Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats
The seahawks vs atlanta falcons match player stats from the December 7, 2025 meeting tell a much deeper story than the final score alone. Seattle defeated Atlanta 37-9 at Mercedes-Benz Stadium, turning a 6-6 halftime game into a dominant second half. The Seahawks finished with 365 total yards, produced four touchdowns, forced three interceptions, and scored 31 unanswered points after halftime. Atlanta, meanwhile, managed only 274 total yards and failed to score a touchdown.
The game was especially important from a statistical perspective because Seattle’s production came from several different areas. Sam Darnold delivered three touchdown passes, Jaxon Smith-Njigba scored twice through the air, Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown, and Seattle’s defense created key turnovers. Nick Emmanwori and Devon Witherspoon each intercepted Kirk Cousins, while Emmanwori also recorded a sack.
Atlanta had some productive individual performances. Bijan Robinson rushed for 86 yards on 20 carries, while Kyle Pitts Sr. caught six passes for 90 yards. However, the Falcons could not convert those individual gains into touchdowns. Cousins completed 15 of 30 passes for 162 yards with two interceptions, and Atlanta’s offense struggled badly on third down.
This breakdown examines the major player statistics, team numbers, offensive performances, defensive impact, special teams production, and the game-flow details that explain how Seattle moved from a close first half to a 28-point victory.
Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on December 7, 2025, during Week 14 of the NFL regular season at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta.
Seattle entered the game with a 10-3 record, including a strong 6-1 mark on the road. Atlanta entered at 4-9 with a 2-4 home record.
The final score was:
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Seattle Seahawks | 3 | 3 | 17 | 14 | 37 |
| Atlanta Falcons | 3 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 9 |
The scoring pattern is one of the clearest indicators of how the game changed.
Both teams scored three points in each of the first two quarters. At halftime, the game was tied 6-6. Seattle then exploded for 17 points in the third quarter and another 14 in the fourth.
The Seahawks finished with 20 first downs compared with Atlanta’s 15. Seattle also averaged 6.3 yards per offensive play, while Atlanta averaged 4.4.
The official NFL game statistics also show Seattle converting 6 of 13 third downs, compared with only 1 of 13 for Atlanta. That 46.2 percent versus 7.7 percent difference was one of the most important efficiency gaps in the game.
Sam Darnold’s Passing Performance
Sam Darnold was one of the central figures in Seattle’s victory.
He completed 20 of 30 passes for 249 yards, averaging 8.3 yards per attempt. He threw three touchdown passes and one interception.
His statistical line was:
| Statistic | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 20 |
| Attempts | 30 |
| Completion rate | 66.7% |
| Passing yards | 249 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.3 |
| Touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 13 |
| QBR | 65.9 |
| Passer rating | 111.7 |
Darnold’s 111.7 passer rating stands out because he combined efficiency with explosive passing.
He was not simply accumulating short completions. Seattle’s receiving group averaged 12.5 yards per reception as a team, and several important completions came on intermediate and deep routes.
The quarterback’s three touchdown passes were particularly significant because Atlanta never found a way to answer Seattle’s passing efficiency once the game opened up.
Darnold did have one interception, meaning the performance was not completely mistake-free. However, the turnover did not prevent Seattle from maintaining control.
Another useful point is that Darnold was sacked twice for a combined loss of 13 yards. Despite those negative plays, Seattle still generated 365 total yards.
That combination of production and efficiency explains why his individual numbers were so influential to the final result.
Kirk Cousins’ Passing Numbers
Kirk Cousins faced a much more difficult statistical environment.
He completed 15 of 30 passes for 162 yards, with no touchdown passes and two interceptions.
| Statistic | Kirk Cousins |
| Completions | 15 |
| Attempts | 30 |
| Completion rate | 50.0% |
| Passing yards | 162 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.4 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards lost | 8 |
| QBR | 18.3 |
| Passer rating | 38.5 |
The 50 percent completion rate and 5.4 yards per attempt show how difficult it was for Atlanta to sustain consistent passing production.
The biggest issue was not simply the number of interceptions. The Falcons also struggled to turn successful plays into sustained drives.
Cousins’ 162 passing yards were only 13 more than Darnold’s total after accounting for Seattle’s passing production, while Seattle converted six times as many third downs.
