About the Author

Napoleon15

More By Napoleon15

AFC and NFC Championship Predictions

4 votes, 2 comments

NFL Playoff Predictions: Divisional Round

5 votes, 2 comments

NFL Wild Card Playoff Round Predictions

6 votes, 11 comments

View All

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.

2007 New England Patriots vs. 1985 New England Patriots

created January 17, 2008, last edited February 10, 2009

6

Here's a good one: How would the 2007 New England Patriots fare against the 1985 New England Patriots that got hammered 46-10 by Chicago in the Super Bowl? I tried it out on WhatIfSports.com to find out. The 1985 Patriots consistently won. Try it out yourself. Even more bizarrely, the 2007 Patriots often beat the 1985 Bears. So the 85 Bears crushed the 85 Patriots, who beat the 07 Patriots, who beat the 85 Bears. The 2007 Patriots simply could not stop the 1985 Patriots running back duo of Craig James and Tony Collins, as both consistently gained about 100 yards or more. Tom Brady, meanwhile, was held in check by the 85 Patriots, putting up rather average numbers most of the time.

Enable Comment Auto-Refresher

KelsdadAll-Star

681 days ago

Score -1

All this shows is despite their record, the 2007 Pats are overrated. Alot.

Permalink | Reply

Bobbyjim45Draft Pick

681 days ago

Score 3

AH HAHAHA!!!

It shows the Pats have gotten lucky 17 times in a row, right?

I think it's far more likely that it shows how perhaps there may be some flaws in the WhatIf system. I'd rather put my trust in the players on the field to determine who the best team is, not made up player rankings and stats from the 80s.

(Although I do think the simulator is pretty cool...)

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

681 days ago

Score 5

I think it proves that the only way the '07 Pats can lose is in an imaginary game.

KelsdadAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 0

Either one of you guys alive in 1985? If not, then why don't you go do some research and learn something before you comment. K?

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

681 days ago

Score 1

Hey! I was 2 months old for that Super Bowl!

Bobbyjim45Draft Pick

681 days ago

Score 0

I just don't really understand how an undefeated team can be overrated. If you were to say, "Hell, this team is so good they could even go undefeated this year!", that's about the highest rating you can give and obviously that's not overrating them. I think they are well rated.

KelsdadAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 2

I'm not trying to take away from what the Pats have done to this point, but just look at the second half of the Giants game. It does take some luck, after all, if the Pats win two more game it will only be the second time ever.

But as you know, football, more than any other sport, is defined by its parity. So the Pats may be a really good team capatilizing on an easy schedule or the downfall of others.

Just because they are undefeated, doesn't automatically make them the best team in NFL history. It doesn't even make them the best Patriots team in history, just the one with the best record.

Bobbyjim45Draft Pick

681 days ago

Score 1

I'm not arguing that they're the best team in NFL history. I know I haven't seen enough teams in my time to make that case.

However, the problem is that success in sports can really only be measured to your competition. Maybe the Pats would've been a mediocre team in the 80's or maybe they would've dominated.

I checked out the 85 Bears schedule just for the sake of argument. They had 3 games that finished within 8 points, not including the one they lost to the Dolphins. Basically, games that could've gone either way. But that doesn't take anything away, because there's something to being able to win close games too. Luck is involved with every game, every season. But it's being able to capitalize on that luck that makes great teams.

KelsdadAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 0

The Arizona Cardinals this season went 8-8. They lost, I think, five games by a touchdown or less. They lost two games when their kicker missed a FG attempt of less than 35 yards. Would your impression of them be any different if they were 10-6?

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

Of course it would. Most of the 2003 Patriots games were very close, and they won the Super Bowl.

SSreportersLegend

681 days ago

Score 2

Quit ball washing the Cardinals people (-1 comment score). Every year we expect them to take over the NFC West, and they don't because the Seahawks dominate them (-2). It will take a couple of years in my opinion (-3), for them to be serious divisional contenders (-4).

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

I gave you a plus, SSR, so that will cancel out one of your minuses.

SSreportersLegend

681 days ago

Score 0

....Thanks. After all, Tyrone is continuing his minus monster habits even though he was unblocked, so that's one minus there.

KelsdadAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 2

I live in Arizona (+1) and for the past 13 seasons had all their home games blacked out because they didn't sell out (+5) then they move into a new stadium (+1) and now have all their games televised (-5) but at least the Super Bowl is ten miles from my house. Priceless.

Bobbyjim45Draft Pick

681 days ago

Score 0

Yes, my point is that great teams win those lucky games. They catch a break and the grab hold of the opportunity and don't let it go. And a great team takes 53 players, which includes the kicker. I don't know what the scenarios were in the games where the kicker missed the FG attempts, but let's say an o-lineman missed a block, let the opponent sack the quarterback, stalled the drive, and forced Arizona to punt or turn it over on downs. Do you blame the loss all on "some liquored up offensive lineman"? No, it takes all the players on the team. if you want to win the game, maybe the offense should've scored more points, or the defense should've made more stops, so that the mistake made by just one player is minimized and doesn't cost the team the game.

