Historical debate: would Miami have beaten CHI in the 1985 Super Bowl? | Page 2 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

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

Virginia99 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, we couldn't even beat Tony freaking Eason.

I get the "matchup" thing, but not buying that the 85 Phins were the better all around team.

I guess I'm just not a "what if" type of guy. We all know what was the reality.
 
Bopkin02 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If Miami played the way they did in the AFC Championship game against New England they would have easily been blown out.

Lots of if's, obviously. I do like how Miami matched up. Also, really never saw Buddy Ryan make many adjustments. They were what the were on defense. I think they would have expected to get to Marino a few more times.

I think it would likely be a close game. I don't think the Dolphins put up 38, like the Monday nighter. Also, Miami's D would have had to play well.
 
Last edited:
Bopkin02 said:
That's right, I forgot that McMahon didn't play in that MON night game. Good memory.
Click to expand...
Its incredible how low expectations for backup QBs were back in the day. Steve Fuller had a lot of starts for the Bears where he barely completed a pass and still the team revolted when they brought in Doug Flutie to backup a few years later.
 
Imho Coach Shula had Buddy Ryan's number....would we have won? I personally say yes, but it would have been due to Marino's heroics and again the fact that Shula knew how to counter Ryan's 46 really well. (It wasn't just in 85...if I'm right, Shula used to get the better of Buddy most of the time)
 
I don't think Miami wins a rematch. The Bears were pretty amazing that year, except for that one beautiful night in Miami. The odds of being able to do it twice in one season are pretty miniscule. I do think the Dolphins give a better game than the Pats though, obviously.
 
A lot of good commentary here. I think Miami beats them again. As has been pointed out, we were a matchup nightmare for them and their offense played into our hands. What do I mean by that? Well, we weren’t going to be beaten by a run-oriented team who didn’t also have a pass game that could get chunk plays and score quickly. At least, not unless we turned it over a lot.

Payton having a lot of touches means the game would have stayed close even if the bears played better. Just like the ‘82 SB w Riggins only we would have had a lethal offense on the field that the Bears would not have been able to match up to. Their CBs were old and slow. The pass rush not getting home spelled death for them. No reason to believe anything would have changed in that regard. Also, the only reason SF going to 7 DBs worked is they had hybrid LB/DL Keena Turner who sometimes rushed and sometimes dropped into coverage. He was an athletic soecifimen. If the Bears took one of their great DL off of the field to put more DBs in I don’t think it works. As great as Singletary was, he wasn’t the same type of LB as Turner. To make that whole scheme that Walsh used you needed a great, pass rushing LB not a thumper.

Of course, turnovers and self-inflicted wounds could have changed the outcome of this game that never happened - but if we played pretty mistake free we win
 
royalshank said:
A lot of good commentary here. I think Miami beats them again. As has been pointed out, we were a matchup nightmare for them and their offense played into our hands. What do I mean by that? Well, we weren’t going to be beaten by a run-oriented team who didn’t also have a pass game that could get chunk plays and score quickly. At least, not unless we turned it over a lot.

Payton having a lot of touches means the game would have stayed close even if the bears played better. Just like the ‘82 SB w Riggins only we would have had a lethal offense on the field that the Bears would not have been able to match up to. Their CBs were old and slow. The pass rush not getting home spelled death for them. No reason to believe anything would have changed in that regard. Also, the only reason SF going to 7 DBs worked is they had hybrid LB/DL Keena Turner who sometimes rushed and sometimes dropped into coverage. He was an athletic soecifimen. If the Bears took one of their great DL off of the field to put more DBs in I don’t think it works. As great as Singletary was, he wasn’t the same type of LB as Turner. To make that whole scheme that Walsh used you needed a great, pass rushing LB not a thumper.

Of course, turnovers and self-inflicted wounds could have changed the outcome of this game that never happened - but if we played pretty mistake free we win
Click to expand...
I tell you what though bro, even if we would've lost it wouldn't have been as bad as the Pats...the Pats bored and wasted every one's time....we would have made the game one of the greatest SBs of all-time...
 
TheMageGandalf said:
I tell you what though bro, even if we would've lost it wouldn't have been as bad as the Pats...the Pats bored and wasted every one's time....we would have made the game one of the greatest SBs of all-time...
Click to expand...
Yeah it was an atrocious game and everyone knew they had no chance going in. Simply unwatchable really
 
Bopkin02 said:
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
Click to expand...
Marino always had a gun slingers chance, but I wouldn’t have bet against that Bears team!

On the other, they were undefeated except everybody but Marino and the Marks Brothers (and Nat Moore)?
 
SF Dolphin Fan said:
If Miami played the way they did in the AFC Championship game against New England they would have easily been blown out.

Lots of if's, obviously. I do like how Miami matched up. Also, really never saw Rex Ryan make many adjustments. They were what the were on defense. I think they would have expected to get to Marino a few more times.

I think it would likely be a close game. I don't think the Dolphins put up 38, like the Monday nighter. Also, Miami's D would have had to play well.
Click to expand...
Buddy Ryan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom