Does anyone think Dak is better than Romo was?

[gimmesix]

You’re right. We didn’t lose strictly because of Romo or Dak.

That said. Is that good enough that we didn’t lose strictly because of the QB position? At which point can we expect a Cowboys QB to win playoff games overcoming things like poor defense, QB pressure, mediocre run games? You know, all things other QBs are overcoming to advance in the playoffs?

A couple of years back, I was watching some of the old games with Staubach and there were playoff games where the defense and running game absolutely carried him and then there were other games where he absolutely came through when the team needed him to. If the defense and running game had failed in those games where Staubach wasn't playing great, I don't know if he would have risen to the occasion or if Dallas would have just lost and we wouldn't have ended up with some of our Super Bowl titles.

Prescott was one of many who did not play well enough in this game, but he did play well enough in the playoff game against Green Bay if other parts had come through. Romo did the same in his playoff game against Green Bay (and a couple of other playoff games). There have been other QBs who did not play great (just look at Garoppolo's stats against Green Bay, 11-19, 57.1 percent, 131 yards, 0 TDs, 1 int.), but won playoff games or even Super Bowls because their defense/running games/special teams did.

We tend to look far too much at success/wins in judging QBs and it's not really a fair measure because they are only a piece of the winning puzzle. Sometimes they can be a big piece and sometimes they are a small piece.

 

[Aviano90]

A couple of years back, I was watching some of the old games with Staubach and there were playoff games where the defense and running game absolutely carried him and then there were other games where he absolutely came through when the team needed him to. If the defense and running game had failed in those games where Staubach wasn't playing great, I don't know if he would have risen to the occasion or if Dallas would have just lost and we wouldn't have ended up with some of our Super Bowl titles.

Prescott was one of many who did not play well enough in this game, but he did play well enough in the playoff game against Green Bay if other parts had come through. Romo did the same in his playoff game against Green Bay (and a couple of other playoff games). There have been other QBs who did not play great (just look at Garoppolo's stats against Green Bay, 11-19, 57.1 percent, 131 yards, 0 TDs, 1 int.), but won playoff games or even Super Bowls because their defense/running games/special teams did.

We tend to look far too much at success/wins in judging QBs and it's not really a fair measure because they are only a piece of the winning puzzle. Sometimes they can be a big piece and sometimes they are a small piece.

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. It is all logical. We have had a decade of Tony and 6 years with Dak. The one thing that remains constant is we continue to pretty much expect perfect around them in order to defend them. I watch playoff games where other QBs have weaknesses on the team, defense playing poorly, running game getting shut down, receivers dropping passes, etc, and they can overcome to win games. Burrow was running for his life last week and pulled out a victory. Romo under that pressure gets blown out and it’s the line’s fault.

At some point, the excuses need to stop and if the player if all he is cracked up to be, he starts being one of the main reasons we overcome obstacles to get to the playoffs and advance further on a more consistent basis. Burrow and Mahomes had a ton of excuses to lose last weekend, yet the pulled it out. Can Dak be that? If his supporters don’t even believe he can elevate a team with weaknesses, then perhaps we need to begin the search for one who can be, when the contract allows for it.

 

[gimmesix]

I don’t disagree with what you are saying. It is all logical. We have had a decade of Tony and 6 years with Dak. The one thing that remains constant is we continue to pretty much expect perfect around them in order to defend them. I watch playoff games where other QBs have weaknesses on the team, defense playing poorly, running game getting shut down, receivers dropping passes, etc, and they can overcome to win games. Burrow was running for his life last week and pulled out a victory. Romo under that pressure gets blown out and it’s the line’s fault.

At some point, the excuses need to stop and if the player if all he is cracked up to be, he starts being one of the main reasons we overcome obstacles to get to the playoffs and advance further on a more consistent basis. Burrow and Mahomes had a ton of excuses to lose last weekend, yet the pulled it out. Can Dak be that? If his supporters don’t even believe he can elevate a team with weaknesses, then perhaps we need to begin the search for one who can be, when the contract allows for it.

But you also see the opposite. Like I said, Garoppolo vs. Green Bay is a good example. Brady last year was far from perfect in the playoffs. He completed just 58.7 percent of his passes, but the Bucs went 4-0 and won the Super Bowl. (He did have 10 TD passes compared to 3 ints.) This year, he completed 64.8 percent of his passes (3 TDs., 1 int.) and the Bucs went 1-1. The difference was that his team played much better last year than it did this year.

