First, I wish to quote myself from two months
prior to the 2016 playoffs:
...Anything's possible. A rookie quarterback may some day win the Super Bowl but the odds are stacked sky high against that happening...
Thought I would emphasize what my thoughts are and have always been before anyone judges my comments as hindsight, instead of truthfully as foresight.
In the last game against the Eagles in regular season what would the results have been if Jerry stepped in and advised Dak he has a future, but this is Tony's team, win, lose, or draw for the rest of this season.
1. Would the team (players) have accepted that?
I believe there would have been various degrees of acceptance among players. Everyone is human. Undoubtedly, Prescott had become a new leader. Leaders are respected, so there would have been some resentment seeing Prescott benched for Romo.
Romo was an old leader. Any resentment would have been tempered by the respect he had already earned.
I think a better question focuses on functional instead of acceptance.
Could the team have functioned just as well with a change at the position? In my opinion, the answer is yes. The team was still primarily composed of pre-2016 veterans who already were accustomed to playing with Romo. I doubt there would have been any measurable dysfunction if the change had occurred. Additionally, I am doubtful the rookies would have underperformed either.
Any of my projected worries would have been directed at coaching instead of the roster. The coaches had employed a healthy blended of run and pass with Prescott running the offense. I would hope they would not have gotten too far away from that successful strategy with Romo behind center. They did a fair balancing job in 2014, so my concern would have likely been unfounded.
2. They were already going to the play-offs. How would they have fared with a healthy Romo dropping dimes on his receivers and Zeke tearing the league a new rear end?
I have played scenarios in my head using the Packers game as a template. There was the Paralyzed Romo factor that is often (understatement) argued. I could see Romo starting, getting hurt, Prescott resuming his previous role, and the team rallying from the emotional spark of Romo getting sidelined again. Perhaps the defensive front four would have been a touch more motivated in pressuring Rodgers into a single critical mistake that would have made the difference in the final score.
The "winning one for The Gipper" emotional rally has helped many teams excel. I kind of believe it played somewhat of a factor behind the Eagles Super Bowl run after Wentz's injury.
Another scenario had Romo making several key errors if the rest of the team did not perform as well as it actually did against the Packers. Most of his career shortcomings have been the result of his pressing to offset what he did not think his teammates could accomplish, which led to untimely interceptions and holding the ball way too long. I do not think Prescott could have helped rally the team if the coaches had waited too late before yanking Romo.
The particular scenario I had hoped for was Romo playing solidly. In my opinion, games are often decided on the success or failure of one key drive by the offense OR the defense stymying the opponent. Well, the defense was porous versus Green Bay. If things had played out the same, the final outcome could have been the result of Romo throwing a critical pass that kept a first half or third quarter drive alive--something expected of a
veteran quarterback.
What ifs. As I have said many times, the end of the 2016 season still kicks me in the <expletive>. Thanks Jerry Jones. Thanks Jason Garrett.