Rubes

I agree, and I'd also throw in a DT in the mix, since Kyle won't last forever.

Did he really say that? I totally missed it. Was it off the record, or did the media report it? I'm interested because I thought that might be the case, but you never really know unless you hear it from someone inside.

See the Hughes thread. Yes, sarcasm.

But if we sign Hughes, doesn't that mean we we have to ignore the offense?

I do. The NFL is already keenly aware of how challenges slow the game down, and that the games are already longer than they want.

We don't need that much more on offense, QB aside of course. We need a decent TE, and one will almost certainly be available in FA. Julius Thomas? Come on. The guy wants to be the highest paid TE in the league. Why in the world would he want to come to a place that doesn't have an established QB? It would take far too much to bring him in, and it wouldn't be worth the money. Someone like Cameron or even Clay (per Buff News) would be more affordable and provide the play needed at the position. Other than that, we need another G, but from all that has been said by Rex and Doug, they're looking to bring another one in. We don't need to spend crazy money on a Iupati to get what we need at the position and still make the OL a strength. So...what else? Another RB? No way, not in FA. Not with the current stable we have. A draft pick will fill the need here.

But at those times, challenges are only allowed from the booth, not from the coaches. So that kind of eliminates a big part of the potential solution.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me...

I get most of your arguments and I mostly agree, but I really don't buy that one.

You might also add the Eagles to that, and possibly Redskins as well.

I don't totally disagree, but this presumably wouldn't slow down the game any more than it currently is, since there would still only be 3 reviews per team. The only difference might be if the refs are allowed to review them in the last 2 minutes of each half.

Totally agree. Nothing worse than a 3rd-and-forever getting an automatic conversion because a ref thought he saw someone on the backside of the play grab a jersey briefly.

Some, but not that many. What constitutes holding? Do all five fingers need to be enclosed around the other player? Does a body part need to be redirected, or is it enough to just briefly hold part of a guy's jersey without having any noticeable effect on him? It's just too fuzzy.

Cool video I somehow came across on YouTube, can't really remember how I got to it. Looks like it was from a couple of years ago, but paints a really nice portrait of the city and discusses the history and evolution from a planning perspective. Linky Sorry if this was posted and discussed previously.

True, I think that's a pretty good point, but I guess I was thinking that if Goodwin isn't playing ST, then as a guy who is only in there for 10 plays isn't doing a whole lot on offense OR special teams. But I get that he might be worth it if only for the deep threat. Bear in mind, I like the guy a lot, and want to see him more involved in the offense.

There's something to be said about doing that, but the problem is really how you go about defining some of these penalties. How do you define defensive holding? How much needs to be held to qualify for that? What about illegal contact, or pass interference for that matter? Does any tiny little bit of contact qualify? If not, how much? If the DB makes contact with the receiver one video frame before the ball arrives, does that make it PI? Do we really want to go there? I get the idea that we want to correct obviously bad calls, but for some of these, the line between legal and illegal can be so fuzzy and difficult to define as to make this exercise crazy.

Hmm, I don't know how you got that from what I said, I was just referring to the value of limited roster spaces and how the 2nd-3rd-4th string guys really need to contribute in multiple ways to justify the roster spot. That's not always true, of course (see: Gay, Jordan), but I would certainly think that is usually true for a #4 WR.

I don't disagree, the problem is that unless he's doing something on special teams (returning kicks), it's tough to use a roster spot on a guy who you only use a few snaps a game on one of the three groups.

He's a great running back, but I agree with most that we don't need to tie up that kind of cap money in a RB. From all that's being said, if we keep Spiller we're set with what we currently have and an upgraded offensive line. If Spiller leaves, it sounds like we'll grab a RB in round 3 or 4 who will still have an impact, and be set with that guy plus Jackson-Brown-Boobie.

Everybody who is even potentially available to us has significant flaws. There are no sure things out there. You just have to pick one or two guys that you think can get the job done with some consistency.

I like the guy too, and it would be nice to see him utilized more strategically. With a run-heavy offense, there is potentially the opportunity for some good play-action with Goodwin matched one-on-one, which is just about all you could ask for. The problem is getting him on the field, since right now he's the #4 WR.

Of course it remains out. The point is that we're not going to grab a top 6-8 QB this offseason, so in the absence of that, do what you can to make an average-at-best QB succeed.

His tweet was on Saturday, referring to this week. Did they start talking before this week? I thought it all started at the combine.

Just to note, as others have, that Bradford has two full 16-game seasons under his belt. We all think he's an injury waiting to happen, but look at Eric Wood. Guy couldn't finish a complete season his first four years in the league, now he's had two straight 16-game seasons.

This would make me happy. Fingers crossed. If this organization can make the OL and DL the strengths of the team, I would love to see what they can accomplish.