Talk:National Football League rivalries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chicago/St. Louis/Phoenix/Arizona Cardinals vs. Chicago Bears[edit]

considering this is the oldest rivalry in prfessional football history, I think it should be included It's had some great moments as well, most recently denny green's infamous "speech" —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Giants vs. Niners[edit]

Somebody (I don't feel qualified) needs to put this one in. 80's battles for NFC title and that wacky field goal rekick in the playoffs in 2001 (?) Definitely the rivalry of the 80's from my POV. Xoloz 10:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

ask and ye shall receive. i covered the 2003 playoff matchup, which was certainly the type of game that makes a rivalry. i don't know a lot about the 80's matchups so feel free to add that. Simishag 21:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Overall Article[edit]

The all-time record of the teams in the rivalry against each other should be added in.

I'm not sure that level of detail is warranted here. The stats would also inevitably get stale. However, a reference to an outside source such as [1] would be appropriate, so I will add that. Simishag 23:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I actually think that would be pretty cool! But my gosh, who in the world would want to count all of those? You can't have one without having all of them, you know? Rattlerbrat 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For the Chiefs and Dolphins, what about the 1990 and 1994 playoff games between the teams? Or for the Giants-Eagles, the two games of the 2001 season, or the finale of 2002? Or for the Eagles-Cowboys, Philly's 4th and 1 stop in 1995 over the champs and the two games they split in 1996? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 21:24, 18 November 2006

Define "rivalry"?[edit]

What's the criteria for a "rivalry" here? As this article stands, Dallas fights with darn-near-everybody. (The Giants? The Eagles? The Packers?) In reality, IMO, our only "rivals" are the Redskins, for old school history, and the 49ers because of of the 90s (and even that's fizzld out). A lot of what I'm seeing isn't really rivalry-based as much as it is Notable Stuff That Happened in Some Games Over the Years. Rattlerbrat 18:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I think it can be agreed upon that the Dallas Cowboys has a rivalry with their entire division.--Attitude2000 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, that's just competitiveness, frankly. But a note should be made of the fact that nobody seems to care for Dallas, except, well, Dallas Bizznot 14:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pittsburg Steelers vs. Philadelphia Eagles?[edit]

How many significant games have been played between these two Pennsylvania teams? I admit that I do not have the credentials to be an NFL expert, but I reckon that these two teams have something to prove to each other, given their close proximity.

Actually, no. These two teams don't have the rivalry that many people would assume they do. Plus, they even merged during WWII, making the Steagles,so therefore, so that even made the owner of the Eagles a Steeler owner and vice versa, so there is really not alot of competition between the two teams.

Those who live out of Pennsylvania have no idea how big of a rivalry Pitt vs. Philly is. This type of rivalry is more of a fan standpoint. The Steelers (since 1960-) have undergone a lot of success and Steelers fans constantly rub their success in the noses of the Eagles fans. So when these teams get together it's like this: Eagles fans have to prove that they can compete with and be as credible as Pittsburgh and the Steelers try to maintain their dominance. No rivalry my...HA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprinterstar7 (talkcontribs) 03:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


If someone could rephrase the "swashbuckling raiders", that would be nice. It's a well written section, but could use some rewriting to make it less biased. I second the idea of the rivalry, though: the forums are half about how bad the Raiders (Gayders Faiders) are. Bizznot 14:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Out-of-control addition of rivalries[edit]

It seems as if any fan of a team can just add their team + (random team they've had at least one good game with) and make a section. I know everyone wants to make instant history but in most instances a rivalry needs time to develop. The Baltimore vs. Tennessee section cites Steve McNair moving from Tennessee to Baltimore as a significant event. I am willing to discuss why this is not significant (Montana to Chiefs does not start rivalry, though it led to one good game between them) if someone wants to contact me. This article should have some kind of limit, otherwise it loses its usefulness. Backstroke54 07:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I whole heartedly agree. I was hoping to pull up this page and learn about the Lions-Bears, the Steelers-Browns, or (of course) the Eagles-Cowboys. But the Falcons-Panthers? Bucs-Raiders? Bucs-Steelers? They may have had a good game or two, but this is too much. I'm going to heavily trim down his article unless no one objecs. -04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Go for it the list is way too long and ridiculous. Significant rivalries in the NFL should mean they're significant. Hell, according to the list, the Steelers are rivaled with every team in the NFL.--aviper2k7 04:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go through them one-by-one, and give a reason for deletion in the edit summary. Perhaps later I will reorganize into different categories, so we can avoid sections with non-rivalries like "intra-conference". Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 04:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


Never thought that was much of one Smith03 20:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Philadelphia Eagles versus Dallas Cowboys[edit]

Should something about TO be added? or is it too short-term?

Bizznot 20:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is getting ridiculous[edit]

The whole thing is original research and unverified. This article is supposed to say "Significant Rivalries in the NFL", but there's way too many of them. I would think a significant rivalry would be Giants Eagles, or Packers Bears, or significant rivalries like that, but "Cleveland Browns vs. Baltimore Ravens"? Where are the sources that this is a significant rivalry? Every team has a rivalry with each other, especially in a division, but it doesn't mean it's a significant rivalry. I'm going to remove some of them without sources.++aviper2k7++ 18:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The Browns-Ravens thing actually could be considered a rivalry on one level since it's old-Browns versus new-Browns. I don't know if anybody outside of Cleveland cares about it, though. I would agree with you that I wouldn't call it significant. Roofi's Publicist 03:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
browns/ravens gone. Please proon list as you see fit (you should have seen it before). 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first poster; everybody is simply trying to promote their own team's supposed 'rivalries', and in doing so the article has lost a proper sense of encyclopedic focus or weighting. In some ways it is little more than a trivia article.
To be honest some of the additions constitute the sort pedantry that spoils many elements of Wikipedia. Someone really needs to start making authoritative cuts and trim the excess material down.Gunstar hero 19:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Too much detail about too many games of moderate importance weigh it down. Way too much info on recent decades with a paucity of information about great games/rivalries from earlier decades. For example, Bears/Giants and Bears/Redskins don't even make the list, despite several historic NFL title games in the 30s and 40s. The list of rivalries should be edited down using criteria (flexible but critical) that help single out the rivalries that really have something behind them: history (Bears/Packers) geography (Browns/Bengals) a SERIES of great games, with more emphasis on playoff games (Browns/Broncos). Also, the format of stuffing every point into the "signature moment" cubbyhole is limiting. 08:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Cowboys vs. Niners ?????[edit]

This article is out of control, but the section on the Niners vs. Cowboys is ridiculous! Some parts of it don't even talk about specific games. 'The Catch', leave in, and 2 or 3 others, but get rid of the rest, get rid of all the insignificant fluff, it makes the whole article look even worse. If you are looking to fix, clean-up, whatever, this article, this section is where to start!!! 17:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Patriots vs. Chargers?[edit]

It seems some anonymous users have been adding rivalries between the Patriots and seemingly every other team in the league. I've deleted some of the more obviously implausible ones (vs. the Vikings and Jaguars, for example). Now, I wonder if the one against the Chargers deserves mention on the page. While the incident from last year's playoffs is certainly something that can spark a rivalry, I'm not sure there's anything else to go on that merits inclusion, which is why, the first time it was included, I felt it's better to at least wait until their regular season game this year. After all, this isn't a list of every notable event that happened to occur between two particular teams. Highway99 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ravens vs. Colts[edit]

How can this famous rivalry not be on this list when you consider some of the non-rivalries on here, some of which are basically a list of teams that have played other teams at some point in history?

