Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats from the August 21, 2026, NFL preseason game tell the story of a convincing 33-13 Green Bay victory. The Packers combined efficient quarterback play, a productive rushing attack, reliable kicking, and a defense that created a key turnover to pull away from Denver. The Broncos showed flashes of offensive potential, but their inability to score a rushing touchdown and their struggles to contain Green Bay’s scoring opportunities made the difference.
This game offered more than a final score for football fans to examine. It provided useful information about quarterback efficiency, receiving production, running back competition, defensive pressure, special teams, and the importance of converting scoring opportunities into points. Because this was a preseason matchup, however, individual statistics must be interpreted in context. Strong performances can identify promising areas, but one exhibition game cannot establish a player’s full-season outlook or determine a team’s regular-season ceiling.
In this detailed breakdown, we examine the individual performances, team statistics, decisive moments, and key lessons from the Packers’ 20-point win. All game figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data. The analysis distinguishes recorded results from reasonable interpretations, particularly where preseason playing time and individual opportunities affect the meaning of a statistic.
Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on August 21, 2026, with Denver hosting Green Bay. The Packers finished with 33 points, while the Broncos managed 13.
Green Bay Packers
Away team
33 – 13
Final
August 21, 2026
Denver Broncos
Home team
Game type
NFL preseason
Point differential
Packers +20
Green Bay record after game
1-1
Denver record after game
1-1
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Green Bay Packers | Denver Broncos |
| First quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 16 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Total | 33 | 13 |
The first quarter was competitive, with both teams scoring seven points. Green Bay then took control in the second quarter, outscoring Denver 16-3. The Packers added another 10 points in the fourth quarter, while Denver finished without a fourth-quarter score.
The second-quarter difference is especially important. A one-score game became a much more comfortable Green Bay lead, changing the pressure on Denver’s offense and allowing the Packers to protect their advantage.
The third quarter was less productive for both teams. Denver scored three points, while Green Bay did not score. The Packers nevertheless responded in the final period, finishing the game with a 20-point margin.
These quarter-by-quarter figures explain how the game developed rather than simply reporting who won. They also demonstrate why scoring distribution matters when evaluating a team’s ability to sustain performance across four quarters.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
The team totals reveal why Green Bay won by 20 points. Denver actually averaged more passing yards per attempt, but the Packers recorded more passing touchdowns, more rushing yards, the only interception, and a perfect field-goal performance.
| Statistical category | Green Bay | Denver |
| Total passing completions | 21 | 17 |
| Passing attempts | 34 | 26 |
| Passing yards | 181 | 155 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Yards per passing attempt | 5.6 | 6.5 |
| Rushing attempts | 32 | 22 |
| Rushing yards | 118 | 70 |
| Yards per carry | 3.7 | 3.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Receptions | 21 | 17 |
| Receiving yards | 191 | 168 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Total sacks recorded by defense | 2 | 1 |
| Field goals made | 4 | 2 |
| Extra points made | 3 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 0 |
Source: supplied ESPN box-score data. Passing, rushing, and receiving categories describe different aspects of production and should not be added together without accounting for overlapping yardage.
1. Green Bay created more opportunities on the ground
The Packers recorded 118 rushing yards on 32 attempts, averaging 3.7 yards per carry. Denver gained 70 yards on 22 attempts, averaging 3.2 yards per carry.
That gave Green Bay a 48-yard advantage on the ground and 10 additional rushing attempts.
The difference was not simply about the average gain on each carry. Green Bay also maintained a greater volume of rushing plays, which helped balance its passing attack. Denver’s lower rushing total made its offense more dependent on the passing game to generate yardage.
There is an important limitation here: rushing totals alone do not reveal success on third down, yards before contact, blocking quality, or how frequently a team faced short-yardage situations. Those details would be needed to judge the offensive line and running backs more precisely.
2. Green Bay converted scoring chances more effectively
The Packers made all four field-goal attempts and all three extra-point attempts. Denver made both of its field goals and its only extra point.
Kicker Trey Smack contributed 15 points for Green Bay, including a long field goal of 59 yards. Wil Lutz scored seven points for Denver, with a longest field goal of 53 yards.
Green Bay’s four successful field goals are a particularly notable part of the final score. The team did not need to turn every drive into a touchdown to keep building its lead.
This distinction matters when analyzing NFL games. Offensive yardage can look impressive, but the ability to finish drives determines how much that yardage contributes to the scoreboard. Green Bay paired two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown with dependable field-goal production.
3. The turnover margin favored Green Bay
The Packers threw no interceptions and recorded one defensive interception. Denver threw one interception and recorded no interceptions on defense.
Denver also recorded two fumbles, but both were recovered by the Broncos. Neither fumble resulted in a recorded turnover.
The interception gave Green Bay a meaningful advantage because it ended a Denver passing possession and provided an opportunity for the Packers to regain control of the game. However, the available box-score figures do not establish exactly how many points followed that interception.
A careful statistical review should distinguish between a fumble and a lost fumble. A team can put the ball on the ground without surrendering possession, which is precisely why those categories should not be treated as interchangeable.
Green Bay Packers Quarterback Stats
Quarterback statistics provide one of the clearest ways to compare the two offenses, but preseason games require a slightly different approach from regular-season contests.
Multiple quarterbacks often receive opportunities, and their passing totals may reflect different playing times, supporting casts, and defensive matchups. Green Bay’s figures show three quarterbacks contributing to the passing game.
Green Bay passing statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Rating |
| Kyle McCord | 12/19 | 118 | 6.2 | 0 | 0 | 80.6 |
| Jordan Love | 5/7 | 56 | 8.0 | 1 | 0 | 134.5 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 4/8 | 17 | 2.1 | 1 | 0 | 95.8 |
| Team total | 21/34 | 181 | 5.6 | 2 | 0 | 96.6 |
Jordan Love: Efficient production in limited attempts
Jordan Love completed five of seven passes for 56 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 8.0 yards per attempt, did not throw an interception, and posted a passer rating of 134.5.
The most useful observation is the combination of completion rate and passing efficiency. Love completed approximately 71.4% of his passes, while his 8.0 yards per attempt indicated that his completions generated a solid amount of yardage.
His one touchdown also meant that his passing contribution directly helped Green Bay score.
There is a significant qualification, however. Seven attempts are a small sample. A quarterback can post excellent numbers over a short appearance without facing the full range of pressures and situations that arise over a complete game. Love’s figures were efficient, but they should not be used alone to predict regular-season production.
The box score also lists no sacks against Love. That is a positive result for the passing unit during his recorded attempts, although it does not independently measure pass protection quality on every snap.
Kyle McCord: Green Bay’s leading passer by yardage
Kyle McCord completed 12 of 19 passes for 118 yards. He averaged 6.2 yards per attempt, threw no touchdowns or interceptions, and recorded an 80.6 passer rating.
His 118 yards represented the largest individual passing total among the Green Bay quarterbacks listed in the game data.
McCord’s completion percentage was approximately 63.2%, giving him a higher volume of completed passes than either Love or Taylor. That workload makes his numbers useful for evaluating the Packers’ passing operation over a larger sample than Love’s seven attempts.
However, McCord was also charged with one sack for a loss of 10 yards. A sack can erase positive gains from previous plays and make it more difficult to sustain a drive. His passing line was free of interceptions, but the sack remains relevant when evaluating how the offense handled pressure.
The absence of a passing touchdown does not necessarily mean McCord played poorly. Quarterback performance also depends on field position, play design, down and distance, and whether scoring opportunities were available during a player’s time on the field. The supplied figures do not provide enough information to assign responsibility for every scoring outcome.
Tyrod Taylor: A touchdown despite limited passing yardage
Tyrod Taylor completed four of eight passes for 17 yards and one touchdown. He did not throw an interception or take a recorded sack during his passing attempts.
His average of 2.1 yards per attempt was the lowest among the three Green Bay quarterbacks. That number suggests limited passing yardage during his recorded opportunities, even though one of his completions produced a touchdown.
This is a useful example of why box-score analysis should look beyond a single measure. Taylor’s passing output was modest, but his touchdown contributed directly to the team’s score.
His two rushing attempts produced another seven yards, giving him a small additional contribution outside the passing game. Still, the sample is too limited to draw a firm conclusion about his overall preseason form.
What Green Bay’s quarterback numbers tell us
Three conclusions stand out:
- Ball security was strong. None of Green Bay’s three listed quarterbacks threw an interception.
