I thought the OP made some valid observations. Most of the responses have been legitimate as well, and I think a lot of the backlash is a reflection of questioning the bride on the eve of the wedding more so than it is his actual argument. If we had hired a different head coach and he had posted that same record, I bet a lot of people would dismiss the idea that we should have hired Edsall instead.
I'm fine with the job Edsall did last year, but I also find the idea that you can't evaluate a coach until year three to be one of the more tiresome cliches in sports. People pedaled that argument with KO even as conflicting evidence continued to club us over the head - the bottom line is that if you can coach, it's going to be self-evident fairly quickly. That doesn't mean 8-4 right away, but it does mean signs of promise - which he showed.
This year will be a tougher test. The bar is higher and he lost some key players. We have to be able to recognize those challenges without allowing our own impatience - which is warranted - to distort our evaluation.
Beyond that, it's hard for me to comment without knowing who else would have been available. My hunch is that if you're in UConn's position, you want to either aim for a coach that can recruit above his weight class or a guy who has proven to outperform his class ranking. Edsall has shown some signs of being the second guy - couple that with his history here, and the incompetence of the last two coaches, and the hiring has been good enough for me so far.