Early dinosaur evolution

In today's issue of Science, Stephen Brusatte et al. published an interesting article called "Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs," in which they state that the early dinosaurs did not out compete the early crurotarsans, which were the crocodile ancestors that were dominating the scenery then. All well and good and they add a new analysis to the mix. I'm all for that and like the publication of the article.
However, unlike what they claim and what Science News claims (http://www.sciencenews.org/), this is not exactly a new claim. As the Science News article mentions Irmis et al. said essentially the same thing last year in the same journal. Brusatte et al. claim their study is superior because they view it as a "two-step" process, i.e. the rise of the herbivorous sauropodomorphs followed by the theropods and others, whereas the other studies viewed it as a single event. Fine, while I might disagree that the timing data we have for that time period is sufficient to make such a claim, I won't argue about that. What I do argue with is their suggestion that the competition model is the currently accepted hypothesis for the rise of the dinosaurs, which is not true at all. It has been pretty apparent to anyone who has kept up with the literature that few people accept that view anymore and the dinosaurs have been seen more commonly as oppurtunistic, that filled the void created by the decline of the terrestrial crurotarsans.
Moreover, Irmis et al. were not exactly the first to say this, they more than anything else put the nail in the coffin of the competition hypothesis by supplying good data. People had been saying this for decades. William Sill in particular published the oppurtunistic model for early dinosaurian radiation back in the sixties and early seventies. While I can forgive Brusatte for not knowing about Sill's papers, I can not believe that Benton, one of the co-authors, didn't know about them. So I find it curious that Sill was not even cited in their paper.
So all in all, if I had been reviewing it, I would first off had said this paper is not Science journal material and would have recommended sending it to another journal for publication with a few alterations. I am very curious how this got into Science, considering the high level of competition for publication there.