1984 49ers vs 1985 Bears

[Jakuvious]

On 5/18/2018 at 9:38 AM, Shanedorf said:

In 1984, the 49ers beat the crap out of the Bears 23-0 in the NFC Championship game on January 6th 1985

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198501060sfo.htm

Then in the regular season in 1985, the Bears prevailed over the 49ers 26-10

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198501060sfo.htm

Biggest difference was shutting down the 49ers running game. Bears D gave up 160 yards rushing in NFCCG, but only 67 in the regular season

I'd argue the bigger deal was San Fran abandoning the run game. Those 67 yards came on just 10 carries by their RBs. While Montana had 29 attempts for 160 yards, two "rushes" for 0 yards, and was sacked 7 times. Penalties didn't help them either. But they were successful enough when running, they just chose to pass instead and failed terribly while doing so.

[Scout]

49

[TecmoSuperJoe]

On 5/19/2018 at 5:50 AM, Superman(DH23) said:

Sigh...obviously comparing teams across eras is difficult bc of the technology advances, so when we discussing such things we have to immediately throw that out.  TO THIS DAY the 85 Bears are the gold standard of defense.  Why?  Besides going 15-1 and all the regular season records they set.   They then pitched 2 playoff shutouts before putting the worst beatdown in the history of the SuperBowl on the Patriots.  Keep in mind that the Superbowl was never remotely close to a competitive game until the Rams beat the Titans in 1999.  The SuperBowl had always been lopsided but un 1985 it was the most tilted the game has ever been.  Again a record that still stands today.  That is why the 85 Bears have largely been cannonized they way they have.  

That's not true. There were quite a few Super Bowls that were close games way before. Some that quickly come to mind are Super Bowl 10, 13, 16, 23, 25, and 32.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

13 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

Its all true, go back and look at the SuperBowl scores before 99.  Save for few exceptions they were blowouts.  The 1985 Bears have the distinction of being the largest blow out in the history of a game full of blowouts.  Im not sure what you meant by saying anything i said was wrong.

Also not true. Just a few years later the 49ers beat the Broncos 55-10, a larger margin of victory if you're going by score. 

The 1985 Bears are an all-time great team, but I think you're romanticizing their legacy just a tad more than it should be appreciated. To the point that you're using revisionist history to try and cement your opinion. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

9 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

2.. The 89 49ers weren't that great. Yeah, they wasted Denver in the SB, but that Bronco team had no offense outside of Elway and Bobby Humphrey, and the 49ers dissected their defense because they played cover high most of the game like practically everyone else did agaisnt them.

This is the same defense that gave up the fewest points in the NFL that year right? They ranked 4th in defensive DVOA that year, and 13th in offensive DVOA. They were 4th overall in team DVOA, and smoked the number 2 team that year in the same metric, Cleveland, 37-21 in the AFC Championship. Their five losses on regular season were all close. The only knockout they suffered was against the 49ers. Denver was a good team that year that just got smoked by a superior team. It's really that simple. 

[7DnBrnc53]

9 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

This is the same defense that gave up the fewest points in the NFL that year right? They ranked 4th in defensive DVOA that year, and 13th in offensive DVOA. They were 4th overall in team DVOA, and smoked the number 2 team that year in the same metric, Cleveland, 37-21 in the AFC Championship. Their five losses on regular season were all close. The only knockout they suffered was against the 49ers. Denver was a good team that year that just got smoked by a superior team. It's really that simple. 

I'm not saying that the defense was bad. I'm just criticizing the strategy. They played cover high against SF. That was a no-no back then, but most people did it anyway (for example, on Jerry Rice's first TD, Karl Mecklenburg was the closest player to him when he started his route).

[Heinz D.]

19 minutes ago, PapaShogun said:

That's not true. There were quite a few Super Bowls that were close games way before. Some that quickly come to mind are Super Bowl 10, 13, 16, 23, 25, and 32.

And 3, 5, 7, 9...

