What Does Jordy Nelson's Injury Mean for Packers, Fantasy Owners?
Green Bay Packers wide receiver Jordy Nelson's up-and-down season of injuries suffered another downturn on Sunday afternoon, as he injured his hamstring in Green Bay's 23-14 victory over the Minnesota Vikings.
Nelson's injury is being reported as a hamstring injury, per The Green Bay Press-Gazette, as the injury knocked Nelson out of the game during Green Bay's first drive of the first quarter. He did not return.
More will emerge about Nelson's injury in the coming days, but this is a fairly big blow for the Packers. Nelson has already missed one game this season (Week 8 vs. Jacksonville), and if the hamstring injury lingers, he could miss more games.
The only saving grace for Green Bay is that Nelson's injury occurred in the same game where Greg Jennings made his return to the lineup for the first time since Week 4, which means the Packers' deep receiving corps didn't lose very much depth. However, Nelson has given the Packers 45 catches for 648 yards and six touchdowns on the season. That production will be very tough to replace, but the veteran Jennings is more than capable of producing the way Nelson has, while James Jones has been valuable for the Packers all season and will become even more so.
Fantasy-wise, Nelson will be a crucial loss for teams gearing up for the playoffs, assuming he misses any time. One name that a fantasy owner should consider to replace Nelson will again be Greg Jennings, assuming he is available. It's likely that Jennings will be available due to his injuries issues earlier this year, so it would only be natural to replace Nelson with his teammate if available.
That said, there is a chance that Nelson could be healthy enough to compete next week against the Detroit Lions on Sunday Night Football. We will find out more throughout the week, then both the Packers and fantasy owners will make their decisions accordingly.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?