Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats from the August 13, 2026, NFL preseason game reveal how Pittsburgh secured a convincing 28-9 victory through efficient passing, explosive receiving plays, and stronger pressure on opposing quarterbacks. The Steelers scored 28 unanswered points after Green Bay’s last field goal, turning a competitive opening period into a comfortable home win. For fans analyzing quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving yards, defensive pressure, and special teams, the box score provides a detailed look at how the game unfolded.
Pittsburgh’s passing attack produced 313 yards and two passing touchdowns, while Green Bay finished with 97 passing yards according to the supplied team statistics. Drew Allar delivered one of the most productive individual performances, completing 10 of 13 passes for 153 yards and two touchdowns. On the other side, Kyle McCord completed 12 of 16 attempts for 102 yards, but Green Bay struggled to convert its passing opportunities into touchdowns.
The final score tells only part of the story. Pittsburgh’s 332 receiving yards, five sacks, and late scoring surge help explain the difference between the teams. Green Bay, meanwhile, demonstrated reliable field-goal kicking through Trey Smack, who converted all three attempts, including a 58-yard kick.
This breakdown examines the leading players, team statistics, scoring pattern, and most important performances from the matchup. It also explains what preseason numbers can tell fans about individual execution and where caution is necessary when drawing conclusions from a single exhibition game.
Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The preseason meeting took place on August 13, 2026, with Pittsburgh hosting Green Bay. The Steelers finished with a 28-9 victory, opening their preseason with a win while the Packers began with a loss.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Green Bay Packers at Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Date | August 13, 2026 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue designation | Pittsburgh home game |
| Final score | Pittsburgh Steelers 28, Green Bay Packers 9 |
| Green Bay points | 9 |
| Pittsburgh points | 28 |
| Green Bay record after game | 0-1 |
| Pittsburgh record after game | 1-0 |
Pittsburgh scored seven points in both the second and third quarters, then added 14 in the fourth. Green Bay managed three points in each of the first three quarters but failed to score in the final period.
That scoring pattern highlights a key difference. The Packers found a way to put points on the board early, but their offense did not produce a touchdown. Pittsburgh gradually created separation before delivering its strongest scoring performance in the closing quarter.
Because this was a preseason game, the result should be interpreted differently from a regular-season contest. Coaches use exhibition games to assess players, test combinations, evaluate execution, and determine how individuals perform in competitive situations. A preseason box score is useful evidence of what happened on the field, but it does not independently establish a player’s long-term role or predict regular-season success.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter-by-quarter results show how Pittsburgh moved from a scoreless opening quarter to a 19-point winning margin.
| Quarter | Green Bay Packers | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| First quarter | 3 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Third quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 14 |
| Total | 9 | 28 |
First quarter: Green Bay strikes first
Green Bay scored three points in the opening quarter, while Pittsburgh failed to score. The Packers therefore established an early lead without reaching the end zone.
The opening period was the closest stage of the game in terms of scoreboard pressure. However, a field goal is not equivalent to a touchdown drive. It provides points, but it also leaves the offense needing additional possessions to build a meaningful lead.
Second quarter: Pittsburgh takes control
Pittsburgh responded with seven points in the second quarter. Green Bay added another field goal, bringing its total to six, but the Steelers moved ahead.
The difference was not yet decisive. Pittsburgh’s ability to reach the end zone, however, gave it a more valuable scoring return than Green Bay’s three-point possessions.
Third quarter: The Steelers maintain their advantage
Both teams scored in the third quarter, with Pittsburgh adding another seven points and Green Bay recording its third field goal.
At this stage, the score stood at 14-9 in Pittsburgh’s favor. The Packers remained within one scoring play of taking the lead, but they still had not recorded a touchdown.
Fourth quarter: Pittsburgh creates separation
The Steelers scored 14 points in the final quarter, while Green Bay was held scoreless.
This was the most important scoring period of the game. Pittsburgh doubled its third-quarter scoring output, while the Packers could not respond. The five-point difference entering the fourth quarter became a 19-point final margin.
The supplied scoring summary does not identify the exact sequence of every scoring play. Therefore, the quarter-by-quarter breakdown establishes when the teams scored without assigning individual touchdowns to specific drives that the available data does not verify.
Quarterback Stats: Passing Performance Comparison
Quarterback production was one of the clearest statistical differences between the two teams. Pittsburgh recorded substantially more passing yards and two passing touchdowns, while Green Bay’s quarterbacks combined for no passing touchdowns.
Green Bay Packers quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Kyle McCord | 12/16 | 102 | 0 | 0 | 91.1 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 4/8 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 56.2 |
| Jordan Love | 3/5 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 67.1 |
| Kyron Drones | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39.6 |
| Team total | 19/30 | 97 reported | 0 | 0 | 74.4 |
Important data note: The supplied Green Bay passing table lists individual passing yards totaling 141, while its team passing line reports 97 yards. The individual completion totals also add to 19 of 30 attempts, matching the team completion line. These passing-yard figures are internally inconsistent, so the reported team total and individual figures are presented as supplied rather than silently reconciled.
