New coach, new era? Q&A about the hiring of Dennis Erickson

February 17, 2003 (NHS) -- The 49ers front office -- owner John York, GM Terry Donahue, and Bill Walsh (you fill in the title for whatever he does with the 49ers) -- chose Oregon State and ex-Seattle Seahawks coach Dennis Erickson as the new head coach of the 49ers. It was a last hurrah of laughs and media outrage to cap off the embarrassing saga of the firing, search, and ultimate selection of a coach. So here are some takes in Q&A form about the affair:

Q: What's the NHS take on the hiring of Erickson?

A: The initial reaction is obviously that the 49ers blew it. They bungled the hiring process itself and ended up with a strange choice, a retread who wasn't very successful in his first stint in the NFL. The whole firing and search reeked of a lack of direction, especially at the end when they appeared to be headed one way and then went with Erickson, blowing their chance at salvaging some respectability by hiring an exciting, progressive pick among qualified black NFL coaches. Moreover, Erickson is an outsider and not a good fit into the 49er organization, which could hurt the team in the short run.

On a deeper level, most Niner-haters are excited about this hiring because of what it could mean to the 49er Problem. Erickson is not a member of the hated and ignorantly overrated "Walsh Family" of coaches. Up until now he has run a real offense, so his influence could greatly curtail the cheesy 2-yard dink nature of the 49ers system. The choice also seems to signal that the days of Walsh -- the last link to the infamously overrated Eddie DeBartolo era -- are finally gone. Dr. York seems intent on creating a new brand of 49ers, and if Erickson carries this banner onto the field, it could mean an eventual end to the 49er Problem -- a light at the end of the tunnel that seemed inconceivable just weeks ago.

Q: How did the 49ers blow the hiring process?

A: To begin with, the 49ers -- Walsh, Donahue and York -- weren't upfront about why they fired Mariucci. Forgetting about all the idiotic Mooch-lovers out there, the firing even rubbed a lot of intelligent people the wrong way -- not because the 49ers fired Mariucci, but in the way they went about doing it. They gave some cock-n-bull story about Mooch wanting more power and not fitting in instead of simply telling their fans the truth. If York just didn't like the guy, say it. If Donahue didn't like the guy, say it. If they thought Mariucci was gutless, as shown in his pre-halftime surrender against Tampa, and had gone as far as he was going to go with the 49ers, just say it.

To add the insult to this injury, York fired Mariucci before Donahue had an adequate plan in place to replace him. The 49ers had no idea of how to get worthy candidates lined up and were victims of their own conceit in believing that high-profile coaches would flock to apply for the Holy Grail of jobs, being the leader of the Great 49ers. Consequently, criticism stacked up against them as observers started repeating the adage that if you're going to fire a guy, make sure you have someone as good or better waiting. The 49ers obviously did not, and it was painful to watch.

The only initially impressive possibilities were Mike Holmgren and Dennis Green. Holmgren was a pipe dream. The only reason Walsh and the 49ers thought they could get him was arrogance in believing that Holmgren would simply drop everything and run for the job because, after all, it's the Niners! Uh-uh, not even close.

For some reason, Dennis Green never was in the running, presumably because he wanted too much money and power. But given Green's perfect fit and "49er Family" ties, his lack of consideration never did receive an adequate explanation.

From there, the search turned to top the NFL coordinators around the league. After the 49ers killed time for a few days waiting for the Super Bowl to end, Tampa's Monte Kiffin turned them down flat. Other coordinators quickly mentioned they were not interested, lending an even bigger air to the situation that things in Ninerland were messed up and quality coaches saw the warning signs to keep away.

Weeks started going by and the 49ers tried to claim the obvious lack of direction and exciting candidates was instead a meticulous, thorough search for the perfect guy. Nobody bought it. Even Jeff Garcia called the search "embarrassing" in its appearance of a complete lack of a coherent plan and said "I don't even know who he is" when asked to comment on Greg Blache's interview. Reports circulated that the 49ers were waiting for the college recruitment period to end so they could interview candidates from the collegiate ranks.

Apparently just to appease the growing avalanche of the outraged Bandwagon, the 49ers sponsored a bizarre dog-and-pony show of their "three finalists": current defensive coordinator Jim Mora, Jr., and minority NFL coaches Ted Cottrell and Blache. These men had very public interviews upstairs in the 49ers offices, then were marched down the stairs and paraded in front of the media.

In the case of Cotrell and Blache, it worked. While the Lions were being criticized for their lack of attention to diverse candidates, the 49ers finally got their first good ink in this whole circus, as pundits and the candidates themselves praised the 49ers' interview process as opening the door to a possible black head coach. All signs pointed to Cotrell getting the job.

Then the "surprise" choice of Erickson dropped like a ton of bricks that has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Even the media publicly started asking if the minority candidates were just a pretense. Then Rick Neuheisel admitted the 49ers asked him to lie about being interviewed. So here we are today.

Q: How shocked were 49er-haters by Neuheisel's admission that he lied for the 49ers?

A: The only shocking thing about his revelation is that people still don't get it. Niner-haters have understood for 20+ years that everything the 49ers do in the public spotlight is lies and spin, so it's a yawner that they had Neuheisel lie as well. Lying is the 49er Way. The only shocker is that in the good ol' days the media was happy to push the lies and propaganda of the 49er company line because of the drinks and lavish spread Eddie D. would provide. Now, it looks like the media hates "cheapskate" York and is happy to report on items making him look bad. It's a nice change to see from the media, but 20 years late. The real test will be if this newfound journalistic integrity lasts. After all, the media bemoaned the lies involved when George Seifert was fired, too, but they quickly forgot the truth again.

Q: Why did the 49ers end up with Erickson?

A: According to reports, Erickson was chosen by Donahue because Donahue believes the 49ers are a team on the verge of being a Super Bowl contender and Erickson is the right coach to get them over the hump. But you have to wonder about the real motivation, given the screwy process and all that occurred, which is exactly why the 49ers have been damaged so much by this whole affair.

Q: Wasn't Erickson just a blown call away from being a success with the Seahawks?

A: By now you've heard the 49ers and the media bring up the point that if not for Seattle being victimized by the terrible call awarding Vinny Testaverde a touchdown, Erickson would have finished 9-7 in his last year and made the playoffs. Erickson himself in an interview on KNBR following his press conference termed the call as responsible for bringing back instant replay and costing him his job with the Seahawks (as opposed to those 32 other losses in four years).

The hypocrisy involved in the Bandwagon attempting to rationalize Erickson's career based on calls by the referees is amazing. After all, these are the same people that assert the 49ers and Mariucci are winners despite the fact that almost all of the 49ers' recent success in any meaningful game has been due to referee ineptitude. The 49ers' only two playoff wins in the last half a decade have been due to referee noncalls in the 49ers' favor: a noncalled Jerry Rice fumble in the waning moments of the game against Green Bay, and the noncalled pass interference on the last play against the Giants this season.

Just as these games were credited to Mariucci as wins, fact is the Testaverde game was a loss for Erickson, and for the 49er Bandwagon of all people to bring it up in defense of Erickson is pathetic.

Q: Is Erickson a better coach than Mariucci?

A: Despite his apparent lack of credible success in Seattle, Erickson is still a better coach than the overrated Mariucci. Mariucci's only "skill" (more accurately obsession) is having people (the media) and his players like him. Sure, there is a place in today's NFL to be an emotional "players' coach", but Erickson also has the ability to relate to his players and get them to play hard for him, so the 49ers aren't losing much in that department.

The knock on Erickson is that he fails to enforce discipline and that his players went wild off the field. The same could be said about Mariucci. Mike Rumph stood trial for his driving under the influence charge. Vinny Sutherland wrecked his car while drunk and two other Niners were with him. And need we even mention the out-of-control antics of Terrell Owens during Mariucci's rule?

Maybe Erickson is no improvement in the discipline department, but at least he is a better coach. Mariucci was a joke of a coach, while Erickson has proved his knowledge of Xs and Os. Erickson is a proven winner at the collegiate level. He won two national championships with Miami and led the Beavers in a rout over "the 49ers of the NCAA" (Notre Dame) in his last Bowl game. Mariucci couldn't even beat Navy in the Aloha Bowl.

On the pro level, Erickson had to compete in the AFC West, where 8-8 is respectable. Mooch had the luxury of the NFC Worst and playing 11 losing teams in a row in his inaugural season. Erickson had to compete with the Super Bowl champion Broncos for two of his four years. In his four years, Erickson was battered by an average of 9.25 games against teams .500 or better compared to Mariucci's average of 7. Erickson's record against teams .500 or better was 13-24, while Mariucci's was 12-30.

Q: So are you therefore saying the 49ers made a good choice in Erickson?

A: No. The 49ers bypassed many qualified candidates, including black men long shut out from the process, that would have made more exciting, energizing choices, and Erickson is not a member of the "Walsh Family" of coaches, so not a good fit.

