Tony Romo is the only QB in the world who would be blamed for losing a game when the offense scores 28, he throws 3 TDs (but only 104 yards), has no turnovers... and the defense doesn't stop the other team once.
Nobody was blaming him for anything. The Chicago game was a example of the defense NOT playing well, not of them playing well. Just like the Nawlins game.
I was merely pointing out that in games where the defense played reasonably well, we could not generate enough offense to win. Give me the 17-16 loss to KC as a example. Romo lost a fumble in that game, so did Dunbar. We were a horrible 3/11 on third down. KC was only slightly better, 4/13. We got four sacks on their QB. We should have won this game and if you do, you don't need the last game miracle.
Look at the Green Bay game. 2/9 on third down. Two key picks. The story of that game was points off turnovers, giving them the short field twice. We actually held them to just over 300 yards total offense. We made them punt four times compared to only two times for us. We kicked five field goals. Clearly we should have won that game.
NONE of this is part of a Romo debate - that's the other thread. This is making the case that although we had the worst defense in team history and the worst in the league last season, they played well enough times where we should have won the game and didn't. Hence the reason for optimism going into this next season.
If we have only half the injuries sustained last year I see huge improvement possible just on that - no credit to Marinelli or anyone else.
