Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats
The Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats from December 7, 2025, tell the story of a dominant second-half performance by Seattle, which defeated Atlanta 37-9. The Seahawks turned a close first half into a convincing victory by scoring 31 points after halftime, combining Sam Darnold’s three touchdown passes, Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s two touchdown receptions, strong rushing production, and Rashid Shaheed’s spectacular 100-yard kickoff return touchdown. Atlanta, meanwhile, struggled to turn its offensive possessions into points despite Bijan Robinson’s productive performance on the ground and Kyle Pitts Sr.’s contributions in the passing game.
This detailed game analysis covers the final score, quarter-by-quarter results, passing and rushing statistics, receiving leaders, defensive contributions, special teams, and the individual performances that shaped the contest. Every numerical statistic below is based on the supplied ESPN box score data. The goal is to explain not only what happened but also why the numbers matter when evaluating the Seattle Seahawks and Atlanta Falcons.
Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
Seattle Seahawks
10-3 overall
37-9
FINAL
Atlanta Falcons
4-9 overall
Game date
December 7, 2025
Scoring margin
Seattle by 28 points
Seattle away record
6-1
Atlanta home record
2-4
Seattle’s 28-point victory was built on a dramatic change in scoring after halftime. Both teams scored three points in each of the first two quarters, leaving the game tied 6-6 at the break. Seattle then scored 17 points in the third quarter and another 14 in the fourth, while Atlanta managed only a field goal in the final period.
The result reflected more than a difference in offensive yardage. Seattle produced passing touchdowns, created turnovers, and delivered a game-changing special teams score. Atlanta gained respectable rushing yardage but failed to score a touchdown, limiting its ability to respond once Seattle took control.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Seattle Seahawks | Atlanta Falcons |
| First quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 17 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 14 | 3 |
| Final score | 37 | 9 |
The most important turning point was the third quarter. Seattle’s 17-point burst created separation on the scoreboard and forced Atlanta to chase the game. The Seahawks then added 14 more points in the fourth quarter, completing a 31-point second-half performance.
For readers reviewing the official game record, the ESPN NFL box score provides the primary statistical reference for this matchup.
Game at a Glance: Team Statistical Comparison
The team totals help explain why Seattle won so comfortably, even though Atlanta attempted more rushing plays.
| Statistical category | Seattle | Atlanta |
| Passing completions | 20 | 15 |
| Passing attempts | 30 | 30 |
| Passing yards | 249 | 162 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 2 |
| Rushing attempts | 26 | 31 |
| Rushing yards | 129 | 120 |
| Average yards per rush | 5.0 | 3.9 |
| Receiving yards | 249 | 162 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Team fumbles | 2 | 1 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Defensive interceptions | 2 | 1 |
| Total defensive tackles | 70 | 63 |
| Defensive sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Kick return yards | 148 | 121 |
| Points scored | 37 | 9 |
Note: Team passing and receiving totals describe the same passing production from different perspectives. They should not be added together as separate yardage totals.
Several differences stand out. Seattle recorded 87 more passing yards, averaged 1.1 more yards per rushing attempt, and threw three touchdown passes compared with none for Atlanta. The Seahawks also recorded two defensive interceptions and avoided losing a fumble.
Atlanta did record two sacks compared with Seattle’s one. That advantage, however, did not compensate for the Falcons’ lack of passing touchdowns, their two interceptions thrown, or the kickoff return touchdown that immediately added seven points to Seattle’s total.
Sam Darnold vs Kirk Cousins: Quarterback Player Stats
The quarterback comparison is one of the clearest explanations for the final result. Sam Darnold produced three touchdown passes and a 111.7 passer rating, while Kirk Cousins finished without a touchdown pass and threw two interceptions.
Both quarterbacks attempted 30 passes, making the difference in their production particularly revealing. Seattle converted its passing opportunities into touchdowns, while Atlanta accumulated yards without generating the same scoring impact.
Sam Darnold’s passing performance
| Passing statistic | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 20 |
| Attempts | 30 |
| Completion percentage | 66.7% |
| Passing yards | 249 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yardage | 13 yards |
| ESPN QBR | 65.9 |
| Passer rating | 111.7 |
Darnold completed two-thirds of his passes and averaged 8.3 yards per attempt. His three touchdown passes were central to Seattle’s offensive success, allowing the Seahawks to turn their passing efficiency into points rather than relying entirely on field goals.
