Time to take a breath, and step back from guessing?
Desirable or optimum thrust use or retard in flare, whether on a -100, -200, -SP, 300, -400, or -8, and regardless of engine type, ...can depend on the flight path, energy state at flare, sink rate, flare profile, atmosphere behavior, and engine/thrust state. It is true that the -8 flies just like a -400, which is why landing PACS on the -8 was so carefully worked, with the new flap configurations. However, beyond the standard FCTM landing technique guidance, one would need to see the FDR or QAR, or both, to really understand what happened, or make any reasoned assessment of what went wrong?, or went right? for any particular landing. Further, as for many big jets (without DLC, as the L1011 originally had but was later deactivated), a complicating factor can be the "Cz delta e" derivative (i.e., momentary vertical heave opposite to the control input command), which can cause a slight momentary aircraft vertical response opposite to that originally intended (e.g., a last second brisk pitch pull, to save a landing, can actually make the sink rate momentarily worse before turning the gamma corner). The reverse of this effect is also true, which is why "push landings" worked so well for some pilots on the B727. So in this instance, without both the crew statements, knowledge of the atmosphere, and the FDR traces, it is very hard and most inappropriate to pass judgement. Let's perhaps let the appropriate event investigators figure it out, and give the crew and the airline the benefit of the doubt for now?