Sierra Foothills

Wow. I'm "self-righteous and smug" because I think the Bills could have done better than they did and because I think many posters here are not objectively taking them to task? As far as your last sentence, "I think you like feeling as if you are superior to everyone here, it seems to be a constant in your posts." earlier in this topic I said I was an ####### and I also said I make no claims to being a good person so I really have no idea what you're talking about. As for your invitation to leave, I don't feel the least bit uncomfortable but if my posts make you feel uncomfortable, feel free to follow your own advice. But if you'd like to stick around and assail my character that's fine too. I'm sure it comes from a good place.

Now you've gone full on Crayonz. Checkmate and goodbye.

You ignored this query previously so I'll put it back in front of you seeing as you seem well-versed on all the administrative tools available to the clubs: For the second time, under what rules did Tom Brady take an 11 day leave and why couldn't the Bills and Araiza structure a similar arrangement? To the bolded, an organization when confronted with situations like this should always perform their utmost due diligence, should take the high road, and leave no stone unturned so that when things go off the rails, they can state unequivocally that they did everything in their power to do. The Bills declined to perform any further available actions. I'm sure under the barrage of media criticism the Bills are facing that they appreciate The Stadium Wall for all of the apologists and forgiveness of their shortcomings. As I said upthread, the Bills have been a first class organization for going on 6 years but they could have handled this situation better. That's a fair criticism.

I never said I was a reporter. I said I worked in the news industry. To your criticisms of me, I'm not "ignoring" anything nor am I "pontificating." I'm a sports fan who has an opinion that differs from yours and most others here. IMO the homers here are giving the Bills a free pass and I'm not. Again to the "direct quotes" criticism... for the 3rd time I'm judging the reporters work based on what they wrote, not what questions they were asking in the press conference. Did Graham write "direct quotes" in his The Athletic story? And again, my criticism of the Bills is mild... I've said repeatedly the team did two things that I would have done differently. My criticisms of the team's handling of Araiza doesn't even approach the levels of criticism leveled by every one of the Bills' beat writers. But by all means keep taking shots at my opinions.

To the first bolded, I was definitely calling some people stupid but I wasn't calling you stupid. Full disclosure: I'm not very smart but it's my observation that there are a lot of stupid people out there (and in here). To the second bolded, I'm not into diving into that level of detail. I've made my broad strokes take very clear. I think there's simple and elegant way the Bills could have handled this. You disagree... that's fine. To the third bolded... "Well call me sometime when you have no class"

For my own part I'm not going to go digging for procedural ways to accomplish what I proposed even though nothing short of doing that would satisfy some posters here... Related to leaves of absence, Tom Brady was gone for 11 days. Maybe someone here can explain the technical procedure for that.

To the bolded, I did not write "you are all too stupid." What I actually wrote was: "That said, in reading this topic many of you have a very limited view on the cost/benefit of the news media and also the job that the Bills beat writers are doing with Araiza-gate. A few of you don't understand what the world would be like if the media didn't exist. Having free media (as opposed to state-run media) asking even stupid questions is better than living in a world where an organization get a free pass because there's zero media scrutiny. Even "bad media" keeps people and organizations honest. Others here think..." So please don't misrepresent what I wrote. Let's try not to waste each other's time. If you don't want to understand what I'm saying that's fine. But let me try one more time: I don't care how they accomplished distancing themselves from Araiza after speaking with the plaintiff's attorney on July 31st... they should have taken that opportunity to do so. If there was no workaround then they should have cut him... anything other than what they did which was waiting until they were forced to cut him. Is that better???

Sorry to be an ####### btw. I try to hide that part of me but it's sometimes beyond my control. As mentioned by a quality poster in this topic, the consolidation of the media industry into "~5 companies" is well known and probably the biggest part of the problem with the industry (and all industries IMO). I believe the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine is also a contributing factor. I also believe the skirting of the "Equal Time" rules is another incremental step in the wrong direction. There are other smaller problems that have to do with social media, our educational system, and other things. As for what a personal leave would have accomplished, it would have distanced the team from the player while still retaining the player. By doing this the Bills would still be "standing by the player" and "protecting the spirit of due process" and at the same time "protecting their culture." Maybe the better suggestion is the one by Beck Water where they kept Haack and simply cut Araiza. Less straight forward but easier. At any rate I think the Bills should have taken the opportunity of the July 30th conversation to distance themselves from the player.

