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

[BillsShredder83]

7 hours ago, Beast said:

 

Yeah, I haven’t ***** an underage girl at a college party or even been at one where there has been a gang rape.

 

Guess I haven’t lived a full life by your standards, huh?

Did you check ids of every girl you banged when you were 18-22?

 

I'd bet never once, so technically you dunno.

6 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Hypothetically if he raped a girl I’d cut him.  I ‘d be enormously sad but ultimately football does not trump crimes.

I'd bet my life that they would've suspended him long enough to get all the facts.

[UKBillFan]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Absolutely.  So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?

 

This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed.  I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.

 

It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape.  They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.

 

So what changed?  It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times.  What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit.  That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".

 

When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen?  What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?

 

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

I said before, but I wonder cynically whether we cut Haack when we did to see if there would be any change to the defence attorney's approach. As there has been, we can now look at waivers and free agents. If we had waited and cut on Tuesday that would be a further week gone and only nine days until the season opener to sort the mess out.

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.  (I'm assuming you mean plaintiff's attorney, as Araiza is the defendent)

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do, because this is actually a relatively good time for this to come out, vs. during the regular season.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

 

I guess overall, I don't think Beane would bet that poker hand.  It obviously had a huge impact on the mood of the team and on McDermott and his ability to coach/focus.

 

I think the Bills Brain Trust, meaning in this instance Gregg Brandon and legal, and Raccuia with Beane being in the loop, honestly assessed this as a "cash grab" move and did not believe that a civil lawsuit would be filed.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[Bangarang]

13 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Absolutely.  So then the question would be, why they thought it was a good idea to take that approach?

 

This is absolutely my personal opinion, but I believe that the Bills didn't think the civil suit or criminal charges would be filed.  I think they interpreted the plaintiff's lawyer's priority was to settle the case.

 

It had to be clear when they talked to the lawyer that there was no way the Bills by themselves could gather evidence that would unambiguously clear Araiza from allegations of facilitating or participating in a brutal gang rape.  They were just allegations on July 30th, and they were just allegations on August 25th.

 

So what changed?  It wasn't the details - those were in the LA Times.  What changed was publicly associating Matt Araiza with those details through the allegations in civil suit.  That enusured that McDermott, all the coaching staff, and all the players would read all those sickening details like a punch in the gut, as would several million of their opinionated "closest friends".

 

When they took the "wait and see" approach and cut Haack, do you honestly think the Bills believed that would happen?  What if it had happened a few weeks forward from now, on the eve of a game, and the Bills got the choice between going into a game with a controversial punter (getting the side eye from his teammates) or having Barkley punt in a critical game?

What changed was the law suit was actually filed and it became a national story. The team became heavily scrutinized and it obviously became a distraction. If none of that happens then I’m sure Araiza is still on the team. 

[UKBillFan]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.  (I'm assuming you mean plaintiff's attorney, as Araiza is the defendent)

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do, because this is actually a relatively good time for this to come out, vs. during the regular season.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

 

I guess overall, I don't think Beane would bet that poker hand.  It obviously had a huge impact on the mood of the team and on McDermott and his ability to coach/focus.

 

I think the Bills Brain Trust, meaning in this instance Gregg Brandon and legal, and Raccuia with Beane being in the loop, honestly assessed this as a "cash grab" move and did not believe that a civil lawsuit would be filed.

 

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

What changed was the law suit was actually filed and it became a national story. The team became heavily scrutinized and it obviously became a distraction. If none of that happens then I’m sure Araiza is still on the team. 

 

Right.  But Beane kind of cast this as "they wanted time to investigate/due process/only allegations/boulders not details"

 

My point is exactly what you stated: they seem to have cut Araiza because it had become a national story with huge negative PR and a distracting/distressing impact on the coaches and team.

 

Of course, I can not rule out that they uncovered some new information that contradicted Araiza's story and made him less credible, or information that criminal charges are likely.

 

2 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

Then it would come down to whether they thought Araiza would settle or not. They surely must have had a conversation with him about that. If he said he refused to do so, what did they think the next steps would be?

 

Well, there was that text where Araiza's lawyer said his parents wanted to know what amount the client had in mind.  So I'm inferring that Araiza did not have a conversation with them saying "I will not settle".

