PDA

View Full Version : '85 Bears vs. '05 White Sox


Viva Medias B's
10-19-2005, 08:21 AM
Ed Sherman is basically minimizing our success in arguing that the '85 Bears were greater than we are.

For those of you Tribune-registered (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-0510190257oct19,1,1605087.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed)

Johnny Mostil
10-19-2005, 08:34 AM
Ed Sherman is basically minimizing our success in arguing that the '85 Bears were greater than we are.

For those of you Tribune-registered (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-0510190257oct19,1,1605087.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed)

I didn't read it that way at all. Instead, he asked "where does the Sox's achievement fit among the city's biggest stories [my emphasis] since their last trip to the World Series." I'd disagree with some of his rankings. E.g., I'd put the Bulls' first title in 1991 higher than he did, and the Bears' '63 championship as well. But I can't disagree that the '85 Bears were a "bigger story" than the Sox pennant for at least two reasons. First, the Bears won the Super Bowl, and the Sox haven't (yet) won the World Series. Second, I think (while conceding this is arguable) Chicago is more of a football than a baseball town (though, again, I may be wrong on this, and will cheerfully read arguments to the contrary).

kittle42
10-19-2005, 09:11 AM
Stop it. Stop it right now.

Johnny Mostil
10-19-2005, 09:23 AM
Stop it. Stop it right now.

OK. It is silly to speculate on this before the story (i.e., the season) is over, isn't it?

Over By There
10-19-2005, 09:32 AM
There may be no journalist in this city that I avoid reading more than Ed Sherman. Actually, okay, maybe the Windsock. But Sherman is up there. He's an idiot.

34 Inch Stick
10-19-2005, 10:27 AM
That 85 Bear team is one that any football historian in any city in the US would say is worth mentioning in a discussion of great NFL champions. You could very successfully argue that the defense was the greatest in the history of the NFL in both talent and production. In addition their "schemes" revolutionized the way defense was played in the league. In short they were a team for the ages.

These Sox are still building their place in history. However, even as a best case scenario, I don't think they can match that Bears team for historical significance within their respective industries.

Dan H
10-19-2005, 10:41 AM
Right now I could care less about the '85 Bears. The current Bears stink. The current Chicago White Sox is in the World Series. All other Chicago teams are irrevelant at the moment.

voodoochile
10-19-2005, 10:43 AM
Right now I could care less about the '85 Bears. The current Bears stink. The current Chicago White Sox is in the World Series. All other Chicago teams are irrevelant at the moment.

1 game in town...

spiffie
10-19-2005, 10:51 AM
Right now I could care less about the '85 Bears. The current Bears stink. The current Chicago White Sox is in the World Series. All other Chicago teams are irrevelant at the moment.

The Bears can't stink, they're in first place in their division!

TDog
10-19-2005, 11:12 AM
Right.

The Bears didn't even win 20 games in the 1985 season.

I played baseball against Jim McMahon in January. His team lost that day.

mdep524
10-19-2005, 11:21 AM
Ed Sheran is pure garbage. He's an idiot and his columns are irrelevant and inaccurate. What irks me about today's column is not so much the premise of the '85 Bears being Chicago's biggest sports story (duh, that's a no-brainer), but the way he presents it.

The headline says "Best in city? Not White Sox"

This is something right out of WSI's very own "You Write the Cubune Headline." And yet, there it is one page ONE of the sports section. What a load of crap.

They could have just as easily gone with
"Sox finding place among Chicago legends" or
"Sox magical season ranks them among city's all time best."

Or something like that. But to make the headline an unabashed INSULT to the White Sox is juvenile and stupid. I don't know whether it was Sherman or (more likely) the editors who came up with that headline, but it is just another example of how the Tribune is nothing more than a petty joke.

jackbrohamer
10-19-2005, 11:42 AM
The headline says "Best in city? Not White Sox"

This is something right out of WSI's very own "You Write the Cubune Headline." And yet, there it is one page ONE of the sports section.

