging Matt and direct contacting the Bills, all for the purpose of encouraging a settlement. His twitter is full of him trying to win his cases in the court of public opinion on all the cases he is involved in, obviously to create more leverage in doing his job to get the most money on behalf of his client. And he is getting a lot of backlash over it and put out this long full page statement ranting and justifying him trying to do this all in the court of public opinion. And we do not actually know if anyone form the Bills investigation spoke to the plaintiff. Her attorney just said the Bills directly did not call him or ask him any questions...but the Bills did not do the investigation, a 3rd party did and we do not know who he has or hasn't spoken to yet. And quite honestly, her statement is just going to repeat what was published in the civil suit now. None of this means she wasn't assaulted or makes her less credible. I am only discussing why the Bills did not go through her civil attorney...again civil not criminal...to conduct any investigation into the matter. And honestly, no one doing any proper investigation would work with any civil attorney on any matter. If he was a criminal attorney I suspect there would be more dialogue between the team and said attorney.

No disrespect at all intended here, but you seem to be making assumptions here on what was or wasn’t found before we know what Bills PI discovered. I agree with pretty much everything else you said, all valid comments.

You can’t interview the plaintiff if it’s not disclosed to you. And the you keep saying the Bills investigation was not thorough because they didn’t talk to the plaintiff. But: 1. You don’t know if the 3rd party PI spoke at all to the plaintiff. 2. The plaintiff has already submitted conflicting versions of the events. She repeatedly stated in her own journal and in statements that she does not know who led her to the room or who was in the room. Then files a civil suit naming 3 specific people and who exactly led her in and raped her. 3. The lawyer has complained on social media that the Bills didn’t run the investigation through him. He didn’t want the Bills talking directly to his client, he wanted the Bills to talk to him and he had personally contacting the Bills for weeks trying to incentivize a cash settlement. 4. The plaintiffs statements at this stage are going to just be the claims in the civil suit. Point is, he is not a criminal attorney, he is a civil attorney. Big difference. It’s not in his best interest to let anyone talk to his client, he isn’t building a case, he’s trying to win money and the best way to do that is incentivize all parties into settling, something her attorney has been doing and has on his own accord out things on social media confirming that. So, you can’t talk to a Jane Doe if that person isn’t disclosed. And you don’t do an investigation and involve a civil attorney in said investigation. So I think people need to cut the Bills a little slack here. They are getting blamed for a lot of things they really shouldn’t be getting blamed for IMHO.