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Right.  But Beane kind of cast this as "they wanted time to investigate/due process/only allegations/boulders not details"

 

My point is exactly what you stated: they cut Araiza because it had become a national story with huge negative PR and a distracting/distressing impact on the coaches and team.

 

 

Well, there was that text where Araiza's lawyer said his parents wanted to know what amount the client had in mind.

 

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient.

 

So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media. Some comments seem to contradict other things being said.

Edited August 28, 2022 by UKBillFan

[SCBills]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

Oh, Gee.  I'm a cynical SOB, but that hadn't occurred to me.

 

I don't think that's actually beyond the pale of something Beane would do.  I would NOT play poker with that man.

 

I do think McDermott was legitimately gobsmacked by the whole thing.  I felt awful watching him in those two pressers. 

I actually buy this, and it doesn’t change my opinion of Beane at all.. because I truly believe he has no clue if Araiza did it or not. 
 

That makes sense to cut Haack after learning about this, to speed up the lawyers timeline of playing his hand.  
 

Thus allowing us to be in the position we are now, which is the ability to get a good punter off cutdowns or via trade if the lawyer pulled the trigger. 
 

Also, avoiding this happening the day before a game. 
 

It’s calculated af, but I’m not passing any moral judgments because Beane likely feels like most us do… sickened by the allegation, but with no clue whether any of it pertaining to Araiza is accurate. 
 

I think the holier than thou crowd may be a little surprised at how many times that approach to a player (banking on allegations never going public) panned out. 

[Beck Water]

Just now, UKBillFan said:

 

And yet the defence attorney said an apology to the alleged victim and a payment to a rape charity may have been sufficient.

 

So much doesn't add up about this - not the alleged offences but the actions of the defense attorney on social media.

 

Actually, the best explanation to all this might be "Unpredictable Behavior of Crazed Rabid Litigator"

 

I think that guy is trolling Araiza in the media, same has he's trashing Beane in the Bills

[Beck Water]

1 minute ago, SCBills said:

I actually buy this, and it doesn’t change my opinion of Beane at all.. because I truly believe he has no clue if Araiza did it or not. 
 

That makes sense to cut Haack after learning about this, to speed up the lawyers timeline of playing his hand.  
 

Thus allowing us to be in the position we are now, which is the ability to get a good punter off cutdowns or via trade if the lawyer pulled the trigger. 
 

Also, avoiding this happening the day before a game. 
 

It’s calculated af, but I’m not passing any moral judgments because Beane likely feels like most us do… sickened by the allegation, but with no clue whether any of it pertaining to Araiza is accurate. 
 

I think the holier than thou crowd may be a little surprised at how many times that approach to a player (banking on allegations never going public) panned out. 

 

The thing that wouldn't make sense to me about all this is....

 

.....the Bills could have simply kept Haack, scrutinized the cut-down list and potential trades/FA for an upgrade punter, and *totally avoided* all the distress and angst that McDermott plainly went through and that the team went through (judging by Barkley and Keenum)

 

I'm sure you're correct that the "banking on allegations not going public" approach has worked more often than we know, and teams have gambled on it to obtain a competitive advantage from a superior player.  Is Araiza really such a superior punter that the competitive advantage he provides to the Bills is worth the PR Sword of Damocles hanging over him?  As people have said, we didn't punt that much last year, and there are other aspects to punting where he's "developing" (like directional control, ability to punt short and pin a team deep, and of course holding)

[SCBills]

6 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

The thing that wouldn't make sense to me about all this is....

 

.....the Bills could have simply kept Haack, scrutinized the cut-down list and potential trades/FA for an upgrade punter, and *totally avoided* all the distress and angst that McDermott plainly went through and that the team went through (judging by Barkley and Keenum)

 

I'm sure you're correct that the "banking on allegations not going public" approach has worked more often than we know, and teams have gambled on it to obtain a competitive advantage from a superior player.  Is Araiza really such a superior punter that the competitive advantage he provides to the Bills is worth the PR Sword of Damocles hanging over him?  As people have said, we didn't punt that much last year, and there are other aspects to punting where he's "developing" (like directional control, ability to punt short and pin a team deep, and of course holding)

I think naming Araiza the starter and cutting Haack was the trigger.  They, potentially, wanted to see what the lawyer would do when they did that.  
 

As far as not cutting him immediately … Maybe they truly believe Araiza…. Reading between the lines, they definitely didn’t say they don’t.
 

