How would '85 defense fare today?

[FirstTimer]

Hall of Fame players on 1972 Dolphins - 6

Hall of Fame players on 1985 Bears - 4

The 1972 Dolphins were also a team at it's core who went to three straight SB's and won two of them. Pretty impressive for a team that seemingly lacked talent in comparison to the '85 Bears.

 

[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.

Can't we just savior the true gem of this entire stupid thread?





He never saw those games.

 

[run and shoot]

Kind of a huge leap of faith with that statement. The problem wasn't man vs. zone, the problem was defending multi-WR sets with 8 in the box base personnel.




Being in the shotgun wouldn't really have any benefit, but regardless I don't remember teams using shotgun sets against the Bears in 1985. Please cite examples.



Yeah, in 1985 the Bears had 64 sacks. In 1986 under Vince Tobin, the Bears had 62 sacks. He didn't really put a lotta pressure on the QB.

I'm trying to be nice about this, but basically everything in your post is factually incorrect and based on nothing other than your faulty memory.

Bottom line.....the Bears win vs Miami with zone. Vince Tobin was not Ryan. Yeah, I know his stats were better but the Bear "D" ferocity wasn't there.
The Bear "D" was never the same when Buddy left.

 

[The Hawk]

Obviously I meant that the secondary was the primary culprit in their postseason losses in terms of the Bears defense. Did you even read the thread title? Your further point is even more moronic...using the same logic, are we supposed to conclude that the Bears had a strong secondary because they offense averaged 10 points a game? How is that relevant to the thread topic?

Anyway, in 1984 the Bears let Montana kind of dink and dunk his way down the field. In the divisional win over Washington, Theismann had nearly 300 yards passing. In 1986, the two big plays were long TD passes from Jay Schroeder to Art Monk. The next year, the Bears lose at home to Doug Williams. I won't even talk about the 1988 debacle with Joe Montana and his near flawless game, because then you are getting somewhat removed from the 1985 roster.

We are talking about 85 when the team was healthy were we not? I thought that the 86 team was actually better than 85 but then McMahon went down via cheap shot and they were done in the play-offs. That defense didn't lose those years, injuries lost those games.

 

[number51]

Good stuff. You quote me, the first line of my quote is "Obviously I meant that the secondary was the primary culprit in their postseason losses in terms of the Bears defense", and the you respond with the above. Seems pretty incredible that the topic of how the Bears 46 defense would work in today's NFL has gotten to the point where we can say the Bears 46 defense would indeed be effective because Charles Martin threw Jim McMahon to the turf after an INT.

Why is it so hard to simply talk about the Bears defense?

Why would anyone think Buddy Ryan would run an out of date an ineffective scheme? Rules have changed, O schemes have evolved but you think 1985 Buddy Ryan would not adapt. That is just stupid. When you compare teams from different era's you either assume the game plans would reflect changes in the game, or you assume the coaches are Special person. Rory has made the decision to assume 1985 Buddy Ryan was Special person. I disagree.



Rory never saw the playoff games he referenced. He thinks it was the secondary that was the "primary culprit" for the loses. No one that has ever seen any of those games thinks that.

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

the short passes of today would destroy the 46 defense

I love how people feel they are authorized to make statements like this. What rules are we playing with? 2016 rules or 1985 CTE rules? One second after snapping the ball three HoF DL would be in the QB's butt quicker than Greg Louganis.

 

[run and shoot]

Quote Originally Posted by run and shoot View Post
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.

I saw the game...I can tell you didn't. Buddy's blitz wasn't working.

 

[Bearly]

They needed to pull a backer for a DB and Ditka was an that early but Ryan wouldn't budge. Still a game without a viable McMahon and Fuller threw 2 picks along with us having a punt blocked at out 6. Between not changing coverages Miami getting a couple breaks and just playing very well, it was one of those games that even good teams lose.

“That defense is probably the best defense to ever play football,” Dan Marino said of the ’85 Bears.

I think you'll find most of the playoff and important games the Bears lose in that Era are without McMahon and with our O being counter productive. Unless you're the 72 Dolphins, no one wins then all.

 

[JZsportsfan]

It's really quite impossible to compare a defense from a different era to today. The rules are different, the players are bigger, stronger, faster.

 

[The Hawk]

Good stuff. You quote me, the first line of my quote is "Obviously I meant that the secondary was the primary culprit in their postseason losses in terms of the Bears defense", and the you respond with the above. Seems pretty incredible that the topic of how the Bears 46 defense would work in today's NFL has gotten to the point where we can say the Bears 46 defense would indeed be effective because Charles Martin threw Jim McMahon to the turf after an INT.

Why is it so hard to simply talk about the Bears defense?

Why? BEcause I simply disagree that the defensive secondary was the "primary culprit in their post season losses". The team in those years pretty much revolved around Jim McMahon. When he was healthy, they could and did beat any team they faced. Their problem was keeping him healthy.

In my opinion, the defensive secondary was not as good as the front seven but it was pretty good nonetheless. Fencik was a stud defensively.. Plank was probably the least talented guy out there but he had his great moments also when he hit people.