As I said, I worked in the business. I saw the greed. It's a huge part of the problem with the news media but it's not the only one. And really it almost goes without saying because greed is the same problem which afflicts all industries... it's a given. To the bolded I have never claimed to be a person of great integrity or character but I understand you're butt hurt because I pointed out your silly statement that the Bills could have hung onto Araiza if they wanted to. I understand and forgive your anger. To the questions, IF a team cannot put a player on leave, then the team should have approached the league, told them of the situation and requested that THEY place the player on administrative leave. OR, if that wasn't possible they should have told Araiza that he should request a personal leave. Whatever obstacles you would like to conjure up, there's always a workaround. The point is the same... he should have been put on ice. As for the timing, there was no time better than what I already stated... the day of or directly after the conversation with the plaintiff's attorney. I previously stated that I hadn't listened to the press conferences. I said I was judging the media based on what was written. Based on the written word I have no major objections to the treatment that the Bills are receiving. Were the Bills flawless in their handling of the situation? No. Is life unfair? Sometimes it is. In this particular case does the punishment fit the crime? Maybe, maybe not. When you're upper management in a multi-billion dollar industry are you paid the big bucks to make decisions and live with the consequences? Absolutely. I think the main thing the media might be missing is that the Bills have been a top class organization for going on 6 years. One mishandled situation out of dozens of perfectly executed situations shouldn't change that. But recency bias is something that all workers have to deal with.

Beane doesn't strike me as a small-minded, petty, vindictive type. I think it's more likely that he uses that fiasco to his advantage and allows WFT to "make amends" on a later transaction... allow them to save face and feel better about what happened. Beane strikes me as a strategic long game decision maker. And the reason they might have 3 backs + Taiwan active on game days this year is because they have a new OC. Besides the Bills demonstrated reluctance to move on prematurely from their draft picks, Moss was a 3rd rounder. A really doubt that a 5th rounder for Moss would be attractive to McBeane.

Trubisky signed with the Bills in March of last year... more than 5 months earlier than Garoppolo restructured this year. Trubisky could have played the waiting game but chose to be a backup in a solid organization rather than being a starter for a crap organization. Now he's starting for the Steelers. Pretty good play by Mitch. Exactly. Why would he go to a team after missing OTAs, training camp, and preseason? What are his chances of success and boosting his career given those circumstances?

I've said from the beginning that the Bills did some things well and other things not so well. I also said you could probably give them a numerical grade if you wanted to. I have never said the Bills botched this but I have said they've made at least two missteps. Do you think that posters should be giving advice to others about how to communicate their thoughts? Was there a good reason you feel compelled to suggest edits to my posts? Would you like me to proofread your material and make suggestions? Firstly the Watson situation isn't very similar to the Araiza situation and to your comment that the "Bills could've held on to Araiza as long as it took for this situation to be resolved if they really wanted" I'd say that this belief of yours brings your judgement and competency into question. As far as what the Bills should have done, I think they should have placed Araiza on administrative leave/paid suspension on August 1st when they first heard from the plaintiff's lawyer. I think they should have done this and not issued a statement other than saying that it was a private matter. YES, a paid leave/suspension for Araiza would have been the right move if they were really concerned about protecting their culture and their reputation for integrity. Following this move would be a firestorm of discovery by the media outlets as to why Araiza was placed on leave and then possibly hastened statements and actions by the lawyers involved. This move from the Bills on August 1st would have initiated a sequence of actions which would have resulted in a resolution of the situation by around mid-August. The pendulum would have swung to guilt and then maybe back towards innocence and either way the team would be positioned to proceed appropriately. In addition, by placing him on leave/suspension they could have said that they didn't rush to judgement and that they protected the spirit of due process as much as was possible.

Hey Shaw. I always enjoy your posts. To the first bolded, No I was not suggesting it was willful. I was suggesting it was possibly willful but I do believe the Bills were unaware of the situation. They have a great track record. If it were another team I might be more skeptical of what was known. To the second bolded, the Bills could have asked to speak to the victim. They might have been denied access but at least they could have said "we wanted to speak to the victim" which is a whole lot better than not asking to speak to the victim. They could also have asked to speak to any witnesses. Did they ever follow up with law enforcement? To the final bolded I can concede that preserving the culture was aided by cutting Araiza however it wasn't like the team had any choice because they didn't.

To your first point (numbered above), it was reported in the Associated Press that there were teams that were aware of the Araiza situation pre-draft. The AP is a very credible news organization not least of all because they are a not-for-profit. Are you not aware of their reports or do you choose to ignore them? To your second point, I don't believe the Bills knew about the rape story pre-draft but other teams did know, thus the Bills fell short in this regard. It is binary, they either passed or failed. They failed. Is this too difficult to understand? To your third point, Do you believe it's the job of a Bills beat reporter to scour for theoretical news surrounding the San Diego State Football program? If Microsoft hires an executive is it a newspapers job to vet him?

