well up until the last 6 mins of the game the score was 30-15. What facts and numbers are wrong here? A football game is 60 mins long, so 60-6=54 mins of where Dak had a bad game versus 6 minutes of where he played good. That 6 minutes was not enough to overcome the hole he dug himself into. And just about any playoff game that romo was in that he lost, people would accuse him of choking. People here only care at the end of the day if you win the game. I have never heard people chirping about how Romo has had an almost comeback. We've had plenty of those, but in the past almost has never been good enough. Why should things be different now? How is playing bad for 54 mins in a football game only to wake up in the last 6 minutes of the game, and then *almost* have a comeback proof that he played good or was clutch? The reason romo was brought up is to bring up the hypocrisy I am seeing here. The only game here that I ever heard praise of almost having a comeback would be the NFC championship game back in 94, and that was years after. But pretty generally, the attitude has always been almost is not good enough.
But sorry, I want to be an objective fan, who will be happy if Dak improves and looks good next year. If I feel that we are winning despite of him, or if it is clear we are losing, then I won't be happy. I want what is best for the Cowboys, not for a single player.
