Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats
The Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats from December 21, 2025, tell the story of a competitive NFL game in which Atlanta defeated Arizona 26-19. The Falcons built their advantage with a balanced rushing attack, two passing touchdowns from Kirk Cousins, and timely defensive plays. Arizona produced more passing yards, gained efficient rushing yardage, and converted four field goals, but the Cardinals could not turn enough of those opportunities into touchdowns. The final score reflected an important difference between gaining yards and finishing drives: Atlanta scored three touchdowns, while Arizona scored only one.
The game provides a useful look at quarterback efficiency, running back production, receiving contributions, defensive pressure, and kicking performance. Although the Cardinals recorded more total passing yards and averaged more yards per rushing attempt, Atlanta found a more effective balance between its offensive units. This breakdown uses the supplied ESPN box-score data for the December 21 matchup and separates confirmed statistics from analysis so readers can understand exactly how the game unfolded.
Game Overview: Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals
The Falcons entered the contest with a 5-9 record implied by the supplied final standings context? The provided box-score record lists Atlanta at 6-9 and Arizona at 3-12. Those are the records reported in the supplied game data and are reproduced here without attempting to reconstruct the teams’ records from other games.
Atlanta’s 26-19 victory came after a game with contrasting scoring patterns. Arizona started strongly, scoring 10 points in the opening quarter. Atlanta responded with 13 points in the second quarter, then maintained its lead through the second half.
Here are the main details of the matchup.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals |
| Date | December 21, 2025 |
| Final score | Falcons 26, Cardinals 19 |
| Venue | Not specified in the supplied data |
| Atlanta record listed | 6-9 |
| Arizona record listed | 3-12 |
| Atlanta quarterback | Kirk Cousins |
| Arizona quarterback | Jacoby Brissett |
| Source | ESPN box score |
The result is particularly interesting because Arizona did not struggle to move the football in every area. The Cardinals finished with 203 passing yards and 132 rushing yards. Atlanta recorded 197 passing yards and 152 rushing yards. The difference came in how each team converted its opportunities into points.
Atlanta scored two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Arizona scored one passing touchdown and relied on Chad Ryland’s four successful field goals for much of its scoring.
That contrast is the starting point for understanding the individual performances.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring progression explains how Atlanta overcame Arizona’s early lead and protected its advantage during the final two quarters.
| Quarter | Atlanta Falcons | Arizona Cardinals |
| First quarter | 3 | 10 |
| Second quarter | 13 | 6 |
| Third quarter | 3 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Final score | 26 | 19 |
First Quarter: Arizona Takes Control
Arizona opened the game with 10 points, while Atlanta managed a field goal. The Cardinals’ early scoring established a lead and put pressure on the Falcons to respond.
A 10-point opening quarter can be valuable because it gives an offense flexibility with its later play selection. A leading team can mix runs and passes, while the opponent may need to become more aggressive to close the gap.
Atlanta’s three points kept the deficit manageable. The Falcons did not need to abandon their running game or rely entirely on deep passes. Their ability to remain within one score helped set up the second-quarter response.
Second Quarter: Atlanta Changes the Momentum
Atlanta scored 13 points in the second quarter, compared with Arizona’s six. That swing was the game’s defining scoring sequence.
The Falcons entered halftime ahead by three points, 16-16? The quarter totals show Atlanta with 16 points and Arizona with 16 points at halftime. This means the teams were tied 16-16 at halftime, despite Atlanta’s stronger second-quarter scoring.
That distinction matters. Atlanta did not establish a halftime lead, but it erased Arizona’s early advantage and entered the break with the game level.
Cousins’ two passing touchdowns ultimately proved important, while Atlanta’s ground game helped sustain the offense. Arizona also continued to add points, but its six-point second quarter was not enough to retain its initial advantage.
Third Quarter: Atlanta Creates Separation
The Falcons scored three points in the third quarter, while Arizona failed to score.
Although a field goal is less dramatic than a touchdown, it gave Atlanta a 19-16 lead. Arizona’s scoreless quarter was a missed opportunity to respond after the teams had reached halftime tied.
The difference was not simply the three points. Atlanta came out of the break with the lead, forcing Arizona to play from behind during the final quarter.
Fourth Quarter: Atlanta Finishes the Job
Atlanta added seven points in the fourth quarter, while Arizona managed three. The Falcons therefore outscored the Cardinals 10-3 after halftime.
