First of all, you didn't indicate you were talking about "adjusting for the era", you just said Dak was worse than Romo in every category. That was wrong.
But if you want to adjust the criteria, I'll throw in that Romo didn't have to get thrown to the wolves as a rookie - he got almost 3 1/2 years of training camps and practices and learning from veterans like Testeverde and Bledsoe before taking the reins.
But even adjusting for the era, 2007 was just one season - the other 3 of Romo's first 4 seasons he was nowhere near 36 TDs, so you can't pretend 36 was his norm. And, that's just one category, and you have to factor in Dak's rushing TD's , which are also part of the equation. And, again, passer rating and QBR favor Dak.
And, you can't explain away 55 INT's as opposed to 36 as just a difference in the eras.
In any case, again, I don't see the need for trashing one guy to support the other. Why is that important. They both had their strengths and weaknesses, and both have done a very good job, but as things sit today, neither has accomplished what they hoped to in terms of team goals.