His 111.7 passer rating also indicates an efficient performance under the NFL’s traditional passer-rating formula. That rating considers completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown rate, and interception rate. It is different from ESPN’s QBR, which uses a separate methodology to assess quarterback performance.
Darnold’s one interception and two sacks show that the performance was not flawless. Atlanta’s defense generated pressure and forced a turnover, but those moments did not outweigh his three passing touchdowns.
The larger takeaway is that Darnold made his opportunities count. Seattle finished with 249 passing yards on 30 attempts, giving the offense a productive balance between moving the ball and finishing drives.
Kirk Cousins’ passing performance
| Passing statistic | Kirk Cousins |
| Completions | 15 |
| Attempts | 30 |
| Completion percentage | 50.0% |
| Passing yards | 162 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.4 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks taken | 1 |
| Sack yardage | 8 yards |
| ESPN QBR | 18.3 |
| Passer rating | 38.5 |
Cousins completed half of his attempts and averaged 5.4 yards per throw. Although he helped Atlanta gain 162 passing yards, the offense did not produce a passing touchdown.
The two interceptions were especially costly because they gave Seattle additional opportunities to stop Atlanta’s drives and maintain control. Turnovers are not simply negative entries in a box score. They can interrupt scoring opportunities, change field position, and place an offense under pressure to recover quickly.
Cousins was sacked once, so the Falcons’ passing difficulties cannot be explained by sack totals alone. The available numbers instead point to a combination of lower passing efficiency, interceptions, and an inability to convert aerial production into touchdowns.
Quarterback comparison: What the numbers reveal
| Metric | Sam Darnold | Kirk Cousins |
| Completion rate | 66.7% | 50.0% |
| Passing yards | 249 | 162 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.3 | 5.4 |
| Touchdown passes | 3 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 2 |
| Passer rating | 111.7 | 38.5 |
| ESPN QBR | 65.9 | 18.3 |
Darnold completed five more passes, gained 87 additional passing yards, and produced three more touchdown passes. He also threw one fewer interception.
The 2.9-yard difference in yards per attempt deserves attention. Over 30 attempts, that gap reflects a meaningful difference in how much offensive production each team generated from its passing game.
These figures do not establish that every Seattle pass was more difficult or more valuable than every Atlanta pass. They do establish that Seattle’s passing attack was substantially more productive in this particular contest.
Seattle Seahawks Rushing Stats
Seattle’s ground game supplied another important part of the victory. The team recorded 129 rushing yards on 26 carries, averaging 5.0 yards per attempt.
The Seahawks did not score a rushing touchdown according to the supplied team rushing statistics. Their offensive scoring advantage instead came through the passing game, field goals, and special teams.
Seattle rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Zach Charbonnet | 7 | 46 | 6.6 | 27 yards | 0 |
| Velus Jones Jr. | 4 | 32 | 8.0 | 25 yards | 0 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 10 | 29 | 2.9 | 10 yards | 0 |
| Sam Darnold | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 12 yards | 0 |
| Drew Lock | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 yards | 0 |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | -1 yard | 0 |
| Team total | 26 | 129 | 5.0 | 27 yards | 0 |
Zach Charbonnet provides explosive runs
Charbonnet led Seattle’s listed rushers with 46 yards on seven attempts. His 6.6-yard average and 27-yard longest run show that he generated substantial yardage despite a relatively small number of carries.
His contribution also extended beyond rushing. Charbonnet caught two passes for 20 yards, giving him 66 combined rushing and receiving yards.
This type of production is useful because it allows an offense to create opportunities in different situations. A productive running back can gain yards on designed runs, contribute as a receiver, and help keep a defense from focusing exclusively on the quarterback.
Charbonnet’s numbers do not mean that every carry was successful, but they demonstrate that his opportunities produced strong overall returns.
Velus Jones Jr. adds another rushing option
Jones gained 32 yards on four carries, averaging 8.0 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 25 yards.
That average was the highest among Seattle’s listed players with rushing attempts. His limited workload makes it important not to assume that the same average would have continued over a much larger number of carries.
Still, his production contributed to Seattle’s ability to gain ground efficiently without relying on a single runner.
Kenneth Walker III handles the largest rushing workload
Walker led Seattle with 10 carries but finished with 29 rushing yards, averaging 2.9 yards per attempt.
