But hey look, I'm the only guy here who was saying "Don't pay Romo." And today I'm saying "Don't pay Dak." My stance hasn't budged one inch, I see them both as the same basic commodity - two guys who have zero accomplishments to point to, two guys who both had great chances to accomplish something... And the deal is, if Dak had at least played in a conference championship game let alone a super bowl, there wouldn't be any debate about whether to keep him or not.
Neither guy ever got anything done. Dak though, bet on himself and in my opinion, lost the bet. He turned down 33 mil a year thinking he was going to the soup bow and could then command much more. He didn't get the job done.
He's done it over and over, you simply refuse to remember it.
Every gripe on Dak, I had with Romo. Throwing behind receivers? Romosexuals called it "throwing them open." Bad underthrows? Somebody must have hit his arm or maybe the ball just slipped out of his hand. Really bad throws you can't comprehend? Romosexuals blame the receiver, every time. Must have been the wrong route. Multiple Bonehead picks in a single game? Of course it's the defense's fault! Time and again Romo stinks up the place, and he gets a pass every time. Excuses abounded. Because people were in love with him, adored him and thought he was the best QB to ever suit up. He wasn't, by far. He wasn't even really very good. He entertained. And yuk-yuk'd it all the way to the 80 million bankroll. Said "losing isn't the worst thing to ever happen" and "interceptions are as good as punts." Didn't seem to mind losing, at all. Yeah. He sucked.