Matt Araiza

[Alphadawg7]

1 minute ago, Success said:

 

I remember that draft. Most of the board would have lost their minds if we picked Mahomes.

 

 

Thats a fact.  And furthermore, that wasn't seen as a strong QB class either and the 2018 one was already being predicted to be one of the best classes in a decade or more potentially.  So hard to fault a team about to fire their GM and start a full rebuild the next year under that GM for passing on taking a QB in a weaker draft when we have an opportunity to have a new regime evaluate a better class a whole season armed with multiple first round picks to go get they guy we deem we want.  

[dorquemada]

1 minute ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Thats a fact.  And furthermore, that wasn't seen as a strong QB class either and the 2018 one was already being predicted to be one of the best classes in a decade or more potentially.  So hard to fault a team about to fire their GM and start a full rebuild the next year under that GM for passing on taking a QB in a weaker draft when we have an opportunity to have a new regime evaluate a better class a whole season armed with multiple first round picks to go get they guy we deem we want.  

 

Mahomes wouldn't be the same QB with the Bills coaching staff.  Not that it matters, for a while we were able to say oh hey look we got Allen AND White, but lol

[K-9]

27 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

Entirely forthcoming about what?  Something he didn't do?  What should he have told them "As a college student I attended a party where a woman didn't get gang raped"?  I'd expect most players they draft could say the same thing.

Initially, he was not totally forthcoming during the routine security check before the draft. And later, about the taped conversation where he admitted to having sex with the girl. Apparently, when team attorneys learned of that and the nature of the pending civil litigation, they convinced McBeane to end the association with him. It’s highly probable that the league would have intervened as well. 

 

I can’t blame the kid at all for wanting to withhold some information at the time of the draft and afterwards. And I’m still surprised league and/or team investigators didn’t catch it leading up to the draft. These checks can be very thorough and I wonder if because punter isn’t a high profile glamorous position that they didn’t dig deeper. I also question just how forthcoming SDPD and/or SDSU police were as well with league and/or team investigators before the draft.

 

Anyway, I’m glad the kid is back in the league and moving on with his career. It’s a shame it didn’t work out in Buffalo, but without the luxury of 20/20 hindsight, the Bills were in an untenable situation at the time.

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

Mahomes wouldn't be the same QB with the Bills coaching staff.  Not that it matters, for a while we were able to say oh hey look we got Allen AND White, but lol

 

I still think Mahomes would have been an elite QB here, to say he wouldn't be takes all the credit away from his talent and gives all the credit just to his coaches.  

 

But...he would not have any SB trophies or MVP's most likely he was here.  Meanwhile I have supreme confidence Allen is being discussed as a potential GOAT had he played in KC this whole time as I think he would have multiple MVP's and SB rings.  

Edited August 19 by Alphadawg7

[Doc Brown]

9 minutes ago, Malazan said:

 

It doesn't matter what I tell you. You're going to twist yourself into whatever knots you need to to continue your narrative.

 

He knew he was under investigation. He knew enough that he engaged legal representation for it. He should have told the Bills that DA was investigating him on charges. So if he felt he needed legal representation on it.. why didn't he feel like the Bills should know?

He was a 22 year old that wanted to make an NFL roster hoping the accusations wouldn't be made public.

[K-9]

23 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

He concealed WHAT?   The DA never pressed charges.  The woman and her attorney didn't even file a suit. The Bills cut him the day after the (false) accusation became public.  So I'll ask again, what did Araiza conceal?

The DA was still investigating the incident at the time of Araiza’s departure from the team. There was no way the Bills or anyone else could know if the DA would or would not press charges in a criminal case. 
 

The woman and her attorney certainly did file a civil suit against him and the others allegedly involved. Araiza was later dropped from the suit as part of his settlement with the woman. 

Edited August 19 by K-9

[Returntoglory]

14 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

Yes. No choice.

 

Again, any other team could have picked him up any time after the Bills released him. ANYTIME (since you appreciate caps lock.) None did. 
 

It wasn’t until after both the DA investigation was completely concluded and the civil suit was completely settled in Araiza’s favor that he was brought in by KC. (Yes I’m aware the Jets brought him in briefly but nothing came of that.)
 

That alone should tell you that every other team in the league would have done the exact same thing the Bills did.

This is not about "Any other team". The Bills were in the driver's seat and chose to walk away. When the other teams saw this, no doubt they felt "Well, the Bills must know something we don't".

In the end, nothing kept them from bringing him back in and ultimately, signing him.

