Yes, the discussion about whether or not Nolan should be fired IS a tired one. However, a back-and-forth with Maiocco on his blog today got me thinking.
IF the 49ers do well this year (maybe even *GASP* make the playoffs), I think it's safe to assume that it's because the offense is massively improved over last year. We've already seen that it's quite a bit better over the first 2 games.
That situation, says Maiocco, will put a decision before ownership. Who means more to the franchise: Nolan or Martz?
Now, looking at it from the perspective of a jilted 49er fan who's watched all or parts of 90% of the games for the past 3 years, it's obvious that I want Nolan fired. I wanted him fired after last season. But I'm not going to do that. I'm going to put on my "objective, reasonable" cap and view this situation as an outsider.
In doing so, I see that the difference between this team and the team that went 5-11 last year is a new offensive coordinator, and a few new offensive players who were basically brought in by said coordinator. Let's face it- it's unlikely that Bruce or O'Sullivan would have been here without Martz.
The defense is largely unchanged, with the exception being the return of Manny Lawson, the same Manny Lawson who didn't play a single snap last week. A possible season-ending injury to Spencer would be the other change. Through 2 games, it's safe to say the defense is not performing like it did last year, but it is early.
What, exactly, has Mike Nolan done in his 3 years here to save his job if the team does well this season? I am actually asking this question objectively, and am going to try to answer it.
It must be said, the talent on this team is quite a lot better than the team Nolan and company took over in 2005. Back then, the only playmakers were Julian Peterson coming off injury, and Bryant Young. This was before most knew Gore was any good, Kevin Barlow was still the starter, and Brandon Lloyd was being looked to to be a number 1 WR target. (As an aside, I recently came accross a copy of madden 06 and checked out the 49ers roster- not pretty). And the defense...well Joselio Hanson? Derrick Johnston? Mike Adams? Ben Emmanuel? Yikes.
Now, we've got Patrick Willis, Frank Gore, Nate Clements, Micheal Lewis, Vernon Davis (?), and Bryant Johnson (?). There's some question marks for sure, but the talent is at least respectable at most positions.
However, in Nolan's 3 years in San Francisco, the 49ers are 0-8 and have been outscored by 146 points in games played on the east coast. Yes, those numbers are skewed by the 52-17 and 42-3 losses to Washington and Philadelphia in 2005, but last year they were 0-4 and outscored by 60 points. Yes, last year's team was terrible, but part of that was because Shaun Hill was sitting in favor of a guy in his late 30s who was not performing well. And who made that decision?
Quick note: In 2006, the one year under Mike Nolan when the 49ers were close to not having a losing record, they didn't play a single game on the east coast. In the other 2 disastrous years, they've played 4.
OK, I don't want to be too partisan here. But there's more bad news. As we all know, Nolan's teams have been hideous after bye-weeks, going 0-3 and getting outscored by 81 points. A caveat on this: all of those games were on the road. But that is still quite bad.
Let's look at scoring differential: in the 17 games the 49ers have won during Nolan's tenure, they've outscored their opponents 387-298, or 5.2 points/ game. In their 33 losses, they've been outscored 415-959, or 16.4 points/ game. If a team loses a game by 16 points, it's said to be a blowout. Over the last 3 years, the 49ers have, on average, been blown out 33 times. Yes, that's a misleading stat, but that's just the jaded fan sneaking in.
In 3 years, San Francisco has never beaten a team by more than 14 points. Not even the Houston Texans can say that, as they have five such games in the same time period. I don't think that's a meaningless stat, either. It shows that this team has been historically inept for quite an extended period.
Anyways, this whole post is sort of based on a theoretical season that hasn't happened yet. IF the 49ers do well this season, it will come in a year when the major personnel changes from a 5-11 team came through someone who was not Mike Nolan. It will be in a year when the offense was considerably better under a new coordinator, and a year in which Nolan was actually demoted. Nolan gets demoted, the team does better. I'm sorry, but jaded fan or not, that wouldn't be a hard decision to make.
Also: if the 49ers pull a "Nolan" and don't show up against a terrible Detroit team, I'm never watching them again.
