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