New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats
The New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats from August 16, 2025, reveal how New England secured a 20-12 preseason victory through efficient passing, a key receiving touchdown, defensive interceptions, and timely special teams contributions. Minnesota produced more passing yards and receiving yards, but the Vikings could not convert their offensive production into a touchdown. Four successful field goals kept Minnesota competitive, yet New England’s ability to capitalize on scoring opportunities proved decisive.
The preseason matchup offered a useful look at quarterback performances, rushing efficiency, receiving contributions, defensive pressure, and return-game explosiveness. Joshua Dobbs led the Patriots’ passing attack with 106 yards and a touchdown, while Efton Chism III delivered the game’s leading New England receiving performance with 71 yards and a score. For Minnesota, Max Brosmer passed for 156 yards, but two interceptions hurt the Vikings’ ability to build momentum.
This breakdown covers the final score, individual player statistics, team comparisons, special teams, defensive performances, and the most important lessons from the game. The figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for this August 2025 preseason contest.
New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Patriots visited the Vikings on August 16, 2025, and came away with a 20-12 win. New England established an early lead and maintained its advantage despite Minnesota’s stronger overall passing and receiving totals.
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings |
| Date | August 16, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue designation | Minnesota was the home team |
| Final score | Patriots 20, Vikings 12 |
| Winning team | New England Patriots |
| Winning margin | 8 points |
| Patriots’ displayed record | 2-0 overall, 1-0 away |
| Vikings’ displayed record | 1-1 overall, 1-1 at home |
| Primary statistical source | ESPN box score |
The result illustrates an important distinction in football analysis: the team that accumulates more yards does not always win. Minnesota finished with 471 combined passing and rushing yards, compared with New England’s 314. However, the Patriots recorded two interceptions and scored the game’s only offensive touchdowns reflected in the supplied team passing and rushing totals.
Minnesota’s offense moved the ball effectively through the air, but it struggled to finish possessions with touchdowns. That difference between moving the chains and completing drives explains much of the final score.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score
| Quarter | New England Patriots | Minnesota Vikings |
| First quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth quarter | 6 | 6 |
| Total | 20 | 12 |
New England scored seven points in each of the first two quarters, creating a 14-3 halftime advantage. Both teams added three points in the third quarter, leaving the Patriots ahead 14-6.
The fourth quarter produced six points for each team. Minnesota continued to score through its kicking game, while New England added six points to finish with a comfortable eight-point margin.
The quarter-by-quarter pattern matters because it shows that the Patriots built their advantage early rather than relying on a late comeback. Minnesota made the contest closer in the second half, but it could not erase the deficit.
Team Offensive Statistics: Patriots vs Vikings
The overall offensive figures show contrasting approaches. New England generated fewer total yards but scored more efficiently. Minnesota recorded more passing production and a higher average per reception, yet its passing attack did not produce a touchdown.
| Offensive Category | New England Patriots | Minnesota Vikings |
| Passing completions | 22 | 23 |
| Passing attempts | 36 | 43 |
| Completion percentage | 61.1% | 53.5% |
| Passing yards | 207 | 219 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Rushing attempts | 34 | 16 |
| Rushing yards | 107 | 54 |
| Yards per carry | 3.1 | 3.4 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Receptions | 22 | 23 |
| Receiving yards | 207 | 252 |
| Yards per reception | 9.4 | 11.0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
Note: Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completions and attempts. Team passing and receiving totals are presented as listed in the box-score data.
Passing Efficiency Favored New England in Important Areas
Minnesota completed one more pass and gained 12 more passing yards than New England. However, the Patriots completed 61.1% of their attempts, compared with Minnesota’s 53.5%.
The difference becomes more meaningful when turnovers are considered. New England threw no interceptions, while Minnesota threw two. Interceptions can end promising drives, change field position, and give the opposing offense additional opportunities.
The Patriots also recorded the only passing touchdown shown in the team totals. This combination of accuracy, ball security, and touchdown production helped New England turn its offensive possessions into a winning result.
Minnesota Found More Receiving Yards but Fewer Points
The Vikings averaged 11.0 yards per reception, compared with 9.4 for New England. Their 252 receiving yards also exceeded the Patriots’ 207.
Those figures suggest Minnesota was capable of producing meaningful gains through the air. The problem was not simply an inability to complete passes or gain yardage. Instead, the Vikings failed to translate those gains into an offensive touchdown.
New England’s receiving group was less productive in total yardage but more effective in the scoring column. Efton Chism III’s touchdown was particularly important because it gave the Patriots a direct scoring advantage that Minnesota’s receivers could not match.
