A) Boone, I appreciate your keeping our focus (and our disparaging comments) directed at the arguments made, not on the person making the argument.
B) It is a perfectly reasonable and respectable argument to contend: here's some expert information suggesting, counterintuitively to some, and unreliably to some, but consistently with what our coaches have repeatedly said, that our OL, while not good, was actually mediocre rather than terrible, in comparison to other OL in the league. Moreover, if our OL is mediocre compared to the rest of the league, rather than terrible, that is actually highly relevant to how much emphasis we should place on OL in free agency and the draft. (Most notably, it suggests that to get our OL materially better, we'll have to expend a fair amount of money and/or valuable draft choices, because the average replacement-level player is not likely to result in a huge improvement.)
C) The fact that we had a 4-12 record has pretty much nothing to do with the relative blame to assign to the OL.
D) My personal opinion, from observation, is that our OL is not good, somewhere between mediocre and terrible. In particular, the OL seems terrible at protection on obvious passing downs/5-step drops. Also, Griffin is particularly bad at getting rid of the ball quickly in those situations, which meshes particularly problematically with the OL's weakness, and makes it very difficult for us to come back from a deficit, a need that comes up a lot given our general not goodness. That needs to be addressed, either through OL or QB.
E) Consistent with that overall assessment of OL as not very good but not a disaster, I think our LT is very good (shy of outstanding b/c of the injuries and the occasional lapses mixed with the usual dominance), C is good, LG and RG are not very good (below average), and RT is bad. That averages out to not very good, but not terrible.
F) We reached out for RTs in free agency, suggesting (consistent with what we all believe) that the staff believes that improvement is fully warranted there, but we didn't find anyone we wanted for a price we thought worth paying. The draft seems to have a few RT/guard types, at least one of whom might well be available early in the 2d round, and drafting one there would seem entirely warranted. (Or perhaps Scherff in the first round if we trade down.)
G) In general, though, I agree with the argument that OL is not our central and overriding concern, trumping our other many, notable weaknesses (most notably, the secondary). Reasonable people can disagree, but it's not by any means an untenable or bad faith contention.