How would '85 defense fare today?

[run and shoot]

1985 Chicago Bears


Scored 456 points (28.5/g), 2nd of 28 in the NFL.

 

[Pegger]

From a scheme point of view it would get shredded. In that era you could field a team and give players responsibilities that allowed them to avoid their weaknesses. For example Mike Singletary was not a coverage guy. That scheme allowed him to always be reading and looking to attack in the backfield. In today's NFL he would get lined up against someone like Gronk or Sproles, where he is forced to play away from his strengths.

It is important to note that there have been many rule chanes that would also disallow the 85 Bears defense to succeed. The corners, LBs and safeties would have to cover as opposed to goon. That alone might be enough to make this defense un-usable.

 

[FirstTimer]

Modern offenses would shred the 46 if it was used as a base package.

Different era. Different rules. Different offenses.

Not worth a discussion really.

 

[run and shoot]

From a scheme point of view it would get shredded. In that era you could field a team and give players responsibilities that allowed them to avoid their weaknesses. For example Mike Singletary was not a coverage guy. That scheme allowed him to always be reading and looking to attack in the backfield. In today's NFL he would get lined up against someone like Gronk or Sproles, where he is forced to play away from his strengths.

It is important to note that there have been many rule chanes that would also disallow the 85 Bears defense to succeed. The corners, LBs and safeties would have to cover as opposed to goon. That alone might be enough to make this defense un-usable.

Defending the Spread with the 46 Defense


[video=youtube_share;zgtfyYb33kY]https://youtu.be/zgtfyYb33kY[/video]

 

[Pegger]

Defending the Spread with the 46 Defense


[video=youtube_share;zgtfyYb33kY]https://youtu.be/zgtfyYb33kY[/video]

There are zone blitzes that can be ran, but ultimately you'll have a few situations where 3 corners are in man and the SS is alone with a TE and MLB left with RB.

4-6 works at lower levels or in Madden, but in todays NFL it commits too many players at the LOS to effectively take away passing lanes.

 

[number51]

Modern offenses would shred the 46 if it was used as a base package.

Different era. Different rules. Different offenses.

Not worth a discussion really.

You are mistaken, the Bears would not be forced to use the same defense as '85, so yeah they would be fine. Buddy Ryan was pretty sharp back then he would adjust the D to make up for the rule changes and the O scheme changes. They had too much talent.

I agree, not much of a discussion really.

 

[number51]

Modern offenses would shred the 46 if it was used as a base package.

Different era. Different rules. Different offenses.

Not worth a discussion really.

BTW your bizarre assumption that all the teams would be running the same schemes from their era, that they would for some reason be unaware of the rule changes, eliminates any team from more than 15 years ago.

How bout we throw a dart to pick the season and use those rules. How would last years Pats do with 1930's rules?

 

[fenderpfunk]

Schematically obviously it would need to be a bit different. But you're kidding yourself if you don't think that defensive line wouldn't fucking blast other teams in the ass. If you don't think that - you didn't see them play.

 

[FirstTimer]

You are mistaken, the Bears would not be forced to use the same defense as '85, so yeah they would be fine. Buddy Ryan was pretty sharp back then he would adjust the D to make up for the rule changes and the O scheme changes. They had too much talent.

I agree, not much of a discussion really.

The thread asks how the Bears 85 defense would fare today. The Bears used the 46 in 1985.

Thus, I am not mistaken. For the purposes of this question the Bears would have to use the 46 defense.

BTW your bizarre assumption that all the teams would be running the same schemes from their era, that they would for some reason be unaware of the rule changes, eliminates any team from more than 15 years ago.

How is my assumption "bizarre"? We have no way of knowing how the 85 Bears would do running the cover 2 or any other defense. We have no idea how the 2007 Patriots would do running an offense from the 1980's. These hypothetical matchups across era's are pretty idiotic and unfair to both teams. Judging the 85 Bears defense against today's rules is kind of pointless. The 46 came about in a different time. It's not an indictment of the 85 Bears, or the 46, it's just kind of the facts of the case. A lot of things used today wouldn't work then either.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

I think a better question would be:

How good would today's offenses be with the rules from the 80s and 90s? Damn, I want to know this for basketball as well.

 

[Scoot26]

I think a better question would be:

How good would today's offenses be with the rules from the 80s and 90s? Damn, I want to know this for basketball as well.

We've had that discussion in the Bulls forum, though not within a thread by itself. A lot of talk about it with today's Warriors vs the 96 Bulls.

As far as the NFL, the offense has had plenty of rule changes. Just the extra protection offered to QBs is a huge difference.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think a better question would be:

How good would today's offenses be with the rules from the 80s and 90s? Damn, I want to know this for basketball as well.

Depends on personnel. The early 90's Bills were basically running watered down concepts of today's offenses and made it to four straight Super Bowls...but they also had 3 HOF caliber players on offense. FWIW, I think the offensive concepts of today would translate better backwards in time than the 80's and 90's defensive concepts would translate forward in time.

Teams were just built differently then, I think the offenses of today would generate a lot of very poor matchups for defenses from 20-30 years ago.

 

[NCChiFan]

Say what you want about the out dated 46 defense today, but I sure would love to have some of that 85 Bear talent on our team right now. You can work all kinds of defensive scheme's with that talent.

