Best Chicago D of all time? (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

I left out the '84, '88 and '01 versions; three good defenses but none of them could really be considered the best Bears D.

1985 Bears

198 points allowed (1st)

4618 yards allowed (1st)

34 INTs (1st)

20 TDs allowed

2nd in YPA allowed

6th in YPC allowed

6th in Passing Yards allowed

1st in Rushing Yards allowed

3 Pro Bowlers (Dent, Singletary, Duerson)

1986 Bears

187 points allowed (1st)

4633 yards allowed (1st)

31 INTs (2nd)

16 TDs allowed

1st in YPA allowed

2nd in YPC allowed

6th in Passing Yards allowed

2nd in Rushing Yards allowed

4 Pro Bowlers (Dent, Singletary, Marshall, Duerson)

2005 Bears

202 points allowed (1st)

4509 yards allowed (2nd)

24 INTs (3rd)

19 TDs allowed

1st in YPA allowed

9th in YPC allowed

5th in Passing Yards allowed

2nd in Rushing Yards allowed

11 Pro Bowlers (Harris, Briggs, Urlacher, Vasher, Brown)

*Note: The Bears gave up 34 points in week 17, as they had a bye clinched. Going into that week they had allowed 168 points, and it seems likely that if they had cared, they could have broken the record for fewest points in franchise history against a below average offensive team.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

 

[CYUNVme]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

I agree that sacks need to be included...b/c that is the main difference from those defenses and current defenses.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/statitude...fenses/#86bears

That'll give you a better comparison of the two bears defenses.

Good gracious that 86 team had a lot of INTs. QBs would rather throw the ball than get killed apparently.

64 sacks and 54 takeaways for the Super Bowl Bears. WOW!

 

[Chase Stuart]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

I didn't have sack data handy.Let's say the Bears shut out the Vikings the last weekend of the season. Would you still be saying not to EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s? If not, why not? 168 points allowed is a whole lot better than 187, especially when you consider how hard it was on the Bears D with such an awful offense.

You don't think they should even be in the discussion? Sacks are great and all, but points allowed is about a hundred times more important.

 

[primo]

Like it needs to be said: 1985.

 

[Blitzkrieg88]

Like it needs to be said: 1985.

No question.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

I didn't have sack data handy.Let's say the Bears shut out the Vikings the last weekend of the season. Would you still be saying not to EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s? If not, why not? 168 points allowed is a whole lot better than 187, especially when you consider how hard it was on the Bears D with such an awful offense.

You don't think they should even be in the discussion? Sacks are great and all, but points allowed is about a hundred times more important.

Because the Bears defense didn't exactly strike fear in the hearts of anybody last year, that's why. Other than the Carolina game, I can't even recall them out and out dominating anybody with their D-Line. ... and I'm a Bears fan!You can go position by position between the 85 team and last year's team and you'll see what I mean.

LBs

Otis Wilson, Mike Singletary and Wilbur Marshall

vs.

Hunter Hillenmeyer, Brian Urlacher and Lance Briggs

DBs?

Leslie Frazier, Mike Richardson, Gary Fencik and Dave Duerson

vs.

Nate Vasher, Nutty Tillman, Mike Brown and Chris Harris

D-Line?

Richard Dent, Fridge, Mongo McMichael and Dan Hampton

vs.

Ogunleye, Tommie Harris, Ian Scott and Alex Brown

Buddy Ryan

vs.

Ron Rivera

 

[Shufflin'Crew]

Like it needs to be said: 1985.

No question.

1985...by a landslide...even the nicknames are FAR better1985 - Samurai Mike (Singletary), Danimal (Hampton), Mongo (Steve) McMichael, Hitman (Gary Fencik), Refrigerator Perry

2005 - ???Peanut??? Tillman, nobody else even has a catchy nickname.

 

[Chase Stuart]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

I didn't have sack data handy.Let's say the Bears shut out the Vikings the last weekend of the season. Would you still be saying not to EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s? If not, why not? 168 points allowed is a whole lot better than 187, especially when you consider how hard it was on the Bears D with such an awful offense.

