If you include a reference to Richard Seymour's grandfather and Ted Johnson (a player providing a series of inconsistent stories - did Belichick make a mistake in playing him, did Johnson not want to risk losing his starting position by pointing out he was injured and unable to practice, or a little of both? Who bears the responsibility to say he is physically unable to play?), I think it's a stretch to call the article unbiased. By releasing the aging players, you support the Social Darwinism argument. By including the Johnson and Seymour stories, you get Belichick as heartless and unflattering and readers likely will gravitate to those facts and overlook the rest. If you call balanced the flattering reference to Andrew Carnegie, with whom most readers would know only through the brief description in the article, I would call the article somewhat balanced. Calling Dungy, the "Muscular Christian", his foil leads me back down the path of the good versus evil argument Easterbrook blathers on with in his tirades.
More significantly, does Belichick make personnel decisions or does Pioli? My understanding is Belivhick states his requirements and Pioli evaluates whether what is on the team is better than what is on the market. That means you merge the roles of Pioli and Belichick in evaluating your theory. The "Patriot Way" analyzed is the contributions of both, so it is a stretch to say all those actions are a product of Belichick's decisions.
In the end, the article is a far cry from Easterbrook's pseudointellectual garbage and does provide some contribution to discourse, but I would call it more pretentious than enlightening for those who have read anything on Belichick (including the "flattering" piece written on him which paints the coach in a positive light - Does the author have some greater insight into that biography to say it is not as accurate as his understanding? If so, where are his facts disputing what is written by Holley?).