Eagles vs. Giants?[edit]

I'm just wondering if Westbrook's punt return should be included since it is also referred to as "The Miracle at the Meadowlands?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprinterstar7 (talkcontribs) 22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be overhauled[edit]

I've been watching this article for some time, and now more than ever it seems like people are just adding "cool moments" that have happened between two particular teams, regardless of if they even had a rivalry at that point. Even on entries that are legitimate rivalries, it seems like some have a moment for every game played between them. We need to figure out some criteria to pare down the number of rivalries on this article, and then pare down the number of moments each one has; if a rivalry is important enough to have ten or twelve moments, then someone can start a sub-article on it. I'll try and edit it where I can, but I don't want to unilaterally determine what's a rivalry and what's not. That's been the problem with the article. So let's have some real discussion because it's time we reign in what goes into this article. --Highway99 (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

split article(s)[edit]

I would do it by division, intraconference, and interconference. This article is waaaaaay too long.--Levineps (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a bad idea. Might make it easier to clean out some of the crap that's bloated the article to its present size. I would leave this page as a disambiguation page, however. --Highway99 (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone screwed this page[edit]

Who f***ed this page up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve12992 (talkcontribs) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean, who split the page into more manageable and sensible subpages? That would be Levineps, I presume. Highway99 (talk) 03:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers vs San Francisco 49ers[edit]

The Green Bay Packers rivalry with the 49ers began after the 49ers lost to the Packers in the 95 divisional Playoffs 27-17,ending any hopes for a Super Bowl repeat, this is what would begin what many people call "The Packers Curse". during that time the 49ers lost 5 straight games to the Packers, including 4 post-season loses. The 49ers finally beat the Packers in the 1998 Wildcard round, when Steve Young completed a game-winning touchdown to Terrell Owens in the last few seconds of the game( now known as "The Catch 2"). Many people thought this would end the Packer curse, however the 49ers have yet to beat the Packers since.

The 49ers and Packers were mirror images of each other, both using Bill Walsh offenses. The team's head coaches were former Walsh pupils Mike Holmgren and George Seifert and in 1997 Holmgren assistant Mariucci took over in Cisco. They were both led by the premier QB's of the Late 90's Brett Favre and Steve Young and were Dynasties from the 60's and 80's respectively that were reborn, to leave an undeniable mark in the 1990's.

Signature Moments: 1995 Divisional Playoff,The Packers jumped to a 21-0 lead en route to a 27-17 victory. Green Bay quarterback Brett Favre threw for 222 yards in the first half, and ended up with completing 21 out of 28 passes for 299 yards and two touchdowns. Receiver Robert Brooks caught four passes for 103 yards. Meanwhile, their defense sacked 49ers quarterback Steve Young three times and intercepted him twice. Young ended up setting a playoff record with 65 pass attempts, but completed only 32 of them for 328 yards.

Signature Moment: 1997 Championship Game,Green Bay opened the game by driving to the 3-yard line before fullback William Henderson dropped a would-be touchdown, forcing the Packers to settle for a field goal. Later in the first half, Packers safety Eugene Robinson intercepted Steve Young's pass and returned it 58 yards in what turned out to be a crucial play. Quarterback Brett Favre would then find wide receiver Antonio Freeman slicing across the middle on a slant for a 29-yard touchdown to give the Packers a 10-0 lead. The Packers led 13-3 at the half and although the 49ers would manage a field goal in the second quarter, they would not manage a touchdown until the closing minutes of the game on a kickoff return by Chuck Levy. Favre finished the game with 16 of 27 pass completions for 222 yards, while the Green Bay defense held the 49ers to 33 rushing yards and forced two turnovers. Running back Dorsey Levens recorded a then-playoff team record of 116 rushing yards and a touchdown, while also catching 6 passes for 37 yards. And in addition to his touchdown reception, Freeman caught 4 passes for 107 yards.

Signature Moment:1998 Wild Card Playoff, The 49ers defeated the Packers, who had eliminated them from the playoffs in each of the past 3 seasons, in one of the wildest, back-and-forth games in league history.

Both teams took advantage of each other's turnovers and mistakes throughout the game. In the first quarter, Green Bay safety Pat Terrell's recovery of a fumble from receiver Terrell Owens set up a 48-yard drive that ended with a Ryan Longwell field goal. But later in the period, 49ers lineman Chris Doleman recovered a fumble from Dorsey Levens on the Packers 17-yard line. Two plays later, Steve Young threw a 1-yard touchdown pass to tight end Greg Clark, giving San Francisco a 7-3 lead. The Packers offense responded by driving 62 yards in 9 plays, and Levens made up for his miscue with a 22-yard run to the 49ers 2-yard line on fourth down and 1. On the next play, quarterback Brett Favre finished the drive with a 2-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Freeman 4 seconds into the second quarter.

Later in the second quarter, 49ers defensive back R. W. McQuarters returned a punt 19 yards to the 47-yard line. Running back Garrison Hearst then rushed 3 times for 28 yards on a 37-yard drive that ended with a field goal by Wade Richey, tying the game at 10. But before the half ended, the Packers retook the lead with a 9-play, 83 yard drive, aided by two 15-yard penalties against San Francisco. Levens finished the drive with a 2-yard touchdown run, giving Green Bay a 17-10 halftime lead.

Early in the third quarter, 49ers linebacker Lee Woodall intercepted a pass from Favre and returned it 17 yards to the Packers 33-yard line. Five plays later, Young tied the game with his second touchdown pass to Clark. Then after forcing a punt, they took the lead by driving 48 yards and scoring with a 48-yard field goal by Richey.

In the fourth quarter, the Packers drove 60 yards in 11 plays, featuring a 33-yard reception by fullback William Henderson, and scored a 37-yard field goal to tie the game. But on the 49ers ensuing drive, a 34-yard completion for Young to Owens set up another Richey field goal to put them back in the lead, 23-20.

Trailing 23-20 with 2 minutes remaining, Favre lofted a 15-yard touchdown pass to Freeman, completing an 89-yard drive that had seen the Packers run a risky 4th-and-1 play from deep in their own territory and Favre completing a 47-yard pass to seldom-used rookie receiver Corey Bradford. But San Francisco responded with an equally impressive drive, in which Jerry Rice visibly fumbled and instant replay was not in effect until the following year, allowing the drive to continue behind Young, who completed 7-of-9 passes in a 76-yard drive for the winning score,. Owens, who had dropped four passes and lost a fumble, caught the 25-yard winning touchdown pass with three seconds left in the game (a.k.a. The Catch II).

Hearst finished the game with 128 rushing yards and 3 receptions for 15 yards. Levens rushed for 116 yards, caught 6 passes for 37 yards, and scored a touchdown. Favre threw for 292 yards and 2 touchdowns, while Young passed for 182 yards and 3 scores. Both Young and Favre were intercepted twice.

Signature Moment: 2001 Wild Card Playoff, In frigid temperatures, the San Francisco 49ers came into Lambeau Field and stood toe-to-toe with the Green Bay Packers for most of the afternoon until being put away by a superb second half performance from Packers quarterback Brett Favre.

Favre completed 6 of 8 passes for 43 yards in the first half, including a 5-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Freeman that gave the Packers a 6-0 lead after San Francisco lineman Dana Stubblefield blocked the extra point. The Packers defense limited San Francisco to just 53 yards and a blocked field goal on their first four drives, but the 49ers closed out the half with a 15-play, 86-yard drive that took 7 minutes off the clock. Quarterback Jeff Garcia completed 6 of 9 passes for 61 yards on the drive, and running back Garrison Hearst capped it off with a 2-yard touchdown run to give his team a 7-6 halftime lead. It marked the first time Green Bay had ever trailed at the end of the first half in a home playoff game since the famous Ice Bowl in 1967.

However, Brett Favre dominated the 49ers defense in the second half, completing 16 of 21 passes for 226 yards and leading his team to four scoring drives. First, he led the Packers 72 yards in 12 plays, completing two passes for 21 yards to Bill Schroeder and a 22-yarder to Freeman en route to a 26-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell. After a San Francisco punt, Favre led his team to the end zone in just three plays, tossing a 12-yard completion to fullback William Henderson, following it up with a 51-yard strike to Corey Bradford, and then finishing the drive with a 19-yard touchdown pass to Bubba Franks with 3:26 left in the third quarter, giving the Packers a 15-7 lead after the 49ers defense tackled Donald Driver short of the end zone on a two-point conversion attempt.

In the fourth quarter, Hearst's 22-yard reception and 10-yard run set up a 14-yard touchdown pass from Garcia to Tai Streets, who also caught a subsequent 2-point conversion pass to tie the game at 15. But Green Bay responded with a 49-yard drive and retook the lead with a 45-yard field goal from Longwell. Then on San Francisco's ensuing possession, defensive back Mike McKenzie deflected a pass from Garcia into the arms of Tyrone Williams for an interception on the Packers 7-yard line. Favre took over from there, leading the Packers on an 8-play 93-yard drive for the game clinching touchdown, featuring two key third down completions to Driver. The first was 37-yard completion third down and 12. Later, Driver caught a 12-yard pass on the 49ers 9-yard line on third down and 6. On the next play, running back Ahman Green scored on a 9-yard touchdown run with 1:55 left in regulation.

Favre finished with 22 of 29 completions for 269 yards and two touchdowns, with 1 interception. Garcia completed 22 of 32 passes for 233 yards and a touchdown, with 1 pick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Is this really a rivalry? I know they're in the same division but this seems to be stretching things.


Sports Illustrated named this the sixth best rivalry in NFL history. That seems to give credibility to one that isn't even listed.

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

We need some sort of objective criteria to determine which rivalries should be included on this list. Some have suggested if the teams have a separate "rival" entry on Wikipedia, yet I don't believe this is a good standard. Any fan could create any page for any two teams. If a 49ers/Jaguars page is created does that automatically make it a valid rivalry for this page? I wouldn't think so. So the standard needs to be stronger. We should only include rivalries that are historic (so nothing fairly recent) and with greater implications than just within a division. If two teams have battled repeatedly in the playoffs, for example. Ultimahero (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If it has a page and/or a geographic rationale, it should be included. (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? If I make a page for Seahawks/Giants or Texans/Lions, will we include those rivalries? What makes you so sure that the initial page is notable? You're using Wikipedia as the standard for what should be included in Wikipedia. There needs to be a better standard.Ultimahero (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If a rivalry is geographical, then it should be included. That is what I am trying to get at. Geography matters. (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer any of my points. You originally said "if it has a page", and I think that makes no sense. So please answer that point. As for geography, that could be important, but not necessarily. The Bills and Giants are in the same geographic region by I don't think anyone would say that's a big rivalry. The same goes for Buccaneers/Jaguars, 49ers/Chargers, etc. Conversely, some of the most heated rivalries aren't geographic at all (Cowboys and Redskins, for example). So while geography COULD be useful, I don't think that it makes a rivalry all by itself.Ultimahero (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, you aren't defining what you mean by geography. Do you simply mean same state? Or 'x amount of hours away'? Can you please be more specific?Ultimahero (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Historical Rivalries[edit]

I am going to make a new section for historical rivalries because some of the inter/intra conference rivalries are dead now but still deserve mention. e.g Browns-Broncos, Steelers-Raiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talkcontribs) 19:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea to help bring some definition to the page.Ultimahero (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I've got some ideas that might be good for the article.

  • Redskins-Bears. They played in 4 championships games from 1937 to 1943 as well as having the first great quarterback debate (Luckman vs Baugh.)
  • Bears-Giants. They also played in 4 championship games (1933, 1934, 1941, 1946) in the thirties and forties. (They also played a pair later, one in 1956 and one in 1963).
  • Giants-Packers. The Giants were the NFL Champions in 1927 over the Packers while the Packers were the NFL Champion in 1929 and 1930 over the Giants. (Playoffs didn't start until 1932, so the these were based on best winning percentage.) Further, they played in 5 Championship games; 1938, 1939, 1944, 1961 and 1962.
  • Rams-Browns. They played in three Championship games in the 50's; 1950, 1951, 1955.
  • Lions-Browns. They played in 4 Championship games during the 50's; 1952, 1953, 1954, 1957.
  • Vikings-Cowboys. From 1969 to 1978, a ten year span, the Vikings and Cowboys combined to represent the NFC in 9 Super Bowls. Further, they played 4 playoff games over that stretch.Ultimahero (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Other rivalries that NEED to be in historical are Steelers-Raiders, Niners-Cowboys and possibly Browns-Broncos. Also, about Rams-Browns, should we say Los Angeles Rams vs Cleveland Browns on the page or St Louis Rams vs Cleveland Browns on the page. All of the history of the rivalry happened when the Rams were in LA. Also, the Rams played in Cleveland before the Browns joined the AAFC in 1946. I think you have all of the other suggestions right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

All great suggestions. I think Los Angeles Rams would be best since that's where they were when the rivalry occurred.Ultimahero (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the 'Historical section' and moved both DAL-SF and NYG-SF there. I'll keep looking at other historical rivalries as well.Ultimahero (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Rivalries to be deleted[edit]

