Giants vs. Bears Sep. 14 , 1987 part 1

[TheCrazyfinn21]

You don't have the express written consent of the NFL to upload this! :(

[kwolf68]

As a Bears fan, I just don't think the 1987 Bears were that good, but that isn't because they weren't good, the strike tore the team apart. Ditka terribly managed that situation and the team just wasn't good. The 1986 Bears were awesome, but the 1986 Giants were awesome too...would have loved to see a battle between them. The 1988 Bears were a great team, but got worked over by the Niners in the NFC Title game...Bears needed another SB to cement their legacy.

[MrAudacity11]

And btw, real big feat beating the Giants in this game. They had the biggest superbowl hangover in history, starting the season 0-5. 

[kwolf68]

@MrAudacity11 I certainly wouldn't say the "Giants" started 0-5....3 of those losses were by the strike team. I wish people knew history and didn't just recite stats.

[MrAudacity11]

@kwolf68 Maybe your'e the one who doesn't know anything about history. Or at least GIANTS history. I've seen every Giants game since 1984 and know their history top to bottom. So as a Bears fan, don't even try to argue Giants history with me.

Here's the facts: They went 0-3 with the replacement team...and 6-6 WITH THE STARTERS. Hence, beating the '87 Giants is something nobody except Bears fans--who are STILL trying to rationalize why they only one 1 superbowl in the 80s--will remember.

[kwolf68]

@MrAudacity11 I stated the Giants strike team went 0-3, in response to your prattling on about them going 0-5 under a "Super Bowl hangover". Then you 'give me the facts' and recite essentially what I had said. You're a total fucking boob. I'm not rationalizing anything about the Bears winning only 1 Super Bowl...The Bears fucked up and lost several golden chances to win it all, but in the end Mike Ditka was a crappy ass coach and that cost the Bears. Oh well...life goes on

[MrAudacity11]

@kwolf68 First off, calling someone a boob, or moron, or whatever name it is that angry people like to use nowadays, is not only the product of a weak argument, but usually of a weak mind. Perhaps you're better than that, but your response certainly doesn't prove it.

Second, you said it was more like 0-2 because the 3 strike games don't count, in effect to try and DOWNPLAY THEIR RECORD, so I wasn't reciting anything. Starters went 6-6, not 0-2, making this game and your reply meaningless.

[Greg2600]

Are these people crazy? Nobody was beating the Giants in '86.

[eugenemcgirt]

I wanted to see the Bears and Giants meet in 1986... both teams were 14-2 and it would have been a very physical game. I thought the Bears were better back then. Similar teams and styles but I thought Chicago played it just a notch better. Of course, NY had L.T. who was the best defensive player on either team. Chicago had Walter Payton who was the best offensive player on either team.

[redrum154]

(cont'd) its almost like saying "backup QB" like everythings normal, when referring to STEVE YOUNG. GTFO. Our strength was defense and running game, so when you go from a solid yet unspectacular QB, to a heaping pile of trash, yes it makes all the diff, its NOT an "excuse", especially when the act was blatant, planned, deliberate etc...picking up Jimmy Mac and slamming him on his shoulder was hands down the SICKEST act in NFL history. He'd be banned from the league if that happened today....

[jln55]

This was the year of the scab players. The Giants did not win any of the scab games, and ended up 6-9. 

[kvarsity10]

I always thought Lionel Manuel, Stephen Baker, and Mark Ingram would become the NFL's dominant receiving trio.

[MoeHailstone]

If George Martin of the Green Bay Packers hadn't slammed McMahon and hurt his rotator cuff surgery the 86 Bears definitely would have beaten the 96 Giants in the NFC Championship game.  The Bears were #1 in defense and set the record for fewest points given up and the Giants were #2. They had identical records of 14-2 and at that time Jim McMahon was 29-1 and had won his last 23 games straight...and I have the Inside the NFLs to prove it...Giants would have gotten crowned like they did in 87!!

[azbaldy5]

you mean CHARLES MARTIN OF THE PACKERS.

[MoeHailstone]

LOL, you're right Charles Martin of the Packers.  I stand corrected on that measure but not the other information.