Arizona’s late field goal reduced the margin, but Atlanta’s touchdown restored the seven-point difference. The Cardinals needed another scoring drive to tie the game, yet the final score remained 26-19.
The scoring pattern illustrates an important football principle: a strong start does not guarantee a win. Teams must sustain their execution after halftime and turn late possessions into points.
Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats: Quarterbacks
Quarterback performance is often judged by passing yards, but those numbers alone cannot explain a game’s result. Completion rate, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and rushing contributions all affect how an offense performs.
Kirk Cousins and Jacoby Brissett finished with similar passing-yard totals, but their touchdown production and overall efficiency figures differed.
| Passing statistic | Kirk Cousins | Jacoby Brissett |
| Completions | 21 | 16 |
| Attempts | 35 | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 60.0% | 51.6% |
| Passing yards | 197 | 203 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 7 | 15 |
| QBR | 79.5 | 30.1 |
| Passer rating | 82.7 | 69.7 |
Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completions and attempts. Other figures come from the supplied box-score data.
Kirk Cousins: Two Passing Touchdowns Make the Difference
Cousins completed 21 of 35 passes for 197 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His completion percentage was 60%, and his listed passer rating was 82.7.
His passing total was six yards below Arizona’s, but his two touchdown passes gave Atlanta a more productive return from its passing game. Touchdowns are especially important when comparing quarterbacks who finish with similar yardage because they show whether a team converted its passing opportunities into points.
Cousins also took one sack for a loss of seven yards. That was a smaller negative impact than Arizona’s two sacks for 15 yards, although sack totals alone cannot establish how much pressure either offensive line allowed across every passing play.
The supplied statistics also list Cousins with five rushing attempts for minus three yards and one rushing touchdown. That scoring contribution is notable because it adds another dimension to his performance beyond conventional passing statistics.
There is a distinction worth keeping in mind: a quarterback can produce a modest passing total and still manage a winning performance when the running game, red-zone execution, and defensive plays support him. Atlanta’s overall rushing production helped Cousins operate within a balanced offense rather than carrying the entire scoring burden through the air.
Jacoby Brissett: More Passing Yards, Fewer Touchdowns
Brissett completed 16 of 31 attempts for 203 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His 6.5 yards per attempt exceeded Cousins’ 5.6, and his passing total was six yards higher.
However, Brissett completed 51.6% of his passes, compared with Cousins’ 60%. He also took two sacks for a combined loss of 15 yards.
Arizona’s quarterback therefore produced slightly more passing yardage but fewer passing touchdowns. That difference helps explain why the Cardinals finished with 19 points despite respectable gains through the air.
Brissett’s listed passer rating was 69.7, while his QBR was 30.1. These are separate measurements with different calculation methods, so they should not be treated as interchangeable scores.
The interception also mattered because it ended an offensive possession without points. The supplied defensive statistics credit Atlanta’s C.J. Henderson with one interception, corresponding to the turnover listed for Brissett.
Which Quarterback Had the Better Performance?
Cousins had the stronger overall result in terms of scoring output and the listed quarterback metrics. Brissett had a slight advantage in passing yards and yards per attempt.
The distinction is between moving the ball and converting drives. Brissett’s yardage shows that Arizona could generate passing production, but Cousins delivered an additional passing touchdown and helped Atlanta secure the victory.
Neither quarterback was mistake-free. Each threw an interception, and Cousins also recorded a lost fumble. Atlanta’s victory was therefore not based on flawless quarterback play. It came from combining enough scoring production with stronger overall results.
Rushing Stats: Atlanta’s Balanced Ground Attack
Atlanta’s running game was a major part of its victory. The Falcons recorded 37 rushing attempts for 152 yards, an average of 4.1 yards per carry. Arizona ran 23 times for 132 yards, averaging 5.7 yards per attempt.
The Cardinals were more efficient on a per-carry basis, but Atlanta produced 20 additional rushing attempts and gained 20 more rushing yards.
| Rushing statistic | Atlanta Falcons | Arizona Cardinals |
| Rushing attempts | 37 | 23 |
| Rushing yards | 152 | 132 |
| Yards per carry | 4.1 | 5.7 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Longest run | 29 yards | 22 yards |
The figures suggest different offensive approaches. Atlanta used a higher volume of rushing plays, while Arizona generated more yards per attempt but did not record a rushing touchdown.