There's a lot of stuff here that really doesn't belong. I think we need to better define what consists of a 'rivalry', so I'm going to start listing things here that I think can be deleted.Ultimahero (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Bills-Dolphins. Despite both teams being in the AFC East together since their inceptions, there's not a whole lot here. Most of their success doesn't overlap. The Bills were in three AFL Championships from 1964-1966, with the Dolphins first season being a 5th place finish in 1966. The Dolphins were in three straight Super Bowls from 1971-1973, but the Bills only had a winning season in '73 and still missed the playoffs. The Dolphins had another string of success from 1978 to 1984, playing ion two more Super Bowls during that times, but the Bills only had two winning seasons during that time. Really, the only time both clubs have enjoyed prolonged success at the same period was from 1990 to 1998, meeting four times int he playoffs over that stretch. However, I have to wonder how big a deal those were to both clubs since the Bills were in four straight losing Super Bowls. It would seem that the bigger focus for them would be getting over that hump. I don't see enough here to include it.Ultimahero (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Dolphins-Jets. Nothing, really. One playoff game in 1982, but just a few close seasons here and there. Nothing really to go on.Ultimahero (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bills-Jets and Bills-Patriots. If all that's there is a link to a different page, we're kinda admitting there's nothing notable to include.Ultimahero (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bengals-Steelers. I don't see anything of note here. One playoff game in 2005, not much other than that.Ultimahero (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Colts-Titans. Nothing at all. So they compete for the division title. So do every team in every division. That's nothing. Plus, it mentions a fight, but its a fight between the Texans and Titans. This has to go.Ultimahero (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Broncos-Raiders. The page doesn't say anything, and even the main article for this is just a table of game results. Maybe there's more here, but I don't see any reason to leave it as is.Ultimahero (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Cowboys-Giants. I can't help but think this is largely just here because people love to give attention to the Cowboys and Newy York teams. But, there's really not a whole lot here. The Giants were one of the most dominant of the old NFL teams, playing in fifteen championship games from 1925 to 1963. However, after the '63 season, they would go into a prolonged funk for the rest of the decade and throughout the seventies, finishing above .500 only twice during that stretch. Coincidentally, 1966 was the year the Cowboys began to dominate (a few years after New York had already fallen off.) From 1966 to 1979, the Cowboys won 11 division titles and appeared in seven championship games. In the early eighties both team had moderate success, with both making the playoffs in 1981 and 1984. However, it's interesting that the late 80's were when the Giants really rebounded, winning Super Bowls in '86 and '90, but the Cowboys languished during that stretch, finishing below .500 in each of those seasons. In 1991 the Cowboys rebounded and had a brilliant run, winning three Super Bowls and five division titles from 1991 to 1996. Conversely, the Giants struggled during this time, having only two seasons above .500 and one playoff appearance. From 1997 to present, the Giants have won the division 5 times (1997, 2000, 2005, 2008, and 2011) and in those 5 years the Cowboys never finished higher than third in the standings. Conversely, the Cowboys have won the division three times in that span (1998, 2007, and 2000) and in those years the Giants finished second one time and third twice. Only twice did both teams make the playoffs (2006 and 2007) and they saw their lone playoff game in '07. Thus, they've largely been like two ships passing in the wind, one strong while the other is weak.Ultimahero (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Falcons-Saints. One of the most important aspects to a rivalry is whether or not the hatred between them matters. Sure, there very well might be a lot of hate between these two teams and their fans, just like there might be between a lot of clubs. But does it affect anyone outside of their respective fan bases? I think the reality is that it largely doesn't. No one cares about this outside of the particular fans of these teams because there's nothing notable. Unless there are some other significant factors at play, then no one cares when the teams are constantly fighting to stay out of last place.Ultimahero (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the Falcons-Saints rivalry should be included. It is the longest running and most established rivalry for both teams. They were in the NFC West together before the creation of the NFC South. They were the first two teams in the deep south. They have played 88 times, with a fairly close 47-41 record. The teams were historically poor, but have improved significantly in the last several years with the Saints winning a Super Bowl. MNF sees fit to feature this game on a regular basis for the last several years, and outside observers have declared this one of the best rivalries in the NFL. I was very surprised that this rivalry was removed. User: 3GAU 24 April 2013.
Like I said, does anyone outside of those two fan bases care? For example, over the past decade when the Colts and Patriots played people tuned in, regardless of whether or not you cared for either teams. Football as a whole (both the league and fans in general) recognized this was a premier match up of two of the best teams, as well as featuring arguably the top quarterbacks in the game. So that's an example of rivalry bigger than just the fans of two teams. I wouldn't doubt that the Saints and Falcons have a rivalry to some degree. However, the question is "does it matter to anyone else?" Which, I must say, I don't think it does. Until recently both clubs constantly fielded loser and thus, unless there is something bigger to become attached to, people won't care. While the rivalry is bigger as of late, given the success both teams are seeing the past few years, that doesn't mean it belongs on this list. Plenty of teams are competitive for a few years before one or both fizzles out. So its simply too early to declare these rivalries significant.Ultimahero (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, many people outside the fanbases of the two teams care. I can give numerous cites from professional commentators who call this one of the best rivalries in the NFL. Both teams are perennial playoff teams in recent years. The Saints are a Super Bowl champion team. Drew Brees is a top five quarterback and Matt Ryan is top ten. I understand this page is not for every game that a few fans consider a rivalry, but I would argue this is currently one of the top ten rivalries in the NFL. What is your objective reason for excluding it? Since 2005 the teams have met six times on Monday Night Football, which obviously means the networks think the game is a draw. Also, the Saints return to the Superdome in 2006 against the Falcons was at that time the highest rated show in ESPN's history and the second highest rated show ever in cable tv history. It was a big football draw and also something of a national storyline 3GAU (talk) 9:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, I've said several times that I wouldn't dispute that they have a rivalry. And while the rivalry has more going forit now since both teams are competitive it's still too early to be on this list. They've only been nationally recognized for a few years now. We need to give it more time since any number of teams can have a few years of competition before fizzling. The only rivalries that don't have really long, notable histories yet deserve to be here are rivalries that have had an insane amount of success in a short time (such as Colts-Patriots). Give it time.Ultimahero (talk) 20:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
They have played every year since the Saints were created in 1967 and they have been each other's biggest rivals that entire time. I have demonstrated history (88 games), importance (playoff appearances) and popular appeal (numerous prime-time matchups, including the highest rated show in ESPN's history in 2006). You have stated a vague opinion that that it is "too early." 3GAU 4:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think we might be talking past one another. For most of the history between the Saints-Falcons, did anyone outside of their respective fan bases care? I would love to see documentation that people outside those geographic regions cared. Monday Night Football aired in 1970. How many times did these two teams get prime time slots in the 70's? How about the 80's? My point is that for most of their history both teams were cellar dwellers and thus not notable. Granted, I would fully agree that they have a notable rivalry as it stands today in 2013. However, that doesn't automatically mean they deserve to be on this list. When would you say this rivalry reached national interest? 2006 is the year I see you citing over and over. That's 7 years. Is 7 years really enough for inclusion on this list? Compare the success these two teams have had since 2006 to the standard I put forth, Patriots-Colts. From 2001 (the year Tom Brady became the Patriots starter) to 2010 (the last year Peyton Manning started for the Colts) these two squads combined to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl 6 times. Comparatively, the Saints and Falcons have one Super Bowl appearance between them during this stretch (2009). The Patriots are 121-39 (.756) while the Colts are 115-45 (.719). Conversely, the Falcons are 67-45 (.598) while the Saints are 69-43 (.616). Still good, but not nearly as high as the standard I believe the Colts and Patriots have set. What about playoff meetings? New England played Indianapolis 3 times from 2001-2010. Saints and Falcons: none. My point is that when all the rivalry has is a few recent years of success (again, show how it was notable outside of its fan bases prior to the mid 2000's if you disagree) doesn't warrant inclusion. Rivalries come and go all the time.Ultimahero (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be holding this rivalry to a higher standard than some others. The Saints and Falcons have been each other's primary rival since the 1960's when the two teams were created. They have played 88 times, including a post-season meeting in 1991. Some rivalries that are listed on this page have less history and the participants are no more "famous" than the Saints and Falcons. For instance, the page include Bengals-Browns. Those two teams have played fewer times, their rivalry started more recently, neither team has ever won a Super Bowl, and I'd argue that no one cares much about that rivalry outside the state of Ohio. Saints-Falcons meanwhile is the biggest NFL game in the states of Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. Lions-Vikings is another game that I think has a lower profile and yet it is included. Finally, you say there isn't enough history with Saints-Falcons, but Ravens-Steelers is included which has only been played 37 times and began in 1996. This seems like a double standard. 3GAU 10:54, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't feel like you're reading my words carefully. No one is disputing that these two teams have had some sort of rivalry going back to the 60's. What is under dispute is whether or not anyone cared about them for most of that history outside of their fan bases. I asked you for sources and you have yet to show me any. As for Browns-Bengals, that's a unique situation in which a NFL franchise was started by Paul Brown, arguably the greatest coach in NFL history, mainly out of spite for his release from the Browns. Brown and Cleveland owner Art Modell had a very well-publicized feud and the reason the Bengals exist is because of that feud. Falcons-Saints don't have anything that comes close to touching this rivalry. As for Steelers-Ravens, it's the same as Colts-Patriots. It's relatively recent, but incredibly successful over that stretch. The two clubs have combined for 5 Super appearances since 2000 and have been two of the most successful teams of the last decade+. (And remember, I have specifically noted that if a team doesn't have lots of history then it must have been incredibly successful over a short period of time, which Steelers-Ravens certainly qualifies for.) Last, read the down a bit to find my comments on Vikings-Lions. I've called for its deletion as well.Ultimahero (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
A few articles from national news outlets. Obviously I could include dozens of articles from sources based in New Orleans and Atlanta:

Bleacher Report list of best NFL rivalries: Yahoo sports write-up of the rivalry: ESPN stating what an underrated rivalry it is: For years, this has been the biggest NFL rivalry for at least FOUR STATES, and in recent years it has become one of the best rivalries in the NFL. It is a better and more important rivalry than at least two of the rivalries actually listed on the page (you seem to concede the issue on Lions-Vikings). Who outside of Ohio cares about Bengals-Browns? Additionally, Saints-Falcons has far more history than Steelers-Ravens. You seem to want Saints-Falcons to justify all of the reasons, when many of the rivalries already listed only satisfy one. 3GAU 9:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't really know what to say. I've repeated myself several times but you aren't hearing me. Again: I do not dispute that the two clubs CURRENTLY have a notable rivalry, as your sources would no doubt indicate. However, my consistent point has been whether or not the two teams have had a notable rivalry for the rest of their histories. Can you show me sources that demonstrate that people outside of the fan bases cared about this rivalry in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.? That is the key question. As far as the other rivalries you're comparing it to I think you need to read and respond to what I've said. 1) I'm not "conceding" anything on Lions-Vikings. I pointed that one out and said I was leaning towards deletion before you and I ever began talking. So its an irrelevant comparison. 2) Borwns-Bengals has an origin unlike any other. Arguably the greatest coach of all time started a new franchise to spite the team that fired him. That being said, I would be fine moving it to a different category; not necessarily "historical rivalries" but something to that effect. The origin is what makes this notable and deserving. 3) Finally, as I've said numerous times, while Steelers-Ravens doesn't have a long, noted history in the way that, say, Cowboys-Redskins does, it has been incredibly competitive over the last decade+. I won't rehash the numbers (you can reread my other post for that) bust Falcons-Saints can't even touch the success Baltimore and Pittsburgh have had lately. Thus, I see a pair of teams who were both losers for the vast majority of their histories, and whom no one outside of their fan bases paid attention to, now having a few good years at the same time. That doesn't warrant inclusion. Please actually respond to what I have written if we wish for this to go anywhere.Ultimahero (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I had hoped that you had conceded the point when you didn't respond for several days, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It looks like we need to take this up a level to dispute resolution since we obviously disagree. You think that I am not reading your arguments, and I think that I have responded showing a historic rivalry that is also currently one of the top ten in the NFL. In my opinion that is more than worthwhile to be included, and it has a solid argument that it is as valid as a few other rivalries that are already included. I have cited outside sources as well. It is interesting that a self described avid NFL fan who is not a fan of either team agreed enough to write in his/her opinion that this is a noted rivalry. 3GAU 17:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I've been busy. The simple reality is that you aren't responding to what I've said. Was the historic rivalry noteworthy to anyone who wasn't a fan of the Falcons or Saints? Please tell direct me to the answer if you have already provided it, but I do not see it. Yes, another user agreed with BOTH OF US that it is CURRENTLY a notable rivalry. But that is not where you and I disagree.Ultimahero (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
If you agree that it is currently a notable rivalry then it should be included on this list. If, at some point in the future it ceases to be a notable rivalry then that would be the proper time to debate whether or not it should be removed. (Although I think it has historical importance as well, perhaps we don't even need to reach that issue. You seem to agree that it is currently a notable rivalry and has been since at least 2006). 3GAU 18:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
A few meager years of notability doesn't deserve a mention here. Rivalries come and go all the time. Any two teams that are in the same division can be good at the same time and for a brief window in history they're "rivals". But everything on this list has stood the test of time when it comes to notoriety. This isn't a list that should constantly be in flux from year to year as hot teams are put on and cold teams taken off.Ultimahero (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, I wanted to note that you pointed out the Saints-Falcons game in 2006 and how high the ratings were. Do you think all those people tuned in to watch the Saints play the Falcons, or do you think they tuned in because Hurricane Katrina had been a huge issue for the nation and they wanted to see/support New Orleans? I think that's important distinction as far as whether or not this rivalry deserves to be on the list.Ultimahero (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Of course the Saints return to New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina played a part in the ratings for the game. The Saints return and win over their rival served as a symbol of the city's recovery. You are trying to create a false dichotomy by separating the circumstances from the game. They are intertwined. The Saints return against the Falcons is one of the best moments in sports in recent years and it is an important part of the lore and history of this rivalry. 3GAU 9:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm doing no such thing. You brought the Monday night game up and pointed to it as evidence of the rivalry. I'm simply asking if it was the "second highest rated show ever in cable tv history" because of who they were playing or the circumstances. I don't think it's unfair to ASK if the two things can be separated. It's not unfair to ask, "Would the nation pay just as much attention to the Saints regardless of who they played if they were showing support for the city?". Please provide me with sources that prove that the nation was ready for the Saints to play the Falcons in particular.Ultimahero (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Her's another way to put it: President George W. Bush did the coin toss for this game. When the President shows up that will inevitably draw attention. Do you think that if the Saints had played a different team President Bush wouldn't have shown up? Obviously, his interest was the city of New Orleans and showing support, regardless of the opponent, and I think a number of people would feel the same way.Ultimahero (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
I haven't gone looking up sources, but as an avid NFL fan (with no ties to the Saints or Falcons), it's a noted rivalry. Surely plenty of sources can be found to back that up. What we need is a definitive criteria for inclusion. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't question for a second that they have a notable rivalry right now. My question is what the rivalry has looked like for most of its history. Was there anything notable in the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.? Did anyone outside of the teams fan bases care? If not, then I think we're basing the inclusion on the last six or seven years and I personally don't think that's good enough.Ultimahero (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Ultimatehero, I think you have something against west and south teams of the NFC and AFC and a hard on for North and East teams. You should include at least one rivarly from each division. There is no other rivalry in the NFC south that is better than saints v. falcons. Why someone with extreme bias has edit authority over this page is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff5891 (talkcontribs) 16:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
also explain how the patriots vs. colts is more deserving than saints vs. falcons. You state that S-F has only been really popular the last few years so the rivalry shouldnt be included. The patriot-colts rivalry was only popular bc of Manning v Brady and wasnt that popular until both had one a superbowl. Now Manning is not on the colts so this rivalry is no longer relevant. The S-F rivalry is still on going and will continue in the future. You need to remove your bias when editing these pages.Jeff5891 (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, Jeff, I don't have any authority. I was simply one of the few working on this page at a time when it was dead. Another editor and myself (Clecol99) agreed to rework it and have been building towards common consensus. I don't have the final say, by any means, but what I do have is a foundation of consensus building to go on. If you'll read more of the discussion you'll even see that there were rivalries that I wished to delete that still remain since their under discussion. So all I've asked from people coming to this page after our attempts to work on it is that we discuss things before making any changes. On that note, have you thoroughly read all my comments up to this point? I know there's a lot there, but have you taken the time to understand why I say Colts-Pats deserves a spot and Falcons-Saints doesn't? I've gone over it numerous times and I think we can all agree it's not really helpful to accuse someone of bias without giving them a fair read. :)
Now, as to your points, I don't see why each division necessitates a rivalry on this page. The current 8 division system is pretty new, dating only back to the 2002 season. It seems to be that it would make more sense to deal with each rivalry on a case-by-case basis rather than try to shoehorn something into this page just to fit some prearranged structure. If one division has several good rivalries then they should all be included. Meanwhile, if another division doesn't have any then we shouldn't try to force one just out of some sense of "fairness". And to the charge of bias, I personally dislike the NFC East. I think the teams get far too much media attention. But I try to not let that affect my sense of what belongs on this page. Further, if you read all my proposed changes I'm the one whose actually been working to scale back both the NFC North and NFC East. When I first came here every single team in those divisions was listed as having a rivalry with every other team, and I thought that was ridiculous so I worked to weed out the stuff that wasn't deserving. With that being said, I have to recognize that the NFC East has 2 of the oldest NFL franchises (Washington and New York) as well as one of the most successful (Dallas), while the NFC North likewise has 3 of the oldest (Green Bay, Chicago, Detroit,). So I don't think it's really fair to go around claiming I love the east and north when in reality I just understand there's more history in those divisions.
Lastly, as to Pats-Colts vs. Falcons-Saints, I'm just going to paste my comments from another post and let that suffice. If you have specific questions or comments, then we can talk further, but I'm not going to rewrite this every single time: " For most of the history between the Saints-Falcons, did anyone outside of their respective fan bases care? I would love to see documentation that people outside those geographic regions cared. Monday Night Football aired in 1970. How many times did these two teams get prime time slots in the 70's? How about the 80's? My point is that for most of their history both teams were cellar dwellers and thus not notable. Granted, I would fully agree that they have a notable rivalry as it stands today in 2013. However, that doesn't automatically mean they deserve to be on this list. When would you say this rivalry reached national interest? 2006 is the year I see you citing over and over. That's 7 years. Is 7 years really enough for inclusion on this list? Compare the success these two teams have had since 2006 to the standard I put forth, Patriots-Colts. From 2001 (the year Tom Brady became the Patriots starter) to 2010 (the last year Peyton Manning started for the Colts) these two squads combined to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl 6 times. Comparatively, the Saints and Falcons have one Super Bowl appearance between them during this stretch (2009). The Patriots are 121-39 (.756) while the Colts are 115-45 (.719). Conversely, the Falcons are 67-45 (.598) while the Saints are 69-43 (.616). Still good, but not nearly as high as the standard I believe the Colts and Patriots have set. What about playoff meetings? New England played Indianapolis 3 times from 2001-2010. Saints and Falcons: none. My point is that when all the rivalry has is a few recent years of success (again, show how it was notable outside of its fan bases prior to the mid 2000's if you disagree) doesn't warrant inclusion. Rivalries come and go all the time."Ultimahero (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I was somewhat surprised when Ultimahero first called for Saints-Falcons to be deleted but after looking over the team histories there isn't much there. Before 2006, there was only a playoff game between the two teams and a couple competitive seasons since 2006. Not enough history. I can't think that this possibly was a big rivalry in the 1960's-90's. I think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I do think Buffalo-Miami should be on the list, because an eight year rivalry in the NFL should be a good rivalry and the two teams have in four playoff games which is a lot for a divisional rivalry.