Rushing Volume Helped the Patriots Control the Game
New England attempted 34 rushes for 107 yards, while Minnesota recorded 16 carries for 54 yards.
The Patriots’ rushing average of 3.1 yards per carry was lower than Minnesota’s 3.4. Nevertheless, New England ran the ball more than twice as often, creating a more balanced offensive workload.
A larger rushing workload can help an offense manage possession and avoid relying entirely on passing. It can also give coaches more opportunities to evaluate running backs, offensive-line combinations, and short-yardage execution during preseason action.
Minnesota’s rushing attack was more limited in volume. Although the Vikings gained slightly more per carry, their 54 total rushing yards and absence of a rushing touchdown restricted their contribution to the scoreboard.
Patriots Quarterback Stats
New England used multiple quarterbacks during the preseason contest. Joshua Dobbs produced the team’s only listed passing touchdown, Drake Maye completed four passes for 46 yards, and Ben Wooldridge added 55 passing yards.
Patriots Passing Statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Completion % | Passing Yards | Yards per Attempt | TD | INT | Passer Rating |
| Joshua Dobbs | 11/16 | 68.8% | 106 | 6.6 | 1 | 0 | 107.8 |
| Drake Maye | 4/7 | 57.1% | 46 | 6.6 | 0 | 0 | 77.1 |
| Ben Wooldridge | 7/13 | 53.8% | 55 | 4.2 | 0 | 0 | 64.6 |
Joshua Dobbs Delivered the Most Productive Passing Performance
Dobbs completed 11 of 16 attempts for 106 yards and one touchdown. His 68.8% completion rate was the highest among the three listed Patriots quarterbacks, and he avoided an interception.
His 107.8 passer rating reflects a productive performance across several key passing measures. He averaged 6.6 yards per attempt and supplied the touchdown production that New England needed from its passing game.
The significance of Dobbs’ performance is not simply the number of yards he accumulated. He combined relatively efficient completion production with a touchdown and no interceptions. In a preseason setting, that makes his statistical line useful for evaluating decision-making and execution, although a single game cannot establish how he would perform over a full regular season.
Drake Maye Completed Four Passes for 46 Yards
Maye finished 4 of 7 for 46 yards, with no passing touchdowns or interceptions. His completion percentage was 57.1%, and he averaged 6.6 yards per attempt.
The sample was small, so the numbers should be interpreted cautiously. Seven attempts are not enough to draw a strong conclusion about a quarterback’s overall accuracy, consistency, or development.
His line nevertheless provides a clear snapshot of his contribution in this game. He produced 46 passing yards without a turnover, while Dobbs accounted for the team’s listed passing touchdown.
Ben Wooldridge Added 55 Passing Yards
Wooldridge completed 7 of 13 attempts for 55 yards. He did not throw a touchdown or interception and recorded a 64.6 passer rating.
His 4.2 yards per attempt were lower than those of Dobbs and Maye. That figure indicates more limited yardage production per passing attempt, although the box score alone does not explain the play designs, defensive coverage, pressure, or intended depth of his throws.
Taken together, the Patriots’ quarterback statistics show a game in which Dobbs provided the most direct scoring contribution while the other two quarterbacks added passing volume without a touchdown.
Vikings Quarterback Stats
Minnesota’s quarterbacks collectively threw for 219 yards, completing 23 of 43 attempts. The Vikings’ passing game produced no touchdowns and two interceptions, a combination that ultimately limited the team’s scoring potential.
Vikings Passing Statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Completion % | Passing Yards | Yards per Attempt | TD | INT | Passer Rating |
| Max Brosmer | 15/27 | 55.6% | 156 | 5.8 | 0 | 1 | 57.0 |
| Brett Rypien | 7/11 | 63.6% | 83 | 7.5 | 0 | 0 | 86.6 |
| Sam Howell | 1/5 | 20.0% | 13 | 2.6 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
Max Brosmer Led Minnesota in Passing Yards
Brosmer completed 15 of 27 attempts for 156 yards. He led the listed Vikings quarterbacks in passing yardage and attempts, but his performance included one interception and no passing touchdowns.
His 57.0 passer rating reflected the lack of a touchdown and the turnover. Although he moved the ball for 156 yards, Minnesota did not convert that production into a passing score.
This is a useful example of why passing yards should not be evaluated in isolation. Yardage provides a measure of volume, but turnovers and touchdown production help explain how effectively a quarterback’s work supports the team’s result.
Brett Rypien Produced Minnesota’s Best Listed Yards-Per-Attempt Figure
Rypien completed seven of 11 attempts for 83 yards, averaging 7.5 yards per attempt. He threw no touchdowns or interceptions and recorded an 86.6 passer rating.
