I disagree with the highlighted part. If winning the game is dependent on the outcome of a 50-50 play (and I doubt Parker catches that ball even half the time), you can't suddenly hold everyone blameless just because you got lucky. People make stupid decisions that pay off big time all the time, but that doesn't make the decisions any less stupid.
There's a difference between attributing responsibility for a nail-biter win, and attributing responsibility for a loss.
Tannehill was partly (if not primarily) responsible for the character of the win (i.e., a nail-biter), but obviously he's not responsible for a loss.
If Tannehill would've played all day the way he played during the final two drives, with all other things equal, obviously the game would've hardly been a nail-biter. What we could do then is attribute responsibility to Tannehill for a
convincing win.
And he's done that before in his career. It just didn't happen yesterday.