 

[didshereallysaythat]

Depends on personnel. The early 90's Bills were basically running watered down concepts of today's offenses and made it to four straight Super Bowls...but they also had 3 HOF caliber players on offense. FWIW, I think the offensive concepts of today would translate better backwards in time than the 80's and 90's defensive concepts would translate forward in time.

Teams were just built differently then, I think the offenses of today would generate a lot of very poor matchups for defenses from 20-30 years ago.

I agree that in general, offenses would fair better. But, what gets me is the question of is it truly better design, or is it better athletes at the skilled positions?

 

[FirstTimer]

Say what you want about the out dated 46 defense today, but I sure would love to have some of that 85 Bear talent on our team right now. You can work all kinds of defensive scheme's with that talent.

This is also true. After Ryan left the Bears transitioned to more of a base 4-3 look and were a top tier defense for the next half decade. The 85 Bears had a lot of unique and very good talent that was pretty malleable. Guys like Dent, McMahon, Hampton, Wilson, Marshall, Singletary(to an extent) were pretty athletic and so talented they could translate across different schemes pretty well. Singletary wasn't a guy you'd want in coverage very often but IMO he was one of the smartest LB's ever so maybe he could give you some of those twilight Urlacher years where he got by in coverage by knowing where to be before even the offense did. IMO he was one of the best run-fit LB's of all time though.

 

[FirstTimer]

I agree that in general, offenses would fair better. But, what gets me is the question of is it truly better design, or is it better athletes at the skilled positions?

As with all things it's a little bit of both. Offensive design now is MUCH more complex and much better about stretching and stressing defenses in multiple ways and dictating matchups. Granted, as I said before, teams are built differently now than they were before but even with lesser athletes offenses concepts and play design are just more effective at creating space and stress on a defense. It's a reason why you see the spread concepts being used as early as middle school when kids are still falling all over themselves.

 

[number51]

The thread asks how the Bears 85 defense would fare today. The Bears used the 46 in 1985.

Thus, I am not mistaken. For the purposes of this question the Bears would have to use the 46 defense.


How is my assumption "bizarre"? We have no way of knowing how the 85 Bears would do running the cover 2 or any other defense. We have no idea how the 2007 Patriots would do running an offense from the 1980's. These hypothetical matchups across era's are pretty idiotic and unfair to both teams. Judging the 85 Bears defense against today's rules is kind of pointless. The 46 came about in a different time. It's not an indictment of the 85 Bears, or the 46, it's just kind of the facts of the case. A lot of things used today wouldn't work then either.

You are very confused. There are two different things at play here, talent and scheme.

If you force any great team to play unaware that the rules have changed, they're fucked. Again if the 2014 Pats were playing using 1930's rules, and they didn't know it, they are fucked.

Talent is what I am comparing, it's the only part of this goofy little exercise that makes any sense. Why don't you go research how the 1967 Packers would have been if they had today's pads, cleats, and medical technology. You get back to us on that Dr. Who.


So back on topic, talent. Yes the 85 Bears had great talent, so yes they would obviously be great, not really much of a discussion.

 

[ClydeLee]

You are very confused. There are two different things at play here, talent and scheme.

If you force any great team to play unaware that the rules have changed, they're fucked. Again if the 2014 Pats were playing using 1930's rules, and they didn't know it, they are fucked.

Talent is what I am comparing, it's the only part of this goofy little exercise that makes any sense. Why don't you go research how the 1967 Packers would have been if they had today's pads, cleats, and medical technology. You get back to us on that Dr. Who.


So back on topic, talent. Yes the 85 Bears had great talent, so yes they would obviously be great, not really much of a discussion.

But then you're taking individuals well suited for a scheme to a scenario of another scheme. You still are stuck in an adjustment to actually think it out

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[ijustposthere]

Yeah, the 46 was effective schematically for two reasons...offenses almost always lined up in their base package (2 WRs, 1 TE, 2 RBs), and the prevailing idea of the time was that if the defense brought numbers then you had to keep all your guys in to block. The one game the Bears lost in 1985 was to the Dolphins. Some of that was simply the greatness of Dan Marino, but mostly it was Shula's decision to line up in a 3-WR set with Nat Moore. Back in the mid-80's, teams rarely used 3 WR sets. The Dolphins did this for most of the game against the Bears, and whomever they put in the slot would either be in man coverage against Singletary or Fencik, or be facing zone coverage with a clean release. Once NFL coaches figured out to spread out the 46 with multiple WRs, the 46 could no longer be used as a regular defense.

Welcome back. Now we need to bring back a couple other posters that increase traffic and entertainment around here.

 

[number51]

But then you're taking individuals well suited for a scheme to a scenario of another scheme. You still are stuck in an adjustment to actually think it out

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

100% right. That's why I mentioned earlier that the Bears would have 1985 Buddy Ryan to figure it out. Give him the new rules, show him some video (he'll call it tape) on the new O schemes. Even back then Buddy was way ahead of the curve on the need for a pass rush.

Old guys like me remember him saying (paraphrasing) "if we can get pressure with 4 great, if it takes 5 okay, I'll send all 11 if I have to but I won't let a QB stand back there and play catch". Eventually the whole league figured it out. People like FT should stop pretending that Ryan was only capable of one good idea.

Ultimately it is about talent, Bears win. Throw in a great D coach, Bears win by more. No discussion really.