(shaking head)
I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.
I think he's really good ... for a backup position.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.
The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.
A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.
Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.
The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?
Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.
IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)