If people thought it was the correct decision to play Prescott at the time for team harmony etc then fair enough. I completely disagree but hindsight is easy.
But anyone who understands football cannot STILL believe that it was the correct decision to play Prescott over Romo!
The decision would have only been justified had we beaten a team at home with lorry drivers in their secondary.
For those who blame Garrett for the loss then that's exactly why you should start Romo, i.e. an experienced All Pro QB to overcome coaching deficiencies. A rookie QB has NEVER won the Superbowl. Why would that be...perhaps due to inexperience and the inability to execute the key moments in their first year in the NFL, e.g. spiking the ball with time on the clock against a defense with guys off the street GASSED and there for the taking. I'm not even talking about how Prescott played for the opening quarter and a half or his interception or his dolly throw that was somehow dropped. Playoff games like that often end up close regardless for various reasons and the moment was there at the end and that is why rookie quarterbacks do not win Superbowls. For those who remember, Romo vs Giants Week 1 2015. That's how you drain the clock on a game winning drive. Again, it's not a lovin' about Romo, but it just makes sense when you consider a rookie QB has never won the Superbowl and you have an All Pro QB on your roster to take on Aaron Rodgers. No brainer but then not everyone uses their brain.
If we had won a Superbowl within a few years after that then fair enough, I could understand the argument that it was valuable experience for Prescott to play in the post season against a QB like Rodgers. But...that didn't happen so it was clearly the wrong decision unless people are actually happy that we lost that game