Michael Robinson HAS TO GO!

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by strickac:
Robinson is not one of the best ST players in the NFL. That's a BS excuse. Rarely does he ever make a play on ST.

he's like top 5 in ST tackles keep hating

Oh really, care to provide some proof of that? Robinson had 10 tackles this season. That hardly qualifies him as a "ST Ace".

He's a good guy, but he has no value to us. You, like most of the homers, assume he's a stud on special teams because he made the Pro Bowl, which is little more than just a popularity contest anyway.

Actually he had 12 but who's counting ?

Here's an article on Larry Izzo from last year, who is 2nd all time in ST's tackles and one of the greatest ST'ers to ever play the game. Take notice at the bottom that he had 14 total ST's tackles in 2008.

Quote:
Only nine players on the current Patriots roster were with the club for all three Super Bowl championships, and one of them -- linebacker Larry Izzo -- is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on Feb. 27.

The 2009 season would be Izzo's 14th in the NFL, and he said retirement is not on his mind at this time. The 34-year-old Izzo plans to play in '09.

If Izzo and the Patriots can not work out a deal, recent off-field developments -- e.g. Josh McDaniels named head coach in Denver, Scott Pioli named general manager in Kansas City, and Brad Seely named Browns special teams coach -- could open opportunities for him elsewhere.

Izzo, who has missed just one game in his eight-year Patriots tenure, totaled a team-high 14 special teams tackles in the 2008 season.

A look at the team's 2008 leaders in special teams tackles (tackles tabulated by coaches after film review):

# LB Larry Izzo -- 14
# S Matthew Slater -- 13
# S Brandon Meriweather -- 11
# OLB Pierre Woods -- 11 (team-high 9 solo)
# WR Sam Aiken -- 10
# CB Mike Richardson -- 8
# LB Gary Guyton -- 7
# WR Kelley Washington -- 7
# S/WR Ray Ventrone -- 6
# OLB Vince Redd -- 6

3X Pro Bowl (2007 2008 & 2010) ST'er Kassim Osgood's career tackle numbers

Year Team G Comb Total Ast
2009 San Diego Chargers  16 15 13 2
2008 San Diego Chargers  16 17 16 1
2007 San Diego Chargers  16 14 12 2
2006 San Diego Chargers  16 9 7 2
2005 San Diego Chargers  12 18 13 5
2004 San Diego Chargers  16 13 13 0
2003 San Diego Chargers  16 11 10 1

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Larry Izzo never developed into anything more than a ST'er yet the Pats kept him on the roster for YEARS. Same with Steve Tasker and the Bills. Every team needs a ST's ace and for us MRob is that ace.

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Larry Izzo never developed into anything more than a ST'er yet the Pats kept him on the roster for YEARS. Same with Steve Tasker and the Bills. Every team needs a ST's ace and for us MRob is that ace.

Especially since all we're paying him is league minimum.

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by strickac:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by strickac:
Robinson is not one of the best ST players in the NFL. That's a BS excuse. Rarely does he ever make a play on ST.

he's like top 5 in ST tackles keep hating

Oh really, care to provide some proof of that? Robinson had 10 tackles this season. That hardly qualifies him as a "ST Ace".

He's a good guy, but he has no value to us. You, like most of the homers, assume he's a stud on special teams because he made the Pro Bowl, which is little more than just a popularity contest anyway.

Actually he had 12 but who's counting ?

Here's an article on Larry Izzo from last year, who is 2nd all time in ST's tackles and one of the greatest ST'ers to ever play the game. Take notice at the bottom that he had 14 total ST's tackles in 2008.

Quote:
Only nine players on the current Patriots roster were with the club for all three Super Bowl championships, and one of them -- linebacker Larry Izzo -- is scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent on Feb. 27.

The 2009 season would be Izzo's 14th in the NFL, and he said retirement is not on his mind at this time. The 34-year-old Izzo plans to play in '09.

If Izzo and the Patriots can not work out a deal, recent off-field developments -- e.g. Josh McDaniels named head coach in Denver, Scott Pioli named general manager in Kansas City, and Brad Seely named Browns special teams coach -- could open opportunities for him elsewhere.

Izzo, who has missed just one game in his eight-year Patriots tenure, totaled a team-high 14 special teams tackles in the 2008 season.