Tyler Allgeier Provides Consistent Yardage
Tyler Allgeier led Atlanta in rushing yards with 79 on 16 carries. His average was 4.9 yards per carry, and his longest run covered 12 yards.
Allgeier’s production gave Atlanta a dependable source of ground yardage. His total was achieved without relying on a single run longer than 12 yards, which makes his contribution particularly useful when evaluating consistency.
A back who repeatedly gains four or five yards can help an offense stay ahead of the chains. That makes third-down situations more manageable and allows the play caller to keep both running and passing options available.
Allgeier did not score a rushing touchdown, but touchdowns are not the only measure of a running back’s value. His 79 yards helped the Falcons establish a ground-game foundation and reduced the need to depend exclusively on Cousins.
Bijan Robinson Contributes on the Ground and Through the Air
Bijan Robinson finished with 16 carries for 76 yards, averaging 4.8 yards per attempt. His longest run was 29 yards.
Robinson was only three yards behind Allgeier in rushing production, giving Atlanta two backs who each recorded more than 75 yards. The near-even distribution suggests that the Falcons could use both players without requiring one to shoulder the entire workload.
Robinson’s longest run also demonstrates why rushing averages need context. A single explosive gain can raise a player’s average, but the rest of his workload still matters. In this case, Robinson combined a 29-yard run with 15 other carries to finish at 4.8 yards per attempt.
His contribution extended beyond rushing. Robinson also led Atlanta’s receiving group, making him the game’s most productive all-around offensive player by combined rushing and receiving yardage.
Michael Carter Leads Arizona’s Rushing Attack
Michael Carter was Arizona’s leading rusher, recording 11 carries for 65 yards. He averaged 5.9 yards per carry and produced a longest run of 22 yards.
Carter’s average was better than that of either Atlanta running back. His performance suggests Arizona could create useful running opportunities when it committed to the ground game.
Corey Kiner added 32 yards on six carries, averaging 5.3 yards per attempt. Emari Demercado recorded 30 yards on five carries, averaging six yards per carry. Brissett added five rushing yards on one attempt.
| Arizona rusher | Carries | Rushing yards | Average |
| Michael Carter | 11 | 65 | 5.9 |
| Corey Kiner | 6 | 32 | 5.3 |
| Emari Demercado | 5 | 30 | 6.0 |
| Jacoby Brissett | 1 | 5 | 5.0 |
| Team total | 23 | 132 | 5.7 |
Arizona’s three primary running backs combined for 127 yards. That production is a positive sign for the ground attack, but it did not translate into a rushing touchdown.
The Cardinals also had fewer rushing attempts than Atlanta. That gap may reflect the game’s changing score and each team’s play selection, but the box score alone cannot establish exactly why the coaches chose each play.
Why Atlanta’s Rushing Volume Mattered
The difference between 37 and 23 rushing attempts is substantial. Atlanta ran the ball 14 more times and gained 20 additional rushing yards.
The Falcons’ advantage was not that every carry was more productive. Arizona’s 5.7-yard average was clearly higher. Atlanta’s edge came from combining a steady running workload with one rushing touchdown and enough passing production to reach 26 points.
This is an important distinction when reading football statistics. A high average can indicate explosive efficiency, while a high attempt total can reflect the ability to keep using the ground game. The most useful interpretation considers both measures alongside the scoreboard.
Receiving Stats: Bijan Robinson Leads Atlanta
The receiving numbers reveal another important difference between the offenses. Atlanta recorded 197 receiving yards and two receiving touchdowns, while Arizona accumulated 203 receiving yards and one receiving touchdown.
Arizona gained six more yards through the air, but Atlanta’s receivers produced one additional touchdown. That extra scoring production helped the Falcons win despite the Cardinals’ slightly higher passing total.
Atlanta Falcons Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average | TDs |
| Bijan Robinson | 7 | 11 | 92 | 13.1 | 1 |
| Kyle Pitts Sr. | 7 | 9 | 57 | 8.1 | 1 |
| Drake London | 3 | 8 | 27 | 9.0 | 0 |
| Darnell Mooney | 2 | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Charlie Woerner | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Tyler Allgeier | 1 | 1 | -6 | -6.0 | 0 |
The table highlights the main listed Atlanta contributors. Players with targets but no receptions are not included.
