It's not about entitlement etc just common sense. The 2016 was loaded on offense and Prescott had done his job superbly well of filling in as a rookie QB for an All Pro vet QB. Rookie QBs do not win Superbowls which should be the aim not to give a rookie post season experience. People get hung up on the individuals involved and try to make it emotional when starting a rookie QB over an All Pro vet QB was simply a boneheaded decision. Playing the hot hand argument is hilarious (and that worked out well being one and done with the #1 seed).
It's not Prescott's fault but when he spiked the ball with what turned out to be the Cowboys' final possession it gave the Packers' D time to reset and reorganise when they were gassed out on their feet and ultimately it gave Aaron Rodgers enough time to win the game. Garrett likely told him to do it whereas had a Vet QB been playing like Romo they continue no huddle and punish a D out on it's feet like he did vs the Giants in 2015 (I think!). I would say the same had it been Justin Herbert not Dak Prescott as a rookie. You go with the All Pro vet QB.
No NFL QB in Dak's position was going to step to the side, for the original starting QB to come in and finish the season, just because some fans have the belief that the Original starting QB was 100% guaranteed to get the team to the Super Bowl and win it. Do you believe that Romo would voluntarily step side and sit himself, while QBing a team on a hot winning streak and bound for a playoff berth? Just because some fans had the opinion that another QB could take over and lead the team to the Super Bowl and win the Super Bowl?
So I find it ridiculous for some fans to hate and resent Dak for not doing, what no other QB in the NFL would have done in his position, which is voluntarily bench or sit himself so that another QB can come in and take over.
That Packers game had to do with the the defense allowing Rodgers to complete a pass in the 4th quarter, that set up the game winning Field Goal for the Packers. During the playoff runs that the Cowboys had with Romo, the defense and other players on the Cowboys were always blamed and are still blamed and faulted, for any failures the team had with Romo as the QB. But now that Dak is the QB, the same Romo fans and defenders, who put most of the blame on other players, say and insist that Dak is the only one to blame or should be faulted the most, for any failures the Cowboys had with him as the QB.
I would still expect more of the same in 2016, if Romo took over and the Cowboys still didn't get to the Super Bowl with him. Where the ones who put all of the blame on Dak, would then turn around and insist that it's all the other player's fault or they would suddenly downplay the talent of the 2016 roster, just like they have downplayed the talent on all of the playoff and pro bowl caliber teams that Romo had, in order to excuse or explain away why Romo couldn't win a Super Bowl. While still be determined to put all of the blame and fault on Dak, because they make two different sets of rules for Dak and QBs they happen to favor and then hold Dak to different expectations and standards.
Romo had 10 years to win a Super Bowl and couldn't get it done, some still give him the benefit of the doubt and say that that he should have received more chances still to be able to win a Super Bowl. While they are calling for Dak to be cut from the team, just after 3 seasons of not winning a Super Bowl.