No, you are the one who issued a ridiculous conjecture, not me. Do you know the meaning of conjecture? In informal contexts, it means speculating that something is true ("the OL is fine") without evidence (PKT, since you abandoned the other). Let's go deeper.
You posted two statistics, claimed they showed something they didn't -- this OL that really isn't so bad after all! -- and then when I pointed out those statistics do not demonstrate with you claimed, you acted like an petulant child and insulted me. You made the ridiculous conjecture of 2.4 PKT time is evidence that the line isn't that bad. I showed that is wrong for a number of FOOTBALL reasons, which I then listed. You refused to engage me on any of those objections (because you can't, still waiting for you to man up). You just point to the number again, saying "It speaks for itself." Yeah, it does. The PKT time is 2.4. That's all it says.
I even gave examples to demonstrate my points. For example, if a team has a QB who gets the ball out quick, PKT will be lower than average but that does not say anything about the line's performance. You cannot look at a stat like that in isolation and make conclusions about the line's performance. Well, you can, but you'd be an amateur at statistical interpretation, which you have demonstrated very effectively.
You're also bad at watching football games and seeing what is really happening. This OL fails the eye test. Now I haven't watched the SF game yet, but I would not be surprised if they fail it again.
We're done, you don't have the brains or the courage to deal with me. Don't reply, won't read it.