No, Tony was good enough to win those games, he just didn't. Not that he couldn't, not that he could never, not that he didn't have the ability. The team was more than capable of winning the games they lost, they just happened to NOT win. Romo was too good of a player for us not to have been able to win. Even when we had "bad defenses" we were able to hang with the best teams in the league most times. We had a few games were we were totally outclassed, but normally we were right there, so the ability to win existed.
My point is that we can't use a blanket statement that Romo didn't have a chance because the defense wasn't good. It's sounds good, it sounds logical. If that is the case Eli shouldn't have been winning because those defenses weren't great. Except, when they got to the do or die games, their defense stepped up their game and played well, giving their offense opportunities to win games and they capitalized. The Giants defense sucking in the regular season didn't matter. But when our defense out performed their normal level of play when the season was on the line and the offense didn't play well, the defense still gets blamed.