'85 Bears Vs. '11 Packers.... (1 Viewer)

[hugebearsfansinceforever]

2011 Saints are as good as the 2011 Packers.

To be honest I think many of today's top teams would beat an all time great such as the 85 Bears under new rules. That's how far it has gone. Teams then were built completely differently and toughness, physicality and intimidation was rewarded. Now it's a detriment.

This.

 

[hugebearsfansinceforever]

Yesterday, the offensive juggernaut Packers ran into a defensive buzzsaw.

The Packers ran into a 5 - 7 team which probably won't make that playoffs and were led by an interim coach and a QB in his first start after being plucked off waivers.

In 1985, the defensive juggernaut Bears ran into an offensive buzzsaw.

The Bears ran into the 8 - 4 Dolphins (who went to the Super Bowl the year before) who again made it to the AFC Championship game and were led by Hall Of Fame coach Don Shula and HOF QB Dan Marino.Not exactly the same. As a Bears fan I giggled like a schoolgirl when the Packers lost as it does appear to cement the '85 Bears as a better team. Unfortunately it doesn't remove the bitter taste of last year's playoffs. Regardless of which loss is the worst, the only thing that really matters is who hoists the Lombardi trophy this year, and I have yet to see anything that makes me think it won't be Green Bay.

Not exactly the same? The Dolphins were the #4 offensive team in 1985 and, as you already said, were led by HOF Dan Marino. What else do you need to quantify calling that team an offensive juggernaut? They were perenially a top offense for a decade. Geez, gotta love it when people want to gloss over the intent of a post and try to pick nits just to make it look like they are making a statement.

The point is, in case anyone missed it the first time, that over the past few weeks a lot of media has been talking up the Packers as an all-time dominant team in this short run. Now, with one loss, they are very similar to where the Bears where in 1985 and it is an interesting comparison because one is such an offensive team while the other is a defensive team.

I think what is more surprising is that the two people that have wanted to pick the nits on this topic is a guy whose nametag is bears fan and the other has a SB XX logo. Can't you guys just appreciate the spirit of the quesiton and compare YOUR '85 Bears (you know, the team that every Bears fan hangs his hat on) versus their arch-rival Green Bay Packers?

Am I the only one missing that the fun in this is being spoiled by the nerdy auditors? Geez.

No. I'm resolved to stamp out Meatballism one thread at a time.

 

[Tau837]

Bears, and it's not close. IMO the Bears would likely score 30+ on this Packers defense/ST, and the Packers would be unlikely to score 20 on the Bears defense/ST.As others have posted, the Bears had the best defense and a dominant offense, but no one has yet commented on their special teams. The Bears had the highest average per kickoff return (with 2 kickoff return TDs) in the league, they were in the top half in average punt return yardage, they were in the top 5 in kicking, and they were in the top 10 in punting.This year's Packers D/ST is terrible against the run, but they have faced only 326 carries (#28 in the NFL) because their offense has been able to get ahead consistently and force opponents to abandon the run sooner or later. This would not happen against the '85 Bears, and Payton would tear them up... Payton had 2034 yards from scrimmage in 1985 and averaged 4.8 ypc and 9.9 ypr.

How many KO returns would Chi be gutting GB with when the GB kicker, under modern rules, has half his kicks go for touch backs and even more severely deep into the endzone but run out anyway? GB would have little trouble scoring in this game. They would spread out the Bears D with 4 and 5 wide sets and eat them up. Chi wouldn't be able to clobber crossing WRs with their LBs or jam them up at the LOS.I agree that Chi would score but they wouldn't hold up in a track meet. The 85 Bears have unquestionable one of the greatest D's in history but it was built for performance in a total different era and rules.

It wasn't about kickoff return TDs. The point was that the Bears were dominant in all phases of the game. The Packers aren't.If the Packers went 5 wide repeatedly, Ryan would have the Bears hammer Rodgers late several times, and one of those times he probably wouldn't get up. And Flynn wouldn't be beating the Bears./thread

 

[jurb26]

Bears, and it's not close. IMO the Bears would likely score 30+ on this Packers defense/ST, and the Packers would be unlikely to score 20 on the Bears defense/ST.As others have posted, the Bears had the best defense and a dominant offense, but no one has yet commented on their special teams. The Bears had the highest average per kickoff return (with 2 kickoff return TDs) in the league, they were in the top half in average punt return yardage, they were in the top 5 in kicking, and they were in the top 10 in punting.This year's Packers D/ST is terrible against the run, but they have faced only 326 carries (#28 in the NFL) because their offense has been able to get ahead consistently and force opponents to abandon the run sooner or later. This would not happen against the '85 Bears, and Payton would tear them up... Payton had 2034 yards from scrimmage in 1985 and averaged 4.8 ypc and 9.9 ypr.