The absence of a touchdown pass also mattered. Atlanta’s passing game generated yards, particularly through Kyle Pitts Sr., but those yards did not translate into touchdowns.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads Seattle’s Receiving Group
Among all Seattle pass catchers, Jaxon Smith-Njigba produced the most important receiving line.
He caught seven passes for 92 yards and two touchdowns on 10 targets.
| Statistic | Jaxon Smith-Njigba |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Targets | 10 |
| Receiving yards | 92 |
| Average | 13.1 yards |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Long reception | 30 yards |
Smith-Njigba accounted for 92 of Seattle’s 249 passing yards, or approximately 37 percent of Darnold’s passing total.
That level of involvement made him the focal point of Seattle’s passing attack.
His two touchdowns also meant that his production directly affected the scoreboard rather than simply adding between-the-20s yardage.
The 30-yard longest reception demonstrates his ability to generate explosive gains, while seven receptions indicate that his contribution was not dependent on one isolated play.
For readers analyzing the seahawks vs atlanta falcons match player stats, Smith-Njigba’s combination of volume, efficiency, and touchdown production is one of the clearest individual indicators of Seattle’s offensive success.
Rashid Shaheed Adds Explosive Special Teams Production
Rashid Shaheed contributed in two different phases of the game.
As a receiver, he caught four passes for 67 yards, averaging 16.8 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 33 yards.
His receiving numbers were:
| Statistic | Rashid Shaheed |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Targets | 5 |
| Yards | 67 |
| Average | 16.8 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Long | 33 |
But his most dramatic contribution came on special teams.
Shaheed returned three kickoffs for 148 yards, averaging 49.3 yards per return. His longest return went 100 yards and resulted in a touchdown.
That single return produced seven points and immediately changed the momentum of the second half.
The combination of 67 receiving yards and a 100-yard kickoff return shows why special teams can have a major effect on player-level game analysis.
Shaheed’s value was not limited to his offensive touches. His field-position impact and touchdown return helped Seattle create separation.
Cooper Kupp Contributes a Touchdown
Cooper Kupp had a smaller receiving workload but made it count.
He caught two passes for 35 yards on three targets, averaging 17.5 yards per reception.
Most importantly, one of those receptions went for a touchdown.
| Statistic | Cooper Kupp |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Targets | 3 |
| Yards | 35 |
| Average | 17.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long | 24 yards |
Kupp’s numbers demonstrate why reception totals should not be viewed in isolation.
A player can have fewer targets than a teammate but still make a decisive contribution if his opportunities come in high-value situations.
Seattle’s receiving production was spread across multiple players, which made the passing attack harder to contain.
Seattle’s Rushing Production
Seattle carried the ball 26 times for 129 yards, averaging 5.0 yards per carry.
The team did not record a rushing touchdown, but the running game still produced useful efficiency.
Zach Charbonnet
Zach Charbonnet led Seattle in rushing yardage despite receiving only seven carries.
He gained 46 yards at 6.6 yards per carry, including a 27-yard run.
| Statistic | Zach Charbonnet |
| Carries | 7 |
| Rushing yards | 46 |
| Average | 6.6 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Long | 27 |
His 27-yard run was Seattle’s longest rushing play of the game.
Charbonnet also caught two passes for 20 yards, giving him 66 yards from scrimmage.
Velus Jones Jr.
Velus Jones Jr. carried four times for 32 yards.
His 8.0 yards-per-carry average was the best among Seattle’s listed rushers.
He also produced a 25-yard run, giving Seattle another explosive element on the ground.
Kenneth Walker III
Kenneth Walker III had 10 carries for 29 yards.
His 2.9 yards-per-carry average was lower than Seattle’s team average, but his workload remained the largest individual rushing workload for the Seahawks.
Walker also caught one pass for minus one yard.
The overall lesson is that Seattle’s rushing attack was effective as a group rather than depending on one dominant runner.
Bijan Robinson Leads Atlanta’s Ground Game
Bijan Robinson was Atlanta’s leading rusher.
He carried the ball 20 times for 86 yards, averaging 4.3 yards per carry. His longest run went for 11 yards.
| Statistic | Bijan Robinson |
| Carries | 20 |
| Rushing yards | 86 |
| Average | 4.3 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Long | 11 yards |
Robinson accounted for a substantial portion of Atlanta’s rushing production.
