Green bay packers vs Cleveland browns match player stats
The green bay packers vs cleveland browns match player stats from September 21, 2025 tell the story of a low-scoring game that changed dramatically in the fourth quarter. Cleveland defeated Green Bay 13-10 at Huntington Bank Field after trailing 10-0 entering the final period. The Packers controlled much of the game statistically in several areas, but the Browns produced the decisive late scoring sequence and finished the afternoon with the win. The official NFL game record confirms the 13-10 final score and the 0-0, 3-0, 7-0, 0-13 quarter progression.
This game is particularly useful for understanding why box-score analysis should go beyond simply looking at passing yards or total offense. Green Bay finished with 230 total yards compared with Cleveland’s 221, yet the Browns won. Green Bay also converted 10 of 18 third downs, while Cleveland converted only 4 of 13. Despite those advantages, Cleveland created enough late-game efficiency to turn a 10-point deficit into a three-point victory.
Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The headline numbers provide an immediate picture of how unusual the game was.
| Category | Green Bay Packers | Cleveland Browns |
| Final Score | 10 | 13 |
| Total Yards | 230 | 221 |
| Rushing Yards | 81 | 96 |
| Passing Yards | 149 net | 125 net |
| First Downs | 14 | 15 |
| Third Down | 10/18 | 4/13 |
| Fourth Down | 0/0 | 1/2 |
| Offensive Plays | 61 | 57 |
| Yards per Play | 3.8 | 3.9 |
| Time of Possession | 34:14 | 25:46 |
| Sacks Allowed | 5 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Punts | 5 | 6 |
| Red Zone | 1/2 | 1/2 |
| Penalties | 14-75 | 8-90 |
| Fumbles | 1, none lost | 0 |
The overall numbers show a contest with very little separation. Green Bay had more offensive plays, more time with the ball, and considerably better third-down conversion. Cleveland nevertheless generated the better rushing efficiency and made the crucial plays when the game was decided.
That contrast is the central theme of this matchup. The Packers were able to sustain possessions, but the Browns were more effective during the small number of possessions that mattered most in the fourth quarter.
Jordan Love Passing Performance
Jordan Love completed 18 of 25 passes for 183 passing yards, one touchdown and one interception. His listed passer rating was 89.2, with a 56.4 QBR. He was also sacked five times for 34 yards.
Those numbers need context.
Love’s completion rate was strong at 72 percent, and Green Bay completed enough passes to maintain offensive rhythm. However, the five sacks had a significant effect on the Packers’ net passing output. Green Bay recorded 183 gross passing yards but finished with 149 net passing yards after sack yardage was removed. The official team statistics list those five sacks for 34 yards.
Love’s Most Important Numbers
| Statistic | Jordan Love |
| Completions | 18 |
| Attempts | 25 |
| Completion Rate | 72.0% |
| Passing Yards | 183 |
| Yards per Attempt | 7.3 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 5 |
| Sack Yardage | 34 |
| Passer Rating | 89.2 |
| QBR | 56.4 |
Love’s touchdown came on a short pass to John FitzPatrick in the third quarter. The scoring drive covered 71 yards across 14 plays and lasted 7:41, putting Green Bay ahead 10-0.
The biggest concern in evaluating Love’s performance is therefore not simply the interception. The five sacks created negative plays that reduced the efficiency of otherwise productive passing.
Joe Flacco Passing Performance
Joe Flacco finished 21 of 36 for 142 yards, no touchdowns and one interception. His passer rating was 55.6, while his QBR was 26.6.
On the surface, those figures were less productive than Love’s. Flacco averaged only 3.9 yards per completed passing attempt based on the supplied game statistics, and Cleveland did not throw a touchdown pass.
Yet the final result demonstrates that passing volume and passing efficiency do not always determine the winner of a single NFL game.
Flacco helped Cleveland stay within striking distance while the defense kept Green Bay from extending its lead. He also avoided the sack total that affected Love. Cleveland’s official statistics show two sacks for 17 yards compared with Green Bay’s five sacks for 34 yards.