His completion rate of 63.6% was the highest among the three listed Minnesota quarterbacks. He also produced more yards per attempt than Brosmer or Howell.
Those figures make Rypien’s statistical line efficient in comparison with the other listed passing performances. However, his 11 attempts represent a limited sample, and the figures do not establish whether he faced easier defensive looks or benefited from a particular game situation.
Sam Howell’s Line Included an Interception
Howell completed one of five attempts for 13 yards. He did not throw a touchdown and recorded one interception, resulting in a listed passer rating of 0.0.
The five-attempt sample is too small to support a broad judgment about his ability. What can be stated from the supplied numbers is that his passing contribution was limited and included a turnover.
For Minnesota, the combined quarterback figures show a passing attack that generated yardage but did not score a touchdown. The two interceptions further reduced the value of that production.
Patriots Rushing Stats
New England’s ground game produced 107 yards on 34 attempts and scored one rushing touchdown. JaMycal Hasty led the Patriots in rushing yardage, while TreVeyon Henderson delivered the team’s listed rushing score.
Patriots Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Rushing TD | Longest Run |
| JaMycal Hasty | 11 | 47 | 4.3 | 0 | 7 yards |
| TreVeyon Henderson | 4 | 20 | 5.0 | 1 | 11 yards |
| Antonio Gibson | 7 | 17 | 2.4 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Shane Watts | 10 | 15 | 1.5 | 0 | Not supplied |
| John Jiles | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Ben Wooldridge | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Team total | 34 | 107 | 3.1 | 1 | Not applicable |
JaMycal Hasty Led the Patriots With 47 Rushing Yards
Hasty recorded 11 carries for 47 yards, averaging 4.3 yards per attempt. He handled the largest rushing workload among the listed New England players and supplied a steady share of the team’s ground production.
His longest run was seven yards, meaning his total came without a listed breakaway run. That distinction is useful when assessing how a running back accumulated yardage. A player can lead a team through repeated moderate gains rather than one long run.
Hasty also caught one pass for five yards, giving him a small contribution to the receiving game in addition to his rushing workload.
TreVeyon Henderson Supplied a Rushing Touchdown
Henderson finished with four carries for 20 yards, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. His longest run covered 11 yards, and he recorded one rushing touchdown.
Although his workload was smaller than Hasty’s, Henderson produced the scoring play reflected in his rushing line. His average of five yards per carry also led the listed Patriots players with multiple rushing attempts.
A touchdown is particularly valuable in a game decided by eight points. Henderson’s scoring contribution helped New England create points through the ground game rather than relying entirely on field goals or passing touchdowns.
Antonio Gibson and Shane Watts Added Rushing Volume
Gibson carried seven times for 17 yards, averaging 2.4 yards per carry. Watts recorded 10 carries for 15 yards, averaging 1.5 yards per carry.
Their averages were lower than Hasty’s and Henderson’s. Still, preseason rushing totals should be read in context. The supplied statistics do not describe the blocking assignments, defensive fronts, down-and-distance situations, or whether a particular carry was designed to test a specific concept.
The numbers establish the production, but not every reason behind it.
Vikings Rushing Stats
Minnesota finished with 54 rushing yards on 16 carries, averaging 3.4 yards per attempt. The Vikings did not record a rushing touchdown in the supplied team totals.
Vikings Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Rushing TD |
| Zavier Scott | 10 | 28 | 2.8 | 0 |
| Sam Howell | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 0 |
| Ty Chandler | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 16 | 54 | 3.4 | 0 |
Zavier Scott Handled the Largest Rushing Workload
Scott carried 10 times for 28 yards, accounting for most of Minnesota’s listed rushing attempts. His average was 2.8 yards per carry.
He also caught three passes for 44 yards, giving him a combined 72 yards from scrimmage across the supplied rushing and receiving categories. That versatility made him one of Minnesota’s more involved offensive players by total yardage.
However, his rushing production did not include a touchdown. Minnesota’s limited rushing volume and lack of a ground score meant the offense depended more heavily on its passing and kicking production.
Sam Howell and Ty Chandler Added Smaller Contributions
Howell rushed three times for 14 yards, averaging 4.7 yards per carry. Chandler also had three carries, gaining 12 yards at four yards per attempt.
Howell’s rushing line was more productive than his passing line on a per-attempt basis, but the two categories measure different types of plays and should not be compared as if they were identical.
Chandler’s 12 yards provided a modest contribution. Neither player recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics.
The overall picture is straightforward: Minnesota averaged slightly more per carry than New England but had fewer than half as many rushing attempts. The Patriots’ greater ground-game volume helped them create a more balanced offensive profile.
