hondo in seattle

I'm not suggesting this is true, but it is possible that Araiza played a more peripheral role in the true story. But when Jane Doe thought through the financial opportunities, she decided to make him the main character. And it's possible that Dan Gilleon gave her some hints to help her in that process.

That's true. But I also suspect it's also this: Jane Doe's attorney already said he tried to negotiate a settlement before this went public. I'll assume that he made some offers and threats to induce a generous settlement. When Araiza refused, he had to carry through on his threat to take it to the media.

Why I think Araiza is innocent: * He rebuffed Jane Doe's offer to settle out of court, knowing that his refusal meant a media storm. * Presumption of innocence is an American value What I think Araiza is guilty: * I read the account in the civil suit. It sounds believable and most rape allegations are, in fact, true. * I saw the pics of the injuries she sustained. Something really bad happened. I hope the Bills quickly get access to the evidence collected by the police during their long investigation so they can make an informed decision rather than a knee-jerk reaction.

I don't know this young lady but Brian Bank's false accuser didn't shy away from the scrutiny. Maybe 90% of rape allegations are true but not all are. Araiza's lawyer says it's a money-grab. Maybe so, maybe not. I'd love to see what the police have.

There are ifs and buts... "A statutory rape case is a California “wobbler” offense. This means that the crime can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the facts of the case." www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/laws/age-of-consent/

Mango, it's not that we don't respect woman. But I've personally seen people falsely accused of things and suffer immeasurably because of it. We all know the Brian Banks story - he went to jail for a false rape accusation. Sadly, sometimes people tell terrible lies about each other. I don't know if she was raped. If she was, I don't know if Araiza was involved. I'd love to see all the evidence the police have collected. Some of it may be damning. Maybe it's exculpatory. Let's see. But if he is guilty, you're right for calling him "trash" and I hope he goes to prison.

Thanks for sharing. The fact that charges seem imminent doesn't seem to bode well for Araiza. But if I were the Bills, I'd wait to see how much of the evidence I could review.

The accuser's lawyer, AP Gilleon, only had leverage before the suit went public. He tried to negotiate a deal with Araiza's lawyer, Kerry Armstrong, but was forcefully rebuffed. So Gilleon will now try to win his paycheck in a civil suit. Armstrong says he hired an investigator who found the accusations to be untrue. He also says that Araiza did not want to make a financial deal. Armstrong calls the whole thing a "cash grab." I personally reserve judgment.

I'm not a lawyer but I believe statutory rape in CA can be prosecuted as either a felony or misdemeanor.

Yeah, I've wondered about that. If I remember correctly, in the old days of professional sports, teams allowed the court system to make the final determinations on guilt or innocence. In many/most businesses, that's still the standard. If someone is involved in something outside of work, there usually aren't repercussions until there's a verdict.

Azaira apparently already turned down that option. Look at the texts exchanged between the two lawyers.

"Innocent-until-proven-guilty" isn't just a judicial concept, it's an American value. I don't expect businesses to require the same burden of proof necessary in a court of law. But I think that, morally and ethically, they shouldn't terminate employees without a preponderance of evidence. I don't think the Bills should cut Araiza because of the media storm. I do think they should cut him if their investigation concludes Araiza is probably guilty.

For a guy called "Logic," I find it odd that you've created a false binary choice. I don't want the Bills to "stand by Araiza" nor do I want them to ditch the guy because he's not worth the headache. Both options you present are noxious. I want the Bills to investigate the matter and then do the right thing. It's flat out morally, ethically wrong to pull a Brian Banks on Araiza and crap on him because of a false accusation. But if the accusation turns out to be true, the right thing to do is cut him. At this point it doesn't seem the Bills - or police - know enough to make an informed decision based on the preponderance of evidence.

One of the reasons I think Araiza might be innocent is that he refused to settle out of court and compensate the accuser for her silence. I'd never do such a thing but if I was guilty, I gladly pay to make the whole thing go away. If was innocent, I'd fight on principle. www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/bills-have-known-about-rape-allegations-against-matt-araiza-since-july/ar-AA118cCJ

Sorry, but I think your benefit-of-the-doubt remark is bs. Being raped is horrific and rapists are evil. But being falsely accused of rape is pretty bad too. Remember Brian Banks? He was falsely accused of rape and the case against him was so compelling that Banks did prison time. His youthful dreams were shattered by a liar and a society that was too willing to believe her. I don't know what happened in this case. But if Matt is innocent, do we want to compound a wrong (false accusation) with another wrong (firing him from his job)? That's immoral and unjust. Rapes happen. Admittedly it's far less frequent, but so do false accusations. So far, Araiza hasn't been arrested let alone convicted - except in the mind of some here posting. Until the Bills can assess probability, the best thing to do is to continue to investigate.

