It looks like we've got more than two categories here, really. Companies that are led by choreographers who have established that part of their career as a separate part of their lives (Balanchine/Robbins at NYCB, Stevenson at Houston B and Texas Theater B, Webre at Washington B..) Companies that are led by directors who can make dances for the ensemble, but whose careers are not primarily about their choreography (Whitener at Kansas City B, Tomasson at San Francisco B, Joffrey at Joffrey B.) And then companies that are led by directors who do not make dancers for the ensemble (or do it very rarely) (Boal at Pacific Northwest B, Lopez at Miami City B, Ashley Wheater at Joffrey B)
People sometimes slide around on this (while he was AD at Oregon Ballet Theater, Christopher Stowell's job was as much about finding other people's choreography for the ensemble as it was about making work himself, but now that he's left the organization, he'll likely be choreographing more frequently) but I do think there's a difference between someone who can make decent dances when the need arises, and someone who identifies themselves primarily as a choreographer.
I haven't had any caffeine yet, but in your transition to a 3 category system here you place Joffrey in the second, which you then seem to associate with "someone who can make decent dances when the need arises," rather than "someone who identifies themselves primarily as a choreographer."
In some ways I agree with the distinction between these categories, and certainly Joffrey's career was about much more than choreography.
But I think you've given him rather a rough assessment here. He wasn't someone who just "can make dances for the ensemble."