1985 Bears vs 2000 Ravens: Which was the better defense?

I've read several articles about the greatest defenses of all time. Some say the 1976 "Steel Curtain" of the Steelers, others say the 1991 Philadelphia Eagles, the 1973 LA Rams, and the 1977 "Gritz Blitz" of the Atlanta Falcons. The 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers also deserve to be in this conversation, in my opinion.

But the two teams that were mentioned in particular were the 1985 Bears and the 2000 Ravens. So, this begs the question, which team had the better defense? Let me break down the defenses of both teams.

The 1985 Bears debuted that 46 defense technique which hasn't really been seen before coming from defensive coordinator Buddy Ryan. It was an effective 4-3 technique where the D-Line was shifted to the weak side in front of the guards and centers. It forced the offenses to account for the defenders in front of them which made it harder to execute offensive line assignments. The 46 defense was intended to rush 8 to stuff to negate the running game and make it harder for QB's to throw the ball. This allowed the two outside corners to play free bump and run, coverage to disrupt receiver routes. Offenses back then occasionally ran Strong-I, two back, two receiver sets which made it very difficult to beat that defense. Nowadays, with 5-wide formations, it makes the 46 defense easy to beat because rushing 8 will always leave somebody running open across the field. Also, quick throws can be made before the blitz hits. 

Another method of creating confusion would be to show blitz, and drop linebackers into coverage. This defense is still used to this day, but sparingly. Rex and Rob Ryan implicate this defense into their defensive schemes.  

The 2000 Ravens defensive scheme was a basic 4-3 allowing Ray Lewis and Co. to drop back into coverage while the defensive line did the rest. Because of their speed of the edge, and constant rushing through the A gaps, they negated the running game with ease. Their hybrid defense allowed them to shift between 3-4 and 4-3 looks making their defensive ability very effective. Their 4-3 technique was particularly effective because their four down lineman were fast enough to get to the QB leaving the linebackers surveying the quarterback and making open field tackles if a runner got through. The 3-4 allowed them to close the B & C gaps.

I assume they used the 4-3 more because running the ball would be more effective against a 3-4 technique. Especially a Strong-I set with two backs and an extra tight end on the line to block. Many teams use this sort of defensive technique, but none have been as effective as the Baltimore Ravens. The linebackers in coverage were exceptional athletes, and their four down lineman they would use were powerful and had dangerous closing speed.



How do they stack up statistically?


Overall Rank in the Regular Season:

85 Bears: #1 overall, #1 against the run, #3 against the pass.
00 Ravens: #2 overall, #1 against the run, #8 against the pass.


Total Points Allowed:

85 Bears: 198
00 Ravens: 165 (best all time)


Total Rush Yards Allowed:

85 Bears: 1,319
00 Ravens: 970 (best all time)


Rush Touchdowns Allowed:

85 Bears: 6
00 Ravens: 5


Pass Yards Allowed:

85 Bears: 2,816
00 Ravens: 2,997


Pass Touchdowns Allowed:

85 Bears: 16
00 Ravens: 11


Sacks:

85 Bears: 64
00 Ravens: 35


Interceptions:

85 Bears: 34
00 Ravens: 23


Double Digit Points Allowed: (including playoffs)

85 Bears: 11 with 4 shutouts
00 Ravens: 7 with 3 shutouts



Total points allowed in the Playoffs: (including the Super Bowl)

85 Bears: 10 (Won Super Bowl)
00 Ravens: 23 (Won Super Bowl)



How good was their Offense?

85 Bears: 456 points (2nd)
00 Ravens: 333 points (14th)


The 2000 Ravens went through 2 Quarterbacks, both putting up mediocre numbers. Tony Banks put up 143.5 yards per game and Trent Dilfer put up 136.5 yards per game. Their running game ranked 5th in the league. They went 5 games in a row without scoring a Touchdown constantly depending on their defense to bail them out. Imagine if they had a Peyton Manning on their team. Even with poor QB play and a decent running game, the Ravens dominant defense led them all the way to the Super Bowl and won it.

The 85 Bears' had a nice lineup with Jim McMahon averaging 184.0 yards per game with 15 TD's to 11 INT's. With Walter Payton in the backfield running for over 1,500 yards that year, they had the #1 ranked rushing attack in the league that year.

But what it comes down to, is the playoffs. Both teams won the Super Bowl, but it's how they won it. The 85 Bears shut out TWO teams and held The Patriots to 10 points to win the Super Bowl. That's dominance. The Giants were 5th in total yards per game and 4th in total rush yards and were held to 0 points. The Patriots were 6th in total rush yards and were only held to 10 points.

The 2000 Ravens weren't the top ranked defense, but they showed their dominance in the playoffs. They faced the Broncos in Wild Card Weekend. Denver was 2nd in the league that year in total offense, 3rd in passing yards per game, and the 3rd ranked rushing offense in the league. Baltimore held them to just 3 points. They went on the road against Tennessee and their top ranked defense and top defense against the pass and won 24-10. They held McNair to 176 yards passing and Eddie George to just 91 yards on the ground. They took on The Raiders and their top ranked rush defense and held them to just 3 points.


After all that, it's tough to choose. Both teams stats are almost identical, but I say the Bears. They showed more dominance in the playoffs shutting out two teams and giving up just 10 in the Super Bowl. The Ravens went on the road and still allowed 13 points in two playoff games. The Ravens players was what made their defense so good. The Bears defensive scheme is what brought them to dominance. Good defensive coaching rather than relying on exceptionally good players. The Bears 46 defense was still relatively new and teams had no answer on how to attack it, giving them quite the advantage. Over time, the scheme is now easy to beat. There was nothing unusual about Baltimore's scheme. It was a simple 4-3, but the players on defense was made it work.

Then factor in the Quarterbacks playing in that time period. In 85, you had Montana, Elway, Marino to name a few. In 2000, you had Testaverde and McNair. I would've liked to see those 2000 Ravens go up against a few more skilled Quarterbacks.

Which team would've won if they faced each other? Probably the Ravens. The players they had on defense would've made McMahon run for cover. Not saying Dilfer would out play him, but with offenses knowing how to beat the 46 defense, it'd be easier. Again, this is just my opinion.

I'll end it like this:

If consider the scheme as defensive dominance, then it's The Bears.

If you're looking solely on the play of the players in the defense, then it'd be The Ravens.


Read. Comment. Share.


By: Gerald "Showstopper" Prophete