Bijan Robinson: Atlanta’s Most Productive Receiver
Robinson caught seven passes for 92 yards and one touchdown on 11 targets. His longest reception covered 41 yards, and he averaged 13.1 yards per catch.
Those numbers made him Atlanta’s leading receiver in both receptions and receiving yards. His touchdown also added a direct scoring contribution to his rushing work.
Combining his rushing and receiving totals gives Robinson 168 yards from scrimmage: 76 rushing yards plus 92 receiving yards. That is a particularly useful measure because it reflects his contribution across two offensive roles.
Robinson’s receiving production also created matchup challenges for Arizona. A running back who can gain yards after the catch, contribute on early downs, and serve as a passing target gives an offense additional ways to attack a defense.
His 41-yard longest reception indicates that at least one catch generated significant field-position value. The available statistics do not specify the exact play design or coverage, so it would be inaccurate to attribute the gain to a particular defensive mistake.
Kyle Pitts Sr. Adds a Touchdown Threat
Pitts caught seven of nine targets for 57 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 8.1 yards per reception, with a longest catch of 12 yards.
His yardage was lower than Robinson’s, but his touchdown made his contribution important to Atlanta’s scoring total.
Pitts’ seven receptions also gave Cousins a reliable option underneath and in the middle of the field. The numbers show that he and Robinson accounted for 14 catches between them, helping the Falcons spread the workload rather than rely on a single receiver.
Drake London and Darnell Mooney Support the Passing Game
London finished with three catches for 27 yards on eight targets. His average was nine yards per reception, and his longest catch went for 12 yards.
Mooney caught both of his targets for 24 yards, averaging 12 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 17 yards.
The difference in target volume is worth noting. London received more opportunities, but Mooney converted both of his targets into catches. That does not necessarily mean Mooney had the better overall performance, because target difficulty, route assignments, and coverage are not captured by the basic box score.
Instead, the figures show that Atlanta had several receiving options contributing to the offense. Robinson and Pitts provided the largest reception totals, while London and Mooney added supplementary production.
Arizona Cardinals Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average | TDs |
| Elijah Higgins | 7 | 8 | 91 | 13.0 | 0 |
| Michael Wilson | 2 | 3 | 52 | 26.0 | 1 |
| Trey McBride | 4 | 8 | 27 | 6.8 | 0 |
| Xavier Weaver | 2 | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 |
| Marvin Harrison Jr. | 1 | 2 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 |
These are the principal Arizona receiving figures listed in the supplied data.
Elijah Higgins Produces a Strong Yardage Total
Higgins led Arizona with seven receptions for 91 yards on eight targets. He averaged 13 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 25 yards.
His seven receptions matched Robinson’s and Pitts’ individual reception totals. Higgins’ performance was especially productive in terms of target conversion, as he caught seven of eight passes directed his way.
However, Higgins did not record a touchdown. His yardage helped Arizona advance the ball, but the absence of a scoring catch meant his production did not directly add to the Cardinals’ touchdown total.
His performance is a useful reminder that a receiver’s statistical value is not determined by touchdowns alone. Receptions and yardage can sustain drives, improve field position, and create scoring opportunities for teammates.
Michael Wilson Supplies Arizona’s Biggest Receiving Score
Wilson caught two passes for 52 yards and one touchdown on three targets. His average of 26 yards per reception was the highest among the listed Arizona receivers.
His longest catch covered 32 yards. That production shows how a small number of successful plays can account for a large share of a team’s receiving yardage.
Wilson’s touchdown was also Arizona’s only passing touchdown in the supplied statistics. While Higgins led in catches and total yards, Wilson delivered the more direct scoring impact.
The contrast between the two receivers illustrates why a complete receiving analysis should consider several measures together: targets, catches, yards, average gain, and touchdowns.
Trey McBride and the Supporting Receivers
McBride recorded four receptions for 27 yards on eight targets. His 6.8-yard average was lower than those of Arizona’s leading yardage contributors.
Weaver added two catches for 19 yards on two targets, while Harrison Jr. recorded one reception for 14 yards on two targets.
These contributions helped Arizona distribute its passing production across several players. Still, the receiving totals show that the Cardinals’ yardage was concentrated in Higgins and Wilson, who combined for 143 yards.
That concentration is not inherently a weakness. It becomes more relevant when considering how effectively an offense converts its opportunities into touchdowns, which was an area where Atlanta had the advantage.