His numbers were less efficient than Charbonnet’s and Jones’s in this game. However, individual rushing averages can be affected by down-and-distance situations, defensive formations, and the specific responsibilities assigned to each runner.
Walker also recorded one reception for minus-one yard. That gives him 28 combined rushing and receiving yards in the supplied statistics.
The important distinction is between workload and efficiency. Walker received the most carries among Seattle’s listed rushers, while Charbonnet and Jones produced more yards per attempt.
Sam Darnold’s mobility adds value
Darnold rushed three times for 23 yards, averaging 7.7 yards per carry. His longest run covered 12 yards.
Those numbers show that his contribution was not limited to passing. Quarterback rushing can extend a play, exploit an opening in the defense, or gain yardage when a passing option is unavailable.
Darnold did not record a rushing touchdown, but his 23 yards helped Seattle reach its 129-yard team rushing total.
Atlanta Falcons Rushing Stats
Atlanta finished with 120 rushing yards on 31 carries, averaging 3.9 yards per attempt. The Falcons attempted five more rushes than Seattle but gained nine fewer total yards.
The difference becomes more apparent when efficiency is considered. Seattle averaged 5.0 yards per carry, compared with Atlanta’s 3.9.
Atlanta rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Bijan Robinson | 20 | 86 | 4.3 | 11 yards | 0 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 11 | 34 | 3.1 | 9 yards | 0 |
| Team total | 31 | 120 | 3.9 | 11 yards | 0 |
Bijan Robinson leads Atlanta’s ground attack
Robinson recorded 86 rushing yards on 20 carries, averaging 4.3 yards per attempt. He accounted for more than two-thirds of Atlanta’s rushing yardage.
His workload was significant, and his average was better than the team’s overall rushing figure. That indicates he remained a productive part of the Falcons’ offense even as the team struggled to score.
Robinson also caught two passes for eight yards, bringing his combined rushing and receiving total to 94 yards.
However, his longest run was 11 yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown. His performance provided a foundation for Atlanta’s ground game, but it did not translate into the explosive scoring plays required to match Seattle’s output.
The box score also records a lost fumble by Robinson. That turnover is an important part of evaluating his overall game because ball security can influence field position and the number of opportunities available to an offense.
It would be misleading to judge his entire performance by that mistake alone. His 86 rushing yards remained Atlanta’s leading individual rushing contribution.
Tyler Allgeier provides support
Allgeier gained 34 yards on 11 carries, averaging 3.1 yards per attempt. His longest run was nine yards.
He also caught two passes for 33 yards. When both categories are combined, Allgeier finished with 67 yards from scrimmage.
His receiving contribution is particularly notable because it nearly matched his rushing output. Although he did not score a touchdown, his involvement gave Atlanta another way to advance the ball.
Why Atlanta’s rushing production was not enough
Atlanta’s 120 rushing yards might appear respectable in isolation. The problem was how those yards translated into scoring opportunities.
Three factors stand out:
- Lower rushing efficiency: Atlanta averaged 3.9 yards per carry, compared with Seattle’s 5.0.
- Limited explosive runs: The longest recorded Atlanta run was 11 yards, while Seattle’s longest was 27.
- No rushing touchdowns: Neither team’s listed rushing totals included a touchdown, so Seattle’s scoring advantage came from other phases.
Atlanta also fell behind by 17 points after the third quarter. As the deficit grew, the Falcons needed to produce points more quickly. A rushing attack that primarily generated steady gains could not make up for the lack of passing touchdowns and the turnovers.
Receiving Stats: Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads Seattle
Seattle’s receiving group delivered the most decisive individual performances in the passing game. Jaxon Smith-Njigba led the team with 92 receiving yards and two touchdown catches, while Cooper Kupp added another touchdown.
The Seahawks recorded 249 receiving yards and three receiving touchdowns on 20 receptions.
Seattle receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch | TDs |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 7 | 10 | 92 | 13.1 | 30 yards | 2 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 4 | 5 | 67 | 16.8 | 33 yards | 0 |
| Cooper Kupp | 2 | 3 | 35 | 17.5 | 24 yards | 1 |
| AJ Barner | 3 | 4 | 27 | 9.0 | 15 yards | 0 |
| Zach Charbonnet | 2 | 3 | 20 | 10.0 | 15 yards | 0 |
| Cody White | 1 | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 yards | 0 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 yards | 0 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 1 | 3 | -1 | -1.0 | -1 yard | 0 |
| Team total | 20 | 30 | 249 | 12.5 | 33 yards | 3 |
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s two-touchdown performance
Smith-Njigba finished with seven catches on 10 targets for 92 yards and two touchdowns. His average of 13.1 yards per reception indicates that his contribution went beyond short, low-gain completions.
