This is a really fun debate to talk about, hits home with me. I was pretty tall, and had a really fast 100 meter time. But I was by no means quick, my 40 was fast, but not as impressive as my 100 meter, and while I never ran the 10 yard dash, that would have been average at best. I still remember running suicides (one sideline to the other) and seeing guys that my 100 was better than beating me, because they could get up to speed faster. Another time, we were doing spring conditioning and the coaches knew my times, we had a drill where we started on our stomach and then sprinted 20 yards to work on core and reaction and sprinting. I couldn't win a single one of those, and one of my coaches was coming with "you are obviously dogging it, you should be winning every single one of these!" I just couldn't get up to speed as fast as others.
Personally, i'll take a guy that has a lower top end speed but can get to his top end the quickest. If he gets caught from behind, it is what it is, but some of the guys that are really fast but take longer to get up and going might not even break away to get caught from behind. It's why there are WRs that are considered "striders". In the 40, I wasn't to top speed yet. I feel like I was in the 100s, but everyone is different. There's a reason that many times someone that wins the 60m indoors at NCAAs isn't the same as who wins the 100m, the start is so crucial.