Defensive Stats: Interceptions, Sacks, and Pressure
Offensive statistics explain much of the scoring, but defensive production helps show how a team can limit an opponent even when it allows respectable yardage.
Atlanta recorded two sacks, six tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and five quarterback hits. Arizona recorded one sack, five tackles for loss, six passes defended, and four quarterback hits.
| Defensive statistic | Atlanta Falcons | Arizona Cardinals |
| Total tackles | 56 | 74 |
| Solo tackles | 33 | 33 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 7 | 6 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
Atlanta Generates More Defensive Pressure
Atlanta recorded one more sack than Arizona and also finished with one additional tackle for loss. The Falcons registered five quarterback hits, compared with four by the Cardinals.
These numbers suggest that Atlanta made more recorded impact plays in several categories. Sacks can disrupt passing rhythm and create unfavorable down-and-distance situations, while tackles for loss can reduce the effectiveness of a running or short-passing play.
However, the difference was not overwhelming. Arizona recorded 74 total tackles to Atlanta’s 56, although tackle volume can reflect how often a defense is required to make stops rather than how effective it is overall.
For this reason, total tackles should not be treated as a standalone measure of defensive superiority. The timing of a tackle, the resulting yardage, and whether the play prevents a first down all matter.
C.J. Henderson’s Interception
The supplied statistics credit Atlanta’s C.J. Henderson with one interception and no return yards or touchdowns.
An interception can change a game by ending a possession and giving the opposing offense another opportunity to score. It can be particularly valuable when the game is close and every possession has increased importance.
Henderson’s interception corresponds to the one interception recorded in Brissett’s passing line. The supplied data does not identify the precise quarter or field position, so those details should not be assumed.
Atlanta’s defense also recorded two sacks, helping limit Arizona’s ability to operate comfortably on every passing down.
Denzel Burke Records an Interception for Arizona
Arizona’s Denzel Burke also recorded one interception, returning it for 16 yards without a touchdown.
Burke’s play gave Arizona a defensive takeaway, showing that the Cardinals were capable of disrupting Atlanta’s offense. Yet one interception was not enough to reverse the outcome.
The Falcons still scored 26 points and finished with the victory. This demonstrates why turnovers need to be considered alongside the full offensive performance. A takeaway can be valuable, but its effect depends on whether the defense can prevent further scoring and whether the offense takes advantage of the resulting possession.
Tackles and Passes Defended
Arizona recorded 74 total tackles, including 33 solo tackles. Atlanta recorded 56 tackles, also with 33 solo stops.
The equal solo-tackle totals suggest both defenses had a similar number of tackles credited to individual defenders, while Arizona accumulated more total tackles overall. Differences in assisted tackles, defensive snap counts, and opponent possession time can influence these figures.
Atlanta’s seven passes defended exceeded Arizona’s six. This category records plays in which defenders disrupt or deflect passes, providing another indication of coverage activity.
Taken together, the defensive statistics show a relatively competitive contest. Atlanta’s modest advantages in sacks, tackles for loss, quarterback hits, and passes defended supported its win, but the numbers do not suggest that Arizona’s defense was completely ineffective.
Kicking Stats: Zane Gonzalez vs Chad Ryland
Special teams played a meaningful role in the final score. Arizona kicker Chad Ryland accounted for 13 points, while Atlanta kicker Zane Gonzalez recorded eight points.
| Kicking statistic | Zane Gonzalez | Chad Ryland |
| Field goals made | 2 | 4 |
| Field goals attempted | 2 | 6 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 66.7% |
| Longest field goal | 49 yards | 51 yards |
| Extra points made | 2 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 1 |
| Total points | 8 | 13 |
Zane Gonzalez Delivers on Both Field-Goal Attempts
Gonzalez converted both of his field-goal attempts, including a longest make of 49 yards. He also made two extra points from three attempts.
His eight total points represented a useful contribution to Atlanta’s scoring. The perfect field-goal record is notable because both attempts resulted in points.
However, his missed extra-point attempt shows that a kicker’s performance can be mixed even when field goals are converted successfully. The supplied data does not provide the circumstances of the missed kick, so no explanation for it can be confirmed.
Chad Ryland Keeps Arizona in the Game
Ryland converted four of six field-goal attempts and made his only extra-point attempt. His longest field goal was 51 yards, and he finished with 13 points.
