Matt Araiza

[Craig Oi]

I agree with those who said "there's more to punting than just booming 'em".Wasn't he an awful holder as well?

[Beck Water]

2 hours ago, Doc said:

How? If he’s punting a lot against the Bills, that’s a good thing.

 

Exactly.  If the Chiefs are punting against other teams a lot, especially against the Bills, that's a Good Thing.

 

And if they got a guy who booms it 70 yds every kick and he punts from the 35 yd line and we get a touchback, or he punts it right at our returner, again, Good Things.

 

Bonus if he has trouble holding for FG when it's nasty weather

 

5 minutes ago, Craig Oi said:

I agree with those who said "there's more to punting than just booming 'em".Wasn't he an awful holder as well?

 

The preseason he was with the Bills, I believe you would class his holding skills as "progressing"

 

Now in his time out of football, it's entirely possible he's developed and improved in all aspects - having "touch" on his punts, directional punting, and holding.

Edited June 16 by Beck Water

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Firstly I do not wish to debate on this. I will simply point out this document:

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/website/Departments/Salary-Cap-Agent-Admin/2022-NFL-Personal-Conduct-Policy.pdf

 

According to the document the NFL can place a player on "Leave With Pay" later referred to as "Paid Administrative Leave."

 

Yes, the club cannot perform this action, it has to come from the NFL HOWEVER, did the Bills request the league to do so?

 

Based on the conditions, it seems that this would be applicable to the Araiza case.

 

As far as his contract, he signed a 4 year , $3,876,148 contract with the Buffalo Bills, including $216,148 signing bonus, $216,148 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $969,037.

 

Seems like it wouldn't have been onerous to carry this contract and let the justice system play out.

 

That's all I got.

 

 

 

 

It would NOT be applicable to the Araiza case.  This was discussed and clarified at the time.

 

The NFLPA/NFL CBA specifically PROHIBITS the NFL from disciplining a player for actions that took place prior to his joining the NFL.  Once a player signs a contract, the NFL personal conduct policy clearly applies.

 

While a player participates in the pre-draft process (Senior Bowl, Combine, Team Visits etc) it's a grey area - there may be some documents the player signs.

 

But while the player is in college, before he signs a contract and before the pre-draft process, it's unambiguous: the NFL can NOT discipline the player, including placing him on the "Commissioner's Exempt List" aka "Paid Administrative Leave" aka "Leave With Pay"

 

The NFL was very clear with the Bills that they would NOT place Araiza on the commissioner's exempt list and grant the Bills a roster exemption for him, unless he were criminally charged (which would be considered to have occurred during his employment with the NFL, even for actions that took place earlier)

Again, this was all discussed at the time.

 

It's growing very wearisome to have all these people making posts about debatable ***** and saying "I do not wish to debate this"

 

1 hour ago, Doc said:

Given the nature of the allegations and the outrage they elicited, I doubt the NFL would have done this for the Bills or any team for that matter.  They would rather he be cut and out of the NFL until the matter was resolved one way or another.

 

The issue isn't the nature of the allegations or the outrage, it's when the alleged behavior took place - during the Fall, well before Araiza became an NFL player and subject to the Personal Conduct Policy

Edited June 16 by Beck Water

[Sierra Foothills]

27 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

Even though I supported him from the moment the truth started coming out, I can't object to the way the Bills and NFL handled it.  They're under no obligation to employ, much less pay almost $1M to, a guy who is facing serious charges, much less a guy who has never played in a real NFL game before, much much less a guy who is just a punter.  It sucks for Araiza and for the Bills losing possibly a promising player, but it is what it is.

 

On the other hand, had the NFL adhered to the principals of due process and "innocent until proven guilty" (by placing him on administrative leave) it could have ultimately been a win-win-win for the NFL, the Bills, and Araiza.

 

 

[Beck Water]

6 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

On the other hand, had the NFL adhered to the principals of due process and "innocent until proven guilty" (by placing him on administrative leave) it could have ultimately been a win-win-win for the NFL, the Bills, and Araiza.

 

 

 

Again, see my post above - according to the terms of the CBA, the NFL could not place him on administrative leave for actions that took place before he signed a contract with the NFL

Edited June 16 by Beck Water

[Malazan]

Wasn't the issue with Araiza that he didn't inform the Bills about it?

[Sierra Foothills]

12 minutes ago, Beck Water said:

 

 

It would NOT be applicable to the Araiza case.  This was discussed and clarified at the time.

