Could you add my picks from week 4 to the overall scoreboard Sqrl? Thanks in advance.

That was one hell of a game last night lived up to the hype . I was hoping for a comeback too oh well. Good for Favre only qb to beat all 32 team so far. There's always next time ....

I'm positive I sent in my picks, did you not get them?

i know i gave my pics on time, have yall not updated the pic 4 board?

Not sure how I missed you three, but I know I put at least Slums data into the spreadsheet previously (due to his odd formatting it stuck out). In any case this is why folks should check that your picks are properly reflected as I'm certainly not perfect here and can use the help.

I'm not sure what you want me to face....I wasn't claiming that the Vikings were way ahead of every team in the league...I never even discussed teams outside the division in fact.  I pointed to the fact that they dominated the GB O-line and that it was in large part due to how bad they are....so when you say "Face it, the Vikes are good, but that GB O-line is also that bad." you might as well say "Yeah I agree with everything you just said.".  As for 8 sacks in the previous 3 games...yeah that was good enough to put the Vikings at ~4th in the league going into week 4...so they are a good pass rushing team..I don't know what you were trying to say there because you really haven't seemed to disagree with me on the sacks issue but in fact seem to be agreeing with me...only you're downplaying MIN significantly.

As for your second point, I'm not defending the Vikes.....because I wasn't really even focusing on them at all until you made it about them. I posted an article about how the Vikes dominated the Pack and you replied to it by talking about the Bears (a point I never actually contended) and saying that the Pack was struggling...which is actually the point I was making.  You seemed to have thought I was overselling the Vikings but I was really never focused my analysis on MIN, and instead focused on GB so I'm not sure how you got that impression.

As for your final paragraph....I get the impression you're trying to downplay MIN far more than I am trying to play them up.  If its rankings you're interested in I can just point to the power-rankings where fans and experts alike are placing them 4th or 5th in the league. The bears meanwhile are ~10th on those rankings and GB is down in the late teens.  So yeah I do think MIN is the best team in the NFC North right now...but I don't know how you got the impression I was declaring them the best team in the league...I never even alluded to it.

You've read way into what I've posted so I'll just be blunt.  Yes GB has serious problems and that is the exact reason I said they got dominated physically by MIN...I made the point repeatedly and always with respect to the GB matchup specifically.  I do think MIN ranks in the top tier of teams this year and I think the 4th or 5th ranking is about spot on right now.  If you want to address something I've said other than that please quote it because I feel like I'm being asked to defend things I never said (you do know that was an article I posted and not my own words right?).

A lot of my comments stem from the article you posted which downplayed anything the Bears have accomplished by saying they're playing "decently" and utilizing every buzz word they could to exemplify how big a deal the dismantling of the Packers was. It wasn't a big deal because the Packers are not a good team. They are middle rung and will be lucky to finish 8-8 for the season unless they plug the O-line quick. The article seems like there was some question going in whether the Vikings could beat the Packs. In reality, they were a much better team coming into the game, and they left the game still the much better team. Really though, the thing that bothered me the most was the tagline "Minnesota is the best team in the NFC North, and right now it’s not close". 

If you're going to post up an opinion piece, it's going to get scrutinized and you may get scrutinized for the perceived notion that you might agree with it. If you don't then ok, but make that very clear in your comments that you don't agree with a lot of the article, because you're the one that decided to post it up in the first place.

So 5 teams left undefeated. Who do you folks think is going down next?

Giants against Oakland
Minnesota against St. Louis
Denver against New England
Indianapolis against Tennessee
New Orleans is on a bye week

I'm personally not so sure any undefeated team is going down next week, but the only one with any chance is Denver against New England. That game is a toss up. The following week though, we have a monster game where one is definitely going down guaranteed, and quite possibly more than one:

Giants against New Orleans (Winner stays undefeated)
Minnesota against Baltimore
Denver against San Diego
Colts are on a bye

I think it's quite possible that after week 6, we'll be down to just the Colts and the winner of the Saints/Giants. I think the Colts will be the last team standing and I think they can go as far as Week 10 or 11 when they have to face the Pats and Ravens back to back.

Out of the remaining undefeated teams, Denver is the only one that I see possibly losing this week. Everyone else has a good match up. Tennessee could surprise and have a good game against Indianapolis, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I think that the Giants and Minnesota will be the only two undefeated teams in two weeks.

Oh... and as much as it bothers me to say it, but the Vikings do have a better team than the Bears this year. I do think that the Bears had a crappy first game and should have never lost to the Packers though.

Well the only reason I'm giving Denver a fighting chance is that their coach is Josh McDaniels and he knows the inner workings of the Pats. Talent wise it's no question, but I think he might be able to effectively guesstimate what the Pats will do and cut them off at the pass.

Also you forgot the Colts. With their week 6 bye, they'ed have to lose to TEN this week to not last two weeks more at being undefeated.