I'd only consider position and organizational depth as a tie-breaker among a couple similarly rated guys if there isn't a clear cut #1. If the clear #1 guy is a SS, and I've already got a stud SS, I'm still taking the clear #1 SS over the lower rated #2 player.
Lower in the draft, I'd consider position much more strongly as a factor, as the players start bunching up and you inherently will have to break some ties or at least effective ties. My theory is that there is less of a bunch between the #1 and #2 guy most years. And history has borne that out in retrospect, there is a massive chasm of expected value between the #1 and #2 picks, larger than the gaps anywhere else even across multiple pick ranges.
This. The only time I'm considering position at the top of the draft is in how it will affect the player over time, or how well they play it. Say this year for example, if you think he's not going to hold up as well because Catchers take a lot of abuse, long term it may make a SS more valuable if they are closely rated. Also there are a lot of parts to a catcher's defensive game, and if he's not great back there, to where you may move him, then you need to evaluate that bat vs a different position, and you are doing it blind because you don't know how well he will play that new position.