I don't think people should get too caught up on whether a QB is "worth" the draft spot. Any other position I'd agree, but you have to consider 1) how many years you have left to address the QB position, 2) your projected draft position in those years, 3) the QBs coming out in those years, and 4) if any QB coming out in those years at the spot you're projected to draft will be better than the QB you can get this year.
To answer each question:
1) I think we need to draft QB this year. In my opinion, QBs do better when they have a few years to sit on the bench. Look at Romo, Rodgers, Osweiler (all had 3 years), and Rivers (2 years). I especially think certain QBs need time to develop. Many of the knocks on the QBs this year are that they aren't immediate starters. But that's fine. They can sit 2-3 years while Romo plays. Win-win situation.
2) The longer we wait to draft a QB, the more immediate the need will be. If Romo retires in 2 years and we still haven't addressed the QB situation (and for fun, let's say we just won the Super Bowl and have the 32nd pick), we'll either have to make a huge trade up in the 1st round or rely on a 2nd round talent to be an immediate starter. Also, this year was very unfortunate due to injury so I don't see us getting such a high pick any time soon.
3) I don't watch enough college football to tell if the next years' QB draft classes will be better than this one. What I do know is that a great QB in future years won't still be on the board late in the 1st round (where we'll probably be picking).
4) To expand on #3, the question really comes down to "Will Goff or Lynch be better than any QB in the next 2-3 years who will still be available later in the 1st round ?" What do you want to do: draft Goff or Lynch and give them 2-3 years to develop, or draft a guy in the late-1st round and expect him to start immediately?