Posts
Comments

The 1985 Bears vs. 2007 Patriots

Jan 24th, 2008 by Bill Burt

I saw the 1986 Super Bowl game on NFL Network last night, the Patriots against the Chicago Bears.
We all know the outcome, 46-10 … and it wasn’t even that close.

Two things struck me:

1. Bears defense was the best ever, or at least the pressure they put on the ball behind the line of scrimmage. It looked like they were cheating. The moment Tony Eason handed off to Craig James, two Bears croaked hime (forcing a fumble).
Anyway, I wonder what they would do against the 2007 Patriots.

2. The Bears offense was awful. Jim McMahon was tough, but he was average. That Beats offense was mauled by the Patriots defense, which we underrate because of the loss. My point is they would have a hard time creating points for itself if the Patriots offense could move the ball.

What would happen if the two teams met?

I really don’t know. The Bears played man-to-man defense on the wideouts, which means if you have time to throw you may be able to beat them. But that was the problem, no time.

That would be a game I would pay big money to watch, sort of a heavyweight match.

The thing the Pats would have going for them is they are a “physical” pass-first team. They can handle the rugged play on the line.

But the Bears pressure was the best I’ve ever seen, to this day.

What do you think? Would the Patriots move the ball against “Da Bears?”

Posted in Patriots | Comments

  • Jim-red sox nation west
    Tony Eason was a lot like Bledsoe in that they really had a tough time reading defenses. They would take a five step drop and try to look around for the open guy but had no time. Brady has to be the smartest QB ever. He can see what the defense is going to do before the snap and plays accordingly. He knows where the ball is going to go unlike Eason. So, to answer your question bill, I think it would be a game of the ages but the pats pull it out 27-24. There you have it.
  • Max Kliman
    I think that it would be one of (if not) the best game ever. I really don't know who would win. Do you think that it would be a better game then the '07 Pats vs. the '72 Dolphins?
  • I would say these Patriots. But I have to say, the Dolphins were a gritty team. The only difference is I believe that was one of the weaker eras of the modern NFL. It started to pick up steam in the mid-70s with the Steelers and Raiders joining the Cowboys.
  • The comparison of Tony Eason to Drew Bledsoe doesn't work because Bledsoe was much tougher, read defenses better, and was a better passer. Tony Eason could never have pulled off wins like the overtime wins over Miami in 1993 and Minnesota in 1994 nor last-minute wins over Miami and Buffalo in 1998 with a broken finger on his throwing hand.

    What jumped out at me watching the reair of that game was that the Bears' D wasn't that good against kick returns (Stefan Starring kept making good returns) and looked shaky against the pass - Grogan was throwing the ball pretty well but no one was catching it. The 2007 Patriots would shred that 46 defense of the Bears.

    Here's a telling stat - the Patriots have won five of the subsequent six meetings with the Bears after Superbowl XX, including a 33-30 comeback win in 2002 after being down 27-6 in the third as well as that back-and-forth shootout in Gillette Stadium's debut of Fieldturf.
  • To add to Bill's point about the quality of the league picking up after the 1972 Dolphins season - there were several rule changes for 1974 to boost scoring, notably changes on kickoffs that, as NFL Films' 1974 season review film put it, suddenly made special teams a legitimate offensive weapon.

    It's also interesting that in that 1974 season a players strike hit during preseason before being settled for the regular season. For the Patriots a lot of new names got in a lot of training camp work as Chuck Fairbanks installed what was then called the Oklahoma defense but which is now known as the 3-4.
  • My pick - 1985 Bears vs. 2007 New England Patriots -

    PATRIOTS - 49
    BEARS - 46
  • My pick - 1985 Bears vs. 2007 New England Patriots -

    PATRIOTS - 24
    BEARS - 20
  • Brian Close
    Now we know: the Patriots could not stand up to a pressure defense. The 2007 Giants have only one starter on the defensive line that could have started for the 85 Bears: Strahan. The Bears linebacking core was superior to the Giants. And offensively the Bears were a better team than the Giants. So 85 Bears over 07 Giants over 07 Pats
  • Da Bears
    Well the Giants just beat the Pats 17-14.
    Seems the best way to beat the Pats is to play tough defense, keep Brady off the field, pressure brady, run the ball and keep time of possession. This is what the 1985 bears did very well. Add Walter Payton, one of the best running backs ever, and Tom can't do much looking from the sidelines.

    History proved again, defense wins the big one.
    18-1 baby.
  • Ryan Hall
    Its pretty obvious the '85 Bears would defeat the Patriots. The Bears were tough and played very fast, destroying offensive lines, and quarterbacks. In addition, don't forget the "sack man" Dent. He'd keep Brady on his back all 60 minutes. Bears 20 Pats 14.
  • Samurai mike
    Ofc the 1985 bears would win just take a look at the giants vs patriots game. The giants beat the pats by good pass rushing and good running the ball. The 1985 bears hade the best pass rush in nfl history "80sacks" in a nlf season, and they hade wa
  • SC Dave
    Oh please. The 1985 Bears defense was orders of magnitude better than the 2007 Giants. Brady would not live through the game.

    Bears 35, Patriots 7
  • Matt
    Assuming they go easy on them, I'm gonna have to go 76-3 Bears, Bob.
blog comments powered by Disqus