Best Bears team following 1946, and prior to 1963?

[74_75_78_79_]

In other words, the best squad between Papa Bear's final two World Titles as HC in the Windy City?

Of course the only LCG-appearance within this given time-slot would be in '56 with that best-record-in-the-league 9-2-1 finish. They'd get blown-out at the Stadium to the 8-3-1 Giants, 47-7 (their regular season match, also at the Stadium, resulted in a 17-17 tie). Was 'sneakers' the reason? Or would NYG - with Lombardi & Landry - end up with the win anyway, lopsided or not? Also, if not for Bobby Layne getting injured in the finale at the Bears (Lions were 9-2 going in; and they beat the Bears, 42-10, two weeks earlier) would Chicago have even been in this game in the first place (and then there's the...what-if Halas was HC all-along)?

As for the other contending (not just plain "good") Bears teams worth mention in this given sixteen season stretch, here they are...

1947 - The defending-Champs dropped their first two but then won 8-straight, beating Eastern Division tie-breaker-participants-to-be, Phi & Pit, by a combined 89-14!! They were 1st in their division with two weeks to go, but dropped those two - finale to Cards thus Cards winning it thus sweeping the Bears.

1948 - 10-2 finish this time! #1 defense! Not only did they at least split with the Cards this time, but handed the defending-Champs their only regular-season defeat! And almost beat them again in the fascinating '10-1 vs 10-1' finale at Wrigley! Bears went up, 14-3, in the 2nd Q and later went up again, 21-10, in the 4th! But they couldn't hang on vs Trippi & Co.

1949 - Got off to a 3-3 start. Handed the Eagles their only loss in Wk#4, 38-21, but get swept by the undefeated Rams in Wks #3 & 6! After that, Bears win their last 6 games, but LA's 2-2-2 finish from there would be enough to win them the Western! Yes, ties didn't count! Rams sweeping Bears, though (unlike the case with SD vs Oak in '63), made it a little more palatable. But, as I've opined before in agreement with Reaser...WINS first and then ties! So Bears "should" have hosted the Birds the following week instead. No mud, and a rematch we DIDN'T get in '85 between a one-loss team and the very team who handed them that very defeat!

1950 - Another 9-3 season, sweeping the Rams this time but LA also finished 9-3. Bears couldn't score the hat-trick in LA for the now-named-National Conference tie-breaker, however.

1955 - Now this one more like '63 Oak/SD! They start bad at 0-3, but lose just one game - a clobbering at Comiskey, 53-14, in Wk#9 - the rest of the way. And within that 8-1 finish, was they sweeping the Rams! But, in the end, they come up just short...Los Angeles 8-3-1, Chicago 8-4-0! Speaking of Oak/SD '63...just who WAS the Rams' HC in '55 who held off that rally in the end??

1959 - Another slow start here at 1-4. But that one win was Wk#2 at defending-Champ, Baltimore, 26-21 (Chi was up 26-0 going into the 4th; Colts win rematch two weeks later, though). Halas, in his second year back as HC, would rally his troops to a 7-0 finish from there. And had 8-3 Baltimore lost their finale at LA, then there would have been a tie-breaker between the two.

So who's your pick? Is it '56, or one of the others? Me? I'll opine 1948 being the best of this stretch! Now that's not to say that they beat the Eagles in the snow for Philly did beat them during the regular season. But I just think they're the strongest of this field as well as being better than '46 and maybe even better than '63 as well.

And as for '63...if 'sneakers' WAS the reason the Bears lost in '56, and they simply...put them on too and win, does this butterfly away that very '63 Title being that Halas was prompted to come back as HC after the Bears finished 5-7 the following year? An actual World Title in '56 as opposed to a lopsided LCG defeat may have very well 'excused' such a hangover with Papa Bear (maybe, maybe not).

As a Steeler-fan, there's a question - would you rather have beaten Dallas in SBXXX but lose to Seattle ten years later; or keep it the way it already is? Well, Bear-fans, given this hypothetical last paragraph - would you have rather won it in '56 but then wait until '85 for another; or keep it the way it is? My answer, whether a Bears-fan or not, would be the latter! Just to see George Halas atop the football world as recent as 1963 - 40+ years in - I find fascinating! And of course, fair or not, Hornung and not playing the Chargers are two things thought of by some when it comes to that Title. With me, its "unfair" for both, especially with the latter! I see '63 as a true blue World Championship with you all in here further inspiring me to tighten that take.

Pittsburgh over Seattle? Yes, the controversy with the questionable calls but I still, proudly, "take" the win anyway. Football is 'ugly' sometimes (see SBV). All three teams (Steelers, Seahawks, Zebras) had an off-day. IMO, had all three played their best it would have been the same result in the end anyway thus no "guilt". To me, once that 7-5 start was out the way...

And just like 'sneakers' is what's said with '56, Neil O'Donnell is mentioned with '95. Of course beating the cocky, hated 'Team of the 90s' albeit they not as strong as before would have been real sweet! But for the rest of Cowher's time to go without another Ring? And Bettis not getting one at all (losing his last game ever; for all-the-marbles and on his stomping grounds)? I guess my answer "should" be beating Dallas/losing to Seattle, but I can't help but to simply lean toward keeping it as already is. Dallas was the better team anyway.

But was it the case with the G-men in '56?

[Brian wolf]

Hindsight is 20/20 but I felt the Bears got what was coming to them against the Giants, after cheap-shotting Bobby Layne out of the Detroit game. Maybe they beat them anyway but who knows?

I felt the '48 team might have given Luckman his fifth championship had they held off the Cardinals in the second matchup, though Lujack would have had to have won it. Philly might have been stronger but you can never count out Luckman or Kavanaugh, in a championship game.

The '55 team swept both the Lions and the Rams but narrowly lost the division. Would have been interesting with them taking on the Browns in front of their fans for Graham's last game.

Bears fans can never discount what Lujack brought to the team and the team came very close in 1949 and 50 but what if Halas had kept Bobby Layne for the future? A totally different 1950s--

[SeahawkFever]

In other words, the best squad between Papa Bear's final two World Titles as HC in the Windy City?

Of course the only LCG-appearance within this given time-slot would be in '56 with that best-record-in-the-league 9-2-1 finish. They'd get blown-out at the Stadium to the 8-3-1 Giants, 47-7 (their regular season match, also at the Stadium, resulted in a 17-17 tie). Was 'sneakers' the reason? Or would NYG - with Lombardi & Landry - end up with the win anyway, lopsided or not? Also, if not for Bobby Layne getting injured in the finale at the Bears (Lions were 9-2 going in; and they beat the Bears, 42-10, two weeks earlier) would Chicago have even been in this game in the first place (and then there's the...what-if Halas was HC all-along)?

As for the other contending (not just plain "good") Bears teams worth mention in this given sixteen season stretch, here they are...

1947 - The defending-Champs dropped their first two but then won 8-straight, beating Eastern Division tie-breaker-participants-to-be, Phi & Pit, by a combined 89-14!! They were 1st in their division with two weeks to go, but dropped those two - finale to Cards thus Cards winning it thus sweeping the Bears.

1948 - 10-2 finish this time! #1 defense! Not only did they at least split with the Cards this time, but handed the defending-Champs their only regular-season defeat! And almost beat them again in the fascinating '10-1 vs 10-1' finale at Wrigley! Bears went up, 14-3, in the 2nd Q and later went up again, 21-10, in the 4th! But they couldn't hang on vs Trippi & Co.

1949 - Got off to a 3-3 start. Handed the Eagles their only loss in Wk#4, 38-21, but get swept by the undefeated Rams in Wks #3 & 6! After that, Bears win their last 6 games, but LA's 2-2-2 finish from there would be enough to win them the Western! Yes, ties didn't count! Rams sweeping Bears, though (unlike the case with SD vs Oak in '63), made it a little more palatable. But, as I've opined before in agreement with Reaser...WINS first and then ties! So Bears "should" have hosted the Birds the following week instead. No mud, and a rematch we DIDN'T get in '85 between a one-loss team and the very team who handed them that very defeat!

1950 - Another 9-3 season, sweeping the Rams this time but LA also finished 9-3. Bears couldn't score the hat-trick in LA for the now-named-National Conference tie-breaker, however.

1955 - Now this one more like '63 Oak/SD! They start bad at 0-3, but lose just one game - a clobbering at Comiskey, 53-14, in Wk#9 - the rest of the way. And within that 8-1 finish, was they sweeping the Rams! But, in the end, they come up just short...Los Angeles 8-3-1, Chicago 8-4-0! Speaking of Oak/SD '63...just who WAS the Rams' HC in '55 who held off that rally in the end??

1959 - Another slow start here at 1-4. But that one win was Wk#2 at defending-Champ, Baltimore, 26-21 (Chi was up 26-0 going into the 4th; Colts win rematch two weeks later, though). Halas, in his second year back as HC, would rally his troops to a 7-0 finish from there. And had 8-3 Baltimore lost their finale at LA, then there would have been a tie-breaker between the two.

So who's your pick? Is it '56, or one of the others? Me? I'll opine 1948 being the best of this stretch! Now that's not to say that they beat the Eagles in the snow for Philly did beat them during the regular season. But I just think they're the strongest of this field as well as being better than '46 and maybe even better than '63 as well.

