If he can play to something near his former level -- which I know is far from a certainty -- it's a solid signing.

Still, as terrible as the 49ers offense is likely to be, I'm not really sure it's going to matter very much.

I always have a soft spot for the 49ers because they were my favorite team as a kid, but I'm afraid that things aren't going to get any better for them. At this point, I'd be mildly surprised if Nolan is still in San Fran six months from now.

The early signs on the offense are certainly not great. The big hope for improvement was Mike Martz, but we're still waiting for any evidence of magic transformation. It's a pity, because the defense was a borderline competent unit last year, and we seem to have made some improvements to compensate for the retirement of our best DL (it's kinda sad that BY was still the best by such a large margin, at his age). This could certainly be another upgrade if Spikes is fit.

I live in hope that our offense can somehow scrape together enough competence to keep the D off the field a bit longer this year, but I wouldn't put any money on it.

Nolan is a terrible, terrible coach and they'll be better off without him. At least their defense is collecting some nice talent, so they've got that going for them

Spikes has been average since his big injury in Buffalo. He was a hell of a player before that though. I feel bad for him.

3. I agree, Mike Nolan is at least on one of the top 5 head coaches in the league that I would NOT want for my team. I doubt he is the 49ers coach in 2009.

The 49ers also cut Brandon Moore. I've felt they have had an underrated LB core in the past.

Good signing for the niners, who were lacking anyone to play the 'Ted' LB position. Ulbrich had been doing this in practice, but is basically too small for it. Spikes is a definite upgrade at a position of need, for probably not too much money

Ulbrich, Smith and Brandon Moore were 3 no name guys that were pretty good. If you throw Lawson and Ray-Ray Jr. in the mix you are sitting pretty well.

The thing that sticks out in my mind about Ulbrich was the 49ers/Rams game in SF I guess 2 or 3 years ago ( could have been the season opener) where the Rams had a goalline stand and big Steven Jackson kept getting stuffed by Ulbrich.

I mean the huge 230 pound Jackson was running full speed only to run into a brick wall named Jeff Ulbrich. This didn't just happen once, but Ulbrich took him down 2 or 3 times and the Rams did NOT score. I was shocked, and paid closer attenion to Ulbrich and he looks legit.

Smith is a poor mans Zack Thomas, a tackeling machine and solid Mike.

I will also tell you that Mike Rumph in a 49ers uniform was by far the worst cornerback I have ever seen. I would sit there and wonder if he was running at 75% speed or if he was just that slow. You almost never see guys 10 yards open in the NFL, but Rumph would have it happen multiple times. I was happy when the Redskins picked him up.

"The early signs on the offense are certainly not great. The big hope for improvement was Mike Martz, but we’re still waiting for any evidence of magic transformation."

The Lions' (who were apparently unwilling to outbid the Niners for Spikes) experience with Martz was mixed. He was an immediate improvement over the moribund Harrington years, but that may have been mostly because Kitna is a significant upgrade over Harrington.

He got run out of town for differing with Rod Marinelli on how to run the offense, and because his offense couldn't hold leads.

Maybe without Martz, they won't ahve leads, but the whole no-audible thing just doesn't seem workable.

And the JT O'Sullivan thing seemed like evidence of brain disease. O'Sullivan looked significantly worse through the preseason than Dan Orlovsky and won the backup job through some alchemical method known only to the Martz.

O'Sullivan was so bad when Kitna was knocked out, that divine intervention was utilized so the Lord didn't have to see JTO launch another pass over someone's head.

As long as Spikes does not cause problems in the locker room, he should be ok. It does worry me that they are bringing in a career loser on a team with a bunch of young guys on defense.

re: 3

Nolan is a terrible, terrible coach and they’ll be better off without him

What makes you think so? Nolan's teams have always significantly outperformed their Pythagorean projection. That speaks of good coaching to me.

If you think he's a bad coach, you must think he's been ruining fabulous personnel. I don't know anyone who thinks that the 49ers have even mediocre personnel.

