4merper4mer

Wrt to your first two lines I have no demand for you to anything. I simply pointed out the unprofessional nature of reporters in the presser. You not watching doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Some may have written viable articles but ignoring that does not make the unprofessionalism disappear. A difference of opinion is one thing. You making statements that are factually incorrect and me pointing that out does not constitute a difference of opinion. How do you know what ways the team explored or did not explore to distance themselves from Araiza. You literally have no idea what they did or did not do. You haven’t even claimed to know and yet you still stand in judgement.

I mean seriously do you own a mirror? We’re all supposed to defer to you because you read a few articles but you can’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt about what was said in a press conference? It’s not as if the recording is hard to find. But you’re not being self righteous? Geez dude. it is not my opinion that your solutions are unattainable as they would be in direct violation of league rules. Otherwise defined as a fact. And the stones question came from me as part of a post to which you responded, but only to a different portion. If on a computer, use the mouse to scroll up a bit, if on an iPad, use your finger.

No. You’re wrong. When you say “lots of information was available to them” how do you back that up? Based on what? And please qualify that as objective information and reassess how much was available. A court filing is a formal document the plaintiff intends to back up in a legal setting. A list of allegations, even if they say the exact same thing, need not be held to any standard at all by the complainant. There is a huge difference. The plaintiff’s lawyer is not an objective source of info and neither is Araiza and his legal team. SDPD is, but they could not help the Bills. Then you go on to accuse the Bills of trying to sweep a gang rape under the rug despite a multi year track record that seems to indicate that is something they would never do. I share your curiosity about how much McD initially knew as opposed to Beane and the Bills legal team. Based on the conversations I find it possible that there could be a gap there even though I hope not. I agree there is a world of difference between Allen’s stuff and the accusations about Araiza. The similar part is that both were assertions from sources that could not be objectively verified. So how serious of an assertion is enough to avoid drafting someone or keeping them on the team? Racist tweet assertions aren’t enough, gang rape assertions are more than enough. Where is the middle? A rumor of armed robbery? And what source is valid or invalid? If I call an anonymous tip line tonight and say Mac Jones is an arsonist and link a Boston Globe story about buildings in Foxboro burning down, should Jones career be halted? You make this out to be very simple but it is far from it. The entire process took a total of less than a month for the Bills. You don’t think that is quick enough. How long should it have taken?

Beane addressed that as well. Did you watch the press conference? If not you should. He said that they were in error when they used the phrase thorough investigation and should have said ongoing investigation. That is one point on which I share some of your skepticism. The Bills may have actually thought they were done when they made that statement. But in reality they had no way of knowing that. They should have used the word ongoing not only in a statement but it should have been ongoing in reality as well. I buy most of what Beane said because it overlaps with logic and reality as opposed to the haphazard, emotional, illogical opinions and analysis being thrown around by much of the press. I’m not sure I buy that the investigation was actually ongoing at the time the statement was released. Oh, and what about drafting Allen? Still ok? Well Florida strip malls housing trafficked sex workers have been established as no big deal. Cheesecake Factory parking lots might get you traded. We might be zeroing in on the where the line is drawn.

Goodbye to you too. You answered a question about something a reporter said that was demonstrably false and inflammatory by saying who cares if he didn’t write it. You’ve continued to state in generalities that the Bills should have done more and implied this would have been simple. You are completely wrong about that. You demand answers from everyone else, state solutions that are proven to be unattainable then hop to additional unattainable solutions. Why should I treat your question about Brady seriously when you so easily and with ridiculous premise dismiss the question about the reporter? Because you used to work in the newspaper industry and I just don’t understand? For Pete’s sake dude. You know that Brady asked for the time off right? You know that Araiza did not ask for time off right? You know Brady and Araiza’s league stature are slightly different right? Your question was stupid and it deserved the exact response it got. Oh, and you didn’t answer the stones question because you are clueless about what the Bills did or did not do in their investigation, yet you still stand in judgement of it.