Daboll didn't mindlessly install the Patriot version of the P-E offense. He added twists he learned elsewhere. I'm not sure how Dorsey borrowing plays from everyone is different than Daboll's borrowing from everyone. And I'm not sure we'll see a "more lively mix of play calling." And even if it is "more lively," I'm not sure it'll be better. Dorsey has never been a play-caller before so anything we say is a mere guess. If the offensive is more productive this year, I think it will be more due to Kromer and the OL personnel changes than due to Dorsey. Though I'm sure Dorsey will make some contributions. That's what I think. What I hope is that you're 100% right and this offense breaks all kinds of records on its way to a Lombardi.

Josh has confidence - tons of it - but he's not arrogant about it. That's what you want in your QB.

Ethan, you're a good poster but I gotta disagree about Levy. Levy took over from Hank Bullough who went 4-17 with the Bills. Preceding Bullough was the great Kay Stephenson who went 10-26. The Bills had a long, well-established culture of losing when Levy came to town. Marv created an environment where guys like Kelly, Reed, Thurman, Bruce and others reached their potential and thrived. Over a ten-year span, the Bills were the winningest team in the AFC and only slightly below the 49ers in the entire NFL. I get the counterargument: as successful as he was, Marv should have won more - to include a SB - with all the talent he had. And yes, of course, Bill Polian deserves a lot of the credit for drafting and otherwise acquiring a lot of good players. But, let's remember, Polian also hired Marv. I think Polian knew what he was doing.

I love the enthusiasm. But - maybe it's just me - I am NOT expecting a new variation of the 90s no huddle. I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest Dorsey is heading in that direction. And I'm not convinced Dorsey will make a big impact on Josh's game just because he once played the position. Bill Walsh was one of the best offensive coaches - maybe THE best offensive coach - of the Super Bowl era. He played TE - not QB - in college and didn't play in the NFL at all. Yet he mentored Joe Montana and Steve Young to individual greatness and SB victories. In fact, lots of good OCs never played QB in the NFL. I hope Dorsey helps Josh improve his game but there isn't a ton of evidence to support that hope. I know, though, that Josh himself is always looking for ways to improve. So fingers crossed, with an improved OL, this will be Josh's best year yet.

I've always thought the idea of a #1 is a bit overblown. The cumulative talent of your 2 or 3 starters is more important. For example, for a while Kelly was throwing to two HOFers. How do you defend that? In the current O, if given the choice, I'd rather have 3 above-average WRs than one dominant wideout and two JAGs. But I wouldn't move on from Diggs. I'd try to find someone nearly as good affordably in the draft. And who knows? Gabe may be that guy.

This is a good point. But let's say the Bills keep using Josh as a running threat and the wear-and-tear adds up. So in his 30s, he won't be much of a runner anymore but the league's best passer?

I'm personally NOT against Josh running. The threat of his running is one more headache for the defense. The more the D has to worry about, the better. Some folks worry about him getting hurt. I wonder, though, if he's any more likely to get hurt on a run than scanning the field in a collapsing pocket. I wonder if there are any stats on that?

Actually, years ago I got my wrist slapped once for violating site rules for posting a long article - much as the OP did. Since then I've tried to be more concise. When posting articles, I just post the most relevant section. Sorry if I offended anyone.

Thanks for posting though he said little revelatory and reading in-between the lines, I came up with nothing. Except maybe this: he's not committed to avoiding Josh running the ball. If the situation requires it, he'll call some QB runs.

When I hear Josh speak, I'm reminded of Carol Dweck's book on the "Growth Mindset." Most people define themselves a certain way and put false ceilings on themselves. But Josh believes in his growth and believes he'll continue to evolve & get better. When he struggles and finds flaws in his game, he puts his head down and confidently works to improve. It's almost like a self-fulfilling prophecy. He believes he'll get better so he does.