Historical debate: would Miami have beaten CHI in the 1985 Super Bowl? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Historical debate: would Miami have beaten CHI in the 1985 Super Bowl?

The Bopkin

The Bopkin

Seasoned Veteran
Club Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
4,323
Reaction score
10,813
Location
Pennsylvania
So, after reading the thread on Biggest Disappointments, it really brought back a lot of memories, one of them being the loss vs New England in the 1985 AFC Championship. There is some debate to whether or not, had we beaten New England, we would have gone on to handle the Bears in the Super Bowl that year.

There is a lot of opinion that, since we beat them the first time, we would have won the second time in the Super Bowl. The argument being that we were a bad matchup for them/CHICAGO.
Since FA has slowed, I thought a little debate on this topic might be interesting, for those who were around then. Obviously, there is no right answer.
My feeling is this:
Chicago would have beaten Miami, and they would have won handily. Why?
-Miami won in the Orange Bowl on Monday Night propelled by a lot of emotion. Chicago couldn't match it. That same emotion wouldn't be there for a neutral site rematch.
-Miami, even though they won the Mon night game, couldn't stop Walter Payton.
-My feeling is that, in a Super Bowl re-match, Chicago would have adjusted to stop our attack, while Shula would have figured, we beat them a certain way, we'll go at them again the same way. I think that would have played into Chicago's hands.
-That Chicago defense was historically good and had a rough night in Miami. Miami had a lot of injuries that year, and zero running game, and the defense was a shell of that excellent 1983 Miami defense.

This isn't me trying to be negative. I honestly think, objectively, that 1985 Bears team was incredible, and would have dominated Miami in a Super Bowl. They would have had the emotional edge (payback for ruining their undefeated bid), the running game, and the defense.

What do you all think?
-Bopkin
 
The question I have is how would Chicago have adjusted? In the Monday night game, Miami exposed the Bears one weakness. Their secondary wasn't very good. Marino's quick decision making and release negated the Chicago pass rush and Miami put up 30 by the half.

The Bears were designed to beat the run oriented teams of that decade, but Miami was really an outlier. This would have been a different matchup from 1984 when San Francisco had a talented and deep secondary.

I don't think Chicago would have gone six and seven DBs like the 49ers did. Who do you take out to put in lesser talent in the secondary?

So, I definitely think Miami puts up points. However, the Dolphins defense was average at best and I do think Walter Peyton would have had a big game.

In the end, Chicago was the better team. Could Miami have matched the energy on Monday night? How big of a difference would McMahon make? I think he played part of that game.

I'm going on a limb, though, and saying Miami 24-20. The game is about matchups and the Dolphins matched up well against Chicago.
 
SF Dolphin Fan said:
The question I have is how would Chicago have adjusted? In the Monday night game, Miami exposed the Bears one weakness. Their secondary wasn't very good. Marino's quick decision making and release negated the Chicago pass rush and Miami put up 30 by the half.

The Bears were designed to beat the run oriented teams of that decade, but Miami was really an outlier. This would have been a different matchup from 1984 when San Francisco had a talented and deep secondary.

I don't think Chicago would have gone six and seven DBs like the 49ers did. Who do you take out to put in lesser talent in the secondary?

So, I definitely think Miami puts up points. However, the Dolphins defense was average at best and I do think Walter Peyton would have had a big game.

In the end, Chicago was the better team. Could Miami have matched the energy on Monday night? How big of a difference would McMahon make? I think he played part of that game.

I'm going on a limb, though, and saying Miami 24-20. The game is about matchups and the Dolphins matched up well against Chicago.
Click to expand...
I do think Chicago would have played more DBs. They didn't have to worry about a run game. Tony Nathan led the team with 667 yards that season. They could have pulled a LB and a DT and gone with extra DBs, they probably could have stopped a run game counter to that easily enough.
But you make good points about Marino's decision making and release. I would love to be able to see that matchup.
 
I didn't exist in 1985, but the Dolphins were a stylistic match up problem for the Bears. Chicago liked the 46 formation which was designed to get pressure, but Marino specialized in getting the ball out fast. The game was also played in a Dome which may have been in the Dolphins favor. I think the Bears would have won the rematch, the team was too reliant on Marino putting up points and the Bears defense was humming during the playoffs. I also think Chicago would have leaned on Payton to keep Marino off the field and i personally think Shula and the defense would not have had an answer.
 
I was at the AFC championship game that year. We drove down from NJ.

I would say that would have been beaten just about as bad as they were by SF a few years before.

Me personally. I would rather lose the AFC championship game than the Super Bowl.
 
Mach2 said:
Doubtful. They were missing some guys, including McMahon for that regular season match.

I also think it was their "destiny" to win the Championship that year.
Click to expand...
Could’ve been Dan’s destiny. I think Miami clearly was the second best team. Some teams just match up well with others. Dan and his quick release with quick receivers and a great oline. Also, we had the coaching edge for sure. Shula could beat the 46 and that redneck, Buddy Ryan.
 
I think it would have been a closer game but I believe Miami had an advantage. That Bear defense may have been the best but they weren’t the best at every position. Their secondary was relatively weak while Miami was strong at WR. What made them tough was their front 7 and blitz packages. Marino made that a non-factor. You negate that great D and you’re left with a middling offense. I don’t see it as a slam dunk or anything but I do believe Miami would have had the advantage in that game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom