Matchup of the past 30 years

[Soko]

The Patriots would stomp them with post-2004 rules.

The Patriots would win decisively with older rules. 

JMO

[Shanedorf]

The 2007 Pats didn't lose to some all-time defense, they lost the New York Football Giants - who were the # 17 defense and the # 14 offense in 2007

The 1985 Bears were an all time defense and were rated # 1 while the bears offense was ranked #2 that season

The NYGs won with a very talented DL who pummeled Brady....Buddy Ryan's crew would have taken him out in the 1st quarter. Yes, Brady probably would have hit Moss for a deep TD, but he wouldn't have gotten up after the hits. Spread offense and scheme only get you so far: 

" Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"

With 1985 rules, the bears would murdelize em, with 2007 rules it would be a different story. But those 07 Pats fell to an average defense with a great DL and the 85 Bears team was a great defense with an even better DL. Those bears racked up 16 sacks in 3 playoff games and held their opponents to only 41 completions on 99 attempts. They were ferocious. In those 3 playoff games, they had 2 shutouts and one annihilation, yielding a total of 10 points ( 7 were in garbage time) during their SB run. They essentially gave up 1 pt per game in the playoffs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCo_ThcnSSI

[Carmen Cygni]

7 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

The 2007 Pats didn't lose to some all-time defense, they lost the New York Football Giants - who were the # 17 defense and the # 14 offense in 2007

The 1985 Bears were an all time defense and were rated # 1 while the bears offense was ranked #2 that season

The NYGs won with a very talented DL who pummeled Brady....Buddy Ryan's crew would have taken him out in the 1st quarter. Yes, Brady probably would have hit Moss for a deep TD, but he wouldn't have gotten up after the hits. Spread offense and scheme only get you so far: 

" Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the mouth"

With 1985 rules, the bears would murdelize em, with 2007 rules it would be a different story. But those 07 Pats fell to an average defense with a great DL and the 85 Bears team was a great defense with an even better DL. Those bears racked up 16 sacks in 3 playoff games and held their opponents to only 41 completions on 99 attempts. They were ferocious. In those 3 playoff games, they had 2 shutouts and one annihilation, yielding a total of 10 points ( 7 were in garbage time) during their SB run. They essentially gave up 1 pt per game in the playoffs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCo_ThcnSSI

The Patriots were dealing with a lot of injuries by the point the reached the SB, and Brady was one of them. The book War Room by Michael Holley gives good insight into that subject. (Highly recommended reading in general as well)

You say scheme can only get you so far, but the exact weakness of the Ryan's 46 defense are the exact strengths of Belichick's and McDaniel's Earnhardt/Perkins spread offense. Likewise, along with the ability to take advantage of said injuries, it was Spagnola's 4-3 scheme that matched well against NE's spread. So in essence, it was the coaching and schemes that would essentially prevail and ultimately determine the outcomes here and should not be considered just some meddling factor.

[MWil23]

'85 rules or 2007 rules?

People talk about what the Patriots would do to the Bears defense, but they don't talk about how the Bears would probably ram Walter Payton down their throat for an entire game.

[Shanedorf]

1 hour ago, Carmen Cygni said:

....it was Spagnola's 4-3 scheme that matched well against NE's spread. So in essence, it was the coaching and schemes that would essentially prevail and ultimately determine the outcomes here and should not be considered just some meddling factor.

I'm not dismissing the scheme and the role it may have played. I'm just saying it wouldn't have been enough in 1985.

This game would be settled on the field, not on paper . Football is a game of human confrontation and when punched in the mouth repeatedly, things change. Brady hasn't ever been assaulted in the violent manner that the 85 bears front would bring

There was little protection for the QBs in 1985, so while TB could get the ball out quickly in the spread, he'd still get creamed after every throw anyways. Blows to the head, smashing him into the turf, piling on him, "late" hits. It was just a completely different game. And at some point, it would be The Decider, not only of the scheme deployed, but also the outcome of the game imo.

Belichick isn't leaving his QB unprotected in a spread offense for very long, he'd be forced into keeping extra blockers in or lose his Ace to the onslaught. The spread works in part because of the rules changes and the protections they provide for the WRs and the QBs - but none of those protections were part of the NFL game back then. Safeties were head - hunting WRs who came over the middle in that era too

This is another example of the immense difficulty in comparing teams across eras in the NFL

[LaserFocus]

4 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

The Patriots were dealing with a lot of injuries by the point the reached the SB, and Brady was one of them. The book War Room by Michael Holley gives good insight into that subject. (Highly recommended reading in general as well)

You say scheme can only get you so far, but the exact weakness of the Ryan's 46 defense are the exact strengths of Belichick's and McDaniel's Earnhardt/Perkins spread offense. Likewise, along with the ability to take advantage of said injuries, it was Spagnola's 4-3 scheme that matched well against NE's spread. So in essence, it was the coaching and schemes that would essentially prevail and ultimately determine the outcomes here and should not be considered just some meddling factor.

