McDermott/Beane press conference 8/27: Matt Araiza released

[HomeskillitMoorman]

I’m glad Beane was up there for this. He’s much more conversational in his approach than McD in this type of setting and it makes him seem more real and genuine. I think it helps dismantle a media that’s trying to lay blame or get a reaction from them. 

[RocCityRoller]

36 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

I’m glad Beane was up there for this. He’s much more conversational in his approach than McD in this type of setting and it makes him seem more real and genuine. I think it helps dismantle a media that’s trying to lay blame or get a reaction from them. 

 

The GM is the head of 'player HR'. The GM oversees hiring/firing/scouting and doing background investigations on employees. The coach is like the manager.

If the GM (HR) clears a person to join your team the Coach (manager) decides how best to utilize them.

 

Coach had little to no input on the 'why' a player was drafted or signed. He manages them once they are on board.

 

Any culpability or questions as to 'why a person is on the team' is the GM's responsibility, not the HC.

 

It ultimately is Beane's responsibility. He stood up and did what he had to.

Credit to McDermott for chipping in where he could to alleviate the pressure on Beane.

Edited August 29, 2022 by RocCityRoller

[Sierra Foothills]

4 hours ago, RunTheBall said:

Take the fall for what?

 

Because the Bills didn’t have a binder labeled “Open in case 6th round pick gets implicated in a gang rape case and you don’t know the facts just allegations” ??

 

Some of you are nuts. McBeane handled this about as good as they could. The nitpicking here is incredible. You are like the mob in the Holy Grail “SHE’S A WITCH! BURN HER!!”

 

 

 

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

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, Starr Almighty said:

He didn't call the Bills lawyer a class act? And then said they had their heads in the sand? Please interpret that correctly for me.

 

I think what he meant (and keep in mind the opinion I've stated of this guy):

-He formed a favorable opinion of Kathryn D'Angelo during his conversation and email exchange with her

-She told him she wasn't aware of the criminal investigation or potential lawsuit Araiza was facing)

-Araiza's attorney has said that Matt and he were communicating with the team from the time he was hired, 6 weeks ago

 

I think in the plaintiff attorney's mind, he's dunking on Araiza's attorney and Araiza for misrepresenting their communication with the Bills

 

IMO it's equally or more likely that there are communication gaps across lines that this situation revealed and that things known to Beane and the football side might not have been fully and promptly communicated to Legal, things communicated to Legal and the business side might not have been fully communicated to the football side, etcetera

[Beck Water]

5 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

Oh, I see what you mean. I read it as a sarcastic dig at the Bills attorney for denying that the team had any knowledge of the accusations when Araiza's lawyer stated that they had already informed the Bills. 

 

Like -- What a class act, she starts off by lying to me that she doesn't know anything about this...

 

I'm not saying his style isn't bombastic and unorthodox. But I've seen more contradictions from Araiza's lawyer. Like going on TV and saying "you better believe" Araiza informed the NFL pre-draft. 

 

 

I took it the other way - that he formed some respect for D'Angelo, feels she genuinely didn't know, and was taking a dig at Araiza's lawyer for claiming he'd fully informed the Bills when he hadn't.

 

Since (as you note) we've seen other contradictions from Araiza's lawyer, it's not unbelievable to me that he'd mix up or mistake the timing and extent of his communicatons

 

But

 

It's also possible he and Araiza were talking to (say) Beane, and there was a communication gap within the organization where D'Angelo wasn't in the loop.  Maybe COO Raccuia or her boss Gregg Brandon knew but didn't inform her.

[Shaw66]

Bills stuck with Josh when the news about his high school tweets broke the night before the draft.

 

Bills stuck with Beas when he went anti-vax.   

 

Bills stuck with Araiza when they first heard the story in July.  But when the story broke, it was clear they weren't going to get ahead of it and it was clear that Araiza wasnt as important as a QB or a slot receiver. 

[Beck Water]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Bills stuck with Josh when the news about his high school tweets broke the night before the draft.