Kyle McCord: Green Bay’s most productive listed passer
Kyle McCord completed 12 of 16 passes for 102 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His completion rate was 75%, which indicates that he completed a high proportion of his attempts.
However, completion percentage alone cannot measure the full value of a quarterback’s performance. McCord averaged 6.4 yards per attempt according to his individual line and was sacked twice for a combined loss of 18 yards.
The central takeaway is that McCord was accurate on his recorded attempts, but the passing production did not result in a touchdown. For a preseason evaluation, the useful questions include whether the offense sustained drives, how well the quarterback handled pressure, and whether completed passes moved the chains.
His statistics provide a starting point for that evaluation, but they do not reveal every factor behind each play.
Tyrod Taylor: Limited passing production
Taylor completed four of eight passes for 21 yards without a touchdown or interception. His recorded passer rating was 56.2.
His average of 2.6 yards per attempt was lower than McCord’s listed average. That figure suggests limited passing distance per attempt, although it does not explain whether the cause was defensive coverage, play design, short throws, or other circumstances.
Taylor also contributed four rushing yards on one carry. The available numbers show modest production in both areas, but a single preseason appearance is not enough to establish how he would perform in a different offensive situation.
Jordan Love: A small statistical sample
Jordan Love completed three of five passes for 18 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His recorded passer rating was 67.1.
Five attempts provide too small a sample to support broad conclusions about a quarterback’s overall ability. The figures describe his production in this game, not his full-season potential or his standing as a player.
His appearance should therefore be evaluated in the context of the limited number of recorded attempts, rather than compared directly with quarterbacks who handled substantially more passing opportunities.
Kyron Drones: Pressure affected the numbers
Drones recorded no completions on one passing attempt and was sacked three times for a combined loss of 26 yards. His recorded passer rating was 39.6.
The sack total is particularly relevant because sacks can erase field position and put an offense behind schedule. However, sack responsibility can involve several factors, including blocking, route development, defensive execution, and quarterback decisions.
The available box score confirms the pressure and lost yardage, but it does not establish which factor caused each sack.
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Drew Allar | 10/13 | 153 | 2 | 0 | 154.8 |
| Mason Rudolph | 10/11 | 93 | 0 | 0 | 101.9 |
| Will Howard | 7/9 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 106.5 |
| Team total | 27/33 | 313 | 2 | 0 | 128.8 |
Drew Allar: The standout passing performance
Drew Allar delivered the most productive individual passing line in the supplied statistics. He completed 10 of 13 attempts for 153 yards and two touchdowns, without throwing an interception or taking a sack.
His completion rate was approximately 76.9%, while his listed average of 11.8 yards per attempt indicates substantial passing production on relatively few attempts. A passer rating of 154.8 further reflects the effectiveness of his recorded passing performance.
The combination of accuracy, yardage, and touchdown production is more informative than any single measure. Allar did not simply complete short passes at a high rate. His statistics show that his completions generated meaningful yardage and direct scoring value.
Still, the proper conclusion is specific to this game: Allar produced an efficient and productive preseason passing performance. His numbers alone do not guarantee future success or determine his place on the regular-season depth chart.
Mason Rudolph: Efficient completion rate
Rudolph completed 10 of 11 passes for 93 yards without a touchdown or interception. He was sacked twice for 17 yards.
His completion rate of approximately 90.9% was the highest among the three listed Pittsburgh quarterbacks. He also averaged 8.5 yards per attempt according to the supplied individual statistics.
That combination points to efficient passing during his recorded opportunities. The two sacks are an important counterpoint because they reduced the value of the offense’s passing possessions.
Rudolph’s statistics show a strong completion rate and useful yardage, but the box score does not provide enough information to judge his reads, timing, pocket movement, or performance against different defensive looks.
Will Howard: Productive passing in limited opportunities
Howard completed seven of nine passes for 86 yards, with no passing touchdowns or interceptions. He took one sack for a loss of two yards and posted a passer rating of 106.5.
His completion rate was approximately 77.8%, and his listed average of 9.6 yards per attempt indicates that his completed passes produced solid yardage.
Howard also recorded two rushing yards on one carry. His overall passing numbers were productive for the size of his sample, although the absence of a passing touchdown means his line should not be confused with Allar’s more direct scoring contribution.
What the quarterback comparison reveals
Pittsburgh’s three listed quarterbacks combined for 27 completions on 33 attempts, 313 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, and no interceptions. Green Bay’s listed quarterback lines included no passing touchdowns and no interceptions.
The strongest distinction was therefore not turnovers. Neither team threw an interception according to the supplied data. The difference was the ability to turn passing opportunities into yardage and touchdowns.
Pittsburgh averaged 10.1 yards per attempt at the team level, compared with a reported 4.7 for Green Bay. Those figures suggest that Pittsburgh generated more passing distance per attempt. The discrepancy in Green Bay’s individual and team passing-yard totals, however, means its reported team average should be treated cautiously.
Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats from the August 13, 2026, NFL preseason game reveal how Pittsburgh secured a convincing 28-9 victory through efficient passing, explosive receiving plays, and stronger pressure on opposing quarterbacks. The Steelers scored 28 unanswered points after Green Bay’s last field goal, turning a competitive opening period into a comfortable home win. For fans analyzing quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving yards, defensive pressure, and special teams, the box score provides a detailed look at how the game unfolded.
