Bills show what a class organization they are

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, UKBillFan said:

 

From memory they travelled to Carolina on Wednesday, which was before the civil lawsuit was issued. It could have been something in the lawsuit or reading the journal entries posted on Twitter, that's my feeling anyway when McDermott said, post Panthers game, that he had learned something he wasn't aware of in the past 24 hours.

 

I think him playing then not playing on Friday was potentially down to discussions with the rest of the team and McDermott. Possibly because of how quickly and viciously the social media blow up occured. I think the cut may have been decided at that point too; Araiza was seen at the stadium in his street clothes rather than wearing anything with Bills branding. I don't think his locker has his name on it either; it was removed prior to kick off.

 

 

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

[T master]

1 minute ago, NickelCity said:

 

Almost nothing. At this moment in time there was no viable alternative to their decision.

 

 

As i asked if it was Josh (or maybe even Diggs) would there be a different out come or would there be more time granted to a investigation as to what the facts were or would it be the same for all ? I'm just asking questions to the what if ...

 

The Texans put Watson on the shelf until more evidence or more of the same testimony's were given to basically incriminated him which i believe he is that scum bag & did what was said but at first they gave him the benefit of the doubt to see what was what before a decision was made .

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

is it reasonable if the victim said she was 18 in your opinion?  Btw don’t you think an NFL bound dude should have enough brain cells to protect himself  from such a situation? He is an idiot regardless. 

College age people, including student athletes often make impulsive decisions. Especially at parties. She probably appeared to be another college student and that was that. It’s not like seeing the visible difference between a teen and a 35 year old. The vast majority of college folk must be idiots in your view. 

[UKBillFan]

2 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

 

I wonder if they were going through steps to see if there was any way they could keep hiim on the team but remove him from the roster - administration lead, suspension, exempt list etc. As every avenue closed they came to the only conclusion. That doesn't explain what was an absolute mess of an original statement from the Bills or why they seemed to be prepared to play him on Friday until late on.

 

McDermott did say that he had learned something in the prior 24 hours to the post Panthers press conference. They seem to be wanting to hold on to this as the reason why they made the decisions they did.

[BurpleBull]

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

[Boatdrinks]

7 minutes ago, Victory Formation said:

They did, they handled this the right way. I honestly think that this team and this organization would have loved to trash Matt Araiza in a more public way, but politics are politics.

Why would they love to trash Araiza - who hasn’t been convicted of anything -publicly? Weird take imo.  

[NickelCity]

3 minutes ago, T master said:

 

As i asked if it was Josh (or maybe even Diggs) would there be a different out come or would there be more time granted to a investigation as to what the facts were or would it be the same for all ? I'm just asking questions to the what if ...

 

The Texans put Watson on the shelf until more evidence or more of the same testimony's were given to basically incriminated him which i believe he is that scum bag & did what was said but at first they gave him the benefit of the doubt to see what was what before a decision was made .

 

These are different questions than the one you asked and I answered, to be fair.

[Boatdrinks]

Just now, BurpleBull said:

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

I hope that this isn’t true, and that they recently became aware of something that didn’t jibe with what they were told to that point. 

[Steptide]

Serious question, and I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but if the civil suit gets dropped and no criminal charges get pressed, would the bills re sign him?

[Boatdrinks]

2 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Serious question, and I don't want people to take this the wrong way, but if the civil suit gets dropped and no criminal charges get pressed, would the bills re sign him?

Seems possible , but unlikely ? Something made them change their mind and my guess is that they’ve moved on at this point. Maybe they told him to get this cleared up and he’d be invited back to camp next year ( whatever option they go with for 2022 is likely to be more expensive than the rookie) but only Beane, McD and Araiza know what was said. 

[Motorin']

12 minutes ago, BurpleBull said:

They showed that they can be backed into a corner and made to do a 180 on their stance.

 

They could have still preached character (which is a value I believe McDermott truly values) being that the team is compromised of high character guys and a strong culture, while showing that part of that belief in character is giving guys a second chance for redemption.

 

How do you give a guy a second chance at redemption over something he is denying that you don't know the truth about?  

