I would agree with this. The ingebrigtsens are doing 5 sessions per week to Tinman's two (at least for tinman elite). Not to mention 90-120 miles compared to 70-85. Another big difference that I'm curious about is the combination of different energy systems. In base phase most of tinman's workouts will be CV/threshold and then faster stuff at the end. Many coaches such as Jonathan Marcus would say that the faster stuff should come first. The Ingebrigtsens meanwhile, have a separate 200 hills/300 track session that works at mile effort. This seems more beneficial to elite athletes because they need more stimulus to improve each area. But it seems that Tinman's workouts might be fine for the less trained athlete or the high school athlete (seems to be working for Rheinhardt Harrison).
I have never seen a full (i.e. 26 week) schedule of either of them but yeah it appears that tinman doesn't quite do enough fast work (1500m and faster stuff). It always seems to just be an add on. It is also a fine line of how much risk to take on in training. More miles and workouts always sound good on paper but the closer you get to the edge, the higher you chance of breaking down.
At a high level the question is what develops your aerobic ability more: doing like 25-30 mins at CV (call it 10k ) or doing like 60 mins at HM-MP? I am not sure there is strong evidence for either being much better, much less things like doing both (imagine a 2 week cycle where you do threshold doublex 3x and 1 CV day). I will say the evidence that doing either of them is a bit better than pounding out the 6-8x800 at 5k pace that we did back in the 80s/90s. There is a place for those workouts but every week during your base was a bit rough:)
Neither of these coaches is magical. Nobody is going to show up at some high school and have a dozen 4:10 milers in 4 years (well unless you can recruit very well).