2022-2023 Buffalo Bills Thread

[Taro T]

Just now, Indabuff said:

I risk being denigrated here but this response feels kinda sleazy to me.  IMO it feels like a shot at Bills fans' compassion for a situation that is  currently beginning to unfold. 

Not sure what's "sleazy" about it.  It's a suggestion to turn something that will be big news for probably a relatively short time regarding what seems to have been a horrible event regardless of Azaria's role or non-role in the horrible portion of events into something positive via the well known generosity of the Bills fan base.

We definitely took different views of the suggestion to support charities that support sexual assault victims.  Which is fine.  Don't see a reason for either of us to be denigrated for their interpretation of the suggestion.

[LGR4GM]

 

[LGR4GM]

 

[Thorny]

So, not: “I am completely innocent and in no way are the details reflective of my behaviour, or who I am.”

But rather: “The facts aren’t completely accurate”.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Thorny

[Indabuff]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Not sure what's "sleazy" about it.  It's a suggestion to turn something that will be big news for probably a relatively short time regarding what seems to have been a horrible event regardless of Azaria's role or non-role in the horrible portion of events into something positive via the well known generosity of the Bills fan base.

We definitely took different views of the suggestion to support charities that support sexual assault victims.  Which is fine.  Don't see a reason for either of us to be denigrated for their interpretation of the suggestion.

I suppose my immediate perception of the suggestion (or potentially how it was worded) was of a snarkiness jumping down the throats of a generous fanbase who collectively is probably just beginning to process what's happening.     

[Buffalonill]

It was a Smart decision to cut him .

Buffalo doesn't need that  Distraction 

 

 

[Indabuff]

2 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

It was a Smart decision to cut him .

Buffalo doesn't need that  Distraction 

 

 

He's been cut?

[Buffalonill]

9 minutes ago, Indabuff said:

He's been cut?

I read online his locker name was removed 

[tom webster]

6 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

I read online his locker name was removed 

That was the lockers in Carolina. They are still likely to cut him but haven’t yet.

[Buffalonill]

5 hours ago, tom webster said:

That was the lockers in Carolina. They are still likely to cut him but haven’t yet.

Oh i apologize then.

Its better for buffalo to move on from this distraction

And not have a dark Cloud over their heads before the first game 

[Eleven]

I do not think it is just to cut a guy because of an allegation.  (This is consistent with my thoughts on the Duke lacrosse team, both Kanes, and others, all posted here somewhere.)

I realize the team might need to move on for the good of the team, but that does not make it just.

The team needs time to investigate.  Perhaps the next CBA will provide for something like this.  

[Buffalonill]

30 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I do not think it is just to cut a guy because of an allegation.  (This is consistent with my thoughts on the Duke lacrosse team, both Kanes, and others, all posted here somewhere.)

I realize the team might need to move on for the good of the team, but that does not make it just.

The team needs time to investigate.  Perhaps the next CBA will provide for something like this.  

I would agree if your team was a bottom team but the reality is buffalo is a super bowl team 

With the spot light on them they will be judged and criticized the whole season if they keep him.

 

 

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, Buffalonill said:

Oh i apologize then.

Its better for buffalo to move on from this distraction

And not have a dark Cloud over their heads before the first game 

Perhaps.  And expect that they will cut him shortly.  But if he doesn't end up facing criminal charges or gets found not guilty after a trial does the coach lose the room having cut a player because of an allegation prior to having had a chance to defend himself of the allegation?

McDermott and Beane are in a very unenviable position.  (Understatement of the year?)

 

31 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I do not think it is just to cut a guy because of an allegation.  (This is consistent with my thoughts on the Duke lacrosse team, both Kanes, and others, all posted here somewhere.)

I realize the team might need to move on for the good of the team, but that does not make it just.

The team needs time to investigate.  Perhaps the next CBA will provide for something like this.  

Agree with the 1st bolded.

To the 2nd, someone posted a question on another board wondering if he could end up getting put on the Commissioner's exempt list to get some more time to sort through this.  Don't know if the CBA would allow for it, but that seems like a reasonable course at present if allowable.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Taro T

[Buffalonill]

9 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Perhaps.  And expect that they will cut him shortly.  But if he doesn't end up facing criminal charges or gets found not guilty after a trial does the coach lose the room having cut a player because of an allegation prior to having had a chance to defend himself of the allegation?

McDermott and Beane are in a very unenviable position.  (Understatement of the year?)

 

Agree with the 1st bolded.

To the 2nd, someone posted a question on another board wondering if he could end up getting put on the Commissioner's exempt list to get some more time to sort through this.  Don't know if the CBA would allow for it, but that seems like a reasonable course at present if allowable.

I would get the team  leaders involved to come to a decision so there isn't a backlash in the locker room 

[Eleven]

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

To the 2nd, someone posted a question on another board wondering if he could end up getting put on the Commissioner's exempt list to get some more time to sort through this.  Don't know if the CBA would allow for it, but that seems like a reasonable course at present if allowable.

This is way too reasonable a short-term solution for the NFL/PA to have allowed for it in the CBA.

[That Aud Smell]

37 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I do not think it is just to cut a guy because of an allegation.  (This is consistent with my thoughts on the Duke lacrosse team, both Kanes, and others, all posted here somewhere.)

I realize the team might need to move on for the good of the team, but that does not make it just.

The team needs time to investigate.  Perhaps the next CBA will provide for something like this.  

I agree that the team needs time to investigate. It sounds to me like that clock started ticking - or should have started ticking - several weeks ago. It sounds like the team put itself in a bad position by not following up diligently when they should have. So now they want (need) more time, but the public perception is - not unfairly - that it’s past time when something should have been done or decided - one way or the other.