You don't think they should even be in the discussion? Sacks are great and all, but points allowed is about a hundred times more important.

Because the Bears defense didn't exactly strike fear in the hearts of anybody last year, that's why.

Striking fear into the hearts of opponents is nice, but winning is even better. The best thing a defense can do to help the team win games is not allow points. Like I wrote earlier, this would have been a lot more interesting if say the Bears shut out Minnesota in week 17. But according to you, that would mean nothing?Allowing 30 less points isn't as good as "striking fear nito the hearts of opponents?"

 

[DrJ]

I've been watching the 85 Bears games this offseason. So far I'm through week 5, and the D really hasn't struck any fear into the hearts of opponents. In week 1, James Wilder ran all over them and the Bucs lead for a good part of the game. Week 2 they were solid, but still only sacked Eason twice. In week 3, they were also losing until Jimmy Mac came into the game and sparked them to a comeback. Week 4 they were down 10-0 to Washington in a playoff rematch, and Gault ran one back for them. Then Theismann has to punt on the next possession....for 1 yard. And from there they just started rolling all the way to a 45-10 win. Week 5 they were again down against Tampa and had to mount a comeback.

The thing that stands out through the first few weeks is just what a magical season it was... The Minnesota comeback, complete with the Payton highlight reel block. Jimmy Mac throwing 3 TD's on I think 5 passes was awesome there. Three successful comebacks in all in the first 5. The Washington game, which started poorly, and all of the sudden turned into a highlight reel. Gault running back a TD, the 1 yard Theismann punt, McMahon catching a TD pass.

 

[The Man With No Name]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

1985 Bears had 64 sacks1986 Bears had 62 sacks

2005 Bears had 41 sacks.

The 1984 Bears had 72 sacks, the NFL season record.

The 1987 Bears had 70 sacks, 3rd most all time.

 

[DrJ]

c'mon man, don't EVEN compare last year's D to the one from the 80s.

WHERE ARE THE SACK NUMBERS?!?!?!?

The 86 team was statistically better, but the 85 team won the Super Bowl and scared the livin' bejesus out of the opposition.

85, then 86, then last year's team.

The '63 Bears wouldn't be too happy that you didn't include their team.

1985 Bears had 64 sacks1986 Bears had 62 sacks

2005 Bears had 41 sacks.

The 1984 Bears had 72 sacks, the NFL season record.

The 1987 Bears had 70 sacks, 3rd most all time.

You also have to consider the defensive systems though. The Bears were running a 46 scheme to some extent during those years, and were throwing EVERYTHING they had at the QB. While Lovie does put a lot of emphasis on turnovers and getting to the QB, they aren't the blitz machine that those 80's Bears teams were.I don't think last year's Bears D is as good as the 85 D, but you have to take some of that into consideration when posting sack numbers.

 

[CYUNVme]

Striking fear into the hearts of opponents is nice, but winning is even better. The best thing a defense can do to help the team win games is not allow points. Like I wrote earlier, this would have been a lot more interesting if say the Bears shut out Minnesota in week 17. But according to you, that would mean nothing?

Allowing 30 less points isn't as good as "striking fear nito the hearts of opponents?"

Chase,You just sold the argument for the '85 D being the best; after all, they are the only one listed that WON IT ALL!

 

[BassNBrew]

Chase...they got to beat up on a lot of bad teams last year with their schedule. i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed. Like it or not, in the NFL teams play to the level of their competition most weeks. If the Bears had been posting 30+ a week on offense, the opponents would have opened up the attack. As it was, both teams were usually playing the field position game.

 

[DrJ]

Striking fear into the hearts of opponents is nice, but winning is even better. The best thing a defense can do to help the team win games is not allow points. Like I wrote earlier, this would have been a lot more interesting if say the Bears shut out Minnesota in week 17. But according to you, that would mean nothing?