Flacco’s Passing Line
| Statistic | Joe Flacco |
| Completions | 21 |
| Attempts | 36 |
| Completion Rate | 58.3% |
| Passing Yards | 142 |
| Yards per Attempt | 3.9 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Sack Yardage | 17 |
| Passer Rating | 55.6 |
| QBR | 26.6 |
Flacco’s most important contribution was not a spectacular passing performance. It was his role within a game plan that eventually allowed Cleveland’s rushing attack and kicking game to decide the outcome.
Quinshon Judkins Leads the Cleveland Ground Game
Quinshon Judkins was the most influential individual offensive player for Cleveland.
He carried the ball 18 times for 94 yards, averaging 5.1 yards per carry and scoring one touchdown. His longest run went for 38 yards.
Those numbers were especially important because Cleveland’s entire rushing attack produced 96 yards on only 19 attempts. Judkins accounted for almost all of the team’s rushing production.
The 38-yard run also demonstrates why looking only at the final rushing average can miss an important part of the story. Cleveland did not need a large number of rushing attempts. One explosive run substantially changed the efficiency of the ground game.
Judkins’ one-yard touchdown run came with 3:01 remaining in the fourth quarter. It tied the game at 10-10 after Cleveland had trailed throughout the first three quarters.
Judkins Rushing Statistics
| Statistic | Quinshon Judkins |
| Carries | 18 |
| Rushing Yards | 94 |
| Average | 5.2 yards per carry |
| Longest Run | 38 yards |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Judkins therefore became the central figure in Cleveland’s late comeback. His production supplied the rushing efficiency that Cleveland needed while the defense limited Green Bay’s ability to create a second-half cushion.
Josh Jacobs Faces a Difficult Rushing Environment
Josh Jacobs carried the ball 16 times for only 30 yards, an average of 1.9 yards per carry. He did not score a rushing touchdown.
The difference between Jacobs and Judkins is one of the clearest statistical contrasts in the game.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| Josh Jacobs | 16 | 30 | 1.9 | 0 |
| Quinshon Judkins | 18 | 94 | 5.2 | 1 |
Green Bay finished with 81 rushing yards on 31 attempts, while Cleveland recorded 96 yards on only 19 attempts. That created a substantial efficiency difference even though the overall rushing-yard totals were relatively close.
Jacobs did contribute as a receiver, catching five passes for 44 yards. His combined involvement therefore extended beyond the rushing statistics.
Green Bay Receiving Production
Matthew Golden led Green Bay’s receiving group with four receptions for 52 yards. His 34-yard reception was the longest catch by a Packers player in the game.
Josh Jacobs followed with five receptions for 44 yards, while Tucker Kraft added three catches for 29 yards.
Green Bay’s receiving distribution was relatively balanced:
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards | Long |
| Matthew Golden | 4 | 52 | 34 |
| Josh Jacobs | 5 | 44 | Not listed |
| Tucker Kraft | 3 | 29 | Not listed |
| Romeo Doubs | 2 | 25 | Not listed |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 2 | 21 | Not listed |
| John FitzPatrick | 2 | 12 | Not listed |
The Packers finished with 18 receptions for 183 gross receiving yards on 25 targets, according to the supplied player data.
The most important reception of the afternoon from a scoring perspective came from John FitzPatrick, who caught Love’s three-yard touchdown pass in the third quarter. That play completed the Packers’ longest sustained scoring drive of the game.
Cleveland Receiving Production
Cleveland’s passing game was less explosive, but the Browns spread the ball across several players.
David Njoku led the team with five receptions for 40 yards. Cedric Tillman had three catches for 26 yards, while Harold Fannin Jr. also caught three passes, finishing with 25 yards.
