lol
I am still on a game of thrones, it'll be a good while till I'm at the last 2.
I have to say though, it is interesting that hardcore fans complain about the books a lot too, because most show fans say how the show fell off after season 4, maybe earlier. how differently would they have taken it if the show was closer to the books at that point. would the show have been better or worse considering how the books are not (apparently) as acclaimed as the earlier ones?
I read the books during and after Season 2. I was finished before Season 3 started. I lacked the book perspective prior to 3x01, but I've been a staunch believer in truncating the heck out of Books 4 and 5 ever since. It's not that I dislike them; I don't dislike any of the books, nor any of the seasons. And I am a traveler, an adventurer, a vagrant and a historian at heart, so I love worldbuilding and long meandering journeys. But they don't translate well cinematically and the show would have ran out of steam by now.
There were literally people on WatchersOnTheWall back in ~2013-14 who were saying Game of Thrones must run 12 seasons because there's no other decent way to do the books justice. That AFFC/ADWD would need to blend together (hey, they got that part right, at least) but they'd need at least three seasons, if not four.
I remember this because I told those people it would never happen. The stalling would be painfully obvious. The masses would lose interest. And who could blame them? I would watch the show -- and I would watch it decline. Both qualitatively and financially.
Granted, many fans believe what you said, that the show hasn't been as good since Season 4. Some even say Season 3. I respectfully disagree, with exception to Season 5 being notably weaker overall. But I don't believe for an instant that it would have made for better television if those two books were adapted more thoroughly. I really didn't need "the one where Daenerys has diarrhea" for an episode, to quote an admittedly-overused example.