Allowing 30 less points isn't as good as "striking fear nito the hearts of opponents?"

Chase,You just sold the argument for the '85 D being the best; after all, they are the only one listed that WON IT ALL!

Perhaps the role that the offense played in it has been underestimated. It was the offense that really let them down in 86, after McMahon got slammed to the turf and knocked out of the season. The D was better statistically that season.In the 85 season, McMahon was a HUGE spark for that team mentally. When he was in there, it was an entirely different team. You can see it when he comes in and leads the team to comeback after comeback, and especially in the Minnesota game. And you can see it on the stat sheet as well, because they were the #2 offense that season.

The never had a healthy McMahon after that 85 season...

 

[Chase Stuart]

Striking fear into the hearts of opponents is nice, but winning is even better. The best thing a defense can do to help the team win games is not allow points. Like I wrote earlier, this would have been a lot more interesting if say the Bears shut out Minnesota in week 17. But according to you, that would mean nothing?

Allowing 30 less points isn't as good as "striking fear nito the hearts of opponents?"

Chase,You just sold the argument for the '85 D being the best; after all, they are the only one listed that WON IT ALL!

I'm not arguing against the '85 Bears D. They're probably the correct answer to this poll.Do you think the '85 Bears win the Super Bowl with the '05 Bears offense?

The '85 Bears D was great, but giving them a huge edge because they won the SB isn't a great idea IMO. For one, they had an excellent offense: 2nd in points scored, top 5 in both yards per pass and yards per rush.

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason ?

 

[Chase Stuart]

i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed.

Do you have any links to support that?If not, how would you go about proving that statistically? A straight correlation won't work, because there's a negative correlation between points scored and points allowed.

 

[BassNBrew]

i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed.

Do you have any links to support that?If not, how would you go about proving that statistically? A straight correlation won't work, because there's a negative correlation between points scored and points allowed.

No links...just many years of watching football. Tampa and Baltimore for example. The great Patriot teams gave up a lot of points, usually in games when they scored a lot, but the clamped down on the Sundays when the offense wasn't click. The prevent defense philosphy comes into play here.

 

[CYUNVme]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

 

[Chase Stuart]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

 

[Chase Stuart]

i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed.

Do you have any links to support that?If not, how would you go about proving that statistically? A straight correlation won't work, because there's a negative correlation between points scored and points allowed.

No links...just many years of watching football. Tampa and Baltimore for example. The great Patriot teams gave up a lot of points, usually in games when they scored a lot, but the clamped down on the Sundays when the offense wasn't click. The prevent defense philosphy comes into play here.

Pittsburgh and Philly for example, go up the other way. If you're offense goes 3 and out a lot, it's makes things a lot harder on the defense. In a lot of ways the old saying is true that the best defense is a good offense.Any thoughts on how to run a study on this?

 

[DrJ]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason        ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

They did beat every NFC Playoff team that season though at some point in the season. They beat 2 of the AFC playoff teams during the regular season in New England and New York, and lost to one in Miami.ETA: In the 5 games against NFC playoff teams, they allowed 20 points total. In the 3 games against AFC teams outside of the Miami game, they allowed 23 points total. Miami put up 38 - 5 less than all 8 other games combined.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

They did beat every NFC Playoff team that season though at some point in the season. They beat 2 of the AFC playoff teams during the regular season in New England and New York, and lost to one in Miami.

That's all true. But the '86 team went 14-2 with an average offense. That's more impressive than going 15-1 with an excellent offense. Another impressive stat about that '86 team: They allowed just 187 points despite the offense throwing 25 interceptions. The '85 team threw 16 INTs.

 

[BassNBrew]

i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed.

Do you have any links to support that?If not, how would you go about proving that statistically? A straight correlation won't work, because there's a negative correlation between points scored and points allowed.

No links...just many years of watching football. Tampa and Baltimore for example. The great Patriot teams gave up a lot of points, usually in games when they scored a lot, but the clamped down on the Sundays when the offense wasn't click. The prevent defense philosphy comes into play here.