Atlanta finished with 120 rushing yards on 31 attempts, meaning Robinson generated 86 of those yards.
Tyler Allgeier added 34 yards on 11 carries, averaging 3.1 yards per attempt.
The important issue for Atlanta was not that the running game was completely ineffective. The Falcons actually finished with only nine fewer rushing yards than Seattle.
The problem was what happened around those rushing yards.
Atlanta produced no rushing touchdowns, struggled on third down, and repeatedly failed to convert drives into touchdowns.
Kyle Pitts Sr. Was Atlanta’s Top Receiver
Kyle Pitts Sr. led the Falcons in receiving.
He caught six passes for 90 yards on 10 targets, averaging 15.0 yards per reception.
| Statistic | Kyle Pitts Sr. |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Targets | 10 |
| Receiving yards | 90 |
| Average | 15.0 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Long | 30 yards |
Pitts accounted for 90 of Atlanta’s 162 passing yards.
That means he produced more than half of the team’s passing yardage.
His six receptions and 10 targets also show that Atlanta was consistently looking in his direction.
However, his strong individual performance did not result in a touchdown.
This is an important distinction when analyzing player statistics. A receiver can have an excellent yardage performance while the offense as a whole struggles to finish drives.
Pitts’ 30-yard reception was Atlanta’s longest reception listed in the game.
Atlanta’s Other Receiving Contributions
Tyler Allgeier caught two passes for 33 yards, including a 21-yard reception.
Dylan Drummond added three receptions for 21 yards on five targets.
Bijan Robinson caught two passes for eight yards, while Darnell Mooney added one reception for six yards.
Deven Thompkins caught one pass for four yards.
David Sills V was targeted four times without recording a reception.
The numbers reveal a sharp contrast with Seattle’s receiving group.
Atlanta’s receivers accumulated yardage, but the Falcons did not produce a passing touchdown. Seattle’s 20 receptions produced 249 yards and three touchdowns.
Seattle’s Defensive Impact
The Seattle’s defense recorded 70 total tackles, including 37 solo tackles.
The defense also produced:
- 1 sack
- 3 tackles for loss
- 10 passes defended
- 7 quarterback hits
- 2 interceptions
- 1 defensive touchdown
Ernest Jones IV led Seattle with 11 total tackles, including five solo tackles.
Devon Witherspoon recorded seven total tackles and five solo tackles, along with two passes defended and one quarterback hit.
Riq Woolen contributed five tackles, four of them solo, along with two passes defended.
Nick Emmanwori produced one of the game’s most notable defensive performances.
He recorded six total tackles, five solo tackles, one sack, two tackles for loss, one pass defended, one quarterback hit, and an interception.
His interception was particularly important because Atlanta was unable to compensate for the resulting loss of possession.
NFL’s Week 14 analysis also highlighted Emmanwori’s impact on defense and special teams, noting his interception and sack as part of Seattle’s strong overall performance.
Devon Witherspoon’s Turnover Contribution
Devon Witherspoon recorded one interception for three return yards.
His statistical contribution went beyond the interception.
He finished with seven total tackles, five solo tackles, two passes defended, and one quarterback hit.
The interception was one of two created by Seattle’s defense.
Atlanta’s offense therefore ended two possessions with interceptions, while Seattle’s defense consistently limited explosive scoring opportunities.
Atlanta Defensive Leaders
Atlanta recorded 63 total tackles, including 39 solo tackles.
The Falcons had:
- 2 sacks
- 7 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 3 quarterback hits
- 1 interception
A.J. Terrell Jr. led Atlanta with eight total tackles and seven solo tackles. He also recorded one tackle for loss and one pass defended.
Mike Hughes recorded six tackles, all solo, along with one tackle for loss and one pass defended.
Divine Deablo also recorded six tackles, including four solo tackles.
Mike Hughes intercepted Darnold once for six return yards.
Despite creating two sacks and an interception, Atlanta’s defense could not prevent Seattle from scoring 37 points.
The Third-Down Difference
One of the strongest statistical explanations for the final result is third-down efficiency.
Seattle converted 6 of 13 third-down attempts.
Atlanta converted only 1 of 13.
