Is it really so bad to have winning expectations? It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity. This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade. What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

You're confusing people understanding that all teams go through droughts, sometimes long ones, with "being content with mediocrity."
Which is just a lame [BLEEP] label people on this message board love to throw around anytime someone isn't as upset as they are about something completely out of anyone's control here. 

The team has been too bad for too long. Everyone knows this. Some of us have just been around long enough to see every team go through their own version of this kind of crap over the years. Doesn't mean we're OK with it. Doesn't mean we "embrace mediocrity" or however you want to hyperbolize it. Just realistic.

Bingo.

---

Is it really so bad to have winning expectations?

Not if the talent is reasonably capable of winning seasons.  If the team doesn't have the talent to win, it isn't necessarily "bad"

It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity.

1.  How would being dissatisfied with the results be sufficiently manifest by us to you?  Should the city condemn the team offices at the stadium under eminent domain and evict them?  Should there be massive social unrest in and around the stadium until the team posts winning records?  Summary execution of random team employees?  (Queue John McKay).  Videos of us kicking our dogs?  Not buying tickets?

2.  Assuming the majority of Jaguars fans expressed dissatisfaction to a sufficient level in your eyes, and the team heard that, how long do you think it would take to turn the expression of that dissatisfaction into winning football?  When those of you who make the charge of people being content with mediocrity or worse by the Jaguars hear us express resignation over the current state, you don't hear contentment.  

Suppose you went to McDonald's and the cashier gives you piss poor service, mouths off at you, gets the order wrong, and was just plain bad.  You complain to the manager and give him/her, in no uncertain terms, a piece of your mind.  The manager fires the malcontent on the spot, puts a sign in the window, and by the end of the week at the latest, they can find someone to upgrade that person.

It's NOT THAT SIMPLE WITH NFL TEAMS!

If our ___ has a horrible game in mid season, the fans could boo him mercilessly, call into talk shows, and post on message boards/ Twitter/Reddit.  Unless we are talking about a punter or kicker, the chances of upgrading him immediately are slim, barring highly unusual circumstances.  More likely, upgrading that position can't and won't happen until the following spring.  There are very few people who can play NFL football,  fewer still are those who are good enough to unseat an incumbent player at a position.  Thirty one other teams are competing for those same players.

The comments you find so...unambitious, for want of better phrasing, simply reflect the realization of that reality.

This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade.

I echo those who say that it's been less than mediocre for much of that time.

[quote pid='1295207' dateline='1586977773']
What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

Nothing is bad about wanting better football.

Better football has eluded us because we haven't made good enough decisions to result in better football, and bad decisions tend to earn compound interest.




[/quote]

---

Is it really so bad to have winning expectations? It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity. This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade. What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

You're confusing people understanding that all teams go through droughts, sometimes long ones, with "being content with mediocrity."
Which is just a lame [BLEEP] label people on this message board love to throw around anytime someone isn't as upset as they are about something completely out of anyone's control here. 

The team has been too bad for too long. Everyone knows this. Some of us have just been around long enough to see every team go through their own version of this kind of crap over the years. Doesn't mean we're OK with it. Doesn't mean we "embrace mediocrity" or however you want to hyperbolize it. Just realistic.

Thank you.

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Is it really so bad to have winning expectations? It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity. This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade. What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

I'm with you, then there's a large group of "Well, some team in some league some where in the world was worse". They would go so far back to the biblical year to find "worse" teams some where to justify that anyone currently complaining about the situation is a "cry baby". 

Quite a joke tbh, but it's what the Jag fan base is coming. Just accepting mediocrity and getting upset with anyone who disagrees with that notion.

I can't recall any time I've called anyone on the board a "cry baby."  That said, I don't think having a perspective shaped by more than just the last bad game is a bad thing.

I pose the same inquiry to you that I posed to TK.

What would constitute a sufficient expression of dissatisfaction to you?

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

I remember the good old days when we were mediocre.

---

I'm with you, then there's a large group of "Well, some team in some league some where in the world was worse". They would go so far back to the biblical year to find "worse" teams some where to justify that anyone currently complaining about the situation is a "cry baby". 

Quite a joke tbh, but it's what the Jag fan base is coming. Just accepting mediocrity and getting upset with anyone who disagrees with that notion.

I can't recall any time I've called anyone on the board a "cry baby."  That said, I don't think having a perspective shaped by more than just the last bad game is a bad thing.

I pose the same inquiry to you that I posed to TK.

What would constitute a sufficient expression of dissatisfaction to you?

---

I can't recall any time I've called anyone on the board a "cry baby."  That said, I don't think having a perspective shaped by more than just the last bad game is a bad thing.