Pittsburgh and Philly for example, go up the other way. If you're offense goes 3 and out a lot, it's makes things a lot harder on the defense. In a lot of ways the old saying is true that the best defense is a good offense.Any thoughts on how to run a study on this?

Sep 11 Tennessee Won 34-7 Sep 18 @Houston Won 27-7

Sep 25 New England Lost 20-23

Week 4 BYE

Oct 10 @San Diego Won 24-22

Oct 16 Jacksonville Lost 17-23

Oct 23 @Cincinnati Won 27-13

Oct 31 Baltimore Won 20-19

Nov 6 @Green Bay Won 20-10

Nov 13 Cleveland Won 34-21

Nov 20 @Baltimore Lost 13-16

Nov 28 @Indianapolis Lost 7-26

Dec 4 Cincinnati Lost 31-38

Dec 11 Chicago Won 21-9

Dec 18 @Minnesota Won 18-3

Dec 24 @Cleveland Won 41-0

Jan 1 Detroit Won 35-21

Jan 8 @Cincinnati Won 31-17

Jan 15 @Indianapolis Won 21-18

Jan 22 @Denver Won 34-17

Feb 5 Seattle (Detroit, MI) Won 21-10

Pitt scores 14 or less they gave up 21 (happen twice, both losses; 16 and 26)

pitt scores 15-20 they gave up 13.8

Pitt scores 21-27 they gave up 14.4

Pitt scores 28-35 they gave up 22.8

Pitt scores 35+ they gave up 0 (happened once)

Looks like my theory may hold if you throw out the extremes...not saying that you should though.

 

[DrJ]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason      ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

They did beat every NFC Playoff team that season though at some point in the season. They beat 2 of the AFC playoff teams during the regular season in New England and New York, and lost to one in Miami.

That's all true. But the '86 team went 14-2 with an average offense. That's more impressive than going 15-1 with an excellent offense. Another impressive stat about that '86 team: They allowed just 187 points despite the offense throwing 25 interceptions. The '85 team threw 16 INTs.

They also had 5 teams with winning records on the schedule that season - Cleveland (12-4), Cincinatti (10-6), Minnesota twice (9-7), and LA Rams (10-6). In 85, the Packers were 8-8, the Vikes were 7-9, the Lions were 7-9, and the Bucs were 2-14.

In 86, the Vikes were 9-7, the Lions were 5-11, the Packers were 4-12, and the Bucs were 2-14. The division was noticably weaker.

 

[BassNBrew]

Looking at the 7 Bears victories where they scored between 14 and 27....

14-20 they gave up 8 ppg

21-27 they gave up 18 ppg

Data is all over the map below 14 and above 28 pts.

 

[Chase Stuart]

i also find that a poor offense leads to a good defense in points allowed.

Do you have any links to support that?If not, how would you go about proving that statistically? A straight correlation won't work, because there's a negative correlation between points scored and points allowed.

No links...just many years of watching football. Tampa and Baltimore for example. The great Patriot teams gave up a lot of points, usually in games when they scored a lot, but the clamped down on the Sundays when the offense wasn't click. The prevent defense philosphy comes into play here.

Pittsburgh and Philly for example, go up the other way. If you're offense goes 3 and out a lot, it's makes things a lot harder on the defense. In a lot of ways the old saying is true that the best defense is a good offense.Any thoughts on how to run a study on this?