Patriots Receiving Stats
New England’s receivers caught 22 passes for 207 yards and one touchdown. Efton Chism III led the group in both receiving yardage and scoring.
Patriots Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | TD | Longest Reception |
| Efton Chism III | 6 | 6 | 71 | 11.8 | 1 | 33 yards |
| Mack Hollins | 3 | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 0 | 20 yards |
| Kyle Williams | 3 | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 0 | 13 yards |
| John Jiles | 4 | 5 | 24 | 6.0 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Javon Baker | 1 | 5 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Jaheim Bell | 1 | 7 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Kayshon Boutte | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Jeremiah Webb | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Cole Fotheringham | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| JaMycal Hasty | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| DeMario Douglas | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 | Not applicable |
| TreVeyon Henderson | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 | Not applicable |
| CJ Dippre | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 | Not applicable |
The target and longest-reception fields are shown where supplied. A missing value does not mean that a player necessarily recorded zero in that category.
Efton Chism III Was New England’s Leading Receiver
Chism caught six passes on six targets for 71 yards and a touchdown. He averaged 11.8 yards per reception and recorded a longest catch of 33 yards.
His six catches accounted for approximately 34.3% of New England’s 207 receiving yards. That share highlights how central he was to the team’s listed receiving production.
Chism also matched his catch total with his target total, indicating that every listed target resulted in a reception. That is a useful observation about this particular box score, although six targets are not enough to establish a long-term catch rate.
His touchdown gave the Patriots a direct scoring return from their passing attack. Combined with Dobbs’ passing line, Chism’s performance was one of the clearest offensive highlights of the game.
Mack Hollins Added Efficient Yardage
Hollins caught three passes for 38 yards, averaging 12.7 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 20 yards.
His average was slightly higher than Chism’s, but Hollins had fewer total receiving yards and no touchdown. The difference demonstrates why yards per catch and total production should be considered together.
Hollins offered a useful secondary contribution, helping New England move the ball without needing a large number of receptions.
John Jiles and Kyle Williams Contributed to the Passing Attack
Jiles recorded four receptions for 24 yards on five targets. Williams caught three passes for 24 yards on three targets.
Both players finished with the same receiving yardage, but they reached that total in different ways. Jiles produced more catches with a lower average of six yards per reception, while Williams averaged eight yards per reception.
These figures show how a receiver’s role can be understood through several measures rather than one total alone. Receptions, targets, yards per catch, and touchdowns provide different views of the same performance.
Additional Patriots Receiving Contributions
Baker recorded one catch for 13 yards, while Bell caught one pass for 10 yards. Boutte and Webb each added eight yards on one reception. Fotheringham caught one pass for six yards, and Hasty added five receiving yards.
Douglas, Henderson, and Dippre each had one listed target without a reception.
These smaller contributions helped complete New England’s passing totals. However, the available data does not include route charts or snap counts, so it cannot establish how often each player was on the field or the precise responsibilities assigned to them.
Vikings Receiving Stats
Minnesota recorded 23 receptions for 252 yards, averaging 11.0 yards per reception. Despite leading New England in receiving yardage, the Vikings did not record a receiving touchdown in the supplied figures.
Vikings Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | TD | Longest Reception |
| Tim Jones | 5 | 8 | 68 | 13.6 | 0 | 28 yards |
| Zavier Scott | 3 | 4 | 44 | 14.7 | 0 | 18 yards |
| Jeshaun Jones | 4 | 6 | 39 | 9.8 | 0 | 25 yards |
| Tai Felton | 2 | 2 | 32 | 16.0 | 0 | 20 yards |
| Nick Vannett | 2 | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 | 13 yards |
| Bryson Nesbit | 1 | 3 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Myles Price | 2 | 4 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Lucky Jackson | 1 | 5 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Thayer Thomas | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Tre Stewart | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Ty Chandler | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 | Not applicable |
| Dontae Fleming | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 | Not applicable |
Tim Jones Led Minnesota With 68 Receiving Yards
Jones caught five passes for 68 yards on eight targets. He averaged 13.6 yards per reception and produced a longest catch of 28 yards.
His 68 yards represented approximately 27% of Minnesota’s 252 receiving yards. That made him the leading receiver by yardage in the supplied Vikings statistics.
Jones’ eight targets also show that he was involved frequently in the passing game. However, he caught five of those passes, and the box-score data does not provide enough information to determine whether the incomplete targets resulted from coverage, pressure, inaccurate throws, or other circumstances.
Zavier Scott and Jeshaun Jones Added Receiving Production
Scott caught three passes for 44 yards, averaging 14.7 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 18 yards.
