Where do we need the most help?

[Jesse]

I would have had more DE/DT is training camp. For rotational purposes throughout the year AND in case of injury.

I'd be taking at least two LBs off the roster to make that happen.

Returner is being looked at, I believe. I also don't want a rookie back there if the staff doesn't trust him, so I'm fine with Parker despite his inability to do anything (for now).

Also need to be looking at someone with a stronger leg for kick-offs and punting. Hard to believe this is the best we can find.

Our worst games are always when the offence can't get anything going, tho. It's straight up frustrating when our offensive personnel can't stay on the field. You can't even bring people in, because each of our offensive personnel groups are supposed to be the best in the league: QB, WRs, RB, OL.

[Lincoln Locomotive]

Zach was near perfect for throwing in the first half and then he threw another 3 picks, two of which were forced throws which are mistakes rookie QBs make.   Most games where he threw picks it was in the first half yet in this game it was the 2nd half that killed us, especially when we're in FG range.    Also missing a FG and giving up a 120 yard return on a missed PAT was another 6 points which was the margin we lost by.   Add to this that our D gave up far too many 2nd and long conversions' and our STs once again really sucked swamp water.....and yeah we deserve to lose to a much hungrier and desperate team.   
The inconsistencies of Zach though are worrisome......

[blue_gold_84]

I'd try and trade for Kongbo.

Offensively, better execution. There's too much talent for them to be held to 16 points.

[TecnoGenius]

Zach was near perfect for throwing in the first half and then he threw another 3 picks, two of which were forced throws which are mistakes rookie QBs make.

You know what?  I think we still lose even if Zach throws 0 picks.  Why?  Because HAM would have been full pedal to the metal instead of switching to prevent-everything.  And I am certain our D would not be able to stop that wide-out / dink & dunk they were employing.

So I'm not even miffed at the INTs.  That just helped HAM speed up the point at which they reached 14+ point spread.

You think if Zach throws no picks we could win?  Our O would have scored more, but HAM would have still gotten TDs on 50-80% of drives, and FGs on the rest.  We just had no plan B counter to their O game plan.

If HAM hadn't gone 14+ up, they likely hang 50 on us, and we do somewhat ok keeping up, but likely end 7-14 points down.  It was going to be a slobberknocker.

[Blue In BC]

You know what?  I think we still lose even if Zach throws 0 picks.  Why?  Because HAM would have been full pedal to the metal instead of switching to prevent-everything.  And I am certain our D would not be able to stop that wide-out / dink & dunk they were employing.

So I'm not even miffed at the INTs.  That just helped HAM speed up the point at which they reached 14+ point spread.

You think if Zach throws no picks we could win?  Our O would have scored more, but HAM would have still gotten TDs on 50-80% of drives, and FGs on the rest.  We just had no plan B counter to their O game plan.

If HAM hadn't gone 14+ up, they likely hang 50 on us, and we do somewhat ok keeping up, but likely end 7-14 points down.  It was going to be a slobberknocker.

Quite the tin hat exaggeration

[TecnoGenius]

Quite the tin hat exaggeration

No exaggeration.  I stand by that prediction.  We were doomed well before Zach started INTing.  The only reason they stopped scoring TDs is because they stopped trying to once they were 14+ up.  Only when we got within a TD-wins-it score did they start to try (a bit) again.

If our O had matched their O all night then they would have easily had 50 and us 40-45, because they would have had to.

Basically every time HAM ran on 2nd & 6+ was because they were in prevent-O.  When they weren't in prevent-O they would throw an out or a screen on 2nd & long.