Sort of, but also not. it’s kind of a mix of loads of stuff thats been mentioned and a few things that haven’t.
As @SenorDingDong (I think) said, Corbyn was very much wrong man, right time in some ways, but I also at the same time think he was the only man who could have caused that sudden change in Labour internal politics - I doubt very much Dianne Abbot, John McDonnell or whoever could have won that leadership election.
Because of that, he’s something of a beacon for all sides of the party. He’s soaking up a huge amount of vitriol from the right of the party and commentariat at the moment, whilst allowing the next generation of socialist politicians to grow and gain the experience that will hopefully allow them to avoid making many of the same mistakes that Corbyn made.
At the moment, the argument being presented is very much “You’re the problem, not your platform.” However I’d be amazed if whoever stepped up to replace him wasn’t told exactly the same things by the same people, along with a heavy side of disingenuous “you’re too young/naive etc” (c.f. @marckee).
I also suspect that were Corbyn seen to be forced out rather than having chosen to leave on his own terms, you’d see a portion of the party (and maybe even electorate) that were previously enthused (again… on the terms that DingDong pointed out) turn their backs on Labour again… to my mind, while the next leader shouldn’t exactly be a coronation (we’ve all seen how those go), a planned move from one to the next is quite important to ensure that the motivation of the membership doesn’t dip too far.
Given that, in many ways to my mind, better the devil we know to soak up that criticism until the next generation of Labour leaders seems ready to step up. 