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards |
| David Njoku | 5 | 40 |
| Cedric Tillman | 3 | 26 |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 3 | 25 |
| Jerry Jeudy | 1 | 17 |
| Isaiah Bond | 2 | 16 |
| Jerome Ford | 4 | 10 |
| Jamari Thrash | 2 | 7 |
| Quinshon Judkins | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland recorded 21 completions for 142 yards on 33 targets. The lack of a receiving touchdown highlights how dependent the Browns were on the rushing touchdown and field goals for their scoring.
This is an important distinction when examining the offensive statistics. Cleveland’s passing attack moved the ball in short increments, while its rushing attack produced the most valuable explosive play.
Defensive Statistics Tell a Different Story
The defensive numbers explain why the game stayed close enough for Cleveland to mount its comeback.
Green Bay recorded 62 tackles, including 34 solo tackles, two sacks, five tackles for loss, three passes defended and 10 quarterback hits.
Cleveland recorded 77 tackles, including 41 solo tackles, five sacks, six tackles for loss, two passes defended and seven quarterback hits.
| Defensive Category | Packers | Browns |
| Total Tackles | 62 | 77 |
| Solo Tackles | 34 | 41 |
| Sacks | 2 | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 | 6 |
| Passes Defended | 3 | 2 |
| QB Hits | 10 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The five sacks by Cleveland are particularly significant. They contributed directly to the difference between Green Bay’s 183 gross passing yards and 149 net passing yards.
Grant Delpit recorded Cleveland’s interception and returned it 25 yards. Green Bay’s Xavier McKinney also intercepted Flacco, although his return produced no yardage.
The turnover numbers were therefore even at one interception apiece, but the Browns generated more negative passing plays through sacks.
Third Down Efficiency Favored Green Bay
One of the most interesting aspects of the game is that Green Bay was much better on third down.
The Packers converted 10 of 18 third downs, a 55.6 percent rate. Cleveland converted only 4 of 13, or 30.8 percent.
That difference usually creates a major possession advantage, and Green Bay did control the clock for 34:14.
However, the Browns compensated with other forms of efficiency.
Cleveland gained 5.1 yards per rushing attempt compared with Green Bay’s 2.6. The Browns also converted one of two fourth-down attempts, while Green Bay did not attempt a fourth down.
This illustrates why a single efficiency statistic cannot explain the final result.
The Fourth Quarter Changed Everything
The first three quarters produced a very different game from the final 15 minutes.
Green Bay entered the fourth quarter with a 10-0 lead. The Packers had scored three points in the second quarter and seven in the third.
Cleveland had scored nothing through three quarters.
Then the game changed rapidly.
Cleveland’s First Fourth-Quarter Score
With 3:38 remaining, Andre Szmyt converted a 35-yard field goal to reduce the deficit to 10-3.
Cleveland’s scoring drive covered 63 yards in 12 plays and consumed 5:48.
That drive was important because it kept the Browns within one possession.
Judkins Ties the Game
Just 37 seconds later, Judkins scored on a one-yard rushing touchdown.
Cleveland recovered the ball and needed only one play to reach the end zone, according to the official scoring summary. The touchdown tied the game 10-10 with 3:01 remaining.
Szmyt Wins the Game
Cleveland then produced the decisive scoring sequence.
Andre Szmyt hit a 55-yard field goal as time expired, giving Cleveland a 13-10 victory. The drive covered 16 yards across five plays and lasted 21 seconds.
The game therefore moved from a 10-point Green Bay advantage to a three-point Cleveland victory within the final 3:38.
Special Teams Played a Major Role
The kicking statistics are easy to overlook in a player-stats article, but they were decisive.
Brandon McManus made one of two field-goal attempts for Green Bay. His successful kick came from 39 yards, and he finished with four total points after converting his extra-point attempt.
Andre Szmyt was perfect for Cleveland, going 2-for-2 on field goals and 1-for-1 on extra points. His field goals came from 35 and 55 yards.
| Kicker | FG | Long | XP | Total Points |
| Brandon McManus | 1/2 | 39 | 1/1 | 4 |
| Andre Szmyt | 2/2 | 55 | 1/1 | 7 |
Szmyt’s 55-yard kick was the difference between a tie and a Cleveland victory.