Jeshaun Jones recorded four catches for 39 yards, with a longest reception of 25 yards. His 9.8 yards per catch reflected a different production pattern from Scott’s.
Together, the two players supplied 83 receiving yards. Scott also led Minnesota’s listed rushing production with 28 yards, giving him a combined 72 yards from scrimmage.
That combination makes Scott particularly noteworthy in the box score because he contributed through both rushing and receiving rather than relying on a single type of play.
Tai Felton Produced Minnesota’s Highest Listed Average
Felton caught two passes for 32 yards, averaging 16.0 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 20 yards, and both of his listed targets resulted in receptions.
Among the Vikings players with recorded catches, Felton had the highest yards-per-reception average in the supplied figures. His two receptions were limited in number, so the average should not be treated as a stable measure of his future production.
Vannett added two catches for 21 yards, while Nesbit caught one pass for 14 yards. Price recorded two receptions for 11 yards, and Jackson added nine yards on one catch.
Thomas caught one pass for eight yards, while Stewart recorded two catches for six yards. Chandler and Fleming each had a target without a reception.
Why Minnesota’s Receiving Advantage Did Not Produce a Win
The Vikings’ 252 receiving yards exceeded New England’s total by 45 yards. Yet Minnesota had no receiving touchdowns in the supplied statistics.
This difference points to the importance of the final phase of an offensive possession. Gaining yards is valuable, but teams also need to convert those gains into touchdowns or field goals.
Minnesota’s four successful field goals supplied all 12 of its points. New England, meanwhile, received an offensive touchdown from its passing game and another from its rushing game according to the supplied individual statistics.
The Vikings’ receiving output was productive in terms of yardage, but the final score rewarded New England’s greater touchdown production and ability to create turnovers.
Defensive Player Stats and Turnovers
Defense was a major factor in the result. New England recorded two interceptions and four sacks, while Minnesota failed to intercept a pass or record a sack in the supplied team defensive figures.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Patriots | Vikings |
| Total tackles | 54 | 76 |
| Solo tackles | 44 | 44 |
| Sacks | 4 | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 | 4 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 9 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles recorded | 0 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 0 |
Kyle Dugger and Alex Austin Recorded Interceptions
Kyle Dugger and Alex Austin each recorded one interception for New England. Those two takeaways were among the most important defensive statistics in the game.
An interception ends the opponent’s passing play and gives the defense’s offense another opportunity to possess the ball. Depending on the location of the turnover, it can also provide favorable field position.
The available figures do not identify the exact field position or subsequent scoring result for each interception. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that either interception directly produced a particular score without consulting the play-by-play record.
Even without that additional detail, the turnover difference is clear: New England intercepted two passes, while Minnesota threw two interceptions and recorded none on defense.
Four Sacks Helped New England Pressure Minnesota
The Patriots recorded four sacks, five tackles for loss, and nine quarterback hits. Minnesota recorded no sacks, four tackles for loss, and seven quarterback hits.
The Patriots’ four sacks were a significant difference in the defensive comparison. Sacks can end drives, reduce passing yardage, and place an offense in difficult down-and-distance situations.
Quarterback hits provide another indicator of pressure, although a hit does not necessarily result in a sack or an interception. New England’s nine quarterback hits suggest that the defense disrupted the pocket more frequently than Minnesota’s seven hits, according to the supplied team totals.
These figures support the conclusion that New England’s defense created more disruptive plays. They do not, on their own, identify every defender responsible for the pressure or establish a complete picture of coverage performance.
Minnesota Recorded Two Fumbles but Lost None
The Vikings recorded two fumbles, with neither listed as lost. Tim Jones and Tai Felton each recorded one fumble, while Austin Keys recovered one fumble.
This distinction matters because a fumble does not automatically result in a change of possession. A team may retain the ball after recovering its own fumble or after a teammate secures it.
The supplied figures indicate that Minnesota experienced two fumbles but did not lose either one. New England recorded no fumbles in the listed statistics.
The Patriots therefore had the advantage in interceptions, while the fumble figures did not show a lost-fumble advantage for either team.
Special Teams Stats: Returns, Kicking, and Punting
Special teams provided important contributions throughout the contest. Minnesota was perfect on field goals, while New England benefited from a strong kickoff return by Jeremiah Webb and solid punting from Bryce Baringer.
