> The CEOs who got Intel into this mess were much longer than Pat and a worse fit. Meanwhile, the board let most of his predecessor’s activities go unchecked as they sped through disaster.
That really captures the spirit of the article. It is pointing out that the people ultimately responsible for getting Intel into a mess are still in charge and have started to flail. That doesn't mean the writer thinks Gelsinger was going to be a great CEO because he is technical. They think that the board is terrible and there is evidence that it hasn't changed.
This behaviour by the board would be a common enough pattern in both business and political failures. Something goes wrong, the people in charge don't admit they made mistakes (or everyone just assumes it is too late to recover) and retain power.