Is Ray Lewis the best MLB of all time?

[FirstTimer]

The NFL was in love with the Tampa 2 in 2005.

Just sayin'

The NFL was in love with the Tampa 2 in 2005.

Just sayin'

And?

Not sure how that deligetimizes his DPOY in any way. It's not like Urlacher wasn't already viewed as one of the top LB's in the game before Lovie Smith showed up with the Tampa 2.

The two MLBs who come to mind are Butkus and Singletary.
Personally, I take Lewis over Singletary.
Singletary was great, but so was that entire D.
While others love the unbeaten Dolphins, I say the 85 Bears were the best team ever ... and their D definitely the best ever.
Still can't figure out why their run was so short.
Butkus is hard to say, because I wasn't even a fetus when he played. You can only go by reputation.

My favourite Jack Lambert story.
During the Steelers' glory days, one of the regular OLBs got hurt and a young guy came into the huddle and said to Lambert: "What should I do?"
Lambert replies: "Just stay out of my fucking way!"

Where to even begin.

85 ws pretty much McMahon's only healthy season with the Bears. You could argue that the next 3-4 seasons were derailed by the Bears having no QB. McMahon didn't play in 10 or more games in a season again until 1989 when he was the QB in San Diego.

In 86 they were 14-2 but the starting QB in the playoffs was Doug Flutie. 86 was also the start of the great Mike Tomczak experiment and Steve Fuller saw PT at the QB position as well.

87 was the strike season but same issues again. McMahon and Tomczak were splitting time. Payton as at the end of the line. Neal Anderson wasn't the player he would be yet and the WR's were garbage.

88 Much of the same story. McMahon and Tomczak splitting time, Harbaugh(the best QB on the roster) barely saw the field. Defense was very good, good enough to win a Super Bowl for sure but the offense was incredibly one dimensional and there was again no passing attack.

89 was an injury riddled year for the defense and they fell into the bottom portion of the league in defensive rank. The offense was decent but still no real passing attack.

90 an 91 were last gasp years for a lot of the vets from the Super Bowl team on defense but Neal Anderson(who was basically the teams only offense) was starting to wear down and was out of the NFL after the 1993 season.

From 86-91 you had defenses capable of doing a lot of damage come playoff time. They were never as dominant as that 85 unit but they were always in the Top 10 or Top 5 of the league(excluding 89) and were very good units. The Bears issue was the complete lack of ability to modernize the offense. Neal Anderson was a very good back and I would argue Harbaugh, even when younger, was a very solid QB. The biggest issues were the lack of WR's and a decent air attack. Look at the SB winning teams from 86-91, hell look at some of the better teams in the NFL during that time, look at their WR's etc. All of them had some pretty well respected pass catchers on their roster. The Bears best WR's from 86-91 were guys like Dennis McKinnon(who I really liked as a player), Dennis Gentry, Wendell Davis and Tom Waddle. I guess you could put Gault in there up until 87 but he was a one trick pony. The Bears just never kept pace with the NFL offensively in terms of skill players on the edges and it really hurt them. Come playoff time those very good NFC defenses of the late 80's and early 90's(Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, 49ers) were able to stack up against the run with no real worry of giving up plays on the outside.

You could argue the Bears didn't have a really "modern" offense passing wise until Ron Turner showed up in 1993 and tried to institute the WCO.

The 85 Bears were in a lot of ways a perfect storm.

McMahon(the best QB in two decades) was healthy. Payton was still a force. The offensive line was beyond dominant and Gault and McKinnon were in the passing attack. Plus the defense was so utterly dominating it wasn't even funny. While the defenses over the next 5+ season were generally still VERY good they were never great enough to overcome the Bears offensive shortcomings. Especially when the team was matched up against the likes of the Niners, Skins, Giants, Cowboys, etc.

 

[jeffx]

The Bears issue was the complete lack of ability to modernize the offense.

And who do you blame that on? The front office?

 

[FirstTimer]

And who do you blame that on? The front office?

Yes. Absolutley. And Ditka as well.

 

[FedEx227]

Shit, they've just now caught up to what they were doing in the 70s.

 

[jeffx]

Yes. Absolutley. And Ditka as well.

