This is a good breakdown to explain their philosophy. It can work I guess but seems to have matchup problems against teams that have good QBs and WRs. I think the Bengals game last year is good example of a team strong at WR exploiting this.
They line good WRs up against weak corners and we are in for a long day.
So play great coverage, let the rush get there... but what about when you play Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar, etc.?
And your next line seems contradictory. QBs are less accurate under pressure, but you prioritize playing coverage...? Your final line is true, they're dependent on each other, but if I had to choose between great pass rush and average coverage, or great coverage and average pass rush, I think I'm choosing great pass rush. I want to affect the QB, because all of my coverage will get a boost. Of course, it would be nice to be great at both.
Regarding pressures vs sacks, yes, context is needed. But it's pointless to try to reduce the topic down to the bolded. Sacks are obviously more important than pressures because they end the play, whereas the outcome from a pressure can range from really good (sack/turnover) to really bad (big play/TD). But pressures are still important, and pressure is cumulative. And on a fundamental level, you cannot get a sack if you don't get pressure. Being dismissive about pressures is somewhat myopic.