New England Patriots vs New York Giants Match Player Stats
The new england patriots vs new york giants match player stats from the August 22, 2025, preseason game show a dominant performance by New York, which defeated New England 42-10. The Giants produced five passing touchdowns, spread the ball among multiple receivers, and added a defensive touchdown to build a commanding lead. The Patriots struggled to sustain their passing offense and scored all 10 of their points in the second quarter. The supplied ESPN box-score data provides a useful breakdown of quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, turnovers, special teams, and defensive performance.
The most important distinction is that this was a preseason contest, not a regular-season matchup. Player rotations, evaluation opportunities, and roster competition are central to interpreting the numbers. The result therefore offers meaningful insight into individual performances during this game, but it should not be treated as a complete measure of either team’s regular-season strength.
Game Overview: Patriots vs Giants
The August 22 matchup ended with the New York Giants winning by 32 points. New York’s offense was particularly effective through the air, while its defense added a touchdown that increased the margin.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | New England Patriots vs New York Giants |
| Date | August 22, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue designation | Giants listed as the home team |
| Final score | Giants 42, Patriots 10 |
| Patriots’ listed record | 2-1 overall, 1-1 away |
| Giants’ listed record | 3-0 overall, 2-0 home |
| Game ID | 401772974 |
| Statistical source | ESPN box score |
The supplied record identifies the Giants as the home team and the Patriots as the visitors. The listed records reflect the source data and should be understood in that context rather than used to infer either team’s performance across a different season.
For the official statistical reference, consult the ESPN game box score.
New England Patriots vs New York Giants Match Player Stats: Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The scoring pattern helps explain why the game became so one-sided. New York scored twice in the first quarter, went scoreless in the second, and then produced 28 points across the final two quarters. New England’s only scoring quarter was the second.
| Quarter | New England Patriots | New York Giants |
| First quarter | 0 | 14 |
| Second quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 21 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Final score | 10 | 42 |
First quarter: New York establishes control
The Giants opened with 14 points and immediately placed pressure on the Patriots. An early lead can influence preseason play because coaching staffs often use subsequent possessions to evaluate different quarterbacks, offensive combinations, and depth players under changing game conditions.
New England failed to score in the opening quarter. That put the Patriots in a position where their next offensive series needed to generate a response, but they could not maintain that momentum throughout the contest.
Second quarter: Patriots find a brief response
New England scored all 10 of its points in the second quarter. The scoring period was a positive stretch for the Patriots, but the offense did not carry that production into the second half.
The Giants, meanwhile, were held scoreless in the quarter. That temporary interruption did not change the overall direction of the game because New York responded decisively after halftime.
Third quarter: The decisive scoring burst
The Giants scored 21 points in the third quarter. This was the game’s defining period and created a margin that New England could not overcome.
The contrast between the teams was significant. New York converted offensive opportunities into touchdowns, while the Patriots finished the quarter without adding to their score.
Fourth quarter: New York completes the result
The Giants added seven more points in the final quarter to reach 42. New England remained at 10.
The final scoring margin reflected several advantages working together: more efficient passing, more receiving production, and a defensive touchdown. The result was not simply a case of one team gaining a small edge in rushing yards.
Quarterback Stats and Passing Performance
Quarterback play was one of the clearest differences between the two teams. The Giants received productive performances from Tommy DeVito, Jaxson Dart, and Jameis Winston, while Ben Wooldridge handled the listed passing work for New England.
Quarterback statistics table
| Team | Quarterback | Comp/Att | Pass Yards | TD | INT | Passer Rating |
| Patriots | Ben Wooldridge | 10/20 | 81 | 1 | 1 | 56.7 |
| Giants | Tommy DeVito | 17/20 | 198 | 3 | 0 | 147.5 |
| Giants | Jaxson Dart | 6/12 | 81 | 1 | 0 | 99.7 |
| Giants | Jameis Winston | 4/8 | 47 | 1 | 1 | 68.2 |
| Giants team total | All quarterbacks | 27/40 | 320 | 5 | 1 | 121.5 |
Note: The supplied player and team statistics contain minor differences in passing-yard totals. Individual figures are reproduced from the provided data, while team totals are presented separately.