The new information Thursday, as stated explicitly multiple times by Beane, was that a formal civil case had now actually been filed. It was an 11 page document. Before this they had accusations, which were apparently denied by Araiza and no formal legal filing of civil or criminal nature. So by your standards an informal unverified report from an adversarial attorney should be enough to part ways with a player? And that is supposed to hold up against NFLPA scrutiny? And it will have no impact if these things turn out false? If so, where do you draw the line? Do you still support the Bills drafting of Allen? He was accused of saying some incredibly racist things on the eve of the draft. They turned out to be 100% false but who’s to say the Bills knew they were false when they picked him? Even if they were as bad as advertised, gang rape is obviously worse, I’ll grant you that. So where is the line drawn? Somewhere between racist tweets and gang rape for sure, but where?

The “I won six Super Bowls” rule. “No stones unturned” is a lazy platitude and too general to be useful. Please name a stone, how the Bills should have turned it over and whether it is plausible that they actually did but still found no answers.

That article contained a grand total of zero names. So you’re agreeing that the only person naming Araiza was the victims’s attorney? The article, unless I missed it, did not mention the police phone call. So again, the only source was the victim’s attorney and his statement about the existence and content of the phone call? The SDPD was certainly not going to share any names or details about the above. The school probably knew half of what the police knew and they were not at liberty to share it. Araiza and his team apparently denied all of it. So, it really doesn’t seem to me that the investigation would have been all that easy if they were seeking the truth. What am I missing? What would have made it easy or even realistically possible to discern enough objective truth to make an informed decision quickly?

I think one possibility is that the lawyer was seeking cash but that the client saw cash as secondary and Araiza being held accountable as primary. I’m not sure how we’re supposed to know motivations outside of guessing, but this is one of the possibilities. One thing I do know: whatever the objective, her lawyer is an absolute moron and Araiza’s is at best two points higher on the IQ scale.

Ok well that clears it up a little. Was Araiza’s name…or anyone’s named in the article? Did the article have actual information from the internal real police report of an ongoing investigation or just third party information about what was supposedly in the report? Are you aware of an organization called the NFLPA and rules of engagement to which teams are bound in similar situations? You are essentially saying, and please tell me if I’m wrong, that the accusations on their own were enough to let him go or at least it would be easy to get to the truth once the allegations triggered the start of the investigation. Correct? Yet, the SDPD cannot share information and the college didn’t seem to have a lot because they had to defer to SDPD. So all information came from either the victim’s lawyer, or Araiza’s lawyer both of whom have proven themselves to be idiots and clearly neither is objective. Add NFL rules, NFLPA issues, whatever relationship had developed with Araiza and their impression of him as a person, what is certain to be their disgust with the underlying topic and tell me again how this was supposed to be a simple thing to handle? And please don’t bring up Haack because Araiza or no Araiza it is very possible that he was a goner anyway. In the end, they released him in a way that did not communicate any of their underlying feelings……which would be based on very limited objective information….about his guilt or innocence. They stated they thought it was best, not only for the team, but for Araiza and all involved to part ways. They stated that resolving this should be more important for Araiza than football. If they had communicated their underlying feelings of his guilt or innocence in any way THAT would have been an egregious error. The mob of moron reporters simply wanted either inside information that the Bills either did not know or are not at liberty to share, or blood. Giving in to that crap would have been dumb. Beane did say they made a mistake saying “thorough” when it should have been “ongoing”. Just guessing here but they may have actually thought they were thorough but they found out they weren’t, or nothing revealed in their initial investigation has been proven wrong at this point. It is impossible to know here. What is easy to know is that the press pool has stated several easily refutable things as facts and prescribed what they saw as appropriate remedies based on those supposed facts. They are idiots.

Out of curiosity why would a member of the Bills front office wake up in the morning in early June in Western NY and randomly type “San Diego State Rape” in Google? Should it have come to them in a dream? Should they randomly search topics on Google every day? Should they have also searched “Terrel Bernard murder investigation “ just in case?

Shirley you can’t be serious. Why are reporters not subject to stupid, reckless, irresponsible things they say? That’s just flat out ridiculous. And some of your opinions about remedies have been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing NFL rules. Those have ceased being opinions. They are simply wrong.

