4merper4mer

He told you to “just stop”. Why didn’t you obey? Plus they have Lucky Charms at discounted prices!

You’ve convinced me. We should have paraded the 22 year old kid in front of a hostile national media week after week after week to show our support. It would have made his life far worse, but we may have netted 2 extra yards per punt. Did your mommy buy you Lucky Charms every time you pouted?

Family sometimes has to make difficult decisions which are better for everyone in the long term. Shirley you must be aware of this.

From an objective source or his attorney?

That was her lawyer’s re-telling of the contents of the phone call. It was not a recording heard by a reporter, it was not a police transcript. It was her lawyer, giving his account of the call. Can you see a difference here? I must have missed the geolocation in the article. All I saw was his friend’s account and “other” information.

I believe your “point” was that I called Araiza a bad person, which I clearly did not. Based on this, I explained what I said in 3rd grade level step by step terms. I politely offered to further clarify if you were still having trouble the 3rd grade level. I have to say I’m surprised that you didn’t try to object to anything specific at all. Let’s try again: I have no reason to believe Araiza is a bad person. Does that help with your reading comprehension or should i spell it out with phonics? I would say I’m curious about how you so badly misinterpreted what I wrote, but I’m not because nothing you wrote is based on any kind of logic at all.

I disagree with most of what @IronMaidenBills has written over the past few hours in this thread but on this one aspect I agree with him. It’s unfortunate that this woman…..girl at the time…..represented herself as 18 and that Araiza and others apparently bought it……but it’s pretty clear she did so. She is on film doing it albeit at a different party. To me it is sad that stuff like this happens…..to me a 22 year old male probably shouldn’t just take someone at their word that they are 18…..but “to me” doesn’t really matter. If you were going to cut all players who at one point in their lives had used questionable judgement, every team in the league would be way under the salary cap.

The last line said that the Bills hurt Araiza the punter but did the right thing for Araiza the person. What the Bills did was: 1. Cut the punter reducing his career by 1 year, perhaps more. 2. Gave the person back 80+ hours a week that would have been spent on football activities that could now be used to defend his name. 3. Removed him from a spotlight of unrelenting and unpredictable social justice warriors like Tim Graham who would have come fully prepared to make up definitions for things like “direct quote” and get as many clicks as possible out of the situation. This also took away a large part of the woman’s lawyer’s soap box and publicity hunt. 4. Decline their prerogative to ask for their signing bonus back based on “character clauses”. This would have been a dumb move but my guess is they could have sought it. I re-read my last line a few times to try to determine how you took it to mean I think Araiza is a terrible person. Illiteracy on your part is all I could come up with. If you’re not illiterate maybe you can further explain what you meant and how exactly you think I judged Araiza as a horrible person by what I wrote.

Apparently you can’t read.

People like yourself? Who are those types of people? Do you mean those who don’t look at anything as truth because a person calls it truth? For the record I didn’t believe or disbelieve the woman, her lawyer, Araiza, or his lawyer about the underlying facts at any point in all of this. I did realize that both lawyers displayed themselves as complete morons. You can check back on my posts if you’d like. Anyone who thought they could determine truth by the limited data available in the press, much of which had been proven false even back then, has a flaw in their definition of fact versus opinion/guess. I had a guess…..still do….but choose not to state it because I realize it is a guess. At no point then or now do I portray our current societal trends as fair. I do realize however that they exist and simply wishing they would go away is childish. The Bills organization was in an impossible position in many ways because they had to think of not just Araiza the punter, but also Araiza the person. Their decision definitely harmed Araiza the punter but I strongly believed it was 1000000000000% the right one for Araiza the person.

You misunderstand. Tim Graham is our superior in every way. This has been established so accept it. Sometimes when he makes a mistake we just have to move on. Other times we have to alter objective reality to bend to his will. Because of his superior morality and intellect, the third option of pointing out his mistakes or having him acknowledge them does not exist. Can you imagine the ramifications of that? If we knew he was capable of being wrong, who would we turn to for guidance when the next crisis he helped manufacture came along?

Araiza had to clear his name. You can call that unjust and scream and cry about it all you want but it is an absolute fact. The release of this article does not complete his process of clearing his name. In it, the woman’s lawyer gives the impression he still has work to do. It doesn’t matter whether that situation is right or wrong….it is real. Let’s get in our alternative universe machine and imagine the Bills kept Araiza. Would that have made things easier or harder on him clearing his name? We’re a year out and the process is still incomplete. If he had put in a football player’s season worth of work, there would have been unimaginable chaos surrounding both him and the team. The kid is 22. It would have been 1000x more difficult on him. On what planet is something like that improving his life or the situation? The Bills 100% did the right thing for Araiza…..they acted like adults and made the right decision for him based on objective reality….even if that reality was ugly and perhaps unfair. If you want to call the Bills a family then Beane is like a parent. Sometimes parents have to do things they don’t enjoy and the kids get mad about, but that they know is the right thing to do. In this case there are two types of kids. The players and the fans. I’d guess that most players understand exactly the scrutiny Araiza and the team would have gone through had he stayed. The fans that take your simplistic view of the situation are like kids that are now 45 but are still mad at mom for not buying those Lucky Charms when they were four years old.