Tommy DeVito delivers the most efficient performance
Tommy DeVito was the standout quarterback in the statistical breakdown. He completed 17 of 20 attempts for 198 yards and three touchdowns without throwing an interception.
His 85% completion rate was especially impressive. It indicates that he consistently connected with his intended targets, while his 9.9 yards per attempt shows that the passing production was not limited to short completions.
Three figures explain his impact:
- 198 passing yards: The highest individual passing total in the game.
- Three touchdown passes: More passing scores than any other quarterback recorded.
- 147.5 passer rating: The best individual rating among the listed quarterbacks.
DeVito’s performance demonstrates how completion accuracy and touchdown production can combine to create a highly efficient passing day. His performance also helped the Giants maintain offensive production across different quarterback rotations.
The preseason context matters, however. A strong performance in one exhibition game does not establish a quarterback’s long-term standing or guarantee future results. It does show that DeVito made effective use of his opportunities in this matchup.
Jaxson Dart shows mobility and passing potential
Jaxson Dart completed six of 12 passes for 81 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. His 99.7 passer rating was higher than Wooldridge’s and Winston’s, although Dart attempted fewer passes than DeVito.
Dart also contributed on the ground with one recorded carry for 23 yards. That explosive run gave him a meaningful rushing contribution beyond his passing numbers.
The supplied ESPN recap describes Dart completing a 50-yard pass to Gunner Olszewski and throwing a touchdown to Greg Dulcich. It also reports that Dart left the game after a hard hit and was evaluated for a possible concussion. Head coach Brian Daboll subsequently said Dart was okay and explained that Winston’s entry had been planned.
This context is important when interpreting Dart’s limited passing volume. His appearance was not simply a matter of statistical output. It also involved an in-game medical evaluation and a planned quarterback rotation.
Jameis Winston contributes a touchdown
Winston completed four of eight passes for 47 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His passer rating was 68.2.
Although his passing total was lower than DeVito’s, Winston contributed to the Giants’ scoring output. His touchdown pass to Jalin Hyatt, recorded in the supplied recap as a 27-yard score, illustrates how quickly a passing play can produce points even when a quarterback has a relatively small number of attempts.
The interception is also relevant. Preseason evaluation involves both successful plays and mistakes, particularly when quarterbacks are competing for opportunities or working with different groups of teammates.
Ben Wooldridge faces a difficult passing assignment
Wooldridge completed 10 of 20 passes for 81 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His 56.7 passer rating reflected a less productive passing performance than those of the Giants’ leading quarterback.
His completion rate was 50%, and his listed average was 4.1 yards per attempt. Those figures show that New England did not generate the same combination of completion efficiency and downfield production as New York.
Wooldridge also recorded two carries for 12 yards, giving him a small contribution as a runner. However, his rushing production did not offset the difference in passing efficiency.
It would be inaccurate to attribute the entire defeat to one quarterback. Offensive performance depends on protection, route execution, play design, and the ability to sustain drives. The available figures establish the outcome of Wooldridge’s passing work, but they do not independently measure every factor that influenced it.
Rushing Stats: Which Team Controlled the Ground Game?
The rushing totals were much closer than the final score suggests. New England recorded 110 rushing yards, while New York finished with 111.
| Team | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Rushing TDs | Longest Run |
| New England Patriots | 35 | 110 | 3.1 | 0 | 13 yards |
| New York Giants | 24 | 111 | 4.6 | 0 | 23 yards |
The Giants gained only one more rushing yard despite attempting 11 fewer carries. Their higher average per attempt suggests greater efficiency on the ground, although individual long runs can influence that average.
Patriots rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Long |
| Shane Watts | 15 | 52 | 3.5 | 13 |
| JaMycal Hasty | 11 | 30 | 2.7 | 7 |
| Micah Bernard | 7 | 16 | 2.3 | 9 |
| Ben Wooldridge | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 11 |
Shane Watts led the Patriots in rushing attempts and yards. His 15 carries and 52 yards accounted for a substantial portion of New England’s ground production.