I don't expect perfect around our QBs, but I also don't expect them to be able to overcome others' mistakes. One of the plays that sticks in my mind from the San Fran game is the Wilson lateral that he badly threw past Pollard. That was a great play-call. It was perfectly set up and I have no idea if the 49ers would have been able to catch Pollard with a good lateral there. But the execution sucked, so it was a missed opportunity. Same with the pass to Wilson where he was blinded by the sunlight. That might have been three points, but of course, that's iffy with Zuerlein.

Then go back to the 2007 Giants game when Crayton drops a perfect pass where it looked like he had nothing but open field ahead of him. Or when he pulled up on the end-zone route instead of taking it to the back line where Romo threw it. Those things can be all the difference that it takes and are not the QB's fault.

What if Alvin Harper had dropped the pass from Aikman against San Fran in the playoffs? Maybe we lose that game. The opposite with the Jackie Smith TD drop in the Super Bowl loss to Pittsburgh. Maybe we win that game.

Aaron Rodgers has one Super Bowl victory in his 17-year career not because he isn't one of the all-time great QBs, but because the team around him simply wasn't good enough, the execution failed, the play-calling failed, etc. I don't really watch other teams, so I'm sure Rodgers made mistakes in those failures, but I don't think there is anyone who would say Rodgers is the reason the Packers don't have more titles.

I believe we could have won with Romo (and he deserved better than what he got) and I believe we can win with Prescott (although he does need to play better than he did the last half of this season), but others have to do their part when they do play well and maybe do more than their part when they don't.

 

[DFWJC]

....

Then go back to the 2007 Giants game when Crayton drops a perfect pass where it looked like he had nothing but open field ahead of him. Or when he pulled up on the end-zone route instead of taking it to the back line where Romo threw it. Those things can be all the difference that it takes and are not the QB's fault.

What if Alvin Harper had dropped the pass from Aikman against San Fran in the playoffs? Maybe we lose that game. The opposite with the Jackie Smith TD drop in the Super Bowl loss to Pittsburgh. Maybe we win that game.

.....

Man, that is so true.

 

[Aviano90]

But you also see the opposite. Like I said, Garoppolo vs. Green Bay is a good example. Brady last year was far from perfect in the playoffs. He completed just 58.7 percent of his passes, but the Bucs went 4-0 and won the Super Bowl. (He did have 10 TD passes compared to 3 ints.) This year, he completed 64.8 percent of his passes (3 TDs., 1 int.) and the Bucs went 1-1. The difference was that his team played much better last year than it did this year.

I don't expect perfect around our QBs, but I also don't expect them to be able to overcome others' mistakes. One of the plays that sticks in my mind from the San Fran game is the Wilson lateral that he badly threw past Pollard. That was a great play-call. It was perfectly set up and I have no idea if the 49ers would have been able to catch Pollard with a good lateral there. But the execution sucked, so it was a missed opportunity. Same with the pass to Wilson where he was blinded by the sunlight. That might have been three points, but of course, that's iffy with Zuerlein.

Then go back to the 2007 Giants game when Crayton drops a perfect pass where it looked like he had nothing but open field ahead of him. Or when he pulled up on the end-zone route instead of taking it to the back line where Romo threw it. Those things can be all the difference that it takes and are not the QB's fault.

What if Alvin Harper had dropped the pass from Aikman against San Fran in the playoffs? Maybe we lose that game. The opposite with the Jackie Smith TD drop in the Super Bowl loss to Pittsburgh. Maybe we win that game.

Aaron Rodgers has one Super Bowl victory in his 17-year career not because he isn't one of the all-time great QBs, but because the team around him simply wasn't good enough, the execution failed, the play-calling failed, etc. I don't really watch other teams, so I'm sure Rodgers made mistakes in those failures, but I don't think there is anyone who would say Rodgers is the reason the Packers don't have more titles.

I believe we could have won with Romo (and he deserved better than what he got) and I believe we can win with Prescott (although he does need to play better than he did the last half of this season), but others have to do their part when they do play well and maybe do more than their part when they don't.

So we are good with the opposite? OK.

 

[GORICO]

I think that is pretty much true. I don't think Dak would've lasted long either though with some of the bad lines that Romo had. This years line is elite compare to the historic bad line that romo had to play with.