If anything, I think Nolan is an unlucky coach in that he's a defensive guy who hasn't been able to get any continuity on the offensive side of the ball, having a different offensive coordinator every year. That particularly stinks because their big #1 overall draft pick, Alex Smith, has one renowned Achilles heel: that he's a fantastically slow learner of new systems, a weakness that Smith's college coach told the 49ers well before they drafted him. In other words, the most important thing to Smith is offensive continuity, everyone has always known that, and it's the one thing they haven't been able to give him.

Imagine how much better of a coach Nolan would be looking if San Diego hadn't made the bone-headed decision to hire our offensive coordinator, Norv Turner, as their head coach. Or if Green Bay hadn't made the mystifying decision to hire our offensive coordinator, Mike McCarthy, as their head coach. How could either of those guys say no? How could Nolan have predicted either move?

Why does the rest of the league like 49ers offensive coordinators so much? It can't be the production on the field.

re: 2

The early signs on the offense are certainly not great. The big hope for improvement was Mike Martz, but we’re still waiting for any evidence of magic transformation.

This is surprising to no one, least of all Martz, who knows he's installing one of the most complicated offensive systems going. He's predicted chaos during the preseason with the offense. Last year, Detroit's offensive was atrocious during preseason before becoming a decent unit during the year. Anyone who's pessimestic at this point about the 49ers offense simply hasn't been paying attention to what happens when a Martz offense gets installed. Of course, if they're still this bad in a month, then you're free to freak out.

10. A lot of people had the 49ers as a sleeper team last year and they didn't live up to their Vegas total.

Nolan wasn't even that good of a coordinator in Washington or NY and now he is annointed a Head Coaching job.

The players can't stand the guy according to former RB Kevin Barlow. He is an ego maniac/control freak and you could probably deduce that from the suits and screaming on the sidelines.

I am curious to see how Martz' scheme works on the grass field in SF. His Rams struggled on grass, and I don't remember the Lions being a good road team either. Grass = a slower game and Martz loves the speed routes without solid cuts. It hasn't worked as well historically on grass.

What makes you think so? Nolan’s teams have always significantly outperformed their Pythagorean projection. That speaks of good coaching to me.

I disagree. Outperforming your Pythagorean projection means that you won more games than one would expect looking solely at points scored and points allowed. In other words, it means that when you win, you barely win and when you lose, you lose big. Not quite sure how this implies that a coach is good. Rather, what it implies to me is that you get creamed by good teams and can maybe hang with bad teams and get lucky occasionally.

I agree that the Niners haven't had great personnell, but how much of this is the coach's fault? I would say a non-negligible portion. The head coach at least has some control over what talent is brought in, and how that talent is developed. You can pin a bad year on personnell the year a coach is brought in, because he hasn't had a chance to build his own people up yet (see Belichick, Patriots, 2000 Season), but after a couple of years, if the coach is good, the personnell should start to look good (barring a situation like Crennell had in Cleveland, where good talent he brought in kept going down with freak season-ending injuries).

I also agree its rough losing one of your coordinators two years running, but a good coach can work around that (again see Belichick, Patriots).

Nolan may not be the best coach in the league but he is a long way from the worst. Every year there are some coaches who just end up getting tuned out by their players as the seasons tanks and the whole organisation just take their pay cheques and mail in the rest of the year. Nolan never loses his teams like that, all it may achieve is a lower draft choice (but since everyone around here insists that low picks are better than high ones, this is one place it should be applauded). Whatever you think of the results, Nolan's teams play hard until the end of the season.

Nolan's biggest error in the bay area was (IMO) deciding that he could let Julian Peterson and Andre Carter go because they didn't fit the system he wanted to play. They were two of the top three defenders on his team, but he decided to let them go anyway. Why not just stay in a 4-3?

#7

What I always find amusing about Rumph and Buchanon was that all the scouts had them as first round picks because they played on those great Miami teams (and lets face it, hammered everyone). Anyway the corners come out of college to great fanfare, and play like crap. However the two safeties for Miami (messrs Reed and Taylor) turn out to both be footballing demi-gods. I guess they were doing a good job making the corners look good.