But first off, Ultimahero, we need a criteria for inclusion. The rivalries I think should be deleted are, Bills-Patriots, Browns-Ravens, Eagles-Redskins (help me on this one, long history but the only year it was a rivalry as far as I know is 1990 with the Body bag game and the playoff game) I need to research more on that one. Bears-Vikings, Falcons-Panthers and Seahawks-Niners. My criteria for a rivalry is if both sides agree there is a rivalry , has a string of competitiveness (5-10 years) regardless of when it was. Playoff games will also help. Also, do you think that 1-2 finishes are important for "grading" rivalries in the NFL? Also, I want to know your criteria. I also would like to ask you what rivalries (If any) should we add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clecol99 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a good start, I think. However, I would have to note a few things. There may indeed be rivalries between clubs that don't merit a mention on this list. Surely a person comes here looking for notable rivalries, not just any dislike between any two teams (which will surely exist for all teams in every division, given the competitive nature of sports.) I don't think 5-10 years is necessarily enough. I think a rivalry really needs a lot of history to it to be included, because a lot of teams can be competitive for a few years then one or both fizzles out. The only exception to this would be if there's a short stretch of time where two teams are historically competitive. (I'm thinking of the Colts and Patriots as a good example of this, with multiple playoff match ups and a nationwide debate over which quarterback is better.) As far as 1-2 finishes, they aren't essential, but it is a helpful way of measuring if two teams in a division have been good at the same times. (And I'm going through the list, so I'll look at each team you mentioned as I come to them, but just glancing through I think you pretty much hit the nail on the head.)Ultimahero (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody who isn't Ultimahero (an obscenely biased commentator here) actually give a legit reason why Saints-Falcons isn't included as a rivalry? His definition of rivalry is amorphous, at best, and any historian of the game will point to Saints-Falcons as a true NFL rivalry despite the lack of a large national. And to sneer at the recent historical relevance between the two games while exhaulting the Ravens-Steelers or Colts-Patriots rivalries? Please. Pathetic grandstanding at its worst. Of course, I fully expect Ultimahero to run over and word vomit an excuse as to why a rivalry he himself is not interested in isn't good enough while white knighting his own personal favorites. Can we get a little non-partisan judgment in here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