2014 line was elite because Martin even rookie made all pro and Fredricks was best and Smith LT....what's his name ( terrible short term memory _ had over 1800 yds rushing and Romo 34 TD's 9 INT's

Dez caught it which stupid New York should have minded their own business and not overturn....but our defense was spotty....Rogers may have taken Packers back down to TD over 4 min left in game

but maybe defense gets a turnover or holds them...we will never know....made me so angry...if you watch how the ball moved in slow motion you can tell ball did not touch ground but only moved within

arm and when Dez finally held it he had crossed enzone...it was actually a TD....watched it a million times ..the only call or no call worse was what occured to the saints against rams when cb blasted

receiver way before ball was near receiver...worst no call in NFL history...refs deciding games is wrong unless call on field is agregious ...or no call...my lowly opinion

 

[gimmesix]

So we are good with the opposite? OK.

Just saying it happens. Have Romo and Dak played well enough to win playoff games that we've lost? Yes. Have they played poorly in playoff games we've lost? Yes. It's just not all up to the QBs no matter how much some want to believe that it is.

Eli Manning wins a Super Bowl because David Tyree makes a catch where he pins basically a jump ball to his helmet. Manning deserves credit for escaping heavy pressure in order to throw the ball, but without the execution by the receiver, making a catch that he would have been justified to have dropped, Manning is just another QB with an L next to his name and Giants fans point to how he wasn't good enough.

I'm far from satisfied with Prescott's play in the 49ers' game, and no Cowboys fan should be. He missed some throws he needed to make. But I'm also far from satisfied with the blocking for the run and passing games. We do just a little better there, and maybe we win. I'm far from satisfied with the failed execution on the two plays I mentioned, as well as some others. We do just a little better there, and maybe we win.

Just a few plays where other players play better, and Prescott has a W by his name instead of an L, and everybody looks at it differently even though what he did really doesn't change. No one looks back at Brady's play in the playoffs last year and goes, "He didn't elevate his team," because his team went 4-0 and won the Super Bowl even though he didn't really play that great.

 

[GORICO]

I was livid when Romo wasn't even given a chance to compete in 16 and basically tossed to the curb like yesterday's trash. I mean Romo had his bad games. But to me,Tony was definitely a smarter QB as well as a better passer. Seemed to make lesser WRs better. Dak should be all world with this talent and he's not. He's an average QB propped up by the talent of the roster. Give him lesser receivers he's below average.

i wont ever believe Romo is God----but i do wholeheartedly agree Romo made receivers better and diagnosed defenses far better than Dak even when Romo was at same number of years in league as Dak....what i l

love and sometimed drove me crazy was Romo was such a gun slinger....total love/hate issue...but overall i loved Romo's attitude...we aint ever out of it....Romo was better than Staubach in my opinion regardless

what hardware Staubach had and yes Roger the dodger was totally clutch in big games and Romo had that incident in 2006 fumbling ball as holder.....but Romo did not let it dictate the story....Romo came back

next year with 36 TD's yes he also had 19 INT's....but Romo thought every game might be the wild wild west....which i love Romo for.....i wanted him so bad to hoist a Lombardi....now we have evidencial proof

of his superior football mind as he works for CBS and can predict better than 90% what next play should be....Dak does not have that kind of confidence....something happened when he hurt his calf

he was never the same even when by all appearances calf was totally healed....but i believe Dak will get past that and improve greatly as he always has in off season...overall Dak can win us a Lombardi

but as far as quick wittedness and seeing the field and throwing receivers open Romo still better

 

[GORICO]

I was livid when Romo wasn't even given a chance to compete in 16 and basically tossed to the curb like yesterday's trash. I mean Romo had his bad games. But to me,Tony was definitely a smarter QB as well as a better passer. Seemed to make lesser WRs better. Dak should be all world with this talent and he's not. He's an average QB propped up by the talent of the roster. Give him lesser receivers he's below average.

PS---even when team was 8-1 i wanted them to give reigns back over to Romo....i think it would have even made Dak a better QB...learning under Romo the nuances of defense diagonses

so what if team was on a streak some of those games came down to fortunate bounces of balls etc.....i was praying somehow Romo could have swallowed his pride too and said..cowboy

fans i plan on being the "best back up in NFL history"....and then next year when Dak melted against Atlanta because stupid coaching staff ( Garrett mainly ) did not get help on left side

fast enough....Dak was dead meat.....Tony could have gotten us out of that jam...my lowly opinion

 

[GORICO]

I was livid when Romo wasn't even given a chance to compete in 16 and basically tossed to the curb like yesterday's trash. I mean Romo had his bad games. But to me,Tony was definitely a smarter QB as well as a better passer. Seemed to make lesser WRs better. Dak should be all world with this talent and he's not. He's an average QB propped up by the talent of the roster. Give him lesser receivers he's below average.

