I thought the Pack had it. The Rams almost did. I didn't really see much of the AFC games, or atleast not when they were close.
Keith, the Gould was, well, erratic. Much more erratic than the Gaiman/Pratchett, which was solid without being terribly exciting (or, another way, Good Omens was funny/interesting/entertaining but I'm not making up awards or titles for it, it's not ridiculously good.)
The first two parts of Full House were, to me, rather dull. I've seen it all before, I guess; I didn't learn about darwinian evolution from bad textbooks from the 50's or bad textbooks from the 90's. Although the compare/contrast with Plato's ideas of essence/reality/ideal were interesting, enough so that I thought that was the main story as opposed to a footnote to Gould being picky about terminology.
Part 3 was, well, there was something interesting there, but he went about it in a horrid way, if you ask me. He started out by taking down others ideas that there are no .400 hitters because the pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters not as much better.) Then he tried to show that it was because pitchers and fielders have gotten better (and hitters just as much better.) He talked about .400 averages being dragged down by the mean and barely mentioned the mechanism: lack of at-bats against the truly horrible pitchers (those that could get a job 40-100 years ago but aren't good enough to make today's teams.)
Part 4 was, again, boring. Except for the one part of the big chapter that was about bacteria. That was fascinating. And weird to think about.
So end result I'm much more likely to look for books on bacteria than books by Gould