I pose the same inquiry to you that I posed to TK.

What would constitute a sufficient expression of dissatisfaction to you?

I will be glad to assist with this expression by providing gas, a lighter, and crowd control.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The one thing the Jags haven't had is a lack of urgency on player acquisition on the OL. 

Caldwell's very first draft pick was a LT, in spite of having Monroe at the time who was arguably the best player on the team the year before (some might say Poz).

The Jags traded up in the second round when they picked both Robinson and Taylor. Both players were listed much higher in every pre-draft mock I saw, frequently to the Jags as a 1st round pick expecting the Jags to fill the OL need.

Cann and Linder were both 3rd round picks, which is high for a guard. Caldwell even traded up to get Linder.

The Jags also signed Norwell as a free agent, one of the highest rated free agents in that class. They also signed former Pro Bowl guard Beadles, signed Steeler LT starter Beachum to replace Joeckel after he failed, and traded for LT Brandon Albert. They made a big money offer to Pro Bowl center Alex Mack, which the Browns matched (to their regret).

Of course the results have been disappointing. Whether that's due to coaching or the players just being overrated when they were acquired is debatable. I tend to blame coaching because Cann's best season was his rookie year, same with Robinson, and maybe Linder too. When every player on the OL with more than one year as a Jag has gotten worse with time it seems obvious to me that it's a coaching/development failure, not a player selection failure.

But even if you blame the player selection, you can't say the Jags didn't prioritize the OL.

What I said was succinctly "mystified by the moves and lack of urgency" not that they didn't prioritize. And I still believe they did not prioritize it enough in a number of recent offseasons. Like...  2019. 
I also included their coaching choices as an issue. 

I included the "acquisition" caveat for this exact anticipated response. 

Urgency Issues: 

* Trotting out Cam Robinson at left tackle last year after his just barely being cleared to practice after the knee surgery/rehab with no credible insurance plan (and his questionable rookie season) was a lack of urgency. 

* Rolling with AJ Cann after two straight years of poor performance with an underwhelming 4th round failed RT prospect as your only contingency was a lack of urgency. 

* Hell, drafting Will Richardson ^  as your only real plan to replace an aging/fading Parnell was also a lack of urgency.

* Rolling with the same depth of Shatley, Walker and *gulp* Chris freakin Reed for year after year showed a severe lack of urgency to even remotely push the starters ahead of them or to upgrade depth. 

I count all of these decisions as failures.

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? 

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? 

What is the positional hierarchy when it comes to quality depth?

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?

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?

What about cap c

---

 

Worst to 1st.  Curse Reversed!

Need to build the team now around Gardner M there. As he is now Da man!

---

Ready for May Day, May Flowers, and Memorial and Mother's Day!

What I said was succinctly "mystified by the moves and lack of urgency" not that they didn't prioritize. And I still believe they did not prioritize it enough in a number of recent offseasons. Like...  2019. 
I also included their coaching choices as an issue. 

I included the "acquisition" caveat for this exact anticipated response. 

Urgency Issues: 

* Trotting out Cam Robinson at left tackle last year after his just barely being cleared to practice after the knee surgery/rehab with no credible insurance plan (and his questionable rookie season) was a lack of urgency. 

* Rolling with AJ Cann after two straight years of poor performance with an underwhelming 4th round failed RT prospect as your only contingency was a lack of urgency. 

* Hell, drafting Will Richardson ^  as your only real plan to replace an aging/fading Parnell was also a lack of urgency.

* Rolling with the same depth of Shatley, Walker and *gulp* Chris freakin Reed for year after year showed a severe lack of urgency to even remotely push the starters ahead of them or to upgrade depth. 

I count all of these decisions as failures.

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.

---

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.

I agree with your first paragraph. I've been saying that for a long time. I'm all for drafting a LT in the 1st round but that's based on competent coaching. As long as OL development remains a problem drafting offensive linemen is not going to fix the problem. Mike Tice is still alive, available, and under 65. The Jags best OL coaching came under him. Just sayin'.

Add another attempt at bolstering the OL. The Jags signed Ogbuehi before the draft last year. He (not Richardson) was the one penciled in at RT before they drafted Taylor. Admittedly Ogbuehi was a failure with the Bengals but he was a former 1st round pick. Marrone fails to see the lack of OL coaching and probably thought he could make chicken salad out of chicken [BLEEP].

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Yeah we really should have a new front office and coaching regime this year, but we have what we have. I think a new regime would have helped us keep Yannick as well, but it was not to be.

---

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.