How many KO returns would Chi be gutting GB with when the GB kicker, under modern rules, has half his kicks go for touch backs and even more severely deep into the endzone but run out anyway? GB would have little trouble scoring in this game. They would spread out the Bears D with 4 and 5 wide sets and eat them up. Chi wouldn't be able to clobber crossing WRs with their LBs or jam them up at the LOS.I agree that Chi would score but they wouldn't hold up in a track meet. The 85 Bears have unquestionable one of the greatest D's in history but it was built for performance in a total different era and rules.

It wasn't about kickoff return TDs. The point was that the Bears were dominant in all phases of the game. The Packers aren't.If the Packers went 5 wide repeatedly, Ryan would have the Bears hammer Rodgers late several times, and one of those times he probably wouldn't get up. And Flynn wouldn't be beating the Bears./thread

Well, if we're taking out the other teams players with foul play then Mathews breaks Payton's ankle in a pile and Chi's offense is in the toilet too./thread

 

[Kleck]

2011 Saints are as good as the 2011 Packers.

To be honest I think many of today's top teams would beat an all time great such as the 85 Bears under new rules. That's how far it has gone. Teams then were built completely differently and toughness, physicality and intimidation was rewarded. Now it's a detriment.

I agree.

 

[geoff8695]

07 Patriots94 49ers92 and 93 CowboysMany Kurt Warner Rams teamsAll better than this Packer team. Packer fans are very arrogant and it fails with ignorance.

Again...another claiming Packer fans are arrogant...and as has been asked several times now...please point out the arrogance.Just a link to this supposed arrogance would be fine.Just not seeing it.

Obviously there are going to be tools within any fan base. However I have to agree with sho nuff. Packer fans get my begrudging respect, perhaps more than ANY other fanbase around... And I'm a Bears fan!So while I may reserve a special brand of hatred for my brethren to the north, based on what I've observed here in the Shark Pool alone, Packer fans aren't even in the same zip code as Patriot fans when it comes to arrogance...

 

[Tau837]

Bears, and it's not close. IMO the Bears would likely score 30+ on this Packers defense/ST, and the Packers would be unlikely to score 20 on the Bears defense/ST.As others have posted, the Bears had the best defense and a dominant offense, but no one has yet commented on their special teams. The Bears had the highest average per kickoff return (with 2 kickoff return TDs) in the league, they were in the top half in average punt return yardage, they were in the top 5 in kicking, and they were in the top 10 in punting.This year's Packers D/ST is terrible against the run, but they have faced only 326 carries (#28 in the NFL) because their offense has been able to get ahead consistently and force opponents to abandon the run sooner or later. This would not happen against the '85 Bears, and Payton would tear them up... Payton had 2034 yards from scrimmage in 1985 and averaged 4.8 ypc and 9.9 ypr.

How many KO returns would Chi be gutting GB with when the GB kicker, under modern rules, has half his kicks go for touch backs and even more severely deep into the endzone but run out anyway? GB would have little trouble scoring in this game. They would spread out the Bears D with 4 and 5 wide sets and eat them up. Chi wouldn't be able to clobber crossing WRs with their LBs or jam them up at the LOS.I agree that Chi would score but they wouldn't hold up in a track meet. The 85 Bears have unquestionable one of the greatest D's in history but it was built for performance in a total different era and rules.

It wasn't about kickoff return TDs. The point was that the Bears were dominant in all phases of the game. The Packers aren't.If the Packers went 5 wide repeatedly, Ryan would have the Bears hammer Rodgers late several times, and one of those times he probably wouldn't get up. And Flynn wouldn't be beating the Bears./thread

Well, if we're taking out the other teams players with foul play then Mathews breaks Payton's ankle in a pile and Chi's offense is in the toilet too./thread

It's not the same. Buddy Ryan was known to put bounties on the other teams' QBs. Green Bay and Matthews are not known for that. Apples and oranges.