I keep seeing that Bills in-house attorney’s name mentioned (DeAngelo). I’m hoping she won’t be scapegoated on the timing and scope of the team’s investigation.

[Taro T]

3 minutes ago, Buffalonill said:

I would get the team  leaders involved to come to a decision so there isn't a backlash in the locker room 

Very interesting thought.

If the team leaders said get rid of the distraction, that would significantly reduce/eliminate the backlash within the room.  But would guess they'd say management should back the player (presuming they only have access to info so far made public).  Which if they cut him anyway prior to his having his day in court could lose them the room.  Of course, it also could solidify their resolve should management to agree to the course the players prefer as it becomes them against the world.

[Eleven]

Just now, That Aud Smell said:

I agree that the team needs time to investigate. It sounds to me like that clock started ticking - or should have started ticking - several weeks ago. It sounds like the team put itself in a bad position by not following up diligently when they should have. So now they want (need) more time, but the public perception is - not unfairly - that it’s past time when something should have been done or decided - one way or the other.

I keep seeing that Bills in-house attorney’s name mentioned (DeAngelo). I’m hoping she won’t be scapegoated on the timing and scope of the team’s investigation.

No one is mentioning the possibility that the team DID follow up diligently and made a rational and reasonable decision.

That's still in bounds, right?

[That Aud Smell]

6 minutes ago, Eleven said:

This is way too reasonable a short-term solution for the NFL/PA to have allowed for it in the CBA.

I’ve heard it reported that the alleged conduct falls outside the commissioner’s  jurisdiction. Which is too bad.

Just now, Eleven said:

No one is mentioning the possibility that the team DID follow up diligently and made a rational and reasonable decision.

That's still in bounds, right?

I think so?

But McDermott in his presser last night kept saying that they have a lot of work to do on the matter.

[Eleven]

13 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

But McDermott in his presser last night kept saying that they have a lot of work to do on the matter.

Which is because--as he also said--the team received new information yesterday.

[Taro T]

2 hours ago, That Aud Smell said:

I agree that the team needs time to investigate. It sounds to me like that clock started ticking - or should have started ticking - several weeks ago. It sounds like the team put itself in a bad position by not following up diligently when they should have. So now they want (need) more time, but the public perception is - not unfairly - that it’s past time when something should have been done or decided - one way or the other.

I keep seeing that Bills in-house attorney’s name mentioned (DeAngelo). I’m hoping she won’t be scapegoated on the timing and scope of the team’s investigation.

One thing to remember in this when looking at timelines: This civil lawsuit literally was filed the day before yesterday.  The criminal investigation is still on-going and the Bills seem to have been in the know on where that stood/stands.  And, they appear to believe that Azaria wasn't going to be in too much hot water from that investigation or they wouldn't have punted Haack.

From the little that is publicly known about this don't know what the Bills necessarily could've / should've done about the lawsuit that didn't get filed until it did as there is still an on-going criminal investigation.  The girl's lawyer wanted to talk to them about a settlement & the Bills' lawyer apparently listened to him for over an hour.  He's mad they wouldn't speak further to him.  Could they without getting accused of tampering with an on-going criminal investigation?  Don't know the answer to that, thus the Q.  SDSU had been asked by the police not to investigate (for Title IX compliance) until their investigation was over.  Were the Bills also asked to let law enforcement do their job without interference?

There are still a lot of things WE don't know including why only 3 of the players are defendants in the civil suit when 5 are under criminal investigation.  But what we do know is the civil suit was JUST filed and is also being filed before the criminal investigation is complete.  THAT certainly seems unusual.  Ttbomk, civil suits get filed after criminal investigations are completed unless there is a statutory deadline to file approaching.  It doesn't appear this was being rushed by a deadline.  Maybe one of our board lawyers can speak to that aspect of these cases.

Edited August 27, 2022 by Taro T
Corrected a mis-statement regarding filing date of civil suit

[That Aud Smell]

16 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Which is because--as he also said--the team received new information yesterday.

Which begs the question about how thorough their initial investigation could have been. There’s no new information that’s emerged on this matter. They’re just late in getting it. And the fault for that may well be theirs.

[That Aud Smell]

16 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Ttbomk, civil suits get filed after criminal investigations are completed unless there is a statutory deadline to file approaching.  It doesn't appear this was being rushed by a deadline.  Maybe one of our board lawyers can speak to that aspect of these cases.

Or they get filed when the family feels the police are dragging their feet. There’s a story out there attributing such concern from the girl’s father. He was quoted (or interpolated (?)) as saying the defendants’ status as football players was influencing the pace of the investigation … which seemed off to me. This ain’t Alabama — it’s SDSU.

[nfreeman]

56 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

I agree that the team needs time to investigate. It sounds to me like that clock started ticking - or should have started ticking - several weeks ago. It sounds like the team put itself in a bad position by not following up diligently when they should have. So now they want (need) more time, but the public perception is - not unfairly - that it’s past time when something should have been done or decided - one way or the other.

I keep seeing that Bills in-house attorney’s name mentioned (DeAngelo). I’m hoping she won’t be scapegoated on the timing and scope of the team’s investigation.

What if the Bills did indeed screw it up, and she was the one who was handling it and supposed to get it right?

Don’t the facts matter?

[That Aud Smell]

8 minutes ago, nfreeman said:

What if the Bills did indeed screw it up, and she was the one who was handling it and supposed to get it right?

Don’t the facts matter?

I was speaking purely - and rather specifically- from the standpoint of not wanting a junior lawyer to get saddled with blame. That’s all. Just a side note, really.