Bud Elliott, commenting on the original tweet, had this observation to offer:
This seems plausible at first glance. The issue again is, when it comes to Jimbo, that it just doesn't apply. Fisher didn't sign a great class in 2018 (his transition year), but he notched a top-10 class every other year until his last, including huge hauls in the early signing period many times.
Oh yeah, and the aforementioned top class of all time.
The mentality here, in my estimation (neither of these guys spoke specifically about Jimbo in regard to this interchange) has to be related to 1) the contract and 2) the underachievement down the stretch of his tenure.
The contract wasn't good, obviously. The expectations that it communicated were clearly never met. However, it should not affect one's evaluation of the quality of the hire itself when you're comparing it to other hires. You can evaluate the performance of a given hire relative to a program's inherent advantages, and bring that into the calculus in a comparison like this, but bringing in dollar amounts is really kind of silly.
The underachievement down the stretch was debilitating and unforeseen by everyone except FSU fans whose reasoning directly following the 2020 season essentially boiled down to wishful thinking. Even so, the huge home win over a rival and keeping the majority of the 2022 class together shouldn't be undersold.
In one sense, this is all a moot point. Fisher is gone, and the Elko Era is here. But I think it's important to remember Jimbo's tenure for what it actually was, and not some over-exaggerated version in one way or the other. He accomplished a lot here—more than any other guy on the list did at their respective spot. That said, there was a reason—there were many reasons—he was eventually dismissed.
The flameout doesn't dictate the flavor of the tenure in total. But it's a flameout all the same.