PPS---also this notion if you have 2 QB's you have no QB's i dont prescribe too in EVERY CASE....the team would have battled regadless if it was Dak or Tony under center......JOnes screwed the pooch

on that one...in my lowly opinion only

 

[Aviano90]

Just saying it happens. Have Romo and Dak played well enough to win playoff games that we've lost? Yes. Have they played poorly in playoff games we've lost? Yes. It's just not all up to the QBs no matter how much some want to believe that it is.

Eli Manning wins a Super Bowl because David Tyree makes a catch where he pins basically a jump ball to his helmet. Manning deserves credit for escaping heavy pressure in order to throw the ball, but without the execution by the receiver, making a catch that he would have been justified to have dropped, Manning is just another QB with an L next to his name and Giants fans point to how he wasn't good enough.

I'm far from satisfied with Prescott's play in the 49ers' game, and no Cowboys fan should be. He missed some throws he needed to make. But I'm also far from satisfied with the blocking for the run and passing games. We do just a little better there, and maybe we win. I'm far from satisfied with the failed execution on the two plays I mentioned, as well as some others. We do just a little better there, and maybe we win.

Just a few plays where other players play better, and Prescott has a W by his name instead of an L, and everybody looks at it differently even though what he did really doesn't change. No one looks back at Brady's play in the playoffs last year and goes, "He didn't elevate his team," because his team went 4-0 and won the Super Bowl even though he didn't really play that great.

I have acknowledged you are correct. They have played well enough to not be the primary reason we lost. If others didn’t make mistakes, we could have won with them.

I was wondering when/if we should expect more. For example, you brought up the 2007 game and Crayton has been primarily blamed for that loss. He certainly deserves blame. But what could Romo have done in that game to help us still win? Perhaps hitting TO in the red zone on 3rd down which more than likely gets us into the end zone on the play instead of settling for a FG? Or maybe spotting Austin who was left wide open behind the defense in the 2nd half? Or hitting TO deep when he was open twice in the 2nd half.

Romo has a great excuse for losing the game. I just wish we had players who were reasons why we win instead of not being the main reason we lose. Perhaps those expectations are just too high for our organization now.

 

[gimmesix]

I have acknowledged you are correct. They have played well enough to not be the primary reason we lost. If others didn’t make mistakes, we could have won with them.

I was wondering when/if we should expect more. For example, you brought up the 2007 game and Crayton has been primarily blamed for that loss. He certainly deserves blame. But what could Romo have done in that game to help us still win? Perhaps hitting TO in the red zone on 3rd down which more than likely gets us into the end zone on the play instead of settling for a FG? Or maybe spotting Austin who was left wide open behind the defense in the 2nd half? Or hitting TO deep when he was open twice in the 2nd half.

Romo has a great excuse for losing the game. I just wish we had players who were reasons why we win instead of not being the main reason we lose. Perhaps those expectations are just too high for our organization now.

I think they have been the reason why we have won in some games, just not in many playoff games. And who knows? If the defense or running game had played a little better in a couple of games, we might be saying the QBs were the reason why we won. Take the 2014 Green Bay game, Romo makes a great throw to Dez, but Dez tries to reach for the end zone and loses control of the ball. Despite the controversial call, let's say Dez protects the ball there instead of reaching out and clearly makes the catch. We go on to score and somehow (although it's doubtful) keep Rodgers from leading the Packers to one more score. Wouldn't you feel Romo was the reason why we won?

I think with losses we're always going to expect more. That's just the nature of it. That pass the QB missed becomes something he had to do better for us to win instead of something that didn't matter because we won. Even with the QBs you mentioned, Burrows and Mahomes, I didn't watch those games, but I guarantee there were some plays that they missed and if someone else on the team had failed to execute on another play and their teams had lost, those missed plays would be what fans focus on instead of what they overcame.

Staubach has two Super Bowl titles and was the reason why we won games because the team overcame the reasons he could have been for us to lose, either in those same games or other playoff games. Same with Aikman and his three titles. During Romo's years and continuing, it seems that we've needed our quarterbacks to be close to perfect because their margin for error has been so small and every mistake stands out because of that. It's hard to be the reason why we win when the team is playing losing football (and by that, I don't really mean the whole team, but enough of it to make a difference).

So I guess I'm saying there are times when we already shouldn't have expected more, where Romo and Prescott were reasons we should have won (or at least among them), but where others robbed them of that glory.

