Hello, guys. It's been a while since I last wrote a FanPost, but I have been reading virtually every word on this site for the entire summer, and have been an occasional commenter.

When KD put up his 10-for-10 Contest last week, I emailed him and asked if he would like some assistance in reviewing/scoring the posts.

Since he is now a front page lead writer, his time is limited. I don't have a lot of time, but this is a labor of love for me, just like last fall's I Did the Math series of FanPosts I wrote outlining every mathematical possibility of making the playoffs until every last hope was gone.

KD will be making a front-page story reporting last week's results and linking here for more analysis and details.

I do have a few observations. Please join me after the jump.

There were eighty-one individual entries this past week - many more than KD expected. One of the rules was, everyone had to pick a Dal-NYJ winner. Fifty-six picked the Cowboys, but twenty-five picked the Jets. A couple of posters were critical of those who picked against the Cowboys, or who picked the Eagles. They were not heeded, as forty-nine picked the Eagles; only nine picked St. Louis.

There were three other games that had picks from at least 90% of the entrants, and there were some games where you were unanimous (or, almost unanimous) in your selections. Funny thing is, some of those were right, but others were completely wrong.

• Minn/SD - there were only two people who didn't pick this game (I was one of those two); no one picked Minnesota. Even though the game was close, the tally was an incredible Minn 0-79 SD.
• NE/Miami - almost unanimous game, picked by almost everyone (I was one of the seven who didn't). This tally was NE 73-1 Mia. I will not name the one who picked Miami.
  
• Ind/Hou - this one was also almost unanimous; once you knew that Peyton Manning was out, you jumped on this one: Ind 1-72 Hou. No, I am not going to embarrass the one who picked the Colts, either. I actually got this one right.

There were also some incredible trap games this past weekend. Check out these numbers:

• Cin/Cle - congratulations to the twenty-one of you who stayed away from this game. The other sixty? Try this: Cin 0-60 Cle.
• Buf/KC - who in their right mind thought Buffalo could win in KC? Only ezpoolparty. Buf 1-58 KC.
• Atl/Chi - I guess we BTBers know the NFC better than the obscure AFC teams. But, when the vaunted, high-flying Falcons went to Cowboys-North, who gave the Bears a chance? Atl 52-2 Chi. Way to go, wittenfan and Travlr, the only ones to pick this one correctly.
• Ten/Jac - this one was bad, but it wasn't as bracket-busting as the other three. Ten 25-3 Jac.

No one got 10-for-10 this week, although I would add congratulations to those who picked 8-for-10: LeedsCowboys (who was the first to post), GordBerl, Englishneil, and KD Drummond himself.

Nineteen were 7-3; twenty-three were 6-4; twenty-one were 5-5; eleven were 4-6; and three were 3-7. That adds up to a failing grade (56.8%) on a cumulative total of 460-350.

I was one of the bottom dwellers, as I "hit" all three of the bad traps, and skipped over both of the virtually unanimous wins.

I'm ready for next week. How about you?

Oh, KD said that if you had any questions about your score this week, ask it in the comments section. Everything came straight off the other article where you entered your choices. There was some grace this week, as some of you misposted and made corrections.One of you only made eight selections, and a couple of you made eleven (ten plus the Cowboys mandatory pick).

A couple of you had formatting issues. Remember, the "sarcasm font" uses "@" before and after a block of text (with no spaces). Those who inadvertently got their post mixed up in the sarcasm font view did it because they failed to copy/paste correctly. If you begin with "@", as in "Dallas@NYJets", but leave off "Dallas", then the rest of your post will show in sarcasm font because it begins with "@".

I will do my best to maintain and tabulate everyone's predictions, and verify the timeliness of them.

Note - after the first two comments, I realized I had made mistakes in both of those tallies. So, I just finished re-checking (again), and believe I have everything correct now. I have updated the numbers and credits in the article above.