To say that the "No Idea" round is bad for Silicon Valley is to give an overly simplistic view of the "entrepreneur."

However, the interesting thing here may not be one of whether an idea is necessary to initially catalyze a great company... or not. That seems like a chicken or the egg kind of question. (Do great companies breed great ideas or do great ideas breed great companies?)

Instead, I think the focus on the individual may be the most pertinent from this article. For some, those who are great at building within a company, being engineer #100 at Facebook is perhaps the greatest place of impact that person could have. Of course the converse can be true as well, which is the story we're all too used to. The underlying assumption is that a person's greatest placement is proportional to her natural inclination and disposition, and I'm inclined to agree.