JaMycal Hasty added 30 yards on 11 carries, while Micah Bernard recorded 16 yards on seven attempts. Neither player reached the end zone on the ground.
Wooldridge averaged six yards per carry, but his two attempts were a much smaller sample. His average should not be treated as directly comparable to a running back’s performance over a larger workload.
The overall picture is straightforward: New England used its running backs frequently, but its average of 3.1 yards per carry limited the efficiency of those attempts.
Giants rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Long |
| Dante Miller | 11 | 41 | 3.7 | 8 |
| Jonathan Ward | 6 | 29 | 4.8 | 13 |
| Jaxson Dart | 1 | 23 | 23.0 | 23 |
| Cam Skattebo | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 4 |
| Ihmir Smith-Marsette | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 |
| Tommy DeVito | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 |
| Jameis Winston | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | -1 |
Dante Miller led New York with 41 rushing yards on 11 carries. Jonathan Ward supplied another 29 yards, averaging 4.8 yards per attempt.
Dart’s 23-yard run was the most notable individual rushing play in the supplied statistics. It accounted for a large share of his total rushing output, making his average of 23 yards per carry impressive but based on only one attempt.
Cam Skattebo recorded three carries for 12 yards. This was his first game action for the Giants, according to the supplied recap, after a hamstring injury setback affected his training camp.
What the rushing comparison tells us
The rushing statistics reveal an important difference between volume and efficiency.
New England ran the ball more often, but New York gained almost the same number of yards with fewer attempts. This does not prove that the Giants dominated every rushing matchup. It does show that the Patriots needed more attempts to produce similar yardage.
Neither team recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied individual and team summaries. The Giants’ scoring advantage therefore came primarily through passing touchdowns and the defensive score rather than through rushing touchdowns.
Receiving Stats: Giants Spread the Production
New York’s receiving group produced more than three times the yardage listed for New England. The Giants recorded 326 receiving yards, compared with 82 for the Patriots.
| Team | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Receiving TDs |
| Patriots | 10 | 20 | 82 | 8.2 | 1 |
| Giants | 27 | 39 | 326 | 12.1 | 5 |
The supplied team receiving total for New England differs slightly from the sum of its listed individual receiving yards. The figures above preserve the team totals as supplied.
The receiving comparison is one of the strongest explanations for the final score. New York had more completed catches, more yardage, a higher average per reception, and more receiving touchdowns.
Patriots receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TDs | Long |
| Jeremiah Webb | 3 | 31 | 1 | 17 |
| John Jiles | 3 | 26 | 0 | 14 |
| Phil Lutz | 2 | 11 | 0 | 12 |
| JaMycal Hasty | 1 | 9 | 0 | 9 |
| Jack Westover | 1 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
Jeremiah Webb led New England’s listed receivers with 31 yards and a touchdown on three catches. His longest reception was 17 yards.
John Jiles also caught three passes, finishing with 26 yards. Together, Webb and Jiles accounted for 57 receiving yards, illustrating how much of the Patriots’ listed production came from their two leading receivers.
Phil Lutz recorded two receptions for 11 yards. Hasty added nine receiving yards, while Westover finished with five.
The Patriots’ receiving figures show limited overall production. Their 20 targets resulted in 10 catches according to the supplied team line, and the offense recorded only one receiving touchdown.
Giants receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TDs | Long |
| Gunner Olszewski | 3 | 68 | 0 | 50 |
| Jonathan Ward | 2 | 45 | 1 | 41 |
| Thomas Fidone II | 4 | 39 | 1 | 28 |
| Jalin Hyatt | 3 | 38 | 1 | 27 |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | 1 | 38 | 0 | 38 |
| Greg Dulcich | 4 | 26 | 2 | 10 |
| Montrell Washington | 3 | 26 | 0 | 13 |
| Zach Pascal | 2 | 21 | 0 | 14 |
| Dante Miller | 3 | 12 | 0 | 9 |
| Antwane Wells Jr. | 1 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
| Ihmir Smith-Marsette | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
Gunner Olszewski provides the biggest receiving gain
Olszewski led the Giants in receiving yards with 68 on three catches. His 50-yard reception was the longest listed completion of the game.
