UKBillFan

The Bears got Klein as part of the trade.

Pretty sure they play 4-3, so playing OLB beside himself?

I reckon we’d get a fifth and whatever that team’s equivalent is to Moss for him.

I think we were treating it as a trap. They'd keep running the ball until we switched things up to tighten our D at the line, at which point they'd go over the top. Particularly considering we were leading for the most part, it made no sense risking large chunk plays to try and stop an approach which was doing us a favour in burning the clock with very little gain on the scoreboard.

At this stage I honestly think yesterday was just a bad day for missed tackles, for whatever reason. Maybe rustiness off the bye. Prior to it, our run defense has been much better this season. If we repeat that performance in quick succession then maybe it's something to be concerned about but, for now, it was just one of those games where execution let us down - until it mattered.

Our run D in terms of yardage given away was abysmal. Our run D in terms of points given away was pretty good.

Putting two and two together, think it was Zach Anderson.

Yes, though if Crosby had converted the late FG attempt and they had then won the subsequent onside kick, or if we hadn't tipped Rodgers' pass straight after the first interception, then suddenly the gap closes or we may lose. Looking back, the bad plays didn't really matter. At the time they could have done, we could be sitting here discussing a narrow loss because of the turnovers. If he then makes those passes aagainst a team with a competent offense we could be in trouble too. Ifs, buts and maybes, I appreciate that and none of it came to pass. I think that's why it's being focused on though. I doubt we're hardly the fanbase to debate this though; can imagine how the Chiefs fans reacted after their loss to us and the Colts, where Mahomes didn't have the best of games.

But that's what I'm trying to explain. I think it's the immediacy which is why it's being focused on. Switch the first and fourth quarters and I don't think people would be talking about it (I'm not the only one), or just saying in passing "He had a shaky start but..." I wouldn't say he had an iffy third quarter; thought he was decent. Maybe a slight downstep from the first half but I wouldn't say he was iffy.

I expect a triple digit win to be honest. Anything less and I think we need to ditch everyone and start again.

Next week is so important. We have to get back to 1-1 in the Division.

I have said this myself before but, watching the game back, Josh wasn't bad in the second half. He was only bad in the fourth quarter. He was fine in the third; it was a penalty which screwed up the sole drive which resulted in it ending with a FG rather than TD.

That was mentioned on the game and post game threads.

Maybe concerned is the wrong word. I'm asking would it be being spoken about so much. From memory, I don't think Josh's struggles in the first half at Tampa were really discussed post game last year, because of how brilliant he was in the second half.

I take my original post back - first three quarters decent, fourth quarter awful. And even then he did that nice dunk to Cook in the fourth. Yes - in the third quarter during the final scoring drive. It's as though they had a word between the third and fourth quarters. With the second interception I don't get why he didn't throw it out of the back of the end zone.

I think part of the issue is they happened back to back and in the fourth quarter. If they'd happened in the first quarter then Josh improved would people be so concerned? If one interception had happened in the first half, the second in the fourth quarter and the overthrow at some random point inbetween would there be such a reaction? I don't think so. It's because they basically happened one drive after another after another - as though he got stuck in a funk and couldn't get himself out of it mentally.

True, though there were drops in those drives as well IIRC - Davis and Diggs? Without those perhaps the INT's wouldn't have happened. And then we had Davis' moronic penalty too. As well as the INT's there was the overthrow to Kumerow as well, which led to the punt. It does show that Josh was not actually awful in the second half; just the fourth quarter. The drive in the third quarter was decent from him. He was awful in one quarter; for three quarters he was fine.

I thought Josh was fine in the first half. Second half was awful, admittedly.

I think maybe some on the Packers D got under the skin of some of our offensive players. We wanted to stick it to them rather than keep to the plan and our struggles started at that point.

No, in fairness, if that was the Pats we'd be saying normal service had resumed.

If that was the Pats, Dolphins, Jets or even Chiefs playing the second half we'd be calling it out as trash and saying they're clearly not as good as they think they are, with a weak underbelly which can be exposed. We know we can do better. We know we can do better. It's good to have this kind of warning in week eight and not in the post season. I think the defense was adapting to the situation on the ground, and basically bending not breaking. My biggest concern is Josh's interceptions. It's not like they were down to great defensive plays or down to other errors on defense. They were basic errors that any QB would be called out over, let alone someone with the undoubted skill and talent Josh has.

One more. Include rushing and Josh is one ahead.

He has one more than Mahomes after the same number of games.

I didn’t think the defensive play calling was bad anyway. It was the execution which let us down.

In order to beat us, most teams will have to be at their best and us completely off colour for the entire game. Some won’t even be good enough then, but the 49ers would be.