 

[The Hawk]

Obviously I meant that the secondary was the primary culprit in their postseason losses in terms of the Bears defense. Did you even read the thread title? Your further point is even more moronic...using the same logic, are we supposed to conclude that the Bears had a strong secondary because they offense averaged 10 points a game? How is that relevant to the thread topic?

Anyway, in 1984 the Bears let Montana kind of dink and dunk his way down the field. In the divisional win over Washington, Theismann had nearly 300 yards passing. In 1986, the two big plays were long TD passes from Jay Schroeder to Art Monk. The next year, the Bears lose at home to Doug Williams. I won't even talk about the 1988 debacle with Joe Montana and his near flawless game, because then you are getting somewhat removed from the 1985 roster.

How can you say that the Bears "let" Montana beat them in '84. SOmetimes you have to give the other team some credit. That was a great SF team that year. THey didn't lose to the 9ers because of a weak secondary. They lost that game because they couldn't SCORE POINTS. The same thing in '86.

 

[FirstTimer]

Why? BEcause I simply disagree that the defensive secondary was the "primary culprit in their post season losses". The team in those years pretty much revolved around Jim McMahon. When he was healthy, they could and did beat any team they faced. Their problem was keeping him healthy.

In my opinion, the defensive secondary was not as good as the front seven but it was pretty good nonetheless. Fencik was a stud defensively.. Plank was probably the least talented guy out there but he had his great moments also when he hit people.

....Face into palm...Doug Plank wasn't on any Bears team relevant to this conversation.

Good job.

Good effort.

 

[FirstTimer]

How can you say that the Bears "let" Montana beat them in '84. SOmetimes you have to give the other team some credit. That was a great SF team that year. THey didn't lose to the 9ers because of a weak secondary. They lost that game because they couldn't SCORE POINTS. The same thing in '86.

They lost because of both.

 

[Calabis]

The '85 Bears would get torched by just about any NFL team today. Players are absurdly bigger, faster, and stronger than they were in the 80s. Plus the game is far more technical now than it was in the 80s. They'd have no chance.

Lol....if you take any team from a era, and play them against a team of today, they would have a hard time, because of what you mentioned and rules. QBs back then like Marino, would throw all day with these bullshit DB rules. Guys like Payton wouldn't be used like he was. This is why I hate the argument....I have done this in basketball already.


Take any guy from the past and give him todays technology and nutrition and he would be better than he was.....that shit is scary.

Jesse Owens born in 1913.....9.4 second 100 yard dash, 20.3 second 200 yard dash.....he would probably be the fastest man on he planet today with better stuff.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Lol....if you take any team from a era, and play them against a team of today, they would have a hard time, because of what you mentioned and rules. QBs back then like Marino, would throw all day with these bullshit DB rules. Guys like Payton wouldn't be used like he was. This is why I hate the argument....I have done this in basketball already.


Take any guy from the past and give him todays technology and nutrition and he would be better than he was.....that shit is scary.

Jesse Owens born in 1913.....9.4 second 100 yard dash, 20.3 second 200 yard dash.....he would probably be the fastest man on he planet today with better stuff.

Hampton was an absolute BEAST, he played tackle and DE.....dominant at both positions. Absolutely scary ! Marshall, Wilson, Dent, etc...the team was stacked with talent.

 

[The Hawk]

....Face into palm...Doug Plank wasn't on any Bears team relevant to this conversation.

Good job.

Good effort.

Yeah. You are correct. He had left after 83. My error. Too bad he didn't get to win a ring.

 

[The Hawk]

They lost because of both.

I don't agree with that. With a healthy McMahon, they had a great chance to win in both 84 and 86. THe secondary was solid in both years but you do not win unless you score. They didn't in 84 at all. With McMahon, they best the 49ers. As I remember that game, they couldn't move the ball at all against a 9er team that concentrating all its effort at shutting Walter down. THe defense eventually got worn out and I think gave up some late points. And they were going against the greatest quarterback in NFL history, maybe the best all around player in NFL history, and one of the top three coaches ever in NFL history.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I don't agree with that. With a healthy McMahon, they had a great chance to win in both 84 and 86. THe secondary was solid in both years but you do not win unless you score. They didn't in 84 at all. With McMahon, they best the 49ers. As I remember that game, they couldn't move the ball at all against a 9er team that concentrating all its effort at shutting Walter down. THe defense eventually got worn out and I think gave up some late points. And they were going against the greatest quarterback in NFL history, maybe the best all around player in NFL history, and one of the top three coaches ever in NFL history.

If you're talking about Bears vs Niners in the 84 NFC championship McMahon didn't play, it was Steve Fuller.

 

[Midwaymonster75]

Marino said it himself on 30/30 that they "spread the defense out" and thats what the NFL is all about nowadays. That defense in the 46 would have trouble. That being said you scrap the 46 and let those guys learn Fangios system for an off season and the talent is still there to be special.

 

[hyatt151]

A lot has changed in the NFL since the 1985 Bears won Super Bowl XX. So would a timeless defense hold up against modern NFL offenses?

More...

How would '85 defense fare today?



Probably not to good, half or more would be on suspension.