Whenever faced with such an argument neither side can win, I like to look at the extremes:
A. We could make no rules, and just let them kill each other.
B. We could just take away the sack, and the play can basically go on forever as long as the QB is hanging on to the ball. He can't be hit until he runs past the line of scrimmage.
Obviously, both of these are ludicrous. The question then becomes, how far in each direction do we go with the rule? QBs have to be tackled, sacked, hit, and in all other ways FORCED TO PLAY FOOTBALL. That said, I have no problem preventing 'cheap shots' or players 'intending to harm' the QB.
This is why, to me, it is very simple. Take away all the written rules about how not to hit a QB, and just call it unnecessary roughness and leave it in the ref's hands. I don't trust refs any more than you do, but anything is better than what we are seeing now.
And for those that argue that QB is the most important position and gets hurt the most, think of this -- how many QBs does an NFL team have? How many does a college team have? It's funny, you can lose 3 RBs and still throw someone in there, or 5 CBs and still have someone who played in college. You lose 1 QB and your stuck with Gradkowski?!?
It's not that they are hurt more, just that less QBs are developed in football than any other position. College only prepares a handful, and most of those can't play at the NFL level anyway. It is not because they are hurt more often, but that there are fewer of them to go around.
There is something called 'a running game' and 'pass protection'. If teams are that concerned about their QB, maybe they should invest in the rest of their team first instead of drafting Carr and Smith to get thumped every single game because their team sucks.
The league shouldn't referree a team's bad philosophy or management...only the play on the field. The teams should adjust to the rules, not the other way around.