His 30-yard longest reception also demonstrates his ability to generate a substantial gain on a single play.
The two touchdowns are the most important part of his statistical line. A receiver can gain considerable yardage without directly affecting the score, but Smith-Njigba combined reliable involvement with end-zone production.
He caught seven of Darnold’s 20 completions, representing 35% of the quarterback’s completed passes. He also accounted for approximately 37% of Seattle’s passing yardage.
These proportions illustrate how important he was to the passing attack. They do not mean that the entire offense depended on him alone, since Shaheed and Kupp also produced meaningful gains.
Rashid Shaheed stretches the field
Shaheed recorded four receptions on five targets for 67 yards, averaging 16.8 yards per catch. His longest reception covered 33 yards.
His receiving production was especially efficient relative to his number of targets. He caught four of five passes directed his way, and each reception produced an average of nearly 17 yards.
Shaheed did not record a receiving touchdown, but his impact on the game went far beyond this table. His 100-yard kickoff return touchdown was one of Seattle’s defining plays.
This distinction matters when evaluating players who contribute in multiple phases. A receiving-only comparison would capture Shaheed’s 67 yards but miss the special teams play that added a touchdown to the scoreboard.
Cooper Kupp contributes a touchdown
Kupp caught two passes on three targets for 35 yards and one touchdown. His 17.5 yards per reception was Seattle’s highest average among the listed receivers with multiple catches.
Although he had fewer receptions than Smith-Njigba and Shaheed, his touchdown provided another scoring option for Darnold.
Kupp’s performance shows why receptions and yardage should not be viewed independently of scoring. Two catches can be highly valuable when they include a touchdown and generate meaningful yardage.
Seattle’s receiving depth supports the passing game
AJ Barner added three catches for 27 yards, while Charbonnet contributed two catches for 20 yards. Cody White caught his only target for nine yards.
Elijah Arroyo was targeted once without recording a reception, and Walker caught one pass for minus-one yard on three targets.
The distribution suggests that Seattle did not rely exclusively on one receiver to move the ball. Smith-Njigba supplied the leading yardage and touchdown production, Shaheed generated explosive gains, and Kupp added a touchdown of his own.
That combination made Seattle’s passing attack more difficult to contain than an offense that depends on a single target.
Atlanta Falcons Receiving Stats
Atlanta’s receiving group produced 162 yards on 15 receptions, averaging 10.8 yards per catch. Kyle Pitts Sr. led the team in both receptions and receiving yards, but none of the listed Falcons receivers recorded a touchdown.
That absence of receiving touchdowns was a major difference between the two offenses. Atlanta moved the ball through the air but did not finish a passing play in the end zone.
Atlanta receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch | TDs |
| Kyle Pitts Sr. | 6 | 10 | 90 | 15.0 | 30 yards | 0 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 2 | 2 | 33 | 16.5 | 21 yards | 0 |
| Dylan Drummond | 3 | 5 | 21 | 7.0 | 15 yards | 0 |
| Bijan Robinson | 2 | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 5 yards | 0 |
| Darnell Mooney | 1 | 4 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 yards | 0 |
| Deven Thompkins | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 yards | 0 |
| David Sills V | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 yards | 0 |
| Team total | 15 | 28 | 162 | 10.8 | 30 yards | 0 |
Kyle Pitts Sr. leads the Falcons’ passing targets
Pitts caught six passes on 10 targets for 90 yards, averaging 15.0 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 30 yards.
He accounted for approximately 56% of Atlanta’s receiving yardage, making him the clear leader in the team’s aerial production.
Pitts also matched Smith-Njigba’s reception total closely enough to provide an interesting comparison: both players caught six or more passes, but Smith-Njigba scored twice while Pitts did not score.
The difference highlights an important part of football analysis. Receiving yardage measures how much ground a player gains through catches, while touchdowns measure whether those gains directly produce points. Both are useful, but they answer different questions.
Pitts’ 90 yards demonstrate that he was a productive receiving option. The zero-touchdown figure shows that Atlanta did not convert his involvement into the same end-zone success that Seattle achieved.
