Rashard Mendenhall Injury: Updates on Cardinals RB's Toe
Arizona Cardinals running back Rashard Mendenhall has been one of the most injury-prone players in football over the past couple years, and while he is currently dealing with yet another ailment, he is expected to suit up for the Cards on Sunday, according to ESPN's Adam Schefter.
Cardinals WR Larry Fitzgerald (hamstring) and RB Rashard Mendenhall (toe) are expected to play today vs. Saints.— Adam Schefter (@AdamSchefter) September 22, 2013
The Arizona Cardinals confirmed Mendenhall is active for Week 3:
Mendenhall was listed as questionable heading into Sunday's clash with the New Orleans Saints due to a toe injury suffered last week against the Detroit Lions, according to Darren Urban of the Cardinals' official website.
While the nature of Mendenhall's toe affliction isn't 100 percent clear, Cardinals head coach Bruce Arians revealed that it is an injury resembling turf toe.
Mendenhall’s injury isn’t a turf toe, Arians said (Mendenhall suffered it during the game and played with it, Arians said). Arians said he didn’t remember the name of what exactly Mendenhall had, and even though it isn’t turf toe, “it’s damn close,” Arians said with a chuckle.
Despite the fact that toe injuries can be a major nuisance for running backs, all signs point toward Mendenhall being available on Sunday. That is huge for Arizona's chances as Mendenhall figures to be a pretty big part of the game plan.
While the Cards are known mostly for their passing game due to the presence of quarterback Carson Palmer as well as wide receivers Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Roberts and Michael Floyd, Mendenhall may be the key to their success in Week 3.
Arizona is facing a Saints team that surrenders an average of 124 rushing yards per game and better than five yards per carry. Since the Cardinals will certainly want to keep quarterback Drew Brees and the New Orleans offense on the sidelines as much as possible, expect a heavy dose of Mendenhall throughout the day provided his toe can handle it.
Follow @MikeChiari on Twitter
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?