The title is misleading. I'm not saying that he was the man as some sort of role model or anything like that. He had many flaws. I thought he was a man we needed somewhere else in the organization. He had better talents for other positions than coaching.
That's right.
Things he did for us:
(1) reestablished good relations with in-state and neighboring-state HS coaches.
(2) dramatically improved our APR, getting us well away from the penalties boundary.
(3) improved the VFL program significantly (not perfectly, as witnessed by a few VFLs with a really negative perspective--Antone Davis at the front--but still far beyond what Dooley left it at).
(4) improved recruiting (as others have pointed out, he did it with volume, and then lost a significant % of those he brought in, but it was still an improvement).
(5) kept the program clean of NCAA concern.
(6) kept the players engaged with community service.
Things he didn't do well for us:
(1) win to our teams' capabilities.
(2) develop the players to meet the potential they had coming in.
(3) make smart game-day decisions.
(4) play to win (instead, he played to avoid losing, which is less effective).
(5) avoid injuries (though how much of them is on him, we'll probably never know).
(6) avoid putting his foot in his mouth.
So it's really just like you said in the title. He brought things we needed. But didn't bring other things we needed. And the things he didn't bring, those tended to be the "coaching" things.
I thought your title was dead-on.