McD’s style is different and he wears his heart on his sleeve a bit. I think his presser let his heart show through which was probably tough because there were very limited specific things he was able to say.

I erased the first part of your quote because I mostly agree, have no major exceptions or think certain parts are moot. To the parts I left in: 1. We have no idea if Araiza admitted to having sex with her. The only information pointing at that comes from the plaintiff’s attorney’s account of a phone call that he says took place between Araiza and the victim. That is not an admission of anything by Araiza whether some reporter asking Beane stupid questions thinks so or not. 2. To me a 17 year old going to a party like that is bad judgement and neither 17 year old nor college campus partygoers exactly have reputations for good judgement but if I’m passing out blame for what may have happened the 17 year old gets .0000000000000000000000000004000000003%. 3. If he had nothing to do with a gang rape that actually occurred but was aware of it and did nothing, I agree that he is someone to be held in very low regard regardless of his young age or the circumstances. He should also be charged with obstruction of justice and/or anything else that applies and get a 400 pound cell mate. I also agree on the lawyer’s fate if these assertions prove untrue. No one except the involved parties…..and even some of them may not remember…..may EVER know the whole truth there. Yet the reporter mob expects the Bills “investigative skills” to be better. It’s. A. Joke. 4. I’m not absolving the police but at the same time I think the expectations here are a bit unrealistic. I certainly understand the frustration of the victim wrt the timeline but the press/public stomping their feet three minutes after they find out….and have no verifiable context….is absurd. SDPD is in no place to share any details of anything so we’re simply left with people’s ignorant theories and conspiracies piling up and SDPD, Beane, campus police, Araiza, McD, and I’m sure a longer list are defined as somewhere between totally incompetent and the devil incarnate by reporters who went to journalism school for years but never learned the meaning of the two word phrase “direct quote”. The above things don’t point to a heathy society.

The full truth is what matters most in this. That should always be the case. If he is guilty of what is alleged then IMO there is no punishment harsh enough. If he is guilty of parts…such as knowing about it and saying Nothing, I’d think he’d deserve whatever outcome came his way. For the sake of discussion, let’s assume he wasn’t involved at all and has been completely accurate and forthcoming behind the scenes……this seems like a stretch to me personally but let’s just go with it for a minute…..now let’s say he is able to prove that. Do you think the lingering effects from this on his career/life will magically disappear? That no one will remember his name or it will have no impact? How about if he is truly innocent but has no way to prove it? It won’t have any impact? All this stuff is no biggie and should be seen as how society should treat people? I don’t know about woke or how it has come to be defined but I can see that we have become a culture that needs immediate answers and resolution to any issue so we feel we can move on to the next thing. If it takes a while to gather actual facts? Screw that, just take a guess. The things you point out are facts and thus irrelevant. Emotions only please.

CJ Whoewer?

Obscure reference of the day week month year decade century who knows how long.

So sayeth the Skurski, so sayeth the flock. 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.

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.

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

Who would you consider the top three RBs in the NFL? In what round were these guys drafted? Who would you consider the top 3-5 teams in the NFL. In what round were their RBs drafted? I can think of one RB on one top team that you might be able to cite in those parameters but it is a bit of a stretch for both the player and the team. Good luck.

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.

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

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.

The media, like anything else, is made up of individuals. You wrote a dissertation about how the world is a better place because of the media and how we are all too stupid to understand this basic fact. I pointed out how egregiously unprofessional some members of the media have been. You can easily access the press conference if you’d like. I haven’t read every article. I’m sure some are well done. Not all of them are. Even your answers above, stated as remedies for what the Bills could or should have done are factually impossible. The Bills could not approach the league wrt administrative leave for Araiza as the incident in question happened before he was in the NFL. Araiza apparently told the Bills he had nothing to do with anything….they can’t force him to take a personal leave. In fact there is NOT ALWAYS a work around even if you think there should be. Maybe there was one in this case but so far nothing you have proposed is viable. There is a union involved, The police cannot share anything with the Bills, there are likely things the Bills know but cannot share and on and on. The press has not highlighted these things as near as I can tell yet they are happy to be critical of the Bills because all of these answers should have been easy. It’s a joke.