That means Seattle converted approximately 46.2 percent of its third downs, while Atlanta converted just 7.7 percent.
This is a massive difference.
Third-down performance often influences how long an offense can remain on the field. Seattle’s ability to convert allowed the Seahawks to extend drives and maintain offensive rhythm.
Atlanta’s inability to convert meant that promising possessions repeatedly stalled.
This also helps explain why Atlanta could finish with 274 total yards but only nine points.
Yardage alone does not determine scoring output. Efficiency in critical situations matters.
Red-Zone Efficiency
Seattle also had a significant advantage in the red zone.
The Seahawks went 2-for-4 in red-zone opportunities, while Atlanta went 0-for-4.
That is perhaps the clearest scoring statistic in the entire game.
Atlanta entered the red zone four times but did not score a touchdown on any of those opportunities.
Seattle also failed to score a touchdown on every red-zone visit, but it still converted half of its opportunities.
This distinction is critical.
Atlanta’s offense reached scoring territory but repeatedly settled for field goals or came away without points. Seattle was more successful at turning high-value possessions into touchdowns.
Field Goals and Kicking
Jason Myers was perfect for Seattle.
He converted all three field-goal attempts and all four extra-point attempts.
His longest field goal was 48 yards, and he finished with 12 points.
| Kicker | FG | FG Attempts | XP | Points |
| Jason Myers | 3 | 3 | 4 | 12 |
| Zane Gonzalez | 3 | 4 | 0 | 10 |
Zane Gonzalez made three of four field-goal attempts for Atlanta.
The missed field goal mattered because Atlanta was already struggling to turn possessions into touchdowns.
Seattle’s perfect kicking performance provided reliable points while the offense generated touchdowns through the passing game and special teams.
Special Teams Became a Major Storyline
Seattle’s special teams production deserves separate attention.
Rashid Shaheed returned three kickoffs for 148 yards, averaging 49.3 yards per return.
His 100-yard touchdown return was the game’s only kickoff return touchdown.
Atlanta’s Deven Thompkins returned four kickoffs for 121 yards, averaging 30.3 yards per return.
His longest return was 47 yards.
Atlanta also received a 14-yard punt return from Jamal Agnew.
Seattle had no punt returns.
The return-yardage difference helped Seattle consistently create favorable field-position situations, while Shaheed’s touchdown directly added seven points.
Punting Comparison
Michael Dickson punted three times for Seattle for 148 yards.
His average was 49.3 yards, with two punts placed inside the 20-yard line. His longest punt was 52 yards.
Bradley Pinion punted twice for Atlanta for 84 yards, averaging 42.0 yards. Both of his punts were placed inside the 20.
| Statistic | Michael Dickson | Bradley Pinion |
| Punts | 3 | 2 |
| Total yards | 148 | 84 |
| Average | 49.3 | 42.0 |
| Inside 20 | 2 | 2 |
| Long | 52 | 45 |
Both punters performed effectively in terms of placing punts inside the 20, but Seattle’s greater total punting distance reflected the difference in possession patterns.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Seattle committed two fumbles but recovered both.
Atlanta committed one fumble and lost it.
In addition to the fumble difference, Seattle intercepted Cousins twice while Atlanta intercepted Darnold once.
That produced a net turnover advantage for Seattle.
The takeaway is straightforward: Seattle created more extra possessions and avoided losing its own fumbles.
Turnovers were not the only reason for the 28-point margin, but they helped Seattle transform defensive pressure into scoring opportunities.
Total Yardage Comparison
The overall offensive numbers provide useful context.
| Category | Seattle | Atlanta |
| First downs | 20 | 15 |
| Total yards | 365 | 274 |
| Rushing yards | 129 | 120 |
| Passing yards | 236 net | 154 net |
| Offensive plays | 58 | 62 |
| Yards per play | 6.3 | 4.4 |
| Third down | 6/13 | 1/13 |
| Touchdowns | 4 | 0 |
| Red zone | 2/4 | 0/4 |
| Time of possession | 31:20 | 28:40 |
An interesting detail is that Atlanta ran more offensive plays than Seattle, 62 to 58.
Yet Seattle produced 365 yards compared with Atlanta’s 274.
That means Seattle gained substantially more yardage per play.
This is a useful reminder that possession volume and offensive efficiency are different measurements.
