Green Bay Packers vs New York Giants Match Player Stats
The green bay packers vs new york giants match player stats from the November 16, 2025 meeting at MetLife Stadium tell a more interesting story than the final score alone. Green Bay defeated New York 27-20, but the Giants actually finished with more total yards, more offensive plays, more rushing yards, and nearly twelve additional minutes of possession. The Packers won because they were more efficient in the situations that mattered most, especially in the red zone, through the passing game, and in protecting the football. NFL official game center and box score
The game also provides a useful example of why a traditional box score needs context. Jordan Love did not produce a massive passing total, but he threw two touchdowns without an interception. Christian Watson turned five targets into four catches, 46 yards, and two touchdowns. Green Bay’s rushing attack averaged 5.6 yards per carry, while the defense forced an interception and recovered the Giants’ only lost fumble.
For New York, Jameis Winston completed 19 of 29 passes for 201 gross passing yards, but he finished without a passing touchdown and threw an interception. Tyrone Tracy Jr. ran for 88 yards, while Devin Singletary scored twice on the ground. The Giants generated 336 total yards, compared with Green Bay’s 296, yet still lost by seven points.
That contrast is the key to understanding this matchup.
Green Bay Packers vs New York Giants Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Packers entered the contest with a 6-3-1 record, including a 3-1-1 mark on the road. The Giants were 2-9 overall and 2-3 at home. The final score was Green Bay 27, New York 20.
The scoring pattern was unusual because New York controlled the opening quarter while Green Bay gradually took command.
| Quarter | Packers | Giants |
| 1st | 0 | 7 |
| 2nd | 13 | 6 |
| 3rd | 6 | 0 |
| 4th | 8 | 7 |
| Final | 27 | 20 |
The Giants opened with a seven-point first quarter, but Green Bay responded with 13 points in the second. The Packers then added another six in the third before both teams scored in the fourth.
This was not a game in which one team dominated every statistical category. Instead, Green Bay won the high-value moments.
The team statistics make that clear:
| Team Statistic | Packers | Giants |
| First Downs | 19 | 22 |
| Total Yards | 296 | 336 |
| Offensive Plays | 51 | 69 |
| Yards per Play | 5.8 | 4.9 |
| Rushing Yards | 128 | 142 |
| Passing Yards | 168 | 194 |
| Third Down | 7/11 | 7/14 |
| Fourth Down | 0/0 | 3/4 |
| Turnovers | 0 | 2 |
| Time of Possession | 24:04 | 35:56 |
| Red Zone | 4/4 | 3/5 |
| Touchdowns | 4 | 3 |
The most important number may be the turnover column.
Green Bay committed two fumbles but lost neither. New York had one fumble and lost it, while Winston also threw one interception. That gave the Packers a clean turnover margin and removed the need to overcome self-inflicted mistakes.
Jordan Love’s Passing Performance
Jordan Love completed 13 of 24 passes for 174 yards, averaging 7.3 yards per completion attempt, with two touchdowns and no interceptions.
His official passing line was:
- Completions: 13
- Attempts: 24
- Completion rate: 54.2%
- Passing yards: 174
- Average: 7.3 yards per attempt
- Touchdowns: 2
- Interceptions: 0
- Sacks: 2 for 12 yards
- QBR: 77.9
- Passer rating: 105.2
The completion percentage was not especially impressive, but completion percentage alone does not explain Love’s performance.
He protected the ball, produced two touchdown passes, and generated enough explosive plays to keep the Packers’ passing attack efficient. His 105.2 passer rating also reflects the value of avoiding interceptions while producing touchdowns.
Green Bay did not ask Love to throw 35 or 40 times. He attempted only 24 passes, with Malik Willis adding two attempts. That suggests a controlled offensive approach rather than a pass-heavy game script.
Love’s two touchdown passes were particularly important because the Giants allowed Green Bay to finish every red-zone possession with a touchdown.
