How would '85 defense fare today?

[nc0gnet0]

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.

By that logic I guess the '72 dolphins would beat the '85 Bears......

 

[Mongo_76]

The 85 defense would do just fine in todays NFL - likely dominate as they did then - as long as they weren't purely playing the 46.

Talentwise, they are arguably as good (or better)) than any defense out there today.

The argument that defensive players are "bigger in today's NFL" doesn't hold water.

Dent and Hampton were 6'-5" and played at 265 and 270 respectively. Mongo was 6'-2" and played at 260-265. Otis was 6'-2", 240, Wilbur 6'-1"

And while Singletary was relatively small for a Mike at 6'-0" 235, I think we can agree he would be a HOF'er even today. And for comparisons sake, Brandon Marshall (LB Broncos) is 6'-1".

Duerson and Fencik were both 6'1" and played at around 200 to 205. Earl Thomas (arguably one of the best Safeties in the NFL) is 5'-10". Eric Berry is 6'-0, 210. TJ Ward is 5'-10". So is Devin McCourty.

 

[run and shoot]

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 .

Buddy wanted to blitz in that game...Ditka wanted to play zone. Ditka was right, cuz Marino was eating up the Ryan's blitz packages. Had we utilized the 46 zone, we win that game.

Side note Ditka was so pissed at Ryan, they almost came to blows that game ( cuz Ryan didn't use the zone).

What some ppl. don't understand is back then we were literally trying to take Qb's outta the game ( ...and we did. when me and buddies were kids we used take bets on if we could get down to the opposing teams 3rd string Qb... sometimes we did)
I doubt if that would fly today.

Heck some of the rule changes about hitting the Qb and wr's came about cuz of the what the Bear "D" was doing in the mid-80's When Buddy was here it was the best time to be a Bears fan.

Once NFL coaches figured out to spread out the 46 with multiple WRs, the 46 could no longer be used as a regular defense.

We were handling shot-gun sets back then, Teams tried every against us......but they couldn't protect the Qb. We always found a way to get the Qb. The worst thing that happened to us was losing Buddy Ryan. When Vince Tobin became the DC, we lost our edge....we played differently. Teams & their Qb's stopped fearing us, cuz Tobin didn't play "Buddyball"
Tobin didn't put a lotta' pressure on the Qb ...like Buddy.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Buddy wanted to blitz in that game...Ditka wanted to play zone. Ditka was right, cuz Marino was eating up the Ryan's blitz packages. Had we utilized the 46 zone, we win that game.

Side note Ditka was so pissed at Ryan, they almost came to blows that game ( cuz Ryan didn't use the zone).

Yep, Buddy was cocky and it's possible he wouldn't go zone in that game just to spite "Da Coach". They didn't get along.

 

[number51]

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.

By that logic I guess the '72 dolphins would beat the '85 Bears......

You forgot to read my post. "Ultimately it is about talent". The '72 Dolphins were a great team, but I always thought of them as overachievers some great players, but not the youth or depth of the 85 Bears who turned out to be underachievers because of a fragile QB and no backup after 85.

If you think the '72 Dolphins or any other team was more talented than the 85 Bears, your opinion, it's all good. Just please don't talk about rules and schemes from 1972. Not relevant to the discussion.

 

[run and shoot]

Yep, Buddy was cocky and it's possible he wouldn't go zone in that game just to spite "Da Coach". They didn't get along.

Buddy wasn't the best at working toward a common goal ( he always seemed to strive toward a "D" vs "O" conflict ON THE SAME TEAM). Hell when he was with the Oilers he got into it with their OC Gilbride. As much,as I liked Buddy's defenses...he coulda' took some lessons in diplomacy and teamwork. He let his damn ego hurt teams.


It's funny, ppl. talk about Lovie Smith not caring about "O"...well Buddy always felt the team revolved around the "D"...and screw the "O".

 

[jsu34]

I wonder if folks checked back on the Strat-O-matic site. The '85 bears defeat the '96 packers to win, 17-10 with Walter getting the MVP.

I would like to know all of the criteria that went into it, but I wouldn't doubt the results.

Edit: here's the site
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...-winner-of-the-super-bowl-champion-bracket-is

 

[Mongo_76]

It's funny, ppl. talk about Lovie Smith not caring about "O"...well Buddy always felt the team revolved around the "D"...and screw the "O".

Hmmm... Not sure about that.


In his first year as the HC of the Eagles (and basically calling the shots), the team drafted 5 (yes 5) RB's, including using their first and second round picks on RB's... Not to mention 2 centers, a guard and a Punter.

As a side note, Buddy Ryan is one of only 3 HC's to be fired after a 10-6 season...

 

[Pegger]

Hmmm... Not sure about that.


In his first year as the HC of the Eagles (and basically calling the shots), the team drafted 5 (yes 5) RB's, including using their first and second round picks on RB's... Not to mention 2 centers, a guard and a Punter.

As a side note, Buddy Ryan is one of only 3 HC's to be fired after a 10-6 season...

Drafting 5 RBs was and is dumb. He did that while constantly ignoring the largest weakness being the OL. I always found it funny that a defensive minded coach who focused on pressure didnt prioritize OL higher. It was almost as if he wanted a horrible OL so his defense could look even better in practice.

 

[run and shoot]

Hmmm... Not sure about that.


