What Holmgren’s decision could mean for 49ers
By Ira Miller
Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 at 5:49 am in Uncategorized.
Mike Holmgren’s decision to coach the Seattle Seahawks for another year, as a lame duck in the final season of his contract, is curious.
Generally, coaches don’t like being a lame duck. It has to do with players knowing the coach won’t be around much longer and sometimes, that can make it tough to command them.
But Holmgren still has the fire to coach, so he didn’t want to leave, not when he has a team that figures to contend for the Super Bowl in the NFC. At the same time, he’s willing to do it without committing to the future with the Seahawks, and that’s where the 49ers come in.
Or could come in.
A lot of people, me included, believe the 49ers are going to implode next year. Mike Nolan does not seem the type to be second in command to a guy he hired to work for him, not the other way around. And Mike Martz is interested only in generating offensive numbers to try to get another head-coaching gig.
All in all, it’s a recipe for disaster.
And when it falls apart, there are many within the league who believe Denise DeBartolo York will have no choice but to tell her hubby and kid to stay out of the way of the football operation.
The logical move in that case – although logic seems to have little to do with the 49ers – would be to bring in a big cheese to run the franchise, something like Wayne Huizenga did with Bill Parcells in Miami.
Get the picture?
Holmgren wants to run a franchise again as the king of the football operation. He was not exactly a failure when he had all that power with the Seahawks, and, in fact, part of his problem was friction with team president Bob Whitsitt. Holmgren would be immensely popular in San Francisco. And he certainly could help win support for that stadium project we hear so much about.
But Holmgren wouldn’t be interested if John and Jed York were sticking their noses into it.
Barring a surprise decision to extend his contract, Holmgren would be totally free to do whatever he wants after the 2008 season. Barring a surprise turnaround by the 49ers, they’ll still be a mess. General manager Scot McCloughan, who has done a good job (although I still question the choice of Alex Smith in 2005), worked for Holmgren in the past and would have no trouble working for him again.
It all makes for an interesting scenario to keep in mind the next 11 or 12 months.
Of course, it also depends on the Yorks coming to their senses and installing a real front office. That could prove the most difficult hurdle of all.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
January 23rd, 2008 at 6:45 am
Please…do….not…give…me…hope.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:55 am
Two Things Ira:
1 Implosion happens year after next. They have a winning record next year and Mike and Mike get extentions. The following year they implode. My worst NFL nightmare.
2 There is only one thing I would ever complain about Ira, YOU DON’T PIMP YOURSELF!!
Any columns on NFL.com we should know about..or any other place?
January 23rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
An interesting speculation from one who knows the territory. But, I think your last paragraph is most telling. I don’t think they care as long as they are making money, and the NFL has set it up so they make money whether their team wins or loses. The cost of players is fixed and covered by the salary cap. The box office is shared among home and visitor, so even if they do not sell out, they get their share of the better markets. The only thing that pays them more is getting the new stadium so they can sell more luxury suites. So, unless they clearly see that Holmgren will improve their chances of getting a stadium, and sell more luxury suites, they are going to sit back and enjoy the income.
I don’t remember anymore if it was you, but, someone a few years ago, when they purged the team of expensive players under the excuse of correcting the salary cap issue, said they were really just trying to save money to pay Eddie off.
What do you think? And, then, how can we sell the Yorks on the idea that getting Holmgren would improve their bottom line?
Geo
January 24th, 2008 at 5:32 am
I totally agree with the above letter. There is no obvious, positive relationship between winning games and making money. Owners have an incentive to cut costs, get on with their share of the take and the possibility that taxpayers might lay a huge windfall on them in the form of a facility. Lots of pro sports franchises operate that way. Another way to put it: owners and fans have different goals. The former want their team managed so as to maximize performance on the field. The latter see that there might be more profit in putting a team on the field and little more. That describes the present 49er regime.
January 24th, 2008 at 6:19 am
John A:
You can read me at http://www.nfl.com and also once a week at wwwl.aol.com….Thanks for asking…..