Tyler Allgeier contributes 33 receiving yards
Allgeier caught both of his targets for 33 yards. His 16.5 yards per catch was an efficient return, and his longest reception covered 21 yards.
Combined with his 34 rushing yards, he recorded 67 yards from scrimmage. That total demonstrates his value as both a runner and a receiver.
Atlanta’s offense benefited from his ability to contribute in different ways, although the team’s overall passing production still fell short of Seattle’s.
Dylan Drummond and the supporting receivers
Drummond caught three of five targets for 21 yards. Robinson added two receptions for eight yards, while Mooney recorded one catch for six yards on four targets. Thompkins caught his only target for four yards.
These smaller statistical lines do not automatically mean that each player performed poorly. A receiver’s role may depend on the play design, defensive coverage, and the opportunities available during the game.
Nevertheless, Atlanta needed more overall production from its passing attack. The team recorded 162 passing yards without a passing touchdown, and its receivers did not produce the scoring plays required to keep pace with Seattle.
Seattle vs Atlanta receiving comparison
| Receiving metric | Seattle | Atlanta |
| Receptions | 20 | 15 |
| Targets | 30 | 28 |
| Receiving yards | 249 | 162 |
| Yards per catch | 12.5 | 10.8 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Longest reception | 33 yards | 30 yards |
Seattle gained 87 more receiving yards and recorded three more receiving touchdowns. The Seahawks also produced a higher average per catch.
The figures support a straightforward conclusion: Seattle was more productive through the air, both in moving the ball and in converting passing plays into touchdowns.
Defensive Player Stats: Turnovers Change the Game
Seattle’s defense made a major contribution to the victory by recording two interceptions and recovering a fumble. Atlanta’s defense recorded two sacks, but it did not produce a defensive touchdown and managed only one interception.
The distinction between defensive pressure and defensive results is important. Sacks can disrupt drives, but interceptions and fumble recoveries can change possession entirely. Seattle’s defense generated more interceptions and benefited from Atlanta’s lost fumble.
Team defensive statistics
| Defensive category | Seattle Seahawks | Atlanta Falcons |
| Total tackles | 70 | 63 |
| Solo tackles | 37 | 39 |
| Sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 10 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 7 | 3 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 1 |
Seattle recorded more total tackles, passes defended, and quarterback hits. Atlanta led in solo tackles, sacks, and tackles for loss.
These numbers show that Atlanta was capable of disrupting plays behind the line of scrimmage. Its seven tackles for loss and two sacks are evidence of defensive activity, even in a game that ended in a heavy defeat.
Seattle’s advantage appeared in its ability to affect the passing game. The Seahawks recorded 10 passes defended and two interceptions, compared with Atlanta’s three passes defended and one interception.
The supplied defensive statistics also list one Seattle defensive touchdown. However, the available summary does not establish the specific scoring play with enough certainty to attribute it to a named defender. That detail should be checked against the original play-by-play record before assigning individual credit.
Seattle’s interception leaders
The supplied box score identifies two Seattle interceptions:
| Player | Interceptions | Return yards |
| Devon Witherspoon | 1 | 3 |
| Nick Emmanwori | 1 | 0 |
| Seattle total | 2 | 3 |
These turnovers helped Seattle limit Atlanta’s opportunities to sustain drives. Witherspoon returned his interception for three yards, while Emmanwori recorded an interception without a return gain.
An interception is valuable even when the return is short. Its main impact is that the defending team ends the opponent’s possession and gains the opportunity to use the ball itself.
Atlanta’s interception
Mike Hughes recorded Atlanta’s lone interception, returning it for six yards.
This was a positive defensive contribution for the Falcons. It demonstrated that Atlanta’s defense could take the ball away from Darnold, even though the overall defensive performance did not prevent Seattle from scoring 37 points.
A single interception does not necessarily indicate a poor defensive performance, just as multiple interceptions do not explain every aspect of a team’s success. The broader context includes how often a defense forces punts, limits explosive plays, and prevents touchdowns.
Defensive names listed in the supplied statistics
The supplied defensive summary names the following Seattle players: Ernest Jones IV, Devon Witherspoon, Nick Emmanwori, Riq Woolen, Drake Thomas, Ty Okada, Leonard Williams, Josh Jobe, Tyrice Knight, Boye Mafe, DeMarcus Lawrence, Jarran Reed, Coby Bryant, Byron Murphy II, Uchenna Nwosu, Derick Hall, D’Anthony Bell, Julian Love, Patrick O’Connell, Zach Charbonnet, and Kenneth Walker III.