[plntntvzn]

Suer the 86 Bears would have beaten the 96 Giants,justas you wrote,but not the 86 Giants. Mcmahon was hurting all year long because of an injury on opening day. Bears OL was better at run blocking than pass blocking. On the front 7,I count 6 great Giant defenders,and only 5 great Bear defenders. Bears had a huge edge at WR,but giants had a huge edge at TE. Giants also had an edge at FB becuase matt Suhey was very good but not great at pile driving in short yardage the way Maurice Carthon was.

[plntntvzn]

Only difference between what C Martin did to McMahon and what George Martin and his mates would have done to him was the Giants doing it within the rules.McMahon was not healthy all of 1986.Also,stop discrediting the Redskins. Flutie did not play poorly in that playoff game and McMahon helped the Bears get out to a 14-0 lead next year against Redskins in playoffs. But the skins had DL of Mann,Manley & Butz all in their prime,and LBs Coleman and Kaufman. CB Green was in his prime for 20 years.

[MoeHailstone]

So the 99 Rams, 02 Bucs, 00 Ravens, 06 Colts, 96 Packers, and 94 49ers were flukes along with the '85 Bears by your account. You know how nuts that sounds??

[plntntvzn]

Nice try,but no you don't. Rams,Colts,& Pack all were competitive in atleast another Super Bowl, while Bucs & 49ers were competitive in other NFC title games (Bucs in 99,49ers in 92). Other than 1985,the year all competition went into hibernation except for Bears, the only other times Bears played in NFC title games,they were slaughtered by an avg.of 24 points. As far as Ravens,on the youtube sight "'76 Steelers Defense "the Steel Curtain",bobbyp27 has been opening my eyes up about them anyway.

[plntntvzn]

After the Redskins and the Giants won their first Super Bowls,both teams had more than their share of QB injuries and QB controversies. That never stopped either of them from proving that their first Super Bowl wins were not flukes. That is what it is all about. "The greatest of teams survive the test of time",John Facenda of NFL Films once said in 1981. All the people voting the 1985 Bears being the greatest of all time obviously could care less about that,and they are all cheating the game.

[optimus2g]

@MoeHailstone Bears played NOONE in '86. They would have been annihilated in Giants Stadium in january of '87. Nobody was beating the Giants at that late stage of the game. That same Redskins team that your squad lost to, convincingly i might add, lost to the Giants 3 times that year. Even if McMahon played--who you make out to sound like Joe Montana--they would have had enormous problems against that Giants team who were hungry for revenge from the previous year.

[UNITEDFORCES1TV]

@MoeHailstone Yes the Bears had that 46 defense, but they couldn't beat a very good Redskins team (which beat them at Solider Field in 1986 and 1987). The Giants had home field advantage in 1986 and beat the Redskins three times.

[wizeman5974]

@MoeHailstone That would be Charles Martin of the Packers. George Martin played on the d-line for the Giants.

[HaulinHearse]

@MoeHailstone The Redskins owned the Bears and are the reason they never became a dynasty. McMahon played in '87 and lost to the Redskins.

[MrAudacity11]

@MoeHailstone Except too bad the Bears would have played the NFC Championship Game at Giants Stadium, NOT at Chicago. And too bad the Giants had a clear advantage with the wind for that game. And too bad it never happened. And it too bad the Bears WOULDN'T have won anyway. And too bad you weren't good enough to beat the Redskins, much less win another superbowl after '85. And too bad injuries are a convenient excuse. And too bad a weak rationalization is the only thing that'll ever comfort you.

[67bobbyg]

@MrAudacity11 The injury to our quarterback is not a "convenient" excuse. We played most of the year without our quarterback and still went 14-2. The Bears played Washington with a quarterback who didn't even know all the plays in their system. That's why they lost to Wash. Now of course we'll never know what would have happened if the Bears played the Giants. But I do ask you this. Would the Giants have gone 14-2 if Simms had been out nearly the whole year?

[MrAudacity11]

@67bobbyg Sorry but McMahon was not the difference maker type of QB Bear fans make him out to be. Injuries? Giants went 14-2 with both their starting wideouts injured for the first 10 games, and the two games they lost were by a total of 8 points. From week 10 on, they were the best team in the league, including the Bears, who never would've been able to handle the NFC Championship winds at Giants stadium.