I used to work in news. I was partly inspired by Woodward and Bernstein's Watergate work and I grew up watching Walter Cronkite on the CBS Evening News. I'm the first to criticize the current state of the news media with their shyt disturbing and prioritizing of clicks, traffic, visitors, and ratings above actual journalism. I hate the lack of objectivity by news outlets that began with the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987. That said, in reading this topic many of you have a very limited view on the cost/benefit of the news media and also the job that the Bills beat writers are doing with Araiza-gate. A few of you don't understand what the world would be like if the media didn't exist. Having free media (as opposed to state-run media) asking even stupid questions is better than living in a world where an organization get a free pass because there's zero media scrutiny. Even "bad media" keeps people and organizations honest. Others here think the reporting is biased against the team and that the team is being treated too harshly. It seems like most of these "poor Bills" reactions are homerism (and I'm not referring to the works of Homer). As I stated upstream, objectively the Bills have made some missteps during this controversy. MINIMALLY: The Bills either willfully (or not) ignored information that other teams were aware of... that Araiza and the SDSU football team were the subject of a rape investigation. The Bills did not maintain contact with the plaintiff's lawyer who reached out to the team to make them aware of the investigation. Plaintiff's lawyer even followed up with the Bills but the club did not respond. The Bills had zero to gain and much to lose (even from a pure optics standpoint) by not staying engaged with the plaintiffs lawyer. Based on the timing of Araiza's release it's clear the Bills were not standing on principle so much as they were bowing to public pressure. Bills Head Coach Sean McDermott appeared on Barstool Sports on Tuesday 8/23/22 and said what a "great kid" Araiza was. This was 22 days after the plaintiff's attorney spoke to the Bills attorney and 2 days before the Bills said they had conducted a "thorough investigation. How much was McDermott kept in the dark about what was going on? Isn't this a mishandling of the situation? When the Bills released Araiza they were not standing up for him or for due process nor were they supporting their "culture." Releasing Araiza became necessary and unavoidable (except in the opinions of a few delusional posters here). As for the performance of Skurski, Graham, Gaughan and the others who have come under criticism, I haven't listened to the press conferences so I can't speak to the quality of the questions but I have read their pieces and have no problems with what these guys have written and reported. Also it seems like for context, most of you have not read the Araiza articles that have been published in the major newspapers. The local media is doing just fine with their reporting.

Disagree all you want but also mark my words, someone in the Bills organization will lose their job because of Araiza-gate.

This is a great point and I was wondering when it would be made (I haven't bothered going into the 272+ pages in the other topic). Someone is going to take the fall. It will be a test of the Buffalo Bills organization to see what the fallout will be from this situation and how much damage it might cause internally. Good overall take on a fairly complex subject. My thought is that most people here seem to think the Bills either handled this very well or very poorly. But again the truth doesn't always fit into a nice, tidy binary box. The Bills did some things well and other things poorly. You could probably assign them a numerical grade. I dock them points for not doing better on the due diligence/vetting of Araiza. I also dock them points for not continuing the engagement between De'Angelo and Gilleon. They had nothing to lose and possibly something to gain by staying connected in this conversation... even if it's just for good optics. The Bills have not been flawless in this situation but I think overall they responded pretty well.

What is the best-case scenario involving Araiza, the then 17-year old accuser, and the 2 others accused? In other words, what is the "most innocent" thing that could have happened that night? Araiza is guilty of something... minimally very poor judgement and very poor character and possibly a lot worse than that. And there are posters here who actually believe that the Bills should have stood behind this individual of questionable character who represents a swirling cloud of distraction?

IHOH.

The Bills already have a big-bodied receiver with good hands that doesn't separate particularly well... and who has a cap hit of $705,000 for 2022.

Josh is a very interesting person. One paradox is that he's always had to fight to earn respect and he freely admits that he has a chip on his shoulder from past slights. The level of disrespect he has endured is well-documented and he says that it motivates him. And yet Josh doesn't seem to have so much as a single bitter bone in his body and he definitely does not strike me as a grudge holder, like so many people are. Josh seems like too happy a person to harbor negative emotions for very long and so I still haven't figured out what makes him tick.

I'm in that group that believes that Josh needs to be protected from himself via prudent play calling. On critical downs a Josh run should always be on the table to keep the defense honest but I'm really really wishing/hoping that the addition of Aaron Kromer and improvements in our RB room will lead to a team that can run effectively without involving the QB... unlike last year.

People think I'm a sincere and earnest person... but I don't suck at poker. Just saying...

And there are other teams out there (Rams, Bucs, etc) who would be happy to add OBJ for a late season run. Make no mistake... there will be an OBJ sweepstakes. When players with the cache of Von Miller and OBJ entertain thoughts of playing for the Bills it means a few things: They want to win a championship and will be on their best behavior They recognize the Bills as a high-quality organization that they want to associate their brand with I am a Golden State Warriors fan and favor the GS teams that won championships without Kevin Durant over the teams that won with him. That said, the naysayers here shouldn't be looking a gift horse in the mouth. While I'd prefer to win a Super Bowl without OBJ, I'm not gonna grudge him a spot on the bandwagon, especially if he's helping lead the charge.

As I stated in this thread, 2 trade aways are possible and 1 is likely. Update: Aug. 22, 2022 Traded OL Cody Ford to the Arizona Cardinals for a fifth-round pick.