13. I don't like an ego-maniac coach that insists on running his own scheme. Parcells "likes" to run a 3-4, but he will run a 4-3 if he has the players. He "likes" to have a very strong run game but he will pass over 400 times in a season if that what makes him win. I think a strong HC adapts to what he is given.

Credit Mike Tomlin with keeping the Steelers in the 3-4, when all indications are that he would prefer to run the 4-3.

Mike Rumph just puzzled me. He was a 1st round pick, probably looked pretty good at the combine, an athlete out of the U, yet I had never seen a worse cornerback.

Rolle is another Miami corner that hasn't lived up to his 1st round selection either. Hopefully Kenny Phillips will be the next big play safety out of Miami.

re: 11

A lot of people had the 49ers as a sleeper team last year and they didn’t live up to their Vegas total

Didn't live up to his Vegas total? Yeah, that's a stunning indictment of a head coach.

The players can’t stand the guy according to former RB Kevin Barlow.

Kevin Barlow? Are you kidding me? Why are you taking the word of that canker? The guy was released because he couldn't get along with anybody. He was a running back who constantly fought with his own fullback, if you can believe it.

Look at how hard his teams play. Teams don't do that for a guy they hate.

re: 12

Rather, what it implies to me is that you get creamed by good teams and can maybe hang with bad teams and get lucky occasionally.

When it happens consistently, it's not luck. What it says to me is that his teams play over their heads. What causes a team to play past its talent level? If it isn't coaching, then what?

The head coach at least has some control over what talent is brought in, and how that talent is developed.

I certainly think those two jobs, player selection and coaching, can be evaluated differently. In fact, that's why most teams split those duties to two different people. Nolan can be a bad talent evaluator and a good coach, and that wouldn't make him a particularly unusual good coach, either.

...if the coach is good, the personnell should start to look good

Couldn't disagree more. What coach has had great success with stinky players?

I also agree its rough losing one of your coordinators two years running....

That would be three years running. Martz is our fourth offensive coordinator in four years. Did that happen to the Patriots? Has any team had success under those conditions?

re: 13

Nolan’s biggest error in the bay area was (IMO) deciding that he could let Julian Peterson and Andre Carter go because they didn’t fit the system he wanted to play.

Yeah, he let go some good players. Personally I think his biggest mistake was the way he handled the OC position last year. Nolan does best when he leaves the offensive side of the ball alone, and last year he had a terrible coordinator. When Nolan started sticking his nose in you knew it could only get worse.

If you could fill me in on a better gauge than a Vegas win total fill me in. What other benchmark is there to compare a team against? The Vegas total takes talent and schedule into consideration, and isn't as unfair as simply W's and L's. People thought SF was on the rise and they regressed.

Why believe Barlow? Why believe anyone then? Barlow wasn't just saying that he disliked Nolan, he said everybody disliked Nolan.

If there is an ego maniac HC and he wins, people will usually grin and bear it. When you have an ego maniac coach and you stink every year... you can understand why people wouldn't like the guy in the 3,000 Italian suit on the sidelines. I've also heard people who work with Nolan bad mouthing him as being a real jerk.

As much as you'd like to say that " players play hard for Nolan late in the year when the season is over", these players most likely understood that Nolan wasn't getting fired, and that every NFL game is at worst an audition for other jobs.

What makes you think so? Nolan’s teams have always significantly outperformed their Pythagorean projection. That speaks of good coaching to me.

This assumes a coach has no control over the number of points a team scores or allows.

If you think he’s a bad coach, you must think he’s been ruining fabulous personnel. I don’t know anyone who thinks that the 49ers have even mediocre personnel.

Without commenting one way or the other on Nolan specifically, I think it's posible for a team to have both bad personnel and a bad coach.

What it says to me is that his teams play over their heads. What causes a team to play past its talent level? If it isn’t coaching, then what?

I don't see how exceeding a pythagorean projection indicates that a team is playing over its head or past its talent level. Exceeding your pythagorean projection simply means that you wins tend to be closer games than your losses. It says absolutely nothing about a team's talent level, or if the team is playing "over their heads". In fact, if you couple the knowledge of a team playing above its projection with the fact that, in spite of playing over its projection, it was still playing poorly, the conclusion is that the projection was poor. In other words, the team gave up a lot of points and scored not enough. Which implies that the coach isn't coaching well enough to get his team to score more points or give up fewer.

