UKBillFan

The Bills have helped cause the circus though. If they had cut him on Tuesday - no circus. If they had announced he would not play until this was sorted - no circus. If they hadn’t released that statement claiming they had carried out a thorough investigation - fewer awkward questions asked. Arguably McDermott should have said he would not be addressing the Araiza issue last night and focused on the game. The Bills are adding to the frenzy rather than dousing the fire.

Since when has guilty until proven innocent been a thing?

Which bit is enough to cut him?

Nothing changes from what I said in my edit above. We’re making the decision on the basis of the prosecution alone.

If we do cut, I presume it will be on Tuesday when we name the 53 man squad, so it isn’t separate or stands out from the rest? And then pick up someone on waivers, possibly whoever Tennessee decides to release.

Was this something in the lawsuit? ETA - You mean the telephone call? Don’t think there is anything in there which is bad enough to suggest being cut without hearing the defence first.

Fair point, but I think the Bills chose that by their cut selection on Tuesday.

How’s that a confession of wrongdoing? Surely, if anything, it suggests he thought there was nothing to answer until the Times published their article?

Yep, who gives a damn eh? Guilty before proven innocent and all that. I have to admit, I am all over the place with this. Think my feeling is we should have cut him on ‘experience’ grounds over Haack but, as we stood by him then, we should continue to do so on grounds that he has not yet been charged or found guilty UNLESS something has been revealed which was deliberately kept from us, has been proven to be true, and is detrimental to Araiza’s case. In that case we should cut and move on.

We have a worrying drop off of quality at Tight End after Knox

At this rate Josh will be doing everything.

The post is clearly referring to the potential charge of statutory rape - nothing more than that.

Apologies, didn’t realise he kicked off. Suppose they didn’t want him at risk of getting challenged/injured during a field goal attempt or a punt? If yesterday was a league game I presume he would have punted as the emergency option?

I was wondering that, as he has a record of a 60 yard field goal so can get distance. I assume we either didn’t want to dress him up or have him practice with a different holder to the one he’ll be playing with across the season.

I think there is tension between Beane and McDermott on how to deal with the situation. Beane is of the mind to back the support the internal investigation, back Araiza on the basis of innocent until proven guilty and let him play on on that basis. McDermott believes the internal investigation missed/was unable to pick up some key points and/or one or more people have been holding back information from him, is uncomfortable with the allegations and wants to cut Araiza and move on.

The best solution for the Bills and Araiza himself would be Matt asks to be cut out of respect for the franchise and with the understanding that it does not represent a belief of guilt. The Bills have painted themselves into a corner - if they released him on Tuesday instead of Haack they could have dressed it up as based on experience and, whilst there would have been a debate about once the news leaked, the Bills wouldn’t have had to get involved or stuck to that reason. Instead they cut Haack, release a statement which basically backs Araiza, and then let the weight of the situation fall on top of them. And then we have a situation where there appears to have been information held back from McDermott, either by Araiza, his attorney and/or the front office. McDermott make it clear by refusing to answer the question put to him that he feels lied to by one or more people. Cutting him now is the easy way out but is also too late. It might be the Bills are trying to find out a way of doing so without Araiza or his attorney claiming that he has been tried and found guilty by the Bills, which could either cause problems with the NFL PA or possibly some of the players - something which may have been suggested before, as I haven’t read every page, but what if the dressing room leaders have spoken to Araiza about the situation and back him? It’s a messy situation and shouldn’t have been allowed, from a front office point of view, to get this far. I appreciate supporting those accused as it should always be a case of innocent before proven guilty. But the statement painted them into a corner where they now have little room to manoeuvre.

If the alleged victim’s attorney was confident of criminal charges he wouldn’t be pushing a civil case. I think the statue is 12 months so he could have held back another eight weeks if the criminal charge was moving at a glacial pace.

There is also no evidence that the Bills did not conduct a thorough examination but I highly doubt they would have been able to access the alleged victim’s journal or the text messages between the attorneys, for example.

Araiza’s defence is that he led her to a room to rest, left her alone, and there are witnesses saying he was not in the house when the rape took place IIRC. I’m not saying he’s being truthful or lying - just laying out the defence.

Surely they wouldn’t take the gamble at this stage? We’ll see if he is cut, I guess. There is a feeling of guilty before being proven innocent around all of this.

Or, even though it wasn’t during college days, the likes of Watson and Roethlisberger.

Asked this earlier but could we put him on the practice squad until he is cleared/settles or charged/sentenced?

How about a star QB where something comes out about an incident during his college days?

That doesn’t explain the statement from yesterday, though I suppose McDermott letting slip new information has been discovered over the past 24 hours might explain why they could have changed course.

Agreed. In both directions.