It does make sense because it's very un-Coensy. Their devotion to the source material is such that, of all their movies, it felt like the one anyone could've made.
The problem with this is: I haven't read the Portis book, but I have read
No Country for Old Men, and the movie definitely follows it very closely, and no one says "anyone" could have made that. (My own problem with that one wasn't that it was afflicted by what I would pejoratively term Coenism, but that it was almost pointless: a perfectly faithful illustration of the book that had everything except what was best about the book, i. e. Cormac McCarthy's prose.)
I'm afraid that those of us who claim
True Grit is among their best (I would say it and
Miller's Crossing are the only ones I genuinely liked) are going to stand convicted of sentimentality or something by Coenists who presumably miss their characteristically cold facetiousness and think we only like it because it has heroes an' shit. I really don't care that much about heroism and like plenty of movies that have no sympathetic characters. I just thought that on this one, they got out of their own way and didn't let their own self-regarding cleverness interfere with showing what master filmmakers they admittedly have become.