Fair enough, I see what you're saying.
I guess my overall sentiment is that I understand being hard on Iger, but I really don't understand giving Eisner the benefit of the doubt. There were things about him that I preferred to Iger even at the end (for example, being willing to approve ambitious, original ideas for the parks), but overall the company seemed in terminal decline by the time he left and I find it hard to believe it would have avoided being swallowed up by a bigger company had he stayed much longer. I also feel that his respect for the brand is harder to read by the end. My personal impression is that he was far more willing to slap the Disney name on low-quality product to make a quick buck toward the end than Iger ever seemed to be.