In his first year as the HC of the Eagles (and basically calling the shots), the team drafted 5 (yes 5) RB's, including using their first and second round picks on RB's... Not to mention 2 centers, a guard and a Punter.

As a side note, Buddy Ryan is one of only 3 HC's to be fired after a 10-6 season...

Buddy "O" philosophy in Philly was...to tell Cunningham to make 3 big plays per game and the "D" would do the rest ( which is 1 reason Cunningham really didn't develop until he went to the Vikings under Dennis Green). Like I said I liked Buddy as a defensive genius but he had his flaws.

 

[The Hawk]

That defense in '85 was very ahead of its time and was manned by a lot of great players. It had no weaknesses. It had a lot of all-pros on it. All-pros transcend generations. One of the best sets of linebackers in NFL history. A five deep great set of defensive linemen, including two truly great defensive linemen in Dent and Danimal. Gary Fencik and company in a hard hitting and ball hawking secondary.

Lets put it this way, every player on that 85 defense was light years better than every player on the 2015 defense

 

[DMelt36]

The 85 defense would do just fine in todays NFL - likely dominate as they did then - as long as they weren't purely playing the 46.

Talentwise, they are arguably as good (or better)) than any defense out there today.

The argument that defensive players are "bigger in today's NFL" doesn't hold water.

Dent and Hampton were 6'-5" and played at 265 and 270 respectively. Mongo was 6'-2" and played at 260-265. Otis was 6'-2", 240, Wilbur 6'-1"

And while Singletary was relatively small for a Mike at 6'-0" 235, I think we can agree he would be a HOF'er even today. And for comparisons sake, Brandon Marshall (LB Broncos) is 6'-1".

Duerson and Fencik were both 6'1" and played at around 200 to 205. Earl Thomas (arguably one of the best Safeties in the NFL) is 5'-10". Eric Berry is 6'-0, 210. TJ Ward is 5'-10". So is Devin McCourty.

But the offensive players that would be playing against them have gotten way, way bigger. That's the problem.

Bears OL in '85, which had the No. 1 rushing attack in the league: Covert 6-4, 277; Bortz 6-6, 282; Hilgenberg 6-3, 259; Thayer 6-4, 271; 6-6, 281.

Bills OL in '16, which had the No. 1 rushing attack in the league this year: Cordy Glenn 6-5, 345; Seantrel Henderson 6-7, 331; Richie Incognito 6-3, 305; John Miller 6-3, 315; Eric Wood 6-4, 304.

Bears OL averaged 6-4 1/2, 274 pounds
Bills OL averaged 6-4 1/2, 320 pounds

That's the problem with comparing teams of different eras, especially with a 30-year gap.

 

[number51]

Kind of a trite (and stupid) way of looking at it.

Talent is the most important factor. You think that is trite and stupid? Have you been drafting for the Bears?

 

[ijustposthere]

Buddy wanted to blitz in that game...Ditka wanted to play zone. Ditka was right, cuz Marino was eating up the Ryan's blitz packages.

LOL. I get the feeling that Marino might have torn up anything the Bears threw at him that day. He was kinda good.

 

[JimJohnson]

Speaking of 85 Bears, 30 for 30 on them Thursday night.

 

[number51]

The secondary was a weakness even back then, and was the primary culprit in their postseason losses of 1984, 1986 & 1987.

84 playoff loss the Bears scored 0 points.
86 Playoff loss the Bears scored 13 points.
87 playoff loss the bears scored 17 points.

The Bears averaged 10 points a game in the playoff losses that you use as proof of a weak secondary. You never saw those games.

Welcome back.

 

[ijustposthere]

I wonder if folks checked back on the Strat-O-matic site. The '85 bears defeat the '96 packers to win, 17-10 with Walter getting the MVP.

I would like to know all of the criteria that went into it, but I wouldn't doubt the results.

Edit: here's the site
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...-winner-of-the-super-bowl-champion-bracket-is

Yeah, i posted that already. Don't ride my coat tails.

 

[Camden Cutler]

the short passes of today would destroy the 46 defense

 

[number51]

The secondary was a weakness even back then, and was the primary culprit in their postseason losses of 1984, 1986 & 1987.

Do you want to walk that back a bit? No? The "primary culprit" you going to stick with that huh?

84 playoff loss the Bears scored 0 points.
86 Playoff loss the Bears scored 13 points.
87 playoff loss the bears scored 17 points.

The Bears averaged 10 points a game in the playoff losses that you use as proof of a weak secondary. You never saw those games.

Welcome back.

So you were hoping the "primary culprit" would score some pick six's?

using the same logic, are we supposed to conclude that the Bears had a strong secondary because they offense averaged 10 points a game?

When did I say the 85 Bears had a strong secondary? Show the quote please. Can't do it? I never said that, you made that shit up.

Here is something that wasn't made up, an actual quote that proves you have no idea what you are talking about.

The secondary was a weakness even back then, and was the primary culprit in their postseason losses of 1984, 1986 & 1987.

Now show the quote where I said the 85 secondary was strong, or just stop lying.

But really, welcome back. lol

 

[number51]

I'm not understanding what point you are trying to make, if any. You seem to be repeating that the Bears offense kind of sucked in the postseason...great! Good to know that info in a thread about how the 1985 Bears defense would fare in the present day NFL!

I already covered that you must have missed it.

but not the youth or depth of the 85 Bears who turned out to be underachievers because of a fragile QB and no backup after 85.

I know you are just getting your sea legs back but please try to keep up