Sunday’s upset of the Cowboys might not have been best for the Broncos

If beating the Cowboys doesn't help get the Broncos to the playoffs, it's the kind of win that could talk them into making some bad decisions

BY JAMES MERILATT

Nov 8, 2021, 1:16 PM Updated: 1:16 pm

Follow on Google News

Watch: Von Miller not being on the Broncos is disappointing; George Paton wouldn’t give him the time of day | 1 min

Before the season ever started, the Broncos needed to have a clear and definable goal for the season. They needed to have an objective way of evaluating whether or not it was a success.

Why? Because it was the only way to guarantee that they didn’t talk themselves into bad decisions.

In 2021, Denver needed to have a “playoffs or bust” mentality. Everyone in the organization would be evaluated based on that simple criteria.

Vic Fangio’s job counted on making the postseason. Same goes for everyone on his staff.

Teddy Bridgewater’s career as a Bronco was based on making the playoffs. Same goes for most of the other veterans on the roster.

Make the playoffs and most, if not all, stay. Miss the postseason and it’s time to turn the page on everyone.

That would’ve been easy. That would’ve been simple.

Instead, the Broncos are setting themselves up to be in a grey area. Sunday’s win over the Cowboys makes it all the more likely that they’ll be in no man’s land when the season ends.

Sitting at 5-4, Denver has a realistic shot at making the playoffs. But looking at their schedule, they’ll have to pull off another upset or two like the one they accomplished in Dallas in order to make the postseason.

They look like a team that’s destined to finish 8-9 or 9-8. More than likely, that’ll keep them out of the tournament for a sixth-straight year. But it’ll also make it tough to make some decisions.

After improving their record by 3.5 or 4.5 games, do they get rid of Fangio? If the head coach posts the first winning season since 2016, will they move on from him?

If not, they’ll most likely have to give him an extension. Fangio will be entering the final year of his contract in 2022; few NFL head coaches enter a season in “lame duck” status.

Do the Broncos talk themselves into retaining a head coach who will be roughly 20-29 during his three years at the helm, with zero playoff appearances, because they think they’re heading in the right direction? Do they bring back Fangio because they’re trending up?

Same goes for Bridgewater. If the quarterback gets them to eight or nine wins, it could be tempting to bring him back. Given the revolving door the Broncos have had at that position since Peyton Manning retired after the 2015 season, the stability could be tempting.

Like Fangio, however, Bridgewater would require a new contract in order to return. He’s a free agent after the season.

Do the Broncos talk themselves into giving the veteran another year to build upon what he started in 2021? Do they fall into the trap of believing this season is a step toward something bigger?

On both fronts, that’s a very real possibility. Sunday’s win makes it so.

Even if the Broncos fall apart after their bye week, they could still be swayed to stay the course. The narrative is starting to emerge.

Imagine they beat the Eagles this week to move to 6-4. That sets up some very realistic scenarios.

“We were 6-4 at the bye, before it went off the rails due to injuries.”

“We were 7-10, but we’re really better than our record indicated.”

In other seasons, those might be valid answers. Because it part, there is some truth to them.

But given where the Broncos are, they can’t apply to this team. Not this year.

There’s a large body of evidence for coming to a verdict on Fangio. And there’s a lot of examples of a journeyman quarterback not being the answer to decide that Bridgewater isn’t the long-term plan.

Sunday’s win was nice. It was fun. And it was encouraging.

But unless it’s the springboard to a playoff berth, it could end up being more of a negative than a positive. That’s the precarious position the Broncos currently find themselves in.