I wonder about the validity and relevance of an article like this regardless of its point-of-origin. It provides two unnamed sources--one source per conference. There are 32 teams. Is a 10% sampling or greater too difficult to obtain? If you're going to write one of these articles and quote faceless people, can't you secure quotes from three NFL front office executives at the very least to justify the stipulation that Stephen Jones is the reason NFL executives generally believe Dallas has evolved into a scary contender? Seriously. The article lacks substance substantiating what it implies.
You will get that in practically any article that names "sources".
I just found it funny that 9 times out of 10 people see "Bleacher Report" and immediately blast it, especially if what is in the article is not exactly flattering.
Now you get this and well, it's okay for most.
Why? Well, it paints a nice picture.
Fact is and people need to get it, Bleacher Report is a lot more "legitimate" than it used to be.
At least now, there are bloggers/writers that have been published before, even some that aren't with ESPN, CNN, Yahoo, etc.
Mike Freeman in particular has been around for a while.
It is not some fan slob posting his random "slobby thoughts" or some other catchy catch-phrase.
You want that, go see FanSided or others.
But I bet you if Freeman wrote an article stating Stephen had no idea what he was doing, then you would see the BR dismissive wave.