Charles Johnson Injury: Updates on Panthers DE's Groin
ESPN's David Newton reported Johnson left the game on a cart in the fourth quarter—which is never a good sign for a player.
#Panthers DE Charles Johnson headed for locker room on golf cart.— David Newton (@DNewtonespn) October 25, 2013
After the game, Ron Rivera did little to allay fans' fears and revealed that Johnson had in fact hurt his groin, via the Charlotte Observer's Jonathan Jones.
Rivera "there's concern. We'll see." On Charles Johnson. Confirms groin injury— Jonathan Jones (@jjones9) October 25, 2013
Johnson is active for Week 9.
Scott Fowler of the Charlotte Observer provides a statement from Charles Johnson discussing his injury and availability for Week 9:
Panther standout defensive end Charles Johnson said Monday he believes he is "definitely" going to play Sunday despite a right groin strain.
"I feel like 100 percent I'm going to be on the field," Johnson said. Of course, 100 percent to a player doesn't automatically mean 100 percent to doctors or trainers, but coach Ron Rivera said he was optimistic Johnson would play.
The Panthers did not have a real practice Monday, but Johnson participated in the walk-through. He said of his weekend: "I wasn't hobbling, but it was sore."
Panthers.com reporter Bryan Strickland followed up with Charles Johnson's thoughts after the game:
Charles Johnson on groin injury: "I'll be good. I plan on doing my thing and playing next Sunday."— Bryan Strickland (@PanthersBryan) October 25, 2013
Jones then reported the defensive end had a groin pull and not a groin tear, which is good news for Carolina.
Groin pull not tear for CJ, RR says— Jonathan Jones (@jjones9) October 25, 2013
Prior to leaving the game, the seven-year veteran had two sacks, bumping his total to six for the season. Johnson is one of the Panthers' best pass-rushers and helped them get the third-best defense in the league heading into Week 8, according to Football Outsiders.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?