Looking at your list, something jumps out to me. In most cases where those busts occur, the problem wasn't that the team was too low to get the best QB, it was that that draft simply didn't have a franchise QB.
2010, in my mind, is to soon to tell. I doubt Tebow is anything, but I can't know it for sure.
2009: All three QBs appear to be franchise QBs.
2008: Both were franchise QBs.
2007: Both Russel and Quinn were busts
2006: Both Leinart and Young were busts
2005: Rodgers is a stud, Campbell (right after) and Alex Smith were busts.
2004: RIvers, Eli, and Ben are studs
2003: Tough to grade Leftwhich and Palmer. I wouldn't call them busts.
The point that I'm trying to make is that history shows us that, with the exception of 2005 and MAYBE 2010, we rarely see the draft playing out as some of the QBs being studs and some being busts.
Instead, we usually see clusters. A given draft either has 2-3 studs, or it has 2-3 busts. Look at it in terms of draft classes.
09 are all studs
08 are all studs
07 are all busts
06 are all busts
05 is the anomaly where you get one guy in each category
04 were all studs
03 you can classify either way, but they were pretty equal in their success.
I don't know what the data means, but I can tell you I don't buy into "QB X is a stud and QB Y will be a bust." In my mind, that is just some people wanting to put down the QB they don't like in order to pull up the one they do. When you look at the actual data, you can see that entire draft classes tend to go together. Rarely do you see one of the QBs pan out and one bust, as was the case in 2005. Again, 2010 may be the case, with Bradford looking like a stud. But I'm not ready to make that claim until I see how Tebow, Claussen, and Mccoy pan out. I know they aren't first rounders, but still.