That makes the kicking comparison especially important when studying the complete game record. Cleveland scored only one touchdown, but its kicking game converted every available scoring opportunity.
Punting and Field Position
Green Bay’s Daniel Whelan punted five times for 265 yards, averaging 53.0 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 63 yards.
Cleveland’s Corey Bojorquez punted six times for 291 yards, averaging 48.5 yards. Two of his punts were placed inside the 20-yard line.
| Punter | Punts | Yards | Average | Long | Inside 20 |
| Daniel Whelan | 5 | 265 | 53.0 | 63 | 0 |
| Corey Bojorquez | 6 | 291 | 48.5 | 58 | 2 |
Green Bay also received strong kickoff-return production from Savion Williams, who returned three kickoffs for 78 yards.
Cleveland’s Kaden Davis and DeAndre Carter combined for 55 kickoff-return yards.
The field-position battle was therefore competitive rather than one-sided, which fits the overall character of the game.
Penalties and Possession
Green Bay was penalized 14 times for 75 yards, while Cleveland had eight penalties for 90 yards.
This is another unusual part of the statistical profile.
The Packers committed more penalties by count, but Cleveland lost more yards to its penalties. Neither side therefore had a clean penalty sheet.
Green Bay also held the ball for 34:14, compared with 25:46 for Cleveland. The Packers ran 61 offensive plays, four more than Cleveland’s 57.
Despite those possession advantages, Green Bay could not turn sustained offensive control into enough points.
Why the Total Offense Was So Close
Green Bay finished with 230 total yards and Cleveland with 221.
That nine-yard difference is small enough that the final score makes sense when viewed through efficiency and scoring opportunities rather than raw production.
Green Bay had:
- 149 net passing yards
- 81 rushing yards
- 230 total yards
- 61 offensive plays
Cleveland had:
- 125 net passing yards
- 96 rushing yards
- 221 total yards
- 57 offensive plays
The Packers generated more total plays and more net passing yards. Cleveland generated more rushing efficiency.
The result was a game where neither offense consistently dominated. Instead, individual plays had unusually high value because scoring opportunities were scarce.
Red Zone Efficiency
Both teams finished 1-for-2 in the red zone, meaning each converted half of its red-zone opportunities.
That statistic is important because it shows that neither team was consistently efficient once it reached scoring territory.
Green Bay’s touchdown came through FitzPatrick’s reception from Love.
Cleveland’s touchdown came through Judkins on the ground.
The rest of the Browns’ points came from field goals, while Green Bay added only one field goal.
The difference was therefore not simply red-zone percentage. Cleveland’s two successful field goals, including the game-winning 55-yarder, supplied the extra three points required for victory.
What the Player Stats Reveal
The most useful way to interpret this matchup is to separate volume from efficiency.
Green Bay’s strongest statistical areas
The Packers had several advantages:
- Better third-down conversion.
- More offensive plays.
- More time of possession.
- More gross and net passing production.
- A higher number of quarterback hits generated.
- More total passing attempts completed relative to Cleveland.
Yet Green Bay struggled to turn those advantages into points.
Cleveland’s strongest statistical areas
The Browns excelled in other areas:
- Better rushing efficiency.
- More sacks generated.
- A crucial 38-yard Judkins run.
- A game-tying rushing touchdown.
- Perfect field-goal kicking.
- The game-winning field goal from 55 yards.
The contrast is a reminder that football games are determined by scoring efficiency rather than by one aggregate statistic.
Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The green bay packers vs cleveland browns match player stats show several lessons that are useful for anyone studying NFL box scores.
First, Jordan Love produced a statistically solid completion percentage and 183 gross passing yards, but five sacks reduced Green Bay’s net passing output.
Second, Josh Jacobs received a substantial workload but averaged fewer than two yards per carry. Green Bay’s entire rushing unit averaged only 2.6 yards per attempt.
