This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game. You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
The law of averages is a lay term used to express the view that eventually, everything "evens out."Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.The law of averages is a lay term used to express the view that eventually, everything "evens out."Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
You are too defensive about this. He could have said that about any player. But the fact that he said something about "your" Gore you have to get defensive about it because you might be tired of constantly defending him and his injury prone label. Just face it. He's gonna get hurt soon.Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
That might be true, but it has nothing to do with the law of averages. I'm not concerned about Frank Gore, he's not "my" guy. I just don't see how the law of averages applies to what he's trying to say.You are too defensive about this. He could have said that about any player. But the fact that he said something about "your" Gore you have to get defensive about it because you might be tired of constantly defending him and his "injury prone" label. Face it. He's gonna get hurt soon.Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
OK, I get what you're saying.That might be true, but it has nothing to do with the law of averages. I'm not concerned about Frank Gore, he's not "my" guy. I just don't see how the law of averages applies to what he's trying to say.You are too defensive about this. He could have said that about any player. But the fact that he said something about "your" Gore you have to get defensive about it because you might be tired of constantly defending him and his "injury prone" label. Face it. He's gonna get hurt soon.Please explain?This is a big question.Lets say based on law of averages, Gore is going to get hurt. Who is the backup? Who will start? Will it be RBBC?Besides one decent game against Philly last year, after which he completely disappeared, he didn't do nearly enough for me to warrant consideration. Hell, Maurice Hicks even saw as much action the 2nd half of the year as he did, I wouldn't even assume that Robinson has 2nd string locked up.
I'm fairly sure Hicks would be starting. Mrob getting a little RBBC, but I doubt 10-12 carries a game.
You also have to factor in Mrob learning a new position, and has more room to grow. So maybe he will be the backup this year.
Not to hijack the thread, but I think you are falling for the "gambler's fallacy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy .Just because the odds of flipping a coin and having it land on heads 100 times in a row is extremely unlikely, every coin toss is still 50%. Just because Manning and LT2 haven't been injured yet, their odds of getting injured aren't increased any more because of it.)Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.
Totally agree with you that LT2 and Peyton are not more likely to get injured just because they were healthy for a few years.Not to hijack the thread, but I think you are falling for the "gambler's fallacy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy .Just because the odds of flipping a coin and having it land on heads 100 times in a row is extremely unlikely, every coin toss is still 50%. Just because Manning and LT2 haven't been injured yet, their odds of getting injured aren't increased any more because of it.)Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.
Now... does anyone have decent stats on the converse - what are the increased odds of repeat injuries? That's really what's at stake here - are players with prior injuries really at higher risk than non-injured players?
Back to the MRob discussion, I saw nothing of him last year to lead me to believe he'd beat out Hicks should Gore go down.
Sorry about the big hijack here. I understand the gambler's fallacy also. I was only saying that Gore being injured again would not "even things out".Totally agree with you that LT2 and Peyton are not more likely to get injured just because they were healthy for a few years.Not to hijack the thread, but I think you are falling for the "gambler's fallacy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy .Just because the odds of flipping a coin and having it land on heads 100 times in a row is extremely unlikely, every coin toss is still 50%. Just because Manning and LT2 haven't been injured yet, their odds of getting injured aren't increased any more because of it.)Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.
Now... does anyone have decent stats on the converse - what are the increased odds of repeat injuries? That's really what's at stake here - are players with prior injuries really at higher risk than non-injured players?
Back to the MRob discussion, I saw nothing of him last year to lead me to believe he'd beat out Hicks should Gore go down.
Law of averages is a misnomer. I think what he actually wanted to state was the "Rule of large numbers"Not to hijack the thread, but I think you are falling for the "gambler's fallacy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy .Just because the odds of flipping a coin and having it land on heads 100 times in a row is extremely unlikely, every coin toss is still 50%. Just because Manning and LT2 haven't been injured yet, their odds of getting injured aren't increased any more because of it.)Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.
Now... does anyone have decent stats on the converse - what are the increased odds of repeat injuries? That's really what's at stake here - are players with prior injuries really at higher risk than non-injured players?
Back to the MRob discussion, I saw nothing of him last year to lead me to believe he'd beat out Hicks should Gore go down.
Hes probably the equivelent of Musa smith right? Backing up a guy with an injury history. All though I like Robinson better than Smith.[H.K.]It is statistically impossible that Frank Gore will get hurt next year [/H.K]
Thomas Clayton is lurking as well.So Hicks is the backup. Mrob is a project.
I don't think the "Law of Averages" (I'm not sure that even even an actual mathematical law/theorem) means all things will "average out in the end." For example, LT has been way above average in rushing yards, so this yer he is bound to have less than 100, to average things out. (A bit extreme, I know.)I think it might mean, that if you look pertinent averages from the past, it is likely that that is what should be projected. Therefore, Gore could suffer an injury, while LT, and Manning are probably not going to.Sorry about the big hijack here. I understand the gambler's fallacy also. I was only saying that Gore being injured again would not "even things out".Totally agree with you that LT2 and Peyton are not more likely to get injured just because they were healthy for a few years.Not to hijack the thread, but I think you are falling for the "gambler's fallacy"... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy .Just because the odds of flipping a coin and having it land on heads 100 times in a row is extremely unlikely, every coin toss is still 50%. Just because Manning and LT2 haven't been injured yet, their odds of getting injured aren't increased any more because of it.)Yes, I understand what the law of averages is. I would think that if things were to "even out" Gore wouldn't have another injury soon. He has had his share. The law of averages would tell you that LT2 and Peyton are due for an injury.