Sep 11 Tennessee Won 34-7 Sep 18 @Houston Won 27-7

Sep 25 New England Lost 20-23

Week 4 BYE

Oct 10 @San Diego Won 24-22

Oct 16 Jacksonville Lost 17-23

Oct 23 @Cincinnati Won 27-13

Oct 31 Baltimore Won 20-19

Nov 6 @Green Bay Won 20-10

Nov 13 Cleveland Won 34-21

Nov 20 @Baltimore Lost 13-16

Nov 28 @Indianapolis Lost 7-26

Dec 4 Cincinnati Lost 31-38

Dec 11 Chicago Won 21-9

Dec 18 @Minnesota Won 18-3

Dec 24 @Cleveland Won 41-0

Jan 1 Detroit Won 35-21

Jan 8 @Cincinnati Won 31-17

Jan 15 @Indianapolis Won 21-18

Jan 22 @Denver Won 34-17

Feb 5 Seattle (Detroit, MI) Won 21-10

Pitt scores 14 or less they gave up 21 (happen twice, both losses; 16 and 26)

pitt scores 15-20 they gave up 13.8

Pitt scores 21-27 they gave up 14.4

Pitt scores 28-35 they gave up 22.8

Pitt scores 35+ they gave up 0 (happened once)

Looks like my theory may hold if you throw out the extremes...not saying that you should though.

The correlation coefficient for the 85 Bears points scored and points allowed on a weekly basis was 0.03. The CC for the 05 Bears* was -0.35.Obviously we'd want to do this for a sample size much greater than two. But if we care about the individual teams, the 85 Bears defense played the same regardless of their opponents. The 05 Bears* scored more points in games where they defense allowed fewer points.

*I'm still leaving out the week 17 game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

They did beat every NFC Playoff team that season though at some point in the season. They beat 2 of the AFC playoff teams during the regular season in New England and New York, and lost to one in Miami.

That's all true. But the '86 team went 14-2 with an average offense. That's more impressive than going 15-1 with an excellent offense. Another impressive stat about that '86 team: They allowed just 187 points despite the offense throwing 25 interceptions. The '85 team threw 16 INTs.

They also had 5 teams with winning records on the schedule that season - Cleveland (12-4), Cincinatti (10-6), Minnesota twice (9-7), and LA Rams (10-6). In 85, the Packers were 8-8, the Vikes were 7-9, the Lions were 7-9, and the Bucs were 2-14.

In 86, the Vikes were 9-7, the Lions were 5-11, the Packers were 4-12, and the Bucs were 2-14. The division was noticably weaker.

So which team had the tougher SOS?

 

[DrJ]

In the 85 regular season, they had 2 cupcake games against the Bucs, a 4-12 Atlanta team, and a 5-11 Colts team. Outside of those 4 games, no team they played was worse than 7-9...

In 86, they had 5-10-1 Eagles, 4-12 Packers twice, 2-14 Bucs twice, 5-11 Lions twice, 5-11 Oilers, and 6-10 Steelers. That's 9 games against teams WELL below .500.

 

[BassNBrew]

One last team...last year's Redskins.

Skins score 13 or less they gave up 19.8 ppg

Skins score 14-19 they gave up 15 ppg

Skins score 20-27 they gave up 18 ppg

Skins score 28+ they gave up 20 ppg

 

[Chase Stuart]

In the 85 regular season, they had 2 cupcake games against the Bucs, a 4-12 Atlanta team, and a 5-11 Colts team. Outside of those 4 games, no team they played was worse than 7-9...

In 86, they had 5-10-1 Eagles, 4-12 Packers twice, 2-14 Bucs twice, 5-11 Lions twice, 5-11 Oilers, and 6-10 Steelers. That's 9 games against teams WELL below .500.

Good stuff. So it looks like the 86 team had an easier road to reaching 14 wins.

 

[BassNBrew]

The correlation coefficient for the 85 Bears points scored and points allowed on a weekly basis was 0.03. The CC for the 05 Bears* was -0.35.

Obviously we'd want to do this for a sample size much greater than two. But if we care about the individual teams, the 85 Bears defense played the same regardless of their opponents. The 05 Bears* scored more points in games where they defense allowed fewer points.

*I'm still leaving out the week 17 game.

I guess that should be the case with "great" defenses, where really good defenses may be influenced by what the offense is doing. My theory may be all bunk, it's just based on what've I've think I've seen. The math may prove me wrong. Wish I had more time to discuss, but it's late.