That is a major reason the Packers could win despite having fewer offensive plays and less possession time.
Malik Willis Added Efficiency
Malik Willis played a small but meaningful role.
He completed both of his pass attempts for six yards and a touchdown. He also rushed once for 16 yards.
His passing statistics were:
- 2 completions
- 2 attempts
- 6 passing yards
- 1 touchdown
- 0 interceptions
- 118.8 passer rating
His limited workload should not be confused with a conventional quarterback performance. Willis was not responsible for managing the entire offense. Instead, his opportunities were highly efficient.
The Packers ultimately finished with three passing touchdowns despite Love throwing only two. That third touchdown came through the additional quarterback contribution.
Jameis Winston’s Passing Numbers
Jameis Winston moved the Giants’ offense effectively between the 20-yard lines, but the finishing numbers were not enough.
He completed 19 of 29 passes for 201 gross passing yards. After sack yardage, New York finished with 194 net passing yards.
His line:
- Completions: 19
- Attempts: 29
- Completion rate: 65.5%
- Gross passing yards: 201
- Net passing yards: 194
- Touchdowns: 0
- Interceptions: 1
- Sacks: 2 for 7 yards
- QBR: 51.7
- Passer rating: 71.2
The completion rate looks good at first glance, but the lack of passing touchdowns and the interception changed the value of those completions.
Winston’s performance illustrates an important football principle: moving the ball is not the same as finishing drives.
The Giants reached the red zone five times and scored touchdowns on three of those trips. That 60% red-zone touchdown rate was respectable, but Green Bay was perfect at 4-for-4.
That difference essentially explains the scoring margin.
Green Bay’s Rushing Attack
The Packers ran the ball 23 times for 128 yards, an excellent 5.6 yards per carry.
The primary contributors were:
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Emanuel Wilson | 11 | 40 | 3.6 | 1 | 11 |
| Josh Jacobs | 7 | 40 | 5.7 | 0 | 15 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 17 | 17.0 | 0 | 17 |
| Malik Willis | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 0 | 16 |
| Chris Brooks | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| Jordan Love | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 4 |
Emanuel Wilson led Green Bay in carries and scored the team’s rushing touchdown.
Josh Jacobs was arguably the most efficient conventional ball carrier. He gained 40 yards on only seven attempts, producing 5.7 yards per carry and a 15-yard long run.
The Packers also benefited from two explosive quarterback or specialty runs. Willis gained 16 yards on one attempt, while Melton gained 17 on his lone carry.
Those plays helped Green Bay reach 128 rushing yards despite having only 23 rushing attempts.
Giants Rushing Performance
The Giants ran the football much more frequently.
New York recorded 38 rushing attempts for 142 yards, averaging 3.7 yards per carry.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Tyrone Tracy Jr. | 19 | 88 | 4.6 | 0 | 17 |
| Devin Singletary | 16 | 44 | 2.8 | 2 | 7 |
| Jameis Winston | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 1 | 10 |
Tyrone Tracy Jr. was the Giants’ leading rusher by a wide margin.
He carried 19 times for 88 yards and averaged 4.6 yards per attempt. His 17-yard gain was New York’s longest rushing play.
Singletary provided the touchdowns. His 44 yards on 16 carries were modest, but he scored twice.
Winston also added a rushing touchdown, giving the Giants three rushing touchdowns despite failing to produce a passing touchdown.
This is an important distinction when evaluating the Giants’ offensive performance. Their ground game was productive enough to create scoring opportunities, but it was less efficient than Green Bay’s on a per-carry basis.
Christian Watson Was the Packers’ Biggest Receiving Difference-Maker
Among the Packers’ receivers, Christian Watson had the strongest touchdown impact.
He finished with:
- 4 receptions
- 46 yards
- 11.5 yards per reception
- 2 touchdowns
- 17-yard long
- 5 targets
Watson caught four of the five passes thrown his way, an 80% catch rate.