Pittsburgh’s passing attack produced 313 yards and two passing touchdowns, while Green Bay finished with 97 passing yards according to the supplied team statistics. Drew Allar delivered one of the most productive individual performances, completing 10 of 13 passes for 153 yards and two touchdowns. On the other side, Kyle McCord completed 12 of 16 attempts for 102 yards, but Green Bay struggled to convert its passing opportunities into touchdowns.
The final score tells only part of the story. Pittsburgh’s 332 receiving yards, five sacks, and late scoring surge help explain the difference between the teams. Green Bay, meanwhile, demonstrated reliable field-goal kicking through Trey Smack, who converted all three attempts, including a 58-yard kick.
This breakdown examines the leading players, team statistics, scoring pattern, and most important performances from the matchup. It also explains what preseason numbers can tell fans about individual execution and where caution is necessary when drawing conclusions from a single exhibition game.
Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The preseason meeting took place on August 13, 2026, with Pittsburgh hosting Green Bay. The Steelers finished with a 28-9 victory, opening their preseason with a win while the Packers began with a loss.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Green Bay Packers at Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Date | August 13, 2026 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue designation | Pittsburgh home game |
| Final score | Pittsburgh Steelers 28, Green Bay Packers 9 |
| Green Bay points | 9 |
| Pittsburgh points | 28 |
| Green Bay record after game | 0-1 |
| Pittsburgh record after game | 1-0 |
Pittsburgh scored seven points in both the second and third quarters, then added 14 in the fourth. Green Bay managed three points in each of the first three quarters but failed to score in the final period.
That scoring pattern highlights a key difference. The Packers found a way to put points on the board early, but their offense did not produce a touchdown. Pittsburgh gradually created separation before delivering its strongest scoring performance in the closing quarter.
Because this was a preseason game, the result should be interpreted differently from a regular-season contest. Coaches use exhibition games to assess players, test combinations, evaluate execution, and determine how individuals perform in competitive situations. A preseason box score is useful evidence of what happened on the field, but it does not independently establish a player’s long-term role or predict regular-season success.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter-by-quarter results show how Pittsburgh moved from a scoreless opening quarter to a 19-point winning margin.
| Quarter | Green Bay Packers | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| First quarter | 3 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Third quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 14 |
| Total | 9 | 28 |
First quarter: Green Bay strikes first
Green Bay scored three points in the opening quarter, while Pittsburgh failed to score. The Packers therefore established an early lead without reaching the end zone.
The opening period was the closest stage of the game in terms of scoreboard pressure. However, a field goal is not equivalent to a touchdown drive. It provides points, but it also leaves the offense needing additional possessions to build a meaningful lead.
Second quarter: Pittsburgh takes control
Pittsburgh responded with seven points in the second quarter. Green Bay added another field goal, bringing its total to six, but the Steelers moved ahead.
The difference was not yet decisive. Pittsburgh’s ability to reach the end zone, however, gave it a more valuable scoring return than Green Bay’s three-point possessions.
Third quarter: The Steelers maintain their advantage
Both teams scored in the third quarter, with Pittsburgh adding another seven points and Green Bay recording its third field goal.
At this stage, the score stood at 14-9 in Pittsburgh’s favor. The Packers remained within one scoring play of taking the lead, but they still had not recorded a touchdown.
Fourth quarter: Pittsburgh creates separation
The Steelers scored 14 points in the final quarter, while Green Bay was held scoreless.
This was the most important scoring period of the game. Pittsburgh doubled its third-quarter scoring output, while the Packers could not respond. The five-point difference entering the fourth quarter became a 19-point final margin.
The supplied scoring summary does not identify the exact sequence of every scoring play. Therefore, the quarter-by-quarter breakdown establishes when the teams scored without assigning individual touchdowns to specific drives that the available data does not verify.
Quarterback Stats: Passing Performance Comparison
Quarterback production was one of the clearest statistical differences between the two teams. Pittsburgh recorded substantially more passing yards and two passing touchdowns, while Green Bay’s quarterbacks combined for no passing touchdowns.
Green Bay Packers quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Kyle McCord | 12/16 | 102 | 0 | 0 | 91.1 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 4/8 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 56.2 |
| Jordan Love | 3/5 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 67.1 |
| Kyron Drones | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39.6 |
| Team total | 19/30 | 97 reported | 0 | 0 | 74.4 |
Important data note: The supplied Green Bay passing table lists individual passing yards totaling 141, while its team passing line reports 97 yards. The individual completion totals also add to 19 of 30 attempts, matching the team completion line. These passing-yard figures are internally inconsistent, so the reported team total and individual figures are presented as supplied rather than silently reconciled.
Kyle McCord: Green Bay’s most productive listed passer
Kyle McCord completed 12 of 16 passes for 102 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His completion rate was 75%, which indicates that he completed a high proportion of his attempts.
However, completion percentage alone cannot measure the full value of a quarterback’s performance. McCord averaged 6.4 yards per attempt according to his individual line and was sacked twice for a combined loss of 18 yards.