Atlanta had more plays but generated less production from those plays.
How the Game Changed After Halftime
The halftime score was 6-6.
That makes the final 37-9 result especially significant.
Seattle scored 31 points after halftime.
Atlanta scored only three.
The third quarter was the turning point. Seattle scored 17 points while Atlanta was held scoreless.
Seattle then added another 14 points in the fourth quarter.
This pattern suggests that the game was not simply a wire-to-wire blowout.
For much of the first half, the teams were closely matched on the scoreboard. Seattle then created separation through a combination of passing touchdowns, defensive turnovers, and special teams explosiveness.
That distinction is important for anyone studying the player statistics because the final numbers are heavily influenced by what happened after halftime.
What the Player Statistics Reveal
The statistical profile of the game points to several clear themes.
1. Seattle was more efficient
The Seahawks gained 6.3 yards per offensive play compared with 4.4 for Atlanta.
That difference accumulated across the game.
2. Seattle finished drives better
The Seahawks scored four touchdowns.
Atlanta scored none.
The Falcons reached the red zone four times but failed to score a touchdown on every visit.
3. Seattle created more explosive plays
Shaheed’s 100-yard kickoff return, Charbonnet’s 27-yard run, Smith-Njigba’s 30-yard reception, and multiple long completions gave Seattle several ways to generate field position and points.
4. Atlanta had individual production without scoring production
Robinson rushed for 86 yards.
Pitts produced 90 receiving yards.
Those are meaningful individual totals.
But Atlanta still scored only nine points.
That gap between individual yardage and team scoring is one of the most important lessons from this matchup.
5. Seattle’s defense created decisive possessions
Witherspoon and Emmanwori each intercepted Cousins.
Emmanwori also added a sack and two tackles for loss.
Seattle did not need overwhelming sack totals to dominate the game. The defense instead created pressure, limited third-down success, and generated turnovers.
Most Important Seattle Player Performances
The leading individual statistical contributions from Seattle included:
Sam Darnold: 20 completions on 30 attempts, 249 yards, three touchdowns and one interception.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba: Seven receptions, 92 yards and two touchdowns.
Rashid Shaheed: Four receptions for 67 yards plus a 100-yard kickoff return touchdown.
Zach Charbonnet: 46 rushing yards on seven attempts and 20 receiving yards.
Jason Myers: Three field goals and four extra points.
Ernest Jones IV: 11 total tackles.
Nick Emmanwori: Six tackles, one sack, two tackles for loss and one interception.
Devon Witherspoon: Seven tackles and one interception.
Together, those performances cover nearly every major phase of the game.
Most Important Atlanta Player Performances
Atlanta’s strongest statistical contributors included:
Bijan Robinson: 86 rushing yards on 20 attempts and eight receiving yards.
Kyle Pitts Sr.: Six receptions for 90 yards on 10 targets.
Tyler Allgeier: 34 rushing yards and 33 receiving yards.
A.J. Terrell Jr.: Eight total tackles and one pass defended.
Mike Hughes: Six tackles and one interception.
Despite these individual contributions, Atlanta struggled to convert production into touchdowns.
That is why the team statistics are more revealing when viewed alongside the player statistics.
A Practical Way to Read NFL Player Stats
When analyzing a game like this, it is easy to focus only on the player with the most yards.
A better approach is to examine several categories together.
First, look at opportunity.
Targets, carries, and total offensive touches show how involved a player was.
Second, examine efficiency.
Yards per carry, yards per reception, yards per target, and completion percentage provide additional context.
Third, examine scoring impact.
Touchdowns can dramatically change the importance of an otherwise modest statistical line.
Fourth, examine situational production.
Third-down conversions and red-zone efficiency help explain whether production actually contributed to winning drives.
Finally, consider turnovers and special teams.
An interception or kickoff return touchdown can have an impact that is not captured by standard offensive yardage.
Using this approach makes the seahawks vs atlanta falcons match player stats much easier to understand because the numbers become connected to the actual flow of the game.
Why the Final Score Was So Large
The 28-point margin can be explained through several statistical differences rather than one single factor.
Seattle produced 365 yards.
Atlanta produced 274.
Seattle averaged 6.3 yards per play.
Atlanta averaged 4.4.
Seattle converted 46.2 percent of third downs.
