Look, don't shoot the messenger. But that type of viewpoint is the reason why other fans laugh at us. All they see are two 10-year starting QBs who are chokers and can't get past the second round like everyone other starting QB can. Trying to break down each game on what happened, and which roster had best defenses, etc is almost pointless when you've already had a longer starting career than 95% of NFL QBs.
There is a reason Romo led the league in 4th quarter comebacks during his tenure and Dak has like like 3 in the last 5 years. One player lifts the team up, the other relies on the team lifting him up. Can you imagine Dak making Laurent Robision a 1000 year receiver? Lol
Ken Anderson had the misfortune of being in the same division as the Squealers during their best years
I'm looking at it primarily from the view point of how each performed in each game. There is a different ways of losing a game. The QB can play good, lift the team and still lose, or the QB can play putrid and not give the team a chance. I agree that comparing who had better defenses probably isn't a good way to do it, but I also content that it does matter. But, I also appreciate your viewpoint on it and it's just my opinion.
Pretty sure that Dak has had a better defense his entire career…
Maybe not his whole career. That 2020 defense was pretty bad and the equivant of what Romo mostly dealt with. But, Dak got injured and didn't play that year. Lol. The last 3 years Dak has been given defenses that scored a crazy amount of points and a crazy amount of TO's and short fields. It's why his stats are smoke and mirros. It's why against good teams when the defense doens't do it he looks the way he does. It's been the same pattern the last three years.
I threw the ESPN article in as I was writing it. They just happened to publish it at same time and did some easy research for me.
I agree except for the opinion of Peter King, the same person who also said Chuck Howley and Drew Pearson belonged in the Hall of the Very Good. Peter King can kiss my it is time for my tele-meeting with our corporate manager. Logging off.
Only to us. And of course there are Cowboys fans who disagree with that too and think Romo was just as much a choker. But like I put in Reply #19, this is why other fans laugh at us. Instead of admitting we have two 10-year starters that never went past Divisional and were both chokers, we argue their merits and who was better. Most frustrating part to me.
The difference between Romo and Prescot may not be the playoff games or playoff victories, but Tony for the most part excelled during regular season games against the league's best competition. When Tony faced the beast in the league you knew the Cowboys had a great chance to win those game, whereas Prescot goes MIA in those types of games. This season is a great example of Prescot nutting up against some of the league's best teams. As much as we want Prescot to succeed, it's apparent that he doesn't have the ability to raise his game to the next level. Those 400 hundred against came by way of a GB soft prevent defense because of the Prescot aided lead GB had on the Boys.
He didn’t play well enough. He carved up the Giants in the first 2 games with 8 TDs and a passer rating that was out of this world. Neither he or the team got it done against the Giants in the playoffs. That was the best team we had since the 90s.
He also dropped a snap that unfortunately defined his legacy from the outset.
