[Fat Pang]

Very possibly all of the above. I think that I tried to point out that Martz often rode out criticism by nature of his offensive reputation and memories of the greatest show. Combined with a mercurial personality, this meant that he was afforded a fascination that drew attention away from his record.

Opinions such as this were the most prevalent:

"Martz is a genius alright but if he could only sort out the D we'd be back to the show"

Linehan is a different beast and as we saw last season with the S.L.O.P campaign there were criticisms levelled at him that were born wholly of our mid-season struggles and slide in record. There was scant credit given to being a team subject to much re-building, overhaul in coaching staff, and a resurgence in the fortunes of our division rivals.

"Linehan is wasting all the talent this team has. 5-8? what a joke!"

I think that when we look at coaches and their records we should look at the context that underpins their performances. Belichick was a 'failure' at Cleveland but now Cleveland have a coach who owes his position to Belichick's success at New England. So context is important when judging whether a coach is a success or a failure. Linehan, because he's so much more understated than Martz, is more likely to be subject to bald criticism of him based purely on his record which fails to take into account the context within which he is operating.

Martz was often judged against a background of undoubted offensive talent.

Therein lies the danger for Linehan and I guess that time will tell.