New York Giants vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats
The New York Giants vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats from December 29, 2025, tell the story of a convincing 34-10 Giants victory built on a powerful rushing attack, timely defensive takeaways, and a game-changing kickoff return. Although both teams recorded 207 or fewer passing yards, New York created a decisive advantage on the ground and turned defensive opportunities into points. Jaxson Dart completed 22 of 30 passes, Wan’Dale Robinson produced 113 receiving yards, and the Giants’ defense recorded two interceptions and four sacks. For Las Vegas, Geno Smith threw for 176 yards and a touchdown but also surrendered two interceptions, while Michael Mayer led the Raiders with 89 receiving yards.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, quarterback efficiency, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistical differences that explain the outcome. Rather than treating the box score as a collection of numbers, it explores what those numbers reveal about how the game unfolded and why New York controlled the most important phases of the contest.
New York Giants vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Giants defeated the Raiders 34-10 on December 29, 2025. The result reflected a substantial difference in rushing production, defensive disruption, and the ability to capitalize on field-position opportunities.
Here are the key details from the supplied game data.
| Game detail | New York Giants | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Final score | 34 | 10 |
| First quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 10 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 10 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Passing yards | 207 | 192 |
| Rushing yards | 155 | 63 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 4 | 2 |
| Field goals | 2/2 | 1/1 |
| Total kicking points | 10 | 4 |
Source: Supplied ESPN UK game data. Official box score: New York Giants vs. Las Vegas Raiders box score.
The most important distinction is that New York did not need a passing touchdown to reach 34 points. The Giants scored three rushing touchdowns, benefited from a defensive scoring contribution, and received a touchdown on a 95-yard kickoff return by Deonte Banks.
Las Vegas, by comparison, struggled to sustain its ground game and finished with only 63 rushing yards. The Raiders completed passes efficiently in percentage terms, but their two interceptions and inability to match New York’s rushing production limited their scoring opportunities.
The final margin of 24 points therefore reflected more than the difference between the quarterbacks. It came from the combined effect of offensive balance, defensive pressure, turnovers, and special teams.
How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter
The scoring sequence helps explain why the Giants were able to maintain control throughout the contest.
| Quarter | Giants | Raiders | What the score shows |
| First | 7 | 0 | New York established an early lead |
| Second | 10 | 3 | The Giants extended their advantage |
| Third | 10 | 7 | Both teams scored, but New York added to its lead |
| Fourth | 7 | 0 | The Giants closed the game without conceding points |
First quarter: New York takes the lead
The Giants opened the scoring and finished the first quarter ahead 7-0. An early lead can change an opponent’s offensive approach, particularly when the trailing team struggles to run the ball consistently.
For Las Vegas, falling behind meant that each subsequent possession carried greater importance. The Raiders needed to find a way to generate explosive plays or establish a more productive rushing attack.
Second quarter: The Giants build separation
New York added 10 points in the second quarter, while Las Vegas managed only a field goal. The resulting 17-3 halftime score gave the Giants a comfortable advantage.
A two-score lead can also create useful defensive options. A defense can focus on preventing explosive passes and forcing the opponent to complete shorter throws, especially when the trailing offense has difficulty creating balance.
Third quarter: The scoring gap remains significant
Both teams scored in the third quarter, with New York adding 10 points and Las Vegas scoring seven. The Giants entered the final quarter with a 27-10 lead.
The Raiders showed some ability to respond offensively, but their scoring did not reduce the deficit enough to make the game a one-possession contest.
Fourth quarter: New York finishes strongly
The Giants scored another seven points in the fourth quarter, while the Raiders were held scoreless.
The final quarter reinforced the broader statistical pattern: New York could add points through different phases of the game, while Las Vegas could not generate the offensive response required to change the outcome.
Jaxson Dart vs Geno Smith: Quarterback Statistics
Quarterback performance is often judged by passing yards and touchdowns, but a closer examination of completion rate, turnovers, rushing contributions, and pressure tells a more useful story.
The New York Giants received an efficient passing performance from Jaxson Dart, while Geno Smith produced the Raiders’ only passing touchdown but struggled to protect the football.
Quarterback comparison
| Statistic | Jaxson Dart | Geno Smith |
| Completions | 22 | 20 |
| Pass attempts | 30 | 28 |
| Completion percentage | 73.3% | 71.4% |
| Passing yards | 207 | 176 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.9 | 6.3 |
| Sacks taken | 2 | 3 |
| Sack yards lost | 19 | 24 |
| Passer rating | 91.9 | 69.9 |
| QBR | 83.7 | 27.5 |
Note: The figures for Dart and Smith are individual passing statistics. Las Vegas also used Kenny Pickett, whose passing numbers appear below.