The central takeaway is that McCord was accurate on his recorded attempts, but the passing production did not result in a touchdown. For a preseason evaluation, the useful questions include whether the offense sustained drives, how well the quarterback handled pressure, and whether completed passes moved the chains.
His statistics provide a starting point for that evaluation, but they do not reveal every factor behind each play.
Tyrod Taylor: Limited passing production
Taylor completed four of eight passes for 21 yards without a touchdown or interception. His recorded passer rating was 56.2.
His average of 2.6 yards per attempt was lower than McCord’s listed average. That figure suggests limited passing distance per attempt, although it does not explain whether the cause was defensive coverage, play design, short throws, or other circumstances.
Taylor also contributed four rushing yards on one carry. The available numbers show modest production in both areas, but a single preseason appearance is not enough to establish how he would perform in a different offensive situation.
Jordan Love: A small statistical sample
Jordan Love completed three of five passes for 18 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His recorded passer rating was 67.1.
Five attempts provide too small a sample to support broad conclusions about a quarterback’s overall ability. The figures describe his production in this game, not his full-season potential or his standing as a player.
His appearance should therefore be evaluated in the context of the limited number of recorded attempts, rather than compared directly with quarterbacks who handled substantially more passing opportunities.
Kyron Drones: Pressure affected the numbers
Drones recorded no completions on one passing attempt and was sacked three times for a combined loss of 26 yards. His recorded passer rating was 39.6.
The sack total is particularly relevant because sacks can erase field position and put an offense behind schedule. However, sack responsibility can involve several factors, including blocking, route development, defensive execution, and quarterback decisions.
The available box score confirms the pressure and lost yardage, but it does not establish which factor caused each sack.
Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Drew Allar | 10/13 | 153 | 2 | 0 | 154.8 |
| Mason Rudolph | 10/11 | 93 | 0 | 0 | 101.9 |
| Will Howard | 7/9 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 106.5 |
| Team total | 27/33 | 313 | 2 | 0 | 128.8 |
Drew Allar: The standout passing performance
Drew Allar delivered the most productive individual passing line in the supplied statistics. He completed 10 of 13 attempts for 153 yards and two touchdowns, without throwing an interception or taking a sack.
His completion rate was approximately 76.9%, while his listed average of 11.8 yards per attempt indicates substantial passing production on relatively few attempts. A passer rating of 154.8 further reflects the effectiveness of his recorded passing performance.
The combination of accuracy, yardage, and touchdown production is more informative than any single measure. Allar did not simply complete short passes at a high rate. His statistics show that his completions generated meaningful yardage and direct scoring value.
Still, the proper conclusion is specific to this game: Allar produced an efficient and productive preseason passing performance. His numbers alone do not guarantee future success or determine his place on the regular-season depth chart.
Mason Rudolph: Efficient completion rate
Rudolph completed 10 of 11 passes for 93 yards without a touchdown or interception. He was sacked twice for 17 yards.
His completion rate of approximately 90.9% was the highest among the three listed Pittsburgh quarterbacks. He also averaged 8.5 yards per attempt according to the supplied individual statistics.
That combination points to efficient passing during his recorded opportunities. The two sacks are an important counterpoint because they reduced the value of the offense’s passing possessions.
Rudolph’s statistics show a strong completion rate and useful yardage, but the box score does not provide enough information to judge his reads, timing, pocket movement, or performance against different defensive looks.
Will Howard: Productive passing in limited opportunities
Howard completed seven of nine passes for 86 yards, with no passing touchdowns or interceptions. He took one sack for a loss of two yards and posted a passer rating of 106.5.
His completion rate was approximately 77.8%, and his listed average of 9.6 yards per attempt indicates that his completed passes produced solid yardage.
Howard also recorded two rushing yards on one carry. His overall passing numbers were productive for the size of his sample, although the absence of a passing touchdown means his line should not be confused with Allar’s more direct scoring contribution.
What the quarterback comparison reveals
Pittsburgh’s three listed quarterbacks combined for 27 completions on 33 attempts, 313 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, and no interceptions. Green Bay’s listed quarterback lines included no passing touchdowns and no interceptions.
The strongest distinction was therefore not turnovers. Neither team threw an interception according to the supplied data. The difference was the ability to turn passing opportunities into yardage and touchdowns.
Pittsburgh averaged 10.1 yards per attempt at the team level, compared with a reported 4.7 for Green Bay. Those figures suggest that Pittsburgh generated more passing distance per attempt. The discrepancy in Green Bay’s individual and team passing-yard totals, however, means its reported team average should be treated cautiously.
Rushing Stats: Packers vs Steelers Ground Game
The rushing statistics show a closer contest in total yardage than the passing numbers suggest. Green Bay recorded 63 rushing yards on 24 carries, while Pittsburgh gained 72 yards on 28 attempts. Both teams averaged 2.6 yards per carry according to the supplied team totals.
| Team | Rushing attempts | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs |
| Green Bay Packers | 24 | 63 | 2.6 | 0 |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 28 | 72 | 2.6 | 2 |
Pittsburgh’s advantage was not simply the nine-yard difference in rushing yardage. The Steelers recorded two rushing touchdowns, while Green Bay did not score on the ground. That difference gave Pittsburgh additional scoring options when the offense reached situations where a short rushing play could finish a drive.
