Not at all.
Against Stanford in 2012, Oregon was in the redzone on a number of occasions but failed to execute. It took a missed field goal and a very suspect catch by Ertz to even send the game into OT. That game could have easily gone the other way in Oregon's favor. Sure, they weren't able to put up 60 points and 400 yards on the ground, but let's face it, Stanford was a very good team. If DAT makes that block for Mariota, is the game dictated differently? As I said in my previous post, I don't expect Oregon to blow out very well coached and talented teams.
In 2013, Oregon again failed to convert in the redzone again on a number of drives. Key fumbles and drops in the first half killed any momentum they might have had and changed the the tempo of the game. If DAT doesn't fumble the ball at the three yard line, does that change the gameplan? With Stanford up a couple of touchdowns, they knew they just needed to maintain that lead and run the ball to milk the clock. By the time Oregon started to execute better in the 4Q, they ran out of time and couldn't make up the mistakes they had in first half.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Stanford shouldn't get credit for those wins. They played the better game those nights and deserved those wins. I just think people are too quick to say "Oregon is a weak team physically. They can't play with the big boys." when they absolutely had their chances to change the outcomes of those games.