With respect to getting an initial faculty position, I'm not sure that there really is a penalty associated with having "no papers" in a given year, especially with the vagaries of the publishing system. Is a person with one paper in two successive years a stronger candidate than a person with no papers one year, and then three or four the next? Or was it just that one paper took too long in review for one candidate but not the other?
I think one has to look at the overall record to make a fair determination. Besides, the relative significance of the articles will also play a role. One paper in a top journal in your field is probably worth more than two papers in a random low-impact journal.
Spend less time worrying about things that aren't in your control, and focus on what is: doing solid, publishable research and writing a strong application.