- Passing production was shared. McCord led in yardage, while Love and Taylor each recorded a passing touchdown.
- Efficiency varied by player. Love averaged 8.0 yards per attempt, McCord averaged 6.2, and Taylor averaged 2.1.
The overall team passing line was effective enough to support the win. Yet it would be misleading to treat the three performances as directly equivalent because each quarterback had a different number of attempts and a different statistical profile.
Denver Broncos Quarterback Stats
Denver used three quarterbacks in the game: Jarrett Stidham, Bo Nix, and Sam Ehlinger. Together, they completed 17 of 26 passes for 155 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.
The Broncos averaged 6.5 yards per passing attempt, higher than Green Bay’s 5.6. That difference shows that Denver was capable of producing useful gains through the air. The problem was that the higher average did not translate into the same total scoring output.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Rating |
| Jarrett Stidham | 9/15 | 82 | 5.5 | 0 | 1 | 47.1 |
| Bo Nix | 6/9 | 76 | 8.4 | 1 | 0 | 129.9 |
| Sam Ehlinger | 2/2 | 10 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 87.5 |
| Team total | 17/26 | 155 | 6.5 | 1 | 1 | 80.3 |
Bo Nix: Denver’s most efficient passer
Bo Nix completed six of nine passes for 76 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 8.4 yards per attempt and finished with a passer rating of 129.9.
His completion percentage was approximately 66.7%, and he produced more passing yards per attempt than any other quarterback listed for either team.
Nix’s numbers indicate that Denver’s passing attack could generate productive plays during his recorded opportunities. His touchdown also provided the Broncos with a direct scoring contribution.
The contrast between Nix’s 8.4 yards per attempt and Denver’s overall 6.5 average shows how individual performance can differ from the team result. The total passing line combines all three quarterbacks, so the team average does not describe every player’s performance equally.
Nevertheless, nine attempts are not enough to establish how Nix would perform over a full regular-season game. The statistics support a positive assessment of his efficiency in this appearance, not a sweeping prediction about future results.
Jarrett Stidham: Yardage without a passing touchdown
Jarrett Stidham completed nine of 15 passes for 82 yards. He averaged 5.5 yards per attempt, threw no touchdowns, and recorded one interception. His passer rating was 47.1.
Stidham led Denver in completions and passing yards, but his interception was a significant negative result. Interceptions end offensive possessions and can shift momentum, particularly when the opposing team is able to turn a change of possession into additional scoring pressure.
His completion rate was 60%, which was slightly lower than those of Nix and McCord. However, completion percentage alone cannot determine how well a quarterback performed. It does not show whether passes traveled beyond the line of scrimmage, whether receivers gained yards after the catch, or how difficult the throws were.
Stidham’s line illustrates a broader point: a quarterback can accumulate passing yardage without producing a touchdown, and an interception can reduce the value of otherwise productive plays.
Sam Ehlinger: Perfect completion rate in a small sample
Sam Ehlinger completed both of his pass attempts for 10 yards. He threw no touchdowns or interceptions, but he was charged with two sacks for a combined loss of 13 yards. His passer rating was 87.5.
His 100% completion rate is mathematically correct, but two attempts are far too few to support a strong conclusion about passing consistency. The sacks also matter because they show that Denver’s passing possessions included negative plays beyond the completed passes recorded in the box score.
This is why evaluating quarterbacks requires more than identifying the highest completion percentage. Attempts, yardage, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks all contribute to the larger picture.
Comparing the two quarterback groups
Green Bay recorded two passing touchdowns and no interceptions. Denver recorded one passing touchdown and one interception.
Denver’s higher yards-per-attempt figure suggests that it generated more yardage on an average passing attempt. Green Bay, however, completed more passes and finished with more passing touchdowns.
The difference highlights the distinction between efficiency in one category and overall offensive effectiveness. A team can gain substantial yardage per attempt yet still trail because of turnovers, rushing production, field-goal opportunities, and the timing of scoring plays.
For readers studying the Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats, the quarterback comparison is most useful when all these categories are considered together.
Running Back Stats: Green Bay’s Ground Advantage
Green Bay’s rushing attack was one of the clearest statistical advantages in the matchup. The Packers gained 118 yards on 32 carries, while Denver managed 70 yards on 22 attempts.
