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

[reddogblitz]

26 minutes ago, UKBillFan said:

His intention might have been to hurt Araiza's career. In the long term I am concerned, by arguably letting his emotions run unchecked, he's hurt his client's case more.

 

If they're really in it for you he money, they'd go after the deep pockets.  San Diego State University.  Not after a punter who hasn't even gotten a paycheck yet.

[SCBills]

1 minute ago, reddogblitz said:

 

If they're really in it for you he money, they'd go after the deep pockets.  San Diego State University.  Not after a punter who hasn't even gotten a paycheck yet.

I have no idea what she wants, but the lawyer acts like he has a score to settle with Araiza from a previous life.  Just bizarre the way he’s acted. 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I have no idea what she wants, but the lawyer acts like he has a score to settle with Araiza from a previous life.  Just bizarre the way he’s acted. 

 

Think the score might be with Araiza's attorney rather than Araiza himself.

[Doc]

7 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

I mean, I believe (or hope) that they investigated and investigated hard and thoroughly... but that's my belief.

I can''t say "they clearly investigated it all", because if they did, and read the details in the 29 July LA Times article, why was McDermott so devastated?

 

 

I think this is a false dichotomy.  The Bills had the opportunity to quietly cut Araiza either with the initial roster cut-down to 85 almost 2 weeks ago or the second cut down to 80 on Tuesday.   All they had to do was release him and keep Haack and make a statement about both punting very well, but choosing the experienced holder and directional punter over the high-ceiling "boomer".

 

No one would have blinked, there would be no presumption of guilt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "he's already a rapist".  If you mean he's already convicted in the Court of Social Media, I sadly agree with you and think that's despicable.

 

 

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

I think they investigated it and were confident that no criminal charges against Araiza would be forthcoming, so they went ahead and cut Haack.  Then to their surprise, the lawyer filed the civil suit and it blew up on them.

 

And I can see McD believing and being devastated by what happened to the girl when she was gang-raped, but that's separate from her interaction with Araiza prior to that.

[Rico]

3 hours ago, Giuseppe Tognarelli said:

Very disappointed in Sal M. and Jay Skurski this morning.

 

 

Two scrubs, I will wait for Sully's take.

[BurpleBull]

I really hope that McDermott and Beane had a heart-to-heart with Araiza and the conversation was along the lines of if his name is cleared that he still has a home in Buffalo.

[4merper4mer]

The reporters in the presser asked some good questions and some bad ones.  One of the last questions, I believe from Graham, was demonstrably antagonistic and ridiculous.  I don’t know how Beane just didn’t flat out call him an idiot on the spot.  
 

The reporter asked why “direct quotes” from Araiza weren’t taken into account and enough to cut him on the spot…or something along those lines.  The “direct quotes” in question were paraphrased from the plaintiff’s lawyer’s third hand account of a phone call that took place after the fact between the victim and Araiza.  Beane is in no position to know whether the conversation actually took place and if so, whether the lawyer’s account was accurate.  He could have and probably did ask Araiza about it, but for Graham…if it was Graham’s voice….to call them direct quotes is highly unprofessional and irresponsible.  He’s a reporter.  He is supposed to know the definition of “direct quote”.   

[strive_for_five_guy]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I have no idea what she wants, but the lawyer acts like he has a score to settle with Araiza from a previous life.  Just bizarre the way he’s acted. 

If I were the victim or victim’s attorney, I’d be frustrated with the seeming indifference that various stakeholders (potential perpetrators, witnesses, police, the Bills) have shown.  His approach may seem unorthodox, but maybe this will force the facts of the situation to actually be established and those responsible for whatever happened to be held accountable.

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

I really hope that McDermott and Beane had a heart-to-heart with Araiza and the conversation was along the lines of if his name is cleared that he still has a home in Buffalo.

And by cutting him, they may helping him by being in a much lower tax bracket.  

 

Sue me when I am broke, not loaded.

 

At least the attorney went nuclear now, not three weeks into season. 

[Beck Water]

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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

 

Fair question, keeping in mind that they have a kid's career in their hands and the "Golden Rule" is "treat people as you want to be treated".  None of us wants to be at the "Choo! Choo!" end of a railroad op.