Field-Goal and Kicking Statistics
| Kicker | Team | Field Goals | Accuracy | Longest Field Goal | Extra Points | Total Points |
| Andy Borregales | Patriots | 1/2 | 50.0% | 51 yards | 2/2 | 5 |
| Parker Romo | Patriots | 1/1 | 100% | 28 yards | 0/0 | 3 |
| Will Reichard | Vikings | 4/4 | 100% | 54 yards | 0/0 | 12 |
| Patriots team total | New England | 2/3 | 66.7% | 51 yards | 2/2 | 8 |
| Vikings team total | Minnesota | 4/4 | 100% | 54 yards | 0/0 | 12 |
The supplied team summary lists New England’s field-goal accuracy as 67.0%. The table uses the exact 2-for-3 conversion rate, rounded to 66.7%.
Will Reichard Converted All Four Field-Goal Attempts
Reichard made all four field-goal attempts and scored 12 points. His longest successful field goal covered 54 yards.
His perfect performance was Minnesota’s entire scoring contribution in the supplied kicking statistics. Each successful kick added points and helped the Vikings remain within reach despite their lack of offensive touchdowns.
The numbers show why field-goal reliability matters, particularly when an offense struggles to finish drives. However, a kicker’s four successful attempts cannot compensate fully for the absence of touchdown production when the opponent scores touchdowns of its own.
New England’s Kicking Unit Converted Two Field Goals
Borregales made one of two field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 51 yards. He also converted both extra-point attempts, finishing with five points.
Romo made his only field-goal attempt, a 28-yard kick, for three points. Combined, the two listed Patriots kickers produced two field goals and two extra points.
New England’s 20 points included eight points from the listed kicking totals, while the Vikings’ 12 points came entirely from field goals.
The difference in offensive touchdowns explains why Minnesota’s perfect field-goal accuracy did not translate into a win.
Kickoff Return Statistics
| Team or Player | Returns | Return Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| Patriots team | 4 | 130 | 32.5 | 59 yards |
| Jeremiah Webb | 2 | 82 | 41.0 | 59 yards |
| TreVeyon Henderson | 1 | 26 | 26.0 | 26 yards |
| JaMycal Hasty | 1 | 22 | 22.0 | 22 yards |
| Vikings team | 4 | 141 | 35.3 | 81 yards |
| Myles Price | 1 | 81 | 81.0 | 81 yards |
| Tai Felton | 1 | 21 | 21.0 | 21 yards |
| Zavier Scott | 1 | 20 | 20.0 | 20 yards |
| Silas Bolden | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 19 yards |
Jeremiah Webb Delivered a 59-Yard Return
Webb returned two kickoffs for 82 yards, averaging 41.0 yards per return. His longest return was 59 yards.
That long return was one of New England’s most explosive special teams plays in the supplied data. A long kickoff return can provide the offense with a shorter field, potentially reducing the number of plays needed to reach scoring range.
However, the supplied statistics do not establish whether Webb’s return directly led to a touchdown or field goal. The reliable conclusion is that he produced strong return yardage and created an opportunity for favorable field position.
Myles Price Recorded an 81-Yard Return for Minnesota
Price returned one kickoff for 81 yards, the longest kickoff return listed for either team. Minnesota finished with 141 kickoff return yards on four returns, averaging 35.3 yards per return.
Despite Price’s long gain, the Vikings did not score a kickoff-return touchdown in the supplied figures. His return nevertheless demonstrates Minnesota’s ability to generate explosive special teams yardage.
The contrast is worth noting: Minnesota had the longer kickoff return and more total kickoff return yards, but New England still won the game. Return distance can improve field position, yet it does not guarantee points.
Punt Return Statistics
| Team or Player | Returns | Return Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| Patriots team | 2 | 46 | 23.0 | 37 yards |
| Marcus Jones | 1 | 37 | 37.0 | 37 yards |
| Efton Chism III | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 yards |
| Vikings team | 2 | 33 | 16.5 | 20 yards |
| Myles Price | 2 | 33 | 16.5 | 20 yards |
New England gained 46 yards on two punt returns, compared with Minnesota’s 33 yards. Marcus Jones supplied the Patriots’ longest punt return at 37 yards, while Price recorded a longest return of 20 yards for the Vikings.
The Patriots’ advantage in punt return yardage was smaller than Minnesota’s advantage in kickoff return yardage. Nevertheless, both return units provided additional yardage that supplemented their respective offenses.
Punting Statistics
| Punting Category | Patriots | Vikings |
| Punts | 4 | 4 |
| Total punt yards | 208 | 206 |
| Average punt distance | 52.0 yards | 51.5 yards |
| Longest punt | 64 yards | 58 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 0 |
Baringer averaged 52.0 yards across four punts, with a longest kick of 64 yards. Two of his punts finished inside the 20-yard line.