With a better offense, they definitely win at least two more SBs.

 

[FirstTimer]

With a better offense, they definitely win at least two more SBs.

No doubt...they at least make another appearance or two. And if they get there based upon who made the SB out of the AFC the next 4-5 seasons I'm pretty confident the Bears win a few more.

Having Payton in a way was an incredible blessing...but also ina way a curse for the Bears front office/team. They were SO reliant on guys like Payton and then Anderson and those two did their jobs so well the Bears thought they never had to upgrade certain positions like QB and WR. In a way 1985 gave the Bears a false sense of security on the offensive side of the ball on what it took to win a Super Bowl.

 

[FirstTimer]

Shit, they've just now caught up to what they were doing in the 70s.

To be fair Turner was trying to install the WCO which was a modern one and had some good early success with it from 94-96. He left to take the Illinois job and then came back and the Bears had some pretty good offensive years in '06 and '08. Turner wasn't the best OC ever but between him and them hiring Crowton back in the early 2000's the Bears did try and move into the current era offensively. To be honest since 1996 the Bears offensive talent has sucked for the most part outside of a few freak season in between. IMO most of those teams were so bad at skill position it wouldn't matter who the hell the OC was. For whatever reason over the last 25 years(McCaskey's, bad luck, a string of awful hires in the personnel dept etc.) the Bears ability to find, evaluate, and nurture offensive talent has been almost non existant.

 

[FedEx227]

I think we can all agree that John Shoop was like 45 steps back though.

 

[jeffx]

No doubt...they at least make another appearance or two. And if they get there based upon who made the SB out of the AFC the next 4-5 seasons I'm pretty confident the Bears win a few more.

Having Payton in a way was an incredible blessing...but also ina way a curse for the Bears front office/team. They were SO reliant on guys like Payton and then Anderson and those two did their jobs so well the Bears thought they never had to upgrade certain positions like QB and WR. In a way 1985 gave the Bears a false sense of security on the offensive side of the ball on what it took to win a Super Bowl.

Well, in '86 & '87 they lost in the divisional round to the 'Skins. In '88 the Niners smoked them in the conference championship. A better offense and they definitely get two out of those three.

It always amazed me that the Bears could never get their offense straightened out(to match the defense). You could say the greatest QB in their history is still Sid Luckman. I told you at MM that they should have gone after Donovan when he was a free agent.

 

[Senser81]

85 ws pretty much McMahon's only healthy season with the Bears. You could argue that the next 3-4 seasons were derailed by the Bears having no QB. McMahon didn't play in 10 or more games in a season again until 1989 when he was the QB in San Diego.

In 86 they were 14-2 but the starting QB in the playoffs was Doug Flutie. 86 was also the start of the great Mike Tomczak experiment and Steve Fuller saw PT at the QB position as well.

87 was the strike season but same issues again. McMahon and Tomczak were splitting time. Payton as at the end of the line. Neal Anderson wasn't the player he would be yet and the WR's were garbage.

88 Much of the same story. McMahon and Tomczak splitting time, Harbaugh(the best QB on the roster) barely saw the field. Defense was very good, good enough to win a Super Bowl for sure but the offense was incredibly one dimensional and there was again no passing attack.

89 was an injury riddled year for the defense and they fell into the bottom portion of the league in defensive rank. The offense was decent but still no real passing attack.

90 an 91 were last gasp years for a lot of the vets from the Super Bowl team on defense but Neal Anderson(who was basically the teams only offense) was starting to wear down and was out of the NFL after the 1993 season.

From 86-91 you had defenses capable of doing a lot of damage come playoff time. They were never as dominant as that 85 unit but they were always in the Top 10 or Top 5 of the league(excluding 89) and were very good units. The Bears issue was the complete lack of ability to modernize the offense. Neal Anderson was a very good back and I would argue Harbaugh, even when younger, was a very solid QB. The biggest issues were the lack of WR's and a decent air attack. Look at the SB winning teams from 86-91, hell look at some of the better teams in the NFL during that time, look at their WR's etc. All of them had some pretty well respected pass catchers on their roster. The Bears best WR's from 86-91 were guys like Dennis McKinnon(who I really liked as a player), Dennis Gentry, Wendell Davis and Tom Waddle. I guess you could put Gault in there up until 87 but he was a one trick pony. The Bears just never kept pace with the NFL offensively in terms of skill players on the edges and it really hurt them. Come playoff time those very good NFC defenses of the late 80's and early 90's(Cowboys, Giants, Redskins, 49ers) were able to stack up against the run with no real worry of giving up plays on the outside.