Third, Quinshon Judkins was Cleveland’s primary offensive engine. His 94 rushing yards represented almost the entire Browns rushing total.
Fourth, Cleveland’s defense created five sacks. That number mattered because the Packers otherwise completed 18 of 25 passes.
Fifth, Green Bay’s 10-for-18 third-down performance was excellent by the standards of this game, but it did not produce enough scoring.
Finally, special teams decided the final margin. Szmyt made both field-goal attempts, including a 55-yard kick at the end of the game.
A Statistical Timeline of the Game
| Stage | Green Bay | Cleveland | Key Event |
| End Q1 | 0 | 0 | Scoreless opening quarter |
| End Q2 | 3 | 0 | McManus makes 39-yard FG |
| End Q3 | 10 | 0 | FitzPatrick catches TD pass |
| 3:38 Q4 | 10 | 3 | Szmyt makes 35-yard FG |
| 3:01 Q4 | 10 | 10 | Judkins scores one-yard TD |
| 0:00 Q4 | 10 | 13 | Szmyt makes 55-yard game-winning FG |
This timeline shows why final-score analysis alone can be misleading. For most of the afternoon, Green Bay appeared to have control of the scoreboard. Cleveland’s entire scoring output came after the third quarter.
How to Read This Box Score Correctly
For readers researching player statistics, the best approach is to examine the game in layers.
Start with the final score and quarter breakdown.
Then compare total offense.
After that, separate rushing from passing.
Next, examine third down, red zone, turnovers and sacks.
Finally, look at special teams and late-game scoring.
Using this sequence prevents one standout statistic from dominating the analysis.
For example, Green Bay’s 10-for-18 third-down conversion rate looks highly favorable. But when paired with five sacks, only 230 total yards and 10 points, it becomes clear that sustaining drives was not enough.
Likewise, Cleveland’s 4-for-13 third-down performance looks poor. But the Browns still rushed for 96 yards on 19 attempts, scored 13 points and made both field-goal attempts.
That is the value of examining the complete statistical profile.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Packers vs Browns game on September 21, 2025?
The Cleveland Browns defeated the Green Bay Packers 13-10 at Huntington Bank Field in Cleveland.
How many passing yards did Jordan Love have?
Jordan Love completed 18 of 25 passes for 183 yards, one touchdown and one interception. He was also sacked five times for 34 yards.
How many rushing yards did Quinshon Judkins have?
Quinshon Judkins rushed 18 times for 94 yards and one touchdown, including a longest run of 38 yards.
Who led the Packers in receiving?
Matthew Golden led Green Bay with four receptions for 52 yards, including a 34-yard reception.
How did Cleveland win the game?
Cleveland erased a 10-0 deficit in the fourth quarter. Andre Szmyt kicked a 35-yard field goal, Quinshon Judkins scored a one-yard rushing touchdown, and Szmyt then made a 55-yard field goal as time expired.
Which team had more total yards?
Green Bay had 230 total yards, while Cleveland had 221. The Packers had more total yards despite losing the game.
Conclusion
The green bay packers vs cleveland browns match player stats from September 21, 2025 describe a game decided by efficiency, defensive pressure and late scoring rather than by total yardage.
Green Bay controlled the ball for more than 34 minutes, ran 61 offensive plays and converted 10 of 18 third downs. Jordan Love completed 72 percent of his passes, while Matthew Golden led the receiving corps with 52 yards.
Cleveland, however, found greater rushing efficiency. Quinshon Judkins produced 94 yards and the tying touchdown, while the Browns’ defense recorded five sacks. Cleveland also converted both field-goal attempts, with Andre Szmyt delivering the winning 55-yard kick as time expired.
The final statistical picture is therefore much closer than the dramatic fourth-quarter comeback might suggest. Green Bay had several measurable advantages, but Cleveland produced the decisive plays at the most important moments. The official NFL game record lists the final score as Cleveland 13, Green Bay 10, with the Browns completing their comeback in the final minutes.