 

This is me using all the powers of 20-20 hindsight, but I think the Bills put all the Hosses they can on the investigation, and see what they can turn up between July 30 and August 23.  And if you haven't turned up anything definitive by the time the roster cuts to 80, you quietly cut Araiza and keep Haack and put out some performance-related reasons for the choice.  Haack is the more reliable holder, Haack is the more experienced and proficient directional punter and their analysis indicates that may be critical more often than a booming punt may be, Araiza is a fine player who can have a long career in the NFL but that's our decision today.

 

And if you're not happy with Haack, keep your eye on the cut-out bin, bring in FA/look for trades, and swap.

 

Why take the risk of having a major distraction break over the team during the season due to your punter?

 

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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." 

 

I think that's a bit far fetched.  For one thing, friends and acquaintance who are attorneys tell me NO WAY that lawyer is going to allow his client to be deposed or even freely interviewed by the Bills.  The most they get is to listen to her read a statement, or just get a written statement emailed to them.  Why?  Because with a criminal case pending and a civil suit pending, anything she says to the Bills would be discoverable and could be scrutinized for contradictions to challenge her credibility, and experienced lawyers know that it's very very difficult for a witness to avoid anything that can be challenged in an open-ended interview.

 

I think the key point here is for the Bills to gain as much understanding as they can of this lawyer's intentions and motivations.  To do that, you keep the lines of communication open and just see what you can get.  Personally, from what he's presented on social media, he seems a guy that I'd want to keep a barrel of bleach handy to disinfect my ears after speaking to, but Ya Gotta do What Ya Gotta Do for the good of the club.

 

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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. 

 

Pretty well where I am except I woulda done it this week, so that I can reach out to punter's agents and teams who might trade and schedule things.  Because I think it's pretty clear the Bills were not happy standing pat with Haack.  So unless you have a clear resolution for Araiza, you keep Haack and keep looking.

 

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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.

 

I think it's a very safe bet the league weighed in on this.  Good points.

 

5 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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.

 

Terry has a past history of not taking the stage when perhaps he should at difficult moments (the Rex Ryan firing).  But I think it's very possible that one or both of them weighed in strongly and drove the final decision.

 

I think Beane had trouble handling that press conference because he didn't plan to go out there.  Originally one chair in the original room.  I think they were both being prepped and briefed by lawyers, the communications people, and perhaps someone from the league office on what to say and how to say it, and McDermott balked and said "not going out there alone".  So I think Beane was less prepared than usual in a situation where sticking to the script was more important than usual, so he spent more time checking his notes.

[BurpleBull]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

And by cutting him, they may helping him by being in a much lower tax bracket.  

 

Sue me when I am broke, not loaded.

 

At least the attorney went nuclear now, not three weeks into season. 

 

Very good point, hopefully this is accurate.

[Beck Water]

32 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

If they're really in it for you he money, they'd go after the deep pockets.  San Diego State University.  Not after a punter who hasn't even gotten a paycheck yet.

 

One of the best posts in the "lawsuit" thread, from a litigator, mentioned just this point, and suggested there may be some barrier to having included them in the suit.

 

I will say I know of at least one lawsuit over an off-campus gang rape that was moved on-campus, where the university was yet excluded from the lawsuit by an appeals court.  And this action was 100% off-campus.  So there may be a body of legal precedent there?  But I dunno, I would think you would try it nonetheless and force the university to fight it off.

 

Strange strategies overall.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

15 minutes ago, Rico said:

Two scrubs, I will wait for Sully's take.

 

If you really want to win a prize-winning character assassination piece, strap on Matt Fairburn's article in The Athletic.

 

I'm not linking it, but the headline is "Fairburn: Bills’ handling of Matt Araiza undermined trust". 

 

A key piece of ASS U ME tion in it:

"McDermott said of the accuser’s words, “We did take those very seriously. I want everyone to understand that. That’s a serious deal there.” But he also went on a podcast with Barstool Sports weeks after hearing those accusations and happily referred to Araiza as “The Punt God,” called him a fan favorite and said he is a “great kid.”

 

Fairburn just assumes that when the lawyer called Bills counsel Kathryn D'Angelo, he was given and read a transcript of the conversation. 

 

It's at least an equally good assumption, and IMO from McDermott's very visceral and emotional reaction to the lawsuit actually more plausible, that he was being exposed to most of those accusations for the first time.