Exactly, they put the column on the first page as a way of minimizing the frist pennant in town in 46 years. Otherwise, it's a completely insipid idea for a column, comparing apples in one era with oranges from others.

And they put the triumphant Flubs' Bartman losss just 1 notch below. The paper's bias is becoming comical as the playoffs progress.

voodoochile
10-19-2005, 11:43 AM
The Bears can't stink, they're in first place in their division!

And really that's all that matters. I mean it isn't pretty, but if Grossman can come back before the end of the season and the team can play well enough to stay at or close to the top of their division, they might make the playoffs yet. :D:

Sxy Mofo
10-19-2005, 11:45 AM
I don't like the headline, but it's ultimately true where he ranks the teams (right now). The sox haven't won the world series, and Jordan's last game ranks right up there.

Besides, like it or not, there are two baseball teams here. Half the city likes one, half the city likes the other. The bears unified the city, so did the bulls.


Now, if the cubs won the series (laugh), the cubune would claim it the biggest story in city history. But that wouldn't be true, because again, only in half the city is it a big story.

The bulls and bears are appreciated by both halves.

antitwins13
10-19-2005, 11:48 AM
Somebody bust out the snail!

mdep524
10-19-2005, 12:45 PM
I don't like the headline, but it's ultimately true where he ranks the teams (right now). The sox haven't won the world series, and Jordan's last game ranks right up there.

Besides, like it or not, there are two baseball teams here. Half the city likes one, half the city likes the other. The bears unified the city, so did the bulls.


Now, if the cubs won the series (laugh), the cubune would claim it the biggest story in city history. But that wouldn't be true, because again, only in half the city is it a big story.

The bulls and bears are appreciated by both halves. I see your point, but to me it's not whether it's true or not, it's whether it's newsworthy and appropriate or not.

Yeah, the '85 Bears are #1 (though as jackbrohamer pointed out, comparing them all is like apples and oranges- useless). But why would you make the headline so negative toward one team? I gave examples of other headlines that are much more appropriate. Furthermore, the Cubs and Bulls aren't "the best" either, so why wouldn't the headline read: "Best in city? Not the Cubs" ? Why would you pick the team that is currently enjoying the most success to be the punchline of the insult of your headline?

And of course, there's the question of why tell a story like this at all in your headline? It's like making your front page headline on Christmas Day:
"Millions of Jews across the country don't buy into Christmas" or
"Crime hampers millions in American annually"

Are those statements true? Yeah. But does that make it appropriate? NO!

Lip Man 1
10-19-2005, 01:58 PM
Mdep:

Not taking sides but remember the folks who do the headlines are different from the folks who write the stories. And I have no idea who the headline writers are at the papers or what the motivations are for them.

Lip

Eric Bartman, today's top dope
10-19-2005, 02:28 PM
If the '85 Bears would've played Miami in the Super Bowl, they wouldn't even have been champs that year. They couldn't stop Marino. They got lucky the Pats upset the Dolphins in the AFCC.

2005 Sox have beaten two of the last three world champs and they've done it handily.

Still, the Sox have to fully deliver on that promise and win the WS. If so, they'll be the single greatest Chicago baseball team ever.

I'm not even a Bulls fan, but I might say the 1995-96 Bulls team might be the greatest Chicago team of all time.

mdep524
10-19-2005, 04:11 PM
Mdep:

Not taking sides but remember the folks who do the headlines are different from the folks who write the stories. And I have no idea who the headline writers are at the papers or what the motivations are for them.

Lip Lip, I did make that point in my original post- it was probably an editor that slapped that headline on the article. That in NO WAY excuses the article's headline, content or placement.

Just because the editors get to hide behind the scenes without name recognition, visable e-mail addresses, personalities and mugshots like columnists does not excuse their awful journalism. In fact, it makes it MORE cowardly and embarrassing.