Minnesota’s punters combined for 206 yards on four punts. Chapman averaged 52.5 yards across two punts, while Wright averaged 50.5 yards across two. The Vikings’ longest punt was 58 yards, and the team recorded no punts inside the 20 in the supplied data.
The punting comparison shows a small advantage for New England in average distance and a more notable difference in punts placed inside the 20. Pinning an opponent deep can make its next possession more difficult, although punt distance alone does not establish the exact starting position or eventual result of a drive.
Key Statistical Takeaways From the Game
The box score provides several useful lessons about how the game unfolded. The most important findings come from combining the individual performances with the team totals rather than evaluating each statistic in isolation.
1. New England Won the Turnover Battle
The Patriots recorded two interceptions, while Minnesota threw two and did not record an interception on defense. That turnover difference helped New England limit the effectiveness of Minnesota’s passing production.
Turnovers are particularly important in a game where the losing team gains more total yardage. They can cancel out otherwise productive drives and give the opposing offense additional opportunities.
2. Touchdowns Made the Difference
New England’s supplied statistics include one passing touchdown and one rushing touchdown. Minnesota recorded no offensive touchdowns in the listed passing and rushing totals.
The Vikings’ four field goals produced 12 points, but the Patriots’ touchdown production created a scoring advantage that Minnesota could not overcome.
This is the clearest explanation for why the team with fewer passing and receiving yards won.
3. Joshua Dobbs and Efton Chism III Formed the Most Productive Listed Passing Combination
Dobbs threw for 106 yards and one touchdown, while Chism caught six passes for 71 yards and one touchdown.
Their individual lines identify them as New England’s leading listed passing and receiving contributors. The supplied statistics do not provide enough play-by-play detail to verify the precise connection on the touchdown, so their performances should be described as complementary contributions rather than assuming a specific scoring connection without further evidence.
4. The Patriots Used a More Balanced Rushing Workload
New England ran 34 times for 107 yards, while Minnesota rushed 16 times for 54 yards. The Patriots’ larger rushing workload offered a counterweight to their lower total passing and receiving yardage.
The rushing touchdown by Henderson also gave New England a scoring contribution that did not depend on the passing game.
5. Minnesota’s Receiving Yardage Did Not Translate Into Offensive Scores
The Vikings gained 252 receiving yards and averaged 11.0 yards per reception. Yet the supplied statistics show no receiving touchdowns.
This gap between yardage and scoring is central to the result. Productive catches matter, but their impact is limited if the offense cannot finish possessions.
6. Special Teams Created Explosive Returns for Both Teams
Webb recorded a 59-yard kickoff return for New England, while Price produced an 81-yard return for Minnesota.
Those plays demonstrate the potential for special teams to change field position quickly. Neither team recorded a kickoff-return touchdown in the supplied statistics, so the returns should be evaluated as yardage gains rather than direct scoring plays.
7. The Defensive Pressure Numbers Favored New England
The Patriots recorded four sacks and nine quarterback hits. Minnesota recorded no sacks and seven quarterback hits.
The Patriots also recorded five tackles for loss compared with Minnesota’s four. Taken together, the figures indicate that New England produced more disruptive defensive plays in this contest.
These statistics do not replace film analysis, but they provide a measurable basis for comparing the two defenses.
What the Numbers Mean for Preseason Evaluation
Preseason games are useful for examining player production, roster competition, and execution, but they must be interpreted differently from regular-season contests.
A single preseason box score cannot establish a player’s long-term value. Playing time, opponent quality, offensive scheme, personnel combinations, and the situations in which statistics were recorded can all influence the final numbers.
For example, Dobbs’ 107.8 passer rating and Chism’s 71 receiving yards provide clear evidence of productive performances on this date. They do not prove that either player would maintain the same efficiency across a full season.
Similarly, Minnesota’s 219 passing yards and 252 receiving yards show that its offense gained ground through the air. Those figures do not explain every failed scoring opportunity or establish whether the problem came from play calling, execution, defensive coverage, or turnovers.
A careful reader should separate three kinds of conclusions:
- Direct observations: New England won 20-12, recorded two interceptions, and produced two offensive touchdowns in the supplied passing and rushing totals.
- Reasonable interpretations: Turnovers and touchdown production were important reasons for the Patriots’ victory.
- Questions requiring more evidence: The precise causes of individual incomplete passes, the quality of blocking, player snap counts, and the exact relationship between specific plays and scoring drives.
This distinction makes statistical analysis more trustworthy. It prevents a box score from being treated as a complete account of everything that happened on the field.
How to Read a Football Player Statistics Table
Readers comparing individual performances can use a few simple principles to avoid common mistakes.
