Michael Robinson HAS TO GO!

The fact MRob has been all but non-existent in the mainstream of the offense tells me the coaches don't have faith in him. If that's true, then that does support that he's not pulling his weight as a RB. I like the guy...but, when you look at all the playoff teams, they're a minimum of 4 deep in quality RB's. We're not, and MRob is one reason why. He shouldn't even be a RB...that's not his thing. The point is, we lack quality depth at the position...and he's part of the reason why.

Originally posted by doc_brown_:
The guy takes up a roster spot as our 3rd RB, yet he's virtually useless as a RB. Ok, I take that back. HE IS USELESS AS A RB!

We are all aware of Robinson being a great leader, but teams only carry three RB's during the season. With Robinson taking up a roster spot as a RB, we are forced to cut or demote younger players (Kory Sheets, Thomas Clayton) who may have developed into solid contributors.

Another example of Robinson being a hinderance can be explained with the help of what transpired today in my little town of Vancouver, BC. The reigning CFL rookie of the year is a RB named Martell Mallet (23yo, 6'0", 195lbs), who is also a good kick returner. He was signed today by the Eagles. We need a solid kick returner, but guys like Mallet will stay off of our radar as long as Robinson continues to become a mainstay for the 49ers.

I enjoy the Robinson Report, but other than that, I see no point in the 49ers carrying a RB who isn't a good runner.

I second this notion. This is a no-brainer

Originally posted by CorvaNinerFan:
The fact MRob has been all but non-existent in the mainstream of the offense tells me the coaches don't have faith in him. If that's true, then that does support that he's not pulling his weight as a RB. I like the guy...but, when you look at all the playoff teams, they're a minimum of 4 deep in quality RB's. We're not, and MRob is one reason why. He shouldn't even be a RB...that's not his thing. The point is, we lack quality depth at the position...and he's part of the reason why.

Indy :

Addai
Brown
Hart
Simpson

Last I checked Simpson and Hart were not exactly "quality" running backs.

NY Jets :

Jones
Greene
L.Washington (IR)
C.Washington

Last I checked Chauncey Washington is not "quality".

New Orleans :

Bush
Bell
Thomas
Hamilton

Last I checked Hamilton was not "quality"

Minnesota :

All Day
Taylor
A.Young

Last I checked Albert Young was not "quality".


Honestly have Simpson, Hart, C.Washington, Hamilton or Young proven to truly be any better than MRob ?

M. Rob is the only guaranteed RB on the roster aside from Gore. I am beginning to think more and more that reading this stuff is a complete waste of time.

Yet, I do it. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

I disagree.

Your 3rd string RB better be a good special teamer because that's the only field that he should ever see.

In case you haven't noticed, most of the 3rd string players are primarily special teamers, so no, there is no reason that "Michael Robinson HAS TO GO!"

-9fA

Originally posted by 9erfanAUS:
I disagree.

Your 3rd string RB better be a good special teamer because that's the only field that he should ever see.

In case you haven't noticed, most of the 3rd string players are primarily special teamers, so no, there is no reason that "Michael Robinson HAS TO GO!"

-9fA

LIES LIES LIES. They do see the field as a RB........in garbage time

In all seriousness, there are some teams who split carries between 3 backs but there are also quite a few who split the reps between but 2.

Mike Hart vs. Michael Robinson


I had never looked at Robinson's stats before

He's just a guy. When the contract is up, he will be gone. Doesn't offer enough to spend money on a new contract.

Originally posted by doc_brown_:
The guy takes up a roster spot as our 3rd RB, yet he's virtually useless as a RB. Ok, I take that back. HE IS USELESS AS A RB!

We are all aware of Robinson being a great leader, but teams only carry three RB's during the season. With Robinson taking up a roster spot as a RB, we are forced to cut or demote younger players (Kory Sheets, Thomas Clayton) who may have developed into solid contributors.

Another example of Robinson being a hinderance can be explained with the help of what transpired today in my little town of Vancouver, BC. The reigning CFL rookie of the year is a RB named Martell Mallet (23yo, 6'0", 195lbs), who is also a good kick returner. He was signed today by the Eagles. We need a solid kick returner, but guys like Mallet will stay off of our radar as long as Robinson continues to become a mainstay for the 49ers.

I enjoy the Robinson Report, but other than that, I see no point in the 49ers carrying a RB who isn't a good runner.

Your example is terrible. The fact that MRob is on the roster has nothing to do with the fact that we didn't sign Mallet in the offseason. You can sign as many guys as you basically want in the offseason. Then come season time you need to be down to 53. So there was nothing stopping the 49ers from picking him up and giving him a look. They decided not to.

Originally posted by doc_brown_:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
He's one of the best ST players in the NFL. Pick another target. Can we please....

Did Robinson make the pro bowl? NO! Could we have used production from our 3rd RB this season? YES! Sounds like a legitimate argument to me.

We could have used production from our 3rd RB this season?

Please explain. I don't get it.

When would having a "better" 3rd RB have benefitted us this year? We hardly even used our #2.

Michael Robinson = valuable and should stay. He has a lot more value than most 3rd RB's currently on rosters.

I actually agree. Robinson IS a waste of a roster spot, BUT thats subscribing to MY own personal theories on personnel on an NFL team.

IMO, you should not have anyone on your team in a backup or ST role who is not a player that is currently being developed to eventualy replace your starter. In other words, I don't believe Robinson has anything to develop and as such if I were running the team he would not be a part of it.

On top of that I think we already have Robinsons replacement as ST's ace in the form of a younger & cheaper McKillop if we so desired.

I just have issues with Robinsons production/vs value of his roster spot. IMO he is at his ceiling and that is not near good enough to keep for ST's only, especially when if he HAS hit his ceiling, then he is taking the roster spot of a potential diamond in the rough.

Originally posted by jrg:
Robinson is a Pro Bowl caliber ST player.

He is a pro bowl alternate so the answer is yes he is

Originally posted by SacRock14:

Originally posted by doc_brown_:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
He's one of the best ST players in the NFL. Pick another target. Can we please....

Did Robinson make the pro bowl? NO! Could we have used production from our 3rd RB this season? YES! Sounds like a legitimate argument to me.

We could have used production from our 3rd RB this season?

Please explain. I don't get it.

When would having a "better" 3rd RB have benefitted us this year? We hardly even used our #2.

Michael Robinson = valuable and should stay. He has a lot more value than most 3rd RB's currently on rosters.

Knowledge? Common sense? You're in the wrong forum.

Originally posted by 49erman5692:

Originally posted by doc_brown_:

Originally posted by RollinWith21n52:
He's one of the best ST players in the NFL. Pick another target. Can we please....

Did Robinson make the pro bowl? NO! Could we have used production from our 3rd RB this season? YES! Sounds like a legitimate argument to me.

did our special teams allow a TD? NO thread over!!!

Percy Harvin