Joe Montana said the Bears could have won more than one Super Bowl if they had dumped Mike Ditka after winning the first one.
That`s not what he said?
No. Wait. That`s my conclusion from the notes I made from what he said.
What Montana said was the 49ers were able to repeat as Super Bowl champs when others could not because the 49ers changed coaches.
Same thing.
Because George Seifert replaced Bill Walsh, according to Montana`s theory, there was just enough newness and uncertainly to make the players pay attention instead of becoming complacent. Gave them the edge they needed, Montana said.
More than that, the kindly Seifert was such a relief after Walsh the autocrat, the 49ers won from gratitude.
We must remember that, though Walsh won three Super Bowls, the 49ers never repeated under him.
So, I think, that`s the answer. That`s why the Bears, who had the youngest team in the league when they won the `86 Super Bowl, a team with tomorrow by the throat, spent the next four years being somebody else`s trophy.
Because Ditka stuck around.
I offered my theory to a friend. He reminded me of another time it happened. A year after Baltimore lost to the Jets in Super Bowl III, Don Shula fled to Miami.
Shula, in his day, was every bit the scenery chewer Ditka is. Shula was replaced by Don McCafferty, a pile of warm custard.
So relieved were Johnny Unitas and company to be treated like adults that they went out and won the next Super Bowl.
But, my friend warned, this only works in one direction. Tough guy to pushover. And only for one year. The next season the team needs discipline again or it turns into a bunch of loose marbles.
How come, I ask, it didn`t work in Dallas when Tom Landry, the old igloo and scarmaker, was replaced by the players` friend, Jimmy Johnson?
Well, he said, it works better when you have Unitas or Montana on the team.
The Bears, of course, had only Jim McMahon or his inadequate heirs, so maybe it would not have worked even if Ditka had declared peace.
But I couldn`t help thinking, as I listened to Seifert and Montana explain the secrets of football`s latest dynasty, that the `80s could have been the Bears` decade.
The `85 Bears would have wiped up these 49ers.
So would have the Steelers of the `70s, the team now forced to share the pedestal with fresher memories.
I give myself this test. Why can I remember a decade later almost every one of those Steelers-Franco and Rocky, Stallworth and Swann, Bradshaw and Lambert and Blount and Hamm and Mean Joe-and I can`t place more than a few of the 49ers whom I saw play the greatest Super Bowl ever just a couple of days ago?
Defense. Ronnie Lott and a bunch of blanks. Offense. Montana, Rice and Roger somebody.
That`s all that sticks. And this is the greatest team of all time? I don`t think we need to dust more than a couple of corners in the Hall of Fame for these guys.
I like simple answers. I am in the simple answer business. Maybe it was simply Eddie DeBartolo`s money that was able to keep the 49ers talent level high and the livestock happy.
Maybe it was Montana, more special than he looks. Or Walsh`s system, still used, still splendid.
Maybe it was just San Francisco`s turn. That`s what Seifert said. Bay Area World Series. 49er repeat. Seifert said he could remember when all the good stuff happened in Southern California.
I wonder when it will be Chicago`s turn, when success and astonishment are not twins.
Maybe trading Ditka for one more Super Bowl was the best Chicago could have done.
Sounds like a good deal to me.
