How could you write this and not mention the only reason Denver even had a chance to try for two was because the ref made a horrible call on the fumble. The announcers even said they thought Shanahan went for two because he knew they should have lost the fumble and was giving the Chargers a chance to win the game.

... Shanahan wouldn't have had the opportunity if the officiating had been competent. Near the end of the game, Jay Cutler clearly fumbled the ball, but referee Ed Hochuli blew his whistle prematurely and (wrongly) called it an incomplete pass. Hochuli tried to mealymouth an explanation ("The call on the field is correct") when it obviously was not--the line of scrimmage had been the two and the ball was placed on the 10 after the supposed "correct" call of an incomplete pass.

The chastened Hochuli then came back on the PA and announced that he had blown the call--actually, he never said he blew the call, but that "the call was mistaken"--and that Denver retained the ball "by rule" at the point of the fumble.

Earlier, another blown call favoring the Broncos could not be reversed because the cable guy didn't show up to hook up the machines or something.

Like the previous posters, I agree it is disingenuous to not mention the gift Denver was given by the officals.

Most sports pundants thought Shanahan went for two because "he was playing with house money"

I expect better from you King.

So what if there was bad officiating? How would that in any way affect his decision? He is still faced with the same situation no matter what the events were that led up to it.

King's point is still just as valid. Shanahan still opted for a strategy that provides a success rate of under 50 percent over one that provides a non-failure rate of over 50 percent. It shows confidence in his players and his offense. I don't see how a fortuitous blown call leading up to that decision in any way affects the nature of the decision. King left that out because it's not germane, and a hallmark of good writing is staying on topic.

... I believe that's the phrase Rich Eisen of NFL Network used on the recap.

"Hey, we've just benefited from a questionable call, let's go all in."

Not saying that going for it wasn't the right thing to do (it was), but propitiating the Football Gods by going for it in the wake of benefiting from an officiating blunder is the right thing to do, both tactically, strategically, and morally.

I thought the refs should've called pass interference on the hail mary pass that ended the game. There was an awful lot of jostling when the ball was in the air -- no more than usual -- but given the circumstances the Chargers should've gotten a make-up call.

I really don't understand why Kauffman still gets his musings published in Salon. Mike Shanahan is no American Hero for going for "the win", especially after he was given a "gift" by the Referee on the previous play that should have been a turnover. The Chargers recovered that "fumble" by Cutler and the game should have been over. Instead, the Ref made the wrong call and the Broncos scored on the very next play. I do give Shanahan respect for going for the two points, why wouldn't he, he got that second chance, and when that happens, you go for the win to get right with the "Karma Police".

Each team has about a 50-50 chance in sudden death. The success rate on two-point conversions has been similar in the last few years after spending about a decade closer to 40 percent.

But that doesn't matter. In the risk-averse NFL, even if two-point conversion tries were good 75 percent of the time, the play would be to kick and go to overtime because of that 25 percent failure rate.

This is such a strange passage of logic.

In other words, bravo to Shanahan for taking a bad risk according to the odds -- akin to betting one's life-savings on black in a roulette game, something no one would recommend --, because most of the risk-averse NFL hypothetically wouldn't take that risk even if the odds were far greater.

You ever heard of two wrongs don't make a right? Or actual fact trumping speculative hypothesis?

p.s. -- fantastic game, and truly shocking end to it. It is fun when people foolishly buck the odds, but that doesn't ever make it smart. (BTW, I nod my head in agreement every time I read you attack the conventional basketball wisdom of sitting players in foul trouble -- that, conversely, is foolish risk aversion.)

I only saw the play briefly on NBCs halftime show but Chris Collinsworth broke the play down and came to the conclusion that it was actually the right call. I poked aroudRegardless, that has nothing to do with what Shanahan rolling the dice and going fort two points. How is it "house money?" He was still going to lose if the Broncos didn't convert.

Question for King:

What do you think of Romeo Crennel's decision to not go for it on 4th and 7 late in the Browns-Steelers game? 7 yards is pretty far but the Browns were driving and down 10-3. If they don't convert the 4th down, they still are in the same situation as if they kick the field goal to be down 10-6: needing a touchdown when the Steelers have the ball fairly deep in their own territory. It wasn't a no-brainer but it seemed like the better play.

Shanahan knew the Gods were especially smiling upon him when Ed Hoculi blew the obvious call on Cutler's fumble...

To have played it safe and kicked the extra point would have been to spit on the Gods in response to their generous gift - and considering that in NFL overtimes, a coin flip determines possession and your offense may never even get a chance to take the field, why mess with the generous football deities?

--------------

After all, the Football Gods are already venting their wrath (for reasons unknown to me) on teams who were supposed to be Super Bowl contenders: 0-2 Chargers, 0-2 Vikings, 0-2 Jaguars.

Bow down before the ones you (are supposed to) serve...