His 46 yards were not the team high, but his two touchdowns made his contribution disproportionately important.
This is a perfect example of why raw receiving yardage should not be the only measure of a receiver’s value.
Romeo Doubs had more receiving yards, but Watson scored twice. In a seven-point game, those touchdowns mattered far more than the difference between 46 and 53 receiving yards.
Romeo Doubs Led Green Bay in Receiving Yardage
Romeo Doubs led the Packers with 53 receiving yards.
He recorded:
- 4 receptions
- 53 yards
- 13.3 yards per reception
- 8 targets
- 22-yard long
Eight targets were also the most on the Packers.
Doubs therefore played an important chain-moving role. While Watson provided the touchdowns, Doubs received the largest share of Love’s attention.
The contrast between the two receivers gives a useful picture of Green Bay’s passing distribution.
Doubs was the volume option, while Watson was the finishing weapon.
Savion Williams Provided an Explosive Play
Savion Williams caught only one pass, but it went for 33 yards.
That was Green Bay’s longest reception of the game.
His stat line was:
- 1 reception
- 33 yards
- 33.0 yards per reception
- 1 target
A single catch can have a meaningful effect when it creates field position or helps sustain a scoring drive. Williams did not have a large workload, but his 33-yard reception was the biggest individual receiving play for the Packers.
Matthew Golden also contributed one 24-yard reception.
Together, those plays show that Green Bay generated explosive gains without needing a high-volume passing attack.
Packers Receiving Distribution
The complete Green Bay receiving production was:
| Receiver | Rec. | Yards | Avg. | TD | Targets |
| Romeo Doubs | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 0 | 8 |
| Christian Watson | 4 | 46 | 11.5 | 2 | 5 |
| Savion Williams | 1 | 33 | 33.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Matthew Golden | 1 | 24 | 24.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 1 |
| John FitzPatrick | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 1 |
| Luke Musgrave | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Josh Jacobs | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
Green Bay finished with 15 receptions for 180 receiving yards and three touchdowns.
The distribution was relatively balanced, which made the Packers harder to defend. No single receiver needed 100 yards for the offense to succeed.
Giants Receiving Leaders
New York actually recorded more team receiving yards than Green Bay.
The Giants finished with 19 receptions for 201 yards.
| Receiver | Rec. | Yards | Avg. | TD | Targets |
| Isaiah Hodgins | 5 | 57 | 11.4 | 0 | 6 |
| Tyrone Tracy Jr. | 4 | 51 | 12.8 | 0 | 4 |
| Theo Johnson | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Wan’Dale Robinson | 4 | 36 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 |
| Jalin Hyatt | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Devin Singletary | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Daniel Bellinger | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
Isaiah Hodgins led the Giants in receiving yardage with 57 yards.
Wan’Dale Robinson had the highest target total with nine, but his four catches produced 36 yards.
Tyrone Tracy Jr. was especially interesting because he contributed in both phases. He rushed for 88 yards and added four receptions for 51 yards.
That gave him 139 combined rushing and receiving yards.
Despite that production, the Giants could not convert enough of their opportunities into points.
Defensive Player Stats
The defensive numbers reveal another important contrast.
Green Bay recorded 83 total tackles, two sacks, one interception, five passes defended, and five quarterback hits.
The Giants recorded 47 total tackles, two sacks, two tackles for loss, five passes defended, and eight quarterback hits.
The Packers’ defense was led by Isaiah McDuffie with 11 total tackles.
| Packers Defender | Total Tackles | Solo | Other |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 11 | 5 | 0.5 sack, 1 QB hit |
| Evan Williams | 9 | 5 | 1 TFL |
| Keisean Nixon | 8 | 8 | 2 TFL |
| Quay Walker | 7 | 1 | |
| Edgerrin Cooper | 6 | 3 | 1 TFL |
| Micah Parsons | 6 | 1 | 1.5 sacks, 3 QB hits |
| Rashan Gary | 4 | 2 | 1 PD |
Micah Parsons produced the most obvious pass-rush disruption, finishing with 1.5 sacks and three quarterback hits.
