Many people will read the title of this article and believe the question being asked is whether Tony Romo should have been benched after throwing 3 interceptions. That is not the case. With the Cowboys going up over the Detroit Lions by 24 points in the 3rd quarter and with Romo still nursing injured ribs, why wasn’t Romo given a congratulatory seat on the sideline? Wins and losses hinge on Romo’s performance, but also on his ability to go out onto the field and create something from nothing. If Romo is not available because he was knocked out of the game (while it was a blowout), shouldn’t it be asked… “Why was Romo still in the game?” With the ferocious Suh and Co. bearing down and getting closer to Romo on every play, with a youthful and inexperienced offensive line, with the defense having complete control over the Lions offense, and with a competent backup veteran quarterback in Jon Kitna… it seems like a fair question.
In fairness to Jason Garrett, the Cowboys took a 24 point advantage early in the 3rd quarter and there was quite a bit of football left to be played. It would be silly to think that Garrett wanted the game to end in a blowout, is it? Is Garrett more interested in how a game looks than whether it is a W?