Matt Araiza, The Punt God, Signs With Team in Mexico

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, 4merper4mer said:

Irrespective of whether Araiza involvement in any incident, if the Bills cut Haack all it it says is Araiza>Haack.  It says nothing about Araiza’s status other than he was a better option than Haack.  
 

The Bills could have thought everything was buttoned up, they could have thought it was probable to work itself out or they could have been waiting it out.  If they had unceremoniously dumped Araiza due to allegations, you’d have taken the opposite stance and told us all how unprofessional the Bills had acted.  In reality, Beane approached this entire saga in a highly professional manner up to and including the moment he said it was more important for Araiza to focus on his personal life than on football.  He did not absolve or blame Araiza in any way.  It was not his place.  Sure, goofs like Tim Graham, cited as direct quotes things that were not anything resembling a direct quote in an effort to make Beane look bad.  In the end, there was nothing there which is why this all went away from the standpoint of the Bills bearing some sort of blame.  Even Tim Graham has shut up about it….but Pats fans gonna Pats fan I guess.

 

Haack stunk.  That is clear.  It is very plausible, even likely, that the Bills knew he would not make their team under any circumstances whether Araiza was there or not and they gave him a chance to connect elsewhere……which is exactly what he did.  Stuff like that happens many times on just about every team every year, but THIS time it was proof that the Bills screwed up.  Gotcha.

 

I'm not disputing that--in fact I said he beat him out straight up.  Nor did I say Beane absolved (Doc insists this is true) or blame Araiza.  

 

As response to what I posted in this thread, your post makes no sense at all.  But "stuff like that happens many times"..."gothca"

 

[4merper4mer]

56 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

I'm not disputing that--in fact I said he beat him out straight up.  Nor did I say Beane absolved (Doc insists this is true) or blame Araiza.  

 

As response to what I posted in this thread, your post makes no sense at all.  But "stuff like that happens many times"..."gothca"

 

You implied that Araiza had made the team and that the Bills consider the matter resolved once Haack had been cut.  This was demonstrably false.

[Mr. WEO]

35 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

You implied that Araiza had made the team and that the Bills consider the matter resolved once Haack had been cut.  This was demonstrably false.

 

 

Nowhere did I imply that.

[Thrivefourfive]

On 2/17/2023 at 5:36 PM, Donuts and Doritos said:

 

Which Kapernick, Rice or Watson? (Not that any 2 situations are ever exactly the same. Pt is I could see him being blackballed or he could get picked up, NFL has played it both ways before)

If we look at each, Rice is the worst because of the video and he never played again. Kaepernick second, and Watson third. Watson’s is worse imo, but definitely not in the eyes of the NFL owners club.

 

The Punter is most similar to Watson obviously, and I could see him sneaking his way back in and his incident never being mentioned again during an NFL broadcast, because who cares.. punter. 

[Doc]

6 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

I don't know if he did these deeds or not--how could I?.  You say you know he's innocent of any allegations.  That's a major difference.

 

You are confused again.  Some facts continue to elude you (or, more likely, you ignore):

 

The Bills didn't start their investigation until after they were made aware a suit was going to be filed by the plaintiff's attorney. The Bills were made aware by the plaintiff's attorney in late July of the allegations he was going to make public in a suit against Araiza....Araiza won the Punting job on August 22.  He gave the Assistant General Counsel Kathryn D'Angelo all the details.  He emailed her and then spoke to her directly.  (interestingly, the guy who was General Counsel would be put on leave of absence by the team after Araiza was cut---he was Russ Brandon's brother, btw, lol). 

 

And finally, there was no way for the Bills to know in August that no charges would be coming in December, when it was announced.  The DA had not even begun their own investigation yet.  So that is more fabrication on your part. 

 

The Bills steely resolve and confidence in the depth, breadth and quality of their "thorough investigation" lasted all of 2 days. 

 

 

 

Of course, you still haven't answered my question: if the the Bills "knew" he was innocent and no charges were coming and knew exactly the heat this would bring based on what the suit would claim, why not keep him? 

 

Why are you perseverating on them cutting him 2 days after the civil suit was filed?  It means absolutely nothing considering the DA didn't file any charges.  Which means the Bills' investigation was dead-on and they only cut him because it went public and was going to be a distraction for much of the season (the answer to your question, again). 

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Why are you perseverating on them cutting him 2 days after the civil suit was filed?  It means absolutely nothing considering the DA didn't file any charges.  Which means the Bills' investigation was dead-on and they only cut him because it went public and was going to be a distraction for much of the season (the answer to your question, again). 

 

It means everything, actually. 

 

They didn't understand naming him punter would be a distraction until after the suit was was made public?  They really didn't see this coming? Yeah that makes no sense. They go through the trouble of checking into this, satisfy themselves he's clean of these sordid charges......and then dump him as soon as you and I hear about all this 

 

And if their investigators "nailed it" and (somehow) knew that 4 months after the DA began its own investigation there would be no charges, why wouldn't the Bills just come out and say this: "there will be no charges filed after the DA completes it's own investigations months from now, but we have already concluded he is innocent so he stays on the team"?

 

You still haven't answered this.  You keep referring to a distraction they already calculated into naming him starter would produce.  So what?  They created the tsunami, and then suddenly it was so totally unpredictable that they had to immediately flee?  lol...

[Doc]

56 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

It means everything, actually. 

 

They didn't understand naming him punter would be a distraction until after the suit was was made public?  They really didn't see this coming? Yeah that makes no sense. They go through the trouble of checking into this, satisfy themselves he's clean of these sordid charges......and then dump him as soon as you and I hear about all this 

 

And if their investigators "nailed it" and (somehow) knew that 4 months after the DA began its own investigation there would be no charges, why wouldn't the Bills just come out and say this: "there will be no charges filed after the DA completes it's own investigations months from now, but we have already concluded he is innocent so he stays on the team"?