George Myers:
I wonder if the Yorks are making as much money as they’d like to, however. They have been spending big bucks to buy up seats to put the home games on television because they can’t sell out legitimately. The real problem is the person with ner name on the building (Denise DeBartolo York) doesn’t care about the 49ers; they are just a toy she lets her husband and kid play with. The comment about Eddie you refer to was not mine; I don’t know who it was. These folks always seem to have an excuse for everything they do, but none of it has worked. The only way I see that would make them sell the team would be if enough people stopped buying tickets so it became impossible to buy up the extras, and they began bleeding real money. Otherwise, they can go on indefinitely, like the Bengals in the ’90s.
January 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am
Ira,
Your last paragraph on the take of George Myers comment is a pretty dark & ominous description of the Yorks. I would be the first person to say the Yorks aren’t football people, that’s been made pretty clear since they took over ownership but surley you can’t be that cynicle towards them can you? After all the Yorks are still business people & the NFL is BIG business. I think they truly know & understand how important it is to put a good product on the field & hopefully in the front office (Holmgren) in order to get this new stadium built.
January 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am
They’re not business people. That’s one of the main problems. She inherited her money and he married into it. Sure, he started a lab that has grown OK. But marrying well is what put him in this position today. He certainly wouldn’t be an NFL owner on the back of a 500-person lab.
If a real business person with a passion for winning (like, oh say, Larry Ellison) were in charge, he wouldn’t thrash around trying to get a decent stadium built. He wouldn’t minimize the front office to the point of basically just leaving the lights on. He wouldn’t put a rookie head-coach in charge of the entire football operation in his very first gig. He would put knowledgable people in position to succeed and give them the resources they need. Then he would demand excellence. He’s actually done better on the resources end, but has failed miserably in the other two.
I agree with everything Ira says, except I hold out no hope that they’ll actually hire a real football man to run the show. York fancies himself as some kind of great organizational leader and really seems to enjoy the attention (not media attention, but the attention an authority figure receives from his subordinates) that being a football owner brings. I just can’t see him truly giving the reigns over to someone like Holmgren, as much as I’d like to see that happen.
January 24th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Ira, thanks for the response. And again, you make some good points. In some ways, I think it supports my theory that they don’t really care as long as they make money, and Jed has something he is interested in. Hopefully, he figures it out and gets some good football people to help him. I bring as exhibit B the Raider who have frequently been blacked out, but, continue on in a similar, if not the same way as the 49ers. I can’t believe Al (I’ll steal you blind) Davis would sit there idly if the team was not making money, blacked out or not. They have a newly renovated stadium, with more luxury boxes to make em money, so they are set, and much like Cincinati, and now Arizona Cardinals. You are right, only if sales are bad and they don’t get their stadium, will they consider changing strategies.
January 25th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Ira, speaking of the bengals, there are those who believe they were the most profitable nfl franchise in the 90’s…excluding gains on the value of the franchise (which is more $ but only matters if you’re selling the team)
that could be the yorks’ business model, since they do not appear to want to sell.
just my guess, but having (at least some) public money on the stadium may have tax implications - increasing operating income.
the focus of the yorks seems to be on managing 49ers’ operating income and not the franchise value.
I would imagine winning is more closely related to gains on franchise value, but i haven’t seen any stats on that.
If I am right about the business model, the yorks will want to make it appear as if they are trying to build a winner, but they will not actually spend the money required. Which is a formula to maximize operating income for a sports francise. cf:SJ Sharks.
January 25th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Good column Ira. It will be interesting to see how long and IF Nolan can exist as a lame duck, he knows his time is time is almost up. Alex Smith’s time is almost up as well, well see if he can make it in martz’s system, I suspect he won’t. It’s too bad the Fan’s are not strong enough to wean themselves off 49er games and just not show up like they once did, the idea of Blackouts on both sides of the bay would almost certainly force the league to get involved in some way or another, right?