 

[Aviano90]

I think they have been the reason why we have won in some games, just not in many playoff games. And who knows? If the defense or running game had played a little better in a couple of games, we might be saying the QBs were the reason why we won. Take the 2014 Green Bay game, Romo makes a great throw to Dez, but Dez tries to reach for the end zone and loses control of the ball. Despite the controversial call, let's say Dez protects the ball there instead of reaching out and clearly makes the catch. We go on to score and somehow (although it's doubtful) keep Rodgers from leading the Packers to one more score. Wouldn't you feel Romo was the reason why we won?

I think with losses we're always going to expect more. That's just the nature of it. That pass the QB missed becomes something he had to do better for us to win instead of something that didn't matter because we won. Even with the QBs you mentioned, Burrows and Mahomes, I didn't watch those games, but I guarantee there were some plays that they missed and if someone else on the team had failed to execute on another play and their teams had lost, those missed plays would be what fans focus on instead of what they overcame.

Staubach has two Super Bowl titles and was the reason why we won games because the team overcame the reasons he could have been for us to lose, either in those same games or other playoff games. Same with Aikman and his three titles. During Romo's years and continuing, it seems that we've needed our quarterbacks to be close to perfect because their margin for error has been so small and every mistake stands out because of that. It's hard to be the reason why we win when the team is playing losing football (and by that, I don't really mean the whole team, but enough of it to make a difference).

So I guess I'm saying there are times when we already shouldn't have expected more, where Romo and Prescott were reasons we should have won (or at least among them), but where others robbed them of that glory.

I will just go with my expectations are too high.

 

[kskboys]

But you also see the opposite. Like I said, Garoppolo vs. Green Bay is a good example. Brady last year was far from perfect in the playoffs. He completed just 58.7 percent of his passes, but the Bucs went 4-0 and won the Super Bowl. (He did have 10 TD passes compared to 3 ints.) This year, he completed 64.8 percent of his passes (3 TDs., 1 int.) and the Bucs went 1-1. The difference was that his team played much better last year than it did this year.

I don't expect perfect around our QBs, but I also don't expect them to be able to overcome others' mistakes. One of the plays that sticks in my mind from the San Fran game is the Wilson lateral that he badly threw past Pollard. That was a great play-call. It was perfectly set up and I have no idea if the 49ers would have been able to catch Pollard with a good lateral there. But the execution sucked, so it was a missed opportunity. Same with the pass to Wilson where he was blinded by the sunlight. That might have been three points, but of course, that's iffy with Zuerlein.

Then go back to the 2007 Giants game when Crayton drops a perfect pass where it looked like he had nothing but open field ahead of him. Or when he pulled up on the end-zone route instead of taking it to the back line where Romo threw it. Those things can be all the difference that it takes and are not the QB's fault.

What if Alvin Harper had dropped the pass from Aikman against San Fran in the playoffs? Maybe we lose that game. The opposite with the Jackie Smith TD drop in the Super Bowl loss to Pittsburgh. Maybe we win that game.

Aaron Rodgers has one Super Bowl victory in his 17-year career not because he isn't one of the all-time great QBs, but because the team around him simply wasn't good enough, the execution failed, the play-calling failed, etc. I don't really watch other teams, so I'm sure Rodgers made mistakes in those failures, but I don't think there is anyone who would say Rodgers is the reason the Packers don't have more titles.

I believe we could have won with Romo (and he deserved better than what he got) and I believe we can win with Prescott (although he does need to play better than he did the last half of this season), but others have to do their part when they do play well and maybe do more than their part when they don't.

A lot of it is on Rodgers, though. He crapped the bed in big games over and over and over.

 

[gimmesix]

I will just go with my expectations are too high.

Most fans are when their team loses, especially when it comes to quarterbacks. They play the only position where wins-losses are part of the Hall of Fame criteria. Barry Sanders' teams experienced one playoff victory during his career, yet no one holds that against him as a Hall of Famer. The closest the Lions came to reaching the Super Bowl was making the NFC Championship Game where Sanders was held to 59 yards by Washington in a 41-10 loss. But you won't hear anyone say he was the reason why they lost and doesn't deserve a place in the Hall because of how poorly he played in that game. They blame the line or the quarterback or the defense.

We're unfair to quarterbacks, but they understand that and accept that losses are going to get counted against them. It's just the way most fans and media perceive it. The players know differently, though. They generally take the blame for their own failures and accept that they were at least part of the reason their team lost.

