AFC West OL

[richpjr]

Eric Williams retweeted
SiriusXM NFL Radio @SiriusXMNFL 4h4 hours ago
Jim Millers & Pat Kirwans - AFC West O-Line Rankings: 1. Chargers 2. Broncos 3. Raiders 4. Chiefs

[TTK]

I wonder how many RTs graded in the green? If 75% are in the red, teams should probably re evaluate what kind o player to put there. Ie no more big fatties.

I found the rest of them:

[Lightningwill_420]

Eric Williams retweeted
SiriusXM NFL Radio @SiriusXMNFL 4h4 hours ago
Jim Millers & Pat Kirwans - AFC West O-Line Rankings: 1. Chargers 2. Broncos 3. Raiders 4. Chiefs

I hope those guys know what they are talking about.

[Steve]

The problem is that being the top OL in the AFC west may not mean a damn. All 4 of the OL in the NFC south last year were pretty marginal, and it showed when they all were limping towards the playoffs. The AFC North, had the Bengals and Browns ranked 4th & 3rd in their division, but in truth, they were 2 of the better OL in the NFL. Eagles and Cowboys were ranked 1 and 2 by PFF (I would switch the grades myself).

I like what we have done on OL, and hope the unit can come together, but just being satisfied with being the best team in the division would really suck. We have a long way to go, because now that the gapping holes should be closed, now they need to focus on getting really good.

[Lightningwill_420]

Time to get good.

[Mister Hoarse]

I like the moves to shore up our OL, but if Fluker is kicked inside we would have new meat starting at 4 of the 5 spots.
They will probably take a while to gel together.

[Lightningwill_420]

Get good and gel together.

[KNSD]

We went from -22.7 to +12 at LG and Ohrnberger to Watt jumps from -11 to -2.5.

Where'd you find that Watt was a -2.5? And where is everybody getting these tables? It would be interesting to view grades of the entire Charger OL (backups as well as starters).

[KNSD]

I like the moves to shore up our OL, but if Fluker is kicked inside we would have new meat starting at 4 of the 5 spots.
They will probably take a while to gel together.

We seem to do better when it's a massive change. '94, '04, '13 come to mind.

[Lightningwill_420]

We seem to do better when it's a massive change. '94, '04, '13 come to mind.

When we suck at something, change is good.

[Ebenezer]

When we suck at something, change is good.

I was having this debate on another forum regarding Troutman. A few posters were making the case that Trout might be a better option at RG than Fluker or Barksdale because he's already comfortable at guard and the other two would have to make a position switch. But the switch (which carries a high success rate) would have to be an abject disaster for us not to end up with some kind of improvement over what Trout gave us in 2014. And what some forget is that Troutman in 2014 was a big step down from Clary in 2013-- a career RT who was playing RG for the first time in his career last season. The bottom line is that it would be really difficult to get any worse at that position, even if the new solution involves some upheaval.

[Steve]

Troutman may be able to step up and make the improvement. Remember, he was only a 2nd year player. A lot of 2nd year players struggle some in their 1st full year as starters.

Still, I think the key is adding the other guys. If Troutman can play well enough to win the job, fine. But I just was not liking the fact we didn't really have anyone to push him.

The flip side is that KC and Den both got worse on OL, and neither of them played well enough there to afford that kind of drop off. Oakland may be a lot better on OL, but they have so many holes to fill.

We need to step it up and get a lot better on D too.