[UKBillFan]

22 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Alpha, I think you're mostly correct here, except that you assume the Bills did all they could have under the circumstances when they first learned of the lawsuit.  If they'd thought it out, I think they would have seen that they were leaving themselves out to dry by cutting Haack.  Once they cut him, they were stuck with however the Araiza situation played out.  It was a gamble.  And it really wasn't worth it - they could have kept Haack until this weekend, and decided now.  And the right decision would have been to keep Haack, because the Bills still might not have known enough.  Cut Araiza, go with Haack, don't worry any more about your exposure.  

 

Now, in an odd way, it may work to the Bills favor, because they may find a better punter than hunk in a couple of days.  

 

Though I see where you're coming from, would the civil case have been raised had Araiza not become the clear punter for the team? It could be that they cut Haack as part of the final cuts and then the civil case was issued, leaving us nine days from opening night without a punter.

 

I agree, keep Haack and cut Araiza would have been the more obvious situation. I get from that that Haack was never going to be our punter this season; they had at least decided that by last Tuesday.

[dollars 2 donuts]

25 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

 

Graphic details can sometimes be…pretty graphic, which these were.

 

I eat steak knowing someone killed it.

 

You showing me a video of someone doing it to my ribeye just before I sit down at the table…is different.

 

Additionally, 10+ weeks since we have heard or seen anything from somebody in the Bills organization (who is doing well, and thank you for all your support) who probably would have been very vocal and decisive in this earlier had she been available.

 

…but as usual that’s a question around these parts we are forbidden to ask anymore because, you know…F the “president” part as this is a family issue and it is none of anybody’s damn business.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by dollars 2 donuts

[Alphadawg7]

17 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Alpha, I think you're mostly correct here, except that you assume the Bills did all they could have under the circumstances when they first learned of the lawsuit.  If they'd thought it out, I think they would have seen that they were leaving themselves out to dry by cutting Haack.  Once they cut him, they were stuck with however the Araiza situation played out.  It was a gamble.  And it really wasn't worth it - they could have kept Haack until this weekend, and decided now.  And the right decision would have been to keep Haack, because the Bills still might not have known enough.  Cut Araiza, go with Haack, don't worry any more about your exposure.  

 

Now, in an odd way, it may work to the Bills favor, because they may find a better punter than hunk in a couple of days.  

 

I agree with you, of all the things to question this is the fairest.  But 2 things...Haack sucks, I think they had no intention of entering the season with Haack as the starting punter regardless.  So I think that played into why they cut him, I mean a punter is as plug and play as it gets in the NFL in terms of a position.  

 

When they released Haack, they literally said they wanted to give him time to catch on with a team.  So I think that decision had everything to do with respecting Haack as a person and doing what was right for Haack because they had already decided they wanted to make a change there. 

 

And Beane also said, they aren't perfect, not every decision is easy when they make it.  And things can happen after the fact that make you rethink a previous decision.

 

To be honest, if I am Beane I am assuming I have more time before a civil suit gets filed to figure the situation out.  It was not in the best interest of the victim to file the suit when they did, so I don't think they expected this to escalate this soon either and caught them off guard.  And I think that is pretty evident in the timing of releasing Haack.  

[Bills2022]

18 hours ago, marck said:

Lets take the opportunity to congratulate the Buffalo Bills organization for the way they handled this very difficult issue with Matt Ariaza.

 

Each step was calculated, the response measured and the action swift and deceive.

 

Maybe organizations like the Browns and Dolphins can use this to learn that in player acquisition ethics, integrity and character are far more important then play on the field.

 

B+.  Bills should have done their homework. This was handled well, but nobody should be congratulating anyone.  It is like congratulating the Bills after losing to the Chiefs last year in the playoffs.  The team and the front office need to move from playoff caliber to championship caliber. Enough with the stupid errors due to being unprepared. This is right up there with not squibbing the kick at the end of the playoff game.  Unforced errors are killers. 

[Starr Almighty]

32 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I hear what you are saying, but the details in the suit were available (in graphic detail) on thursday, yet they were still publicly standing by him.  So I don't buy that they were swayed by new info.  The sheite-storm that came with the public filing of the suit was entirely predictable.  Who didn't see that coming??  

 

He was cut because the owners said pull the plug, after 2 days of avoidable  embarrassment for the organization.  The Bills wasted massive public capital for 2 days over a rookie Punter who hadn't played a real game for them yet.   

