Skip to content

Santonio Holmes listed as questionable for opener vs. Buccaneers

Santonio Holmes AP

Jets wide receiver Santonio Holmes (foot) is listed as questionable for Sunday’s game against the Buccaneers on the club’s injury report.

After not practicing Thursday, Holmes was a limited participant in practice on Friday. He also practiced on a limited basis on Wednesday.

The New York Post reported earlier this week that the club anticipates Holmes will play against the Bucs.

Also on Friday, the Jets officially ruled out quarterback Mark Sanchez (right shoulder) and outside linebacker Quinton Coples (ankle). Neither Sanchez nor Coples has practiced all week.

Jets starting nose tackle Kenrick Ellis (back) was limited in practice for a third straight day and is designated as questionable on the injury report.

Seventeen other Jets players are listed as probable, including tight end Kellen Winslow (knee) and Antonio Cromartie (hip). Winslow returned to full practice on Friday after being limited on Thursday. Cromartie has practiced on a limited basis throughout the week.

Permalink 5 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, New York Jets, Rumor Mill
5 Responses to “Santonio Holmes listed as questionable for opener vs. Buccaneers”
  1. newjerseygiants says: Sep 6, 2013 5:59 PM

    The Jets are also questionable for opener vs. Buccaneers.

  2. bleedrangerblue says: Sep 6, 2013 7:17 PM

    Holmes who cares. Jet fan here and I wish He would go away. Take Rex and Sanchez with ya. Go Gino!! Go Simms !!

  3. thechosenone6 says: Sep 6, 2013 8:51 PM

    He’s not going to play. He knows Revis will completely shut him down which will hurt his stock when he’s released next year – a Jets fan.

  4. harry1941 says: Sep 6, 2013 11:32 PM

    Buc at Jets will be on Fox TV here in Florida.

  5. bobzilla1001 says: Sep 6, 2013 11:34 PM

    I have no idea what’s happened to Holmes since he left Pittsburgh, but I’m sure glad the Steelers had him for the 2008 postseason and Super Bowl 43. In fact, he’s never been adequately replaced.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!