New York Giants Hakeem Nicks' Injury Just a Nick, to Miss Two to Three Weeks
Early Monday afternoon, Mike Garafolo (of NJ.com) and The Star-Ledger reported that Hakeem Nicks did not suffer what was suspected to be a Lisfranc sprain. An MRI seems to confirm this; however, it is still unknown until the Giants make an official announcement.
Mr. Garafolo's source asked for anonymity, so it is still generally speculation. If the reported results turn out to be true, it will be great news for the men in blue, as Nicks will then likely only miss a maximum of three weeks.
In general, Nicks played well, though he didn't have many thrown his way. However, he was still able to grab two catches for 18 yards. While he was one of seven other Giants WRs to rack up a catch, Mario Manningham and Steve Smith led the pack, including a very athletic run after the catch by Manningham resulting in a score.
Manning did a great job of spreading the ball around in this first game and looked solid overall despite being picked off once. In Nicks's absence, Moss will likely get a few looks. Maybe even Ramses Barden, a third-round draft choice out of Cal Poly, will get a ball or two thrown his way.
Unfortunately for Nicks, this injury comes at a time when all the wide receivers, including Derek Hagan, are vying for playing time. The injury will add to his setbacks this year, as he suffered an injury early in training camp that limited his time in the first preseason game.
If Nicks wants to develop into a viable number one receiver, he will need to stay healthy longer and get some real work in, but as evidenced by his preseason performance, he can really find the hole in a zone and be a deep threat.
Nicks should have good counsel on rookie season injuries as his fellow WRs—Smith, Moss, and Manningham—were all limited in their respective rookie years due to injuries.
Expect Nicks to bounce back from this strongly and really contribute to a strong rotational passing game in New York this season.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?