Jack Vegas

I think it's safe to assume that 2 of these 3 will make the roster.

Who would you prefer?

Right now I would think Parker and Tanner make the team, but don't underestimate the importance of one guy on special teams. I remember in 2009 they brought back Roby after the first game of the season because the kick teams were a disaster without him; if I'm not mistaken the same thing happened with Fred McAfee during the Haslett years.

I do think Parker probably does everything Roby can do on special teams and seems like the better offensive player. Roby has been one of my favorite players for a long time but it's going to be hard for him trying to make the cut.

TheOak

Parker and Tanner

Roby has had his shot and if he is on the cusp after 9 years in the league... Its time to find someone that can play ST and WR. Don't get me wrong, I like the guy a lot, its just time to move on.

Look at his body of work.. And notice he is not returning any more.
Courtney Roby: Career Stats at NFL.com

foreverfan

Does anybody really require my opinion?

I'm leaving it up to Payton and Loomis.

TheOak

No... but it usually comes with a cat and that's so special.

4everSaint

I'm pulling hard for Tanner.

K Major

+1..that last sentence is my reason Parker gets the nod over Roby. He does multiple things better & appears to be more dynamic.

SaintsBro

It seems like every year people put Courtney Roby on their list of cuts, and yet he somehow always kicks and claws and fights his way onto the final roster, by playing his ___ off on special teams and by doing anything that the coaches ask him to do. He's actually a classic Sean Payton type player -- selfless, team oriented, overlooked, chip on his shoulder, and kind of crazy (in a good way).

But this year I haven't seen or heard anything from him. USUALLY by now he has flashed and given "something" to get his name mentioned.

My real doubt about Courtney Roby is this -- I wonder if Sean Payton has had a whole year to replay that fumbled kickoff return of Roby's against the 49ers, in his mind... I wonder if Payton looks at that play and the resulting swing of points, as being a key to how we got to 36-32, instead of a Saints win of something like 35-33 (by taking that easy SF field goal away and adding another Saints possession, drive and score in the other direction, we WIN that game). Because if we hadn't let the game run away from us, early on, if we hadn't gotten into a hole -- all that crazy drama at the end of the game would never have happened.

I think last year, without Payton, Roby legitimately fought his way onto the team on special teams, and nominally as the last receiver, like he always does... but now that Payton is back, everything is under the microscope, and I have to wonder, whether Roby can survive being in the Payton doghouse, if that's indeed the case over that fumble. Because once you get in that Payton doghouse, you become invisible to him. And Roby has been pretty invisible this preseason, that's for sure.

Jack Vegas

^ Good post SaintsBro and sums up a lot about what I'm thinking about Roby right now. Love the guy, love what he has done for the team, hate to see him go. But I just don't see any reason at all to keep him over one of the other guys.

Rugby Saint II

Roby has been the man. I will miss him flying around the field, but it might be time to move on and let these two young bucks get into the rotation.

thebdj

There is no way they are cutting Roby because they have had a year to stew on one play that in isolation NEVER made a difference to that SF game. Trust me, I was there watching that heartache unfold in front of me and there was a lot more to it than that one play. I think the biggest difference maker was Pierre Thomas being carted off. Anyway ....

Roby was a great contributor on ST last year. The poignant point is about what Roby offers on top of ST. Parker and Tanner have also been superb ST contributors but their value beyond that is so much greater than that of Roby. He's gone, especially if that is the one thing stopping us from keeping both of them.