MarySwiss
10-19-2005, 04:29 PM
And really that's all that matters. I mean it isn't pretty, but if Grossman can come back before the end of the season and the team can play well enough to stay at or close to the top of their division, they might make the playoffs yet. :D:

I know you're kidding Voodoo, but when I go out to Vegas early next month to collect on my World Series bet, I plan on dropping a few bucks on the Bears to win the Super Bowl. What the hell, why not?

34 Inch Stick
10-19-2005, 04:39 PM
If the '85 Bears would've played Miami in the Super Bowl, they wouldn't even have been champs that year.

Now that is a good one. Thanks Bob Griese for checking out WSI, but you should really come on as a celebrity poster.

Brewski
10-19-2005, 08:20 PM
We went wrong in not doing a "World Series Wiggle" video in August. Had we done one we would have demonstrated the self-centered arrogance that a great football (but not baseball) team has to have. Forget that after the video aired every Sox batter would get drilled, but you can't do that in football.

gobears1987
10-19-2005, 11:12 PM
The Bears win on the basis that the 1985 team is considered by many to be the BEST team ever, even better than the 1972 Dolphins.

rightsox
10-19-2005, 11:58 PM
apples and oranges.

now the sox vs. mini-ditka, that's another story... sox win, 4-2

Chips
10-20-2005, 12:05 AM
I know you're kidding Voodoo, but when I go out to Vegas early next month to collect on my World Series bet, I plan on dropping a few bucks on the Bears to win the Super Bowl. What the hell, why not?

Their horrible offense. But put the money down, I'm sure the odds are great and the division sucks and anything can happen in the playoffs. I don't think they'll win the whole thing, but I will happen as **** if they do win it all. GO BEARS.

And of course the 85 Bears are a bigger team than the 2005 Sox. Just about everyone in Chicago is a Bears fan, only half the city likes the Sox, the other half doesn't. The Bears kicked ass that whole season, best defense ever, allowed 10 points in 3 playodd games. The Sox didn't win yet, emphasis on yet.

jdm2662
10-20-2005, 09:27 AM
If the '85 Bears would've played Miami in the Super Bowl, they wouldn't even have been champs that year. They couldn't stop Marino. They got lucky the Pats upset the Dolphins in the AFC.

Not to hijack this thread (too late), if Miami couldn't beat a team, in their home stadium mind you, and take to the fact NE hadn't won in the Orange Bowl in 18 games, what makes you think they would've beaten the Bears in the Super Bowl?? Oh, because they were able to beat them in the regular season. A game that Buddy Ryan played around with his defense, Jim McMahon didn't even start, and when they put him in, he was more worried about getting Payton 100 yards than trying to win. The Bears had already wrapped up home field advantage in the playoffs the day before. So, in essence, the game met nothing in the standings.

As for the topic, comparing the Bears to any team is moot point. They are the most popular team in the city, and it will never change. They winning the Super Bowl was the biggest story period, and it will never be different until they win another one.

Sxy Mofo
10-20-2005, 02:27 PM
I see your point, but to me it's not whether it's true or not, it's whether it's newsworthy and appropriate or not.

Yeah, the '85 Bears are #1 (though as jackbrohamer pointed out, comparing them all is like apples and oranges- useless). But why would you make the headline so negative toward one team? I gave examples of other headlines that are much more appropriate. Furthermore, the Cubs and Bulls aren't "the best" either, so why wouldn't the headline read: "Best in city? Not the Cubs" ? Why would you pick the team that is currently enjoying the most success to be the punchline of the insult of your headline?

And of course, there's the question of why tell a story like this at all in your headline? It's like making your front page headline on Christmas Day:
"Millions of Jews across the country don't buy into Christmas" or
"Crime hampers millions in American annually"

Are those statements true? Yeah. But does that make it appropriate? NO!