 

Bills stuck with Beas when he went anti-vax.   

 

Bills stuck with Araiza when they first heard the story in July.  But when the story broke, it was clear they weren't going to get ahead of it and it was clear that Araiza wasnt as important as a QB or a slot receiver. 

 

With respect, I think you've got it mixed. 

An alleged gang rape leaving a young woman bruised and bloody, is hella more significant of an issue than some HS tweets or an anti-vax rant.

 

[NoSaint]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

 

I took it the other way - that he formed some respect for D'Angelo, feels she genuinely didn't know, and was taking a dig at Araiza's lawyer for claiming he'd fully informed the Bills when he hadn't.

 

Since (as you note) we've seen other contradictions from Araiza's lawyer, it's not unbelievable to me that he'd mix up or mistake the timing and extent of his communicatons

 

But

 

It's also possible he and Araiza were talking to (say) Beane, and there was a communication gap within the organization where D'Angelo wasn't in the loop.  Maybe COO Raccuia or her boss Gregg Brandon knew but didn't inform her.

gregg Brandon may be too cursed a name to be in the organization.

 

 

[Forlorn hope]

39 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Bills stuck with Josh when the news about his high school tweets broke the night before the draft.

 

Bills stuck with Beas when he went anti-vax.   

 

Bills stuck with Araiza when they first heard the story in July.  But when the story broke, it was clear they weren't going to get ahead of it and it was clear that Araiza wasnt as important as a QB or a slot receiver. 

Josh Allen quoted rick Ross lyrics to his friends when he was 14-15...

 

It was a hit job by ESPN for obvious reasons. And its part of many reasons why that network is no longer relevant 

[PromoTheRobot]

8 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

So, what were they supposed to do?   Believe me, I'm not arguing.   

 

Let's play out the scenario.  So, the Bills circle back five or seven days later and ask if there's anything new?   The Bills are told "no, we continue to work on our civil complaint."    Now what?   Bills ask if they can interview the woman, and the lawyer says either no or yes, but on the following condition: NOTHING she says in your interview can be used as part of your defense if she chooses to sue you.  At which point the Bills say, "whoa, you're thinking of suing US?  We're out of here, and you'll be hearing from our lawyers." 

 

And if they just get nothing when they circle back, what then?   Circle back in another week?  And the week after that?   How long do the Bills hang in limbo, wondering what to do?   Worst case, I suppose, is that with everything still in limbo in November her lawyer says, "Okay, we intend to commence the litigation in two weeks, unless Araiza settles right now."  Maybe they try to hold up Araiza - and the Bills - by threatening to make them the number story in their market.  I guess that would be a pretty bad outcome.    

 

We can create a lot of possible scenarios, but they wouldn't have been materially better.  Well, yes, a better one goes like this:  Suppose the Bills got serious corroborating evidence on, say, August 7 (there apparently was no such evidence available then, but just assume there was).  Bills waive him then.  They keep Haack.  There's a flurry of news coverage that is over by now.  That's the best possible outcome.  Not sure it really matters all that much.  Bills will have a Haack-equivalent punter into another few days, and it will be out of the news in a week.  

 

So, I think I just convinced myself.  Bills should have been more proactive after first learning of it in July.   They should have checked with her lawyer, and Araiza's lawyer, asking if there are any developments.  That way, at least, they might get advance notice of the filing of the suit.  Keep pursuing it in any way you can, just the way your scouts track down old coaches and other people.  Talk to the coaches at his college, talk his teammates.  Keep Haack on the team.  Then, when you get to this weekend, when final cuts are made, you make a decision.  Maybe you've learned enough to know that the whole thing is dying, or has settled quietly.   You keep Araiza.  Or, you've learned nothing new (where the Bills were a few days ago), and decide you don't want to risk a November scenario, so you cut him and keep Haack.   

 

Instead, the Bills waited for the episode either to die or come alive.  It came alive, and the Bills dealt with it.  Team will be way past it in a day or two, and the press will be, too.  Not the best possible outcome, but in no way is it devastating to the team. 