The Atlanta list includes A.J. Terrell Jr., Mike Hughes, Divine Deablo, Kaden Elliss, LaCale London, Dee Alford, Xavier Watts, Kentavius Street, James Pearce Jr., Jessie Bates III, David Onyemata, Elijah Garcia, Arnold Ebiketie, Ronnie Harrison Jr., David Sills V, Feleipe Franks, Jordan Fuller, Kyle Pitts Sr., Leonard Floyd, Chris Lindstrom, Ryan Neuzil, and Ruke Orhorhoro.
These are the names included in the supplied defensive summary, not a verified ranking of the game’s best defenders. Because individual defensive entries may not preserve the original source’s player-by-player attribution, precise tackle, sack, and pressure totals for each defender should be confirmed in the official box score.
Special Teams Stats: Rashid Shaheed’s 100-Yard Touchdown
Special teams were one of the most decisive parts of this matchup. Seattle’s Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown, providing a major scoring play outside the conventional passing and rushing categories.
That return was especially valuable because it added points without requiring Seattle’s offense to sustain a drive. It also forced Atlanta to account for the kickoff return threat for the remainder of the game.
Kick return comparison
| Statistic | Seattle | Atlanta |
| Kick returns | 3 | 4 |
| Kick return yards | 148 | 121 |
| Average per return | 49.3 | 30.3 |
| Longest return | 100 yards | 47 yards |
| Kick return touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
Seattle averaged 49.3 yards per kick return, compared with Atlanta’s 30.3. The Seahawks gained 27 more total return yards despite having one fewer return.
The largest difference was the touchdown. Shaheed’s 100-yard return turned a routine special teams possession into an immediate scoring opportunity. It was a game-changing contribution that would not be visible if the analysis focused only on quarterback and receiving statistics.
Rashid Shaheed’s complete contribution
Shaheed’s supplied statistics show:
- Four receptions for 67 yards.
- An average of 16.8 yards per reception.
- Three kickoff returns for 148 yards.
- An average of 49.3 yards per kickoff return.
- A 100-yard kickoff return touchdown.
His receiving and return yardage should be kept separate when reviewing the official statistical categories. Combined, the two categories represent 215 yards of recorded receiving and kickoff return production, but they are not equivalent to 215 yards of offensive yards from scrimmage.
This distinction matters when comparing players across teams. A player who contributes as a receiver and returner can influence the result in ways that a standard receiving table does not capture.
Atlanta’s return production
Deven Thompkins led Atlanta’s kickoff return group with four returns for 121 yards, averaging 30.3 yards per return. His longest return covered 47 yards, and he did not record a kickoff return touchdown.
Jamal Agnew recorded one punt return for 14 yards, averaging 14.0 yards per return.
Seattle had no punt returns recorded in the supplied statistics.
Atlanta’s return numbers were not insignificant. The Falcons gained 121 kickoff return yards and generated a 47-yard return. However, Seattle’s superior average and 100-yard touchdown created a more direct scoring advantage.
Kicking and Punting Statistics
Kicking was another area where Seattle produced a more favorable result. Jason Myers converted all three field goal attempts and all four extra points, while Zane Gonzalez made three of four field goals for Atlanta.
Kicker comparison
| Statistic | Jason Myers | Zane Gonzalez |
| Field goals made | 3 | 3 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 4 |
| Field goal accuracy | 100% | 75% |
| Longest field goal | 48 yards | 43 yards |
| Extra points made | 4 | 0 |
| Extra points attempted | 4 | 0 |
| Total points listed | 12 | 10 |
Myers scored 12 points through kicking, combining nine points from field goals with three additional points from the extra points recorded in the supplied data? The supplied statistics list four extra points, which equal four points, so his correct total is 13 points if all listed conversions are included.
This reveals a discrepancy in the supplied table, which lists Myers’ total as 12 points. Based on three successful field goals and four successful extra points, the arithmetic total should be 13. The original box score should be checked to resolve that inconsistency.
Gonzalez made three field goals, accounting for nine points, and attempted no extra points according to the supplied data. His listed total of 10 points also differs from the nine points implied by those kicking entries. That figure should likewise be verified against the official scoring summary.
