So I'm going to use this post to assess the newly revised model now that we're entering the division round.

Texans @ Ravens (-9.5)

I wonder if I missed out on Blake Cashman and Christian Harris as elite coverage players. Both of them are making a significant impact on blitzes and in run support. Other than that, the model was on point. The Texans lack of offensive playmakers is biting them hard on the ass, especially once the Ravens found their groove in the second half and began mounting long touchdown drives. It's worth noting that Houston's offense only scored three points the entire game.

Packers @ 49ers (-9.5)

Talk about another success story for this model. The model said this would be a tight affair, especially if nobody on San Francisco's defensive front outside of Nick Bosa can ably rush the passer. Once Deebo Samuel left the game early with injury, these two teams were (more or less) evenly matched. And in the end, it was Green Bay's lack of playmakers at offense as well as their sketchy game management that allowed the 49ers to mount a successful comeback. A road team can only experience so much success in the postseason so long as they remain deficient in more than one championship quality.

Buccaneers @ Lions (-6.5)

Still early, but the fact that the Buccaneers have played these same Lions earlier in the season seems to be giving them an edge. Only five minutes into the game and Goff has thrown nearly two interceptions.

The Buccaneers lack of pass rush is absolutely killing them here. Usually Tampa Bay relies more on its linebackers to blitz to hit home, but sending any of their linebackers or slot defensive backs to blitz would leave holes in the middle of the field. And Jared Goff loves nothing more than throwing windows that develop quickly over the middle of the field.

This was a critical game as the end result here would be crucial in helping me find the proper value for a tactical edge. In many ways, this Tampa team has considerably less championship potential than Detroit, but they do harbor a tactical edge here that has so far proven to be a great equalizer here. The only thing is that it seems like the Lions adjusted in the second half, as they're having so much more success moving the ball down the field.

Chiefs @ Bills (-2.5)

This contest was much closer than I expected. From an offensive standpoint, the Chiefs dominated against a Bills team missing some real punch along the front two lines of their defense. But Buffalo's own offense was bizarrely productive as well. In fact, until things fell apart in the fourth quarter...one can argue that Buffalo was actually faring better offensively. I had to hedge a big bet because I wasn't certain the Chiefs could pull out the win - the game was so close that a little bit of luck could have pushed the win towards Buffalo.

Buffalo did get lucky actually. A Chiefs player carelessly fumbled the ball past the end zone on a jet sweep play. So what should have been an easy touchdown turned into a fruitless possession for the visiting team. It didn't matter though - Buffalo melted down late and Kansas was able to close out the game on a strong note.

Once again, I expected Kansas to come out strong given its tactical edge, but that just didn't happen. Why? I need to rewatch this game and compare the game script here to the game between these two during the regular season. Is it possible I misevaluated Kansas City's defense?

I think I may have slightly misevaluated Buffalo's offense. I gave Gabriel Davis consideration as a vector on offense, but Khalil Shakir was more deserving of such consideration, especially when factoring in his yards per route run. Shakir made some clutch plays when the Bills needed somebody to step up at receiver.

Additional Notes

So after rewatching the Chiefs/Bills game, I came to a realization - when these two met early in December, Joe Brady was still getting his feet wet as the new offensive coordinator of the organization after Ken Dorsey's sudden firing a few weeks before. It took several weeks, but Dorsey was finally able to mold the offense to better suit his vision. Starting the first week of the postseason, Dorsey began running plays using six-man offensive fronts. It was a development that completely took Kansas' defense by surprise in their rematch.

But it's not like Kansas came in with no tactical advantages, as attested by the fact that Mahomes and company were able to run up 27 points in 21 minutes when they couldn't even score over 20 points in 24 minutes in the first game - almost every single one of their drives ended in them posting points. Therefore, it's fair to say both Buffalo and Kansas City came in with a tactical edge on offense.

Tactical advantages need to be split into two separate categories - one offense and one defense. On top of that, tactical advantages are only awarded in the following scenarios too...

• If Team A's offense and Team B's defense remain fundamentally unchanged from the regular season match to the postseason match, Team A's offense is awarded a tactical edge if Team A lost the regular season match. If Team B lost the regular season match instead, then their defense is awarded the tactical edge.
• If Team A's defense and Team B's offense remain fundamentally unchanged from the regular season match to the postseason match, Team A's defense is awarded a tactical edge if Team A lost the regular season match. If Team B lost the regular season match instead, then their offense is awarded the tactical edge.
• If Team A's offense changed in some fundamental capacity and Team B's defense remains fundamentally unchanged from the regular season match to the postseason match, Team A's offense is only awarded a tactical edge should that change present an obvious advantage in terms of talent or strategic potential. Otherwise, Team B's defense will be awarded the tactical edge here.
• If Team A's defense changed in some fundamental capacity and Team B's offense remains fundamentally unchanged from the regular season match to the postseason match, Team A's defense is only awarded a tactical edge should that change present an obvious advantage in terms of talent or strategic potential. Otherwise, Team B's offense will be awarded the tactical edge here.

Going forward, these are the rules that will govern the allocation of tactical edges. That being said, we do need to define what we mean when an offense or a defense changes on a fundamental level and whether such changes reflect positively or negatively on the team.

• Should the unit be led by a different coordinator in the postseason rematch, that constitutes a fundamentally positive change.
• Should the unit feature at least two key players that weren't present in the earlier match, that constitutes a fundamentally positive change. Conversely, if the unit is missing key players that were present in the earlier match, that constitutes a fundamentally negative change.
• Should an offense be led by a quarterback who wasn't there or anywhere near full health in the earlier match, that constitutes a fundamentally positive change. Conversely, if the quarterback's health is comparatively worse entering the rematch, that constitutes a fundamentally negative change.
• Should the unit be now led by a mature coordinator who was still growing into his role in the earlier match, that constitutes a fundamentally positive change.

Speaking of which, a coordinator is considered mature once he has six to seven meaningful games of experience under his belt with whatever unit he's coaching.