I'm saying it was a combination of factors. Injury isn't the ONLY factor.
But when one considers Dak played well his first season, the Cowboys had just one loss when Romo was ready to return from injury but the Cowboys brass didn't want to upset that continuity with Dak doing so well, Dak was a rookie and was considered the future and his contract was cheaper and Romo hadn't finished the past two seasons without an injury, it just added up to moving on with Dak.
If Dak had stunk up the place, sure, the Cowboys more than likely would have welcomed Romo back as the starter, but that didn't happen.
Everything aligned right for Dak.
At the time, I fully supported the decision to stay with Dak. Now? Well, you know what they say about hindsight.
Certainly, injury was never the only factor. On the other hand, it has been continually restated and overinflated ad nauseam over the past seven years.
In foresight, I acknowledged Jerry Jones had thrown 100% of his support behind Dak Prescott as his new franchise quarterback by midseason of 2016. Football executives, Jones included, do not make such decisions flippantly. It should also be noted Jones had established a decades old tendency to remain steadfast behind his roster decisions. Quincy Carter made himself an outlier by cutting his own throat.
If there is one thing I could wish for, it is that all those who were swept up within the euphoria of the 2016 season, had stopped and considered hard about the permanent change's ramifications. Doing so would have minimized all the enormous ruing and arguing that followed between then and now, most of all about Prescott's contract.
Practically no one kicks an established franchise quarterback to the curb without believing they have a new franchise quarterback on their roster already. That is how Jones viewed Prescott in October 2016. The likelihood of Jones not paying Prescott a franchise quarterback caliber contract
that any of his critics would object to died that month. It was surely cremated when Tony Romo made his concession speech the following month.
It has been sheer insanity reading and hearing some people go nuts about Prescott's contract since then--before, during and after he signed it. I mean. Really. The only way things would have ended differently is if Prescott had suffered a career-ending injury along the way. I get that some people may have regretted the change since then but it has been bewildering witnessing the staggered seven-year delayed reaction.
Let's apply the injury prone nomenclature logically to this particular topic:
