Puel wasn't popular but as others have said, he had a plan and delivered some decent results with a weaker squad than the previous years. He had to pick Stephens and Forster regularly FFS. The thing I was most annoyed about with Puel was the lack of focus on the European campaign. Getting knocked out of that group was a terrible effort.
Hughes is a weird one. He's never been a manager I rated but there's no doubt he brought some steel and fighting spirit in that kept us up, even though we still turned out some awful performances. Ultimately, throwing in extra strikers got us the win at Swansea so he needs some credit for that. Would Puel or Pellegrino have gambled? The weird thing was how half-arsed he was in the next season. It smacked of complacency once he was given his contract and was inexcusable really.
Pellegrino was just awful in all respects. Never learnt from his mistakes and talked ****e. If he has one excuse it's perhaps that things were a mess behind the scenes with inertia whilst Kat tried to sell / Gao tried to find the money and Les and Ross screwing up the recruitment.