 

[gimmesix]

A lot of it is on Rodgers, though. He crapped the bed in big games over and over and over.

Rodgers has a 64.6 completion percentage in 19 playoff starts. He averages 283.4 passing yards per game and has totaled 45 TDs with 13 interceptions in those games.

 

[Aviano90]

Most fans are when their team loses, especially when it comes to quarterbacks. They play the only position where wins-losses are part of the Hall of Fame criteria. Barry Sanders' teams experienced one playoff victory during his career, yet no one holds that against him as a Hall of Famer. The closest the Lions came to reaching the Super Bowl was making the NFC Championship Game where Sanders was held to 59 yards by Washington in a 41-10 loss. But you won't hear anyone say he was the reason why they lost and doesn't deserve a place in the Hall because of how poorly he played in that game. They blame the line or the quarterback or the defense.

We're unfair to quarterbacks, but they understand that and accept that losses are going to get counted against them. It's just the way most fans and media perceive it. The players know differently, though. They generally take the blame for their own failures and accept that they were at least part of the reason their team lost.

I don’t care what position it is. When do we quit making excuses for losing and expect players to setup up and win? It’s like one person makes a mistake and that’s it for the other players on the field. The scapegoat has been identified.

Team stacks a box against Zeke, well he has excuse to suck, as an example.

 

[gimmesix]

I don’t care what position it is. When do we quit making excuses for losing and expect players to setup up and win? It’s like one person makes a mistake and that’s it for the other players on the field. The scapegoat has been identified.

Team stacks a box against Zeke, well he has excuse to suck, as an example.

Only time I will blame one player for a loss is when the loss is clearly because of that one player. Otherwise, it's a team game and usually a team loss, with many deserving blame. In the San Francisco game, there were definitely multiple players responsible for that loss. Dak is one of them because he missed some throws he should have made. Not as sure about Zeke because it didn't look to me that he had much running room. Wilson deserves to be in there. Williams, definitely. Biadasz. Those are just ones that come to mind immediately. If I go back through, I can probably find others. Diggs didn't play particularly well on defense. Several players involved in all those penalties share blame.

For those putting it all on the quarterback, yes, I believe that does make him a scapegoat. But it's absolutely fair to say he could have and should have played better. However, for those who use that to say we need a better QB, I'll refer back to 2016, when he completed 24 of 38 for 302 yards, 3 TDs and 1 int. and had a 103.2 passer rating. That should be good enough to win any game if the rest of the team does its job. To show how it's not all about the QB, in the only playoff win with Dak, he had an 83.6 rating. Then, he had a 99.2 in the next game, and we fell to the Rams.

BTW, I don't think of it as making excuses to say Wilson should have completed that lateral. That's blaming Wilson. I don't think it's making excuses to say Williams shouldn't have held or given up sacks. I just believe in putting blame where it is deserved.

 

[Aviano90]

Only time I will blame one player for a loss is when the loss is clearly because of that one player. Otherwise, it's a team game and usually a team loss, with many deserving blame. In the San Francisco game, there were definitely multiple players responsible for that loss. Dak is one of them because he missed some throws he should have made. Not as sure about Zeke because it didn't look to me that he had much running room. Wilson deserves to be in there. Williams, definitely. Biadasz. Those are just ones that come to mind immediately. If I go back through, I can probably find others. Diggs didn't play particularly well on defense. Several players involved in all those penalties share blame.

For those putting it all on the quarterback, yes, I believe that does make him a scapegoat. But it's absolutely fair to say he could have and should have played better. However, for those who use that to say we need a better QB, I'll refer back to 2016, when he completed 24 of 38 for 302 yards, 3 TDs and 1 int. and had a 103.2 passer rating. That should be good enough to win any game if the rest of the team does its job. To show how it's not all about the QB, in the only playoff win with Dak, he had an 83.6 rating. Then, he had a 99.2 in the next game, and we fell to the Rams.

BTW, I don't think of it as making excuses to say Wilson should have completed that lateral. That's blaming Wilson. I don't think it's making excuses to say Williams shouldn't have held or given up sacks. I just believe in putting blame where it is deserved.

You’re still stuck on blaming one player. It’s OK. I know it is a hard hurdle to overcome.

 

[keysersoze]

we will have to agree to disagree....yes Romo had some bad games as every QB does....but he was so clutch too....if he had the 16 team we would have went all the way

Here we go with that “If Romo had this and that” bs. Romo had some good solid teams and he didn’t win anything worth noting. So again. Please explain how he was clutch.