The reported conversion rates remain straightforward: Myers made all three listed field goal attempts, while Gonzalez converted three of four. However, player scoring totals should not be treated as fully reconciled until the discrepancy is resolved.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Michael Dickson | Bradley Pinion |
| Punts | 3 | 2 |
| Total punt yards | 148 | 84 |
| Average punt distance | 49.3 yards | 42.0 yards |
| Longest punt | 52 yards | 45 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 2 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Dickson averaged 49.3 yards per punt, while Pinion averaged 42.0 yards. Both punters recorded two punts inside the 20-yard line, and neither had a touchback in the supplied statistics.
Punting averages alone do not reveal the full quality of a punt. Hang time, return opportunities, and the location of the kick also affect field position. Still, the figures show that Dickson generated a higher average distance while matching Pinion’s total for punts inside the 20.
Turnovers and Their Impact on the Final Score
Turnovers were among the most meaningful differences between the two teams. Seattle threw one interception but did not lose a fumble, while Atlanta threw two interceptions and lost one fumble.
Turnover comparison
| Turnover category | Seattle | Atlanta |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles recorded | 2 | 1 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Defensive interceptions | 2 | 1 |
Seattle’s two recorded fumbles did not result in a lost fumble in the supplied data. Atlanta’s single recorded fumble was lost by Robinson.
This comparison illustrates why the number of fumbles alone is not enough to evaluate ball security. A team may fumble without losing possession if it recovers the ball. A lost fumble, by contrast, transfers possession to the opponent.
Atlanta’s two interceptions and lost fumble meant three recorded turnovers from those categories. Seattle’s one interception and zero lost fumbles meant one turnover from the same categories.
That two-turnover difference matters because every lost possession removes an opportunity to score. Turnovers can also give the opposing offense a shorter route to the end zone or place the defending team under pressure.
However, it would be inaccurate to claim that turnovers alone explain the 28-point margin. Seattle also outperformed Atlanta in passing efficiency, receiving touchdowns, rushing average, and kickoff return production.
The stronger interpretation is that turnovers reinforced an existing offensive advantage. Seattle moved the ball more effectively and protected possession better, while Atlanta struggled to create touchdowns and gave the Seahawks additional opportunities.
Why Seattle Won 37-9: Five Key Factors
The final score was the product of several connected advantages rather than one isolated statistic.
1. Seattle dominated the second half
Seattle and Atlanta were tied 6-6 at halftime. The Seahawks then scored 17 points in the third quarter and 14 in the fourth.
The 31-point second half was the clearest sign of Seattle’s control. Atlanta managed only three points after the break, leaving the Falcons unable to keep pace.
A close first half can sometimes hide an important difference in how two teams finish drives. Seattle’s second-half production showed that the early tie did not reflect the final balance of the contest.
2. Sam Darnold converted passing opportunities into touchdowns
Darnold completed 20 of 30 passes for 249 yards and three touchdowns. His 8.3 yards per attempt was substantially higher than Cousins’ 5.4.
The difference was not merely the extra yardage. Seattle converted its passing game into three touchdowns, while Atlanta did not record a passing touchdown.
That scoring gap made Seattle’s passing production far more valuable on the scoreboard.
3. Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered in the red zone
Smith-Njigba recorded seven receptions, 92 yards, and two touchdowns. Kupp added a third touchdown reception.
Three touchdown catches from the receiving group gave Seattle several direct routes to scoring. Atlanta’s receivers produced 162 yards but did not record a touchdown.
This contrast shows why a receiving line should be evaluated through both yardage and scoring production.
4. Seattle’s defense created additional opportunities
Seattle recorded two interceptions and recovered one fumble, while Atlanta threw two interceptions and lost a fumble.
The Seahawks also recorded 10 passes defended and seven quarterback hits. These statistics point to a defense that affected the passing game in several ways, not just through interceptions.
Atlanta’s two sacks and seven tackles for loss were meaningful defensive achievements, but they did not prevent Seattle from producing 37 points.
5. Special teams added an immediate touchdown
Shaheed’s 100-yard kickoff return touchdown gave Seattle a scoring advantage that did not depend on a conventional offensive drive.
This was one of the clearest examples of how special teams can influence an NFL result. Return touchdowns can shift momentum, change the scoreboard instantly, and force the opposing team to respond under greater pressure.
Taken together, these five factors explain why Seattle transformed a tied halftime score into a 28-point win.