The first thing i wrote in my post was that i think the headline is stupid and inappropriate.

seanpmurphy
10-20-2005, 03:09 PM
And really that's all that matters. I mean it isn't pretty, but if Grossman can come back before the end of the season and the team can play well enough to stay at or close to the top of their division, they might make the playoffs yet. :D:

Lovie already said that Orton is the starter even if Rex comes back. Sox will win the World Series and then the Bears will go undefeated the rest of the season.

Vernam
10-20-2005, 03:39 PM
I know you're kidding Voodoo, but when I go out to Vegas early next month to collect on my World Series bet, I plan on dropping a few bucks on the Bears to win the Super Bowl. What the hell, why not?MarySwiss, what were your World Series odds? And if you don't mind, what did you reap?!

Re: the '85 Bears, my main problem with them is that they were done nearly 20 years ago! IOW, it has zero impact on my response to the '05 Sox. Sherman's a tool, but I did enjoy the media honeymoon while it lasted: A whole two days after the pennant clincher. :angry:

Vernam

Johnny Mostil
10-20-2005, 06:24 PM
apples and oranges.

now the sox vs. mini-ditka, that's another story... sox win, 4-2

Meh, the Sox could beat the full-size Ditka at baseball. Sox vs. mini-Ditkas at football, I don't know . . . :)

voodoochile
10-20-2005, 06:58 PM
Lovie already said that Orton is the starter even if Rex comes back. Sox will win the World Series and then the Bears will go undefeated the rest of the season.

Giving more and more credence to the rumor that both Angelo and Smith are gone after the season. I mean seriously what has Orton done to make him the defacto QB over a guy who has shown a much higher upside but appears to also be injury prone?

No turnovers? No... er...

Great execution? No...er...

He hands the ball off to Jones better? Who freaking cares?!??!?!??

Sorry for the

:hijacked:

seanpmurphy
10-20-2005, 09:19 PM
'85 Bears - '05 White Sox

Apples - Oranges

seanpmurphy
10-20-2005, 09:20 PM
Giving more and more credence to the rumor that both Angelo and Smith are gone after the season. I mean seriously what has Orton done to make him the defacto QB over a guy who has shown a much higher upside but appears to also be injury prone?

No turnovers? No... er...

Great execution? No...er...

He hands the ball off to Jones better? Who freaking cares?!??!?!??

Sorry for the

:hijacked:

Has Orton even surpassed 200 yards passing in a game yet this season?

jabrch
10-21-2005, 07:02 AM
I will say that this is, was and always will be a Bears town. The 85 Bears will always be my favorite single season Chicago sports team, unless some new Bears team becomes even better than that one. I love the Sox, and am a huge Baseball fan, but this town rallied 100% behind the Bears. It's about 75% behind this Sox team for obvious reasons.

I'm not saying that this team and this accomplishment isn't awesome. It is. I'm just saying that the 85 team will probably forever be #1 in the hearts of Chicago. (Even though the 84 team was actually better)

Now, on the other hand, this team has a chance to do what that team failed to do - and that is to become a dynasty by winning multiple championships. First thing first - we have to win this year. But this team could be back next year given that almost all the key pieces will be back (Pending Paulie) and that it is likely that KW will have more money to spend on a FA for next year (didn't do it this year when the $ was there and the increased revenues both for 2005 and 2006) and the possibility of Frank Thomas returning healthy.

VenturaSoxFan23
10-21-2005, 12:40 PM
The Sox have more October wins this year than the Bears had in October 1985.

Who's better? That's easy. :tongue:

WinninUglee
10-21-2005, 11:13 PM
Ed Sherman is basically minimizing our success in arguing that the '85 Bears were greater than we are.

For those of you Tribune-registered (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/chi-0510190257oct19,1,1605087.story?coll=chi-sportsnew-hed)

This is just mind boggling to me! Is this guy insane to compare a football team with a baseball team? I did not read the article, but did he even try to compare the Sox with another baseball team ... let's say... the 2003 Cubs, 1984 Cubs... or even the 1969 Cubs?:?: