It is simplistic to point out an interception that occurs at the end of the game and say, "Romo lost the game." But if the opposing team scores just 1 touchdown, that means the defense shares in that blame. And Romo's blame is reduced for each score the opposing team get's.
It's this type of logic that makes me shake my head at this and threads like it.
So, by your explanation, the defense becomes more culpable with every score they allow.
If that were the case, does the offense assume the blame when they don't score?
I think you make a sound point, but one you may not have meant to make.
If the teams that play both score 24 points, and the Cowboys have the ball with less than two minutes and are driving, how does accounting work on an interception that leads to the points for the other team?
1. Dallas did not score. So minus one for the offense.
2. The defense gave up points. So minus one for the defense.
3. Romo threw a turnover.
Now how does that factor in?
You see, some here will blame the defense. They should not have given up the points. Yet this game is skewed toward points, so the defense starts in the hole just because of the rules.
I believe in most cases the defense is the problem. Game in and game out you see the defense struggle as the game goes on.
One would think the head coach would focus on game management so the team can have the lead and the ball and milk the clock. But we have seen that doesn't work with Opie either.
But I'm a fair guy, and believe there is enough blame to go around for everyone involved.
So when I see Romo throw a pick at the end of a game that causes the other team to run out the clock, or go and score, I have to ask what would the results have been if he did not toss that pick?
That usually answers the question for me.