Key word: Most
For whatever reason, college football coaching results are judged not on the result of 1-3 games into the year, but rather the entire season as a whole (barring no progression at all throughout the first 2/3rd of the season). This isn't an accounting firm, most new hires during the tenure of head coach are made for one of two reasons-incompetence on the part of the previous staff, or success resulting in a bigger job for the previous staff. The only thing a coach can be judged on in his first six months on a job (given there are no games) is the cultural progress the team made. In Bell's case, he was hired because of Gilbert's incompetence, as was Darveau (for Mattox). By all accounts the culture was a lot better, until WIsconsin smacked the offense in the face. I'd still say the culture is better, because Strong and staff are still trying different methods to fix the culture that was previously so horrid. Now, it may be doubtful that Strong can do it, but we still have six games left (at least) to see if what the team is doing now is real or just the result of weak competition.
I'll note something else here-if we went by Strong's first six months or year here, then we would have been marveling over his results. I was very much in favor of his hire, I felt he must be more the coach we saw at UL, now I've seen that he isn't, and all we can do is wait for him to either reinvent himself as Taggart did and start winning something, or for Kelly to get rid of him.