I'm a little troubled this weekend, despite my model being proven right more often than not. For the most part, it predicted that the Texans-Chargers game would be a shit show. It predicted that the Bills would ultimately prevail over a young Broncos team loaded with talent. It knew the Buccaneers and the Commanders would probably be the closest affair this weekend (as of the time of this writing, the Vikings and the Rams haven't played yet). And it knew the Ravens should win despite them ceding the tactical edges over to their archrivals in the Steelers.

But what took me by surprise is the way the Steelers were absolutely dominated in the rematch against Baltimore. After having lost to these same Ravens just a few weeks prior. And with Baltimore missing the services of their best wide receiver this time around. Those tactical edges did NOT matter at all.

Last time, Derrick Henry ran roughshod all over Pittsburgh to the tune of 162 yards spread over 24 carries. This time around though, Pittsburgh finally manned up and made defending Henry a priority. So poor Derrick was only able to run for....186 yards over 26 carries. Wait....what?

While it may have been obvious to everybody that Baltimore would (more or less) run the same game plan that allowed them to run buck wild all over Pittsburgh just a few weeks ago, it wasn't obvious to Pittsburgh. Even though Zay Flowers was sidelined with injury, which meant the burden of production would fall upon the ground game even more...Pittsburgh didn't care. Either they didn't care or they were helpless to do anything. Then again, Pittsburgh's been one of the league's best run defenses, so to call them "helpless" seems like a bit of a stretch.

Then again, my numbers aren't exactly in love with Pittsburgh. So maybe that played a role.

And just like that, the Vikings likewise disappointed. Not only did they lose despite having a perceived tactical edge...but they lost spectacularly. I need to rethink this whole thing about tactical advantage. If anything, it was the Rams that demonstrated the shift in strategy that I honestly expected from the Vikings. Despite being a defense that primarily plays zone coverage and tends not to blitz, Los Angeles threw that identity out the window for this game. Meanwhile, Minnesota failed to adjust offensively despite being embarrassed by the Lions just a week prior. When does a team claim a clear tactical advantage? Is it possible that tactical advantages only come when a team gains new dimensions or when an opponent has been "decoded"? Would the Rams still have played the game the same way strategically if they never faced the Vikings earlier in the season?

Maybe it's just possible that I put way way waaaaay too much stock in a middling quarterback in Sam Darnold. I keep mentally noting this, but teams on the road ned to be fully stacked if they hope to mount a lengthy postseason campaign. Which would mean the team needs an elite quarterback. Darnold has never been an elite quarterback, even in this season - the Lions demonstrated that pretty thoroughly last week. No matter what weapons the Vikings feature or all the talent they proudly boast on defense, they're still short a quarterback.

On top of that, Sam Darnold has been noted as fragile. This became all too evident when he had that thousand-yard stare in his eyes after missing a throw. I'm not entirely certain what type of throw it was, but any quarterback having that type of look in his eyes at such a critical point in the season is not good - Darnold is broken yet again. And that's something that I don't think any model can properly encapsulate.

I need to revisit a few games.

• Giants @ Vikings (2022)
• Browns @ Texans (2023)
• Steelers @ Browns (2020)
• Rams @ Lions (2023)

These games are important because I'm trying to figure out at what point does a tactical advantage matter or doesn't matter. And also, just like with the Rams last year, I made the same mistake with Minnesota this year labelling them as legitimate dark-horse contenders for the Super Bowl. But if anything, the Rams had a stronger case for the Super Bowl given that they at least had an elite quarterback. So I want to see where exactly I went wrong during that game.

Also, what is an elite quarterback? I kept thinking about this and tried to figure this out to some degree. Is it somebody who can consistently read complex defenses? Somebody who can matriculate the ball with a number of different throws and adjust his game as needed? Somebody who can weather an intense pass rush and find his receivers, especially at critical moments in the game? I think that last thing really hits the nail on the head. The mark of any good defense is the ability to generate constant pressure on the quarterback, especially as it signifies that the backfield is performing just well enough to give the defensive line time to harangue the passer. Therefore, if a quarterback who still remain productive under duress, that might be all I need to assess that a quarterback is "elite".