What would the Giants have done without a QB? I don't know, ask the 90 superbowl team.

[67bobbyg]

@MrAudacity11 Good pts, but I think you are underating McMahon a little. The Bears went two years without losing a game with him at QB, and 2 games in 3 years. Hostetler provided the 90 Giants with a running ability Simms couldn't. I remember that hurt the Bears in the playoff game against NY that year. Flutie provided us nothing. He didn't even know the plays.So if you want to argue anything, say NY was deeper at QB during this era. We also had our best wideout, McKinnon, out all year in 86.

[MrAudacity11]

@67bobbyg Go look at Doug Flutie and Jeff Hostetler's career NFL stats. They are almost EXACTLY the same. And Flutie winds up having the better career if you count his AFL stats, which are off the charts. None of this even matters since McMahon was back for the 86 playoffs.

LOL at McKinnon--he averaged 25-35 catches a year. His best year was 45 receptions for 700 yards.

Key injuries happen to EVERY team. In 90 the Giants won the superbowl without their starting QB and their starting RB.

[MrAudacity11]

@MoeHailstone Oh, and btw, Moe, thanks for being our doormat in 1990 Divisional Playoff at Giants stadium, a 31-3 ass-spanking, which I attended in person. You may recall a certain starting Giants QB who suffered a season ending injury that year was replaced by a backup who went on to win the superbowl.

Moral of the story: injury excuse is the tonic of losers...but it does occasionally get you a favorable rating on youtube.

[fccm2008]

@MrAudacity11 Quit crying you got lucky in 86.

[MrAudacity11]

@fccm2008 LMAO!!! Yeah, lucky. Destroyed SF by 46 points, shutout Washington, beat Denver by 19 (who got 10 points in garbage time). Nobody here crying but Bears fans, as exampled by the excuses.

Here's a thought: maybe the Bears defense was all about the system rather than their talent, and once everybody figured out how to block it, the Bears defense never came close to being as good. Would certainly explain winning only 1 superbowl, wouldn't it?

[fccm2008]

@MrAudacity11 You should send Charles Martin a super bowl ring, he took the Bears out in 1986, thereby allowing a good, but not great, giants team to win a superbowl. The Bears proved their superiorty in 1987 by crushing the giants 34-19 on Monday Night football with a backup QB. Plus nobody taks about, or even remembers the 86 giants, but the 85 Bears are a Legend.

[MrAudacity11]

@fccm2008 Dude, tell it to someone dumb enough to buy it. We won the '90 superbowl with a QB who started 7 career games. I've already destroyed your argument by pointing out that the '87 opener was the start of a 6-10 season for a team that went 6-7 WITH their starters, so you're fawning over an unimpressive win. Nobody remembers '86? That's funny, they just had a huge anniversary celebration and I always hear them referenced on NFLN. Of course the 85 Bears are legend...it's really all you have.

[giantsbyone]

@MoeHailstone First of all, the Giants were not even in the NFC Championship game in 96. Second, the Giants were crowned for the 86 season, not 87. Third, the Giants were on FIRE in that playoff run. The Bears "#1 defense" couldn't even stop Jay Schoeder from dropping 27 on them in the playoffs. But if it makes yourself feel better living in the "what if" dimension, then you have my support.

[domirules28]

what a prediction by al michaels...baker and ingram were the phenominal receivers of the second superbowl for the gmen...they were replaced by chris calloway and mike sherrard later on...gmen have always had a strong receiving corps...

[BrigetteandEvan]

@domirules28 I'm a direhard Giants fan, but that statement is simply untrue. Our receivers were serviceable, but not strong.

These years were dominated by defense and the running game. Simms was the perfect field general, but he never had to carry them.

[truthfulmind]

They had play review in '87? Interesting.

[FrsBigeasy]

I hate the Giants but this was a great MNF game between 2 great teams.

[Jkw718]

Why do you hate the Giants lol?

Which team do u like?

[FrsBigeasy]

I'm a Die Hard Redskin fan, were long time rivals, LT & Leonard Marshal broke Joe Theisman's leg etc etc etc. "lol"

[redrum154]

GIANTS FANS; you were L-U-C-K-Y in 86 with McMahon being headhunted by that POS Packer. our 86 defense was even better than 85.

