The Buccaneers had the Chiefs on the ropes. All they had to do was go for two after scoring a late touchdown, and they would have beaten the Chiefs, right?
After the game, coach Todd Bowles said he gave “very minor” consideration to going for two.
“We wanted to get it to overtime,” Bowles told reporters. “With the wet conditions on the field, we feel like we had to go into overtime instead of go for two.”
A successful conversion would have given Tampa Bay a 25-24 lead, and Patrick Mahomes would have had 27 seconds to get the home team in range for a game-winning field goal. Would you have bet against that?
Before answering, ask the Bills. Mahomes needed only 13 seconds to engineer a field-goal that forced overtime. Give Mahomes more than twice that amount, and watch what happens.
With the game tied, the Chiefs’ drive ended with a punt on fourth and one. If the Chiefs had needed to score, they would have gone for it.
Again, would you have bet against Mahomes?
It’s one thing to go for two with no time on the clock, which the Patriots should have done on Sunday in Tennessee. When dealing with Mahomes when the game is on the line, 27 seconds is an eternity.
Then there’s the question of whether the Bucs had a goal-line play they liked. They’d just used two of them from the one. Did they like the next play on the list?
Even if they did — and even if they’d converted — Mahomes and the Chiefs would have gotten the ball with 27 seconds and three timeouts.
Again, would you have bet against Mahomes? And if the answer is yes, have you not been paying attention to the last seven years of the NFL?