[Dr.Sack]

The plaintiffs attorney comment yesterday on the Bills “putting their heads in the sand” is weird. Instead of using the news of Araiza’s release as evidence in his favor public opinion, he took a low blow at a standup Org. Meanwhile SDSU and local LE likely helped cover up the allegation. Misplaced anger is real. 

[Beck Water]

24 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

I think they investigated it and were confident that no criminal charges against Araiza would be forthcoming, so they went ahead and cut Haack.  Then to their surprise, the lawyer filed the civil suit and it blew up on them.

 

And I can see McD believing and being devastated by what happened to the girl when she was gang-raped, but that's separate from her interaction with Araiza prior to that.

 

That could be.  I'm not quite sure how confident they can be about the "no criminal charges" when the DA just got the file August 5th.  But it's possible.

 

 

[Johnnycage46]

2 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

If you really want to win a prize-winning character assassination piece, strap on Matt Fairburn's article in The Athletic.

 

I'm not linking it, but the headline is "Fairburn: Bills’ handling of Matt Araiza undermined trust". 

 

A key piece of ASS U ME tion in it:

"McDermott said of the accuser’s words, “We did take those very seriously. I want everyone to understand that. That’s a serious deal there.” But he also went on a podcast with Barstool Sports weeks after hearing those accusations and happily referred to Araiza as “The Punt God,” called him a fan favorite and said he is a “great kid.”

 

Fairburn just assumes that when the lawyer called Bills counsel Kathryn D'Angelo, he was given and read a transcript of the conversation. 

 

It's at least an equally good assumption, and IMO from McDermott's very visceral and emotional reaction to the lawsuit actually more plausible, that he was being exposed to most of those accusations for the first time.

 

Fairburn is probably still raw because McD lit him up back in 2019 when Fairburn reported on what the Bills had playing on their monitors in the locker room (a quote from the Giants' coach about Allen).

[Big Blitz]

2 minutes ago, Dr.Sack said:

The plaintiffs attorney comment yesterday on the Bills “putting their heads in the sand” is weird. Instead of using the news of Araiza’s release as evidence in his favor public opinion, he took a low blow at a standup Org. Meanwhile SDSU and local LE likely helped cover up the allegation. Misplaced anger is real. 

 

 

They're Rams fans.  

[Dr.Sack]

Just now, Big Blitz said:

 

 

They're Rams fans.  

Could some of this be at play? Sure. I think more than likely SD attorney doesn’t want to ruffle SD LE and SDSU. Buffalo is a scapegoat yet again. same goes for OJ, how many times did LE not charge him for domestic violence; and he remained employed by NBC?

[Rico]

5 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

If you really want to win a prize-winning character assassination piece, strap on Matt Fairburn's article in The Athletic.

 

I'm not linking it, but the headline is "Fairburn: Bills’ handling of Matt Araiza undermined trust". 

 

A key piece of ASS U ME tion in it:

"McDermott said of the accuser’s words, “We did take those very seriously. I want everyone to understand that. That’s a serious deal there.” But he also went on a podcast with Barstool Sports weeks after hearing those accusations and happily referred to Araiza as “The Punt God,” called him a fan favorite and said he is a “great kid.”

 

Fairburn just assumes that when the lawyer called Bills counsel Kathryn D'Angelo, he was given and read a transcript of the conversation. 

 

It's at least an equally good assumption, and IMO from McDermott's very visceral and emotional reaction to the lawsuit actually more plausible, that he was being exposed to most of those accusations for the first time.

Thanks, yet another reason not to give The Athletic any money.

[Boatdrinks]

38 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

I mean, I believe (or hope) that they investigated and investigated hard and thoroughly... but that's my belief.

I can''t say "they clearly investigated it all", because if they did, and read the details in the 29 July LA Times article, why was McDermott so devastated?

 

 

I think this is a false dichotomy.  The Bills had the opportunity to quietly cut Araiza either with the initial roster cut-down to 85 almost 2 weeks ago or the second cut down to 80 on Tuesday.   All they had to do was release him and keep Haack and make a statement about both punting very well, but choosing the experienced holder and directional punter over the high-ceiling "boomer".

 

No one would have blinked, there would be no presumption of guilt.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "he's already a rapist".  If you mean he's already convicted in the Court of Social Media, I sadly agree with you and think that's despicable.

 

 

We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one.

As a man of principles, perhaps McD’s faith in humanity was shaken by the cacophony of the media swarming like hyenas on a freshly killed carcass.