I agree with your first paragraph. I've been saying that for a long time. I'm all for drafting a LT in the 1st round but that's based on competent coaching. As long as OL development remains a problem drafting offensive linemen is not going to fix the problem. Mike Tice is still alive, available, and under 65. The Jags best OL coaching came under him. Just sayin'.

Add another attempt at bolstering the OL. The Jags signed Ogbuehi before the draft last year. He (not Richardson) was the one penciled in at RT before they drafted Taylor. Admittedly Ogbuehi was a failure with the Bengals but he was a former 1st round pick. Marrone fails to see the lack of OL coaching and probably thought he could make chicken salad out of chicken [BLEEP].

Ogbuehi is another perfect example of what I’m talking about when I say lack of urgency.
That signing was a shot in the dark at reviving a failed draft pick. Not a move that shows any urgency to correct the issue. 

BTW - Richardson was drafted in 2018 and was touted to be the next RT as Parnell was fading and contract was nearly up. Ogbuehi came the next offseason as insurance - albeit very poor coverage with a sky high deductible.

---

Is it really so bad to have winning expectations? It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity. This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade. What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

I can only hope and pray that someday we'll hit mediocrity.  After all, our winning percentage ranked #31 of 32 teams over the past decade in the aggregate.  Mediocrity would mean that we improve our ranking by 15 spots.

---

Is it really so bad to have winning expectations? It’s almost like some of you are just content with the mediocrity. This teams history has been fairly mediocre, particularly in the last decade. What’s so bad about wanting better football? And why has it eluded us for so long?

I can only hope and pray that someday we'll hit mediocrity.  After all, our winning percentage ranked #31 of 32 teams over the past decade in the aggregate.  Mediocrity would mean that we improve our ranking by 15 spots.

---

I agree with your first paragraph. I've been saying that for a long time. I'm all for drafting a LT in the 1st round but that's based on competent coaching. As long as OL development remains a problem drafting offensive linemen is not going to fix the problem. Mike Tice is still alive, available, and under 65. The Jags best OL coaching came under him. Just sayin'.

Add another attempt at bolstering the OL. The Jags signed Ogbuehi before the draft last year. He (not Richardson) was the one penciled in at RT before they drafted Taylor. Admittedly Ogbuehi was a failure with the Bengals but he was a former 1st round pick. Marrone fails to see the lack of OL coaching and probably thought he could make chicken salad out of chicken [BLEEP].

Ogbuehi is another perfect example of what I’m talking about when I say lack of urgency.
That signing was a shot in the dark at reviving a failed draft pick. Not a move that shows any urgency to correct the issue. 

BTW - Richardson was drafted in 2018 and was touted to be the next RT as Parnell was fading and contract was nearly up. Ogbuehi came the next offseason as insurance - albeit very poor coverage with a sky high deductible.

In the spring of 2019 they signed a former 1st round pick they could afford and traded up to draft an OT in the 2nd round, one who was projected to be drafted by the Jags in the 1st round. The Jags were struggling with the cap before the 2019 season. How could they have done more? I guess they could have used the Foles money to sign a free agent OT (was a good one even available?) but then who would be the QB? Note that I wanted them to sign Fitzpatrick instead of Foles, so maybe that would have left enough to pay a higher rated RT.

But please, tell us specifically what urgent move they could/should have done (not using hindsight).

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

It’s been a rough decade outside of one season, but I’m ready to more forward. I believe in minshew and we have a lot of draft picks. Next year the cap will look a lot better. Minshew is going to have a good year, and then we can load up in free agency in defense next year to make a legit push.

---

Ogbuehi is another perfect example of what I’m talking about when I say lack of urgency.
That signing was a shot in the dark at reviving a failed draft pick. Not a move that shows any urgency to correct the issue. 

BTW - Richardson was drafted in 2018 and was touted to be the next RT as Parnell was fading and contract was nearly up. Ogbuehi came the next offseason as insurance - albeit very poor coverage with a sky high deductible.

In the spring of 2019 they signed a former 1st round pick they could afford and traded up to draft an OT in the 2nd round, one who was projected to be drafted by the Jags in the 1st round. The Jags were struggling with the cap before the 2019 season. How could they have done more? I guess they could have used the Foles money to sign a free agent OT (was a good one even available?) but then who would be the QB? Note that I wanted them to sign Fitzpatrick instead of Foles, so maybe that would have left enough to pay a higher rated RT.

But please, tell us specifically what urgent move they could/should have done (not using hindsight).

I have already provided a list of the underwhelming moves. 

* Trotting out Cam Robinson at left tackle last year after his just barely being cleared to practice after the knee surgery/rehab with no credible insurance plan (and his questionable rookie season) was a lack of urgency. 


