Jordy Nelson Probable, Randall Cobb Questionable for Packers vs. Vikings
The Green Bay Packers could have wide receivers Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb back in the lineup when they face the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday.
According to Green Bay’s injury report, Nelson is probable for Sunday's game while Cobb is questionable.
Nelson has missed time throughout the season because of hamstring and ankle injuries. His latest setback came in Week 13 against the Vikings when he suffered a hamstring injury that has kept him out of the lineup since.
Nelson practiced all week and, according to Tyler Dunne of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, head coach Mike McCarthy is confident that he will be ready.
I feel good about Jordy Nelson. He’s gone through a full week of work. Felt good this morning going through the medical evaluation. So I have no reason not to believe that he’ll be ready to go Sunday.
Nelson led the Packers in receiving yards (658) when he went down and now sits third behind Cobb and James Jones.
Cobb did not practice on Thursday and was limited on Wednesday and Friday. The 22-year-old wide receiver injured his ankle on a punt return in Green Bay’s 55-7 win over the Tennessee Titans last week.
According to Weston Hodkiewicz of the Green Bay Press-Gazette, Cobb is also dealing with a knee injury but appeared to perform well in individual workouts on Friday.
Cobb has made significant contributions on both offense and special teams this season. He leads the team with 80 receptions for 954 yards and is second in receiving touchdowns with eight. He also averages 25.4 yards per kickoff return and 9.4 yards per punt return.
Look for Cobb to be a game-time decision on Sunday.
Green Bay’s Week 17 injury report lists Tom Crabtree, Mason Crosby, Evan Dietrich-Smith, Alex Green, Jeff Saturday, Josh Sitton, C.J. Wilson and Jerel Worthy as probable.
Davon House is doubtful while James Starks and Charles Woodson are out.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?