A long completion can change a drive’s prospects by moving the offense quickly into scoring range. Olszewski’s production also gave the Giants a valuable downfield option during Dart’s appearance.
Although he did not score a receiving touchdown, his yardage total was the highest among the listed players on either team.
Greg Dulcich scores twice
Dulcich recorded four receptions for 26 yards and two touchdowns. His longest reception was 10 yards.
His statistics show why total yardage alone does not tell the complete story of a receiver’s contribution. Olszewski gained more yards, but Dulcich converted his opportunities into two scores.
Touchdowns often carry greater direct value on the scoreboard than a similar amount of yardage accumulated between the 20-yard lines. Dulcich’s two scoring catches therefore represented a major contribution to the Giants’ offensive output.
Jonathan Ward contributes as a runner and receiver
Ward recorded 29 rushing yards on six carries and 45 receiving yards on two catches. He also scored one receiving touchdown.
Combining the supplied rushing and receiving figures gives Ward 74 yards from scrimmage and one touchdown. That versatility made him one of New York’s more productive multi-purpose contributors.
His 41-yard longest reception was also among the Giants’ biggest plays, demonstrating that his value was not limited to short passes or routine rushing attempts.
Jalin Hyatt adds another touchdown
Hyatt finished with three catches for 38 yards and a touchdown. His longest reception was 27 yards.
His touchdown added to New York’s collection of scoring plays from different receivers. Rather than relying on a single target, the Giants were able to generate production from several players across their receiving group.
That distribution is particularly useful in preseason evaluation because it shows how multiple offensive options perform when given opportunities.
Defensive Stats: The Play That Changed the Score
The Giants’ defense contributed directly to the result, not just by limiting New England’s offense but also by scoring a touchdown.
| Defensive category | Patriots | Giants |
| Total tackles | 60 | 61 |
| Solo tackles | 41 | 36 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 1 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 9 | 8 |
| Quarterback hits | 3 | 3 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The overall tackle totals were nearly identical. Both teams recorded one sack and three quarterback hits, and their interception totals were also even. The most striking difference was New York’s seven tackles for loss compared with New England’s one.
TJ Moore’s interception return touchdown
TJ Moore recorded an interception that he returned 44 yards for a touchdown, according to the supplied statistics. That play gave New York a defensive score and helped extend its lead.
An interception returned for a touchdown has two effects. It stops the opposing offense’s possession, and it awards points to the defending team. It can therefore create a much larger scoreboard swing than an interception that ends with the defense taking possession.
Moore’s play was a major individual highlight. The supplied recap also notes that he was later carted off after injuring his right leg on a punt late in the game. Head coach Brian Daboll expressed concern for the young player after the injury.
These details provide important context when evaluating the performance. The interception return was a significant achievement, while the later injury was an unfortunate development during the same contest.
Kyle Dugger records a Patriots interception
Kyle Dugger recorded New England’s interception. The supplied statistics list no return yards and no defensive touchdown on the play.
Although the Patriots generated a takeaway, they did not turn that interception into the same kind of scoring contribution as the Giants’ defensive unit.
A turnover is valuable because it ends an opposing possession, but its impact depends partly on what happens next. Field position, offensive execution, and the ability to score after regaining possession all influence the final outcome.
Tackles for loss reveal a difference in disruption
New York recorded seven tackles for loss, compared with one for New England. This difference suggests that the Giants were more successful at stopping plays behind the line of scrimmage.
Tackles for loss can damage offensive rhythm by creating longer passing situations and reducing the effectiveness of rushing attempts. They can also make subsequent downs more difficult because an offense has to recover lost yardage.
