Not quite. The article is pointing out that the overall level of bonus is not well correlated with the revenue (or profit) of the companies as a whole. The poster is pointing out that that's largely because an individual's bonus, particularly in areas like IB (where most of the bonus pool ends up), is much more of a function of the revenue the individual brings in.

Part of the reason for the discrepancy at the time of the crash is that, until the liquidity crisis gummed everything up, most of the catastrophic losses where in a relatively niche area. A lot of the other parts of the banks did continue to make money.

Then when the liquidity crisis hit, the view was, generally, that significant parts of the businesses were still fundamentally sound so there was no point losing good people as they'd be needed to build things back up again.

I happen to think that all this is sensible up to, but not including, the bit about losing good people. This was fundamentally self serving and tended to define "good" as those who were successful is a overly risky environment.