The difference matters because rushing production can help an offense stay balanced, reduce its dependence on passing, and create opportunities near the goal line. In this game, Green Bay also recorded the only rushing touchdown between the two teams.
Green Bay Packers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD | Longest run |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 8 | 37 | 4.6 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Jaden Nixon | 4 | 20 | 5.0 | 1 | 16 yards |
| Damien Martinez | 5 | 17 | 3.4 | 0 | 5 yards |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 6 | 17 | 2.8 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Chris Brooks | 5 | 12 | 2.4 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Tyrod Taylor | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 4 yards |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Kyle McCord | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 yards |
The table lists the primary individual rushing figures supplied for the game. Individual totals may not include every minor contribution shown in a complete play-by-play record.
Pierre Strong Jr.: Green Bay’s leading rusher
Pierre Strong Jr. led the listed Green Bay rushers with 37 yards on eight carries. His 4.6-yard average was above the team’s overall average of 3.7 yards per carry.
Strong did not score a rushing touchdown, but his workload and total yardage made him the team’s leading individual contributor in this category. His eight attempts also gave him the largest rushing workload among the listed Packers.
For a running back, total yardage and yards per carry offer different insights. Total yardage shows how much production a player accumulated, while average gain gives a sense of how much ground he gained per attempt. Strong performed well in both measures relative to Green Bay’s overall rushing figures.
However, those statistics do not reveal how frequently he converted third downs, how many yards he gained after contact, or whether his carries came against first-team or reserve defenders. Those additional details would be needed to make a more complete assessment of his performance.
Jaden Nixon: The decisive rushing touchdown
Jaden Nixon recorded four carries for 20 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 5.0 yards per carry and produced Green Bay’s longest rushing attempt of 16 yards.
Nixon’s contribution stands out because he combined a productive average with a touchdown. A long run can improve a player’s average quickly, but the touchdown adds a direct scoring contribution that average yardage alone cannot capture.
His 16-yard longest run also matched the highest individual rushing distance recorded in the supplied Green Bay statistics. That does not mean every carry was equally productive, but it shows that he created at least one meaningful gain.
For preseason evaluation, Nixon’s numbers provide a useful snapshot of his contribution in this game. They do not establish his long-term role or guarantee future opportunities.
MarShawn Lloyd and Damien Martinez
MarShawn Lloyd finished with six carries for 17 yards, averaging 2.8 yards per attempt. He also caught one pass for 11 yards and a touchdown.
Damien Martinez recorded five carries for 17 yards, averaging 3.4 yards per attempt, and added one reception for one yard.
The equal rushing totals are an interesting comparison. Lloyd gained the same number of rushing yards on one additional attempt, while Martinez recorded the higher rushing average. Lloyd’s receiving touchdown, however, gave him a separate contribution in the passing game.
These statistics should not be used to rank the players definitively. A meaningful running back comparison would also consider blocking assignments, pass protection, receiving routes, missed tackles, and the difficulty of the defensive fronts faced.
Denver Broncos rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD | Longest run |
| Cody Schrader | 4 | 15 | 3.8 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Jaleel McLaughlin | 4 | 15 | 3.8 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Jarrett Stidham | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Jonah Coleman | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Sam Ehlinger | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Adam Prentice | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 yards |
| RJ Harvey | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Tyler Badie | 4 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 | 3 yards |
Why Denver’s ground game struggled to match Green Bay
Cody Schrader and Jaleel McLaughlin each gained 15 yards on four carries. Their averages of 3.8 yards per attempt were respectable in isolation, but neither player recorded a rushing touchdown.
Tyler Badie’s four attempts produced only two yards, a figure that pulled down the overall rushing output. His numbers represent one player’s result rather than a complete assessment of Denver’s offensive line or running game.
The broader problem was the team’s total production. Denver finished 48 rushing yards behind Green Bay and averaged half a yard less per carry. It also failed to score on the ground.
The difference between 3.7 and 3.2 yards per carry may look small, but it can affect how frequently an offense faces manageable passing situations. Repeated short gains can leave a team needing longer completions to sustain drives, while more productive runs can make the playbook less predictable.