"In 1986, Charles Martin drove McMahon into the ground after the quarterback had thrown a pass. McMahon was out for the rest of the season with a shoulder injury. Martin was wearing a towel with the numbers of Bears' players on it during the game.

McMahon's No. 9 was at the top of the list. Martin was ejected for a flagrant late hit and suspended for two games."

[Pksoze]

Great teams don't need excuses...the 1990 Giants won a SB without their staring qb and rb. The "greatest team" of all time can't overcome losing a mediocre qb...maybe they weren't so great.

[BrigetteandEvan]

@redrum154 Yeah. They were so much better they won how many Super Bowls?

Yeah, that's what i thought. The Bears had one miracle year where everything came together for them. That's it. Keep living in the past.

Super Bowl scoreboard:

Giants 3

Bears 1

[scoresby33]

The Bears had the most wins out of any team in NFL history from 84-88. The Giants got lucky in 1990 twice. They were lucky Craig fumbled and they were lucky Norwood missed. The Bears dominated the Giants and would have beaten them in the 1986 NFC championship game with a healthy McMahon.

[BrigetteandEvan]

@scoresby33

Lucky? Roger Craig got hit and fumbled. Montana almost got killed in that game, and it almost ended his career. McMahon? LOL. Talk about overrated. Nobody outside Chicago even thinks about him. . Keep reliving a team from 24 years ago. I guess it makes you feel better.

Buffalo dominated every team they played that year, including the Giants, during the regular season.

Lucky, my ass. A team doesn't win two Super Bowls in a five year period by luck. Lucky team? Look in the mirror.

[scoresby33]

The 86 Giants team were not lucky. They had a great season. McMahon not playing in the playoffs hurt the Bears in 86. I can give you many facts on the subject. Anyways, the 86 Giants dominated and didn't catch a couple of lucky breaks. The 1990 Giants caught a couple of lucky breaks. Craig was hit, but should have secured the ball better and the game would be over. Norwood's kick barely viered wide right, otherwise the Bills win. Yes, the Giants had luck on their side in 1990.

[Pksoze]

@scoresby33 the Giants lost their starting qb, and rb...they kicked their top wr off the team. They dominated time of poss vs both san fran and buffalo. That was a great team.

[optimus2g]

@BrigetteandEvan Actually the Giants statistically dominated the Bills when they layed on the regular season in December of 1990 at Giants Stadium. The Bills won 17-13, but were outplayed for the most part. This is why Parcells and his staff felt confident in the SB against them one month later.

[plntntvzn]

Having Roger Craig fumble was not lucky but inevitable. Craig fumbled his first 2 games as a 49er in 1983 and obviously in his last one,and SB 23,and season finale in 1985 vs Dallas when he set that record. Craig's fumbles were way too much of a pattern,to be luck. Not only was he done by 1990,he was done by 1989. Holding 49ers to 13 points in a title game is earning the victory,and holding the Bill offense to 19 points and making FG attempt from a long ways away is earning the victory as well.

[SWO4LIFE]

@scoresby33 retarded asshole giants are the best football team ever!!

[optimus2g]

@scoresby33 How are things in the "Land of Make Believe"? You seem to have a permanent address there.

[holywar911]

@redrum154 stop crying....so we got lucky in 86-90-07 maybe the bears need some luck too.....lol...lol

[Pksoze]

@redrum154 Giants won in 1990 with a backup qb and without their best rb. Excuses are for losers.

[redrum154]

@Pksoze and comparing two totally different levels of talent is extra retarded. You say "backup QB" like everything's equal. No. Jeff Hostetler was a very solid QB, better than all our circus of bozos combined (Tomczak, Flutie, Fuller). Our team went 14-2 with only 12 f'n TD passes from those bums. Beyond brutal. so, don't compare those situations, because as average McMahon may have been, it's all the bears needed to be elite, 15-1 the year before, possibly undefeated with a better 86 D.

[Pksoze]

@redrum154 The Giants in 1990 also lost their best running back in Rodney Hampton, and their best wide receiver was kicked off the team. The Giants were able to draft better backups or had more character guys. That's why that team won more Super Bowls than the Bears in that era.