In other words, Pythagorean projections say nothing about talent level. They just tell you how many wins generally correspond to a points scored-points allowed differential. If a team exceeds this projection, it could mean that either their losses were big losses or that their wins were narrow shaves (if they underperform it, it means their wins were big wins or their losses were near losses).

I understand that you're pushing the notion that overperforming the projection implies that you "got luck", but consistently overperforming your projection implies that there is something creating your luck--you have some magic way of winning when you shouldn't. I'm not sure I buy that--I think it's just that luck hasn't caught up with you yet--but even if I did, that says nothing about coaching talent versus player talent. A team could win games it shouldn't because the coach does something brilliant at the end to make up for poor players, or, conversely, it maybe "shouldn't win" those games because the coach is calling a crappy game, but at the end when they go to a 2-minute drill and start letting the QB call his own plays, the QB can sometimes save the team from the bad coach.

But doesn't the fact that the team is in games it "shouldn't win" imply that the coach isn't doing something right? Of course, Kurt put all of what I said much better and more succinctly, by pointing out that the coach has some control over how many points are scored and allowed.

Couldn’t disagree more. What coach has had great success with stinky players

This question is a little disingenous, because a coach "having success" means winning, and if a team wins, its players will be viewed as good. If they then lose, it won't be because they were bad all along (unless we're talking about McNabb and the Philly media :-), but because they got past their prime or something.

Nolan’s biggest error in the bay area was (IMO) deciding that he could let Julian Peterson and Andre Carter go because they didn’t fit the system he wanted to play. They were two of the top three defenders on his team, but he decided to let them go anyway.

The salary cap had more than a little bit to do with it.

re: 16

If you could fill me in on a better gauge than a Vegas win total fill me in. What other benchmark is there to compare a team against?

Well, to start with, there are any number of advanced statistics available at certain football sites.

Of course, those make the 49ers look awful, too. It's not possible to defend this team as being anything but bad. I'm just getting ornery that everyone is blaming the coaching without much thought.

Why believe Barlow? Why believe anyone then?

I do believe it is possible to distinguish different levels of credibility in different individuals.

As much as you’d like to say that ” players play hard for Nolan late in the year when the season is over”, these players most likely understood that Nolan wasn’t getting fired, and that every NFL game is at worst an audition for other jobs.

If that were true, then no teams would ever give up. I'm betting it's one of the hardest jobs a coach has, to motivate a bad team at the end of a losing season.

re: 17

Without commenting one way or the other on Nolan specifically, I think it’s posible for a team to have both bad personnel and a bad coach.

True enough...I have been getting hyperbolic. Mea culpa.

re: 18

...you have some magic way of winning when you shouldn’t.

I'm not saying it's magic; I'm saying that its repetition makes it appear to be a skill. What that means is open to interpretation...maybe it's just an uncommon run of luck, like you say. Having watched the 49ers, it seems to me that Nolan keeps his guys motivated in close games, no matter how awful the rest of the season is going. I'm giving him credit for that. But this explanation:

...it maybe “shouldn’t win” those games because the coach is calling a crappy game, but at the end when they go to a 2-minute drill and start letting the QB call his own plays, the QB can sometimes save the team from the bad coach.

Believe me, we are not winning close games because of stellar QB play.

This question is a little disingenous, because a coach “having success” means winning, and if a team wins, its players will be viewed as good.

Fair enough, but the opposite is equally disengenuous, that having bad players automatically means the coach is doing a bad job.

re: Nolan being an ego-maniac
for what its worth, I talked to a guy recently with some knowledge of some of the players in the niners organization (currently a college coach), and he described Nolan as "A really nice guy. Just nice enough to get fired, it looks like"

In any case, Barlow is not a good source. He was a terrible cancer, and at the time thought he was getting jobbed over a contract when he in fact just stank.

i just don't understand why they cut brandon moore for takeo spikes...brandon moore was pointed out in espn and SI mags' scouts' takes (in season preview) to be a sleeper, someone to watch for, and the scouts were right. brandon moore adn roderick green provided very good passrushes off the edge on 3rd downs, when the niners actualy used them in that capacity. i do't know what's going on with the niners. seriously, they JSUT figured out that they should use isaac sopoaga at the nose? curtis conway, jonnie morton, darrell jackson, and now isaac bruce? sigh...

