These are not causal events and aren't worth connecting: Tommy Dangles being hit and possibly out of tonight's game isn't the foundation of the complaint that the team is soft and prioritized a win over a response to the hit. It's the response (or lack thereof) that leads to the complaint. The hit exists separately from the response, so I don't see how the hit itself can be tied to the win.
To elaborate, Dangles was hit regardless of what would happen afterward. The team could have responded and still won, then would there be a complaint? I'm sure someone would find a way to complain about it.
If the team had lost (without responding), then they'd be accused of being twice as soft because no one responded to the hit on Dangles and the episode caused them to mentally crumple.
If the team responded and then lost, then someone would complain that the team should have let winning the game be the response. And what if one of our softies was injured while responding, or someone did something dumb to be suspended, or both - which is highly likely, frankly. Now someone would complain that winning should have been the response and that Lindy must be losing his mind because he sacrificed players X and Y in addition to Dangles for a culture-building exercise ("whatever that is," the complainant would interject) when they need wins badly.