UKBillFan

Oh definitely. 45 yards is a breeze…

Or, as stated elsewhere, they were always going to move on from Haack. Either Araiza would punt or they were happy enough that some of those under free agency/waivers would be an upgrade.

Possibly. They could have held on to both until Tuesday and cut Haack then though; bought some time to see if anything else came out. As you say, perhaps they decided there were enough free agent punters and those who will appear on waivers that we considered ourselves in a better position cutting Haack whatever the outcome with Araiza.

In fairness, most mock drafts had Araiza as the third or fourth punter to go due to doubts surrounding hang time and holding.

The only misstep for me is cutting Haack over Araiza. If they knew this was hanging over the latter, why cut the former when they did?

Beane said Araiza’s story has not changed at any point, so he was as open at the start as he was at the last.

Just to verify - Beane confirmed Araiza’s story has not changed from the first time he asked for it to the last.

12 days for it to wash off. I'm only guessing but, if I'm right, I can understand both Beane and McDermott's point of view. And it doesn't sit right that, had it been someone of more importance to the team than the punter then it would have been treated very differently (and that goes across the NFL, not just the Bills).

And I think this has been the problem since Thursday, which came to a head last night. Beane and McDerrmott were in disagreement on how to proceed - Beane was fixed on innocent until proven guilty and wanted it to play out; McDerrmott felt it was setting a bad example and unduly influencing the team.

Morally it needs to play out through due process. If charges are not bought, he is found not guilty and/or settles then he will probably turn up for a NFL team again. If found guilty, he'll have more things to worry about than punting and rightly so.

That last question was ridiculous - there's an ongoing civil process with a potential criminal process, of course they will have to say no comment to some questions. I think both were as open and honest as they could be considering the circumstances, though I don't think cutting Haack and keeping Araiza was addressed?

Allegedy. So many in this thread have decided he is guilty.

Beane seems to be saying that Araiza's defence has not changed, so no 'lies' or holding back from him. This all seems based on the civil charges being bought.

Thanks (and to others who answered). Administrative leave?

Two seats - McDermott and Beane?

Think the allegations are a pretty good reason to suspend him on pay. So we risk putting him on waivers; it'd be interesting to see if any other team would be interested in picking up his package - they'd get a greater backlash than the Bills. I agree, I hope he lied to the front office at some point to be cut, otherwise what has changed from Tuesday other than the court of public opinion?

At least he would have still be paid and part of a NFL squad. By the sounds of it, it's a straight cut now so he won't be.

Individuals don't matter now. If they benefit the team then they're in. In they don't then they don't deserve a second thought.

I'm trying to think how the Bills could have handed the situation better without cutting him. Suspending him immediately from playing and placing him on the practice squad would have been a good start.

At least he wouldn't be able to play against us! He's done more than enough in pre-season to earn a place on the roster.

True, the other guy hasn't been out of the news for a very long while.

Let's not get high and mighty with this. As many fans have said and indicated over the last few days, it's easy to cut him as he's "just a punter". He might actually be less controversial than our current (soon to be ex?) punter, which is pretty remarkable.

On the downside, I do now have an image of Donald Trump as our next punter.

As the lead NFL story? What have I missed?

Not necessarily, depending what happens with the case.