1991 Redskins or 1985 Bears, who wins?
Posted: Sat Apr 8, 2017 3:37 pm
On neutral field, SuperBowl style, who wins? Discuss.
Sports is our Business
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/
https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=1548913
RavenMad31 wrote:To get an idea, I looked at 1987 when the Redskins also won the Super Bowl with a somewhat similar offense and the Bears were still an elite defense. Both these teams were half assed versions of the '85 and '91 versions, but they did indeed meet in the playoffs in '87. It didn't indicate that one team's style had a distinct advantage over the other, but the Redskins obviously won that matchup by a score of 21-17. A close win was what my gut told me when I first read this question. Both teams were historically great one year wonder teams, even though you could argue that Gibbs was a dynasty in and of himself. So I take the Redskins by a slim margin, probably a last second FG. Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Ditka is what I think makes the difference. This was a great question, btw.
FullForceMDs wrote:RavenMad31 wrote:To get an idea, I looked at 1987 when the Redskins also won the Super Bowl with a somewhat similar offense and the Bears were still an elite defense. Both these teams were half assed versions of the '85 and '91 versions, but they did indeed meet in the playoffs in '87. It didn't indicate that one team's style had a distinct advantage over the other, but the Redskins obviously won that matchup by a score of 21-17. A close win was what my gut told me when I first read this question. Both teams were historically great one year wonder teams, even though you could argue that Gibbs was a dynasty in and of himself. So I take the Redskins by a slim margin, probably a last second FG. Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Ditka is what I think makes the difference. This was a great question, btw.
That was a great & well thought out analysis on your part, even if you don't agree with it, it made a lot of sense to approach it from that perspective.
RavenMad31 wrote:To get an idea, I looked at 1987 when the Redskins also won the Super Bowl with a somewhat similar offense and the Bears were still an elite defense. Both these teams were half assed versions of the '85 and '91 versions, but they did indeed meet in the playoffs in '87. It didn't indicate that one team's style had a distinct advantage over the other, but the Redskins obviously won that matchup by a score of 21-17. A close win was what my gut told me when I first read this question. Both teams were historically great one year wonder teams, even though you could argue that Gibbs was a dynasty in and of himself. So I take the Redskins by a slim margin, probably a last second FG. Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Ditka is what I think makes the difference. This was a great question, btw.
Otis Driftwood wrote:RavenMad31 wrote:To get an idea, I looked at 1987 when the Redskins also won the Super Bowl with a somewhat similar offense and the Bears were still an elite defense. Both these teams were half assed versions of the '85 and '91 versions, but they did indeed meet in the playoffs in '87. It didn't indicate that one team's style had a distinct advantage over the other, but the Redskins obviously won that matchup by a score of 21-17. A close win was what my gut told me when I first read this question. Both teams were historically great one year wonder teams, even though you could argue that Gibbs was a dynasty in and of himself. So I take the Redskins by a slim margin, probably a last second FG. Joe Gibbs vs. Mike Ditka is what I think makes the difference. This was a great question, btw.
The one edge I give to the Bears... and it's a significant one. Walter Payton.