If all NFL historians would hold the Saints-Falcons up as a "true rivalry", then it should be easy to find sources for its relevance that predate the last decade. Show me how it was considered meaningful to anyone outside of their fanbases. And I've given the reasons for NE-IND and Bal-PIT several times only to have them be ignored. It's easy to call names, but a lot harder to actually do the research and find the facts.Ultimahero (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I am going over the rivalries I think should be on the list. Jets-Pats, Browns-Bengals, Ravens, Steelers, Browns-Steelers, Both of the AFC West rivalries, All of the NFC East rivals except Philly-Redskins, Bears-Packers, Vikings-Packers, maybe Packers-Lions, Saints-Falcons and Rams-Niners. I would like your take on which inter-intra conference rivalries we should delete. ThanksClecol99 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Now can we go over the NFC North rivalries? Because i don't know if all of the rivalries on the NFC North is significant. Some rivalries I don't know about. I also would like to go over the Interconference rivalries (what is the criteria for interconference rivalries?), I'm still debating whether Bills-Dolphins and Jets-Dolphins should be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Sure. Bears-Vikings is pretty weak. After the Vikings' inception in 1961, they didn't do much until 1968. From then to 1978 they won the division ten times and appeared in four Super Bowls. During that stretch the Bears went 58-97-1, only finishing .500 or better 3 times. There was a brief period of both teams being competitive from 1986-1988, as Chicago won the division each of those years and Minnesota finished 2nd, making the playoffs in '87 and '88.From 1989 to 1993 they had alternaing successes, with the Bears making the playoffs in 1990 and 1991 while the Vikings were 6-10 and 8-8. Likewise, the Vikings made the playoffs in 1989, 1992 and 1993 while the Bears were sub .500 each of those years. They both made the playoffs in 1994 and had their lone playoff meeting. After that, they alternated successes again, with the Vikings making the playoffs from 1996-2000, 2004, 2008, 2009, and 2012 while the Bears had two winning seasons (2008 and 2012)and a lone second place finish (2008). Conversely, the Bears made the playoffs in 2001, 2005, 2006 and 2010 while the Vikings were below .500 each year except 2005. So, outside of a very small window from 1986 to 1988 and a single playoff encounter in 1994, these two clubs have never been good around the same time.Ultimahero (talk) 21:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Bears-Lions has the same problem. Outside of some early competition in the 30's (including the two clubs matching up in the 1932 NFL Championship game) and them both making the playoffs in 1991 and 1994, there's not a whole lot here. For most of their history one is up while the other is down.Ultimahero (talk) 22:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Vikings-Lions I'm up in the air about. The Vikings weren't an NFL club until 1961, and the Lions had most of their success in the old NFL, specifically the 50's. Detroit did have 6 2nd place finishes from 1969 to 1975, when the Vikings were at the peak of their dominance. (I'm not counting 1972, when the Lions also finished 2nd, but to the Packers not the Vikings.) They both made the playoffs a handful of times in the 90'2, 1993, 1994, 1997, and 1999, but even then you have to consider that the Lions finished 3rd in '94, '97, and '99 which means they others teams int he division (Packers) were more directly competitive with Minnesota during that stretch. Like I said, I'm kind of on the fence but since the Vikings didn't even exist during the Lions best years and that they have never met in the playoffs, I'm leaning against.Ultimahero (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Likewise, I'm torn between Packers-Vikings. Minnesota didn't exist during the Packers 6 championship seasons from 1929 to 1944. They were around during the Packers dominance of the 60's, but they were a poor club, finishing above .500 just once (1964, a year the Packers didn't play in the championship game). In 1968 the two franchises swapped places, as the Vikings would go on to own the 70's and the Packers would suffer arguably the worst decade in franchise history following Lombardi's retirement in 1967. (I haveto think that this rivalry's prospects take a serious blow when you consider the Vikings didn't start their dominance until the Packers finally lost their legendary coach, meaning they weren't competitive at the same time.) From 1968 to 1980 the Vikings would win the division 11 times, while the Packers would only finish above .500 three times. Green Bay's lone playoff appearance came in 1972, a year the Vikings finished 3rd. The Packers were better in the early 80's while the Vikings were worse, and conversely the Vikings did better in the late 80's while the Pack struggled more. Really, the only highlights of this rivalry are from the 90's onwards, since both clubs finished 1-2 in 1992-1994, 1996, 1998, 2002-2004, 2007, 2009, and 2012, while both teams made the playoffs in 1993, 1994, 1996-1998, 2004, 2009, 2012Ultimahero (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
LOL, you think the Bears-Vikings or Vikings-Packers rivalry aren't "significant rivalries". Lemme guess, you're from the coasts. *Added* The Vikings-Packers and Vikings-Bears rivalry is a reflection of the greater Minnesota-Wisconsin and Minneapolis/Saint Paul-Chicago rivalry. Minnesota and Wisconsin has a rivalry dating back to the inception of both states. There's a significant rivalry between the states in college sports, namely the Paul Bunyan's axe trophy. The Bears-Vikings rivalry is based on the greater Twin Cities and Chicago rivalry. Both metros are major economic and media rivals, since they are the two of the largest and most influential metro areas in the Midwest. The rivalry reflects itself in sports and busiiness. The Twins and the White Sox have a significant rivalry, so did the Minnesota North Stars and the Chicago Blackhawks. Most Bear fans consider the Vikings to be their second biggest rivals and the Vikings consider the Bears to be their second biggest rivals. I think you should divorce yourself from this article, since you have little to no knowledge of any sports teams which are not located on the coasts. I will be restoring the Vikings vs Bears rivalry, since your reasons for deleting the entry is based on your limited understanding of the culture of the Midwest.
With all due respect, I think you might be misunderstanding the point of this page. The whole idea is to include rivalries that are significant to the NFL as a whole. Every fan of every team is going to think every divisional opponent is going warrant a mention here, since as fans we have a tendency to overvalue our personal team. However, we have to look at things objectively. The reality is that I shouldn't need to know a single thing about the Minnesota area to understand whether or not a football rivalry is significant. If it's significant then it is inherently a "big deal" to the larger NFL. I don't need to know a thing about New England or Indianapolis, for example, to understand that their rivalry was the biggest in the game for a decade+. So, you can tell me all about how Wisconsin and Minnesota and Illinois relate, and that's all well and good, but if it doesn't bear itself out on the field in terms of significant match ups and competitive seasons, then it doesn't matter.Ultimahero (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The NFL considers it to be such an insignificant rivalry that the game is almost always nationally televised. For the past 5 years, MN vs GB was either on national TV (MNF, SNF, TNF) or was the spotlight game on Fox.
I looked this up, using the archived schedules on ESPN NFL. The list only goes back to 2002, but in the twelve year span from 2002 to 2013, the Vikings-Bears have had 6 prime-time games. They had one every year from 2007 to 2011 (2007 MNF, 2008 SNF, 2009 MNF, 2010 MNF, 2011 SNF) as well as a lone SNF appearance in 2003. Now, my immediate thought is that it's not good methodology to base our view on the last 5 years since A) that's a narrow focus anyways and B) the era we're focusing on has so many possibilities for national coverage that it doesn't mean as much as it used to. With that being said, I find it interesting that the focus on primetime games is from 2007 to 2011. I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that Minnesota and Chicago have fielded some good teams over those years? Chicago made the Super Bowl in 2006, so it doesn't seem like coincidence that the start of this five year run came on the heels of a Bears championship game. In 2008 and 2009 Minnesota made the playoffs, including an NFC Championship game in 2009. In 2010 Chicago was in the Championship game. So, it seems to me that this is more of a case of the league trying to capitalize on fan interest at a time when both teams were relatively competitive, then subsequently moving on to hotter teams when this wasn't as profitable. (Hence the lack of nation games for 2012 and 2013.) Compare that to how the league has handled Chicago's rivalry with Green Bay, giving them at least one prime-time game every single but 2004.Ultimahero (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree that Bears-Vikings isn't a significant rivalry, however I think it is preposterous that Packers-Vikings isn't a significant rivalry (I'm a Browns fan with no biases towards either side). Also, I strongly disagree with competitiveness and 1-2 finishes as the only factor in if a rivalry is significant or not. Example: Browns-Steelers in the 1970's was one of the most fierce and intense rivalry's in the NFL at that time with lots of fights and hostility even though the Steelers won four super bowls in that stretch and the browns stunk.Clecol99 Clecol99 (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I certainly don't mean to imply that teams who aren't competitive can't have a decent rivalry (the Red Sox were terrible for a good part of their history and their meetings with the Yankees were still a big deal). I just think that it's hard for teams who aren't competing to really garner attention outside of loyal fans of those respective teams. Do you have any criteria that you think should be included that I missing?Ultimahero (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Viking vs Bear games are often nationally televised, including 2011's SNF matchup between the 2 franchises.
I just responded to this idea three paragraphs up so I'll direct your attention there.Ultimahero (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll just note that I'm coming around on Green Bay and Minnesota. The Moss and Favre stuff helps a lot.Ultimahero (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Falcons-Saints Compromise[edit]

