It’s Johnson

[TL1961]

You mean like in 1985?

Chicago 45 Washington 10
Chicago 26 San Francisco 10

Now do the rest of the decade!

San Fran eliminated the Bears from the playoffs in '84. Washington did it in '86. Both those guys could coach circles around Ditka.

 

[TheEarlofRobin]

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.

The 84 Niners brought in a bunch of veterans for that title run. They were an old team in 85. That's why Roger Craig had 1000/1000 that year....they didn't have anything else on offense. It wasn't a strong Niners team.

The 85 Redskins were OK but then Theismann broke his leg against the Giants. Jay Schroeder was a rookie QB who started the 2nd half of the year. The Redskins allowed more points than they scored. I looked this up, and their expected record based on stats was 7-9....the only reason they were 10-6 was due to Gibbs.

I agree, the teams the Bears faced in 85 postseason weren't great. Simms, Brock, Eason.....not exactly anything frightening.

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

Now do the rest of the decade!

San Fran eliminated the Bears from the playoffs in '84. Washington did it in '86. Both those guys could coach circles around Ditka.

Your shifting the goal posts here, my post was in response to this ...

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

And I didn't even mention 87 when the Bears beat them both in the regular season also.

 

[TheEarlofRobin]

Your shifting the goal posts here, my post was in response to this ...

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

And I didn't even mention 87 when the Bears beat them both in the regular season also.

Do you remember when Ditka and the Bears lost to the Niners like 41-0 and Ditka threw his gum into some lady's hair? What games did the Bears beat them in 1987?

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

Do you remember when Ditka and the Bears lost to the Niners like 41-0 and Ditka threw his gum into some lady's hair? What games did the Bears beat them in 1987?

Correction 1988.

 

[Canth]

How the hell this turn into a discussion about the 1980's? WTF?

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

How the hell this turn into a discussion about the 1980's? WTF?

They had better offensive lines back then.

 

[TheEarlofRobin]

Correction 1988.

And Bears lost by 25 at home to the Niners in the postseason.

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

And Bears lost by 25 at home to the Niners in the postseason.

True, but that has no barring on my point about your point on the previous page of points.

 

[TL1961]

True, but that has no barring on my point about your point on the previous page of points.

OK. We get it. Someone made the mistake of saying "never" and you proved it wasn't "never".

They broke the simple rule: Don't ever say never.

 

[Dstone5553]

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.

He would have been HC material for as long as we had that defense. Who the **** cares about anything as long as he's in charge of that defense, right?

HC material. Give me a break.

 

[Dstone5553]

Fewer yards, points, ypp, etc

Yeah....stats lie

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

Hey Vince Tobin guy, I think there's an argument to be made that Ryan's 85 defense could have won a SB with just about anyone.

That defense had a chance with Fuller, with Tomczak, with Flutie!

 

[TL1961]

He would have been HC material for as long as we had that defense. Who the **** cares about anything as long as he's in charge of that defense, right?

HC material. Give me a break.

This post makes no sense. But don't explain it. I am not interested in the 1985 Bears or the rest of the 80's. Move on already!

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

He would have been HC material for as long as we had that defense. Who the **** cares about anything as long as he's in charge of that defense, right?

HC material. Give me a break.

I think you probably have to accept his argument about Ryan and his Eagles teams as decisive.

After all Belichick/Browns - Saben/Dolphins - Carroll/Jets pretty much tells us all we need to know about them.

 

[--CyBear--]

The 84 Niners brought in a bunch of veterans for that title run. They were an old team in 85. That's why Roger Craig had 1000/1000 that year....they didn't have anything else on offense. It wasn't a strong Niners team.

The 85 Redskins were OK but then Theismann broke his leg against the Giants. Jay Schroeder was a rookie QB who started the 2nd half of the year. The Redskins allowed more points than they scored. I looked this up, and their expected record based on stats was 7-9....the only reason they were 10-6 was due to Gibbs.

I agree, the teams the Bears faced in 85 postseason weren't great. Simms, Brock, Eason.....not exactly anything frightening.

That's the team that made 8 straight playoffs with 3 SBs in that stretch.

 

[Dstone5553]

I think you probably have to accept his argument about Ryan and his Eagles teams as decisive.

After all Belichick/Browns - Saben/Dolphins - Carroll/Jets pretty much tells us all we need to know about them.

Okay.

But my argument is Ryan/ '85 Bears defense.

So....nothing more really needs to be said to my way of thinking.


I think one thing is clear, if they had Ryan as head coach and in charge of that defense, that team would have outperformed what they did in /86, '87 and '88 with Ditka.

If you don't think so then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Dstone5553]

This post makes no sense. But don't explain it. I am not interested in the 1985 Bears or the rest of the 80's. Move on already!

You make no sense not understanding how good that defense was.

They were better than just one SB. They were the best of all time and then they lost their leader.

Had they not lost their leader, they would have had a better chance of going to more Super Bowls.

End of '85 discussion.

 

[cwcwcwcw1]

Okay.

But my argument is Ryan/ '85 Bears defense.

So....nothing more really needs to be said to my way of thinking.


I think one thing is clear, if they had Ryan as head coach and in charge of that defense, that team would have outperformed what they did in /86, '87 and '88 with Ditka.

If you don't think so then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I think you missed the sarcasm in the first sentence of my post.

 

[TL1961]

You make no sense not understanding how good that defense was.

They were better than just one SB. They were the best of all time and then they lost their leader.

Had they not lost their leader, they would have had a better chance of going to more Super Bowls.

End of '85 discussion.

I understand how good the D was.

I didn't understand "keeping him as DC as HC" or whatever that was, which was followed by "HC? Give me a break!" which sounds opposite of everything else you were saying.

The D was great. Buddy was a great DC. They may have won again, but the 86 team lost McMahon, so the HC was not the issue. I am not one who thinks Ditka was a great HC overall. But Buddy sucked at it. He had great D talent in Philly and good offensive talent and couldn't win a playoff game.

But yes, with the talent they had, they should have kept winning. No question. They had a very good OL to go along with that D so any QB should have had a shot to win a title. Any but Flutie, that is.

 

[bamainatlanta]

Buddy Ryan was a flop as a HC like his son was. At least Rex got to the AFCCG twice. Buddy was just never head coach material no matter what team he would have had.