You saying Dak lead the Cowboys to the playoffs and losing in the first game, is almost as bad as a Ravens fan saying Trent Dilfer led their team to a championship. It's technically true, but lacks context.
Yes, he had 4 INTs in an offense that was much less reliant on him because he's still learning. RG3 only had 5 INTs his rookie season, Nick Foles only had 2 INTs his first year as a starter. How did that work out for them? Basing future success with a bigger role on a player's success with a limited playbook and no game film has proven to be a bad idea time after time. Don't say he was in a non-gimmick offense. Your coaches never opened up that playbook. The Dallas offense was not the same as it was with Romo, and it didn't have to be, Zeke and your OL made things much easier for Dak. Wentz wished he had the same riches on offense.
You say Kirk was less efficient, yet due to no running game, he threw 157 more times than Dak and still had the same completion percentage. Again I ask, because you ignored the question, could Dak have run Gruden's offense last season. You and I both know the answer is no.
You're a homer and you're backing the future of your franchise, and I get it. Dak has a bright future, but the truth of the matter he is not a better QB than Kirk TODAY.