What the Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
A useful game analysis should go beyond identifying the highest-scoring player. The numbers can also show which areas of performance were strong, which were inefficient, and where the final result was decided.
What Seattle did well
Seattle’s most important strengths were:
- Passing efficiency: Darnold averaged 8.3 yards per attempt and threw three touchdown passes.
- Receiving production: Smith-Njigba led with 92 yards and two touchdowns, while Kupp added a touchdown.
- Rushing efficiency: The Seahawks averaged 5.0 yards per carry.
- Defensive disruption: Seattle recorded two interceptions and 10 passes defended.
- Special teams impact: Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown.
- Second-half scoring: Seattle scored 31 points after halftime.
The combination matters more than any single number. Efficient passing created scoring opportunities, rushing production helped the offense gain ground, and the defense and return game contributed to the overall advantage.
What Atlanta could have improved
Atlanta’s statistical weaknesses were also clear:
- Passing output: Cousins completed 15 of 30 passes for 162 yards.
- Turnover prevention: The Falcons threw two interceptions and lost a fumble.
- Touchdown production: Atlanta did not score a passing or rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics.
- Receiving efficiency: The Falcons averaged 10.8 yards per catch, below Seattle’s 12.5.
- Second-half response: Atlanta scored only three points after halftime.
- Rushing explosiveness: The longest recorded Atlanta run was 11 yards.
The figures do not establish that every individual player or coaching decision was responsible for the defeat. They do identify the areas where Atlanta’s overall production fell short.
How to interpret player statistics correctly
Readers comparing individual performances should keep three principles in mind.
First, distinguish volume from efficiency. A running back with 20 carries may lead in total yards but average fewer yards per attempt than a teammate with seven carries.
Second, separate yardage from scoring. Pitts’ 90 receiving yards were a meaningful contribution, but Seattle’s receivers combined their yardage with three touchdowns.
Third, consider the full game context. A player’s numbers may be affected by the score, the number of possessions, turnovers, and the type of opportunities available.
These principles make the box score more useful than a simple ranking of players by total yards.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons game on December 7, 2025?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Atlanta Falcons 37-9. Seattle scored 31 points in the second half, while Atlanta scored only three after halftime.
2. How many passing touchdowns did Sam Darnold throw against Atlanta?
Sam Darnold threw three touchdown passes. He completed 20 of 30 attempts for 249 yards, recorded one interception, and finished with a 111.7 passer rating.
3. Who led Seattle in receiving yards?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with 92 receiving yards on seven catches. He also scored two receiving touchdowns on 10 targets.
4. Who was Atlanta’s leading rusher?
Bijan Robinson led Atlanta with 86 rushing yards on 20 carries, averaging 4.3 yards per attempt. He also recorded two receptions for eight yards.
5. Which player returned a kickoff for a touchdown?
Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a Seattle touchdown. He also caught four passes for 67 receiving yards.
6. How many interceptions did the Seahawks record?
Seattle recorded two defensive interceptions. Devon Witherspoon and Nick Emmanwori each recorded one interception in the supplied statistics.
Conclusion
The Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats show how Seattle built a convincing 37-9 victory through efficient passing, productive receiving, defensive takeaways, and outstanding special teams. The game was tied 6-6 at halftime, but Seattle’s 31-point second half turned a competitive opening into a decisive result.
Sam Darnold completed 20 passes for 249 yards and three touchdowns, while Jaxon Smith-Njigba led the receiving group with 92 yards and two scores. Zach Charbonnet and Velus Jones Jr. provided efficient rushing contributions, and Rashid Shaheed delivered the game’s standout special teams moment with his 100-yard kickoff return touchdown.
Atlanta had individual contributions worth recognizing. Bijan Robinson rushed for 86 yards, and Kyle Pitts Sr. gained 90 receiving yards. However, Kirk Cousins threw two interceptions without a touchdown pass, and the Falcons did not score a touchdown in the supplied game statistics.
Ultimately, Seattle’s advantage came from combining several productive units. The Seahawks gained more passing yards, averaged more yards per rush, recorded more defensive interceptions, and scored far more efficiently after halftime. Atlanta’s defensive pressure and rushing volume were not enough to overcome those differences.
For an accurate understanding of this matchup, individual statistics should always be considered alongside team totals, scoring production, turnovers, and the timing of key plays. One important data-quality note remains: the supplied kicking statistics contain inconsistencies between the listed successful kicks and the reported player point totals, so those figures require verification against the original box score.
