It's convenient to pick "do or die" games for a team that can go either 8-8 or 9-7 to qualify for the playoffs which in the long run means nothing because the team is only extending its season demise most likely by a week. Tony's teams were never good enough to win a Super Bowl, from a personnel nor a coaching perspective, not even in the 2006 or the 2014 seasons. The 2015 season was probably his best shot and he got injured and the bonehead coaching staff decided beyond all reason that a rookie QB was going to lead the team to the Super Bowl. Had Parcells stuck around for a few more seasons, Romo would probably have a Super Bowl. This organization has blown it ever since Parcells retired.
Did you even watch the Minnesota playoff game in 2009? That team destroyed the Eagles the week before, but the offensive line put up a huge stinker the following week. Romo was sacked six times and hurried well over a dozen.
I don't care Tony's teams were good enough to win a SB. They WERE good enough to win games to extend the season further and neglected to do so. That's the issue I have and whether I, you, or anyone else thinks they would have won the following week is irrelevant.
Yes, I watched the Minnesota game. I hate this question, BTW. It has become the one of the laziest and easily predictable response on the internet if there is a difference of opinion. Let's recap, you claim Romo never won because the defense. I retort saying when the rubber meets the road, the offense has sucked too and those games weren't all on the defense. You respond by talking about how the offensive line put up a stinker and questioning whether I watched the game. LOL. The Minnesota game helps prove my point that. The offense stunk, turned the ball over multiple times and left the defense out to dry that game. We didn't fail to win that year because "Tony never had a defense". We failed to win because Minnesota kicked our butts.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2006 because the defense sucked. He failed to win because we couldn't beat Seattle to advance whose offense only scored 19 points. Tony had ball in hand with opportunity to win game late in 4th.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2007 because the defense sucked. He failed to win because we couldn't beat NY who only scored 21 points. Tony had ball in hand late in game with opportunity to win game.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2008 because the defense sucked. He failed because Philly kicked out butts. The defense could have pitched a shut out and we still would have lost just by the points our offense allowed their defense to score on us.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2011 solely because the defense sucked. He failed because both the offense and defense sucked against NY in week 17 and couldn't advance.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2012 because the defense sucked. He failed because we couldn't beat Washington in week 17. Tony had ball in hand late in 4th quarter with opportunity to win the game.
Tony didn't fail to win in 2014 solely because the defense sucked. He failed because we couldn't beat Green Bay. Tony had ball in hand late in 4th quarter to take the lead. We may have ultimately lost, but we couldn't reclaim lead.
Did you watch those games? Now, I'm not "blaming" Romo for the loses. But the claims that he couldn't win because the defense are false. We could have won but just DIDN'T win. There were opportunities there.
Now, in 2016 we had the #4 scoring defense in the league during the regular season. That didn't help one iota in the playoff game. The defense got TORCHED that game. I bring that up because when the season comes down to "win or go home" it doesn't matter how the team performed. Romo's defenses sucked some times. But that doesn't mean they were horrible when the season was on the line.
High level blaming of the defense for Romo's failures is trying to sugar coat what actually happened. The entire team failed, not just the defense.