 

Here's the problem: the NFLPA/NFL CBA specifically PROHIBITS the NFL from disciplining a player for actions that took place prior to his joining the NFL.  Once a player signs a contract, the NFL personal conduct policy applies.

 

Once a player participates in the pre-draft process (Senior Bowl, Combine, Team Visits etc) it's a grey area - there may be some documents the player signs.

 

But while the player is in college, before he signs a contract and before the pre-draft process, it's unambiguous: the NFL can NOT discipline the player, including placing him on the "Commissioner's Exempt List" aka "Paid Administrative Leave" aka "Leave With Pay"

 

The NFL was very clear with the Bills that they would NOT place Araiza on the commissioner's exempt list and grant the Bills a roster exemption for him, unless he were criminally charged (which would be considered to have occurred during his employment with the NFL, even for actions that took place earlier)

Again, this was all discussed at the time.

 

 

I remember it was discussed and it's very "convenient" for the NFL to take this position... even though there's nothing in the actual language which punctuates when the rules are applied relative to when the alleged incidents take place.

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/website/Departments/Salary-Cap-Agent-Admin/2022-NFL-Personal-Conduct-Policy.pdf

 

And that relates to my earlier objections to Goodell's handling of the Araiza case (and his running of the league in general)... that the NFL arbitrarily applies its rules for its own convenience.

 

This is further supported by your statement that (paraphrasing) "the league would not grant the Bills a roster exemption unless he were criminally charged."

 

There's nothing in the language delineating this position.

 

In fact further indicting the NFL's arbitrary and inconsistent rules is the one that does exist that states "But even if the conduct does not result in a criminal conviction, players found to have engaged in any of the following conduct will be subject to discipline."

 

Make sense? I don't think so.

 

Then look at their recent sanction's against Atlanta for tampering... in the context of previous tampering cases. The tampering case is just one of dozens of examples of the NFL not being consistent in their rulings.

 

Believe what you'd like but I'm done here.

 

 

 

Edited June 16 by Sierra Foothills

[Beck Water]

3 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I remember it was discussed and it's very "convenient" for the NFL to take this position... even though there's nothing in the actual language which punctuates when the rules are applied relative to when the alleged incidents take place.

 

 

That's because you need to look at the initial language in the CBA framing the applicability.

[Your Brown Eye]

I hope he dings one off of Beane's face when they play the Chiefs next year

[Beck Water]

4 minutes ago, Sierra Foothills said:

This is further supported by your statement that (paraphrasing) "the league would not grant the Bills a roster exemption unless he were criminally charged."

 

The point here, was that if Araiza were crlminally charged, that would be considered to be conduct affecting the NFL because it occurred while he was an NFL player under contract.

 

It's not my statements that are the issue, it's the NFL/NFLPA CBA and how it was interpreted at the time, which you didn't recall or research.

[Sierra Foothills]

1 minute ago, Beck Water said:

That's because you need to look at the initial language in the CBA framing the applicability.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And why would the "NFL Personal Conduct Policy" not cite or repeat verbatim the applicable sections of the CBA if they directly apply to this policy?

 

Where I work we have governing documents with the US Dept of Labor, the EEOC, the state Department of Industrial Relations, the CBA, and our state and local standards.

 

I just don't believe it's anything but arbitrary,  Beck Water.

 

[DapperCam]

I think if you have a team that will go for it on 4th and short near midfield, then Araiza is a good fit. Boom it and flip the field, and no need to be exposed to his directional kicking weaknesses.

 

But at the end of the day, he’s just a punter.

[DCofNC]

9 hours ago, Gugny said:

Yes, because every great college player goes on to become a great NFL player. 
 

There’s really no difference in talent level between teams San Diego State played and teams that the Chiefs will play.
 

Thanks for reminding me how straight forward it is. 
 

Yes, because the “level of talent faced” is a huge factor for punters 😂

[Billl]

7 hours ago, billsbackto81 said:

I kinda blame them a little. He was the consensus #1 punter in that draft yet 2 punters were drafted before him I believe. There had to be some Intel out there concerning his situation. Other teams knew to shy away, why didn't Buffalo? 

Those dots you’re trying to connect are incredibly far apart given the seriousness of the accusation you’re suggesting.  You’re saying that the front office drafted someone who they knew was accused of SA, and you base this on the fact that he was the third punter drafted instead of the first or second?

[LABILLBACKER]

9 hours ago, Breakout Squad said:

To be fair, Araiza crushed all his punts in college and was killing it in training camp. He had what seemed like a 80 yard punt in the preseason game and then he was toast. He wasn’t JAG college punter. 
 