A Tweet says he has proof he was elsewhere. There have been lots of things said on Twitter by both sides, lots of conjecture and lots of fact twisting by both sides. There has also been a lot biased and misleading statements by “journalists” like Tim Graham who don’t understand the meaning of “direct quote” or who do understand it and purposely misuse it. You’ll pardon me if I’d prefer more than a tweet as “proof”. Edit: I see now that there is more than just the Tweet and that the article offers more and seemingly objective information. I would still disagree with your statement of fact that he has proof he wasn’t there. He may very well have that proof but the article does not offer anything that constitutes objective truth. It’s clear his reputation was ruined by the Bills? Shirley.

You like Ngakoue long term? Shirley.

So memory loss is the issue?

Where is that Jay Cutler meme when we really need it?

Let’s objectively analyze the approaches taken by both the Underpants gnomes and by you. We can define #3, profit, the same way for both. I’ll even give the Oliver crowd a bit of a break as I think you should, Profit is revenue-cost. We'll get to that in a minute as although I think you’re calculating the cost of Oliver correctly from a technical standpoint, you are calculating it incorrectly from a practical standpoint. Given the definition of profit we’re employing we can proceed. Step 1 Underpants Gnomes: Step 1 for the gnomes is stealing underpants. This establishes the cost of the underpants as near zero. The only costs involved are the labor expended on the theft and the cost of the inventory. In the episode, the gnomes look as if they have nothing better to do than steal the underpants and they appear to live in large caves with plenty of space and no rent so the inventory cost is negligible. In effect their cost is zero. You: You’ve established our cost of Oliver as the first round pick we used, his 2023 cap hit plus the third round comp pick we won’t get if we trade or release him. Releasing him gets us nothing in return for those costs other than the cap hit relief. In order to profit from a trade, the value you seek needs to exceed your established cost. I’d argue that you should not include the first round status as part of your cost because we’ve already received three years of play in return. You don’t feel that play has been up to snuff, but even if it is a bad return, it is still a return. In addition, we cannot go back in time and undo the pick. Those costs are what is known as “sunk”. I think in establishing whether a trade is “profitable” it should only be required to exceed the value of a 2024 3rd rounder plus the lost production we’d get from Oliver in 2023. Step 2 Underpants gnomes: They appear clueless about how to proceed and achieve profit. The obvious choice would be to sell the underpants and take whatever money they could get. It would probably be a small number, but given the zero cost, a 100% margin. Their problem is there isn’t really a market for used underpants. If I were a management consultant employed by the gnomes I’d point out that they have already resorted to theft, which is wrong, but as long as they were doing that, they should steal piggy banks instead of underpants. This way they could skip step 2 altogether. I would congratulate the gnomes on their objective and enthusiastic approach to their business despite its current lack of success. Perhaps some day they will find a solution. You: if you agree that the cost of Oliver is a 2024 third plus his potential 2023 production, we can proceed. When Oliver is gone we instantly receive the opportunity to repurpose his cap $ for 2023 so that would be at least part of the return. I think you’re saying we could get more production from the use of those $ on other players either traded for or signed than from Oliver. You haven’t named any players that I’ve seen but we can leave that to the side. You haven’t named a team that would take Oliver and pay more than the 2024 third we’d already get. You can’t really give an example of a player that has garnered more. As a matter of fact, the most recent trade of a player in Oliver’s age range and relative status was D’Andre Swift, who netted a 2025 4th. You’ve also left out how we’d utilize the $ saved on Oliver. In a way you have more ??????? than the gnomes but still require higher standards. If I were a management consultant employed by you, I’d quit. Overall summary: Both you and the Underpants Gnomes want to achieve profit and neither can figure out how. The gnomes have stalled in their attempt. They realize they are stalled but continue to enthusiastically try to solve their problem. You have a conundrum similar to the gnomes as there is no real solution to the problem as you’ve defined it. In your own words, rather than maintaining enthusiasm in the pursuit of an answer, you’ve resorted to emotionally “pounding the table”. I’d say neither you nor the gnomes are likely to achieve your goals without resetting them or changing the approach. It appears the gnomes have a better chance at success because of their slightly better use of logic and immensely better attitude. Just my opinion though.

Meaning the clueless trade Oliver clan has no realistic plan.

1. Trade Oliver 2. ????? 3. Profit

It lists the Titans there twice. Is that real or maybe an either/or situation?

We have an advantage being an east coast team. Some teams have to wait 3 hours while we sign these guys.

I’m saying I think there is a good chance Kincaid was scouted and on the Bills radar for a long time. Regarding Williams I think you might be on to something but more so because the Bills were reportedly keyed in on Spears.

Kincaid was seen by some as a top 10 prospect. Possibly top 5 if you ignore QBs. He was generally seen as the top TE. The Bills certainly must have been looking at TEs as one of their top 3-4 needs. But they stumbled upon Kincaid because they were watching Addison? Shirley.

I’ll take “What does Hochul’s chauffeur say when he drives her home from the Mexican restaurant” for $500 Alex.

At least it’s not Denzel.