 

I also think you have to assume that their decision making was guided (not directed, but guided) by the League.  Beane did mention being in touch with the League, and you can be sure the league was over it.    All of the NFL's marketing has the Bills shown as a marquee name, and they don't want a sex scandal associated with that marketing.  It's a good bet that the Bills dug exactly as deep as the NFL suggested.  Beane didn't say, "the NFL made some suggestions, but we decided they weren't overkill."  The NFL was no doubt very clear about how they thought it should be handled, and I can't imagine that these managers - Beane and McDermott - would not do at least what the league suggested.  

 

One final thought, off the subject.   Where was Terry Pegula in this?  Did he tell Beane and McD to handle it and keep him out of it?  I might have thought he would have participated in a press conference, saying how important these issues are in the country, and how concerned Kim and Terry are about them.   Which leads to the bigger question:  Where's Kim?  Was there news that I missed one day?   We haven't heard a word, so far as I know, and now Terry is AWOL.   I wonder if Beane and McDermott have been left in charge of the place while Terry and Kim are dealing with some tough stuff.  Beane and McDermott probably are working under a lot of pressure.   That may explain why even Beane had trouble handling that press conference. 

 

 

 

Kim is still recovering from what is rumored to be a stroke. Did you want them to wheel her out for you?

[Forlorn hope]

2 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

'Hit job'? 'Obvious Reasons'? Elaborate.

Would rather not. 

[SinceThe70s]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I think the Bills did OK with this situation.  But even Beane said yesterday they could have done better.  Thorough implies a rigorous examination and it seems they fell a little short.

 

You hit on something I've given some thought to - but don't have a well considered answer or solution to.

 

To what extent does/should an NFL team vet a draft prospect? 

 

To what extent does/should the  NFLPA vet a draft prospect? 

 

To what extent does/should the  NFL vet a draft prospect? 

 

My summary thought is that perhaps if it was a collective effort it would be more feasible financially for the rigorous examinations needed to identify the d-bags not worthy of employment in the NFL. Yeah, I get it - plenty of reasons that's unrealistic/idealistic - and I'm happy to hear them.  Part of the motivation for my thought/question is that a few teams knew there was smoke around Araiza, but others (supposedly) didn't.  Why should that be on each individual team?

 

[Augie]

3 minutes ago, Forlorn hope said:

Would rather not. 

But, if we said “please”?

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, BUFFALOBART said:

...And the Peanut gallery, here, does not know any better....

This couldn’t be further from reality. The media are the ones doing the brainwashing - namely that theirs is the only acceptable worldview. Their opinions are generally despised by those who recognize this and are willing to speak up. Anyway, the Bills handled the situation well and hopefully didn’t make any decisions based on media reaction. 

[DrPJax]

10 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

Does anyone know if during the predraft process they do a blood test as the reports about Matt stating he had an STD wouldn’t that be a red flag that teams would look into? 

Testing for CURRENT Sti’s is culture based ( urine antigen testing or less common urethral swab).  It’s done in the face of current symptoms.  ( discharge , painful urination , frequency etc) and would unlikely ever be a mass screening issue at a combine ( cost , false negatives if person urinated before test or just had IC the night before).   Testing for chlamydia is urine or urethra swab and only done with symptoms.  Many cases are subclinical after some initial minor ( very scant urethral discharge that then fades) so mass routine screening is not common in my experience ( have never worked for the NFL , but I did testing IN URGENT CARE with symptoms or history of possible exposure or concurrent disease such as if someone had GC goin on ).  Blood testing for HIV , hepatitis , Syphilis ( esp the first two that THEORETICALLY can be blood or body fluid transmitted in a contact sport , tho unlikely, ) are easy to draw but remember they are just a snapshot of just that moment in time, and things like risk could change post combine as a practical matter.   
If someone has more risk factors ( Iv drug use or history of men having sex with men ) it’s possible they are screened to assess need for ongoing therapy  or need for vaccination etc.  I would guess against there being a mass  NFL screening protocol but things might be done according to individual risk factors after a proper medical history and physical are done by team Drs. So ariza might be screened / tested if he was currently complaining  of symptoms while there or  admitted a possible exposure and a urine would easily show things.  Chlamydia  is detected with urine testing ( some may still do urethral swabbing but most now just rely on a urine specimen) and even easily treated pending results if he had symptoms.   He could also be tested if he was informed by a partner that they tested positive.