Keisean Nixon also stood out with eight total tackles and two tackles for loss.
Evan Williams had nine tackles and also produced the Packers’ only interception.
Giants Defensive Standouts
Brian Burns led the Giants’ pass rush.
His line included:
- 5 total tackles
- 3 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 2 tackles for loss
- 1 pass defended
- 4 quarterback hits
Four quarterback hits demonstrate that Burns was not simply producing pressure through the two recorded sacks. He consistently affected the pocket.
Bobby Okereke and Dane Belton each recorded seven total tackles.
The Giants defense also produced eight quarterback hits overall, two more than Green Bay.
Yet the Packers were still able to finish all four of their red-zone possessions with touchdowns.
That is where the defensive performance became less effective than the pressure numbers suggest.
Turnovers Changed the Game
Turnovers were one of the clearest dividing lines.
Green Bay:
- 2 fumbles
- 0 fumbles lost
- 1 interception made
- 0 interceptions thrown
New York:
- 1 fumble
- 1 fumble lost
- 0 interceptions made
- 1 interception thrown
The Packers therefore finished with a clean turnover margin advantage.
Evan Williams intercepted Winston, while Winston lost the Giants’ only fumble.
The Packers also recovered their own two fumbles.
In a seven-point game, avoiding turnovers was critical. New York produced enough offensive yardage to remain competitive, but giving away possessions made it harder to turn that production into points.
Red-Zone Efficiency Was the Biggest Statistical Difference
If one statistic best explains the final score, it is red-zone efficiency.
Green Bay went:
4 touchdowns on 4 red-zone trips.
New York went:
3 touchdowns on 5 red-zone trips.
That means Green Bay scored on 100% of its red-zone opportunities, while New York converted 60%.
The Packers did not need more possessions because they were almost perfect when they reached scoring range.
The Giants had 35:56 of possession compared with Green Bay’s 24:04. New York also ran 69 offensive plays against 51 for Green Bay.
Ordinarily, those numbers would suggest a significant advantage for the Giants.
But efficiency overrode volume.
Green Bay averaged 5.8 yards per offensive play compared with New York’s 4.9. The Packers also averaged 5.6 yards per rushing attempt compared with the Giants’ 3.7.
So while New York had more opportunities, Green Bay extracted more value from its plays.
Third Down Performance Favored Green Bay
Third-down efficiency was another important factor.
The Packers converted seven of 11 third downs, a 63.6% success rate.
The Giants converted seven of 14, exactly 50%.
That difference gave Green Bay more control over individual drives even though New York dominated overall possession.
The Packers’ ability to stay on schedule helped them avoid the kind of long, low-efficiency drives that can end in punts or turnovers.
New York, meanwhile, often needed more plays to generate the same amount of offensive production.
The Giants Won Time of Possession but Lost the Game
The time-of-possession statistic is one of the most interesting elements of the matchup.
New York held the ball for:
35:56
Green Bay held it for:
24:04
That is an 11-minute-and-52-second advantage for the Giants.
Yet possession did not translate into victory.
This is a useful lesson for evaluating football games. Time of possession is often a consequence of offensive style rather than a direct measure of success.
The Giants ran 69 plays. Green Bay ran only 51.
The Packers therefore needed fewer plays to generate their 27 points.
The difference was efficiency.
Total Yardage Does Not Tell the Whole Story
New York finished with 336 total yards.
Green Bay finished with 296.
The Giants therefore had a 40-yard advantage.
Breaking it down:
- Giants rushing: 142 yards
- Packers rushing: 128 yards
- Giants net passing: 194 yards
- Packers net passing: 168 yards
New York won both major yardage categories.
But Green Bay won the scoreboard.