Edited August 28, 2022 by SCBills

[Big Blitz]

1 hour ago, CSBill said:

The issue is not what they did Thursday, the issue is what they didn’t do for three weeks before with admittedly having the  “boulders” of the accusations. Those seem to be some pretty big boulders to ignore for three weeks. …. Reporters have the right and responsibility to ask those questions. 
 

 

 

 

They didn't ignore anything.

 

They clearly investigated it all.  

 

They did not reach a determination that Araiza was guilty or innocent.  And maybe there was an NFLPA issue.  

 

 

People need to understand something that is sadly not going to matter because he's already a rapist.  Araiza's livelihood was literally in their hands - releasing him before their own investigation and before anything came to the surface would have cemented this kid as guilty 

 

If the Bills cut him some August 5th afternoon completely out of nowhere - they've just told the public he's guilty.  

 

 

 

The more I think about this the more convinced I am the Bills couldn't have handled it any better.   

[T master]

Okay I have some questions .

 

So what happens if this is a case of a gold digger (which we have seen before) & Ariaza is exonerated of any of these accusations & it is found out that this person is nothing but a gold digging liar will the Bills take a hit for not standing behind a innocent person a team mate that is suppose to be part of the family as it is ?

 

It just strikes me as very funny that when someone comes into a lot of money then & only then the accusations come about & IF IF IF this is that case it can very well ruin his life . 

 

What happened to innocent until proven guilty ? I know the Bills & the NFL have a image to uphold & these accusations are very VERY bad but if there is the  possibility that he is innocent will this be a knock against what Beane & McD have preached about family & having each others back in this teams culture .

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

53 minutes ago, Lost said:

 

Growing up I always assumed news reporters were purely objective I had great respect for people like Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Lester Holt.   It wasn't until the last 7 years when it became very obvious how blatantly biased even the most respected(at the time) news anchors are.   The framing of questions in press conferences are always worded in a way to get confirmation of the pre-drawn conclusion from the reporter/outlet and automatically demonize the interviewee if they provide an unapproved response.  This goes for right and left leaning outlets.   The job of a reporter is to gather facts/information and present them to the viewer and let the viewer make judgements on their own.   

 

The most honest reporters provide both the opponent and proponent viewpoints.   Very few do that anymore.  

Good take. I may be older than you as it seems it’s been going on longer than that. It certainly has gotten worse in the last ten years or so. 

[muppy]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Who said it’s bad publicity?   That’s all in the eye of the beholder.  
 

Oh and on the “style of rhetoric”…

 

PAGING MUPPY VAN WINKLE!   PAGING MUPPY VAN WINLE!   

This is nothing new. 

Bottom line for me is that  this woman receive justice  in this situation. Is airing the case playing  to the court of public opinion on twitter an effective approach? *shrugs*  for me it came off as unprofessional 

Edited August 28, 2022 by muppy

[Beast]

36 minutes ago, BillsShredder83 said:

Did you check ids of every girl you banged when you were 18-22?

 

I'd bet never once, so technically you dunno.

 

I didn't need to check the ID because I knew who I was having sex with. Novel idea, huh?

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beast

[hemma]

1) The only mistake with cutting Haack is that it should have been done last year.

 

2) What are the Bills supposed to do that will placate the ‘vetting nazis’?  Dig through players’ trash at 3 AM?  Assign 3 man teams to tail them for a year?  Genetic testing done by disguised Dutch scientists?  If anything, the NFL should be in charge of all background vetting for all teams so that there is a standard, with a grade of Pass or Fail. It makes no sense for 8 different teams to do investigations on one prospect, each with different results.  Individual teams can then interview and make their own judgements on attitude, coachability, etc.

 

3). The Bills pay for 1 or more lawyers to help protect their interests and keep them from stumbling into legal quagmires.

The Bills aren’t perfect but because of the Pegulas, Beane & McDermott,  I personally give them the nod over click bait muckrakers here and in the media.

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Beast said:

 

I didn't need to check the ID because I knew who I was having sex with. Novel idea, huh?

 

 

This makes sense, but today it’s an outdated concept. 

[Airseven]

Please unpin this my lord

[Beast]

1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:

This makes sense, but today it’s an outdated concept. 

 

Right. I guess expecting to suffer the consequeces is also outdated for the up and comers.