 

[geoff8695]

BTW, I loved 1985 as much as the next Bears fan who was old enough to remember them, but I could really do without anymore of these 'hypothetical' threads moving forward.

The freakin' '85 Bears happened over 25 years ago, and unfortunately TODAY Aaron Rodgers wears Green and Gold, and will likely accomplish something that those '85 Bears never did... like winning MULTIPLE Super Bowls!!!

So please stop with the 'what if the 85 Bears played...' threads. It seriously doesn't make me feel any better about the impending Packers dynasty that we're all going to be forced to endure for the foreseeable future.

TIA

 

[tdmills]

BTW, I loved 1985 as much as the next Bears fan who was old enough to remember them, but I could really do without anymore of these 'hypothetical' threads moving forward.The freakin' '85 Bears happened over 25 years ago, and unfortunately TODAY Aaron Rodgers wears Green and Gold, and will likely accomplish something that those '85 Bears never did... like winning MULTIPLE Super Bowls!!!So please stop with the 'what if the 85 Bears played...' threads. It seriously doesn't make me feel any better about the impending Packers dynasty that we're all going to be forced to endure for the foreseeable future.TIA

This certainly didn't help Chicago's odds in 1986(14-2 regular season)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTLlaMY_9PM

 

[Short Corner]

BTW, I loved 1985 as much as the next Bears fan who was old enough to remember them, but I could really do without anymore of these 'hypothetical' threads moving forward.The freakin' '85 Bears happened over 25 years ago, and unfortunately TODAY Aaron Rodgers wears Green and Gold, and will likely accomplish something that those '85 Bears never did... like winning MULTIPLE Super Bowls!!!So please stop with the 'what if the 85 Bears played...' threads. It seriously doesn't make me feel any better about the impending Packers dynasty that we're all going to be forced to endure for the foreseeable future.TIA

This certainly didn't help Chicago's odds in 1986(14-2 regular season)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTLlaMY_9PM

You reap what you sow

 

[Statcruncher]

Yesterday, the offensive juggernaut Packers ran into a defensive buzzsaw.

The Packers ran into a 5 - 7 team which probably won't make that playoffs and were led by an interim coach and a QB in his first start after being plucked off waivers.

In 1985, the defensive juggernaut Bears ran into an offensive buzzsaw.

The Bears ran into the 8 - 4 Dolphins (who went to the Super Bowl the year before) who again made it to the AFC Championship game and were led by Hall Of Fame coach Don Shula and HOF QB Dan Marino.Not exactly the same. As a Bears fan I giggled like a schoolgirl when the Packers lost as it does appear to cement the '85 Bears as a better team. Unfortunately it doesn't remove the bitter taste of last year's playoffs. Regardless of which loss is the worst, the only thing that really matters is who hoists the Lombardi trophy this year, and I have yet to see anything that makes me think it won't be Green Bay.

Not exactly the same? The Dolphins were the #4 offensive team in 1985 and, as you already said, were led by HOF Dan Marino. What else do you need to quantify calling that team an offensive juggernaut? They were perenially a top offense for a decade. Geez, gotta love it when people want to gloss over the intent of a post and try to pick nits just to make it look like they are making a statement.

The point is, in case anyone missed it the first time, that over the past few weeks a lot of media has been talking up the Packers as an all-time dominant team in this short run. Now, with one loss, they are very similar to where the Bears where in 1985 and it is an interesting comparison because one is such an offensive team while the other is a defensive team.

I think what is more surprising is that the two people that have wanted to pick the nits on this topic is a guy whose nametag is bears fan and the other has a SB XX logo. Can't you guys just appreciate the spirit of the quesiton and compare YOUR '85 Bears (you know, the team that every Bears fan hangs his hat on) versus their arch-rival Green Bay Packers?

Am I the only one missing that the fun in this is being spoiled by the nerdy auditors? Geez.

Relax, I think you misunderstood my post. Not exactly the same meant the quality of the teams they lost to. Green Bay lost to a weak team, Chicago lost to a very strong team. It's a message board, nothing to get worked up about.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Everybody figured out how to beat the '46' defense by 1987.

I'm assuming the 2011 Packers would know this as well. Pack, big.

