It literally does mean something. It means exactly what I said. That their first round pick has not contributed on the field in any meaningful way through the first 2 years of the cheapest contract he will ever sign. That is significant for what's intended to be contending team that claims it's in "win now" mode, and I'm sorry buddy, but no matter how many times you repeat it means nothing or zero or zilch, it doesn't make you correct or the authority on what meaningful is.
And by the way, moving him around to a position he isn't good at is part of the development process, it was bad coaching, and a waste of his time. It's great that the Packers love versitile OL, but it's ok sometimes to just let a guy play at the position he's, you know, actually used to playing. Just like their Jenkins to C brilliance, it didn't work. That's part of developing your players.
And for the record, the rankings I cited were never based on rushing or passing totals, they were composite advanced metrics on pass and rush blocking. I don't know how else to get this through your head, but it was an example used to illustrate a very simple concept: historically, the Packers have done a lot more with less investment on their OL. They have a long established history of having a good OL without a lot of assets invested in it. I can give you a lot of examples of that but you'd call it subjective. Right now, they have expensive assets tied up in a group that isn't very good at all.
I find this runaround funny because it started with you claiming I was subjective when only one of us has used ANY actual data and that wasn't you. You're the one giving lectures on the definition of meaningful, which is as subjective as it gets.