A look at the team's 2008 leaders in special teams tackles (tackles tabulated by coaches after film review):

# LB Larry Izzo -- 14
# S Matthew Slater -- 13
# S Brandon Meriweather -- 11
# OLB Pierre Woods -- 11 (team-high 9 solo)
# WR Sam Aiken -- 10
# CB Mike Richardson -- 8
# LB Gary Guyton -- 7
# WR Kelley Washington -- 7
# S/WR Ray Ventrone -- 6
# OLB Vince Redd -- 6

I kind of see what you're getting at, but you're comparing Robinson's tackles to Izzo's, who's at the end of his career and is no longer one of the top ST players in the NFL.

John Wendling had around 25 tackles on ST, should we just throw him in the HOF? Honestly, when is the last time you remember seeing Robinson make a play? I'm not talking numbers. I'm just talking about what we see on Sundays. He's not that valuable to us.

We are trying to become a rushing team. IMO, we can't afford to keep Robinson around for ST because we get nothing in return on offense. His roster spot should be for a player that can make an impact as a runner. There's no reason we can't replace Robinson on STs with a LB/S (McKillop, Wilhelm, R. Smith, etc), especially as 3-4 team.

Gore, Coffee and Robinson is unacceptable if we're trying to be a dominant rushing team, IMO. We need a change of pace RB to compliment Gore and Coffee, ideally, a guy with return skills as well.

Lets look at what M-Rob has done in 09 comparison to, say, Arnaz Battle.

Most on here want Battle off the team because he's like the # 4 or 5 receiver and not all that great on ST, right?

AB:
Kick return average = 22.7
Punt return average = 2.9
Receptions = 5 for 40 yards (Avg 8 yards), 3 1st downs, and 0 TDs.
Rushing = None.
D & ST = 9 Tackles

M-Rob:
Kick return average = 23
Punt return average = None
Receptions = 6 for 24 yards (Avg 4 yards), 1 1st downs, and 0 TDs.
Rushing = 3 attempts for 0.7 YPC average.
(Total O contribution 26 yards on 9 plays or 3 yard Average)
D & ST = 10 Tackles

So, where's the huge drop-off? .3 yards (roughly 1 foot) average on returns and 1 tackle? Does this justify a difference of 5 yards per O play?

When Mike Singletary names you a team captain what does that tell you about the value he believes the player brings to the team ? What does it say when a players teammates vote you as a team captain ? What does it say when you are not producing or being used offensively yet your team signs you to an extension ?

It says Michael Robinson is a very respected member of this football team by his coaches and teammates and his special teams value is recognized by this organization. He tackles, he blocks and he has been used in the return game when needed and is also very versatile on offense and can fill in when needed at RB, FB and even QB (he's been the #3 emergency QB before).

You can knock him all you want but his teammates and coaches disagree with you.

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Larry Izzo never developed into anything more than a ST'er yet the Pats kept him on the roster for YEARS. Same with Steve Tasker and the Bills. Every team needs a ST's ace and for us MRob is that ace.

Just because some other team does it means we should?

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Larry Izzo never developed into anything more than a ST'er yet the Pats kept him on the roster for YEARS. Same with Steve Tasker and the Bills. Every team needs a ST's ace and for us MRob is that ace.

Just because some other team does it means we should?

Most teams if not all have an ace. San Diego has Osgood, Baltimore has Ayanbadejo, Minnesota has Farwell etc.

Maybe you shouldn't take bathroom breaks when the punt and kick teams take the field.

Originally posted by KknighthawkK_9er:

Originally posted by 9erfan4life:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Originally posted by TJA85:
Our FO got rid of Rossum and Everest, now you want us to get rid of our best STer? Hell no.

technically our best ST players this year were Delanie Walker and Marcus Hudson. Robinson didnt have a particularly good year on ST in 2009. but hes still very good at it.

lol i just looked up the stats, and Michael Robinson was rated a the 2nd best overall ST player in the NFL in 2007, but since has been nowhere to be found in 08 and 09. his ST performance has really dropped off the last couple years.

right now Delanie and Hudson are making the plays. Robinson actually had a poor statistical season on ST in 2008, and only played ST in 3 games last season...

maybe Robinson isnt quite the special teamer he used to be...

well now i feel a bit embarrassed to have defended him so much...

LOL where did you find ST Player rankings?

MRob had 12 tackles in 07 and 12 tackles this year
He had 2 KR for 51 yards in 07 and 18 for 414 yards this year
?

