Yes, the foundation of both game (and why we succeeded in the Bucc's game) is the inability to run the ball (Game1 - penalties, Game 2 - Tony), but that doesnt excuse the fact that sometimes things are going to go wrong....and the ball is in the QB's hands every down. We make give reasons/excuses, but those that succeed overcome difficulties, not surrender to them.
As for Dak.....this is my main (virtually only) concern, everything needs to work, which is highly unlikely when you play the better teams who arent holding back.
The teams overcome difficulties. It's not always the QB. That's where it gets skewed. It isn't that everything needs to work for the team to succeed with Dak. It's that there are times when other parts of the team have to carry the load and times when he has to carry the load.
A couple of years ago, I went back and watched the golden days of Cowboys football with Roger Staubach at QB. There were times when Staubach played pretty poorly for a half in a playoff game, but the running game or the defense kept us either close or ahead, and Staubach would eventually come through. He would not have had that chance if the defense had played poorly or the running game didn't work. The next game, Staubach might have been brilliant, but there wouldn't have been a next game if the defense/running game had not come through.
The easy thing to do when the team wins is give the QB too much credit. And the easy thing to do when the team loses is give the QB too much blame. They are just part of the operation. Yes, they are a major part, but they are not the operation. The QBs we've had that have won Super Bowls have done it because of the teams they were on, because of the coaches they had as much, if not more so, than because of their own ability.