Green Bay Packers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| Damien Martinez | 8 | 20 | 2.5 | 5 | 0 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 4 | 13 | 3.3 | 5 | 0 |
| Kyle McCord | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 5 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 9 | 0 |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Jaden Nixon | 4 | 1 | 0.3 | 3 | 0 |
Damien Martinez leads Green Bay in rushing attempts
Martinez recorded eight carries for 20 yards, making him Green Bay’s leading listed rusher by both attempts and total rushing yards. His average was 2.5 yards per carry, and his longest run covered five yards.
The workload makes his performance useful for understanding how Green Bay distributed its rushing opportunities. However, the average suggests that the recorded carries did not consistently generate large gains.
It would be inaccurate to attribute the entire result to the running back. Rushing production also depends on blocking, defensive positioning, play selection, and down-and-distance situations. The supplied statistics do not provide the film or play-by-play detail needed to isolate those factors.
MarShawn Lloyd and the supporting rushers
Lloyd gained 13 yards on four attempts, averaging 3.3 yards per carry. McCord added 10 rushing yards on three attempts, while Pierre Strong Jr. gained nine yards on three carries.
Skyy Moore recorded Green Bay’s highest average among the listed rushers with multiple or single attempts, gaining six yards on one carry. Nixon, by comparison, gained one yard on four attempts.
These figures illustrate why averages must be read alongside workload. A six-yard run on one carry is a positive individual result, but it does not establish consistent rushing efficiency. Four attempts for one yard represent a different pattern, yet that small sample also needs context.
Pittsburgh Steelers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| Lew Nichols | 10 | 36 | 3.6 | 11 | 1 |
| Eli Heidenreich | 9 | 21 | 2.3 | 4 | 0 |
| Travis Homer | 4 | 8 | 2.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 2 | 0 |
| Drew Allar | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 3 | 1 |
| Will Howard | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
Lew Nichols provides the leading ground production
Nichols finished with 36 rushing yards on 10 attempts, averaging 3.6 yards per carry. He was Pittsburgh’s leading listed rusher in both attempts and yardage and scored one rushing touchdown.
His longest run covered 11 yards, the longest rushing gain recorded by any player in the supplied Pittsburgh rushing table. The combination of workload, yardage, and a touchdown makes his performance one of the most important ground-game contributions of the matchup.
Nichols’ production did not depend on a single exceptionally long run. His 36 yards came across 10 carries, giving him a meaningful workload for evaluating his role in this game. Nevertheless, the box score does not show how many yards he gained after contact or how often he faced defenders in the backfield.
Eli Heidenreich and the running-back rotation
Heidenreich gained 21 yards on nine carries. His average of 2.3 yards per attempt was lower than Nichols’ average, and his longest run was four yards.
Homer added eight yards on four attempts, while Johnson gained three yards on two carries. Allar also recorded a rushing touchdown on two attempts, despite finishing with only two rushing yards.
That last figure illustrates an important limitation of basic rushing statistics. Total yardage and touchdowns measure different aspects of performance. A quarterback can gain little overall yardage but still contribute a valuable scoring play near the goal line.
Why the rushing numbers matter
The Packers and Steelers averaged the same number of yards per carry, but Pittsburgh scored twice on the ground. That difference is more important to the final score than the nine-yard gap in rushing production.
For readers analyzing future games, three rushing indicators deserve attention:
- Yards per carry: Measures average production per attempt, although it can be influenced by a small number of long runs.
- Rushing touchdowns: Shows whether the ground game directly produced points.
- Workload distribution: Helps explain which players received the most opportunities and how responsibilities were shared.
The overall takeaway is that Pittsburgh generated more scoring value from its rushing plays, even though its average per carry matched Green Bay’s.
Receiving Stats: Top Pass Catchers and Explosive Plays
Receiving production was one of the most decisive statistical differences in the game. Green Bay recorded 141 receiving yards in its team receiving line, while Pittsburgh recorded 332 yards. The supplied figures list two receiving touchdowns for the Steelers and none for the Packers.
Pittsburgh’s receiving advantage was especially noticeable in yards per reception. The Steelers averaged 12.3 yards per catch, compared with Green Bay’s 7.4. That difference suggests that Pittsburgh generated more yardage from each completed reception.
Green Bay Packers receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Longest catch | TD |
| Isaiah Neyor | 4 | 34 | 8.5 | 12 | 0 |
| J. Michael Sturdivant | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Jayden Reed | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 19 | 0 |
| Savion Williams | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 10 | 0 |
| Messiah Swinson | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 9 | 0 |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 11 | 0 |
| Will Sheppard | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Jaden Nixon | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Drake Dabney | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 | 0 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | -4 | 0 |
The supplied receiving table also lists Christian Watson and Kisean Johnson with no receptions.
Isaiah Neyor leads the Packers in receiving yards
Neyor caught four passes for 34 yards on four targets. His longest reception was 12 yards, and he averaged 8.5 yards per catch.
He led the listed Green Bay receivers in total receptions and receiving yards. His four catches also show that he was involved more frequently than most individual pass catchers in the supplied statistics.