I guess we’ll see what happens. A lot of Bills fans will be watching him this year, including me. 

Did Gugny miss all this?  He must have been out of town. 

[Doc]

1 hour ago, Beck Water said:

The issue isn't the nature of the allegations or the outrage, it's when the alleged behavior took place - during the Fall, well before Araiza became an NFL player and subject to the Personal Conduct Policy

 

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

On the other hand, had the NFL adhered to the principals of due process and "innocent until proven guilty" (by placing him on administrative leave) it could have ultimately been a win-win-win for the NFL, the Bills, and Araiza.

 

I'm saying that even if the NFL could have done something about it, they likely wouldn't have.  Not worth the bad publicity.

[Beck Water]

1 hour ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

I'll believe it when I see it.

 

And why would the "NFL Personal Conduct Policy" not cite or repeat verbatim the applicable sections of the CBA if they directly apply to this policy?

 

Where I work we have governing documents with the US Dept of Labor, the EEOC, the state Department of Industrial Relations, the CBA, and our state and local standards.

 

I just don't believe it's anything but arbitrary,  Beck Water.

 

 

My goodness, for a chap who led off with "Firstly I do not wish to debate on this" you sure are rolling along.

 

I've contributed what was said about it at the time, believe it or don't

[Rochesterfan]

3 hours ago, Sierra Foothills said:

 

Firstly I do not wish to debate on this. I will simply point out this document:

 

https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/website/Departments/Salary-Cap-Agent-Admin/2022-NFL-Personal-Conduct-Policy.pdf

 

According to the document the NFL can place a player on "Leave With Pay" later referred to as "Paid Administrative Leave."

 

Yes, the club cannot perform this action, it has to come from the NFL HOWEVER, did the Bills request the league to do so?

 

Based on the conditions, it seems that this would be applicable to the Araiza case.

 

As far as his contract, he signed a 4 year , $3,876,148 contract with the Buffalo Bills, including $216,148 signing bonus, $216,148 guaranteed, and an average annual salary of $969,037.

 

Seems like it wouldn't have been onerous to carry this contract and let the justice system play out.

 

That's all I got.

 

 

 

 

It was discussed at the time of the event - everything that happened was occurred before Matt became a part of the league and the NFL was not allowed to punish him for conduct prior to becoming an NFL player.  If he was convicted after becoming an NFL player they could enact punishment based on the findings, but the NFL was not able to put him on the restricted list for college issues.  This goes back to the Reggie Bush days when the league looked at punishing him and Pete Carroll for transgressions at USC and the NFLPA argued they could not punish them because they were not part of the NFL.
 

Therefore there were no options for the Bills in that regard based upon the reports.

 

Would the contract have been onerous- I don’t know, but as the Bills had no option to place him on any list what do you suggest they do. - should the Bills have kept him on the 53 man roster and not dressed him?  That was 1 option and can you imagine the distraction with questions every week that would cause.

 

The other option was to cut him - which based upon allowing him to focus on the trial and not being a distraction was the obvious choice.

 

I just do not understand what you wanted them to do.  The Bills were screwed with either choice because they could not trot him out to punt with the allegations hanging over him.  Keeping him on the 53 man roster and not playing him for nearly 2 years also was not an option as spots are precious and fans already complain about the fringe guys that the Bills cut (see every WR/RB cut after a decent preseason against 5th stringers).  Now imagine you are cutting an additional player to keep a punter that is not going to play - it just is not worth it. 
 

Unfortunately based upon the options available the Bills took the one that covered their butt the best, freed Matt to focus on what he needed to, and created the least questions, distractions, and problems for the team.  

[BigAl2526]

I would like to have seen Araiza in a Bills uniform, but when the Bills released him, he became a free agent.  Even if everybody in the country figures the Bills had no choice but to cut him after the rape accusation surfaced, Araiza may still have had some hard feelings toward the Bills.  He may well have told his agent that unless the Bills outbid everybody else for his services by a wide margin he didn't want to sign with the Bills.

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Malazan said:

Wasn't the issue with Araiza that he didn't inform the Bills about it?

Yeah and to make matters worse Araiza's lawyer claimed when the allegations became public all the teams knew about it prior to the draft (which they didn't).  It happened right before the last pre-season game so the Bills had to move fast to sign a competent punter before the season.  I remember the outrage that he even took the flight with the team to Carolina.  Scumbag lawyers, lack of NFL guidance, and just bad timing led to his release.