My original point was that Haslett had 6 years in NO and all he ever proved was that he could be average and then fade down the stretch. You can blame it on the ownership but if it's not working after 6 years then maybe you have to blame a good deal of that on the head coach too.
Sure the Saints organization sucks, but you could have said the same thing about Tampa Bay, Carolina, and Atlanta at some point in the past and all those organizations have turned it around after hiring a decent head coach. Yet Haslett has proven to be the least effective coach in the NFC South, let alone the entire league.
And his one playoff win came before the new NFC South reorg. If he was still playing in the same division with San Fran, St. Louis, and Arizona then he would probably have a slightly better record. But so would every other coach.
I don't think that there is really high praise directed towards Haslett. He's "decent" seems ot be consensus of opinion, which is what a near .500 record will get you. In comparing the other teams in the NFC South, arguably the toughest division in the NFC, you are overlooking the changes at the GM and ownership level that happened prior to the turnarounds. The GM's play a huge part in the success of a franchise, as crucial as the coach in most cases.Also, I think your perception of the Saints is slightly askew.
2005 3-13
2004 8-8 with a 4 game winning streak to end the season. 2nd place in NFC South.
2003 8-8 2nd place in NFC South.
2002 9-7 3rd place in NFC South.
2001 7-9 4th place in NFC West.
2000 10-6 1st place in NFC West. 1-1 playoff record.
2005 season aside, that's not an awful record or performance by a head coach. Certainly there is a sense that the team underachieved but they were very competitive during Haslett's tenure. This is why he is considered a viable coaching candidate, quite frankly.