 

[DrJ]

For another, look at who the Bears beat. The '85 Rams and the '85 Patriots are two of the weakest teams you'll ever see in those rounds. Dieter Brock and Tony Eason      ?

Yeah, that GIANTS team really sucked, huh?

That was a good Giants team, but they were a year away at that point. A young and improving team for sure, but no match for that Bears powerhouse in Chicago.That doesn't change the incredibly weak opponents in the NFCC and SB games; or that the '85 Bears should automatically be better than any non-SB winning team, just because they got to team up with an incredible offense.

They did beat every NFC Playoff team that season though at some point in the season. They beat 2 of the AFC playoff teams during the regular season in New England and New York, and lost to one in Miami.

That's all true. But the '86 team went 14-2 with an average offense. That's more impressive than going 15-1 with an excellent offense. Another impressive stat about that '86 team: They allowed just 187 points despite the offense throwing 25 interceptions. The '85 team threw 16 INTs.

They also had 5 teams with winning records on the schedule that season - Cleveland (12-4), Cincinatti (10-6), Minnesota twice (9-7), and LA Rams (10-6). In 85, the Packers were 8-8, the Vikes were 7-9, the Lions were 7-9, and the Bucs were 2-14.

In 86, the Vikes were 9-7, the Lions were 5-11, the Packers were 4-12, and the Bucs were 2-14. The division was noticably weaker.

So which team had the tougher SOS?

85 Bears Opponents: 121-135 86 Bears Opponents: 102-152-2

 

[DrJ]

The 85 Bears D seems to have had a tougher offensive opponent on average as well:

85 Bears:

Week 1: Tampa - 24th total yards

Week 2: Patriots - 9th total yards

Week 3: Minnesota - 19th total yards

Week 4: Washington - 11th total yards

Week 5: Tampa - 24th total yards

Week 6: San Fran - 5th total yards

Week 7: Green Bay - 12th total yards

Week 8: Minnesota - 19th total yards

Week 9: Packers - 12th total yards

Week 10: Lions - 28th total yards

Week 11: Dallas - 8th total yards

Week 12: Atlanta - 17th total yards

Week 13: Miami - 7th total yards

Week 14: Indy - 20th total yards

Week 15: Jets - 2nd total yards

Week 16: Lions - 28th total yards

Average Ranking: 15.3

86 Bears:

Week 1: Cleveland - 12th total yards

Week 2: Philly - 20th total yards

Week 3: Green Bay - 19th total yards

Week 4: Bengals - 1st total yards

Week 5: Vikings - 5th total yards

Week 6: Oilers - 16th total yards

Week 7: Vikings - 5th total yards

Week 8: Lions - 25th total yards

Week 9: Rams - 26th total yards

Week 10: Bucs - 27th total yards

Week 11: Falcons - 15th total yards

Week 12: Packers - 19th total yards

Week 13: Steelers - 22nd total yards

Week 14: Bucs - 27th total yards

Week 15: Lions - 25th total yards

Week 16: Cowboys - 4th total yards

Average Ranking: 16.75

In 1985, there were 9645 points scored. So the average team was scoring 21.5 points each game.

In 1986, there were 9193 points scored. So the average team was scoring 20.5 points each game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

The 85 Bears D seems to have had a tougher offensive opponent on average as well:

85 Bears:

Week 1: Tampa - 24th total yards

Week 2: Patriots - 9th total yards

Week 3: Minnesota - 19th total yards

Week 4: Washington - 11th total yards

Week 5: Tampa - 24th total yards

Week 6: San Fran - 5th total yards

Week 7: Green Bay - 12th total yards

Week 8: Minnesota - 19th total yards

Week 9: Packers - 12th total yards

Week 10: Lions - 28th total yards

Week 11: Dallas - 8th total yards

Week 12: Atlanta - 17th total yards

Week 13: Miami - 7th total yards

Week 14: Indy - 20th total yards

Week 15: Jets - 2nd total yards

Week 16: Lions - 28th total yards

Average Ranking: 15.3

86 Bears:

Week 1: Cleveland - 12th total yards

Week 2: Philly - 20th total yards

Week 3: Green Bay - 19th total yards

Week 4: Bengals - 1st total yards

Week 5: Vikings - 5th total yards

Week 6: Oilers - 16th total yards

Week 7: Vikings - 5th total yards

Week 8: Lions - 25th total yards

Week 9: Rams - 26th total yards

Week 10: Bucs - 27th total yards

Week 11: Falcons - 15th total yards

Week 12: Packers - 19th total yards

Week 13: Steelers - 22nd total yards

Week 14: Bucs - 27th total yards

Week 15: Lions - 25th total yards

Week 16: Cowboys - 4th total yards

Average Ranking: 16.75

In 1985, there were 9645 points scored. So the average team was scoring 21.5 points each game.

In 1986, there were 9193 points scored. So the average team was scoring 20.5 points each game.

Very interesting stuff.The '85 Bears D is overrated relative to the '86 D just because the '85 team won the Super Bowl. It's almost as silly as putting Trent Dilfer ahead of Dan Marino, but that doesn't stop people from doing it.

The '86 D was better by most statistical accounts, and had to compensate for a mediocre offense.

Some of the numbers you posted though swing back the other way and make the '85 D look better. In the end they seem pretty even to me.

 

[GRIDIRON ASSASSIN]

I'll end this silly debate right now.

Points giving up by the 85 Bears in their first playoff game against the Giants: ZERO

Points giving up by the 85 Bears in their NFC Championship game against the Rams: ZERO

Points giving up by the 85 Bears in the Super Bowl: Ten (and that's because of a Payton fumble deep in Bears territory)

Rushing yards against the 85 Bears in the Super Bowl: Seven

Lowest average gain against the 85 Bears in the Super Bowl: 0.64 yards

 

[ookook]

I said 1986 before reading the points above and still think that is the best answer.

I thought they were a little more cohesive than the SB year, a little more responsible for the Bears success than had been the case. For one because they had very good record despite a weaker offense.

And statstically the defenses were similar with perhaps a slight edge toward 1986.

I think folks are so wedded to 1985 because of a homerism factor and the identity boost derived from winning it all.

But is admittedly a close call.

 

[MarshallRob]

The 1985 defense had Buddy Ryan coaching them and the 1986 defense didn't. I'd rather have the Ryan-coached one.

If anyone knows, what were the main differences in personnel between the 1985 and 1986 defenses?

 

[The Man With No Name]

The 1985 defense had Buddy Ryan coaching them and the 1986 defense didn't. I'd rather have the Ryan-coached one.

If anyone knows, what were the main differences in personnel between the 1985 and 1986 defenses?

Reggie Phillips('86) at cornerback instead of Leslie Frazier. That's it.

 

[Bob Henry]

That 85 defense scored a BUNCH of TDs, too. They almost scored as much as the offense.

 

[mbuehner]

Last years team was completely revealed by the Panthers, who were a pretty good offense but not exactly Dan Marino in his prime. Plus they got to play everybody in the NFC North twice plus Cleveland, NO, and SF. Thats more than half a season against awful teams. The 85 or 86 Bears might not have given up a 1st down to Cleveland last season and the 05 team gave em 20 points.

 

[MarshallRob]

The 1985 defense had Buddy Ryan coaching them and the 1986 defense didn't.  I'd rather have the Ryan-coached one. 

If anyone knows, what were the main differences in personnel between the 1985 and 1986 defenses?

Reggie Phillips('86) at cornerback instead of Leslie Frazier. That's it.