Jaxson Dart’s efficient performance
Dart completed 22 of 30 attempts, producing a 73.3% completion rate and 207 passing yards. He averaged 6.9 yards per attempt and threw no interceptions.
His 91.9 passer rating and 83.7 QBR indicate a strong overall performance according to the supplied figures. Most importantly, Dart avoided the costly passing mistakes that affected his opposite number.
Dart did not throw a touchdown pass, but that should not be mistaken for an ineffective outing. The Giants scored through their rushing attack, allowing their quarterback to contribute without needing to force high-risk throws in the red zone.
His nine rushing attempts for 48 yards also gave the offense another way to move the chains. Averaging 5.3 yards per carry, Dart provided a useful running threat that could make defensive assignments more complicated.
There is an important distinction between passing production and total offensive value. A quarterback who distributes the ball efficiently, avoids interceptions, and contributes on designed runs or scrambles can be highly effective even without throwing a touchdown.
Dart’s performance illustrates that principle.
Geno Smith’s mixed statistical line
Smith completed 20 of 28 passes for 176 yards, a 71.4% completion rate. He averaged 6.3 yards per attempt and threw one touchdown.
Those numbers show that Smith was capable of completing passes at a respectable rate. However, he also threw two interceptions, took three sacks, and finished with a 69.9 passer rating and a 27.5 QBR.
The interceptions were particularly damaging because they gave New York opportunities to end Raiders possessions without allowing the offense to complete a drive. Turnovers can be more influential than small differences in completion percentage because they remove scoring opportunities and can change field position.
Smith’s 24 sack yards lost also reduced the value of his passing production. While the Raiders’ passing game produced yardage, the offense had difficulty turning that yardage into enough points to remain competitive.
Kenny Pickett’s contribution
Pickett completed both of his two passing attempts for 16 yards. He threw no touchdowns or interceptions and recorded a listed passer rating of 100.0.
His small sample is important to interpret correctly. Completing two passes does not provide enough evidence to compare his performance reliably with Dart’s or Smith’s across an entire game.
The Raiders’ team passing total was 22 completions on 30 attempts for 192 yards, including Smith’s and Pickett’s contributions.
What the quarterback numbers really mean
Three comparisons stand out:
- Accuracy: Dart led by 1.9 percentage points in completion rate.
- Ball security: Dart threw no interceptions, while Smith threw two.
- Pressure: Smith took one more sack and lost five additional yards on sacks.
The difference was not simply that Dart passed for more yards. He helped his team maintain offensive efficiency while avoiding turnovers. Smith produced a touchdown pass, but the interceptions and sacks reduced the overall value of his performance.
Giants Rushing Statistics: Three Touchdowns on the Ground
The rushing battle was one of the clearest differences in the game. New York recorded 155 rushing yards on 31 attempts, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. Las Vegas managed 63 yards on 20 attempts, averaging 3.2 yards per carry.
| Rushing statistic | Giants | Raiders |
| Rushing attempts | 31 | 20 |
| Rushing yards | 155 | 63 |
| Yards per carry | 5.0 | 3.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Yards per attempt advantage | +1.8 | -1.8 |
The Giants produced 92 more rushing yards and averaged 1.8 additional yards per attempt. That is a substantial difference across a game because it affects first downs, down-and-distance situations, and the defense’s ability to anticipate passing plays.
Tyrone Tracy Jr. leads the Giants in rushing yards
Tracy finished with 14 carries for 62 yards, averaging 4.4 yards per attempt. Although he did not score a rushing touchdown, he supplied a steady share of the Giants’ ground production.
His 62 yards accounted for approximately 40% of New York’s total rushing output. That contribution helped the Giants keep the offense balanced instead of relying exclusively on the passing game.
A running back does not need to record a long touchdown to influence a game. Consistent gains can create manageable third downs and keep the opposing defense on the field. Tracy’s workload gave New York a dependable option in that role.
Jaxson Dart adds two rushing touchdowns
Dart recorded nine carries for 48 yards and two rushing touchdowns. His average of 5.3 yards per carry was the highest among the Giants’ three leading ball carriers listed in the data.
The two scores were particularly important because they converted rushing opportunities into points without requiring a touchdown pass.
