RealGM

On neutral field, SuperBowl style, who wins? Discuss.

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.

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.

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.

Mark Rypien vs. that defense though. I guess that's where I have to trust Gibbs to be the better coach.

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.

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.

I think he had a strong season in 1985, but that was back end of his career Walter Payton. I still say Gibbs vs ditka gets the skins over the top.

Ditka wasn't the best coach on the Bears. Buddy Ryan was. But I guess a team in 1991 would know how to gameplan for a defense from 1985.

In 87 the Bears didn't have Buddy Ryan, and it was Walter Payton's last year.

Who gets Wilber Marshall?

I always hear that the '85 Bears are one of the greatest defenses of all-time, maybe the greatest. They had two shutouts in the playoffs and gave up 10 points total. I haven't heard the '91 Redskins discussed as an all-time team, although they appear to have been pretty dominant. I'd favor the Bears, but who knows.