This is exactly why advanced game analysis should look beyond total yards.
A team can accumulate yards without finishing drives. Another team can generate fewer yards but convert a higher percentage of scoring opportunities.
That was the story here.
Why the Packers Won
The Packers’ victory can be explained through five major factors.
1. Perfect Red-Zone Execution
Green Bay scored touchdowns on all four red-zone trips.
That gave the Packers maximum value from their scoring opportunities.
2. Zero Turnovers
Love threw no interceptions, and Green Bay lost neither of its two fumbles.
New York gave away two possessions through an interception and lost fumble.
3. Efficient Rushing
Green Bay averaged 5.6 yards per carry.
That was significantly better than New York’s 3.7.
4. Better Third-Down Conversion
The Packers converted 63.6% of their third downs.
The Giants converted 50%.
5. Touchdown Passing
Love threw two touchdown passes, and Willis added another.
Winston threw none.
That difference was crucial because the Giants had to rely heavily on rushing touchdowns to finish drives.
Why the Giants Lost Despite More Yardage
The Giants did several things well.
- They ran 69 plays.
- They held the ball for nearly 36 minutes.
- They gained 336 yards.
- They rushed for 142 yards.
- They completed 19 passes.
- They converted three of four fourth-down attempts.
Yet the offense had two costly problems.
First, it failed to maximize red-zone opportunities.
Second, it committed two turnovers.
The Giants also produced no passing touchdowns.
Their three touchdowns all came on the ground, with Singletary scoring twice and Winston once.
That made the offense less flexible when the Packers prevented the rushing attack from consistently producing efficient gains.
What the Player Stats Say About Offensive Efficiency
The most useful way to read this game is not to ask which team accumulated the most statistics.
Instead, ask which team produced the most valuable statistics.
For Green Bay, those were:
- Love’s two touchdown passes
- Willis’ touchdown pass
- Watson’s two receiving touchdowns
- Wilson’s rushing touchdown
- 5.6 yards per rush
- 7-for-11 third-down conversion
- 4-for-4 red-zone scoring
- zero turnovers
For New York, the most productive numbers were:
- 336 total yards
- 142 rushing yards
- 201 gross passing yards
- 35:56 possession
- Tracy’s 139 combined yards
- three rushing touchdowns
The difference is that Green Bay’s best statistics were directly connected to points and possession efficiency.
New York’s strongest statistics were more closely connected to volume.
Special Teams Numbers
Green Bay returned three kickoffs for 70 yards.
Bo Melton handled two kickoff returns for 37 yards, while Savion Williams returned one for 33 yards.
The Giants returned four kickoffs for 108 yards, with Deonte Banks accounting for all 108 yards.
On punts, Green Bay had one return for no yards.
New York had two punt returns for 17 yards, with Gunner Olszewski averaging 8.5 yards per return.
Daniel Whelan punted four times for Green Bay for 195 yards, averaging 48.8 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 61 yards, and two of his punts landed inside the 20.
Jamie Gillan punted twice for New York for 90 yards, averaging 45.0 yards.
The kicking statistics were unusual because neither team made a field goal.
Green Bay went 1-for-3 on extra-point attempts according to the supplied kicking data, while New York went 2-for-3.
Those missed extra points are another reminder that special teams can quietly influence the shape of a final score.
Fumbles and Ball Security
Green Bay recorded two fumbles but recovered both.
Sean Rhyan and Luke Musgrave were credited with fumbles, while Jordan Love and Rashan Gary were credited with recoveries.
The Giants recorded one fumble, and it was lost by Winston.
This is a relatively simple statistic, but its importance is easy to overlook.
A fumble that is recovered by the same team may have little direct effect on the scoreboard. A lost fumble immediately creates a possession change.
That was the difference between the teams in this game.
A Deeper Look at the Game Script
The game followed four distinct phases.
