Some people are not really thinking about how our offense operates. We rely a lot on YAC. That has to be the starting point for any evaluation of our TE group.
Both RR and Quarless are, on their best day, thoroughly average TEs compared to the elite TEs in the NFL. That doesn't mean they are ill suited for us, or a "weak link" on offense. They need to be fast enough to get up the seam, and elusive enough to get YAC.
RR, frankly, was very disappointing last year. His college numbers suggested he would be a far better receiver; his YAC in college were amazing! For at least the first year, RR's college ability didn't translate. He was a subpar blocker. When the Packers TE coach called out RR needing to improve his "foot speed", that should tell you something (negative) about RR's ability to beat defenders up the seam. I sincerely hope we see RR resemble more of his college self; but, in college he was like 20 pounds lighter than the Packers play their TEs, so that may just be wishful thinking.
Quarless is a good #2 option, but isn't going to get you much in terms of YAC or consistently beating players up the seam. Again, doesn't give the Packers what they exactly need.
So, is our TE group our O's weakest link? Yeah, for two reasons: 1) the quality of other position players on our O is great; and 2) the TEs themselves don't exactly excel at what our offense needs (and they were subpar blockers at times last year, too).
That said, Aaron Rodgers as your QB is a huge advantage, as is having Lacy consistently getting 4+ YPC to require safties to commit at the LOS. We can still win with this TE group, and as last year showed win big. However, unless RR is a revelation, this TE group can definitely stand to be improved.
PS - Would trade RR for Gronk in a heartbeat, then spend the rest of the day laughing / boasting that Belichick got taken to the cleaners by Ted. None of our TEs have shown anything more than being average at this level.
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.