You could argue the Bears didn't have a really "modern" offense passing wise until Ron Turner showed up in 1993 and tried to institute the WCO.

The 85 Bears were in a lot of ways a perfect storm.

McMahon(the best QB in two decaded) was healthy. Payton was still a force. The offensive line was beyond dominant and Gault and McKinnon were in the passing attack. Plus the defense was so utterly dominating it wasn't even funny. While the defenses over the next 5+ season were generally still VERY good they were never great enough to overcome the Bears offensive shortcomings. Especially when the team was matched up against the likes of the Niners, Skins, Giants, Cowboys, etc.

*I think you have to break it down into two phases. Phase 1 is 1984-1988. Phase 2 is 1989-1992.

The Bears were a very strong team in Phase 1. You touched on basically everything, but I think you downplayed and misinterpreted the QB factor. McMahon was clearly the best QB on the roster, not Harbaugh. If the Bears had one flaw, it was the fact that McMahon always got hurt and they had Fuller, T-Suck, and eventually Harbaugh backing him up. In 1984, the Bears beat the defending two-time NFC Champ Redskins on the road with Steve Fuller at QB...thats how strong the Bears were. But lightning could not strike twice, and the next week the Bears were trounced by the 15-1 Niners and Fuller was awful. I think that if McMahon had remained healthy, OR if the Bears had acquired a better backup QB, then the Bears MIGHT have been able to defeat the Skins and Niners a few times and won another couple Super Bowls.

Another factor in Phase 1 is that Ditka was up against two of the best coaches in history, Gibbs and Walsh. It is entirely possible that even with a better offense, Gibbs and Walsh would still have figured out ways to beat the Bears.

Phase 2 the Bears were not the same team, which is the fault of the front office. Willie Gault wasn't the best WR, but he was really good for the Bears and an important deep threat, but the front office got rid of him. The front office got rid of McMahon, too. Even if they couldn't rely on McMahon's health, the transition plan of having a green Jim Harbaugh and Mike T-Suck take over wasn't the best for a Super Bowl-caliber team. The Bears front office also let Wilber Marshall go, which affected the defense, and they were never able to replace OT's Covert and Van Horne once they got old.

 

[FirstTimer]

Well, in '86 & '87 they lost in the divisional round to the 'Skins. In '88 the Niners smoked them in the conference championship. A better offense and they definitely get two out of those three.

It always amazed me that the Bears could never get their offense straightened out(to match the defense). You could say the greatest QB in their history is still Sid Luckman. I told you at MM that they should have gone after Donovan when he was a free agent.

And I agree. No doubt.

Hell, they passed twice in Marino in '83. For Gault and Jimbo Covert

 

[Senser81]

Sorry for the multiple posting.

I guess my point is that if you look at the Niners and Redskins of the 80's and early 90's, they were able to retool their teams when they needed to and they had great coaching. Joe Gibbs won Super Bowls with 3 different QBs. If you look at Bill Walsh's Niners, you see they went 13-3 and won the Super Bowl in 1981, in 1982 they went back to being awful and won only 3 games. They retooled and went 15-1 in 1984 and won the Super Bowl, but then in 1985 and 1986 they fell back to earth, barely making the playoffs then meekly bowing out to the Giants each year. The Niners were back in the Super Bowl in 1988 and 1989, but these teams were again retooled from the 1984 version and featured many new players.

So, in sum, the Bears organization sucked and it was somewhat blind luck that they were so good in 1985. So I agree with First Timer in that it was a perfect storm, but it was also a VERY delicate balance despite the fact that the Bears looked so dominant. IMO, its not a coincidence that the only year the Bears won the Super Bowl was also the only year they didn't have to face Gibbs or Walsh in the postseason.