I don't like the 49ers, so I think its great that their fans continue to defend the guy. Four years into his tenure, his team does nothing discernably well. I'm pretty sure he decided to get rid of last year's OC, so its not like he's completely blameless in that. Martz, at this point, is a questionable hire and is a terrible fit for their personnel. Nolan's publically feuding with Alex Smith, without much of a fallback plan. Like MJK said, outperforming their pythagorean record can be as much an indictment as an endorsement. Isn't Denny Green #1 in this all time? Many good coaches have come in and developed what looked to be lousy personnel into good players. I just don't see that happening in SF

Nolan never loses his teams like that, all it may achieve is a lower draft choice (but since everyone around here insists that low picks are better than high ones, this is one place it should be applauded).

Speak for yourself, Jimmy. The flaws in the Massey Thaler study (which I presume you are referencing) have been discussed at length in comment threads on this site, both by Pat and me. Higher draft choices are more valuable to NFL teams than lower draft choices. High draft picks get you elite players at important positions, players that you can't get in free agency or through trades, and that more than makes up for the fact that the players you choose are going to be paid more money.

Getting back to Nolan, I don't think any of this means that he should be criticized for helping his team win games at the end of a disappointing season. Playing to win is important, even when you've been eliminated from the playoffs, because if your players aren't playing as well as they can, you can't evaluate them (not to mention that "You play to win the game!"). Not being able to evaluate 53 players for a significant portion of a season is far more damaging to a team than having a less valuable 1st round pick. Tanking the season to get a better draft pick hurts the team because it makes it more difficult to figure out which players should be kept, and which ones should be discarded.

For instance, say a team has a young DE who is just getting the hang of things, and would be dominant toward the end of the season, but the team decides to just tank the season to get a better draft pick. Now, the team won't know that this DE is about to become one of the best in the game, because they haven't had a chance to see him finally start performing up to his potential, because instead of playing to win, they're just going through the motions. The team ends up cutting this DE (because his performance in the start of the season was poor, and they never saw what his performance at the end of the season would've been), and spending their shiny new top 5 overall pick on...a stud DE! Instead of keeping the stud DE they already had, and getting a good QB with a slighly lower first round pick. And it's not just one player they've misevaluated, it's probably more like a handful of useful players that they've let go.

So no, it's not a bad thing for a coach to get his team to play well and win at the end of a bad year. And that doesn't mean high draft picks aren't much more valuable than low draft picks.

20. There aren't any advanced stats that have been able to arbitrage Vegas season win totals. Even a number of people at this site were pretty exicted about the 49ers to win the west last year after Marcus Tubbs got hurt in Seattle.

So Kevin Barlow just lied and made it up that a lot of players can't stand Nolan? You know not everybody always loves their head coach.

21. That is funny because I heard Nolan was a Grade A jerk.

22. Brandon Moore, Smith and Ulbrich could be 3 good, cheap, underrated LBs to pair with Ray Lewis Jr.

"In other words, Pythagorean projections say nothing about talent level. They just tell you how many wins generally correspond to a points scored-points allowed differential."

And they do it imperfectly. I looked at a whole bunch of teams a while ago, and Pythagorean wins were consistently off with certain types of teams. IE, they're systematically wrong. Teams with great defenses underperformed their Pythagorean wins, while teams with great offenses outperformed their Pythagorean numbers. This is just a simple artifact of the way the formula is constructed. Points allowed is a more important factor in the equation, so it tends to overvalue teams that keep that number low (with respect to points scored).

Pythagorean wins are extremely imprecise, so trying to judge that a coach is a great motivator with them is asinine.

I don't know much about Nolan, but one of Jauron's strengths was motivating terrible teams, and I wouldn't call him a good coach.