Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
7 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

But why? Do teams have to have reasons to cut players? You don't see the NFLPA complaining about other cuts. Are performance-based cuts flagged a certain way or something?

Nope. 

the only differentiator would be if they later want to go after his inconsequential signing bonus. 

Posted
1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

Yeah every Bills reporter on Twitter is making it a point to mention that he's still on the team. That means something. 

 

It means nothing has happened yet.

Posted
32 minutes ago, NoSaint said:


would be reckless not to have a plan b in place even if they currently believe the guy

My opinion.  There is no plan B.  There is going to be a new punter and it’s just a matter of time/process for that to happen. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
Just now, NoSaint said:

Nope. 

the only differentiator would be if they later want to go after his inconsequential signing bonus. 

 

Because this a) does not involve the NFL and b) is a civil suit and not a criminal case, the Bills have to dot their i's and cross their t's with Araiza. Making sure everything they do is air tight.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

I would lose complete faith In everything if our judicial system was covering up the gang rape of a woman

Like just turned a blind eye despite overwhelming evidence

 

I think the young woman's journal, which her lawyer made public, tells the story of this case.  She was very intoxicated.  She has only a hazy memory of the events and can't clearly identify who was involved or who did what when.  She can't even testify as to whether the marks on her neck are hickeys or strangulation marks, she doesn't recall.  And now that her journal has been made public and presented by her attorney as something she wrote at the time, any defense attorney can subpoena it and enter it as evidence of that.

 

I'd be pretty surprised if the detectives and DA didn't believe that something seriously bad, a gang rape, happened to this woman. 

 

But cases like this are notoriously difficult to prosecute. 

 

The only way the Vanderbilt rape case succeeded is because the fools involved took pictures and videos, which the police recovered.

Posted
Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Because this a) does not involve the NFL and b) is a civil suit and not a criminal case, the Bills have to dot their i's and cross their t's with Araiza. Making sure everything they do is air tight.


they do not. Because there is zero consequence for doing whatever they want and cutting him today. Beane could get drunk and cut 4 guys for looking at him funny at practice today. 

Posted
14 minutes ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

But why? Do teams have to have reasons to cut players? You don't see the NFLPA complaining about other cuts. Are performance-based cuts flagged a certain way or something?

 

Because Araiza hasn't violated any NFL behavior rules or been charged in a crime. He's sued in a civil case.

Posted

People upset the bills have not just cut him immediately need to take a deep breath.   That may be their initial reaction but they need to be sure they have all the information,both for and against The punter.  review it and make a collective decision for the team.  

Posted

So he’s no longer practicing and his jersey isn’t available on the Bills store. Press conference has to address his release or placement on some sort of exemption list. Bills are being very coy during all this. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree 1
Posted
Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

 

Because Araiza hasn't violated any NFL behavior rules or been charged in a crime. He's sued in a civil case.


they can cut him cause they feel like it. 
 

 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, NoSaint said:


they can cut him cause they feel like it. 
 

 

Isn’t that exactly what cuts are? The coaches make gut feeling calls on who earned a spot etc etc 

 

EDIT, my bad I thought it said they CANT cut him cause they feel like it. 
apologies 

Edited by Rc2catch
Posted
18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

Not yet

 

 

Has Vorse, or can anyone else, commented on the "speed forced on them by the NFLPA" aspect?

 

What aspects of the NFLPA/CBA prevent the Bills from just saying "See Ya!" and cutting Araiza?

 

I don't disagree but I'd love to hear someone who knows something spell it out. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Breakout Squad said:

So he’s no longer practicing and his jersey isn’t available on the Bills store. Press conference has to address his release or placement on some sort of exemption list. Bills are being very coy during all this. 

Yep it’s seems like after “more work done”  they are effectively ready to make this disappear. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree 1
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I think the young woman's journal, which her lawyer made public, tells the story of this case.  She was very intoxicated.  She has only a hazy memory of the events and can't clearly identify who was involved or who did what when.  She can't even testify as to whether the marks on her neck are hickeys or strangulation marks, she doesn't recall.  And now that her journal has been made public and presented by her attorney as something she wrote at the time, any defense attorney can subpoena it and enter it as evidence of that.

 

I'd be pretty surprised if the detectives and DA didn't believe that something seriously bad, a gang rape, happened to this woman. 

 

But cases like this are notoriously difficult to prosecute. 

 

The only way the Vanderbilt rape case succeeded is because the fools involved took pictures and videos, which the police recovered.

I don’t doubt that something happened

 

But a rape kit should be able to get DNA and everything… Especially if she went to the cops right after

 

There should be a Lot of  evidence

Edited by Buffalo716
Posted
1 minute ago, NoSaint said:


they can cut him cause they feel like it. 
 

 

They can.  However, they can't, for example, cut him because he's unvaccinated.  McDermott got in trouble for suggesting that he might do that last year.  You can cut someone for no reason.  You can't, however, cut them for any reason.  Some reasons will get you in trouble with the union...and this might be one of those.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...