So, though it isn't entirely unambiguous, when I read the article closely I see that it agrees with you.
Let me see if I can make this boring enough to understand. Let's draw a classic management-consulting two-by-two matrix:
GENIUS-JUDGEMENT GENIUS+JUDGEMENT
AVG-JUDGEMENT AVG + JUDGEMENT
The author's argument is that the column on the right trumps the column on the left: Judgement is important, even if the genius-with-poor-judgement is some kind of CS demigod. However, he doesn't actually say that lack-of-genius and lack-of-judgement are correlated, or that he'd turn down a wise genius if such a rare and precious being fell on him from the sky. You've gotten the unfortunate impression that he's saying that, but that's an artifact of trying to use two examples to describe a fuzzy multidimensional space. (I mean, really, even two dimensions is a painfully naive approximation, except of course to a management consultant. ;)
Of course, if the original blog post used my four examples it would be as dull as... management consulting. The moral of this story is that writing is hard. You have to leave some ambiguity, and trust the reader to fill in the gaps, and hope the gaps are not too large, and that your sly invocation of the trendy-yet-pragmatic NoSQL user in the penultimate paragraph helps people take the hint. But sometimes the whole thing just doesn't work. C'est la vie.