OK, we have vastly different definitions of critical.
Critical, in my world, pretty much literally means "can't win without him". Like we're a .500 team or worse if he's not on the field.
Most teams have one player on their roster that fits that mold, and its the QB. Everybody else is largely "expendable" to the extent that a team can still be wildly successful from a W/L perspective without them.
I feel extremely confident in saying that if the Ravens don't win the SB this year, I will at zero point in time say its because we didn't have Mark Andrews.
I would be shocked to see the Ravens have a material drop-off in points scored, or yardage gained, without Andrews, long term. I think if we do, it will be for factors that don't relate to Andrews. Namely, pass protection. My point in other posts is that if I took Tyreek Hill off the Dolphins, and replaced them with a depth player, they'd see a significant drop off in yardage and PPG scored. I think that's extremely true for Travis Kelce and a handful of other high-end receivers in this league. Andrews is not near that list for me.
And this isn't necessarily a knock on Andrews. I think the overwhelming majority of players on this roster fit this category.