It’s Johnson

[playthrough2001]

Raiders, even with Brady trying to fix it, are even more dysfunctional than the bears. And they don't have a QB. Anyone that thinks having Caleb and some of the other talent at skill positions wasn't a factor is absolutely following themselves.

From The Athletic:

“The Bears winning the Johnson derby was a surprise to many around the league — the Raiders and Jaguars were making runs. But in the end, for all the talk of personnel, it came down to one thing: the quarterback. Williams is the reason Johnson is the Bears’ head coach.”

What’s next after Bears’ big get? Plus: Jets want Glenn, Detroit’s options, Colts score top DCWhat’s next after Bears’ big get? Plus: Jets want Glenn, Detroit’s options, Colts score top DC

 

[UChiLAbear]

Raiders, even with Brady trying to fix it, are even more dysfunctional than the bears. And they don't have a QB. Anyone that thinks having Caleb and some of the other talent at skill positions wasn't a factor is absolutely following themselves.

Not sure of your age, but the Raiduhs were great for a long time and now like da Bears are not. The funny thing about both organizations is they both were handed down by their fathers. But then again so were the Chiefs. So I guess it doesn't matter. Never mind I'm just thinking out loud....lol...

 

[ijustposthere]

Not sure of your age, but the Raiduhs were great for a long time and now like da Bears are not. The funny thing about both organizations is they both were handed down by their fathers. But then again so were the Chiefs. So I guess it doesn't matter. Never mind I'm just thinking out loud....lol...

The Raiders have been ass for the last 30 years outside of a couple of gems, just like the Bears.

 

[CalebsJohnson18]

No offense, but da Bears lost 10 in a row this past season...how much regression can be added to that? I would agree that maybe the first quarter of next season they won't look sharp & crisp because the learning of a new system, but hopefully after the first handful of games they start to put things together and look like a Pro team.

I was talking about the Lions

 

[Dstone5553]

What did Ryan ever do as a HC? He coached vs Da Coach 3 times and lost all 3. Ryan couldn't get past the first Rd. of a playoff. Don't get me wrong I was a big Ryan fan...who wasn't? But DC was his limit. Ryan never won a big game as a HC. But I do agree with you that it was a 'gut punch' when Ryan left, but everybody knew he was leaving.

Ummm...context is just a tad important here. Okay?

If Ryan had been promoted to HC, he would remained in charge of THAT defense. He would have picked someone to handle the offense.

Do I need to say more? Are you understanding?

Ryan in charge of THAT defense means a pretty good chance at more Super Bowls. Ryan and THAT defense was one of the greatest marriages in NFL history.

Keeping that marriage intact would have been biblical. Get it?


Now of course this is a 'magical' scenario because Ditka pretty much owned this city in 1985. He walked on water here. So he wasn't going anywhere.

But Ryan's tenure as head coach is wholly irrelevant. Either you weren't around back then or you are just missing the point. You're forgiven either way.

 

[UChiLAbear]

Ummm...context is just a tad important here. Okay?

If Ryan had been promoted to HC, he would remained in charge of THAT defense. He would have picked someone to handle the offense.

Do I need to say more? Are you understanding?

Ryan in charge of THAT defense means a pretty good chance at more Super Bowls. Ryan and THAT defense was one of the greatest marriages in NFL history.

Keeping that marriage intact would have been biblical. Get it?


Now of course this is a 'magical' scenario because Ditka pretty much owned this city in 1985. He walked on water here. So he wasn't going anywhere.

But Ryan's tenure as head coach is wholly irrelevant. Either you weren't around back then or you are just missing the point. You're forgiven either way.

Do I get it?....lol.....You're right I don't get a 'what if' that never happened. But what did happen was Ryan never took a team deep into a playoff as a HC. That's all I'm saying. But that D was spectacular. FYI I watched the '63 Title game vs the Giants. Yes, I'm that old. Take care.

 

[Dstone5553]

Do I get it?....lol.....You're right I don't get a 'what if' that never happened. But what did happen was Ryan never took a team deep into a playoff as a HC. That's all I'm saying. But that D was spectacular. FYI I watched the '63 Title game vs the Giants. Yes, I'm that old. Take care.

A 'what if that never happened' is why it's a 'magical scenario'.

Me thinks you need to be a bit more flexible in your thinking. It's more fun that way.

But what did happen was Ryan never took a team deep into a playoff as a HC. That's all I'm saying.

And that's irrelevant to my point is what I'm saying.


'63 huh? That means you saw Gale Sayers play at Wrigley! Or at least I hope you did.

 

[greg23]

Ummm...context is just a tad important here. Okay?

If Ryan had been promoted to HC, he would remained in charge of THAT defense. He would have picked someone to handle the offense.

Do I need to say more? Are you understanding?

Ryan in charge of THAT defense means a pretty good chance at more Super Bowls. Ryan and THAT defense was one of the greatest marriages in NFL history.

Keeping that marriage intact would have been biblical. Get it?


Now of course this is a 'magical' scenario because Ditka pretty much owned this city in 1985. He walked on water here. So he wasn't going anywhere.

But Ryan's tenure as head coach is wholly irrelevant. Either you weren't around back then or you are just missing the point. You're forgiven either way.

Cool story

But the 86 defense: without Ryan; had slightly better numbers than the 85 defense

 

[Dstone5553]

Cool story

But the 86 defense: without Ryan; had slightly better numbers than the 85 defense

Oh, slightly better numbers huh?

