I don't particularly rate Gerrard as a manager and think he was overrated by the media after doing well initially - he inherited a pretty decent side and was given some financial backing from the Grealish sale.
However, I will say the same as I said about Lampard and others - I simply do not understand the point of hiring young managers, and getting rid of them after their first bad spell. If you hire a young manager surely the objective should be to give them a few seasons with the expectation that they will develop over that time. If you want instant and consistent short term results just hire someone who is more experienced. Chopping and changing constantly from one young manager to another is nonsensical. I personally think Gerrard is a bit thick and only has the job because of his playing career, but whoever hired him presumably thought this guy has the potential to become a very good manager.
The mid table management turnover is ridiculous anyway, expectations are too high and owners are too spontaneous. Top 6 is realistically out of reach apart from the occasional fluke, then there's numerous clubs competing for 7th and below, most of which have plenty of funds and resources - Villa are in the pack with West Ham, Newcastle, Leeds, Leicester, Wolves, Everton, Palace and Southampton, and arguably Forest given their spending this season and size traditionally, and none of these clubs, oil money aside, or current financial woes aside, has any realistic right to expect to consistently finish towards the top of that pack. They will inevitably interchange positions season by season, and the competence of the manager to be honest has less significance than the quality of players at his disposal. Rodgers finished something like 5th, 5th and 8th with Leicester, having inherited a decent side and given money to spend, but he's going to finish lower this season because Leicester are asset stripping. Everton have been in the top 8-10 for the majority of the last two decades, but they're going to finish lower than that this season because of their squad, the manager doesn't change that fact. It's the same at the bottom of the table, Fulham and Bournemouth are virtually guaranteed to sack their managers this season - but whoever were managing those squads would likely get relegated. They have two logical choices - hire a Pulis, Hodgson, Allardyce style relegation dog fight expert, or stick with the young manager, let them rebuild the next season and give them another go at it the year after if they come back up again. Also they need bloody realistic expectations.
Look back over the last couple decades and see which clubs have consistently done well - its either been the clubs who have spent the most, or have given a manager a few seasons to build a team capable of consistently churning out results season on season. Potter has Brighton playing incredibly well on a budget but it didn't happen in 6 or 12 months. They finished 15th and 16th in his first two seasons, and have since reaped the rewards from sticking with him. Sure clubs like Villa have more resources and higher expectations than Brighton, but the concept is the same. The manager merry go round leads to players being bought on sold in quantity for the new manager to build the team how he wants, and then they sack the manager and have to change numerous players all over again.