The box score supports the conclusion that Green Bay had the more productive rushing performance. It does not, by itself, prove that one team’s offensive line was superior in every situation.
Receiving Stats: The Players Who Made the Difference
Receiving production adds another layer to the matchup. Green Bay recorded 21 receptions for 191 yards and two touchdowns. Denver finished with 17 receptions for 168 yards and one touchdown.
Denver averaged 9.9 yards per reception, compared with Green Bay’s 9.1. That means the Broncos gained more yardage per catch on average, even though Green Bay finished with more total receiving yards and touchdowns.
Green Bay Packers receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD | Longest catch |
| Will Sheppard | 6 | 6 | 47 | 7.8 | 1 | 20 yards |
| Isaiah Neyor | 3 | 6 | 47 | 15.7 | 0 | 27 yards |
| Matthew Golden | 1 | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 0 | 19 yards |
| Christian Watson | 2 | 3 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 | 14 yards |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 1 | 11 yards |
| Messiah Swinson | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | 11 yards |
| J. Michael Sturdivant | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 yards |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Drake Dabney | 1 | 4 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Thomas Yassmin | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
Will Sheppard: A productive receiving performance
Will Sheppard led Green Bay in receptions, catching six passes on six targets for 47 yards and one touchdown.
His perfect catch rate in the supplied figures is a useful indicator of how consistently he converted his recorded targets into receptions during this game. He also tied Isaiah Neyor for the team’s highest individual receiving total.
Sheppard’s 7.8 yards per reception were lower than Neyor’s 15.7, suggesting that the two players generated yardage in different ways. Sheppard accumulated production through more catches, while Neyor averaged more yards on each reception.
Sheppard’s touchdown is another important distinction. Receiving yardage helps sustain drives, but touchdowns directly change the score. His line therefore combines reliable reception volume with a scoring contribution.
Isaiah Neyor: More yardage per catch
Isaiah Neyor caught three passes on six targets for 47 yards. He averaged 15.7 yards per reception and recorded the longest catch among Green Bay’s listed receivers, at 27 yards.
Neyor matched Sheppard’s receiving yardage with half as many receptions. His average indicates that his catches generated larger gains, which can be valuable when an offense needs to move quickly downfield.
At the same time, he caught only three of six targets. That does not automatically mean the other three passes were his fault. Targets can be incomplete for many reasons, including defensive coverage, quarterback accuracy, route timing, or a difficult throw.
The key distinction is that Neyor’s production came through larger individual gains, while Sheppard’s came through a greater number of completed receptions. Both contributed to Green Bay’s passing total, but in different statistical ways.
Matthew Golden and Christian Watson
Matthew Golden caught his only target for 19 yards. Christian Watson caught two of three targets for 19 yards.
Golden’s one reception produced an average of 19.0 yards per catch, but that figure comes from a single play. Watson’s 9.5-yard average came from two receptions, giving him a slightly larger sample.
These figures show why averages need context. Golden’s higher average does not automatically establish that he had a better overall receiving performance. It simply means his one recorded catch gained more yards than Watson’s average catch.
Neither player recorded a receiving touchdown in the supplied statistics. Their contributions nevertheless added yardage to Green Bay’s passing game.
MarShawn Lloyd: Production in two roles
Lloyd’s receiving line was modest in volume, with one catch for 11 yards. That reception resulted in a touchdown.
Combined with his 17 rushing yards, the catch gave Lloyd 28 yards from scrimmage in the supplied figures, including one receiving touchdown.
His performance is a reminder that running backs can contribute beyond handoffs. Receiving work can give an offense another way to exploit defensive matchups, especially when a back catches a pass in space or runs a route against a linebacker.
The available figures do not show the precise route or play design behind Lloyd’s touchdown, so any claim about how the defense was beaten would require additional play-by-play evidence.
Denver Broncos receiving leaders
| Receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD | Longest catch |
| Jaylen Waddle | 1 | 1 | 35 | 35.0 | 0 | 35 yards |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | 2 | 3 | 32 | 16.0 | 0 | 18 yards |
| RJ Harvey | 2 | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 1 | 21 yards |
| Dane Key | 1 | 2 | 25 | 25.0 | 0 | 25 yards |
| Cameron Ross | 2 | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Justin Joly | 2 | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Jaleel McLaughlin | 3 | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Cody Schrader | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Adam Trautman | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 yards |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 yards |
| Jonah Coleman | 1 | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 | -2 yards |
Jaylen Waddle: Denver’s longest receiving play
Jaylen Waddle recorded one reception for 35 yards on one target. That was Denver’s longest completed reception in the supplied game statistics.