22 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Very few people wanted Mahomes at 10 that draft around here, so lets not pretend he was the obvious pick and we passed.  In fact, most people here had Trubisky as the top QB or Watson.  And almost everyone wanted to take Watson over Mahomes if we had gone QB at that time.  Araiza, there was nothing the Bills could do there, they had to make that move, and they were dragged through the mud by so many people here and in the media for not doing it "sooner".  And Worthy...KC is a great fit in KC where he gets to be a 3rd or 4th option behind Kelce, Rice, and Hollywood.  But Bills already had their fill of smaller WR's, they needed a bigger outside target who can be more physical as we have not been the more physical team in our playoff exits.  Roles and situations are a big part of a players fit and success/failure in the NFL.  Bills needed an outside guy that isn't getting blown up every time he is jammed at the LOS.

Once again you are among those who use the " there was nothing the Bills could do there, they had to make that move" B.S.

 

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

 

The entire NFL "surrendered to the mob." Any team could have signed him. Instead it was a full two years after the initial accusation before he finally got his second chance. Every single team, the Chiefs included, would have cut him during the initial media storm.

 

It isn't fair but punters can't have baggage and remain on an NFL roster. I'm just happy he was exonerated and got his second chance. I couldn't care less about who the Chiefs' punter is.

 

There you go believing all of the women again.

[JoPoy88]

3 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

This is not about "Any other team". The Bills were in the driver's seat and chose to walk away. When the other teams saw this, no doubt they felt "Well, the Bills must know something we don't".

In the end, nothing kept them from bringing him back in and ultimately, signing him.

Lol. It was reported at the time that at least a few other teams DID know more than the Bills did - they took him off their draft boards because they knew he was being investigated by the campus police. So your assumption on why other teams didn’t sign him up is just false. 
 

As far as “nothing” preventing them from bringing him back, I’d bet Araiza himself would have some say in that happening.

[Alphadawg7]

5 minutes ago, Returntoglory said:

Once again you are among those who use the " there was nothing the Bills could do there, they had to make that move" B.S.

 

First, I was one of the biggest Araiza defenders during that time citing a complete lack of evidence of any kind linking him and a ton of evidence suggesting maybe he was not involved.  I pointed out her lawyer posted screen shots of her diary the day after that literally said she didn't even know how she got in the room, did not know who was in the room, and questioned her own behavior in playing a role.  I pointed out that her own friends gave official statements saying he was not at the house when the incident happened.  I can keep going...but the point is, I thought it was ludicrous to convict this kid off nothing other than a civil law suit anyone can file when there were not even any charges filed.  And his lawyer made it so obvious their case was weak and desperate in the media.  Did not mean he was innocent, but it did mean there was no evidence at suggesting he was guilty either that had come out.  I urged everyone to WAIT until we have real information, not "claims" by someones civil attorney whose only job is to pursue money conveniently after one of the kids from the party made it to the NFL.  Especially since she wrote in her own words 24 hours later that she didn't know who was involved and then conveniently only filed a civil suit against the guy in the NFL.  

 

Second, none of that matters.  The fact I had to argue with so many people here those things who were ready to hang the kid is the point.  The media wanted blood, the fans wanted blood...I had a poster here threaten me physically because he said I was supporting a rapist.  He later apologized and it was all good, but that is how charged up people were.  

 

Third, soooo many people were not satisfied with cutting him, they attacked Beane and McD for taking "too long" and "only doing it because the story was leaked".  McD and Beane handled the situation perfectly, they didn't dodge questions, they spoke candidly to the media and for long periods of time, they made themselves available and gave the kid a chance before making a decision to cut him.  And when they cut him, there was a LOT not yet known and the kid had to go defend his life and there wasn't room for football.  

 

To now flip the script and fault them for cutting him is crazy.  

 

PS:  HE IS A PUNTER.  Lets not pretend he is the missing SB piece.  

[dorquemada]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

The DA was still investigating the incident at the time of Araiza’s departure from the team. There was no way the Bills or anyone else could know if the DA would or would not press charges in a criminal case. 

 

Which is why they shouldn't have just reacted to the mob demanding they cut ties.  They have now created an expectation that a sufficiently serious accusation requires an immediate response that all ties with a player get cut.   Hard to see how this could possibly go wrong.

[msw2112]

2 hours ago, AZSanta said:

They had a chance to make it right and sign him. That is my point. 

 

I don't think this is true.  My guess - and I have zero inside information, only common sense - is that even if the Bills offered to bring him back, he would have declined and signed elsewhere, which is exactly what happened.  The circumstances were what they were at the time, and the Bills had to release the kid to eliminate the enormous distraction the situation had become.  The Bills were trying to prepare for a season in which they were the favorite to win it all, and every press conference was about a rookie punter and horrible accusations that were extremely uncomfortable.  It was unfortunate for everyone involved.

