The Denver Broncos lost a heart-breaker to the Cincinnati Bengals on Saturday evening and now head into Week 18 in another "win and in" situation. It's a good situation for the Broncos to still be in, but they have had so many opportunities in their last two games against the Chargers and now Bengals to just take care of business and already have cemented one of the seven AFC playoff spots.
One of the most crucial decisions in a tight game vs. Cincinnati came down to the team's final extra-point attempt after Bo Nix and Marvin Mims connected on a play with one of the highest levels of difficulty you will ever see. The Broncos were down by one point after the touchdown, and everyone saw Bo Nix on the NFL Network cameras holding up two fingers to indicate he wanted to go for two to win the game.
And that would have likely been the better decision, win or lose, even without the benefit of hindsight. The Broncos hadn't stopped the Bengals all game long defensively. Joe Burrow and the Cincinnati offense had been easily moving the ball down the field all night long, and I'm not sure why Sean Payton expected things to be any different in overtime.
His explanation of the decision to kick the extra point as opposed to going for two after the game was laughably bad to many in Broncos Country.
Sean Payton said Broncos considered possibility of a tie when deciding not to go for two
"I'm going to I'm going to answer this now — going for two ... we knew a tie, for us, was just as beneficial as a win. We felt like we had the momentum at that point...
“We knew going into this game — knew all of that stuff. Tie, everything down to it. And so a lot of it is your gut, relative to how the toss goes. We were moving a little bit on offense, and then weighing the percentages of the two-point conversion. If the tie element didn't sit in there, probably (it would have) been a little bit (of an) easier decision.”
- Broncos HC Sean Payton (via team PR)
Essentially, what Payton is saying here is that the Broncos felt better about being able to beat or tie the Bengals in overtime than he did about the offense gaining two yards on one single play. I'm not sure what he means here about the overall "momentum" but if you felt like you had momentum, would you not just go for the two-point conversion?
Again, the Broncos defense hadn't stopped Joe Burrow and the Bengals' offense basically all game. Now, you can push back on that and point out the two fourth-down stops early in the game, which were absolutely huge, but those came after the Bengals easily pushed the ball into scoring range anyway.
The fact that Payton even mentioned the idea of playing for the tie is frustrating. If it would have happened as a natural byproduct of the game, that's one thing. But with a chance to win it in regulation by simply gaining two yards?
You would be in the same exact position you are right now if you had failed to convert. The idea of your defense stopping Joe Burrow is hysterical. Nobody has stopped Burrow for months at this point. And I suppose, to be fair, the Broncos did force their first punt of Burrow and the Bengals on their first possession of overtime.
Which the offense did nothing with because they were pinned 90 yards away from the end zone.
The Broncos lost the field position battle in overtime and allowed the Bengals to get within close striking range not once but twice. Even after the Bengals missed a field goal, the Denver offense wasn't able to get a single first down.
Every second that passed by in overtime, the decision to not go for two at the end of regulation looked worse. And the explanation of the thought of the team possibly tying the game as a reson for going for two? It just feels unacceptable with the playoffs on the line.