[SWO4LIFE]

@redrum154 you are a fucking idiot if you think that..if they were so good why did the skins beat them by 10 points in the playoff game you hating ass bitch!!

[chessarama]

@redrum154 Luck doesn't win you anything - especially Super Bowls. To make those arguments would be like writing that the Bears were lucky not to play the Dolphins in SBXX. Maybe the Dolphins would've posted 38 points again. Maybe not?

[EritrianF1Team]

@redrum154 3 > 1. Deal with it. XD

[optimus2g]

@redrum154 Lucky? The Giants woulda beat your asses no matter who your over-rated team had playing the position. LT woulda been too coked for your team to have a chance. They bitch slapped the 49ers 49-3, and then beat down an outstanding Redskins team the way you thought your team could. You don't have the right to talk shit in this instance. Fantasy Land must be a a nice place for you guys to live in.

[MrAudacity11]

@redrum154 Whaa!!! We only one 1 Superbowl! Whaaa! To all you bears fans, you would have played in Giants Stadium in the NFC champship game and NOBODY was beating the Giants that year...including your "only won ONE superbowl Bears." It just kills ya that it only happened once, doesn't it? LOL. Real big talk saying what you WOULD have done. Great teams overcome adversity (see OUR QB being lost in the 90 season en route to another championship). Fuckin second city excuse makers.

[wizeman5974]

@redrum154 That's playing the 'what if" game. But let's play it. At least on that day, I do believe the Giants would have beaten the Bears in Giants Stadium for the '86 NFC Championship. Giants had home-field advantage. On that day, I believe the Giants would have sent McMahon out with an injury, but a clean injury. Not the cheap shot kind, like that asshole Charles Martin did on him. Totally, TOTALLY, classless! The '86 Giants were a team of destiny.

[wizeman5974]

@redrum154 If anything, the loss to Chicago in the '85 playoffs to the Bears would have driven the intensity NY played with that season to an even higher level had they played the Bears in the '86 playoffs. But these are all "what if's". The Bears won it in '85 and the Giants won it in '86. Nothing can change this now or ever.

[giantsbyone]

@redrum154 -- No one was going to beat the Giants with the way they dominated the playoffs that year. Sorry.

[FrsBigeasy]

As a Redskin fan I hate the Giants & the Ditka Bears under achieved big time.

[baddog7676]

Joe Morris was THE MAN!

[azbaldy5]

the Bears DEMOLISHED 'EM i have watched this game many times.Oh what the bears and all that talent SHOULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED!

[azbaldy5]

buddy ryan leaving, the team being too IMMAUTRE, Jim mcmahon being both a jerk and BRITTLE !

[Speegs23]

McMahon was just plum lucky to be on the team, he wasn't a catalyst for winning. Payton, Gault and a stellar D were that team.

[azbaldy5]

Mc mahon was a CLOWN in 1983 the chicago bears COULD HAVE DRAFTED MARINO ! fancy that one

[eugenemcgirt]

Willie Gault wasn't exactly a catalyst. Buddy Ryan and that defense from 1984-1988 should have won at least 3 super bowls.... 1984-1986. I still think the Bears would have beaten the Gians in '86 if the 'Skins had not beaten Chicago. Bears and Giants were very similar.. .but the Bears were more aggressive in attacking the QB with more guys... the Giants were basically LT with the pass rush.

[busarider29]

Nope. McMahon was never great as far as your "typical" great QB but he was a damn good leader in the huddle. And...he was a winner. When he was on the field, the team played better. Take a look at that first Bears-Vikings game in '85. The Bears were getting handled with Fuller in there and McMahon comes off the bench (he was injured) and throws 3 passes for 3 TD's. Bears come back to win.

In all due respect though, how would you really know being only 25?? You were a new born back then.

[Speegs23]

I can still have a historical appreciation for the game without watching 10 years of film; i remember enough of McMahon from what I've seen of the Bears in this era and of McMahon as a backup in Philly and Green Bay.

It is my observation that he was the classic bus driver quarterback that happened to come with a charismatic media persona.