Ccampbell34All-American

681 days ago

Score 0

I think the stadium and all makes a huge difference because I continuously got the 85 Bears to win in a neutral location

Permalink | Reply

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

I set the Patriots playbook as "Favor Pass" and the Bears playbook as "Balanced." The stadium is Adelphia Coliseum in Nashville. The Patriots won 5 out of 10 times, including by one score of 34-10.

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

I also set the Bears playbook as "Favor Run," and the Patriots won 8 out of 10 times, including by one score of 40-17.

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

Other results from the simulator show that the 2005 Broncos put up a stiff fight against, or defeated, teams including the 2007 Patriots, 1998 Broncos, 1985 Bears, and 1983 Raiders.

Permalink | Reply

RawbeezeitzMajor Leaguer

681 days ago

Score 1

I'd like to see how the 2003 and 2004 Patriots do against their opponents from those seasons. I bet this simulation site won't have them go 34-4, let alone win 21 straight games.

Permalink | Reply

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

As Bobbyjim45 said, the simulator is flawed, but still cool.

False ProphetAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 0

It's a simulator for a reason. It puts together a potential outcome for a game between two historical teams. If you want to try and create a more stable and reliable outcome for any sort of predicting/scenario, try simulating the matchup several times

Permalink | Reply

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

That's what I've done. I usually have the teams play each other ten times without changing anything in between.

False ProphetAll-Star

681 days ago

Score 0

it's also just as reliable as any other way to predict historical matchups because they're damned near impossible to figure out how to predict to begin with

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

I still think the simulator is fun and cool, but some of the results are ridiculous. Others are actually quite interesting.

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

681 days ago

Score 0

For example, the 2001 Patriots played competitively against, and sometimes beat, the 1999 and 2001 Rams, which of course is what happened.

False ProphetAll-Star

680 days ago

Score 0

the results can be rediculous, but your trying to simulate a game between 2 teams from two different eras. No matter what you do, your results are going to be rediculous for something like that because there's no way to figure out how to do it properly

The PipDiv-I Stud

680 days ago

Score 1

I was ALIVE in '85! After the Pats beat the Jets my dad and 3 of his brothers went to the playoff games in LA, Miami, and yeah my mom said "If you go to the super bowl you are taking my to New Orleans." Yeah, my mom jinxed the super bowl. That's the first time I have ever accepted that fact.

Actually though the '85 Pats have a team that could play well against the '07 team. The '85 Pats had the most boring offense you could imagine. SNOREFEST They ran the ball, alot, made Martyball look exciting. In fact my father still says that if their TE (and leading receiver) did not break his leg on the opening drive that they could have beat the Bears. Then their D was solid and balanced. they could stop the run and pressure the quarterback. Their LB core was second only to this current team in Pats history. Then the reason why I am not surprised by the simulators results: Special teams. They played some amazing special teams. The Super Bowl was the only playoff game that season in which they did not get a special teams turnover. Seriously. It was crazy that post-season. It seemed like every time you looked up they were recovering a fumble on special teams.

So yes I am not shocked that the '85 Pats match up well against the '07 Pats. Ball control offense, can pressure the quarterback rushing only 4, and played excellent special teams.

As far as the '07 Pats vs the '85 bears, ditka himself told everyone why that was a abd match-up for the bears they could not handle a pass heavy offense with deep threats. He compared the Pats to the Miami team that beat the Bears that season. He said effectively that (not quite a direct quote but darn close) "They'd cut us to pieces. It was the weakness to the 46 defense."

Again, I claim that the whatifsports is not quite the simulator that they wished it were. Maybe they should go talk to the folks at accuscore for some help.

Permalink | Reply

Napoleon15Red-Shirting

680 days ago

Score 0

I'm sure they were a good team. They were the first team to win every playoff game on the road.

Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User Napoleon15 | January 17, 2008 | January 2008 | Football Opinions | NFL Opinions | New England Patriots Opinions

Don't Miss

Phillies World Series 2009: A Year Later, and They Still Don't Want Us

Sorry, But I'm Not Sorry

2009 NHL Preview

In Which Ricketts Wins World Series

2009 Week 3: Let’s Talk About Your Favorite NFL Team

In the News

Hey ArmchairGM users! Want to help the admins update this news section? Click here to help us out.

Comments of the Day

0 Wheres Vinny Testeverde?

0 Lou, you said it all......Mickey Cochrane wasn"t j...

Take a Poll

Did the world series go on in 1941 or was it canceled because of the war?

New Articles

Best African-American Quarterback Ever?

Ken Caminiti: National League's 1996 MVP

Winter Olympics 2010

Highlights from Dubai 7's

Triple Crown Winner Lou Gehrig: No MVP

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:2007_New_England_Patriots_vs._1985_New_England_Patriots"

This page was last modified 03:06, 17 January 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.