The play provided a substantial gain in a single catch. It also illustrates why long receptions can influence a team’s yards-per-catch average, even when the receiver has limited volume.
One catch cannot establish a player’s overall consistency or tell us how often he was open. It does, however, confirm that Denver recorded a significant downfield gain during the game.
RJ Harvey: Denver’s receiving touchdown
RJ Harvey caught two passes for 25 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 12.5 yards per reception and recorded a longest catch of 21 yards.
Harvey’s receiving touchdown was Denver’s only receiving touchdown listed in the supplied data. He therefore played a direct role in one of the Broncos’ most important offensive results.
His numbers are notable because he contributed both rushing and receiving production. Harvey also recorded one rushing attempt for five yards, giving him 30 yards from scrimmage across those two categories.
That combined figure provides a more complete view of his offensive contribution than receiving yardage alone. It still does not reveal his blocking work or the number of snaps he played.
What the receiving numbers reveal
Green Bay had the higher total receiving yardage and one more receiving touchdown. Denver, on the other hand, generated more yards per reception.
The Packers’ figures suggest a receiving group that produced through a combination of repeated catches and individual gains. Denver’s numbers included several high-value catches, including Waddle’s 35-yard reception and Dane Key’s 25-yard gain.
Neither average nor total yardage alone tells the entire story. Receptions, targets, touchdowns, and the context of each play are all necessary for a balanced evaluation.
Defensive Player Stats: How Green Bay Limited Denver
The defensive numbers help explain why the Broncos finished with only 13 points. Green Bay recorded two sacks, seven tackles for loss, four passes defended, one quarterback hit, and one interception.
Denver recorded one sack, three tackles for loss, three passes defended, and three quarterback hits. The Broncos did not record an interception.
| Defensive category | Green Bay Packers | Denver Broncos |
| Total tackles | 63 | 77 |
| Solo tackles | 30 | 37 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 7 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 1 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Tackles for loss: A useful measure of defensive disruption
Green Bay recorded seven tackles for loss, compared with Denver’s three.
A tackle for loss occurs when a defender tackles a ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage on a rushing play, or when a qualifying play results in a loss of yardage. These plays can create difficult down-and-distance situations and force an offense to recover lost ground.
The four-play difference is meaningful because it shows that Green Bay produced more recorded negative-yardage plays in this category. Those plays can make it harder for an offense to sustain drives, particularly when a loss on an early down creates a long passing situation.
However, tackles for loss do not tell the complete story of defensive performance. A team can defend the pass well without recording many of them, and the box score does not identify every coverage assignment or missed tackle.
The Packers generated more sacks
Green Bay recorded two sacks, while Denver recorded one.
A sack results in a loss of passing yardage and usually places the offense in a more difficult position on the next down. The Packers’ advantage in this category supports the view that their defense disrupted Denver’s passing operation more frequently through recorded sacks.
Still, sack totals should not be confused with total pressure. Denver recorded three quarterback hits to Green Bay’s one, meaning the Broncos registered more hits in that separate statistical category.
That contrast is important. Green Bay produced more sacks, but Denver’s higher quarterback-hit total shows that the defensive comparison was not one-sided in every pressure-related measure. The available data do not provide the full number of pressures, hurries, or quarterback dropbacks needed to evaluate pass-rush efficiency precisely.
Mark Perry’s interception
Mark Perry recorded Green Bay’s interception, returning it for two yards without a defensive touchdown.
An interception is one of the most valuable defensive events because it ends the opponent’s possession and transfers the ball to the other team. Unlike an incomplete pass, which normally leaves the offense with another down, an interception changes possession immediately.
Perry’s return was short, but the main value of the play was the turnover itself. A long return is not necessary for an interception to have a meaningful effect on a game.
The available box score confirms the interception but does not establish exactly how it affected the next scoring drive. It is therefore more accurate to describe it as a significant defensive contribution than to assign it a specific number of points.
