I don't think there is such a thing as a breed that isn't for newbies...
While I'll strongly agree with--and grant--your point about preparedness, I also have to strongly disagree with your above statement I pulled out.
I don't care how many books you read, how many DVDs you watch, how many internet forums you lurk on, or participate in...it's NOT ever going to be the same as personal experience and practice in the field.
You can read about timing in training, but you cannot gain impeccable timing, without lots of coaching and practice. You can read about learning dog body language, but you have to put it into practice and evaluate how you did.
There are certain breed traits and puppy behaviors that happen so fast, and can escalate so quickly, that a total novice is going to be completely out of their depth. Learning how to cope with that, and up your game, is NOT something newbs should be doing, with some breeds.
So, to sum up--I absolutely totally agree that there are some breeds that do not lend well to being "first dogs."
That article was the typical fluff piece that gets published in that type of venue, but it also was not the worst done one I've seen. And at least they gave a shout out for positive press on bully breeds, although I wish they'd placed a few more caveats and a bit more guidance, in regards to choosing individual dogs from those breeds.
And, Wes, I'd agree with you that Catahoulas and BCs should have made the list.
I'd also add a lot of the area guard heritage type breeds, lots of the Molosser breeds.