However, his 34 yards did not include a touchdown. That is an important distinction when comparing receiving totals with scoring impact. A receiver can be productive in accumulating catches without producing a play that directly changes the scoreboard.
J. Michael Sturdivant adds reliable yardage
Sturdivant recorded two receptions for 22 yards, averaging 11 yards per catch. His longest reception was 14 yards.
His figures indicate that both recorded receptions generated useful yardage. As with other players, two catches are not enough to make definitive judgments about consistency or long-term performance, but the numbers provide a clear account of his contribution in this matchup.
Jayden Reed’s 19-yard reception
Reed caught one pass for 19 yards, the longest reception listed for Green Bay. He averaged 19 yards per catch, but that average came from a single reception.
This is a good example of why averages can be misleading when removed from their sample size. Reed’s catch was Green Bay’s most productive individual reception by distance, yet the available data does not establish that he consistently generated explosive plays throughout the game.
Savion Williams and the supporting group
Williams caught three passes for 18 yards on five targets. Swinson added two receptions for 13 yards, while Moore caught one pass for 11 yards.
The broader group of receivers helped Green Bay spread its completed passes across several players. Yet the team receiving line shows no receiving touchdowns, meaning the catches did not produce direct scoring through the passing game.
The available statistics also list Lloyd with a reception for minus four yards. Negative receiving yardage can occur when a completed pass results in a loss, reinforcing the importance of considering the outcome of each catch rather than counting receptions alone.
Pittsburgh Steelers receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Longest catch | TD |
| Kaden Wetjen | 2 | 79 | 39.5 | 74 | 1 |
| Robert Tonyan | 4 | 61 | 15.3 | 22 | 0 |
| Germie Bernard | 4 | 51 | 12.8 | 25 | 0 |
| Max Hurleman | 3 | 46 | 15.3 | 21 | 0 |
| Ben Skowronek | 2 | 36 | 18.0 | 19 | 0 |
| Brandon Smith | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 9 | 0 |
| Travis Homer | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Levi Wentz | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 | 0 |
| Lake McRee | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 5 | 0 |
| Roman Wilson | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Joaquin Davis | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Riley Nowakowski | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 1 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
| Lew Nichols | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | -1 | 0 |
Kaden Wetjen delivers the biggest receiving play
Wetjen caught two passes for 79 yards, averaging 39.5 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 74 yards, and the supplied statistics credit him with one receiving touchdown.
That combination makes him the standout explosive-play contributor in the receiving table. His two receptions produced more than half of the total receiving yardage recorded by any Green Bay receiver.
The 74-yard reception is particularly important because a single long completion can rapidly change field position and scoring opportunities. Unlike a series of short gains, an explosive pass can move the offense into scoring range in one play.
It would be speculative to describe the exact coverage breakdown or defensive mistake without verified play-by-play or film. What the statistics establish is that Wetjen produced the longest reception listed and recorded a touchdown.
Robert Tonyan and Germie Bernard provide additional production
Tonyan recorded four catches for 61 yards, averaging 15.3 yards per reception. His longest reception was 22 yards.
Bernard also caught four passes, gaining 51 yards and averaging 12.8 yards per catch. His longest reception covered 25 yards.
Both players contributed receiving yardage without recording a touchdown in the supplied table. Their performances matter because Pittsburgh’s production was not limited to Wetjen’s long gain. Tonyan and Bernard each recorded multiple receptions and meaningful yardage.
Max Hurleman and Ben Skowronek extend the passing attack
Hurleman caught three passes for 46 yards, averaging 15.3 yards per catch. Skowronek added two receptions for 36 yards at an average of 18 yards per catch.
These figures show that Pittsburgh generated useful yardage from several receivers rather than relying exclusively on one player. The spread of production helped make the passing totals more substantial.
The statistics do not reveal each player’s route assignments or the quality of the defensive coverage they faced. Nevertheless, their receiving totals demonstrate that the Steelers had several productive targets during the game.
Riley Nowakowski contributes a receiving touchdown
Nowakowski recorded one reception for four yards and was credited with a receiving touchdown.
His modest yardage total alongside a touchdown is another reminder that scoring value cannot be judged by receiving yards alone. A short catch can be highly valuable when it finishes a possession.
The supplied box score does not independently establish the exact location of the play or the full drive sequence, so the most reliable conclusion is simply that the reception resulted in a touchdown.
What separated the two receiving groups?
Pittsburgh finished with 332 receiving yards and two receiving touchdowns in the supplied statistics. Green Bay recorded 141 receiving yards and no receiving touchdowns.
The difference involved both explosive production and scoring conversion. Wetjen’s 74-yard reception supplied the longest individual gain, while Tonyan, Bernard, Hurleman, and Skowronek added meaningful yardage.
Green Bay had several players involved in the passing game, but its longest listed reception was 19 yards. The team also failed to score a receiving touchdown.
For anyone reviewing Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats, this is one of the clearest explanations for the final result: Pittsburgh generated more yardage through the air and converted its passing production into touchdowns.