 

3 minutes ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

I'm not saying that the defense was bad. I'm just criticizing the strategy. They played cover high against SF. That was a no-no back then, but most people did it anyway (for example, on Jerry Rice's first TD, Karl Mecklenburg was the closest player to him when he started his route).

So, that all means that 49ers team wasn't great? The stats PapaShogun shared earlier are almost certainly a result of Denver being in the AFC, which was suffering an historic division wide downturn those days. And, as he said, they were a good team, that got defeated by a superior one. I honestly can't see how you can categorize a 45 point beatdown as a simple flaw in strategy...

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

I'm not saying that the defense was bad. I'm just criticizing the strategy. They played cover high against SF. That was a no-no back then, but most people did it anyway (for example, on Jerry Rice's first TD, Karl Mecklenburg was the closest player to him when he started his route).

I doubt Wade Phillips the next day after the loss looked at the film and thought "Ahh, well there was our problem. If we had simply changed his coverage tactic we would have solved everything, and been in the contest." 

Like turning on a switch that said "broken" to "fixed". 

Denver simply got outplayed in all facets. The 49ers didn't notice one key weakpoint that no one else did that season which resulted in a 45 point swing. 

[Heinz D.]

@PapaShogun, just curious...sounds like you're knowledgeable about some back in the day 49ers stuff. 

Do you think the '88 Bears would have beaten the 49ers in the playoffs, had Ditka not been bone-headed, starting McMahon as he did?

That first game (that regular season) between the two teams remains one of the most epic I've seen...

[TecmoSuperJoe]

45 minutes ago, Heinz D. said:

@PapaShogun, just curious...sounds like you're knowledgeable about some back in the day 49ers stuff. 

Do you think the '88 Bears would have beaten the 49ers in the playoffs, had Ditka not been bone-headed, starting McMahon as he did?

That first game (that regular season) between the two teams remains one of the most epic I've seen...

Hard to say. The 49ers after the Redskins game later in the season were on a roll, and seemed like they were a completely different team. Especially since Joe was out of his funk and healthy. 

[7DnBrnc53]

4 hours ago, Heinz D. said:

So, that all means that 49ers team wasn't great? The stats PapaShogun shared earlier are almost certainly a result of Denver being in the AFC, which was suffering an historic division wide downturn those days. And, as he said, they were a good team, that got defeated by a superior one. I honestly can't see how you can categorize a 45 point beatdown as a simple flaw in strategy...

It wasn't just a simple flaw in strategy. It was a mistake, though. You needed to mix some man in against the 49ers, and play them inside.

However, the defense wasn't the only problem. Elway's supporting cast was exposed in that game.

[JAF-N72EX]

11 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

I'd argue the bigger deal was San Fran abandoning the run game. Those 67 yards came on just 10 carries by their RBs. While Montana had 29 attempts for 160 yards, two "rushes" for 0 yards, and was sacked 7 times. Penalties didn't help them either. But they were successful enough when running, they just chose to pass instead and failed terribly while doing so.

Context matters here. Alot of factors goes into why it may seem like he gave up on the run game while looking at a box score.

One, simply just being circumstantial where they were forced into passing situations. For instance, in first 3 drives; Montana fumbled a snap and the defense recovered. Wilbur knocked the ball out of TE Francis' hand after the catch on the second drive on the very first play of the drive. Then RB Tyler butt fumbles at the LOS(yes, Sanchez was not the first), defense recovers.

Secondly, heading into the second half, Montana was 11 of 15 in passing. 

Third, (and albeit minor), while the Bears defense pressured Montana on nearly every drop back(no joke), they had 6 real sacks, not 7. One of the 7 came on a pass play where Montana was forced out of the pocket and decided to run but was tackled out of bounds a half yard before the LOS.

Fourth, Walsh's game plan was good enough to win that game. It was a mix of lack of execution by the offense and good defense that caused them to lose. There were two plays in this game where they had wide open fields and failed for separate reasons. One on a dropped pass by TE Frank in the beginning of the 3rd quarter (which was a mix Montana throwing off of his back foot from pressure before he could set his feet on a 5-step drop) and on a pass play only a few plays later on the same drive when Craig couldn't catch up to the pass because of a hamstring injury he suffered in the first half.

Fifth, and most importantly, Bill Walsh didn't abandon the run as the box score may suggests he did. He was just using the short-quick passing game to his RB's in of the backfield out of a pro-set formation as a form of a long run game to counter the constant blitz packages from Buddy Ryan's 4-6 defense in hopes of forcing him to back out of it early in the game, which would then let Montana pick apart the secondary like he did in the NFCCG the year before. The trouble with this strategy was.....Ryan wasn't having it this time. He stuck with his game plan and never strayed away from it in the regular season meeting. 

In NFCCG, Walsh used a good dose of the power run concept early in the game and essentially used Ryan's own aggressive defense approach against him by pulling his gaurds and tackles from the backside to help with blocks on the play side. They had enough success on this that by the end of second quarter, instead of linebackers (Singletary and Harris) attacking the gaps immediately off the snap, it caused them to hesitate a bit and eventually led to Ryan giving up on the 4-6 and playing more of the traditional 4-3 defense which gave Montana time in the backfield on passing downs and the Bears offense was not good enough with a backup QB Steve Fuller to play catchup.

That said, @Shanedorf using either the 1984 championship game or the regular season game in 1985 in THIS comparison means nothing unless both teams featured the same players. If anything, it only further supports the Bears team as both games were played AT San Fran and the Bears had 8 different starters in the second game vs the 49ers 4, including the greatest NFL player of all time in Jerry Rice.

 

 

 

[Superman(DH23)]

12 hours ago, PapaShogun said:

That's not true. There were quite a few Super Bowls that were close games way before. Some that quickly come to mind are Super Bowl 10, 13, 16, 23, 25, and 32.

I counted, there are 8 SuperBowls prior to 99 that were within a score.  8 of 34.  Since 99 there has been 12 games within a score.  12 of 19.  Thats why i used 99, bc its the clear delineation point where the game went from an expected blowout to an actual competitive game.

As for the score issue, i forgot about the 55-10 and i could have swore i heard something about the Seahawks possibly getting the record from the Bears i the superbowl a couple years ago, but idk.  Maybe it was total points allowed in the postseason. 

[TecmoSuperJoe]

1 hour ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I counted, there are 8 SuperBowls prior to 99 that were within a score.  8 of 34.  Since 99 there has been 12 games within a score.  12 of 19.  Thats why i used 99, bc its the clear delineation point where the game went from an expected blowout to an actual competitive game.

As for the score issue, i forgot about the 55-10 and i could have swore i heard something about the Seahawks possibly getting the record from the Bears i the superbowl a couple years ago, but idk.  Maybe it was total points allowed in the postseason. 

You're exact words were:

Keep in mind that the Superbowl was never remotely close to a competitive game until the Rams beat the Titans in 1999.

I was simply pointed out that what you said wasn't true at all. There were multiple Super Bowls before and since 34 that weren't blowouts. Also, the point spread for most Super Bowls weren't excessively high. Especially the farther back you go. So there was no expectation that every year someone was going to get blown out. 

A team losing by more than one score doesn't mean they were blown out either. At least not in my book. 

[Jakuvious]

6 hours ago, Superman(DH23) said:

I counted, there are 8 SuperBowls prior to 99 that were within a score.  8 of 34.  Since 99 there has been 12 games within a score.  12 of 19.  Thats why i used 99, bc its the clear delineation point where the game went from an expected blowout to an actual competitive game.

As for the score issue, i forgot about the 55-10 and i could have swore i heard something about the Seahawks possibly getting the record from the Bears i the superbowl a couple years ago, but idk.  Maybe it was total points allowed in the postseason. 

I kind of feel like the difference has basically just been the Patriots. The Patriots are in 8 of those 12 one score games, and none of the 7 that weren't one score. Non-Pats superbowls since '99 have been 4 out of 11 one score games. The fact that the Pats dynasty has no blowout wins is weird, historically. Every other major dynasty had at least one where they kinda just steamrolled somebody.