Rankings? Statistics for special teams? Oh boy, this is getting bad...

http://www.profootballfocus.com/by_position.php?tab=by_position&season=2009&pos=ST&stype=r&runpass=&teamid=-1&numsnaps=25&numgames=1

owned. shut your mouth.

Wow can't believe this is still going on...


... well yeah okay I CAN believe it's still going.

Look this is REALLY simple folks.

You can pull out all the stats etc to support either side of this debate.

But I'm just going to set this match with this little fact.

Before this season Vernon Davis wasn't above or below average.

His numbers were rather MEH pedestrian to say the least. Alot of that had to do with him being held back to block more than it did his "lack of talent" as alot of people were suggesting.

Well to me this furor over MRob is pointless.

Because MRob is this year's Davis. He's good at something and the team took advantage of it. Doesn't mean there is no other part to his game. Just means that the team needed him to do his part because our PR game was crap.

He doesn't HAVE the Offensive stats cause they wanted Coffee to get the ball.

Also he was used as the backup FB to Norris. Hmmmm maybe I have an idea what I'm talkin about? Gee wonder who else was used as a FB for the 9ers... oh that's right Roger Craig.

Not saying that MRob will ever amount to what Craig did. Just saying that it's funny how many people think that Size is everything. If it was then we'd have a league full of Fridge Perry types totin the Rock and Opening Running lanes for the guy behind him.

But, how can you do ANYTHING if you aren't either given the ball or on the field?

You guys that want to move on from MRob crack me up. You're talkin out your backsides and the funny thing is you actually believe the garbage you're spewing about the man.

HE IS IN THE PRO BOWL FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD.

Too funny.

~Ceadder

Originally posted by KRS-1:

Originally posted by WINiner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:

Originally posted by D_Niner:

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
The only reason why this thread exists is because people expect the 3rd string RB to go on the field and score TDs. Anything less, is unwarranted a roster spot regardless of whether they make any impact in any other facet of the game.

-9fA

This is one of the dumbest things I've read on here...

People expect the #3 back to be a developmental position instead of a placeholder for a ST guy... So tell me, how much has M-Rob developed as a RB and would we be a better team if we were developing RBs?

How many 3rd stringers go on to become solid starters? The only true position that where a player is groomed if he's at 3rd string is usually QB - such as our case with Nate Davis. It doesn't happen often, usually 1st rounders are brought in over the 3rd stringers who are in most cases, late round picks.

Yes, Robinson probably will never develop into anything other than a mediocre RB, but if he's a good STeamer, why the hell shouldn't we keep him, especially when we're already developing another RB in Coffee?

-9fA

As you said MRob will probably never be anything more then a good ST player, so wouldn't you rather have a guy who is not only a good ST'r, but also has some developing to do and who could possibly contribute more then just ST's down the road?

Larry Izzo never developed into anything more than a ST'er yet the Pats kept him on the roster for YEARS. Same with Steve Tasker and the Bills. Every team needs a ST's ace and for us MRob is that ace.

The pats and the bills back then, had enough talent that one players spot would not make or break their success.

Mrob's spot could have kept sheets, it could keep nate davis this year, or someone else who could be a hidden gem.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
Wow can't believe this is still going on...


... well yeah okay I CAN believe it's still going.

Look this is REALLY simple folks.

You can pull out all the stats etc to support either side of this debate.

But I'm just going to set this match with this little fact.

Before this season Vernon Davis wasn't above or below average.

His numbers were rather MEH pedestrian to say the least. Alot of that had to do with him being held back to block more than it did his "lack of talent" as alot of people were suggesting.

Well to me this furor over MRob is pointless.

Because MRob is this year's Davis. He's good at something and the team took advantage of it. Doesn't mean there is no other part to his game. Just means that the team needed him to do his part because our PR game was crap.

He doesn't HAVE the Offensive stats cause they wanted Coffee to get the ball.

Also he was used as the backup FB to Norris. Hmmmm maybe I have an idea what I'm talkin about? Gee wonder who else was used as a FB for the 9ers... oh that's right Roger Craig.

Not saying that MRob will ever amount to what Craig did. Just saying that it's funny how many people think that Size is everything. If it was then we'd have a league full of Fridge Perry types totin the Rock and Opening Running lanes for the guy behind him.

But, how can you do ANYTHING if you aren't either given the ball or on the field?