 

You still haven't answered this.  You keep referring to a distraction they already calculated into naming him starter would produce.  So what?  They created the tsunami, and then suddenly it was so totally unpredictable that they had to immediately flee?  lol...

 

It meant nothing to the DA.  He didn't see the Bills cut Araiza after the firestorm the civil suit brought and say "he's guilty," did he?  I mean, statutory rape was sitting right there.  That tells me and should tell everyone else that the DA knew she lied about that part, and that made the rest of her claims unreliable and ultimately unproven.  

[Mr. WEO]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It meant nothing to the DA.  He didn't see the Bills cut Araiza after the firestorm the civil suit brought and say "he's guilty," did he?  I mean, statutory rape was sitting right there.  That tells me and should tell everyone else that the DA knew she lied about that part, and that made the rest of her claims unreliable and ultimately unproven.  

 

cool story, now answer the question.

 

If the Bills were convinced, already knowing all the sordid alleged acts, that he was innocent and would someday not be charged...why on earth would they abandon him after what they had known for a month became public (and the predicted s+++storm ensued)?  They knew about "the optics" that were coming.  Why go through all of this and then cut him?  Do you really believe they somehow could NOT anticipate the public response?  No way that's possible.   

 

 

[Doc]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

cool story, now answer the question.

 

If the Bills were convinced, already knowing all the sordid alleged acts, that he was innocent and would someday not be charged...why on earth would they abandon him after what they had known for a month became public (and the predicted s+++storm ensued)?  They knew about "the optics" that were coming.  Why go through all of this and then cut him?  Do you really believe they somehow could NOT anticipate the public response?  No way that's possible.   

 

Yes, as if anticipating the public response is all that matters.  Not the constant distraction for keeping an alleged rapist.  Got it.

 

But just to be clear, your theory is that after the civil suit was filed, the Bills found evidence (in that 2 day period) that he really was guilty, hence the reason they cut him?  And they never got this evidence to the DA?  LOL!  OK.

[Mr. WEO]

Just now, Doc said:

 

Yes, as if anticipating the public response is all that matters.  Not the constant distraction for keeping an alleged rapist.  Got it.

 

But just to be clear, your theory is that after the civil suit was filed, the Bills found evidence (in that 2 day period) that he really was guilty, hence the reason they cut him?  And they never got this evidence to the DA?  LOL!  OK.

 

No.  Where did you get that?  Oh that's right, you made it up!  It's always a sport to watch doc "make things clear". lol

 

"Clearly" they had already announced that they vetted the entire story and were comfortable with their findings.  The "constant distraction" is exactly what they bargained for when they concluded he was not guilty of the allegations.  They decided "eh, it's not that bad, and he's clean".  derpa derpa derpa!!

 

They dumped him because they realized that they, for reasons only they could know, misjudged the ferocity with which the public announcement of the suit and its details would have locally, and nationally---which is truly mind blowing incompetence.  They blew it.  To their credit, they did the best they could to extinguish they fire that they themselves lit and canned this guy.

 

Simple.  They F'd up.  They quickly came to their senses and dumped a Punter. 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

No.  Where did you get that?  Oh that's right, you made it up!  It's always a sport to watch doc "make things clear". lol

 

"Clearly" they had already announced that they vetted the entire story and were comfortable with their findings.  The "constant distraction" is exactly what they bargained for when they concluded he was not guilty of the allegations.  They decided "eh, it's not that bad, and he's clean".  derpa derpa derpa!!

 

They dumped him because they realized that they, for reasons only they could know, misjudged the ferocity with which the public announcement of the suit and its details would have locally, and nationally---which is truly mind blowing incompetence.  They blew it.  To their credit, they did the best they could to extinguish they fire that they themselves lit and canned this guy.

 

Simple.  They F'd up.  They quickly came to their senses and dumped a Punter. 

 

Ah so this was all just about how it's the Bills fault that a bogus lawsuit was filed by a lawyer with no case and the outrage that resulted, when a civil case usually isn't filed until after criminal charges are announced.  Got it.  You never disappoint WEO.

 

At least we cleared up that he's innocent of the claims (can't even call them charges) made against him.  So there's hope for you yet.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Doc

[Saxum]

37 minutes ago, Doc said:

So there's hope for you yet.

 

I do not think there are any medications on market right now to correct trollism.

[Brand J]

 

59 minutes ago, Limeaid said:

 

I do not think there are any medications on market right now to correct trollism.

It’s a waste of time going back and forth with the guy. Doesn’t matter if he doesn’t believe the words he types, he’ll just go on and on to no end. Best to let him have the “last word” and just move on. He’ll never shut up otherwise.

[Mr. WEO]

3 hours ago, Doc said:

 

Ah so this was all just about how it's the Bills fault that a bogus lawsuit was filed by a lawyer with no case and the outrage that resulted, when a civil case usually isn't filed until after criminal charges are announced.  Got it.  You never disappoint WEO.

 

At least we cleared up that he's innocent of the claims (can't even call them charges) made against him.  So there's hope for you yet.

 

Nope. 

 

 

 

[PrimeTime101]

I think it would be sad if this topic did not make it 10 pages.

[Saxum]

On 2/24/2023 at 3:19 PM, JayBaller10 said:

 

It’s a waste of time going back and forth with the guy. Doesn’t matter if he doesn’t believe the words he types, he’ll just go on and on to no end. Best to let him have the “last word” and just move on. He’ll never shut up otherwise.

 

I only respond when he is quoted on a thread since he is on ignore and never creates a new thread worthy of reading.