(04-18-2020, 09:10 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(04-17-2020, 06:53 PM)Bullseye Wrote: Understanding that in an ideal situation, all 53 men on the roster would be good enough to be quality NFL starters capable of winning matchups against every opponent with little to no discernible drop off in performance from one string to the next.

But that can never happen.

So are there position groups that demand a higher quality of depth than others?  
Yes. But all of this depends on the focus of your scheme(s). When you run the ball as much as the Jags have the past several years, OL should have some priority in quality depth over other positions. 

If so, which groups should get the priority of quality depth over others?   Why?  Is offensive line more deserving or worthy of quality depth than defensive line or defensive back?  Why?  answered above

What is the positional hierarchy when it comes to quality depth? depends on scheme/focus

If quality LTs are harder to find than quality guards, does that mean that to have a quality backup at the position, the team should invest a higher pick at the position-even a first round pick?  In other words, suppose the Jaguars draft a LT at 9 this year and he makes the Pro Bowl.  Does that mean next year, the team should invest a low 1st round pick or high second rounder to ensure he has a quality backup?  Does the number of picks a team has at its disposal impact the decision/ability to invest in the position? Finding tackle depth doesn't need to be a great mystery. Like any other position you either draft to push your starter with competition or you draft to have quality behind him on the chart.
Two primary ways you can achieve this at tackle:
1 - Draft a guy early to compete for the start knowing that one of the two competing will become your swing tackle or move to guard if they have the skillset. Some do, some don't , that's a whole separate thread in itself. 
2 - Take the slow road. Trust your scouting and pull the trigger on a mid-round prospect with upside and develop 
(they tried this with Richardson - not looking very promising just yet) 

Since offensive line is typically the largest position group from a numerical standpoint, should a team expend more draft choices on offensive linemen every year than any other group to ensure quality depth?
Not every year - but - If you're going to be a run-first team and your ridiculously early-pick RB suffers tons of early contact, you certainly should consider it when a deep class presents itself.  (I think Gruden alters that run first approach to a degree)

What about cap c
Jags are 17th in the league in terms of positional spending on their OL. They could focus a bit more there with mid-tier (upper-mid-tier) signings that are good enough to push the AJ Cann's of the world and mentor the Jawaan Taylors. 

I'll add again that I feel coaching and development are major stumbling blocks here as well and that is a pretty horrible indictment on a HC who played and coached OL. And I'm not a big Marrone diparager. All my gripes with him have been specific, singular mistakes for the most part. This one, however, is emerging as a more overarching  concern. 

Look  - I know there is no magic bullet, and I'm keenly aware that a large number of attempts have been made by this front office. I'm equally aware that Minshew and Foles were running for their lives in less than 3 seconds after the snap way too often last year with a line featuring no backups. Not to mention the lack of push or hole creation in the run game. When that is happening after years of chipping away at building a line - it's time to add haste to the correction. 

This is why I keep using the word urgency. I'd prefer a proactive push to add more and greater talent to sort it out opposed to the seemingly more chipping away approach I feel we've witnessed. The only two examples of recent acquisitions that were more urgent in nature were moving up for Cam's selection and the Norwell signing. Other additions have been about taking the slow road. You could point to Jawaan Taylor - but that came after the (apparently failed) attempt to replace Parnell with a fourth rounder.