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

[4merper4mer]

4 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

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.

Shirley you can’t be serious.  Why are reporters not subject to stupid, reckless, irresponsible things they say?  That’s just flat out ridiculous.

 

And some of your opinions about remedies have been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing NFL rules.  Those have ceased being opinions.  They are simply wrong.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Sierra Foothills]

2 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

Shirley you can’t be serious.  Why are reporters not subject to stupid, reckless, irresponsible things they say?  That’s just flat out ridiculous.

 

And some of your opinions about remedies have been demonstrated to be incompatible with existing NFL rules.  Those have ceased being opinions.  They are simply wrong.

 

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?

 

3 hours ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

I used to like Fairburn. Maybe he's been hanging out too much with Jerry Sullivan, but his coverage has been awful. Sal Maiorana and Jay Skurski have always been bottom of the barrel in terms of their takes so I don't find the fact that they continue to be terrible very surprising. Speaking "truth to power" is relevant in actual life situations, these three have been using the situation to style themselves as "serious journalists."

 

This is sports reporting, not covering the war in Ukraine, there isn't a "deeper level" to explore. Why didn't they reach out to the accuser? Maybe because the attorney laid out his case and gave them relevant documents and the team went out to try and corroborate or disprove the facts on their own, realized they weren't capable of getting to the bottom of things when the allegations and the player's version of events were so far apart and a suit was brought and decided to cut bait. 

 

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.

Edited August 30, 2022 by Sierra Foothills

[4merper4mer]

41 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

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?

 

 

 

The “I won six Super Bowls” rule.

43 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

 

 

 

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.

“No stones unturned” is a lazy platitude and too general to be useful.  Please name a stone, how the Bills should have turned it over and whether it is plausible that they actually did but still found no answers.

[Sierra Foothills]

14 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The “I won six Super Bowls” rule.

 

14 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

“No stones unturned” is a lazy platitude and too general to be useful.  Please name a stone, how the Bills should have turned it over and whether it is plausible that they actually did but still found no answers.

 

Now you've gone full on Crayonz.

 

Checkmate and goodbye.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

12 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

 

Now you've gone full on Crayonz.

 

Checkmate and goodbye.

 

 

Goodbye to you too.  You answered a question about something a reporter said that was demonstrably false and inflammatory by saying who cares if he didn’t write it.    You’ve continued to state in generalities that the Bills should have done more and implied this would have been simple.  You are completely wrong about that.  You demand answers from everyone else, state  solutions that are proven to be unattainable then hop to additional unattainable solutions.  Why should I treat your question about Brady seriously when you so easily and with ridiculous premise dismiss the question about the reporter?  Because you used to work in the newspaper industry and I just don’t understand?  For Pete’s sake dude.

 

You know that Brady asked for the time off right?  You know that Araiza did not ask for time off right?  You know Brady and Araiza’s league stature are slightly different right?  Your question was stupid and it deserved the exact response it got.

 

Oh, and you didn’t answer the stones question because you are clueless about what the Bills did or did not do in their investigation, yet you still stand in judgement of it.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[ndirish1978]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

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.

 

That's a fair criticism.

 

The self-righteous smugness radiating from this post is gross and predictably, poorly thought out. The ONLY information that could be released that people will accept in this case is a list of dates of who was contacted, who was hired to collect information, a release of all the notes from the investigation. You are NEVER going to get that information and it is asinine to think you are entitled to it. These smug articles out there drawing conclusions from press conference snippets are just clickbait, you're not going to find an article with a well-researched, reasoned explanation of events because that information will never be released. 

 

I would posit that when the team realized they weren't going to be able to unequivocally answer the questions raised by the allegations they admitted they didn't have the resources to do their due diligence and then took the high road by not throwing others under the bus for their own shortcomings and simply cut ties. You look at facts one way, I look at them another. I would not have criticized your opinion had you not decided to point out how special your thoughts are and how it makes you better than the "apologists" on this board. No one here wants you to feel uncomfortable, feel free to bounce. Though I think you like feeling as if you are superior to everyone here, it seems to be a constant in your posts. 

Edited August 30, 2022 by ndirish1978

[Sierra Foothills]

21 minutes ago, ndirish1978 said:

 

The self-righteous smugness radiating from this post is gross and predictably, poorly thought out. The ONLY information that could be released that people will accept in this case is a list of dates of who was contacted, who was hired to collect information, a release of all the notes from the investigation. You are NEVER going to get that information and it is asinine to think you are entitled to it. These smug articles out there drawing conclusions from press conference snippets are just clickbait, you're not going to find an article with a well-researched, reasoned explanation of events because that information will never be released. 

 

I would posit that when the team realized they weren't going to be able to unequivocally answer the questions raised by the allegations they admitted they didn't have the resources to do their due diligence and then took the high road by not throwing others under the bus for their own shortcomings and simply cut ties. You look at facts one way, I look at them another. I would not have criticized your opinion had you not decided to point out how special your thoughts are and how it makes you better than the "apologists" on this board. No one here wants you to feel uncomfortable, feel free to bounce. Though I think you like feeling as if you are superior to everyone here, it seems to be a constant in your posts. 

 

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.

 

[KHAN]

Get a room guys...