Q: Was the consideration of two minority candidates serious or just a P.R. show?

A: Cottrell's agent believes it was more show than substance. "Was it a dog-and-pony show? Yes ... If they're parading these guys out there just to give them exposure where they wouldn't have had it before, then why not just say that?" said Joe Linta, "Why lie about Erickson? Why lie about Neuheisel? Why have Neuheisel lie? Why pile lie on top of lie and misstatement on top of misstatement?"

The way that Cottrell and Blache were paraded around in front of the media and touted as the "finalists", before the 49ers went with a guy who didn't have to undergo the same treatment smells rotten. The media is actually doing a good job at addressing this question, and since we will never know the real truth, we leave it to you.

The practical effect, however, was that the 49ers missed a real opportunity. As Walsh had alluded, a minority candidate with charisma, like Cottrell, would have set the 49ers up with a "Dusty Baker" type coach the Bay Area community would have rallied around. Why they eschewed the opportunity of hiring a qualified black candidate in favor of hiring a white retread is a mystery.

Regardless of your personal opinion, the people that have a professional duty, the media, will hopefully now refrain from the idiotic hyperbole of the Niners being a more progressive franchise than any other in the NFL. No matter how much ESPN and others want to believe otherwise, fact is the Niners have never had a black head coach in their 54 years. In fact, we can't even remember a black quarterback that has been brought in to run the "enlightened" 49ers system.

Q: Do you think Erickson will lead the 49ers to the Super Bowl?

A: As usual, whether or not the 49ers win is not the issue for the NHS. The issue is the effects of the winning, or what we call the 49er Problem: the arrogance, ignorance, hypocrisy and double-standards unique to the 49ers. Part of this Problem includes the current view of the 49ers. The 49ers are overrated. Once again, they cheesed their way to the playoffs and ten wins thanks to an easy schedule, an undue share of generous calls and luck going their way, and having no quality competition within their division. Their true talent is around the 5 to 7 win range. So it is somewhat ridiculous for people to be seriously asking if the 49ers can win the Super Bowl now that they have a new coach, since the more important issue is, as always, will the cheese factor continue for the 49ers?

Well, despite the 49ers "best ever" first place finish in the NFC Worst, Erickson has the benefit of statistically the third-easiest schedule in football next year. In reality, it may be the easiest: the 49ers play just five games against teams that finished better than .500, three of these games at home. Unless the Rams get it together, the 49ers have a free pass to the playoffs again.

Will Erickson screw up the NFL's patented 49er Freebie? Perhaps. See, Mariucci was a dolt, so he didn't get in the way of letting the cheese flow. He stood by as the easy teams rolled over, he stood by while getting embarrassed by the good teams. He was like a stump of wood; a non-factor in influencing the 49ers' destiny. By contrast, Erickson is a strong-willed, aggressive coach who will want to change some things. Odds are that any changes will do nothing but disrupt the 49ers' cozy niche. If they venture outside their realm of beating fluff and concentrate on trying to be legit, they will find out their talent won't stand up when tested, and their wins will drop.

Q: How will Erickson affect the 49er Problem?

A: Erickson is an outsider to the "49er Family", so right away he doesn't have a lot of the bad qualities you find in the people within the most reprehensible organization in sports. It will be interesting to see how much latitude Erickson gets to put together his program. If he starts doing some things "his way" instead of the "49er way", the 49er Problem could be lessened. For example, will Erickson let the antics of Terrell Owens continue? Owens' contract expires in a year. Maybe Erickson will get rid of Owens in favor of a receiver that has as much talent on the field as he does with P.R. stunts. Will Erickson continue the cheesy 49ers offense that leads to so many players being overrated? Will Erickson concentrate on the media to the extent of Walsh and the past 49ers regime, buying off any hope of journalistic integrity? We don't know. These are the important questions that determine whether we hate the 49ers and need time to be answered. With Mariucci, we knew the Problem would be the same. Erickson brings some unknown, which is of course good.

Q: Are you suggesting the era of cheesy offense could be over in S.F.?

A: No. Erickson unfortunately has said the offense will remain the same and Greg Knapp, a disciple of the disgusting dink-ball offense, will remain as offensive coordinator. However, Erickson also stressed that he likes to go downfield, and that he will be sitting down with Knapp and others to decide more on the direction of the offense. In all likelihood, nothing will really change in the short run. Even if Erickson does like to "go deep", fact is he's saddled with weenie-armed Garcia at quarterback, a guy who was 2-16 with 0 TDs and 5 INTs in attempts over 30 yards deep last season, so there's not much to work with. But at least after 20+ years there's actually a glimmer of a new philosophy, and that maybe the days of cheese and overrated mediocre players (like Garcia) are over.