Obviously this has been a point of contention. Personally, I'm not a fan of including this because I think its mostly a recent rivalry without much history. So, how about we create a new section for rivalries that have gained prominence recently? This can still be a little tricky, but it would allow this rivalry to be included without making necessarily putting it on the same tier as some of the others. How does that sound?Ultimahero (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Although the rivalry hasn't had many playoff implications until recently, that doesn't mean the rivalry doesn't have "much history." The two teams have pretty much battled it out since they were created. The main article for the rivalry, Falcons-Saints rivalry, describes a lot of this. Jedibob5 (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Jedibob5 here because I think "too new" is an excuse for not having a rivalry, also, Ultimahero's definition of "history" is very confusing. Clecol99
Sorry, I didn't go into a lot of detail here because I'm assuming everyone was familiar with the debate above. I would agree that the Saints and Falcons have had a rivalry since they entered the league in the 60's. However, I don't think that rivalry has been significant (by which I mean meaningful to anyone outside of those respective fanbases) until the last decade or so. Neither teams enjoyed much success until recently, when they have both been consistent contenders for about eight or nine years now. This also bears out in the fact that the league itself just recently began promoting the rivalry through showing their meetings in prime-time games like Monday Night Football, etc. So the question is "What do we do?" I don't feel it's significant enough to be included in a listing with other NFL rivalries, especially those that have decades worth of significant history. That's why I proposed adding a new section could focus on rivalries that have gained recent prominence. If anyone feels this rivalry has always been significant then I'm willing to listen but no one has been able to provide any sources to back that up as of yet. Thus, I think the compromise is a fair one.Ultimahero (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh, also, I just wanted to stress that I'm not calling for a section on "new" rivalries nor am I trying to imply that this rivalry is new. Instead, I think the focus should be on rivalries that for whatever reason have just recently garnered national attention.Ultimahero (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to re-add Saints-Falcons as a consensus change.Clecol99 (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Good to see one of the true legitimate rivalries in the NFL is finally getting the due respect it deserves. (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

AFC West rivalries[edit]

The Chiefs–Raiders rivalry used to be significant way back in the day, but the two teams have stunk in recent years, and the rivalry has lost its significance over at least the past decade. The Broncos–Raiders rivalry was very one-sided in the 1960s and 1970s, with the Raiders winning 24 out of 28 at one point. The Broncos were awful during this stretch, until they defeated the Raiders in the 1977 AFC Championship. That game involved a very controversial fumble by Broncos' running back Rob Lytle, and also had an incident in which Tom Jackson yelled at John Madden "It's all over fatman!" From 1988–94, the Raiders owned the Broncos, until Mike Shanahan became the Broncos' head coach in 1995, in which the Broncos have dominated the Raiders ever since. Shanahan coached the Raiders from 1988–89, and was involved in a long-running feud with Raiders' owner Al Davis after he was fired four games into the 1989 season. One noteworthy fact involving the Broncos & Raiders is that the two teams have met on Monday Night Football 17 times (as of 2013) — the most frequent pairing in Monday Night Football history. Therefore, I suggest that either the Broncos–Raiders and Chiefs–Raiders rivalries remain, or both of them are removed. DPH1110 (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)DPH1110

I think they both should go. I was inclined to keep KC-OAK because it has a link to a Sports Illustrated article where it's listed as the third greatest rivalry of all time. However, looking over that source, it's not even an article, just a slideshow with no author listed, so it's not exactly a great source. More so, both these have individual pages that are basically just lists of things that happened to two teams. That's not very strong. I say they both go.Ultimahero (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the list above is reliable and accurate and I definitley thik that Broncos-Raiders and Chiefs-Raiders are definitley significant rivalries. Clecol99Clecol99 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. Care to explain why?Ultimahero (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Seahawks vs. 49ers?[edit]

This is a very significant rivalry in the NFC west, especially between the two head coaches, Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh; their rivalry dates back to their coaching days at USC and Stanford. So why isn't this rivalry included in this page?

What controversy was in the championship game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Seahawks vs. 49ers?[edit]

This is a very significant rivalry in the NFC west, especially between the two head coaches, Pete Carroll and Jim Harbaugh; their rivalry dates back to their coaching days at USC and Stanford. So why isn't this rivalry included in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It's really only significant because of the last few years. There's not enough history to include it yet.Ultimahero (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)