[Sierra Foothills]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Goodbye to you too.  You answered a question about something a reporter said that was demonstrably false and inflammatory by saying who cares if he didn’t write it.  I said (multiple times) that I'm judging the reporters by what they wrote because I hadn't heard/seen the press conferences. Because I didn't hear them I'm choosing to not judge the reporters by the questions they asked in the press conferences. Why is that difficult to understand?  You’ve continued to state in generalities that the Bills should have done more and implied this would have been simple.  You are completely wrong about that.  I'm wrong according to whom? According to you? Our opinions differ...why is that such a big deal to you? You demand answers from everyone else (incorrect... I asked YOU one question... who exactly did I "demand" an answer from?), state  solutions that are proven to be unattainable (again your opinion) then hop to additional unattainable solutions. Unattainable because you say so? Why should I treat your question about Brady seriously when you so easily and with ridiculous premise dismiss the question about the reporter (see above)?  Because you used to work in the newspaper industry and I just don’t understand?  For Pete’s sake dude. Again, I didn't work for a newspaper. I worked in the news industry. 

 

You know that Brady asked for the time off right?  You know that Araiza did not ask for time off right?  You know Brady and Araiza’s league stature are slightly different right?  Your question was stupid and it deserved the exact response it got. I've said repeatedly that the Bills should have figured out a way to distance themselves from Araiza after the conversation with the plaintiff's lawyer one month ago. I suggested a few actions which others who seem to know more than me said were not feasible. I then said there was a way it could be done if the Bills wanted to do so. Can you refute this or can you only disagree with it? The Brady situation is relevant because the Bills could have arranged for Araiza to take a mutually agreed upon leave of absence. 

 

Oh, and you didn’t answer the stones question because you are clueless about what the Bills did or did not do in their investigation, yet you still stand in judgement of it. Stone questions? Which questions were those? Who asked me that?

 

[4merper4mer]

21 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I mean seriously do you own a mirror?  We’re all supposed to defer to you because you read a few articles but you can’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt about what was said in a press conference?  It’s not as if the recording is hard to find.  But you’re not being self righteous?  Geez dude.  
 

it is not my opinion that your solutions are unattainable as they would be in direct violation of league rules.  Otherwise defined as a fact.
 

And the stones question came from me as part of a post to which you responded, but only to a different portion.  If on a computer, use the mouse to scroll up a bit, if on an iPad, use your finger.

Edited August 30, 2022 by 4merper4mer

[Sierra Foothills]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

I mean seriously do you own a mirror?  We’re all supposed to defer to you because you read a few articles but you can’t give anyone the benefit of the doubt about what was said in a press conference?  It’s not as if the recording is hard to find.  But you’re not being self righteous?  Geez dude.  
 

And the stones question came from me as part of a post to which you responded, but only to a different portion.  If on a computer, use the mouse to scroll up a bit, if on an iPad, use your finger.

 

I don't understand. Are you demanding that I watch/listen to the press conferences and judge the questions that were asked? Is that what you're asking me to do?

 

Is there something wrong with me judging a writer by what they write?

 

And I'm not asking anyone to "defer to me" so I'm not sure what your problem is. As I've stated numerous times to you and others, we have a difference of opinion. I can accept yours, why can't you accept mine?

 

As for the "stones" issue, I guess you're referring to my statement that the team should have left no stone unturned (performed greater due diligence).

 

I already gave examples but again... staying in contact with plaintiff's attorney and asking to speak with the plaintiff... exploring ways to distance Araiza from the team.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I don't understand. Are you demanding that I watch/listen to the press conferences and judge the questions that were asked? Is that what you're asking me to do?

 

Is there something wrong with me judging a writer by what they write?

 

And I'm not asking anyone to "defer to me" so I'm not sure what your problem is. As I've stated numerous times to you and others, we have a difference of opinion. I can accept yours, why can't you accept mine?

 

As for the "stones" issue, I guess you're referring to my statement that the team should have left no stone unturned (performed greater due diligence).

 

I already gave examples but again... staying in contact with plaintiff's attorney and asking to speak with the plaintiff... exploring ways to distance Araiza from the team.

Wrt to your first two lines I have no demand for you to anything.  I simply pointed out the unprofessional nature of reporters in the presser.  You not watching doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Some may have written viable articles but ignoring that does not make the unprofessionalism disappear.

 

A difference of opinion is one thing.  You making statements that are factually incorrect and me pointing that out does not constitute a difference of opinion.

 

How do you know what ways the team explored or did not explore to distance themselves from Araiza.  You literally have no idea what they did or did not do.  You haven’t even claimed to know and yet you still stand in judgement.  

 

 

[Sierra Foothills]

9 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Wrt to your first two lines I have no demand for you to anything.  I simply pointed out the unprofessional nature of reporters in the presser.  You not watching doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Some may have written viable articles but ignoring that does not make the unprofessionalism disappear.

 

A difference of opinion is one thing.  You making statements that are factually incorrect and me pointing that out does not constitute a difference of opinion.

 

How do you know what ways the team explored or did not explore to distance themselves from Araiza.  You literally have no idea what they did or did not do.  You haven’t even claimed to know and yet you still stand in judgement.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boater]

I'm not browsing all 45 pages of this thread, so my apologies if I repeat others...

 

But that Olean Times Herald/Chuck Pollock piece https://www.oleantimesherald.com/sports/bills/araiza-scandal-reflects-badly-on-bills-hierarchy/article_db4362ab-9942-5f0c-8e6d-58ec4e57a544.html is just a cheap mafioso media hit job.

 

I once really respected Chuck's work.

Edited August 31, 2022 by boater