You guys that want to move on from MRob crack me up. You're talkin out your backsides and the funny thing is you actually believe the garbage you're spewing about the man.

HE IS IN THE PRO BOWL FOR CRYIN OUT LOUD.

Too funny.

~Ceadder

Get dramatic as you like, but MRob does not look good in the opportunities he gets and THATS why I think he doesn't get more. Vernon Davis showed flashes, Mrob doesn't. He's respected for his toughness, but posses little play making ability.

I respect MRob and do see the value his play on ST's brings, I would just rather have someone who has future starter potential being groomed and manning his roster spot, specializing in ST's for now, over MRob who's got nothing more then his ST's to offer imo.

I would love for him to prove me wrong, but he won't and this exact same discussion will be ongoing this next next year, as it was this same time last year, and every year MRob remains a Niner.

It comes down to philosophy. Some look at ST'ers historically and are ok with keeping a guy like Mrob on the team strictly for that reason. Some prefer those playing ST's to have at least potential at some other position they can be groomed for. McKillop for example played very well on ST's this last season and has a seemingly bright future at LB if he continues to develop.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
But I'm just going to set this match with this little fact.

Before this season Vernon Davis wasn't above or below average.

His numbers were rather MEH pedestrian to say the least. Alot of that had to do with him being held back to block more than it did his "lack of talent" as alot of people were suggesting.

Well to me this furor over MRob is pointless.

Because MRob is this year's Davis.

I know you thought this was a good argument, but sorry, it's not.

Vernon Davis was always full of potential and the only talent that was in question was his ability to catch. That attribute is still in question, but he is finally contributing the way he was expected to.

Robinson on the other hand lacks vision, explosiveness, speed, agility and the patience to set up blocks for a successful run. He's supposed to be a powerful runner, but rarely runs through a tackle. Those are all attributes that help make a good or even just decent RB, which is the position Robinson was given whether it suits him or not. Vernon did not lack a bunch of attributes necessary at his position like Robinson does. VD was obviously misused, but still made plays when they decided to use him. Robinson has done very little when they've decided to use him. The two are not comparable.

It's a nice little argument as long as nobody really thinks it through, though, so good job on that.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
He's good at something and the team took advantage of it. Doesn't mean there is no other part to his game. Just means that the team needed him to do his part because our PR game was crap.

Nice try, but doing his part on special teams wouldn't prevent him from doing his part on offense if the coaching staff thought he could contribute more than another player like Glen Coffee, which they obviously didn't. You act like his lack of production on offense is due to him playing on special teams. In case you forgot, offense and special teams are not on the field simultaneously and there are a total of about 10-15 ST plays (I'm only talking KR and PR, not FG or PAT) in an entire game so it's not like he would be gassed from ST and not be able to play offense. There's a REASON he is last on the depth chart and it's not because he plays special teams, it's because he holds very little value at his given position of RB.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
He doesn't HAVE the Offensive stats cause they wanted Coffee to get the ball.

His stats don't even really matter because he is a 3rd string player. I'm not going to take that route to support my argument. All you have to do is watch the guy run the football to know he is not good at it.

And why do you think Glen Coffee was drafted in the first place? It's funny you should bring up the fact that they wanted to let Coffee get the ball because the whole reason Coffee was drafted was because Robinson wasn't good enough to fill that role.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
Also he was used as the backup FB to Norris. Hmmmm maybe I have an idea what I'm talkin about? Gee wonder who else was used as a FB for the 9ers... oh that's right Roger Craig.

Who else would they use? He's useless as a RB, so who do you think they were gonna use as a backup to Norris? You gotta be kidding me. Were you expecting them to use Gore at FB if Norris went down? Why would they use their 1st or 2nd string RB when they have a 3rd stringer that they don't use due to his obvious inability to make plays? Common sense explains why Robinson was the backup FB to Norris and it's not because he's good at it. He was placed there by default. That's like winning first place in a competition with only one participant.

Originally posted by Ceadderman:
You guys that want to move on from MRob crack me up. You're talkin out your backsides and the funny thing is you actually believe the garbage you're spewing about the man.

And you guys that overrate "MRob" crack me up.

Oh, and the second part of this quote is a real gem. I can easily turn it around and point it to you, as I believe you're talking out of your backside and you actually believe the garbage you're spewing about the man.

[ Edited by 49erRider on Jan 23, 2010 at 19:45:08 ]