Whether Stafford had teams as good as Dak's is debatable. Detroit had some elite offensive and defensive players at times while he was there. Their problem, like ours, is team failure, not QB failure. We win against Green Bay under both Romo and Dak without defensive failure, and who knows where those seasons would have ended up, especially if we'd had a defense like the Rams'. There are some plays that we missed against San Fran in the playoffs that could have possibly turned the tide and were team failure. Now, that doesn't mean that Dak was as good as he should have been in that game, but the loss isn't close to being all on him.
I don't believe there's much difference between Dak and Romo and Stafford, and I think Stafford's time in Detroit reflects that. I also believe if Romo had left Dallas for a better team when he was in his prime, he'd probably have a Super Bowl title. Don't know if I can quite say the same about Dak yet, but if he played like he did the first half of last season, that was good enough to win a title. The second half of the season, not so much, but I believe that was primarily because of his injury.
I know you are dug in on your feelings about him, but if you believe his play wasn't good enough the first half of the year, then you need to open your eyes. And this comes from someone who has been critical of Dak's play when it has deserved criticism.