As others have said, he should be straight with them, brutally honest even, in the context of constructive criticism and motivation BUT that should be done one on one and out of the media.
To do what he does publicly shows that he's studied more military history than we thought. He uses critical info r personal details about the players publicly to lay down cover for himself.
He will say generically that coaching wasn't good and that they will get things "fixed" (nice and vague), but he doesn't publicly criticize his own performance or his staffs in the specific areas of motivation, creating a culture of success, team unity and game planning. Instead he mentions the running game, which gives the appearance of discussing coaching by directing attention to an assistant or two and asking heat away from the other issues I just mentioned, because those issues ultimately point directly at him.
I think he is a good guy but he seems to lawyerly, too crafty, and too interested in self-preservation. We need a leader and a teacher, not just a recruiter and CEO type. We need someone who can take lesser talent "coach 'em up", and after two seasons we can evaluate this staffs ability to do that.
Assessment: they've failed miserably at it. He needs to analyze the program from the top down, and he needs consultative help to do it b/c it needs to include a review of himself too. Hopefully Hart can help with that.