At home, by 3. Basically a toss-up game, and Green Bay looked better than Atlanta last week. Well I would hope so...GB played a 4-8 team, while Atlanta had to contend with a team that is trying to get a wild card spot in the playoffs. I don't think that's comparing apples to apples. It's never comparing apples to apples. That is why it's a subjective process. I think Green Bay is better on a neutral field. EDIT: As far as real justification: the Packers have just 3 wins by 7 or fewer points, and have not lost a game by more than 3. The Falcons have just 3 wins by more than 7 points (and 2 against the NFC West...that hardly counts), and lost to Philly by 14. In a one game sample size where everything can and will happen I wouldn't take what happened in the GB/ATL game as indisputable proof that one team is better than another. I would look more or less at the entire season as a sample size, as well as how good that team has played over the last several games. Atlanta has played 12 games and lost 2, GB has played 12 games and last 4, including one to Atlanta. But GB has probably played like the better team over the last several weeks, as they have only lost once in their last 6 games (to ATL) and have blown out several teams along the way. I think Atlanta is better and am kind of surprised to see Green Bay at the top of any power rankings. However, their (along with every one elses schedule in the North) has been tough.