Thanks. So really it's pretty much a wash between the two teams. If forced to choose though I don't see how you get past the postseason. It's not just that the '85 team won and the '86 team didn't, it's that the '85 team gave up 10 total points in 3 playoff games and the '86 team gave up 27 points at home in one playoff game. Sure turnovers by the offense were ultra-costly, but trailing 14-13 early in the 4th quarter the 1986 Bears D allowed Washington to march 83 yards down the field for the TD that broke the game open. They then gave up two more field goals. I don't believe they forced a single turnover either. It's hard to imagine that '85 defense failing like that. The '85 team beat Washington 45-10.

 

[The Man With No Name]

That 85 defense scored a BUNCH of TDs, too. They almost scored as much as the offense.

what's a BUNCH?The 2004 Bears defense set the franchise record, scoring 6 touchdowns. It just seemed like the '85 team scored a bunch.

whoops, put the wrong year in there.

 

[MLBrandow]

I think what the '05 Bears did in spite of these pass-happy rules is as impressive, if not more impressive, than what the '85-86 Bears did.

Had they played their starters, they'd likely have stayed at 168 allowed and it wouldn't even be a debate. Instead, that 34 point backup shalacking mitigates comparisons for many.

 

[hickbones]

It's '85, easy. For those of us who were old enough to enjoy the 80's teams, there really was a fear and dominance factor. You just knew the D was gonna kill whoever they lined up against. And most of us were truly shocked when they lost the season finale against Miami...and we had to watch those '72 Dolphins break out their cigars again.

Last year's Bears D was very good, but not as intimidating. The most recent comparison would be to the Bucs D when they won it all, but even they didn't have the same mystique.

We can compare stats 'til the cows come home, but if you weren't there, you really don't know. And whoever mentioned that Buddy Ryan's influence was big hit it right on the head. I remember everyone thinking that the '86 team would be great, but would lose some edge, and they did.

I would say both '85 and '86 were the same team except for Buddy, so the edge goes to '85.

 

[Doug Drinen]

We can compare stats 'til the cows come home, but if you weren't there, you really don't know.

1. In before someone else points out that the Dolphins game was their 13th game of the year.2. Here's what I don't like about the line of argument you've taken above: the "you" that was there 21 years ago is not the same "you" as the one that saw the 2005 Bears last year. And that's not a criticism of you. The same goes for all of us.

I was 14 years old in 1985. I was 34 years old in 2005. Do any of us really look at things the same way when we're 14 as we do when we're 34? No matter how objective I try to be, there is simply no way I can compare my impressions from 1985 on equal footing with my impressions from last year. My outlook is greatly affected by the fact that Mike Singletary was 8 inches taller than me whereas Brian Urlacher is the same height as me.

And it doesn't matter that it's 14 vs. 34 or 23 vs. 43 or 40 vs. 60 or 8 vs. 28. The fact is that the passage of twenty years changes our brains a lot. And that's in addition to the stuff that we just plain forget.

 

[hickbones]

We can compare stats 'til the cows come home, but if you weren't there, you really don't know.

1. In before someone else points out that the Dolphins game was their 13th game of the year.2. Here's what I don't like about the line of argument you've taken above: the "you" that was there 21 years ago is not the same "you" as the one that saw the 2005 Bears last year. And that's not a criticism of you. The same goes for all of us.

I was 14 years old in 1985. I was 34 years old in 2005. Do any of us really look at things the same way when we're 14 as we do when we're 34? No matter how objective I try to be, there is simply no way I can compare my impressions from 1985 on equal footing with my impressions from last year. My outlook is greatly affected by the fact that Mike Singletary was 8 inches taller than me whereas Brian Urlacher is the same height as me.

And it doesn't matter that it's 14 vs. 34 or 23 vs. 43 or 40 vs. 60 or 8 vs. 28. The fact is that the passage of twenty years changes our brains a lot. And that's in addition to the stuff that we just plain forget.

I would agree with that...btw, it wasn't the last game of the season? I'll just blame that one on the fact that I look at things differently now!

 

[Doug Drinen]

I would agree with that...btw, it wasn't the last game of the season? I'll just blame that one on the fact that I look at things differently now!

Maybe you were grounded from TV for the last three weeks of the season.