The Bears make us wonder if it's better to be lucky or good

Bears: lucky or good? After three weeks, it's still too close to call.

I do think the Bears deserve some props after yesterday's win, probably more than most will be willing to give them. Going to Seattle is one hefty road trip. The Seahawks have been very tough at home in recent years, that defense has more playmakers than I realized, and Seneca Wallace isn't completely incompetent (no small feat for a backup QB in the NFL). That being said, the Bears, for the third consecutive week, looked very beatable. They won, but the Seahawks kind of lost, too. I want style points, dammit! I really thought this was the year I got style points.

The Bears had a perfect storm of good fortune in Week 2 against Pittsburgh: everyone will remember King Douche's missed field goals, but don't forget Santonio Holmes' drops, either. Or that fact that the first scoring drive, which originally started on the Bears' 2-yard line, got jump started on a 15-yard roughing the Jesus call.

This week, again, more good fortune was going the Bears' way: no Hasselbeck + a key questionable challenge victory on the Forte fumble + again, more missed field goals.

It all leaves me wondering how good this team is, and I don't think that's a question anyone can answer yet with any certainty. If the Bears want to officially reach "good" status though, I think it's the offense, and not the defense, that needs to step it up.


I say this because I feel like the Bears' offense has growth potential. I'm not sure we can say that about the defense. Without Urlacher, with a suspect pass rush and two below-average safeties, this isn't your old brother's Lovie Smith-coached D.

The defense won't kill the Bears, but it won't win them any games, either. It will bend-not-break like nothing you've ever seen before. It won't force any three-and-outs, won't put the opposing quarterback under consistent duress, and needs to pray for a turnover or two to bail themselves out every week. The defense doesn't suck, but it's far from dominant.

The offense hasn't been dominant yet either, but I think it can get there this year, whether that sounds crazy or not. To me, it seems so obvious that they need a sizable injection of razzle-dazzle, but I doubt they'll get it with Turner at the controls.

I don't hate Ron Turner like most of you do. He's easily the best Bears' OC of the decade, which admittedly is the world's largest 'world's tallest midget' contest. Still, you can do worse, especially in Chicago. But make no mistake that the lack of a genius offensive game-planner is holding the Bears back.

I want more shotgun. I want to the ball to be thrown to Forte more often. I want to see Hester, Knox, Olsen, Forte, and Bennett all spread out wide at the same time. I want this offense to mimic, in style if not performance, the Patriots of '07 and '08. I want Cutler to attempt 50 passes, not 27.

We may not get enough of that this year, but it's clear to me that a) the offense could handle such great responsibility, and b) it would only make this team better. Until then, the Bears will probably continue to look like they're winning on accident.

Quickly, let's not lose sight of the fact that opening the season with @ GB, vs. Pit, @ SEA is pretty damn tough. A 2-1 start is nothing to complain about. By my count, it's the second or third toughest three-game stretch the Bears will be faced with this season. So 2-1 is fine, whether it's pretty or not.

*'
Also, I'm sorry, but this is just completely retarded.


Yes, David Haugh/Trib copy editors, it's kind of like that. Only the exact opposite.