Why Denver’s higher tackle total does not mean it defended better
Denver recorded 77 total tackles compared with Green Bay’s 63. At first glance, that may appear to favor the Broncos.
Tackle totals are not a direct ranking of defensive quality, however. A defense may record more tackles because it faces more completed passes, more rushing attempts, or more plays that end with a ball carrier being stopped.
Green Bay ran the ball 32 times and completed 21 passes. Denver ran 22 times and completed 17 passes. These figures alone do not establish the total number of defensive snaps, but they demonstrate why a raw tackle count needs context.
The Packers’ lower tackle total existed alongside more sacks, more tackles for loss, and the only interception. Those categories provide a stronger basis for discussing their defensive disruption than tackle volume alone.
Special Teams Stats: Trey Smack’s Perfect Kicking Performance
Special teams played a significant role in Green Bay’s 33-point total. Trey Smack converted four field goals and three extra points, finishing with 15 kicking points.
Wil Lutz converted both of his field-goal attempts and his extra point, scoring seven points for Denver.
| Special teams category | Green Bay | Denver |
| Field goals made | 4/4 | 2/2 |
| Field-goal accuracy | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 59 yards | 53 yards |
| Extra points made | 3/3 | 1/1 |
| Total kicking points | 15 | 7 |
| Punts | 2 | 3 |
| Average punt distance | 47.5 yards | 44.0 yards |
| Longest punt | 51 yards | 47 yards |
| Kick returns | 3 | 5 |
| Total kick-return yards | 119 | 143 |
Trey Smack: Four successful field goals
Smack made all four field goals, including a long attempt of 59 yards. His perfect performance provided Green Bay with a dependable source of points throughout the game.
Field-goal accuracy becomes particularly important when an offense reaches scoring range but does not finish with a touchdown. A successful kick can turn a promising possession into points even when the offense cannot reach the end zone.
Smack’s 15 points also show how much the kicking game contributed to the final margin. The Packers scored 33 points overall, so his field goals and extra points represented a substantial share of their scoring.
A preseason box score does not establish how a kicker would perform over an entire regular season, especially under different weather and pressure conditions. It does confirm that Smack converted every recorded attempt in this matchup.
Wil Lutz: Accurate but fewer scoring opportunities
Lutz made both of his field-goal attempts, with a longest kick of 53 yards. He also converted his only extra point.
His 100% field-goal accuracy matched Smack’s percentage. The difference was volume: Green Bay attempted four field goals, while Denver attempted two.
It would therefore be inaccurate to say that Lutz was less accurate. Both kickers made all of their recorded attempts. Green Bay gained the greater scoring advantage because it converted more field goals and scored more touchdowns.
This distinction is useful for readers comparing special teams. Accuracy measures the proportion of attempts made, while total points reflect both accuracy and the number of scoring opportunities.
Kick returns and field position
Green Bay recorded three kick returns for 119 yards, averaging 39.7 yards per return. Pierre Strong Jr. returned two kicks for 89 yards, including a longest return of 68 yards. Skyy Moore added a 30-yard return.
Denver recorded five kick returns for 143 yards, averaging 28.6 yards per return. Kolbe Katsis handled four of those returns for 117 yards, with a longest return of 40 yards.
Denver accumulated more total kick-return yards because it recorded more returns. Green Bay, however, had the higher average and the longest return.
Return averages can help describe how much distance a team gained each time it fielded a kick, but they do not establish the exact starting field position for every possession. That would require a full play-by-play review.
Punting performance
Daniel Whelan punted twice for Green Bay, totaling 95 yards and averaging 47.5 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 51 yards.
Jeremy Crawshaw punted three times for Denver, totaling 132 yards and averaging 44.0 yards. One of his punts finished inside the 20-yard line.
The Packers had the higher average punt distance, while Denver recorded the greater number of punts and one punt inside the 20. Punting is best evaluated through several measures, including net average, hang time, return yardage, touchbacks, and landing position.
The supplied data do not include all of those details, so a complete judgment of either punter’s performance would require additional information.
The Most Important Statistical Takeaways
The final score tells us that Green Bay won comfortably. The underlying numbers show why.
1. Green Bay was more productive on the ground
The Packers gained 118 rushing yards, compared with Denver’s 70. They also scored one rushing touchdown while the Broncos recorded none.