Atlanta converted 7.7 percent.
Seattle scored four touchdowns.
Atlanta scored zero.
Seattle went 2-for-4 in the red zone.
Atlanta went 0-for-4.
Seattle intercepted Cousins twice.
Atlanta intercepted Darnold once.
Seattle also had the game’s only kickoff return touchdown.
When these figures are considered together, the final score becomes much easier to explain.
The Seahawks did not dominate every individual statistical category. Atlanta’s rushing total was relatively close to Seattle’s, and Pitts and Robinson produced strong individual numbers.
Seattle’s advantage came from combining efficiency, scoring, turnovers, and special teams production.
Lessons for Fantasy Football Analysis
Although fantasy scoring systems differ, the player statistics provide several useful observations.
Darnold’s three passing touchdowns significantly increased the value of his otherwise moderate 249-yard passing total.
Smith-Njigba’s seven receptions and two touchdowns made him one of Seattle’s most productive offensive players.
Shaheed’s receiving production was complemented by a major special teams play, although fantasy scoring for return touchdowns depends on league settings.
Robinson’s 86 rushing yards represented a solid workload-based performance, but the absence of a touchdown limited his scoring ceiling.
Pitts’ 90 receiving yards on 10 targets showed strong involvement even though he did not score.
This is why fantasy analysis should consider volume and scoring opportunities rather than relying only on yardage.
Lessons for Matchup Analysis
For future Seahawks or Falcons matchups, this game provides several useful statistical reference points.
Seattle demonstrated that its offense could produce efficiently through multiple players. Darnold did not need to throw 40 or 50 passes because the Seahawks generated strong gains and converted key opportunities.
The receiving corps also showed depth. Smith-Njigba led the group, but Shaheed and Kupp provided explosive contributions.
Atlanta’s numbers showed a different pattern.
The Falcons were able to move the ball at times, particularly through Robinson and Pitts, but struggled to maintain efficiency in high-value situations.
The most important number may therefore be Atlanta’s 1-for-13 third-down performance rather than any single player’s yardage total.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Seahawks in passing against the Falcons?
Sam Darnold led Seattle’s passing attack with 20 completions on 30 attempts for 249 yards, three touchdowns and one interception.
Who was Seattle’s leading receiver?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led the Seahawks with seven receptions for 92 yards and two touchdowns on 10 targets.
Who led Atlanta in rushing?
Bijan Robinson led Atlanta with 20 carries for 86 yards, averaging 4.3 yards per carry.
Who led Atlanta in receiving?
Kyle Pitts Sr. led the Falcons with six receptions for 90 yards on 10 targets.
How many touchdowns did Atlanta score?
Atlanta scored no touchdowns. The Falcons finished with nine total points from three made field goals.
What was the biggest special teams play?
Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown, giving Seattle seven points and contributing to the Seahawks’ second-half surge.
Conclusion
The seahawks vs atlanta falcons match player stats show that Seattle’s 37-9 victory was built on much more than passing yardage.
Sam Darnold delivered three touchdown passes and a 111.7 passer rating. Jaxon Smith-Njigba turned 10 targets into seven receptions, 92 yards and two touchdowns. Rashid Shaheed added 67 receiving yards and a 100-yard kickoff return touchdown.
Seattle’s defense also made the critical plays. Devon Witherspoon and Nick Emmanwori each intercepted Kirk Cousins, while Emmanwori added a sack and two tackles for loss. Ernest Jones IV led the team with 11 tackles.
Atlanta’s individual numbers were not empty. Bijan Robinson rushed for 86 yards, and Kyle Pitts Sr. caught six passes for 90 yards. However, Atlanta could not translate those numbers into touchdowns.
The most revealing team statistics were third-down and red-zone efficiency. Seattle converted 6 of 13 third downs and went 2-for-4 in the red zone. Atlanta converted only 1 of 13 third downs and went 0-for-4 in the red zone.
The halftime score of 6-6 also provides essential context. Seattle did not simply control the game from the opening snap. Instead, the Seahawks separated themselves dramatically after halftime, scoring 31 second-half points while holding Atlanta to three.
Taken together, the numbers show a game decided by efficiency, explosive plays, turnovers, and finishing drives. That combination explains how a competitive first half became a 37-9 Seattle victory by the final whistle.
