Professional Football Researchers Association Forum

Lee Elder wrote:The Bears were 20-6-2 between 1962 and '63.

The Bears were more solid than spectacular on offense in those seasons. Billy Wade was the QB, a veteran who threw interceptions. They had Willie Galimore at running back in '63 but he died in an auto accident during training camp before the '64 season. This was a middle of the pack offense but it was all they needed in 1963.

Where the Bears were spectacular in those years was on defense. George Halas allowed George Allen to run the defense. The Bears out-scored opponents by better than 2-1 that year. They intercepted 36 passes and finished the season ranked first in total defense.

The Bears had a lot of unhappy players in 1964, for a variety of reasons. The Galimore's death, along with another player in the same accident, shook them up. The players were unhappy about the way Halas treated them after winning the championship. When the Bears allowed Allen to slip away, they might have thrown away a chance to have a very special stretch of seasons. Imagine Allen as a young coach with the Halas' guidance.

The 63 team was a glimpse at what could have been for the Bears franchise, IMHO.

The 1963 Bears were very similar to the 85 Bears...and the Bears franchise during any good season thereafter(sans the title). Any good or great Bears teams seems to have a dominant defense and an offense that does JUST enough that season to make the team legitimate. However, while the defenses typically have the talent or scheme to stay relevant year over year the offenses don't. You look at the late 80's Bears and their offense was archaic, even by standards of the day, and wasn't consistent enough year in and year out with it's marginal skill position talent.

The 2000's Bears teams that bubbled up(2001, 2005/2006, 2010, 2018) faced similar issues. The talent and scheme on defense was there but at some point the offense HAS to do something. I always cringe when people ret-con the 85 Bears defense not being that "great" because they never won another title, when the defense stayed stellar until basically 1991(sans an injury ravaged 1989). The issue in Chicago always has seemed to be and will continue to be the offense.

Ironically enough, the Bears best modern offense in 1995 was done in by a terrible defense.

Hail Casares wrote:

Lee Elder wrote:The Bears were 20-6-2 between 1962 and '63.

The Bears were more solid than spectacular on offense in those seasons. Billy Wade was the QB, a veteran who threw interceptions. They had Willie Galimore at running back in '63 but he died in an auto accident during training camp before the '64 season. This was a middle of the pack offense but it was all they needed in 1963.

Where the Bears were spectacular in those years was on defense. George Halas allowed George Allen to run the defense. The Bears out-scored opponents by better than 2-1 that year. They intercepted 36 passes and finished the season ranked first in total defense.

The Bears had a lot of unhappy players in 1964, for a variety of reasons. The Galimore's death, along with another player in the same accident, shook them up. The players were unhappy about the way Halas treated them after winning the championship. When the Bears allowed Allen to slip away, they might have thrown away a chance to have a very special stretch of seasons. Imagine Allen as a young coach with the Halas' guidance.

The 63 team was a glimpse at what could have been for the Bears franchise, IMHO.

The 1963 Bears were very similar to the 85 Bears...and the Bears franchise during any good season thereafter(sans the title). Any good or great Bears teams seems to have a dominant defense and an offense that does JUST enough that season to make the team legitimate. However, while the defenses typically have the talent or scheme to stay relevant year over year the offenses don't. You look at the late 80's Bears and their offense was archaic, even by standards of the day, and wasn't consistent enough year in and year out with it's marginal skill position talent.

The 2000's Bears teams that bubbled up(2001, 2005/2006, 2010, 2018) faced similar issues. The talent and scheme on defense was there but at some point the offense HAS to do something. I always cringe when people ret-con the 85 Bears defense not being that "great" because they never won another title, when the defense stayed stellar until basically 1991(sans an injury ravaged 1989). The issue in Chicago always has seemed to be and will continue to be the offense.

Ironically enough, the Bears best modern offense in 1995 was done in by a terrible defense.

Can you even IMAGINE if Butkus and Sayers would've been on that '63 team?? QUITE scary!! Maybe, overall consensus-wise, they go down as better than '85!

As for '85, I think it can be argued that the offense may very well be their best-ever post-Luckman offense! It's historically overshadowed for obvious reasons. I've said it before - had the defense "only" been as good as the offense in '85, Bears still get home-field in the NFC and win SBXX! It's just that they do so less-spectacularly (no capturing of the country's imagination) with a plain old 11-5 or 12-4 record, and perhaps allow Pats to keep it close. I'll take that '85 offense over their '95 any day. And they were better statistically as well. But, yes, '95 was one of their better ones. Overall, they were a better squad than the year prior who actually did make the playoffs and squash Vikings at Minny.

74_75_78_79_ wrote:

Hail Casares wrote:

Lee Elder wrote:The Bears were 20-6-2 between 1962 and '63.

The Bears were more solid than spectacular on offense in those seasons. Billy Wade was the QB, a veteran who threw interceptions. They had Willie Galimore at running back in '63 but he died in an auto accident during training camp before the '64 season. This was a middle of the pack offense but it was all they needed in 1963.

Where the Bears were spectacular in those years was on defense. George Halas allowed George Allen to run the defense. The Bears out-scored opponents by better than 2-1 that year. They intercepted 36 passes and finished the season ranked first in total defense.

The Bears had a lot of unhappy players in 1964, for a variety of reasons. The Galimore's death, along with another player in the same accident, shook them up. The players were unhappy about the way Halas treated them after winning the championship. When the Bears allowed Allen to slip away, they might have thrown away a chance to have a very special stretch of seasons. Imagine Allen as a young coach with the Halas' guidance.

