Why would want a player at any position that is going to turn it over more than the next guy?
It's like you completely ignored what you quoted.
"Much rather have a QB how has higher
playmaking ability even if it's at the cots of slightly more turnovers."
I bolded the answer to your question.
Players aren't single variable issues. It's not just a matter of minimizing turnovers. On offense alone the ability to make big plays is a direct reduction to ball security issues. This is because every time a players cores from 50 or 60 out, that is 50 or 60 yards worth of plays that don't need to be run to get those points. So even if a player has worse ball security on a per play basis, if he can reduce the average number of plays needed to score enough, then it balances out. Furthermore, it doesn't just reduce the chance of turnovers, it reduces the chance of missed blocks, missed reads, dropped passes etc.
Secondly, the relative value in punting, and FGA to an extent, vs turning the ball over is directly related to how good your ST and defense is. The worse your defense is the less value the extra yards from punting is to you. That is actually true for FGs as well. The better your defense is the higher value there is in getting a FG, not relative to TDs but relative to turnovers. In the extremes, if you know your defense will get a stop 100% of the time then punts and FGs are extraordinarily valuable compared to turnovers. If you know your defense will give up a TD 100% of the time then punts hold no value compared to turnovers and FGs hold very little. Obviously no teams operate in the extremes but where a team falls on the spectrum determines how much ball security weighs in.
5 dynamic plays are killed by 1 turnover that results in points.
And 5 dynamic plays probably save your team 20 plays in opportunities for a turnover, missed block, bad read, etc.