He was good enough to be a pro, he just wasn't ever going to be the best quarterback in football.

I think similarly of Matt Cassell, Marc Bulger and Cutler

[eugenemcgirt]

I was a Giants fan during that time... and agree that, when given time, Simms was as accurate as any passer in the NFL... and better than most. The problem lies when he receives pressure. Usually one of three things would happen to Phil when pressure was in his face... 1. interception, 2. fumble, 3. sack. He never seemed to know how to handle pressure without falling apart. He actually handled it better in this game than in prior games.

[Speegs23]

These teams were so similar, stellar D and mediocre offenses that had power running games, average quarterbacks and no name receiving corps. (Bavaro and Gault exceptions)

[eugenemcgirt]

Dennis McKinnon was a good receiver.. Gault just a speed burner with marginal hands.

[Speegs23]

I correct myself as Gault had actually moved on to the Raiders by this point.

[azbaldy5]

biggest difference? giants ad a qb in simms the bears qb's were SERVICEABLE AT BEST !

[Speegs23]

Simms is above average on a good day and plum average the rest, I think Jeff Hosteler showed that much.

He certainly was no Montanta, Elway, Marino, Aikman or Young. I don;t even think he was a Bledsoe, more on par with a Boomer Esiason or a Steve Bono.

[eugenemcgirt]

Simms is average at best... a mistake waiting to happen when you get pressure on him. McMahon and Simms are similar.. the difference being Simms eventually stopped getting hurt... but I think McMahon may have been a better QB.

[azbaldy5]

mcmahon was always beat up and he had NO ARM and never watched much film.I agree with you about simms a MISTAKE WAITING TO HAPPEN. If you have watched his son chris you see the apples don't fall far from the tree.

[busarider29]

I'm a huge Bears fan. I grew up watching McMahon and Simms in the 80's. With that said, I would have taken Simms over McMahon. Simms had some bad games against the Bears back then, this game being one of them and the '85 Championship game being another that sticks in people's minds. Playing against that Bears defense, a lot of QB's had bad games. Overall, Simms was a good QB. McMahon was so damn fragile. The man never played an entire season. He fell down, and you were holding your breath.

[eugenemcgirt]

In terms of durability, you'd have to pick Simms over McMahon. Ironically, Phil was as fragile as they came during his first 5 years in the NFL. However, he did become durable from 1984 on, whereas McMahon never became a durable QB. Their first 5 years were about the same in terms of durability though.. the difference being McMahon had a much better winning percentage.

[busarider29]

I wouldn't call Simms average. He was good. I would never have put him in the top-5 QB's of his day but in his prime, he was "good". He was better than average. He had some bad games like every QB does. But, when he was given time, he was very accurate. And you'll never be able to take that '86-87 SB performance away from him. 22-25 completion percentage, 268 yds, 3 TD passes......probably THE best QB performance in SB history. Now that's saying something!

This coming from a Bears fan.

[eugenemcgirt]

The Super Bowl was a great game.. without a doubt. Not sure I would put that over Doug Williams... but it's arguable. Phil actually came into his own in the '85 Pro Bowl the year Chicago won the title. He was voted MVP in that game as well... and it was somewhat of a springboard to the 1986 season.

[busarider29]

No...Simms performance in SB XXI was near perfection with only 3 incompletions the entire game.

Doug Williams performance in SB XXII was fabulous as well, but "flawed" with one INT and "only" a 62% completion as opposed to Simms' 88% completions. Williams did throw one more TD pass (4) than Simms (3) though. Now, there is no argument that Williams had the single best quarter in a SB ever...the 2nd quarter of that game. WOW!! Still unbelievable. I was in "Aww" watching it...and pissed too!

[busarider29]

....also, correction on a statement I made above. It was the Divisional playoff game in '85....not the Championship game. Who could forget Sean Landetta completely missing the ball on the attempted punt??

[SECTION324]

man what a game go bears

[navyman1924]

MANY THANKS!!! JUST FOUND THIS!!

[link4ever3]

Go bears

there r the best

[thenextrung]

DA BEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chisports14]

is this on monday night football

[mdumas43073]

Yep. Michaels, Gifford, and Dierdorf.

[cvetipavlov]

bears rock