* Rolling with AJ Cann after two straight years of poor performance with an underwhelming 4th round failed RT prospect as your only contingency was a lack of urgency. 

* Hell, drafting Will Richardson ^  as your only real plan to replace an aging/fading Parnell was also a lack of urgency.

* Rolling with the same depth of Shatley, Walker and *gulp* Chris freakin Reed for year after year showed a severe lack of urgency to even remotely push the starters ahead of them or to upgrade depth. 

I count all of these decisions as failures.

And you can easily add to this list  ^ all of those patch job attempts and/or bargain hunting blind shot-in-the-dark revival signings like Beachum, Ogbuehi, Warford etc. 
I'm not going to cull through four or 5 years of free agency and draft history to give you alternatives. Sorry. Just don't have the time for the tedium today.  The short answer would be they should have chased the better free agents over bargains and they should have invested more draft capital. 

Each of these acquisitions or moments of complacency I've referenced represent opportunities where they should have done more. 

I understand your position. You are pointing out lots of great examples of where they "tried" to mend a position. 
I'm just emphatically of the opinion that many (not all) of the acquisitions were half-measures, or a day late and a dollar short. 

I didn't have this opinion 2 years ago, I agreed with your take.  But now I believe I recognize an ongoing trend. 
Yes, moves are made around the line. But looking back there are an inordinate amount of failures - and also too many attempts at bargain patches rather than a real commitment to improve.

---

In the spring of 2019 they signed a former 1st round pick they could afford and traded up to draft an OT in the 2nd round, one who was projected to be drafted by the Jags in the 1st round. The Jags were struggling with the cap before the 2019 season. How could they have done more? I guess they could have used the Foles money to sign a free agent OT (was a good one even available?) but then who would be the QB? Note that I wanted them to sign Fitzpatrick instead of Foles, so maybe that would have left enough to pay a higher rated RT.

But please, tell us specifically what urgent move they could/should have done (not using hindsight).

I have already provided a list of the underwhelming moves. 

* Trotting out Cam Robinson at left tackle last year after his just barely being cleared to practice after the knee surgery/rehab with no credible insurance plan (and his questionable rookie season) was a lack of urgency. 


* Rolling with AJ Cann after two straight years of poor performance with an underwhelming 4th round failed RT prospect as your only contingency was a lack of urgency. 

* Hell, drafting Will Richardson ^  as your only real plan to replace an aging/fading Parnell was also a lack of urgency.

* Rolling with the same depth of Shatley, Walker and *gulp* Chris freakin Reed for year after year showed a severe lack of urgency to even remotely push the starters ahead of them or to upgrade depth. 

I count all of these decisions as failures.

And you can easily add to this list  ^ all of those patch job attempts and/or bargain hunting blind shot-in-the-dark revival signings like Beachum, Ogbuehi, Warford etc. 
I'm not going to cull through four or 5 years of free agency and draft history to give you alternatives. Sorry. Just don't have the time for the tedium today.  The short answer would be they should have chased the better free agents over bargains and they should have invested more draft capital. 

Each of these acquisitions or moments of complacency I've referenced represent opportunities where they should have done more. 

I understand your position. You are pointing out lots of great examples of where they "tried" to mend a position. 
I'm just emphatically of the opinion that many (not all) of the acquisitions were half-measures, or a day late and a dollar short. 

I didn't have this opinion 2 years ago, I agreed with your take.  But now I believe I recognize an ongoing trend. 
Yes, moves are made around the line. But looking back there are an inordinate amount of failures - and also too many attempts at bargain patches rather than a real commitment to improve.

Seems apparent Marrone feels he can just coach 'em up, much like JDR used to do with the LB group.

---

"The state of this franchise makes me sick" - could not agree more.

I had TONS of excitement going into this season with Minshew playing so well for a rookie and going 6-6 as a starter. I really thought the team had enough talent around him and with having so many draft picks could
Potentially become competitive this season.

Then, Slowly but surely that excitement has gotten harder and harder to maintain as more and more of my favorite players have been traded away for more and more draft picks.

Some of the aging guys I could deal with and it made sense even though it was tough to see them go, but with the Fournette announcement today that's just the final straw for me.

I'm officially in the "to hell with it" camp now. It's obvious that we're definitely rebuilding now so the GM and coach can buy themselves another year or two because of "the rebuild" as an excuse for sucking again.

It's so, so irritating that we're gonna have to go through this garbage AGAIN. "Rebuild" after "rebuild", 2 or 3 more seasons of total suck. Wow. I can hardly wait to be down by 20 ever week by halftime.

---

Player voices his opinion to improve the team saying we should get this player. Then he is getting canned. And this move would improve the team but the organization is being Major Leagued to relocate.

---