First Quarter: Giants Control the Opening
New York scored the only touchdown of the first quarter.
Green Bay failed to score, and the Giants established early control.
Second Quarter: Packers Respond
The Packers scored 13 points in the second quarter while New York added six.
The game shifted from a seven-point Giants lead into a much more competitive contest.
Third Quarter: Green Bay Creates Separation
Green Bay scored six points while shutting out New York.
That was the first quarter in which the Packers clearly controlled the scoreboard without allowing a response.
Fourth Quarter: Giants Push Back
New York scored seven points in the final quarter, but Green Bay answered with eight.
The Packers therefore maintained enough separation to finish the game 27-20.
The Most Important Individual Performances
Several players deserve special recognition based on the supplied statistics.
Jordan Love
Love’s 174 yards were not spectacular, but his two touchdown passes and zero interceptions gave Green Bay the quarterback efficiency it needed.
Christian Watson
Watson’s four catches for 46 yards were elevated by two touchdowns.
His impact was much larger than his yardage total suggests.
Romeo Doubs
Doubs led the Packers with 53 receiving yards and eight targets.
He provided the highest volume among Green Bay receivers.
Emanuel Wilson
Wilson carried 11 times for 40 yards and scored the Packers’ rushing touchdown.
Tyrone Tracy Jr.
Tracy was arguably the Giants’ most complete offensive contributor, with 88 rushing yards and 51 receiving yards.
Devin Singletary
Singletary gained 44 rushing yards but scored twice, making him an important red-zone contributor.
Isaiah McDuffie
McDuffie led Green Bay with 11 tackles.
Micah Parsons
Parsons produced 1.5 sacks and three quarterback hits, giving the Packers a strong interior disruption component.
Brian Burns
Burns recorded two sacks, four quarterback hits, and two tackles for loss for New York.
How to Interpret These Stats for Fantasy Football Analysis
For fantasy purposes, raw yardage tells only part of the story.
Christian Watson’s two touchdowns significantly increased the fantasy value of his four-catch performance.
Tyrone Tracy Jr. also had a strong workload-based profile because he contributed 88 rushing yards and 51 receiving yards.
Devin Singletary benefited heavily from touchdown production, scoring twice despite averaging only 2.8 yards per carry.
Romeo Doubs offered a different profile. His eight targets and 53 yards indicate useful involvement, but his lack of a touchdown limited his scoring ceiling.
Jordan Love’s value came from his touchdown efficiency rather than volume.
This is why fantasy analysis should separate opportunity, efficiency, and touchdown production instead of treating all yardage equally.
What This Matchup Reveals About the Packers
The game showed that Green Bay could win without dominating possession or total yardage.
The Packers were more efficient in several areas:
- Better yards per rushing attempt
- Better third-down conversion
- Perfect red-zone scoring
- No turnovers
- More passing touchdowns
- Fewer offensive plays needed to score 27 points
That combination is difficult for an opponent to overcome.
The Packers did not need a huge passing performance from Love because the offense remained balanced and opportunistic.
What This Matchup Reveals About the Giants
The Giants demonstrated that they could sustain drives and create offensive volume.
Their 336 yards and 35:56 of possession show that the offense was not completely overwhelmed.
The problem was finishing.
New York had five red-zone opportunities but converted only three into touchdowns. The team also turned the ball over twice.
Against a more efficient opponent, those mistakes become decisive.
The Giants’ rushing attack also produced only 3.7 yards per carry despite 38 attempts.
That forced the offense to work harder for its production.
The Most Useful Takeaway From the Box Score
The central lesson from this game is simple:
Efficiency beat volume.
New York had:
- More yards
- More plays
- More possession
- More first downs
- More rushing attempts
- More rushing yards
- More passing yards
Green Bay had:
- More points
- More efficient rushing
- Better third-down conversion
- Perfect red-zone execution
- Fewer turnovers
- Three passing touchdowns
- A clean interception record
That combination produced the 27-20 victory.