 

Furthermore, he had a chance to sign with the SB champs.  As much as we all love Buffalo and the Bills, who wouldn't prefer that option?  Neither city is known for its great weather or nightlife, but KC players have lots of rings.  Again, no disrespect to Buffalo or the Bills, but if you look at it objectively, the way it played out makes a lot of sense.

Edited August 19 by msw2112

[dorquemada]

Just now, msw2112 said:

 

I don't think this is true.  My guess - and I have zero inside information, only common sense - is that even if the Bills offered to bring him back, he would have declined and signed elsewhere, which is exactly what happened.  The circumstances were what they were at the time, and the Bills had to release the kid to eliminate the enormous distraction the situation had become.  It was unfortunate for everyone involved.

 

Furthermore, he had a chance to sign with the SB champs.  As much as we all love Buffalo and the Bills, who wouldn't prefer that option?  Neither city is known for its great weather or nightlife, but KC players have lots of rings.  Again, no disrespect to Buffalo or the Bills, but if you look at it objectively, the way it played out makes a lot of sense.

 

I doubt the Bills offered a return to the team, but to your point, if the reigning SB champs call, you're going to chose them in any case.  Plus, KC is obviously more interested in SB rings than they are virtue signaling or they'd have gotten rid of Butker when the usual suspects had a moral panic about him earlier this year

[AZSanta]

2 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

If you were the guy would you have signed back with the Bills?  Might not have been our decision...

If the money was right . Hell yea id sign. I'm sure he understands why they did what they did. No team wants that distraction. Maybe Araiza is a vindictive person and signed with the Chiefs to piss off Bills fans and the Bills front office. Who knows

2 hours ago, Logic said:

Plus we let Sammy Watkins go there.

Grrrr I'm MAD

Everyone is a friggin comedian in this group

[Lfod]

Kc beats a lot of teams in big games  and it can only lead me to one conclusion. They are cheating some how. Im suspicious of Taylor Swift. 

 

The Bills don't win championships because I dont think we ever landed had a Champinship level OC. A guy that strikes fear in other teams because when the chips are down he can figure it out. 

Edited August 19 by Lfod

[JoPoy88]

15 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

Which is why they shouldn't have just reacted to the mob demanding they cut ties.  They have now created an expectation that a sufficiently serious accusation requires an immediate response that all ties with a player get cut.   Hard to see how this could possibly go wrong.

No bad precedent was set. You yourself pointed out the Bills’ double standard with Von Miller’s arrest. Cameron Sutton was cut following DV charges and was unemployed a whole two months before getting a contract with the Steelers. Your slippery slope fear mongering has no basis in reality.

 

Teams can and will examine these issues from a PR risk perspective on a case by case basis and take whatever action they deem best for the team. As they’ve been doing all along.

[dorquemada]

3 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

No bad precedent was set. You yourself pointed out the Bills’ double standard with Von Miller’s arrest. Cameron Sutton was cut following DV charges and was unemployed a whole two months before getting a contract with the Steelers. Your slippery slope fear mongering has no basis in reality.

 

Teams can and will examine these issues from a PR risk perspective on a case by case basis and take whatever action they deem best for the team. As they’ve been doing all along.

 

My point is that it was a reaction to the mob.  The mob was mysteriously muted when the accusations against Von Miller came out.  The double standard is "can we score cheap points by doing something that costs us nothing?" versus "damn we might actually need that guy later, let's sweep this under the rug"

 

 

[AZSanta]

2 hours ago, HereComesTheReignAgain said:

You lost me (and all credibility) at  "If Xavier Worthy is the next Tyreek Hill".  

Oh sorry i didnt know you could see into the future and determine that he is or isn't better. Do you you know what the word if means? Its purely speculative 

[Scott7975]

2 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Considering that their averages are within 6% of each other… they are kicking from about the same spot on the field.

I don’t think they are. If one kicker has a higher avg distance but the other kicker kicks it inside the 20 way more often then how is it possible they kick from about the same spot?

[K-9]

19 minutes ago, dorquemada said:

 

Which is why they shouldn't have just reacted to the mob demanding they cut ties.  They have now created an expectation that a sufficiently serious accusation requires an immediate response that all ties with a player get cut.   Hard to see how this could possibly go wrong.

Except they weren’t reacting to “the mob” although the PR ramifications were certainly valid. They were listening to the advice of their attorneys. 
 

As I said earlier, the Bills, the other 31 teams, and the league itself did not have the luxury of hindsight at the time. Everyone erred on the side of caution which is the most prudent course of action when outcomes in cases like this cannot be determined until the legal issues are resolved. 
 

As for the creation of that expectation, I can’t agree with that in the least. For several reasons. So I will just agree to disagree on that point.