 

Having decided to stick with him for a month knowing what they knew, they should have just dumped him when the bomb dropped Thursday.  Anyone in that organization who figured they could just "get through this" after Thursday without having to cut him needs to have their head examined.

 

2 days later, they cut him.  Shocking...

Just a reminder. This is a football team not a Police Department. The actual Police and DA haven't come to a conclusion to what really happened 10 months later. But somehow you want a room full of football guys to have all the answers. They knew he was accused of something and tried to figure out if it was true or not with their limited resources to do so. Because again this is a football team. 

[marck]

So done with that continued about a player is no longer on the team.

 

it’s over people, roster is at 79, punters/holders are being brought in for tryouts.

 

Final player evals are being completed, review of other teams potential cuts and our front office seeing if any viable trade opportunities are out their.

 

So, can we now focus on football.

 

My rant is done

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I agree with you, of all the things to question this is the fairest.  But 2 things...Haack sucks, I think they had no intention of entering the season with Haack as the starting punter regardless.  So I think that played into why they cut him, I mean a punter is as plug and play as it gets in the NFL in terms of a position.  

 

When they released Haack, they literally said they wanted to give him time to catch on with a team.  So I think that decision had everything to do with respecting Haack as a person and doing what was right for Haack because they had already decided they wanted to make a change there. 

 

And Beane also said, they aren't perfect, not every decision is easy when they make it.  And things can happen after the fact that make you rethink a previous decision.

 

To be honest, if I am Beane I am assuming I have more time before a civil suit gets filed to figure the situation out.  It was not in the best interest of the victim to file the suit when they did, so I don't think they expected this to escalate this soon either and caught them off guard.  And I think that is pretty evident in the timing of releasing Haack.  

That's interesting. 

 

Bottom line, I think, is that in management, including football management, the only objective was to get it out of the news.  They want to do that as well as they can, but at the end of the day almost all that matters is to get the press to stop asking questions about it.   You do that by getting him off the team, because then you can begin to respond to the questions by saying the guy isn't on the team, we wish him well, we tried to handle it as well as we could.   When he's still on the team, the questions are still there.   The Niners wish they could move Garappolo, because all the time he's there, he'll be the question.  

 

Bills have succeeded in that.  Araiza's gone, and the story will die.  They'll pick up a decent to good punter, and he'll work like crazy to get up to speed with Bass.  Ten weeks from now, it'll be a dead story, almost as though your punter got injured and had to be replaced in a hurry.  

 

Bottom line, as Alpha said, is that management did a solid job getting through, this not perfect, but solid.  And they did it with as much respect for the positions of the people involved as they could.  

[K-9]

40 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

is it reasonable if the victim said she was 18 in your opinion?  Btw don’t you think an NFL bound dude should have enough brain cells to protect himself  from such a situation? He is an idiot regardless. 

The victim saying she was 18 is only one aspect of the type of proof a defendant may offer. Attire, appearance, venue where they met, like an adult party or bar, are others. 
 

As to the rest of it, yeah, I’d like to think a 21 year old man has enough sense to avoid bad situations. But I’m not debating that one way or the other here. I’m just addressing the narrow scope of what California law provides under their statutory rape laws. 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, marck said:

So done with that continued about a player is no longer on the team.

 

it’s over people, roster is at 79, punters/holders are being brought in for tryouts.

 

Final player evals are being completed, review of other teams potential cuts and our front office seeing if any viable trade opportunities are out their.

 

So, can we now focus on football.

 

My rant is done

Two things about this:

 

1.  You're absolutely right.  This is just another day, another week in the life of a football team.   Something unplanned and out of the blue hits, and every scrambles for a day or two or a week and then they get on with it.   So, yeah, all of this is just a footnote in the history of 2022 season, significant only if NFL Films highlights the fact that the Bills punter made a touchdown-saving tackle in the playoffs and preserved the win, a punter who was on the team only because Araiza got cut.  Other than that, it's over. 

 

2.  On the other hand, some of those odd events in the life of a football team are bigger than others.   The day the Mike Vick story broke, that was a BIG day in the history of the Falcons.  The Bills just had one that looked and felt like a big one one.  Wasn't really, but it threatened to be a big story.  How management performed in dealing with the event IS important to the future of the team.  So, it's worth talking about.