The 63 team was a glimpse at what could have been for the Bears franchise, IMHO.

The 1963 Bears were very similar to the 85 Bears...and the Bears franchise during any good season thereafter(sans the title). Any good or great Bears teams seems to have a dominant defense and an offense that does JUST enough that season to make the team legitimate. However, while the defenses typically have the talent or scheme to stay relevant year over year the offenses don't. You look at the late 80's Bears and their offense was archaic, even by standards of the day, and wasn't consistent enough year in and year out with it's marginal skill position talent.

The 2000's Bears teams that bubbled up(2001, 2005/2006, 2010, 2018) faced similar issues. The talent and scheme on defense was there but at some point the offense HAS to do something. I always cringe when people ret-con the 85 Bears defense not being that "great" because they never won another title, when the defense stayed stellar until basically 1991(sans an injury ravaged 1989). The issue in Chicago always has seemed to be and will continue to be the offense.

Ironically enough, the Bears best modern offense in 1995 was done in by a terrible defense.

Can you even IMAGINE if Butkus and Sayers would've been on that '63 team?? QUITE scary!! Maybe, overall consensus-wise, they go down as better than '85!

As for '85, I think it can be argued that the offense may very well be their best-ever post-Luckman offense! It's historically overshadowed for obvious reasons. I've said it before - had the defense "only" been as good as the offense in '85, Bears still get home-field in the NFC and win SBXX! It's just that they do so less-spectacularly (no capturing of the country's imagination) with a plain old 11-5 or 12-4 record, and perhaps allow Pats to keep it close. I'll take that '85 offense over their '95 any day. And they were better statistically as well. But, yes, '95 was one of their better ones. Overall, they were a better squad than the year prior who actually did make the playoffs and squash Vikings at Minny.

I think much of the 85 Bears offense being better is colored by the Payton factor, somewhat rightfully so, but the 1995 offense was better balanced and more "modern" and up to the standards of the day. Perhaps it's more scheme than players/skill but I've never been enamored with the Bears offense in that era.

Yes, reviving an old topic here; but a real good topic just the same!

I'm a fan of the '63 Bears. I've opined numerous times already that they would beat the AFL-champ, Chargers, decisively in a 'Super Bowl'. What's real cool about them is that George Halas, who was a founder of the league and still a HC 40+ years later, not only wins another Title in the midst of the Lombardi Era but sweeps those very Packers (one of those wins by more than 2 TDs) to make it to that League Championship Game! It’s like, at the beginning of ‘Beatlemania’, Louie Armstrong momentarily interrupting their long run of singles being at the top of the charts with “Hello Dolly”. And that George Allen defense...if da '85 Bears' unit is better, which I'll say it is, it's not by much!

While I indeed do treat them like the '63 World Champs that they are, there's still something with me that keeps hanging over that campaign...Hornung's absence! It seems to me that most in these forums don't make much of it. Bears still win-it-all anyway, seems to be the consensus. I like to think that as well. I did rank them #3 among all twenty League Champions of the '60s, placing just the '62 & '66 Pack ahead of them. Is it me just liking the fact that Papa Bear pulled out another Title here in those modern-times and not wanting to take that away, or do I really feel they pull it off anyway even with Hornung onboard?

But on the flip-side...Chicago won over GB by just a HALF GAME! You can't help but to think Paul's presence ought to at least be enough to tie their rivals at regular season's end thus forcing a tie-breaker; or even worse...Packers returning yet again to the LCG. How does that 10-3 opener in GB pan out had he played? Bears still win anyway? And how about that tie at Tigers on Thanksgiving? Do Pack pull it off with #5?

If you're doing a 'pie-chart' on the Chicago Bears' 1963 World Championship, what %-age is them still winning-it-all anyway, and what %-age is it being..."because Hornung was out"?

NWebster wrote:
I think much of this was attributable to George Allen taking over from Clark Shaughnessy as DC. Clark was a genius, but a somewhat crazy genius particularly on the defensive side of the ball, he had players moving all over the place, jumping in and out of gaps and all sorts of things that provided for splashy plays but probably weren't entirely sound.

Shaughnessy's philosophy was never show the offense the same look twice. Allen was into "window dressing" but not every snap. He was
much more conservative as you know.

Doug Atkins called Shaughnessy's stuff "rinky-dink" defenses - he'd sometimes have to cover too often in a game here or there...stuff he didn't want to do
Atkins loved it when Allen took over in mid-1962 or whatever it was.

74_75_78_79_ wrote: Do Pack pull it off with #5?

If you're doing a 'pie-chart' on the Chicago Bears' 1963 World Championship, what %-age is them still winning-it-all anyway, and what %-age is it being..."because Hornung was out"?

Ruppart Patrick wrote something on that, not specifically 1963, but how back the Packers kickers were in both 1963 (Kramer) and 1964 (Hornung)
and he listed the wins that could be considered "on the table" that were lost. Will have to dig out the book but
I think he suggested several, the kicking - for the era- was excellent in 1962, then awful for 2 years and it cost them some wins--could not have been
that many because they lost so few, but it buttresses the point . . . but you have to wonder what Hornung's kicking would have been in 1963?
Like 1962 or 1964? If it was the former he'd have to have been a help . . . the latter? No so much.

Went from best defense in the NFL in '63 to the worst in '64.