Q: What does this say about Walsh's future with the 49ers?

A: The Seattle Times summed up Walsh's role with the 49ers perfectly: "Walsh hovers over the team from his own Olympus, taking credit for all that's good and disappearing as things go bad."

Walsh's contract expires in one year, but he has already moved his stuff out of the 49ers' Santa Clara offices, which is as real of a significance as it is symbolic. Things appear to be going bad, so it looks like Walsh is slithering away from the blame, as usual. York was the one who decided to fire Mariucci and Donahue was the one who chose Erickson, who has no ties to the vaunted "Walsh tree" of coaches and disciples of the so-called "West Coast Offense". Donahue is clearly now the man in charge of the operations of the 49ers, with York having the final say and control of finances. Where that leaves Walsh is hopefully the nursing home.

Q: Can Erickson restore class to the 49ers?

A: This question has pondered in the media which is sad, because it makes the assumption that the 49ers once possessed some lofty level of "class" in their past. As we know, when you separate the hype from the truth, the 49ers never had the story-tale "class" the media likes to pretend. Their "class" only reached as far as DeBartolo's inherited fortune could buy the media and the strength of the deodorant of their winning.

Q: Are the 49ers being run into the ground by York and Donahue?

A: There is a perception in the Bandwagon that "York is no DeBartolo", and "Donahue is no Carmen Policy", so the 49ers are heading for bad times. That of course depends on your definition of bad. We never agreed with the contention that winning with sleaze amounted to "good". It seems to us idiotic for SI's Michael Silver and other Niner fans to moan about "bringing back good owners like Eddie DeBartolo" instead of York. You would think that journalists and real fans would be anxious to see if their team can win without an owner tied to bribery allegations and a front office that hasn't committed salary cap fraud, since that would be meaningful winning for a change.

Q: Do you think the usually pro-49er media has done a good job in covering this circus?

A: Mostly yes. However, where the media has utterly failed is connecting current criticisms to Mariucci and the past 49ers' regime under Eddie D. and Carmen. Take Skip Bayless' article in the SJ Merc on Friday. He writes that Erickson sold out his Oregon State recruits by lying to them, telling them he would stay with the school until he retired, and so on. But Bayless makes no connection that Mariucci pulled the exact same stunt with his clueless recruits at Cal.

Bayless's whining is entitled, "Wouldn't 49ers have benefited from simply being honest?" Duh. But there is no connection to the fact the 49ers always lie. In fact, there is a glaring precedent that is directly on point, the 49ers' firing of George Seifert. The Mercury ran the exact same headlines back then, yet that lying was completely forgotten once Mariucci started winning (i.e., when the 49ers played 11 sub-.500 teams in a row).

So grading the media's job is like grading an NFL draft; we won't know the real deal until a long time down the road. But the incident has made clear that the media is not "pro-49er" per se, but more pro-individual 49ers. It seems the media is not interested in truth or character to determine who they will protect, but how much effort these players are willing to make to play the media spin game. Walsh and Policy, of course, will be forever untouchable in the press -- despite their abhorrent character worth, they play the game. Eddie D. was a boorish clown, but he provided lots of free booze and food, so the media won't question him. And riding above all else there is the deodorant of winning. Every journalist in the Bay Area for the past 20 years has tried to hitch their lips on the 49ers' caboose in the hopes the Bandwagon train brings them higher in their profession. It is these factors, not truth or reality, that will always determine whether the media's newfound backbone will continue.

Q: Who stands to lose the most with Erickson?

A: Jeff Garcia, Terrell Owens, Fred Beasely, and other overrated 49ers offensive players. If Erickson strays too much from the 49er cheesy offense, these players will be asked to succeed more on talent, and their system-inflated numbers could take a huge hit. Also, Mora's stock has taken a big hit after the embarrassing way he was bypassed, and despite the lip service, everyone knows he's a buffoon when it comes to putting together a defensive game plan. Finally, standing to lose big is the Bandwagon. If the 49ers actually manage to screw up their amazingly easy schedule, the press is salivating to dump all over the "new Niners", and the image of it being cool to root for the Niners will vanish. Even more changes could be on the way, which means that the only people standing to really gain are the Niner-haters.

Return home.

We welcome comments.

http://www.49erhaters.com/erickson.html
created: February 17, 2003
copyright© 1996-2003 49er-Haters Society (NHS)