 

[ODoyleRules]

I ran a simulation using 1991 rules and settings and Bo Jackson won.

 

[yoman]

Everybody figured out how to beat the '46' defense by 1987.

I'm assuming the 2011 Packers would know this as well. Pack, big.

As someone pointed out the size is a big difference between eras. The Fridge was considered a giant back then but nobody would even bat an eye if he were drafted nowadays. I think the average on the O line was about 275. Imagine if the players on the Bears were bigger, stronger, and faster due to whatever diet, HGH, etc that is making players bigger and faster nowadays as well as more information available to make them smarter. The Bear's football IQ was already through the roof with some of those players and they could have been even better. The talent level on the Bears made it possible for them to run the 46. It would be stupid for other teams to try this D much like Martz trying to employ his offense on other teams without Kurt Warner, Orlando Pace, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, etc. The Bears went away from the 46 when Ryan left. The Eagles deployed it pretty successfully with pretty amazing talent for a number of years but couldn't get over the hump and get to the super bowl. It is stupid to say that everybody figured out how to beat the 46 by 87. Yes the short passing schemes of the west coast offense deployed by Walsh helped slow it down but you don't know how the Bears would have adapted their D to account for this. They may have run less 46. In 1986 they lost to the Redskins with Doug Flutie at QB because McMahon got injured. In 1987 the Bears actually looked like the best team in the NFL before the strike. Ditka lost the team when he called the replacement players the "real Bears" which caused dissension in the locker room. It was all about the talent even though the scheme got most of the credit. After 1987 the talent level was still good but nowhere near as good as 1985.

All this being said I don't think Rodgers would have made it through 2 games against the Bears without suffering a concussion. The 1985 Bears would probably rack up about 250 penalty yards because of all the helmet to helmet hits.

 

[DoubleG]

Everybody figured out how to beat the '46' defense by 1987.

I'm assuming the 2011 Packers would know this as well. Pack, big.

No - not really.First off, people saying "people figured out how to beat the 46 defense" is akin to saying "teams figured out the wildcat, so Tebow can't run the read-option". OCs may have figured ways to lessen the schematic effect of the defense - but not against the personel the Bears had running it in '85.

What everyone seems to forget (even my dear friend Geoff, who is bemoaning them not winning multiple championships), was the injuries/departures that happened after the Superbowl. The one that hurt the most, imho, was the loss of CB Leslie Frazier. He was a very underated lockdown corner. You can't have 5-6 guys coming after the passer without corners that can shut down WRs 1-on-1. Richardson was okay - but Frazier was fantastic. LB Wilbur Marshall also left after that season, not to mention Hamp and McMichael's multiple knee injuries, and other defensive injuries.

All that said, I do agree that comparisons across eras (yes, it's been that long) - is pointless. The players today are bigger, faster and the rules are entirely different. When the Bears went into the playoff in '85, most were already thinking about how they were going to pose with the Lombardi trophy. The '11 Packers can't say the same. The Packers are an excellent football team. The '85 Bears were historically dominant. There's a difference.

Oh - and I agree with sho nuff. Not all Packer fans are arrogant.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Yesterday, the offensive juggernaut Packers ran into a defensive buzzsaw. In 1985, the defensive juggernaut Bears ran into an offensive buzzsaw. So both these teams now have one loss and they do it in very different ways and since there have been a couple of mentions in the media before yesterday about how the Packers may be one of the most "dominant" teams in history, it brings up the question.Both teams dominant in their own right over a short term in very different ways. The unstoppable objects vs. the immovable forces.Who you take in this game with both teams at full strength?

Clarification needed.The '85 Bears, except that all of their players and coaches were born 26 years later and therefore got the benefit of all of the advances in training, technique and strategy since that time, playing in 2011? Tough call.The '85 Bears magically lifted and transported into the year 2011? They'd go 0-16, and their opponents could name the score.

 

[yoman]

The '85 Bears magically lifted and transported into the year 2011? They'd go 0-16, and their opponents could name the score.

I don't know if I would go that far but I think they would struggle. I think the Bears starting center Jay Hilgenberg weighed about 260. Could he hold his own for a while? Would he be closer to 300 if he were born 25 years later? I think almost everybody has conceded the point that teams can't magically get transported from era to era. The game has evolved quite a bit so they would be confused without the luxury of studying their opponent under this silly scenario.