You keep falling back on this as if it means anything. Quite a lot of films and tv shows have been nominated and won based on popularity and past reputation and have done this with weaker material. Last season of Game of Thrones was weak, especially compared to what it won over last year.
The same exact thing happened in 1997 with Titanic winning a record tying amount of awards. Titanic was hugely popular and set box office records even though it was a lesser film than movies like Good Will Hunting and LA Confidential. It happens in the music world as well. Metallica's And Justice for All lost the 1988 Grammy for best hard rock / metal album to Jethro Tull. I have no issue with Jethro Tull, but that album was a weaker one than And Justice For All and also a weaker album in their discography.
The 2007 Oscars Scorsese won best director because he never won one. Granted the guy is a great director and deserved it earlier for multiple films, so that comparison is a bit off, but he won that year over more deserving directors.
Also, awards do not always indicate how good a product is. Hollywood has shown this to be the case quite often.
A show like The Wire, a show that many people consider to be one of, if not the greatest TV show of all time was only nominated for an Emmy twice, in writing. It never won either. A show like 24 was nominated for best series over the Wire. That to me says a lot about how little awards really mean most of the time and also evidence that show that quality is not always measured in awards and that lesser shows can be acknowledged by award ceremonies over much stronger ones.
Basically what I am getting at is, pointing to awards as an example of D&D knowing what they are doing and are competent in story telling is pretty flawed when very flawed shows and films have been acknowledged over superior products.
These two writers have shown, that without with the source material from an author you constantly belittle in defense of the show, they would be lost. Even with the source material they have stumbled at times, but at least then they had a guideline to follow to keep it from being as inconsistent as it has been since last season.
I don't hate the show, I actually have enjoyed it, at least up until last season where I saw it really falling in quality compared to what it once was. Even then I enjoyed some of last seasons episodes. But when it comes to writing, these two are definitely more about flash than substance.
As for this episode, I enjoyed seeing Sansa and Jon meet. That was the highlight for me. The dialogue was all over the place, at times it was good, and other times it was cringe worthy. Tyrion's scene was actually productive and not a waste of time and attempt to bring comedy to the show. Basically it wasn't just a filler piece of the episode this time. The HS scenes have already worn out their place with me. Kings Landing is boring right now. More hitting us over the head with Ramsay being evil. I would have preferred him not being in the episode and just seeing Jon receive the letter. Some times less is more. Dany's big moment was cringe worthy, granted I am glad they didn't go the route of damsel in distress, but the lines and the delivery of them felt awkward to me.
Still, this episode was better than the past 3 and better than most of what was shown last season. 7/10