Those four successful field goals helped Arizona remain competitive despite scoring only one touchdown. They also highlight the difference between reaching scoring range and finishing a drive with a touchdown.
Ryland’s two missed field goals represent six points that were not added to Arizona’s total. That is a mathematical difference between successful and unsuccessful attempts, not proof that Arizona would necessarily have won had both kicks been converted. The game could have unfolded differently after any change in scoring.
Why Special Teams Matter in a Seven-Point Game
The final margin was seven points. In a game decided by one possession, every successful kick can affect the result.
Atlanta benefited from two successful field goals and two extra points, while Arizona made four field goals and one extra point. The Cardinals actually scored more points through their kicker, but Atlanta produced more touchdowns.
That distinction reinforces the broader theme of the game: scoring touchdowns often provides a more efficient route to victory than repeatedly settling for field goals, although field goals remain important when a touchdown is unavailable.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change possession, field position, and scoring opportunities. The supplied statistics list one interception for each quarterback, as well as one lost fumble by Cousins.
| Turnover statistic | Atlanta Falcons | Arizona Cardinals |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 1 |
| Lost fumbles listed | 1 | 0 |
The table reflects the supplied quarterback and fumble data. It should not be interpreted as a complete play-by-play reconstruction of every possession.
Cousins’ Lost Fumble
Cousins recorded one fumble and one lost fumble. That was a negative event for Atlanta because a lost fumble transfers possession to the opposing team.
The Falcons won despite this turnover, which suggests their scoring production elsewhere was sufficient to overcome at least some of the cost. It would be misleading, however, to suggest that the fumble had no effect. Every lost possession can remove an opportunity for points and give the opponent another chance.
Arizona’s Interception and Atlanta’s Interception
Both quarterbacks threw one interception, creating a turnover balance in that category. Atlanta also recovered the fumble recorded against Cousins, while the supplied data credits Arizona’s Darius Robinson with one fumble recovery in the defensive statistics.
The fumble information is not fully detailed in the supplied table, so it is best to avoid making a claim about the exact play sequence or assigning a specific recovery to an unverified event.
The reliable conclusion is that both defenses recorded an interception, while Atlanta’s offensive line includes a lost fumble in the supplied statistics. Turnovers were part of the game, but the scoring and rushing differences offer a clearer explanation of the final result than turnover count alone.
Special Teams and Field Position
Special teams can influence a close game through kick returns, punt returns, and the starting field position of offensive drives. The supplied statistics show that Arizona recorded four kick returns for 111 yards, while Atlanta had one punt return for eight yards.
Arizona’s Kick Return Production
Arizona’s kick return totals were as follows:
| Returner | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Jalen Brooks | 2 | 56 | 28.0 | 32 yards |
| Steven Sims | 2 | 55 | 27.5 | 30 yards |
| Team total | 4 | 111 | 27.8 | 32 yards |
Brooks and Sims produced nearly identical return yardage. Their combined 111 yards gave Arizona additional opportunities to begin drives with useful field position.
A return average of 27.8 yards can help reduce the distance an offense needs to cover before reaching scoring range. However, return yardage alone does not show the exact starting position of each possession or whether the return directly led to points.
Atlanta’s Punt Return
Deven Thompkins recorded Atlanta’s only listed punt return, gaining eight yards.
The supplied data does not list an Atlanta kick return or an Arizona punt return. It also records no Atlanta punts and one punt by Arizona’s Matt Haack.
Haack’s punt covered 51 yards, averaging 51 yards, with no touchbacks and no punts placed inside the 20-yard line. Although the punt average was strong, a single attempt is too small a sample to establish a broader measure of punting consistency.
These figures provide context for the teams’ special-teams activity, but they do not establish that return production was the deciding factor in the game.
Team Statistical Comparison
The team totals help explain why Atlanta won even though Arizona had advantages in certain efficiency measures.
| Team statistic | Atlanta Falcons | Arizona Cardinals |
| Final points | 26 | 19 |
| Passing yards | 197 | 203 |
| Rushing yards | 152 | 132 |
| Total passing and rushing yards | 349 | 335 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Total touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Rushing attempts | 37 | 23 |
| Average yards per carry | 4.1 | 5.7 |
| Field goals made | 2 | 4 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
Combined passing and rushing yards are calculated by adding the supplied passing and rushing totals. They are not a substitute for official total offense figures that may account for sack yardage differently.