However, tackles for loss alone do not establish that a defense controlled every phase of the game. The Giants’ defensive touchdown and the teams’ similar sack and quarterback-hit totals are additional parts of the picture.
The most reliable conclusion is that New York made more plays behind the line of scrimmage and produced the game’s decisive defensive score.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers are especially important when examining a large score difference. In this matchup, both teams recorded an interception, but their fumble records differed.
| Turnover category | Patriots | Giants |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions made | 1 | 1 |
| Fumbles recorded | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Fumble recoveries listed | 2 | 0 |
| Defensive interception return TDs | 0 | 1 |
The fumble recovery figures in the supplied data are presented as recorded, but their categories may not map neatly onto the total fumbles listed. They should not be treated as a complete play-by-play reconstruction.
Patriots avoid losing a fumble
Ben Wooldridge was credited with one fumble, but the supplied statistics show that New England did not lose a fumble. Cam Riley was also credited with a recovery.
Avoiding a lost fumble prevented an additional turnover, although the Patriots still threw an interception. Ball security was therefore mixed rather than perfect.
Giants give the ball away once on a fumble
The Giants were credited with two fumbles, with one lost. Dante Miller was listed with one fumble lost, while Dart was credited with a fumble that was not listed as lost.
Dart’s fumble occurred on a rushing play described in the supplied recap. He was tackled after choosing not to slide, and the play prompted a medical evaluation.
The distinction between a fumble and a lost fumble matters. A player can lose control of the ball without the opposition recovering it. Only a change of possession creates the turnover associated with a lost fumble.
Why the turnover totals do not tell the entire story
The Patriots and Giants each recorded one interception, and New York lost one fumble. Despite this, the Giants won by 32 points.
That gap demonstrates why turnover totals should be examined alongside scoring efficiency. The Giants’ five passing touchdowns and defensive touchdown provided a direct route to a high score, while New England’s offense did not generate comparable production.
A team can have a similar number of takeaways and giveaways yet still lose decisively if it struggles to turn possessions into points.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams contributed to field position and scoring, although the biggest differences came from the offenses and New York’s defensive touchdown.
Kicking statistics
| Player | Team | Field Goals | Extra Points | Total Points |
| Andy Borregales | Patriots | 1/2 | 1/1 | 4 |
| Jude McAtamney | Giants | 0/0 | 6/6 | 6 |
Borregales made one field goal from two attempts, with a longest successful kick of 30 yards. He also converted his only extra-point attempt.
McAtamney did not attempt a field goal in the supplied record but converted all six extra points. His six points came from those successful conversions after Giants touchdowns.
The kicking totals reflect the scoring opportunities available to each team. New York scored six touchdowns in total when its five passing touchdowns and one defensive touchdown are considered alongside the supplied scoring breakdown. That level of production created more extra-point opportunities.
Punting statistics
| Player | Team | Punts | Total Yards | Average | Longest Punt | Inside the 20 |
| Bryce Baringer | Patriots | 7 | 328 | 46.9 | 63 | 3 |
| Jamie Gillan | Giants | 3 | 141 | 47.0 | 49 | 1 |
Baringer punted seven times for 328 yards, averaging 46.9 yards per punt. Three of his punts were listed as landing inside the 20-yard line.
Gillan punted three times for 141 yards, averaging 47 yards per punt. One punt was listed inside the 20.
The averages were almost identical. The difference in volume is more revealing: New England punted seven times, compared with three for New York. That reflects the difference in how often the teams’ possessions ended without a scoring result or another productive continuation.
Punting totals alone do not establish how well a punter performed because coverage, return yardage, and field position also matter. In this game, Baringer’s longer punt and greater number of attempts indicate more frequent involvement rather than necessarily poorer individual execution.
Return-game production
New England’s Javon Baker recorded one kick return for 23 yards. Jeremiah Webb had two punt returns for 34 yards, averaging 17 yards per return, with a longest return of 22 yards.
For the Giants, the supplied statistics list five punt returns for 19 total yards. Jordan Bly had one return for eight yards, Ihmir Smith-Marsette one for seven, Montrell Washington one for four, and Dante Miller and Gunner Olszewski each recorded a return for no gain.
