N※N

Current Bears organization unworthy of hosting 1985 team at opener

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. ion-unworthy-of-hosting-1985-team-at-opener.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Sunday, September 7th 2025 at 15:15 GMT by Sports Illustrated
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

The Bears’ “Legacy” Game Is a Bitter Irony, Says a New Sports Illustrated Critique

In a recent Sports Illustrated column that has already started a firestorm of conversation among Bears fans, the writer argues that the current Chicago Bears organization is “unworthy” of hosting the legendary 1985 squad at the season opener. The piece, which blends a nostalgic look at the 1985 “Super Bowl 81” dynasty with a scathing analysis of the modern franchise, calls into question the value of a high‑profile “Bears‑vs‑Bears” throwback game that the team’s front office has been courting.

Why the 1985 Bears Matter

The article opens by reminding readers why the 1985 Bears are a cultural touchstone. The team finished the season 14‑2, dominated the NFL with a 46‑point defense, and capped off the year by capturing the first of two consecutive Super Bowl titles. Their style—“The Greatest Show on Turf” and the iconic “46 Defense”—has become a benchmark for excellence in Chicago, and it’s that mythos that underpins the upcoming pre‑season “Legacy” game. For many, the prospect of seeing the modern roster take on the 1985 veterans was a chance to honor the city’s football heritage.

The Current Bears in Context

The piece pivots, however, to a stark portrait of the 2023–24 Bears. With a 7‑9 record and a defense that has been porous at the most critical moments, the team is seen as anemic in the eyes of the author. He references the latest game recap (a link to the 2023 season’s 13‑20 loss to the Lions) to illustrate how the Bears are failing to execute basic plays—both on offense and defense—despite a roster that includes promising rookie wide receivers and a re‑imagined pass rush. The article draws a parallel to a 2022 season recap that showed the Bears failing to maintain possession against the New England Patriots, further underscoring a trend of inconsistency.

The article also cites the recent coaching shuffle—specifically the hiring of a new defensive coordinator with a controversial track record of failing to convert turnovers into points—and the front‑office’s failure to adequately address a high salary cap hit that has left the team scrambling for cap relief. These points are tied back to the writer’s thesis that the franchise has lost the organizational cohesion that once made the 1985 Bears a powerhouse.

A Call for Accountability

Central to the article’s argument is a call for the Bears’ leadership to take responsibility for the decline. The author references a 2021 interview (via a linked SI article) with the general manager that highlighted a “lack of vision” as a major issue. He stresses that the team’s current status—where even the most celebrated veterans are underperforming—cannot justify a showcase event that might otherwise serve as a morale boost. “If you’re going to let the public see the 1985 team’s legacy, you should first ensure that your current squad can stand in the spotlight,” the article contends.

Links to Further Discussion

The writer’s piece is not an isolated rant. It links to a 2024 “Bears vs. Bears” preview that details the planned schedule for the Legacy game, including a segment on ticket sales and the projected revenue. In that linked preview, the Bears’ marketing department has projected $15 million in revenue from a combined ticket sale, but the article’s author questions whether that money would justify an event that “may not be able to generate the excitement or respect it deserves.”

The article also references a 2023 blog post from the Chicago Tribune that critiqued the city’s lack of infrastructure to support a large, televised football event. By weaving these additional resources into his narrative, the author reinforces the idea that both on‑field performance and off‑field operations are misaligned.

A Broader Implication

While the writer’s criticism is blunt, it echoes a broader narrative circulating among fans: the Bears are caught between the weight of their storied past and the failure to recapture that legacy in the modern NFL. The “Legacy” game, a high‑profile event intended to bridge generations, might instead become a reminder of how far the franchise has drifted from its roots.

In closing, the piece invites Bears fans to reflect on whether the franchise’s current trajectory is worth celebrating in a game that could potentially be seen as a hollow salute. “The 1985 Bears set a standard. The present Bears simply do not meet the minimum qualifications to honor that standard,” the author writes. Whether Chicago’s leadership takes heed of this admonition remains to be seen—though the upcoming season will be its most telling trial.