I showed it with the 100-400 attached to a MKIII, I think the 70-200 2.8 is a little taller but I'd do it, or get the 20, it's not really that big of a deal.
Yes, your pictures (and your review) are very helpful.
Having said that, the 70-200/2.8's are slightly longer than the 100-400L (7.8"/199mm vs 7.4"/189mm). So it will create a bigger bulge than shown in your photo.
I never said R10 is a bad bag -- it's probably perfect for my current gear. However, the R20 is arguably the better bag for those wanting to carry a 70-200/2.8 mounted. My dilemma lies with the Mk II ("to buy or not to buy"), not the Retrospective series....