Atlanta Wins the Combined Yardage Comparison
Atlanta recorded 349 combined passing and rushing yards, compared with Arizona’s 335. The 14-yard difference was relatively small, especially considering the seven-point margin.
This shows that the Falcons did not need a massive advantage in yardage to win. They needed to convert enough of their possessions into touchdowns and prevent Arizona from doing the same.
The Falcons’ 152 rushing yards were especially important because they complemented Cousins’ 197 passing yards. Atlanta could gain yardage through both the ground and passing games, which made its offensive production less dependent on a single method.
Arizona’s Efficiency Did Not Produce Enough Touchdowns
Arizona’s 5.7 yards per rushing attempt exceeded Atlanta’s 4.1. The Cardinals also averaged 6.5 yards per passing attempt, compared with 5.6 for the Falcons.
Those figures demonstrate that Arizona had moments of offensive efficiency. The team was capable of producing useful gains through the air and on the ground.
Yet Arizona recorded only one touchdown. Its four field goals supplied 12 points, and its extra point brought Ryland’s total to 13. Atlanta’s three touchdowns produced 18 points before the extra points and field goals were added.
This does not mean every team should always prioritize touchdowns over field goals regardless of circumstances. A field goal may be the sensible choice in a particular situation. In this matchup, however, the difference in touchdown production was a central reason Atlanta finished ahead.
Three Key Factors Behind Atlanta’s Victory
1. Atlanta Scored More Touchdowns
The Falcons recorded three touchdowns, compared with Arizona’s one. Cousins’ two passing touchdowns and the team’s one rushing touchdown created a stronger scoring foundation.
Arizona moved the ball effectively in several categories, but its offense relied much more heavily on field goals. Four successful field goals kept the game competitive without matching Atlanta’s touchdown output.
2. Atlanta Used a Higher-Volume Running Game
The Falcons ran 37 times for 152 yards, while Arizona recorded 23 carries for 132 yards.
Arizona had the higher average per carry, but Atlanta’s additional 14 attempts gave it more opportunities to control the pace of the game through the ground attack. Allgeier and Robinson each surpassed 75 rushing yards, providing a balanced workload.
The supplied numbers do not establish possession time, so it would be inaccurate to claim a specific time-of-possession advantage without a separate official statistic. Still, Atlanta’s rushing volume demonstrates that the team made extensive use of its ground game.
3. Atlanta Won Several Defensive Categories
The Falcons recorded two sacks, six tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and five quarterback hits. Arizona recorded one sack, five tackles for loss, six passes defended, and four quarterback hits.
These were modest differences, but they indicate that Atlanta produced more recorded plays in several disruption categories. The Falcons also recorded an interception, as Arizona did.
No single defensive statistic explains the victory on its own. Taken together with Atlanta’s offensive touchdown advantage, however, these numbers help explain why the Falcons could protect their lead.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Each Team
The value of a box score is not limited to identifying the player with the most yards. It can also reveal how an offense distributes responsibility and where a team might need to improve.
Atlanta Falcons: Strengths and Areas to Improve
Atlanta’s strongest statistical feature was its combination of rushing volume and touchdown production.
The key positives were:
- Three total touchdowns, including two passing scores.
- Two running backs with more than 75 rushing yards each.
- Bijan Robinson’s 168 combined rushing and receiving yards.
- More sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits than Arizona.
- Two successful field goals from Gonzalez.
There were also areas for concern. Cousins threw an interception and lost a fumble, while Gonzalez missed one extra point. Those mistakes could have been more costly in a different game.
Atlanta’s passing average of 5.6 yards per attempt also indicates that the offense did not rely on highly productive passing gains on every attempt. The Falcons compensated with rushing volume and successful touchdown conversions.
Arizona Cardinals: Strengths and Areas to Improve
Arizona’s performance featured several encouraging individual numbers.
The Cardinals gained 203 passing yards and 132 rushing yards. Carter averaged 5.9 yards per carry, while Higgins recorded 91 receiving yards and Wilson produced a touchdown on a 26-yard-per-catch average.
Arizona also generated an interception and returned four kickoffs for 111 yards.
Its biggest statistical limitation was touchdown production. The Cardinals scored only one touchdown, and Ryland missed two field-goal attempts. Although he made four field goals, those misses represented opportunities that did not add points.