Defensive Player Stats: Sacks, Tackles, and Pressure
Defense played a major role in determining how much time each offense had to develop its passing game. Pittsburgh recorded five sacks, compared with three for Green Bay. The Steelers also registered more quarterback hits and passes defended, according to the supplied defensive totals.
| Defensive category | Green Bay Packers | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Total tackles | 72 | 67 |
| Solo tackles | 43 | 37 |
| Sacks | 3 | 5 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 | 7 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
Pittsburgh’s pass rush creates problems
Pittsburgh’s defense recorded five sacks and seven quarterback hits. These figures indicate that the Steelers generated more recorded pressure-related plays than Green Bay.
Sacks can be particularly damaging because they reduce offensive yardage and may force a team into longer passing situations. When an offense repeatedly faces second-and-long or third-and-long, its options become more limited.
The Steelers also recorded seven tackles for loss, one more than Green Bay. Combined with the sack total, this suggests that Pittsburgh was effective at disrupting plays behind the line of scrimmage.
However, sack and pressure statistics alone cannot identify which defensive player was most responsible. The supplied data provides team totals rather than individual defensive player lines. Assigning credit to a specific linebacker, defensive end, or defensive tackle would therefore require additional verified information.
Green Bay records more total tackles
Green Bay recorded 72 total tackles, five more than Pittsburgh’s 67. The Packers also registered 43 solo tackles, compared with 37 for the Steelers.
It might seem that more tackles indicate a stronger defense, but that conclusion would be incomplete. Tackles measure defensive activity, not necessarily defensive success. A team can record many tackles because it repeatedly stops plays after short gains, or because it spends more time defending against completed passes and rushing attempts.
The more revealing comparison combines tackles with sacks, tackles for loss, quarterback hits, and points allowed. In this game, Pittsburgh recorded more negative-yardage plays and allowed fewer points.
Pass defense and turnovers
Pittsburgh defended five passes, while Green Bay defended two. Neither team recorded an interception, and neither defense scored a touchdown.
Passes defended can indicate that defenders disrupted potential completions, but the statistic does not reveal whether every defended pass would otherwise have been caught. Likewise, the absence of interceptions means neither team generated a recorded turnover through a defensive pick.
The defensive comparison therefore points toward pressure and disruption as more visible differences than takeaways.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams supplied another important part of the game. Green Bay’s kicker converted all three field-goal attempts, while Pittsburgh converted all four extra-point attempts listed in the supplied statistics.
Kicking comparison
| Kicker | Field goals | Longest field goal | Extra points | Points |
| Trey Smack, Green Bay | 3/3 | 58 yards | 0/0 | 9 |
| Laith Marjan, Pittsburgh | 0/0 | Not applicable | 3/3 | 3 |
| Chris Boswell, Pittsburgh | 0/0 | Not applicable | 1/1 | 1 |
Trey Smack delivers a perfect field-goal performance
Smack converted three field goals from three attempts and accounted for all nine of Green Bay’s points. His longest successful kick covered 58 yards.
A 58-yard field goal demonstrates the ability to convert from long range in the recorded game. It also shows that Green Bay’s kicking unit produced points despite the offense failing to score a touchdown.
The limitation is clear: field goals can keep a team competitive, but they usually provide fewer points than touchdowns. Pittsburgh’s ability to score touchdowns ultimately gave it a substantial advantage over Green Bay’s three-field-goal approach.
Punting statistics
| Team | Punter | Punts | Total yards | Average | Longest punt |
| Green Bay | Daniel Whelan | 6 | 274 | 45.7 | 51 yards |
| Pittsburgh | Cameron Johnston | 3 | 147 | 49.0 | 52 yards |
Whelan averaged 45.7 yards across six punts, while Johnston averaged 49.0 yards across three. Johnston’s average was higher, although the number of attempts was smaller.
Punting statistics must be considered alongside the number of possessions and the field position from which each punt was made. A longer punt does not automatically mean a better outcome if the ball travels into the end zone for a touchback or fails to improve field position as expected.
The supplied data records two touchbacks for Green Bay and none for Pittsburgh. Both teams had one punt recorded inside the 20-yard line.
Kick and punt returns
Green Bay recorded 77 kick-return yards on three returns, averaging 25.7 yards per return. Pittsburgh recorded 61 yards on three returns, averaging 20.3.
Jaden Nixon had Green Bay’s longest kick return at 27 yards. Savion Williams and J. Michael Sturdivant each added a 25-yard return.
Pittsburgh’s Kaden Wetjen recorded three kick returns for 61 yards, averaging 20.3 yards per return, with a longest return of 25 yards.
On punt returns, Green Bay recorded 14 yards on two returns, while Pittsburgh recorded 10 yards on four. Skyy Moore gained 14 yards on his listed Green Bay punt return.
These numbers suggest that Green Bay had the better average kick-return production in this particular game. However, neither team recorded a return touchdown, and the difference in return yardage was not enough to offset Pittsburgh’s advantage in offensive scoring.
Five Key Takeaways From the Match
The final score becomes easier to understand when the most important statistical differences are considered together.
1. Pittsburgh produced more passing yardage
The Steelers recorded 313 passing yards in their team statistics, compared with a reported 97 for Green Bay. The supplied individual passing lines for Green Bay do not reconcile with that team total, so the discrepancy must be acknowledged.