Green Bay Packers vs New York Giants Match Player Stats: Key Numbers
For readers looking for the most important figures in one place, these are the numbers to remember:
| Category | Packers | Giants |
| Final Score | 27 | 20 |
| Total Yards | 296 | 336 |
| Rushing Yards | 128 | 142 |
| Passing Yards | 168 | 194 |
| Offensive Plays | 51 | 69 |
| Yards per Play | 5.8 | 4.9 |
| Third Down | 7/11 | 7/14 |
| Red Zone TD Rate | 4/4 | 3/5 |
| Turnovers Lost | 0 | 2 |
| Time of Possession | 24:04 | 35:56 |
| Touchdowns | 4 | 3 |
For individual players:
| Player | Key Production |
| Jordan Love | 13/24, 174 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT |
| Malik Willis | 2/2, 6 yards, 1 TD |
| Jameis Winston | 19/29, 201 yards, 0 TD, 1 INT |
| Emanuel Wilson | 11 carries, 40 yards, 1 TD |
| Josh Jacobs | 7 carries, 40 yards |
| Tyrone Tracy Jr. | 19 carries, 88 yards; 4 receptions, 51 yards |
| Devin Singletary | 16 carries, 44 yards, 2 TD |
| Romeo Doubs | 4 receptions, 53 yards |
| Christian Watson | 4 receptions, 46 yards, 2 TD |
| Isaiah Hodgins | 5 receptions, 57 yards |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 11 tackles |
| Micah Parsons | 6 tackles, 1.5 sacks, 3 QB hits |
| Brian Burns | 5 tackles, 2 sacks, 4 QB hits |
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Packers and Giants?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the New York Giants 27-20 on November 16, 2025, at MetLife Stadium.
Who was the Packers’ leading passer?
Jordan Love led Green Bay’s passing attack with 13 completions on 24 attempts for 174 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions.
Who led the Giants in rushing?
Tyrone Tracy Jr. led New York with 88 rushing yards on 19 carries. He averaged 4.6 yards per carry and also added 51 receiving yards.
How many touchdowns did Christian Watson score?
Christian Watson scored two receiving touchdowns. He finished with four receptions for 46 yards on five targets.
Did the Giants have more total yards than the Packers?
Yes. New York gained 336 total yards, while Green Bay finished with 296. Despite the yardage disadvantage, Green Bay won 27-20.
Which team was better in the red zone?
Green Bay was clearly more efficient. The Packers scored touchdowns on all four red-zone opportunities, while the Giants scored touchdowns on three of five trips.
Conclusion
The green bay packers vs new york giants match player stats from November 16, 2025 show why football games cannot be evaluated through total yardage alone.
New York produced 336 total yards, ran 69 offensive plays, held the football for 35:56, and gained 142 rushing yards. On the surface, those numbers suggest a team that controlled large portions of the game.
Green Bay, however, was much more efficient with its opportunities.
The Packers averaged 5.6 yards per rushing attempt, converted 63.6% of their third downs, scored touchdowns on all four red-zone trips, and finished without a turnover. Jordan Love added two touchdown passes without throwing an interception, while Malik Willis contributed another touchdown pass. Christian Watson’s two touchdown receptions provided the most direct scoring impact among Green Bay’s receivers.
The Giants had strong individual performances as well. Tyrone Tracy Jr. combined 88 rushing yards with 51 receiving yards, Devin Singletary scored twice on the ground, and Brian Burns created consistent pressure with two sacks and four quarterback hits.
Ultimately, the statistical story is one of efficiency versus volume. New York controlled possession and accumulated more yardage, but Green Bay converted its best opportunities at a much higher rate. The Packers’ perfect red-zone record and clean turnover margin were especially important in a game decided by only seven points.
The result was a 27-20 Green Bay victory and a useful example of how situational football, rather than raw statistical volume, can determine an NFL game.
