**What was your favorite & least favorite rule that was approved at this year's league meeting?**
**\- @tres.edit, via Instagram**
Actually, there aren't a ton of choices. Counting proposed changes to rules, bylaws and resolution, I count a total of nine passed measures, and some are too clerical to be exciting. Those nine are:
1. New regular season overtime rules, as discussed above
2. Making permanent the "dynamic kickoff," but with the touchback spot moved to the 35
3. Expansion of situations where replay assist can be used
4. Expanding number of players who can be "designated for return" from injured reserve at the time of the roster cutdown to 53 from one to two
5. Allowing playoff teams two more "designated for return" options
6. Using point differential as the third tiebreaker for awarding contracts
7. Allowing one video call with up to five players during pre-free agency negotiation period
8. Allowing the preparation of "K-Balls" or kickers' footballs prior to games
9. More scouting credentials allowed during playoffs
Numbers 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 are just common-sense changes that nobody had a problem with. I honestly don't understand number 6. That only leaves us the first three rules changes. If we were also discussing rules that _didn't_ pass, then I would have a lot to say about the concept of removing the automatic first down from defensive holding penalties, but that's not the question posed above.
When I first heard what had passed, I thought my favorite one was the third one, with the expansion of what the replay assistant can chime in on. The new categories were hits on defenseless players, facemasks, horse-collar tackles, tripping, and roughing/running into the kicker. But here's the crucial part of the new rule: They can only be used on plays where a flag _was_ thrown. In other words, if you and I see an obvious facemask on a play but the refs don't and don't throw a flag, that is _not_ fixable.
And that bums me out. I can't help but think back to the Thursday night game in Atlanta last season when a blatant facemask on Bucky Irving was missed and the eventual result was the Bucs settling for a field goal and leaving the Falcons just enough time to tie the game and then win it in overtime. Given how well the replay assistant system seems to be working, allowing calls to be corrected quickly and with a high degree of accuracy, I'm glad it is being expanded but I don't think it's quite enough.
That just leaves the overtime rule and the kickoff rule. I will go with the former as my favorite and the latter as my least favorite. It's taken the league a long time to get to this point, and there had to be some dramatic postseason overtime outcomes to force the issue, but I think I'm in the majority when I say this just seems more fair. I think I would prefer a 15-minute overtime period, but that's easy for me to say when I'm not the one on the field playing the game. I know going with 10 minutes instead is in the interest of player safety. I remember when the Buccaneers played 13 minutes into overtime in a loss to the Raiders in 2016, with the defense on the field for nearly 45 minutes overall, and then had to play the next Thursday against Atlanta. The defense was wrecked and the Bucs gave up 43 points.
I'm fine with the new dynamic kickoff format, and I understand that the league wants to create incentive for kicking teams to not automatically go for touchbacks. The play is much safer now but return rates only improved from about 21% of kicks to 32% last year. The league would prefer that to be in the 50-60% range and thus has made touchbacks more punitive.
That said, I can't help but think how the 35-yard touchback, which will still happen plenty of times, makes scoring so much easier. With most NFL kickers now drilling 55 to 58-yard field goals with little trouble, a drive starting at the 35 only has to get one or two first downs to end up in points. That's what Dallas and Brandon Aubrey did to the Buccaneers to open their game late last season. I guess I'll be happy about it when Chase McLaughlin is nailing a 57-yarder, but overall I don't think I need more field goals in my viewing experience.
**What is the likelihood the Bucs will play internationally this year?**
**\- @sarahh.mcmahhon, via Instagram**
Not very likely at all, I'm afraid. But the international efforts are going to keep expanding, possibly up to 10 games in 2026, and it's inevitable the Buccaneers will draw another overseas date in the very near future. Personally, I'm rooting for Madrid or Australia.
There will be seven international games in 2025, and we already know the host teams. They are:
\- Los Angeles Chargers, São Paolo, Brazil (Week One)
\- Indianapolis Colts, Berlin, Germany
\- Miami Dolphins, Madrid, Spain
\- Pittsburgh Steelers, Dublin, Ireland
\- Jacksonville Jaguars, London, England
\- Cleveland Browns, London, England
\- New York Jets, London, England
So, you have to be on the list of home opponents for at least one of those seven teams to have a shot at playing overseas. The Buccaneers are not scheduled to play road games this year at the Chargers, Colts, Steelers, Jaguars, Browns or Jets. That leaves only the Dolphins as a possibility, but I wouldn't keep my fingers crossed. The betting favorites as opponents in that game are the Washington Commanders and Los Angeles Chargers, which haven't played overseas since 2016 and 2018, respectively. Of course, the Chargers are already hosting the São Paolo game, so they're presumably out here, making the Commanders the overwhelming favorite. The Buccaneers played an international game as recently as 2022 in Munich.
As for the Buccaneers, if they have a say in the matter they probably wouldn't sign up for this particular game. The Miami trip is the easiest possible one for the team in terms of travel, so giving that up for a long international flight is probably not preferable. There's a shot, but I don't think it's likely.
**It feels like we are guaranteed to pick a CB in the first round, right?**
**\- @whateverdante\_ via Instagram**
I'm not sure where you get that idea. I think it's a near lock that the Bucs take a defensive player in the first round, but I'm not sure cornerback is any higher on the list than linebacker or edge rusher, or probably even safety. Honestly, given how many really good interior defensive line prospects there are in this draft, I wouldn't even be shocked if that was the position the Bucs went with. You and I both know that Jason Licht likes to use his premium picks in the trenches, and that has served him well through the years.
Do I think a cornerback in the first round is a good idea and _one_ of the most likely positions targeted? Absolutely. I'm the biggest proponent in the world of adding talented cornerback depth, no matter what the current depth chart looks like. I don't think this draft has a lot of true top-15 blue chip cornerback prospects, but after that, there is plenty of depth. If either Michigan's Will Johnson or Texas's Jahdae Barron were there at number 19 and I were in charge, I'd run to the podium.
There's also the possibility the Buccaneers trade back a bit and address the position with the likes of Kentucky's Maxwell Hairston, East Carolina's Shavon Revel, Florida State's Azayreye'h Thomas or Notre Dame's Benjamin Harrison.