I KNEW there'd be someone planting that flag.

It's a great example of how some stats can lie because everyone and their dog (including all of the players on that defense) knew/ knows that defense with Ryan was better than that defense with Tobin...a lot better.

Good to know you are a Vince Tobin guy though.

I bet you liked Leno over Letterman too, right?

 

[greg23]

Oh, slightly better numbers huh?

I KNEW there'd be someone planting that flag.

It's a great example of how some stats can lie because everyone and their dog (including all of the players on that defense) knew/ knows that defense with Ryan was better than that defense with Tobin...a lot better.

Good to know you are a Vince Tobin guy though.

I bet you liked Leno over Letterman too, right?

Fewer yards, points, ypp, etc

Yeah....stats lie

I'm sure buddy would have won the super bowl with the midget, fuller or tomczak

 

[TL1961]

Cool story

But the 86 defense: without Ryan; had slightly better numbers than the 85 defense

But was not as good. Nobody thought '86 was better. For one thing, the '85 D scored a bunch. '86 didn't match that.

 

[TL1961]

Oh, slightly better numbers huh?

I KNEW there'd be someone planting that flag.

It's a great example of how some stats can lie because everyone and their dog (including all of the players on that defense) knew/ knows that defense with Ryan was better than that defense with Tobin...a lot better.

Good to know you are a Vince Tobin guy though.

I bet you liked Leno over Letterman too, right?

The only thing sillier than arguing a 40 year old hypothetical is imagining the Bears would ditch a super bowl wining HC for teh DC they passed over three years earlier.

Halas was smart to keep Ryan, and smart to know Ryan was not HC material.

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

Cool story

But the 86 defense: without Ryan; had slightly better numbers than the 85 defense

I'd be interested to see what the more advanced stats say. Things like 3rd down conversions and passing situations etc.

I know it can sometimes be deceiving but the eye tests showed a world of difference. In '85 everybody including the opposing players felt like that defense was made up of terrorists in shoulder pads. Half the battle was won before the game even started. In '86 it was not the same.

 

[TheEarlofRobin]

Oh, slightly better numbers huh?

I KNEW there'd be someone planting that flag.

It's a great example of how some stats can lie because everyone and their dog (including all of the players on that defense) knew/ knows that defense with Ryan was better than that defense with Tobin...a lot better.

Good to know you are a Vince Tobin guy though.

I bet you liked Leno over Letterman too, right?

One of the best defenses I've ever seen was the 1991 Eagles....the year after they fired Ryan. He was a very good DC, not much of a HC, and they could have brought Ryan back in 1986 as Bears DC and not won another Super Bowl. Gibbs and Walsh were two of the greatest HCs of all time and they could always beat the Bears. Ryan included.

 

[--CyBear--]

That's why the RR should be gone....organizations are going to hire whom they what and no rule will change that. There are ways around these things.....And the sin is it wastes people's time. That's a no-no in my book.

While I tend to agree that it's probably no longer needed the time wasting part if negligible. Guys can always say no or just do a favor. Favors are not a waste of time. For instance, Eddie George could get his foot in the NFL door as a RB coach and make the same salary as his college HC job. Was the interview bogus. Absolutely and they all knew it but it doesn't mean it was useless to either party.

The Bear had their guy and were simply filling a requirement but that would have been the same situation with whomever they brought in or when. In that context, we no longer need the Rooney rule but the people who should determine that are the minorities getting these interviews... whether they feel their time is wasted or has some value.

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

Gibbs and Walsh were two of the greatest HCs of all time and they could always beat the Bears. Ryan included.

You mean like in 1985?

Chicago 45 Washington 10
Chicago 26 San Francisco 10

 

[TheEarlofRobin]

You mean like in 1985?

Chicago 45 Washington 10
Chicago 26 San Francisco 10

Redskins didn't make the playoffs in 85, Niners were a wild card. Not really teams at the height of their powers. I agree, 85 was the Bears year. 84, 86, 87, 88 were not. Cool.

 

[bamainatlanta]

One of the best defenses I've ever seen was the 1991 Eagles....the year after they fired Ryan. He was a very good DC, not much of a HC, and they could have brought Ryan back in 1986 as Bears DC and not won another Super Bowl. Gibbs and Walsh were two of the greatest HCs of all time and they could always beat the Bears. Ryan included.

Did they have Jerome Brown at DT on that team or did he die prior to the season?

 

[--CyBear--]

I'd be interested to see what the more advanced stats say. Things like 3rd down conversions and passing situations etc.

I know it can sometimes be deceiving but the eye tests showed a world of difference. In '85 everybody including the opposing players felt like that defense was made up of terrorists in shoulder pads. Half the battle was won before the game even started. In '86 it was not the same.

64 vs 62 sacks
3rd down 32.5 vs 29.7

Both #1, both years

86 Bears allowed a lot more 1st downs but that means the 85 bears gave up a lot more big plays. 86 Bears had a much crappier offense with an injured and then out McMahon almost all year. Made for more possessions on the other side.

 

[--CyBear--]

Redskins didn't make the playoffs in 85, Niners were a wild card. Not really teams at the height of their powers. I agree, 85 was the Bears year. 84, 86, 87, 88 were not. Cool.

Niners were coming off a SB win. Redskins won 10 to 14 games every year between 83 and 87 and won the SB in 82 and 87. They only didn't make the playoffs with those 10 wins that year because we already beat them. Both scored more points than any of the NFC teams we faced in the playoffs and as many as our SB opponents did.