Brissett also threw an interception and took two sacks. The box score cannot establish how much each play affected the outcome, but these events show that Arizona’s offense had some costly setbacks despite its respectable yardage totals.
How to Read an NFL Player Box Score Correctly
Readers searching for individual performance numbers can gain more insight by comparing related statistics instead of looking at a single column.
Compare Production With Opportunity
A receiver who catches seven passes on eight targets has a different statistical profile from one who catches seven passes on 11 targets. Both record seven receptions, but the number of opportunities differs.
The same principle applies to running backs. Allgeier’s 79 yards on 16 attempts and Carter’s 65 yards on 11 attempts show why both total yardage and average gain matter.
Separate Passing Yards From Total Offensive Contribution
Robinson’s 76 rushing yards and 92 receiving yards combine for 168 yards from scrimmage. Looking only at his rushing total would overlook much of his impact.
Similarly, quarterbacks should be assessed through passing production, turnovers, sacks, and any rushing contribution. Passing yards alone do not explain whether an offense converted its opportunities into points.
Treat Ratings as Different Measures
Passer rating and QBR are not the same metric. Cousins’ listed passer rating was 82.7, and his QBR was 79.5. Brissett’s passer rating was 69.7, and his QBR was 30.1.
These numbers should be quoted as reported rather than combined or directly compared as if they use the same scale. Completion percentage and yards per attempt can provide additional context, but no single statistic fully captures quarterback performance.
Check the Source Before Repeating a Statistic
For readers who want to verify the figures, the ESPN box score for the December 21, 2025 game is the relevant reference.
It is also important to distinguish the completed game from unrelated schedule listings that may appear on the same page. The matchup analyzed here is the Falcons’ 26-19 win over the Cardinals on December 21, 2025.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Atlanta Falcons vs Arizona Cardinals game on December 21, 2025?
The Atlanta Falcons defeated the Arizona Cardinals 26-19. Atlanta scored 13 points in the second quarter and added 10 points after halftime to secure the seven-point victory.
2. How many passing yards did Kirk Cousins record against Arizona?
Kirk Cousins completed 21 of 35 passes for 197 yards, two passing touchdowns, and one interception. His listed passer rating was 82.7.
3. How many passing yards did Jacoby Brissett record?
Jacoby Brissett completed 16 of 31 passes for 203 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He averaged 6.5 yards per attempt and recorded a listed passer rating of 69.7.
4. Who led the Falcons in rushing yards?
Tyler Allgeier led Atlanta with 79 rushing yards on 16 carries. Bijan Robinson followed closely with 76 yards on 16 carries.
5. Who was Atlanta’s leading receiver?
Bijan Robinson led Atlanta with seven receptions for 92 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 41 yards, and he also gained 76 yards on the ground.
6. Why did Atlanta win despite Arizona gaining more passing yards?
Arizona recorded 203 passing yards, six more than Atlanta’s 197. However, the Falcons scored three touchdowns compared with Arizona’s one. Atlanta also gained more rushing yards and recorded more sacks, tackles for loss, quarterback hits, and passes defended.
Conclusion
The December 21, 2025 matchup between Atlanta and Arizona demonstrated how touchdown production, rushing volume, and defensive disruption can determine an NFL result even when the teams post similar yardage totals.
Atlanta won 26-19 by combining 197 passing yards with 152 rushing yards. Kirk Cousins threw two touchdown passes, Tyler Allgeier led the ground attack with 79 yards, and Bijan Robinson delivered the most versatile offensive performance with 168 combined rushing and receiving yards.
Arizona had several productive individual performances. Brissett threw for 203 yards, Michael Carter averaged 5.9 yards per carry, and Elijah Higgins led the Cardinals with 91 receiving yards. Chad Ryland also made four field goals. Nevertheless, Arizona’s single touchdown left the team relying on field goals to keep pace with Atlanta.
The most important takeaway from the player statistics is that offensive yardage and scoring efficiency are different measures of performance. Arizona gained slightly more passing yardage and averaged more yards per rushing attempt, but Atlanta produced more touchdowns and finished with the higher combined rushing and passing total.
For readers evaluating this game, the quarterback numbers, running back workloads, receiving contributions, defensive plays, and kicking results provide a more complete explanation of the final score than any single statistic could offer.