 

[FirstTimer]

*I think you have to break it down into two phases. Phase 1 is 1984-1988. Phase 2 is 1989-1992.

The Bears were a very strong team in Phase 1. You touched on basically everything, but I think you downplayed and misinterpreted the QB factor. McMahon was clearly the best QB on the roster, not Harbaugh.

Maybe I didn't go into that well enough. I agree that at the moment maybe it was McMahon but from a consistancy stand point and for the future of the franchise Harbaugh was the best choice. McMahon was always a pain in the ass and when he was winning a SB and staying healthy people tolerated it. He started missing games and not winning SB's and the act grew old rather fast. McMahon was the most talented QB on the roster and for a one game type deal he was most likely the best for overall from the standpoint of a guy to play the whole season and adding in the consistancy factor plus the talent Harbaugh had I think he would have been the best choice. Poor choice of wording on my part. IMO taking all factors into account Harbaugh would have been the way to go at that point in time.

* Another factor in Phase 1 is that Ditka was up against two of the best coaches in history, Gibbs and Walsh. It is entirely possible that even with a better offense, Gibbs and Walsh would still have figured out ways to beat the Bears

What's your feelings on Parcells? Not sure if he was an oversight in your post or if you just don't hold him in that high of regard.

* Phase 2 the Bears were not the same team, which is the fault of the front office. Willie Gault wasn't the best WR, but he was really good for the Bears and an important deep threat, but the front office got rid of him. The front office got rid of McMahon, too. Even if they couldn't rely on McMahon's health, the transition plan of having a green Jim Harbaugh and Mike T-Suck take over wasn't the best for a Super Bowl-caliber team. The Bears front office also let Wilber Marshall go, which affected the defense, and they were never able to replace OT's Covert and Van Horne once they got old.

IMO although Harbaugh was green he had a very good running game and OL around him so if the Bears could have either kept Gault or found better WR's Harbaugh would have been fine. Plus in the NFC at that time "Phase 2" while the Bears were a really good/good team. The NFC at the time ws filled with very good/great teams like the Niners, Giants, Eagles, Redkins(for a few seasons) and the emerging Cowboys. In the end while they Bears were really good they weren't as good as they needed to be in a stacked NFC.

So, in sum, the Bears organization sucked and it was somewhat blind luck that they were so good in 1985. So I agree with First Timer in that it was a perfect storm, but it was also a VERY delicate balance despite the fact that the Bears looked so dominant. IMO, its not a coincidence that the only year the Bears won the Super Bowl was also the only year they didn't have to face Gibbs or Walsh in the postseason.

At least they beat the piss out of them in the regular season that year.

:smug:

But excellent point.

 

[mgoblue2290]

Its funny how a great defense can usually take you farther than a great offense. Last year the Texans were lighting teams up yet finished 9-7(my bad) while the Jets had Trent Dilfer Jr. taking snaps and snuck into the AFC Championship game.

Although that is going away with a lot the rule changes and the game being geared heavily toward offense which is kind of sad in my opinion. I've always enjoyed watching two great defenses go against each other and have a final score of like 10-7 rather than two offenses and getting scores like 38-35 or something. It just seems that in one game the touchdowns are so much rarer and take way more effort rather than just exploiting a couple bad defensive players.

Sadly, the Lions have never grasped this concept.

 

[DJ Rhude]

The Ravens superbowl year they were often compared to that 85 Bears team...great defense that won the games for them, the quarterback and offense was pedestrian.....they started that year with Tony Banks at the helm then Trent Dilfer took over....

And you guys kind of try to diminish Singletary's greatness by saying "look at the great players he had around him"....well, lets not forget Lewis had Sam Adams and Rod Woodson as teammates and both made the pro bowl that year....rookie Jamal Lewis also rushed for over 1,300 yards that year and that's basically how the Ravens won that year....strong running game and stingy defense....but lets not act like Ray Lewis was out there all by himself

And if you want to play the perfect storm card, that can also apply to the Ravens as they haven't been close to winning another superbowl since

 

[Senser81]

The Ravens superbowl year they were often compared to that 85 Bears team...great defense that won the games for them, the quarterback and offense was pedestrian.....they started that year with Tony Banks at the helm then Trent Dilfer took over....