Spagnola's defense and the 46 share the common success of pressure up the middle, and I'll take Dan Hampton over Jason Tuck any day of the week. Playing under 1985 rules, those Patriot receivers won't have the same clean release we see today, and that makes a huge difference in this hypothetical matchup. While the 1978 rules changes helped passing, defenses weren't restricted like today on contact with receivers. You also didn't see the flimsy pass interference penalties, or player safety calls on glancing hits. While the 1985 Bears did not possess great corners, Dave Duerson and Gary Fencik were the type of big hitting safeties we rarely see anymore. New England's attack is all predicated on timing, coaching and scheme can't always overcome the rules, and how the game is played. We've seen those current Patriot receivers struggle when dealing with a strong, physical defense, the AFC TG against Denver comes to mind. Those 1985 Bears were playing at such a high level, and the 2007 Patriots did not have a great offensive line. All it takes is one hit from Richard Dent, Wilbur Marshall, Otis Wilson, or Mike Singletary, and Brady is toast.  Schematically, I could see the Patriots completing passes closer to the line of scrimmage in order to protect Brady, but now you're asking those receivers to gain yardage after the catch against a great tackling defense. 

I also think the 2007 Patriots would have lost against the 1983 Raiders. That team had suffocating corners in Haynes and Hayes, and I could easily see a frustrated Randy Moss getting ejected. The defensive line with Long and Alzado would have pressured Brady enough to disrupt New England's offense.    

 

[Carmen Cygni]

Good counterpoints, gentlemen @Shanedorf, @LaserFocus.

Seems In order to avoid an impasse at this juncture, there must be some stipulations set in relation to what era of NFL rules this matchup would played under to continue.

If I were to assume, I think there would be a general aggreeance that played under '85 rules that the Bears would prevail, and if played under '07 rules then the Patriots would win.

Although, I will say, the manner in which the Dolphins and Marino with his exceptional quick release beat the Bears, I still hold the inkling that the Patriots would win in a similar fashion.

[LaserFocus]

16 hours ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Good counterpoints, gentlemen @Shanedorf, @LaserFocus.

Seems In order to avoid an impasse at this juncture, there must be some stipulations set in relation to what era of NFL rules this matchup would played under to continue.

If I were to assume, I think there would be a general aggreeance that played under '85 rules that the Bears would prevail, and if played under '07 rules then the Patriots would win.

Although, I will say, the manner in which the Dolphins and Marino with his exceptional quick release beat the Bears, I still hold the inkling that the Patriots would win in a similar fashion.

The Miami game was a perfect storm for that Dolphins that night, I remember watching the game live. The '72 team was honored in a pregame ceremony, and their was a playoff-type atmosphere in Miami, as the Dolphins were trying to stop the unbeaten Bears. Dan Marino had one of the fastest releases in NFL history, and the Dolphins had two talented receivers who were adept at beating the increased contact of that era. Everything went right for Miami that night, including a Marino pass which ricocheted off a different player into a Dolphin receiver for a gift TD. The Dolphins took a surprising huge lead into halftime, and the Bears weren't equipped to come back. Looking back, a number of players on that Chicago team admitted they were overconfident, and that loss turned out to be a blessing in disguise.

I do agree the advantage swings back to New England if this game is played under 2007 rules. The 1985 Bears would have been penalized so often, the Patriots would have a ton of free yards.  

[lancerman]

19 hours ago, Shanedorf said:

I'm not dismissing the scheme and the role it may have played. I'm just saying it wouldn't have been enough in 1985.

This game would be settled on the field, not on paper . Football is a game of human confrontation and when punched in the mouth repeatedly, things change. Brady hasn't ever been assaulted in the violent manner that the 85 bears front would bring

There was little protection for the QBs in 1985, so while TB could get the ball out quickly in the spread, he'd still get creamed after every throw anyways. Blows to the head, smashing him into the turf, piling on him, "late" hits. It was just a completely different game. And at some point, it would be The Decider, not only of the scheme deployed, but also the outcome of the game imo.

Belichick isn't leaving his QB unprotected in a spread offense for very long, he'd be forced into keeping extra blockers in or lose his Ace to the onslaught. The spread works in part because of the rules changes and the protections they provide for the WRs and the QBs - but none of those protections were part of the NFL game back then. Safeties were head - hunting WRs who came over the middle in that era too

This is another example of the immense difficulty in comparing teams across eras in the NFL

Okay well here's the thing.... the 1985 Bears were a great team for 1985. On almost every level they would be facing more athletic resistance against a 2007 team with players who are bigger, stronger, faster, better trained and play more advanced schemes than the players they were facing in 1985. Like yes the Patriots lost to the Giants, part of that was luck, part of that was the Giants defense was a much better match up scheme wise while the Bears actually would have been a bad match up for the Bears, and quite frankly the Patriots had a pretty bad game plan where they neglected the short game until they needed points (which they got) at the end. 

Hell the average offensive lineman in the 2000's is about 40lbs heavier than the average offensive lineman in the 1980's. That right there is a going to massive a difference for the Bears. Even if it just means them tiring out faster. And I really have no faith in that particular Bears offense in getting much against Belichick's defense. I think in the end the better athletes, better schemes, more favorable match up win out. 

 

[Hunter2_1]

A lot assumptions here, along with good arguments. I'm seeing a lot of "Brady would stay down". The only time I've seen Brady stay down, after the hundreds of hits he's taken, is when he had his acl popped. Even then, I think he actually got up? It's the most mystifying myth about Brady I hear - that he's a softy. The guy was murdered by Ware and Miller 20 times in AFC CG and he still got up and led the team to within a point. I really, really don't understand that claim that Brady would "stay down". What evidence have you got? @Shanedorf

That said, your points about the defenders being allowed to hit late and Pats having to bring the formation closer to protect him, is a good and valid point. Sort of negates the whole idea of spread, and he'd have to hold on longer for a receiver to get open. It would be a horrible game for us to watch, and I think you're right - Bears win. A modern team would be shell shocked at how physical a defense was allowed to be. (They still weren't allowed to be offside though right? So there is a case that Brady would get it out even quicker than today).

[Shanedorf]

Can't believe yer asking a packer fan to keep pimpin the bears...gimme a freakin break 

Here's an example, fast forward to 1:10 and watch the play

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vuj_NF7gteQ

Note: there aren't any penalty flags, there won't be any fines. This helmet- to- chin shot knocked out the QB...  and the bears delivered this type of violence with great regularity all season long. And it was all completely legal in 1985.

More here and a bit on the various alignments of the 46:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLH2JcCkS1w

 

Maybe the Pats fans here can share their personal memories of the 1985 Super Bowl with us - what did you think of the bears defense that day ?

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/198601260chi.htm

[Soko]

@Shanedorf 

Your entire argument relies on harping the “hard hits were legal” point, which while true, is hardly enough to go off on. 

Your assuming smaller, slower individuals will athletically compete against others. That in and of itself is hard to throw out there. Compounding that fact is the ancestral defense they ran and every high school coach knows about - how is a 4-6 going to work against a more prolific offense than most teams have ever witnessed? Surely not by interfering on passes - both Brady and Moss are no strangers to pre-2004 rules (assuming we’re even using 85’ rules here). You’d then be allowing the Pats’ defense to do whatever they wanted on defense too, which likely would make them even tougher. 

The 85 team would be going against modern schemes that they’ve never even heard of, against players that outmatch them athletically almost across the board.

Not seeing how this is a good matchup - the difference in era is too great. 

[Hunter2_1]

@Shanedorf here's a good one on the 46 (imo). Reckon it's accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3COWuTVrXIA

 

 

[Hunter2_1]

From that video, the standard 46 included

6 down linemen

2 linebackers

3 DBs

If played under 85 rules

- So, either the Pats would have to bring in the TE or add another OL to mitigate the 6 rushers, OR Chicago would have to adjust and take a lineman out for extra DB (or more). Certainly if NE came out with 4 WRs, they HAVE to bring in more DBs. Brady would just receive the ball and ping it an open receiver hot. Remember - he has a better rating when pressured than when he's not

- Run game is out. It's an immediate 8 or 9 man box, and we didn't run the ball that well

- It would be a very fast game. 46 depends on pressure getting there, and playing tough man-to-man. Pats would have to quickly hit receivers to keep Brady alive.

 

......ooo it is a good matchup. hehe.

[Jlowe22]

Why is it when the rules change, all of a sudden the players become "soft"?  Why would Brady get knocked out of the game after the first hit?  Joe Montana was a small guy relatively speaking, and had toothpick legs.  He stayed healthy enough to win four superbowls.