Considering that Roy was perfectly happy killing off anyone from Neon the Unknown to Dian Belmont, it's a bit hard for me to get upset at Robinson for doing to Roy's work what Roy did to the original creators'.
Roy nor his writing wasn't perfect. I don't think ALL deaths are bad things though many just waste opportunities. A book about war should have some deaths and the atmosphere at DC then was different than now, characters rarely died. However, Roy rescued far more than he killed off and in a truer sense of the word. When Roy wrote a character, he didn't make the character seem ridiculous, he didn't poke fun at them or sacrifice them to make HIS characters look good. He didn't take heroic characters and recast them as villains or saddle them with huge character flaws, he instead tried to build them up. When characters died, it was almost always in a heroic manner and it fit in with the original history (ie Dian Belmont suddenly disappears from the Sandman stories at the same time that he gains a new costume). He also seemed to understand that retcons should be used to explain things and clear up contradictions or coincidences, simplifying history; though he still sometimes retconned things that didn't really need it such as coming up with a relationship between the Quality and DC Manhunters.
Yet Robinson does almost NONE of that. He has retcons re-explaining things that Roy Thomas already explained or just plain contradicting them for no good reason, thus his retcons don't simplify but needlessly complicate history. Thomas said this, so Robinson says that. Robinson was the better writer in the purer sense, but Thomas was a much better steward of the characters, continuity and the history. I want the prior when doing his own characters, but the latter if working on established characters or heavily continuity driven books. If you cannot do the latter, don't tell continuity driven stories.