Stevie Johnson Injury: Updates on Bills WR's Hamstring
UPDATE: Sunday, Dec. 9 at 11:35 a.m. ET
Good news for the Bills, as Johnson is not listed on the team's inactive list (per Twitter) for today's game against St. Louis.
#Bills Inactives: QB T. Jackson, CB A. Williams, CB T. Heath, C E. Wood, OL C. Scott, WR M. Easley, DE M. Anderson.— Buffalo Bills (@buffalobills) December 9, 2012
Johnson has been questionable all week after suffering a hamstring injury last weekend. He has been expected to play, so there were obviously no setbacks for the star during practice.
---END OF UPDATE---
UPDATE: Sunday, December 9 at 10:28 a.m. ET
Great news for Bills fans and fantasy owners as Stevie Johnson is expected to play today, according to CBS' Jason La Canfora.
Hakeem Nicks and Stevie Johnson both set to play today. should see plenty of action. Amendola's pre-game warm-up will dictate things w/him— Jason La Canfora (@JasonLaCanfora) December 9, 2012
---End of Update---
According to John Clayton of ESPN, Johnson went to the locker room and is having his leg looked at.
Stevie Johnson has a hamstring injury for Bills and is in lockerroom.— John Clayton (@ClaytonESPN) December 2, 2012
Johnson had just two catches for 18 yards on the day, but did get in on the scoring barrage with a 13-yard touchdown reception in the third quarter to give the Bills a 24-10 lead.
Given the huge lead that the Bills have in the fourth quarter, it seems unlikely that Johnson would be put back in even if his hamstring injury isn't that bad. The Bills needed a big day after losing a heartbreaker last week against Indianapolis.
Johnson, as has been the case for the last few years, is the Bills' leading receiver. He is tops on the team in receptions (53), yards (687) and is tied for No. 2 in touchdown catches (four). No other receiver on the team has more than 38 catches.
We will keep you updated on Johnson's status for the rest of the game against Jacksonville and throughout the week as more information becomes available.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?