I still think that would be private, outside of the nfl and prob happened within a few days of unprotected exposure ( eg after having unprotected ic with a girl he may have developed a minor discharge , went to at an urgent care / clinic on campus.  He probably was positive And was treated and called the partner to let them know he was positive and that partner would have to be assumed to be the source of his infection   also requiring treatment. Sounds like he did the responsible thing in following up and I would think this all took place outside of the NFL initial evaluations so no red flags would be raised unless he chose to divulge his entire past health history. 

 Just speculation based on my experience working in urgent care and just imagine the NFL only does basic screening as in a basic history / physical for screening healthy, asymptomatic players at the combine. They  might then ramp up with more specific testing if someone is found to have findings or abnormalities on the basic screens ( they prob all get basic urinalysis done , I would even think they get basic drug screening as almost all companies do that now pre hiring based on my experience with work comp pre employment screening physicals ). I would find it hard to believe ariza went into the combine without all this being already resolved and if he had chlaymidia prior I am sure he would have already been treated. Why would anyone go into a job interview situation with untreated symptoms and then have to explain that, esp since it’s easily treated and relatively common and minor thing?  
 

Importantly tho to your point, There is no routine blood test done for screening for that ( chlamydia)  , and the only reason to do blood tests specifically would be for screening for HIV, hepatitis , syphilis if he reported past history of sti, or they had records showing abnormal blood chemistries and they insisted on ruling out risk of concurrent/ other  infection also being transmitted along with chlamydia. This  Prob varies according to team specific requirements after their medical team reviews the medical history, and I highly doubt the NFL WOULD DO MASS  STI screening in asymptomatic athletes. If they do some  screen because of the CONTACT nature OF THE GAME, it would be for HIV, hepatitis , possibly syphilis which are all blood borne pathogens and there is NO routine blood testing for chlamydia or GC which are urine based tests now and usually only looked for with symptoms or post known exposure ( at least that’s how the real work world works in my experience having done hundreds of preemployment physicals for companies.  I have never seen a company request STI screening as a routine for employment so NO RED FLAGS would be showing up in all likelihood. if someone here works with the NFL , please feel free to correct me ) Every other condition that can affect risk / performance is screened for , like heart health , diabetes, BMI, , hearing, vision , orthopedic ability to do jobs like driving a truck or sport related performance issues( like surgeries or prior things like acl tears etc). .   Hope that helps a little. 

[PromoTheRobot]

So the Bills beat media blame the team for "not knowing sooner" and how all this information was out there earlier. Yet those same reporters didn't know either. 

[ddaryl]

3 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So the Bills beat media blame the team for "not knowing sooner" and how all this information was out there earlier. Yet those same reporters didn't know either. 

The modern media where shock value brings the hits

[Forlorn hope]

48 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So the Bills beat media blame the team for "not knowing sooner" and how all this information was out there earlier. Yet those same reporters didn't know either. 

Fairburn and skurski etc think the buffalo bills have cia, nsa and fbi resources. Maybe even the kgb too...

 

 

[Doc]

26 minutes ago, BUFFALOBART said:

Some alleged 'News' outlets, that classify themselves as 'Entertainment', couldn't be further from reality.

Oh, by all means, carry on.... 🙄

 

You fell for that?

[Warriorspikes51]

1 hour ago, PromoTheRobot said:

So the Bills beat media blame the team for "not knowing sooner" and how all this information was out there earlier. Yet those same reporters didn't know either. 

FAKE NEWS is proved again and again every day. Real Journalism and a desire to report the truth is dead in this nation among mainstream