The reality of his limits are that the Texas boosters are absolute morons who cannot wait until the end of year 3 to let Charlie finish rebuilding the program the right way - with great players who also have great character. That's their loss.
Mike Zimmer is a defensive coach, runs a conservative offense and relies on defense to win games, just like Charlie did while he was here. Zimmer beat Green Bay while winning the NFC North last year and is undefeated in the NFL this year with a QB starting who wasn't on the roster until a week before the season started. So don't attempt to tell me it cannot be done the way Charlie is attempting to do it.
I cannot disagree more strongly with your assessment of his shortcomings as our head football coach. The man won more games in consecutive seasons (23) than any coach in UofL history - that was no accident. And it wasn't simply Teddy Bridgewater - it was Charlie Strong crafting an offense that took advantage of Bridgewater's accuracy, high TD to INT ratio, and knowledge of the playbook and defenses. The offense valued first downs and time of possession as much as touchdowns, knowing that opponents would not be able to string together as many first downs in a row against our defense as Bridgewater could against theirs.
I watched Texas play since Strong arrived. The same problems that plagued us plague Texas.
Strong has shown one thing, consistency.
You read Texas message boards and watch the games and its like de javu. The same type of issues; special teams, defense in prevent, running game or lack there of, and some head scratcher on offensive play calling.
You can bring up a specific period of history as to rationale why you think he is a good coach. I was there and believed it at the time too. But it comes down to the "W's" and "L's" over time. A lot of coaches experience short term success, that's what keeps them employed.
I could go through a list of D1 coaches who everyone thought was good only to realize that they were no so good when they changed programs. Change exposes all, whether good or bad.
You mentioned Strong's strategy with Bridgewater. It worked here, but clearly it is not working now. This is what separates the average coaches from the great ones, the ability to adapt and change to the situation.
Upon arriving at Texas, Strong did the exact thing he did here. Was is it necessary? Apparently not given the results. He can't even match the guy he replaced.
Can he be a good coach? Only time will tell if he can be a good coach. But his record says otherwise as of now.
As for the boosters and calling them names, no need to do that. Strong could have easily shut them up with on the field results. I don't feel bad for HC given the money that they are paid. It comes with the territory.