Passing Statistics
- Completions and attempts: Show how many passes a quarterback completed out of the total thrown.
- Completion percentage: Measures the proportion of attempts completed.
- Passing yards: Measures the yardage gained through completed passes, as recorded in the box score.
- Yards per attempt: Provides a measure of passing yardage relative to attempts.
- Touchdowns and interceptions: Show scoring production and turnovers on passes.
- Passer rating: Combines several passing statistics into a standardized rating.
A quarterback with more passing yards is not necessarily more efficient. Completion rate, touchdowns, interceptions, and attempts all provide useful context.
Rushing Statistics
- Carries: The number of rushing attempts.
- Rushing yards: The yardage gained on those attempts.
- Yards per carry: Average rushing yardage per attempt.
- Longest run: The largest individual gain listed.
- Rushing touchdowns: The number of rushing scores.
A high yards-per-carry average can indicate explosive production, but it should be considered alongside workload. A player with four carries may have a higher average than one with 11 carries without producing more total yardage.
Receiving Statistics
- Receptions: Completed passes caught by a player.
- Targets: Passes directed toward that player, as recorded by the source.
- Receiving yards: Yardage gained on receptions.
- Yards per reception: Average yardage for each catch.
- Longest reception: The player’s largest listed gain on a catch.
- Receiving touchdowns: Scores credited to receiving plays.
Targets add context to receptions because they show how frequently a player was involved in the passing game. However, targets alone do not explain route quality, coverage, or the reason a pass was incomplete.
Defensive and Special Teams Statistics
Defensive analysis should consider tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, quarterback hits, interceptions, and fumbles together. No single category provides a complete measure of defensive performance.
Special teams statistics also deserve attention. Field-goal accuracy, punt placement, kickoff returns, and punt returns can influence field position and scoring opportunities even when they do not result in touchdowns.
In this matchup, those categories help explain why New England’s defensive and offensive scoring advantages outweighed Minnesota’s greater receiving yardage.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings game on August 16, 2025?
The New England Patriots defeated the Minnesota Vikings 20-12 in an NFL preseason game on August 16, 2025. New England led 14-3 at halftime and maintained its advantage through the final quarter.
2. Which quarterback had the best passing performance for the Patriots?
Joshua Dobbs delivered the strongest listed passing performance for New England, completing 11 of 16 attempts for 106 yards and one touchdown without an interception. He recorded a 107.8 passer rating.
3. Who led the Patriots in rushing yards?
JaMycal Hasty led New England with 47 rushing yards on 11 carries, averaging 4.3 yards per carry. TreVeyon Henderson also made an important contribution with 20 rushing yards and one touchdown.
4. Who was the leading receiver for the Vikings?
Tim Jones led Minnesota with 68 receiving yards on five receptions from eight targets. He averaged 13.6 yards per catch, and his longest reception covered 28 yards.
5. How many interceptions did the Patriots record?
New England recorded two interceptions. Kyle Dugger and Alex Austin each recorded one, while Minnesota’s quarterbacks threw two interceptions and the Vikings recorded none on defense.
6. Why did the Patriots win despite Minnesota gaining more receiving yards?
Minnesota recorded 252 receiving yards compared with New England’s 207, but the Patriots scored more effectively. New England’s supplied offensive totals included one passing touchdown and one rushing touchdown, while Minnesota relied on four field goals and recorded no offensive touchdowns in those totals. The Patriots also recorded two interceptions.
Conclusion
The New England Patriots vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats show that New England’s 20-12 preseason victory was built on a combination of touchdown production, turnover creation, and a balanced rushing workload. The Patriots gained fewer passing and receiving yards than Minnesota, but they made better use of their offensive opportunities.
Joshua Dobbs led New England’s passing group with 106 yards and a touchdown, Efton Chism III paced its receivers with 71 yards and a score, and JaMycal Hasty led the rushing attack with 47 yards. TreVeyon Henderson added a rushing touchdown, while Kyle Dugger and Alex Austin each intercepted a pass.
Minnesota’s statistical highlights included Brosmer’s 156 passing yards, Tim Jones’ 68 receiving yards, and Will Reichard’s perfect four-for-four field-goal performance. Myles Price also recorded an 81-yard kickoff return. Those contributions helped the Vikings accumulate more receiving yards and total offensive yardage, but they were not enough to overcome the Patriots’ advantage in touchdowns and interceptions.
The central lesson from this matchup is that total yardage tells only part of a football story. Turnovers, touchdown conversion, rushing volume, defensive pressure, and special teams all contribute to the final result. Examining those categories together provides a more accurate understanding of why New England won and where each team’s statistical strengths appeared during this preseason game.