Despite that limitation, Pittsburgh’s listed quarterbacks combined for two passing touchdowns, while Green Bay’s recorded no passing touchdowns. That difference is supported by the supplied individual player statistics.
2. Drew Allar delivered the standout quarterback performance
Allar completed 10 of 13 passes for 153 yards and two touchdowns without an interception. His performance combined accuracy, yardage, and direct scoring contributions.
The result is a strong individual preseason line. It should not, however, be treated as proof of future regular-season performance or a definitive statement about the quarterback depth chart.
3. Kaden Wetjen supplied the most explosive reception
Wetjen’s 74-yard catch was the longest reception listed in the supplied receiving data. He finished with 79 receiving yards and a touchdown on two catches.
His performance demonstrates how one explosive completion can contribute a large share of a team’s receiving production.
4. Pittsburgh converted opportunities into touchdowns
Green Bay scored three field goals and no touchdowns. Pittsburgh recorded four touchdowns in total, according to the supplied combination of passing and rushing statistics, and converted all four listed extra points.
The scoring difference reflects more than total yardage. It shows the importance of turning offensive possessions into touchdowns instead of relying exclusively on field goals.
5. Pittsburgh generated more defensive pressure
The Steelers recorded five sacks, seven quarterback hits, and seven tackles for loss. Green Bay recorded three sacks, four quarterback hits, and six tackles for loss.
Those figures suggest that Pittsburgh was more disruptive in the recorded game. They do not establish the cause of every offensive failure, but they provide useful evidence of the defensive difference.
How to Interpret Preseason Player Statistics Correctly
Preseason statistics can be valuable, but they require a different approach from regular-season analysis.
Look beyond the final score
A 28-9 result indicates that Pittsburgh won comfortably, but it does not tell the entire story of individual development. Quarterback accuracy, receiver involvement, rushing workloads, defensive pressure, and special-teams execution can each reveal different aspects of a team’s performance.
Consider sample size
A quarterback who completes three passes has fewer opportunities to establish a reliable statistical pattern than one who attempts 30. Similarly, a receiver averaging 19 yards per catch on one reception has not demonstrated the same consistency as a receiver producing that average across several games.
For this reason, player statistics should be compared with the number of attempts, carries, targets, and snaps whenever those figures are available.
Separate statistical results from tactical explanations
The box score confirms what happened statistically. It does not always explain why it happened.
For example, five sacks could result from excellent defensive execution, blocking problems, quarterback decisions, or a combination of factors. Without verified film analysis or detailed play-by-play evidence, it would be misleading to identify a single cause.
The same principle applies to low rushing averages and missed offensive opportunities.
Use multiple games to identify patterns
One preseason game can reveal promising performances, but a broader sample is more useful for identifying consistency. Comparing several appearances can show whether a player’s production is improving, remaining stable, or changing with different workloads.
This is especially important when evaluating young players or athletes competing for roster positions.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Packers vs Steelers game on August 13, 2026?
The Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Green Bay Packers 28-9 in their preseason matchup on August 13, 2026. Pittsburgh scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Green Bay was held scoreless in the final period.
2. Which quarterback had the best passing stats?
Drew Allar had the strongest individual passing performance in the supplied statistics. He completed 10 of 13 attempts for 153 yards and two touchdowns, with no interceptions and a passer rating of 154.8.
3. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Kaden Wetjen led the listed receivers with 79 receiving yards on two catches. His longest reception covered 74 yards, and he recorded one receiving touchdown.
4. Which player led the Packers in rushing?
Damien Martinez led Green Bay’s listed rushers with 20 yards on eight carries. He averaged 2.5 yards per carry and did not record a rushing touchdown.
5. How many sacks did the Steelers record?
Pittsburgh recorded five sacks, compared with three for Green Bay. The Steelers also recorded seven quarterback hits and seven tackles for loss.
6. Why did the Steelers win despite Green Bay’s successful field goals?
Green Bay converted three field goals for nine points but did not score a touchdown. Pittsburgh generated more passing production and recorded both passing and rushing touchdowns, giving it a more productive scoring attack.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats show that Pittsburgh’s 28-9 preseason victory was driven by productive quarterback play, explosive receiving yardage, and a more disruptive defensive performance.
Drew Allar led the passing statistics with 153 yards and two touchdowns, while Kaden Wetjen produced the game’s longest listed reception at 74 yards. Lew Nichols led Pittsburgh in rushing with 36 yards and a touchdown. On defense, the Steelers recorded five sacks and seven quarterback hits.
Green Bay’s most notable individual contribution came from Trey Smack, who converted all three field-goal attempts, including a 58-yard kick. Damien Martinez led the Packers in rushing, and Isaiah Neyor topped their receiving table with 34 yards. However, Green Bay did not record a touchdown, which limited its scoring potential.
The broader lesson is that football performance cannot be measured by yardage alone. Touchdowns, efficiency, pressure, workload, and sample size all help explain what a box score means. Because this was a preseason contest, the numbers offer a useful record of individual performances without establishing how either team’s players will perform over a full regular season.