And as for '63...if 'sneakers' WAS the reason the Bears lost in '56, and they simply...put them on too and win, does this butterfly away that very '63 Title being that Halas was prompted to come back as HC after the Bears finished 5-7 the following year? An actual World Title in '56 as opposed to a lopsided LCG defeat may have very well 'excused' such a hangover with Papa Bear (maybe, maybe not).

As a Steeler-fan, there's a question - would you rather have beaten Dallas in SBXXX but lose to Seattle ten years later; or keep it the way it already is? Well, Bear-fans, given this hypothetical last paragraph - would you have rather won it in '56 but then wait until '85 for another; or keep it the way it is? My answer, whether a Bears-fan or not, would be the latter! Just to see George Halas atop the football world as recent as 1963 - 40+ years in - I find fascinating! And of course, fair or not, Hornung and not playing the Chargers are two things thought of by some when it comes to that Title. With me, its "unfair" for both, especially with the latter! I see '63 as a true blue World Championship with you all in here further inspiring me to tighten that take.

Pittsburgh over Seattle? Yes, the controversy with the questionable calls but I still, proudly, "take" the win anyway. Football is 'ugly' sometimes (see SBV). All three teams (Steelers, Seahawks, Zebras) had an off-day. IMO, had all three played their best it would have been the same result in the end anyway thus no "guilt". To me, once that 7-5 start was out the way...

And just like 'sneakers' is what's said with '56, Neil O'Donnell is mentioned with '95. Of course beating the cocky, hated 'Team of the 90s' albeit they not as strong as before would have been real sweet! But for the rest of Cowher's time to go without another Ring? And Bettis not getting one at all (losing his last game ever; for all-the-marbles and on his stomping grounds)? I guess my answer "should" be beating Dallas/losing to Seattle, but I can't help but to simply lean toward keeping it as already is. Dallas was the better team anyway.

But was it the case with the G-men in '56?

I know they got absolutely torched in the NFL championship game (47-7 to the Giants), but I say the 1956 Bears deserve mention.

On one hand, they were mediocre defensively and ranked seventh by points allowed (though J.C. Caroline was a pro bowler, and Bill George was a first team all pro), but they had a phenomenal, first ranked offense that averaged 30.3 points per game.

Notably, quarterback Ed Brown led the NFL in passer rating, Rick Casares was a first team all pro fullback who led the NFL in rushing yards and rushing touchdowns on 4.8 yards per carry, Harlon Hill was a first team all pro receiver who had the second most receiving yards and receiving touchdowns, and their center and right guard Larry Strickland and Stan Jones were both first team all pros as well.

All told, there were ten players on the 1956 team that appeared on the 100 Greatest Bears list.

Unfortunate that this team lost the championship game badly, they played a good season from the looks of it.

[Saban1]

About the 1956 Bears: I believe that the Bears suffered a big letdown in the championship game against the Giants. The Bears were up very high for their season ending game against the Detroit Lions. The Lions President even said, "The Bears were up higher than we were." The sneakers also may have been a factor in the title game against the Giants.

[SeahawkFever]

About the 1956 Bears: I believe that the Bears suffered a big letdown in the championship game against the Giants. The Bears were up very high for their season ending game against the Detroit Lions. The Lions President even said, "The Bears were up higher than we were." The sneakers also may have been a factor in the title game against the Giants.

The 1956 Bears most definitely suffered a big letdown in the championship game (they lost 47-7).

However, that was their only appearance in the NFL championship game between 1946 and 1963.
On top of that, some metrics I've looked at found them to be the best team in the league statistically in the 1956 regular season which I could not say about most of the other Bears teams in that stretch.

So 1956 gets my vote in this post. However, I will acknowledge that some of their rosters had more Hall of Fame players earlier in the decade, and the 1948 Bears were a ten win team vs nine in 1956.

I could see 56 or 48 being a good pick for that one.

[SeahawkFever]

About the 1956 Bears: I believe that the Bears suffered a big letdown in the championship game against the Giants. The Bears were up very high for their season ending game against the Detroit Lions. The Lions President even said, "The Bears were up higher than we were." The sneakers also may have been a factor in the title game against the Giants.

The 1956 Bears most definitely suffered a big letdown in the championship game (they lost 47-7).

However, that was their only appearance in the NFL championship game between 1946 and 1963.
On top of that, some metrics I've looked at found them to be the best team in the league statistically in the 1956 regular season which I could not say about most of the other Bears teams in that stretch.

So 1956 gets my vote in this post. However, I will acknowledge that some of their rosters had more Hall of Fame players earlier in the decade, and the 1948 Bears were a ten win team vs nine in 1956.

I could see 56 or 48 being a good pick for that one.

Also, I didn't know the 1956 NFL Championship was impacted by sneakers like 1934 was.

[Saban1]

Andy Robustelli owned a sporting goods store and supplied the 1956 Giants team with fresh sneakers for the championship game. This may have helped them. Also, the Giants had the home field.