No offense, but I kind of feel that you don't what you're talking about. More than half the highlighted articles showcase what the band did on TMID, which is their least technical record. Most of the album is in 4/4, 3/4, or 6/8... those are not complicated time signatures. Steve Kleisath has an amazing knack for writing creative drum parts, but the real execution didn't come until HTSAF. A lot of TMID is sloppily done (listen to madison prep, and you'll start to hear a lot of awkward takes, fills), and I think he masks a lot of the album by making it sound a lot busier/technical than it actually is. Don't get me wrong, this band's creativity is off the charts, but to say they're "super progressive" or "world class musicians" is quite a bit off target. They're good, but in a pop-rock sort of sense.
I think a lot of reviewers don't understand theory, or spend enough time listening to really different genres, and as such when they hear things that somewhat challenge their perception of what an "emo" band is supposed to sound/feel like, they tend to blow it out of proportion.
Again, TMID is down is amazing (and probably my favourite record ever), but the real "progressive" or technical side of FSF was more present on songs like how to start a fire, the deep, light up ahead, etc. etc. Which even then...wasn't that progressive/technical. And I'm sure they would hate the idea, or notion of being a progressive band... there's a stigma to that that most people tend to loathe in the music industry. Thanks, Phil Collins....