Have at It: Your take on the Bears


(Still working our way back to our regular schedule.)

DaBearz84 feels good about the Chicago Bears' prospects but "I am ashamed of the win." Brianinindy is "glad for the win, not proud of it." Mfbringstheruckus' "concerns for the running game, o-line play and inability to score in the red zone remain unchanged from last year."

You offered plenty of similar quick hitters during this week's Have at It debate, which asked how your opinion of the Bears was impacted by their 19-14 Week 1 victory over the Detroit Lions. Did you feel better or worse about the team when the game was over? Many of you seemed unnerved about how close the Bears came to losing but saw enough to keep your eyes peeled for Week 2.

"The Bears did not look like a bad team, but rather like a good team playing badly," wrote CrazyUncleRich. "The Lions were not beating the Bears -- the Bears were mostly beating themselves. This is actually good news for Chicago. If they stop making mistakes and shooting themselves in the foot, they have the talent and weapons to match up against the better teams in the division and the league. (It's a lot easier to make fewer mistakes than it is to get more talented.)"

Indeed, wrote Bears168, "if the Bears hadn't turned the ball over four different times, this game would have been a blowout."

The Bears' "prospects are positive," wrote recoil47, and suggested there has been some revisionist analysis since the game ended: "Going into Sunday, there were SO many people touting all the offensive weapons Detroit had, and how they were going to win, yet when the Bears D shuts them down for 90% of the game, all we hear is 'Well, it's just Detroit.' Can't have it both ways people."

Fayld was unequivocally thrilled with the Bears' defense but thought too many fans were infatuated by tailback Matt Forte's final numbers. Wrote Fayld: "He actually played very poorly save for two big plays. He continues to show that he can't run between the tackles and has issues in blitz pickup."

Ultimately, el_gran_suss wrote, "I feel that it was a vast improvement from the preseason. ... Well, from every preseason game I saw no Bears offense and an o-line that was bordering on pathetic. I saw a defense that looked old and a d-line that created no pressure. That was definitely not the case in the opener!"

My take? I wasn't overly impressed with the Bears during the game and was more or less stunned by their reaction to the win afterward. Their over-the-top display seemed incongruous with the manner in which they won.

But I do think the Bears' defense displayed a revitalized aggression and big-play attitude, starting with linebackers Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs. And as we discussed in Friday's Air and Space post, the presence of defensive end Julius Peppers allowed the Bears to devote more personnel to coverage and force the Lions' seemingly explosive offense to throw short outlet passes.

Given the Lions' personnel issues on defense, I don't know if we got an accurate representation of where the Bears' offense is headed. I like the way they used their personnel, especially getting Forte so involved in the passing game, but think we'll know much more after they face the Dallas Cowboys' defense Sunday. If the Bears put 400 yards on that defense, and it absolutely could happen, I'll be the first one to stand up and congratulate them for it.