No Giants kick returns were recorded in the supplied data.
Webb’s 17-yard average was a notable return figure, although his two returns represent a small sample. Overall, the Patriots’ punt-return production was more efficient by average yardage, while New York’s advantage came from other phases of the game.
Team Comparison: The Most Important Numbers
The following comparison summarizes the main statistical differences without treating every category as equally important.
| Statistical category | Patriots | Giants | Advantage |
| Final score | 10 | 42 | Giants |
| Team passing yards | 82 listed in the receiving and team line; 81 individual passing yards | 320 | Giants |
| Team rushing yards | 110 | 111 | Nearly even |
| Team rushing attempts | 35 | 24 | Patriots by volume |
| Rushing average | 3.1 | 4.6 | Giants |
| Receiving yards | 82 | 326 | Giants |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 5 | Giants |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 1 | Giants |
| Interceptions made | 1 | 1 | Even |
| Tackles for loss | 1 | 7 | Giants |
| Punts | 7 | 3 | Different workload |
The Patriots’ passing and receiving figures contain small inconsistencies in the supplied data. The table retains those source figures rather than attempting to reconcile them without a complete official statistical feed.
The table points to three central findings.
First, New York’s passing game generated far more production. Its quarterbacks combined for five touchdown passes and 320 team passing yards, while New England’s listed passing output was much lower.
Second, the rushing totals were almost identical, but the Giants gained more yards per carry. This was an efficiency advantage rather than a large difference in total rushing yardage.
Third, the Giants created more disruptive defensive plays. Their seven tackles for loss and one interception return touchdown helped transform an offensive advantage into a decisive final score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Patriots vs Giants game on August 22, 2025?
The New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots 42-10 in their preseason matchup on August 22, 2025. The Giants scored 14 points in the first quarter and 21 in the third.
2. Which quarterback had the best passing performance?
Tommy DeVito delivered the strongest statistical performance. He completed 17 of 20 passes for 198 yards and three touchdowns without an interception, finishing with a 147.5 passer rating.
3. Who led the Giants in receiving yards?
Gunner Olszewski led the Giants with 68 receiving yards on three catches. His longest reception was 50 yards, the longest individual reception listed in the supplied statistics.
4. Which Patriots player scored a touchdown?
Jeremiah Webb led the Patriots’ listed receiving group with three catches for 31 yards and one touchdown. Ben Wooldridge was credited with the team’s listed passing touchdown.
5. Who scored the defensive touchdown?
TJ Moore recorded an interception and returned it 44 yards for a Giants defensive touchdown. That play was an important contribution to New York’s 42-10 victory.
6. Did the Giants dominate the rushing game?
Not in total yardage. New York recorded 111 rushing yards, compared with New England’s 110. However, the Giants averaged 4.6 yards per carry, while the Patriots averaged 3.1.
Conclusion
The August 22, 2025, preseason matchup between the New England Patriots and New York Giants produced a convincing 42-10 victory for New York. The game statistics show that the Giants combined efficient quarterback play, multiple receiving threats, and a defense capable of creating game-changing plays.
Tommy DeVito led the passing performance with three touchdowns and a 147.5 passer rating. Gunner Olszewski led the Giants in receiving yards, Greg Dulcich scored twice, and Jonathan Ward contributed as both a runner and receiver. TJ Moore added a 44-yard interception return touchdown.
For New England, Shane Watts led the rushing attack, while Jeremiah Webb led the listed receiving group and scored the team’s receiving touchdown. The Patriots’ rushing yardage was nearly identical to New York’s, but their passing production and overall scoring output fell well short.
The most important statistical lesson is that total yardage in one category does not determine a football result. The Giants gained only one more rushing yard, yet they were much more productive through the air and generated a defensive touchdown. Those differences explain the wide final margin more clearly than the rushing totals alone.
Because this was a preseason game, the numbers are best used to understand individual performances and the way each team used its available players, rather than as a definitive prediction of regular-season results.