This was a clear difference in total production. Green Bay had more rushing attempts, gained more yards, and achieved the higher average per carry.
2. Both passing games produced useful gains, but Green Bay scored more touchdowns
Denver averaged 6.5 yards per passing attempt, compared with Green Bay’s 5.6. Nevertheless, the Packers recorded two passing touchdowns and no interceptions, while the Broncos recorded one passing touchdown and one interception.
The result shows that average passing yardage is only one part of offensive performance. Turnovers and touchdowns have a direct impact on the scoreboard.
3. Green Bay had the stronger result in disruptive defensive categories
The Packers recorded two sacks, seven tackles for loss, and one interception. Denver recorded one sack, three tackles for loss, and no interceptions.
Denver did register more quarterback hits, so the comparison should not be reduced to a claim that Green Bay dominated every defensive category. The broader statistical picture nevertheless favors the Packers in the recorded negative plays and turnover production.
4. Special teams widened the scoring gap
Green Bay made four field goals, while Denver made two. Both kickers were perfect on their field-goal attempts, but Smack had more opportunities and scored more points.
The Packers’ special teams production complemented their touchdowns and helped create the final 20-point margin.
5. The preseason context matters
This was an exhibition game, not a regular-season matchup. The statistics reflect the players’ recorded contributions on August 21, 2026, but they do not automatically predict future starting roles, depth-chart decisions, or regular-season performance.
A responsible analysis separates what happened from what might happen next. The recorded totals establish that Green Bay won, generated more rushing yardage, scored more touchdowns, and recorded the only interception. Predictions about future performance require more evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos game on August 21, 2026?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Denver Broncos 33-13 in an NFL preseason game on August 21, 2026. Green Bay scored 16 points in the second quarter and finished with a 20-point victory.
2. Which quarterback had the highest passer rating in the game?
Jordan Love recorded the highest passer rating among the Green Bay quarterbacks at 134.5. He completed five of seven passes for 56 yards and one touchdown. Bo Nix led Denver’s quarterbacks with a 129.9 passer rating.
3. Who was Green Bay’s leading rusher?
Pierre Strong Jr. led the listed Green Bay rushers with 37 yards on eight carries. Jaden Nixon recorded the team’s only rushing touchdown, gaining 20 yards on four carries.
4. Who were the leading receivers for the Packers and Broncos?
Will Sheppard and Isaiah Neyor each recorded 47 receiving yards for Green Bay. For Denver, Jaylen Waddle led the listed receivers with 35 yards on one catch, while Lil’Jordan Humphrey recorded 32 yards on two receptions.
5. Which team performed better defensively?
Green Bay had the stronger overall result in several key defensive categories. The Packers recorded two sacks, seven tackles for loss, and one interception. Denver recorded one sack, three tackles for loss, and no interceptions, although the Broncos registered more quarterback hits.
6. Why are preseason player statistics important?
Preseason statistics provide evidence of how players performed in a specific game, including passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, and defensive activity. They can help identify areas for further evaluation, but limited playing time and different matchups mean they should not be treated as definitive predictions of regular-season success.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats show how a combination of rushing production, quarterback efficiency, defensive disruption, and reliable kicking helped Green Bay secure a 33-13 victory.
The Packers gained 118 rushing yards, recorded three total offensive touchdowns across passing and rushing, and made all four field goals. Their defense contributed two sacks, seven tackles for loss, and the game’s only interception. Trey Smack’s four successful field goals further strengthened Green Bay’s scoring advantage.
Denver also produced positive individual performances. Bo Nix averaged 8.4 yards per passing attempt, Jaylen Waddle recorded a 35-yard reception, and Wil Lutz made both of his field goals. The Broncos’ higher passing average and greater number of quarterback hits show that the game was not one-sided in every statistical category.
The decisive difference was the overall combination of production and scoring. Green Bay gained more rushing yards, recorded more touchdowns, avoided interceptions, and converted more field-goal opportunities. Denver’s two field goals and one offensive touchdown were not enough to match that output.
Because the matchup was a preseason game, its statistics are best understood as a record of individual and team performance on that particular night. They provide a useful basis for comparing players and identifying strengths and weaknesses, while leaving longer-term judgments to a broader sample of games.