And you guys kind of try to diminish Singletary's greatness by saying "look at the great players he had around him"....well, lets not forget Lewis had Sam Adams and Rod Woodson as teammates and both made the pro bowl that year....rookie Jamal Lewis also rushed for over 1,300 yards that year and that's basically how the Ravens won that year....strong running game and stingy defense....but lets not act like Ray Lewis was out there all by himself

And if you want to play the perfect storm card, that can also apply to the Ravens as they haven't been close to winning another superbowl since

I think that comparison is a little off. The Ravens didn't even win their division. The 1985 Bears were much better on offense than the Ravens (outscoring the Ravens by 125 points). The Bears were one of the best teams in the NFL from 1984-1988, whereas the Ravens had many seasons before and after 2000 that they didn't even make the playoffs.

 

[FirstTimer]

I think that comparison is a little off. The Ravens didn't even win their division. The 1985 Bears were much better on offense than the Ravens (outscoring the Ravens by 125 points). The Bears were one of the best teams in the NFL from 1984-1988, whereas the Ravens had many seasons before and after 2000 that they didn't even make the playoffs.

Agree with this. The 85 Bears may have been a flash in the pan Super Bowl title wise but not in regards to how good they were for a 5 year stretch.

From 84-92 the Bears were:

10-6
15-1
14-2
11-4
12-4

From 1999-2007 the Ravens were:
8-8
12-4
10-6
7-9
10-6

 

[NAHSTE]

FT...I think Urlacher's DPOY was a perfect storm of him being an ideal player for a scheme and the scheme becoming really trendy.

It's a copy cat league, so if Urlacher is the perfect Tampa 2 MLB, and every other staff is trying to implement the same system, it's going to increase Urlacher's worth. I'm not saying Urlacher didn't deserve the 05 DPOY, but that his perceived value and mystique, for lack of a better term, was inflated a bit due to the brief love affair the entire league had with the T2.

There's really no correlation between that and the 05 DPOY, just more or less wanted to say I no longer think people hold Urlacher in that regard. (Which I don't think anyone would argue.)

 

[FirstTimer]

FT...I think Urlacher's DPOY was a perfect storm of him being an ideal player for a scheme and the scheme becoming really trendy.

It's a copy cat league, so if Urlacher is the perfect Tampa 2 MLB, and every other staff is trying to implement the same system, it's going to increase Urlacher's worth. I'm not saying Urlacher didn't deserve the 05 DPOY, but that his perceived value and mystique, for lack of a better term, was inflated a bit due to the brief love affair the entire league had with the T2.

I guess..... but like I said Urlcaher was viewed as one of the elite MLB's in the NFL before he ever played a down in the Tampa 2. Plus a lot of this Urlacher is "overrated" stuff began to die off when people started seeing how that defense played without him.

 

[DJ Rhude]

I think that comparison is a little off. The Ravens didn't even win their division. The 1985 Bears were much better on offense than the Ravens (outscoring the Ravens by 125 points). The Bears were one of the best teams in the NFL from 1984-1988, whereas the Ravens had many seasons before and after 2000 that they didn't even make the playoffs.

I should've said the defenses were often compared and I'm only talking about in their superbowl seasons......

That Ravens team's defense was compared to the Bears defense on a number of occassions that year.....especially when you consider the Ravens defense set the new NFL record in holding opposing teams to under 165 total points.....that beat the Bears mark of 187

But somebody said Singletary had all these great defensive players around him, somewhat diminishing his accomplishments.....I disagree with that since the same could be said of Ray Lewis

Agree with this. The 85 Bears may have been a flash in the pan Super Bowl title wise but not in regards to how good they were for a 5 year stretch.

From 84-92 the Bears were:

10-6
15-1
14-2
11-4
12-4

From 1999-2007 the Ravens were:
8-8
12-4
10-6
7-9
10-6

That pretty much proves my point and that's what I meant when I said the Ravens hadn't come close to winning another superbowl since 2000....in fact, they were more of an example of a perfect storm than the Bears were......