Now... does anyone have decent stats on the converse - what are the increased odds of repeat injuries? That's really what's at stake here - are players with prior injuries really at higher risk than non-injured players?
Back to the MRob discussion, I saw nothing of him last year to lead me to believe he'd beat out Hicks should Gore go down.
Interesting.Robinson obviously has the upside. He's learning a totally new position. But he has lots of physical talent. If he's really the backup, it means he's made some big steps forward this offseason. If Gore does get hurt, it will be RBBC w/ Hicks, but in deep dynasty this is a guy who could start finding his way onto the field.From Sportingnews.com:
YOUTH MOVEMENT: RB Michael Robinson is a leading candidate for the backup role behind Frank Gore. Though Gore will remain the featured the back, the 49ers want to alleviate some of the load on him by giving a greater number of touches to his backup. A former college quarterback, Robinson is entering his second NFL season. He's working on running lower to the ground and getting a better sense of how to read his blocking. He is a quick, explosive runner with a tremendous work ethic and natural leadership abilities. But he remains raw as a runner. There were times as a rookie he didn't make a good read on his blocks, and as a result, didn't gain as much yardage as he could have.
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=210667
Here's a list of rb he went ahead of:Leon WashingtonP.J. DanielsJerome HarrisonWali lundyCedric HumesQuinton GantherOverall not a very dominating list but some of the guys on that list were pretty accomplished runners in college. FWIWwell i own him in every league and will hold him until his contract is up and see if I might get some of that M. Turner magic. To me he's still learning the position and for a staff to be that patient with a guy they must really see something in him. So far just about every move the 49ers have made have pretty much worked out for them so I tthink i like his chances to be a Nfl rb. something has to be said about a qb getting drafted in the 4th round to play rb ahead of other rbs available in that draft.
Good point. Fullback could be a nice fit for him - smashing through holes without having to worry about fumbles.Michael Robinson is the version of Michael Turner that doesn't break tackles. I think he would make an excellent undersized, pass-catching fullback if they wanted to go in that direction.
The biggest drawback to the guy, is that they gave him a chance in short yardage last year, and he failed in flying colors. A guy without a nose for the endzone just doesn't make a good fantasy play. Especially if he has to battle just for the backup job with another RB.
To play fullback, he'd have to be able to find the holes....which is something he's proven he can't do.I don't want to sound like calbear, but this is one guy I don't have high expectations for.Good point. Fullback could be a nice fit for him - smashing through holes without having to worry about fumbles.Michael Robinson is the version of Michael Turner that doesn't break tackles. I think he would make an excellent undersized, pass-catching fullback if they wanted to go in that direction.
The biggest drawback to the guy, is that they gave him a chance in short yardage last year, and he failed in flying colors. A guy without a nose for the endzone just doesn't make a good fantasy play. Especially if he has to battle just for the backup job with another RB.
As a PSU alum I would love to see him succeed, but I'm not sure you can "teach" vision and RB instincts and I don't think he has them to be successful as an every down back in the NFL. He could be a decent third string/goal line guy though. Although the NFL stole the clip off YouTube, remember that he ran right over Brian Dawkins on one of his TD runs in that Philly game last year.To play fullback, he'd have to be able to find the holes....which is something he's proven he can't do.I don't want to sound like calbear, but this is one guy I don't have high expectations for.Good point. Fullback could be a nice fit for him - smashing through holes without having to worry about fumbles.Michael Robinson is the version of Michael Turner that doesn't break tackles. I think he would make an excellent undersized, pass-catching fullback if they wanted to go in that direction.
The biggest drawback to the guy, is that they gave him a chance in short yardage last year, and he failed in flying colors. A guy without a nose for the endzone just doesn't make a good fantasy play. Especially if he has to battle just for the backup job with another RB.
"WE ARE..." Construxboy nittanylion "...PENN STATE!!!"
Robinson is not on the WW in either of my Dynasty leagues. I just traded Bryant Johnson for him in the Dynasty league where I own Gore. The bottom line to me is if Gore goes down it will be a RBBC in SF. Robinson has more upside than Hicks. Robinson is 23 and and Hicks will be 29 in July.Robinson is one of those guys who, if you take him in the last round and he pans out for you, can make you look like a genius. If he doesn't pan out, then you drop him for your bye week kicker. All reward, no risk. Of the two backups (Hicks and Robinson) I would much rather take a chance on the guy with the higher upside. I think that is Robinson based on a lot of things. All of this is speaking as a non-Gore owner mind you. In each of my Dynasty leagues (3), the Gore owner currently has Hicks on their roster, and Robinson is on the waiver wire. Is this the case with you guys? I am just wondering how many dynasty leagues (or large keeper leagues) have Robinson floating on the wire...