LeGOATski

Unlike any player, that could subject the Bills to a grievance from Araiza's side/NFLPA. I'm not in favor of cutting him if he did nothing wrong. The Bills' FO needs to get it's ***** together, because the actions of drafting him and naming him the starter are contradictory to their actions last night. Something is wrong there.

Every FO makes mistakes. People seem to want to lump it all together. This isn't simply about making mistakes, though. This raises questions about the integrity of the FO. Up until now, despite their mistakes, the FO has seemed to operate with the upmost integrity.

It's not that they don't make mistakes. It's that there seems to possibly have been a big miscommunication or someone holding information back.

Same, but this definitely throws it all into question.

Doesn't this point to a lack of communication within leadership? They say they knew, but apparently didn't know? Who knew and who didn't? I was under the assumption that the FO was all on the same page...

I was saying "Well, I think you'll see it."

The Bills could trade Araiza, right? I know there's an owner/GM out there dumb enough.

I was totally the same about the Watson case. By the time it played out, there was a ton of victim accounts, a pattern, a court ruling, etc.

It's not. It was included in the claim.

Can't handle Joe's heat? Then get out of the bathroom.

The timestamp says that's from yesterday...and it just says "accused." Not new news.

Brings new meaning to "live ball drill"

You should read how that conversation is worded in the statement. They're painting the picture they want, but we don't actually know how that conversation went down.

Classic tree-in-the-woods scenario

I highly doubt they'd gamble with this. It's just an indicator of where things truly stand on their end.

same. it's unfortunate to say the least.

They can add punishment based on things that occurred before the draft only if the player was in violation again after the draft. So it counts if the player is still misbehaving after the draft, but it doesn't count if nothing happens after the draft

We have no idea how that line of questioning went down. The statement words it in such a way to favor one side, but why would the SCU detectives ask the girl to ask a more direct question in order to confirm they had sex? After she asked directly, Araiza said he didn't remember. Before that, for all we know, it could've been leading questions like "I think I had sex last night, should I get tested?" Any normal person would respond with "yeah, you should probably get tested." The fact is, we have no idea what was specifically asked. And the SCU detectives did not pursue a criminal case after that.

According to the ESPN article posted above, the Bills found out after drafting him, but before releasing Haack and naming Araiza the starter. The point still stands for sure, the Bills obviously felt comfortable with what they found. I can guarantee that detectives in the SCU would care and probably wouldn't be swayed by outside sources to disregard a case, but you never know. I think the fact that they didn't pursue criminal charges after investigating it is telling. They even recorded a conversation between the woman and Araiza. Maybe there is still time to make this a criminal case, but you'd think that would've already happened if it was desired.

Well, I think you'll see it.

That's how I understand it, as well. I'm not sure what people are expecting. At this point in the process, the league and the Bills can't really do anything, including sitting him out of a game.

Idk if it's been covered in the thread already, but I wonder what the NFL could do then. Or would punishment be completely up to the Bills? I would really like to be a fly on the wall listening to what the SCU detectives think.

what a mess