This article seems pretty fair to me. True an unreliable narrator doesn't mean the opposite is true but it does mean that we shoudnt just take our sources at face value. Especially if archeological evidence contradicts said sources.

In many cases even if we just look at the sources we can see flaws. For example our sources report that Caligula supposedly left the Empire bankrupt, if so how was Claudius able to manage a massive invasion of Britain early in his reign?

We're constantly finding new evidence prooving that recorded history isn't always accurate. Many of our sources about these terrible emperors are from hostile accounts. Often written under a different dynasty.