A mobile quarterback also creates a decision-making challenge for defenders. If the defensive line focuses too heavily on the running backs, the quarterback may find space to run. If defenders commit to containing the quarterback, the running backs can have more room to operate.
The available statistics demonstrate Dart’s rushing production, although they do not establish which individual defensive assignments or play designs produced each gain.
Devin Singletary supplies another scoring threat
Singletary carried the ball eight times for 45 yards, averaging 5.6 yards per attempt. He scored one rushing touchdown.
His average was higher than those of Tracy and Dart, although averages alone cannot determine which runner was most valuable. Each player had a different workload, and touchdown production, down-and-distance context, and individual play situations all matter.
Together, the three players accounted for all 155 Giants rushing yards listed in the supplied figures:
- Tyrone Tracy Jr.: 62 yards
- Jaxson Dart: 48 yards
- Devin Singletary: 45 yards
Their combined output demonstrates the depth of New York’s ground contribution.
Ashton Jeanty leads the Raiders’ rushing attack
Jeanty recorded 16 carries for 60 yards, averaging 3.8 yards per attempt. He was the Raiders’ leading rusher by yardage and handled most of their rushing workload.
However, his production did not match the Giants’ combined rushing output. Jeanty had no rushing touchdown, and the Raiders finished with just 63 rushing yards as a team.
Las Vegas also received limited rushing contributions from Zamir White, Geno Smith, and Tre Tucker. Their combined output did not provide the additional ground production necessary to make the offense more balanced.
The main issue was not Jeanty’s workload. It was the overall efficiency of the rushing attack. Twenty carries for 63 yards meant the Raiders averaged only 3.2 yards per attempt as a team.
Why the rushing gap mattered
The Giants’ ground advantage provided three practical benefits.
First, successful runs helped New York move the chains without depending on difficult passing situations. Second, three rushing touchdowns converted offensive possessions into points. Third, a productive ground game gave the Giants multiple options near the goal line.
The Raiders lacked a comparable scoring threat on the ground. Their inability to score a rushing touchdown placed more pressure on the passing game, where Smith’s two interceptions created additional problems.
Receiving Statistics: Wan’Dale Robinson and Michael Mayer Lead
The receiving comparison reveals another important contrast. The Giants and Raiders each recorded 22 team receptions, but New York gained 207 receiving yards compared with Las Vegas’s 192.
| Receiving statistic | Giants | Raiders |
| Receptions | 22 | 22 |
| Receiving yards | 207 | 192 |
| Yards per reception | 9.4 | 8.7 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Average yards per catch advantage | +0.7 | -0.7 |
New York gained 15 more receiving yards, even though both teams recorded the same number of receptions. The Giants therefore generated slightly more yardage per catch, while Las Vegas obtained its only passing touchdown through the receiving game.
Wan’Dale Robinson delivers the leading performance
Robinson caught 11 passes for 113 yards on 14 targets, averaging 10.3 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 36 yards.
He accounted for more than half of New York’s 207 receiving yards, making him the clear leader in the Giants’ passing attack.
Robinson’s 11 receptions were especially notable because they represented half of the team’s 22 completions. He gave Dart a consistent target and helped the Giants maintain passing efficiency without needing a high volume of deep throws.
His 14 targets also show that he was a major part of the passing plan. However, targets alone do not establish whether a receiver was open on every play or whether each target was catchable. They measure opportunity rather than guaranteed production.
Robinson’s performance was valuable because he converted a large share of those opportunities into catches and yardage.
Darius Slayton adds explosive potential
Slayton recorded two receptions for 36 yards, averaging 18.0 yards per catch. Although he had fewer receptions than Robinson, his average showed the value of his contribution on a per-catch basis.
This illustrates why reception totals should not be used as the only measure of a receiver’s impact. A player who catches two passes for 36 yards may contribute differently from a player who catches several shorter passes.
Slayton’s listed production supplied another option in a passing attack that was not dependent on a single type of reception.
Devin Singletary contributes as a receiver
Singletary caught four passes for 25 yards, averaging 6.3 yards per reception. His receiving contribution complemented his 45 rushing yards.
Running backs who contribute in both phases can give offenses flexibility. They can carry the ball, receive short passes, and help keep defenses uncertain about the next play.
The available statistics confirm Singletary’s combined rushing and receiving involvement, although they do not identify every formation or play call used to create those opportunities.
Other Giants receiving contributions
The supplied figures list the following additional performances:
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards |
| Gunner Olszewski | 1 | 19 |
| Daniel Bellinger | 2 | 11 |
| Isaiah Hodgins | 1 | 8 |
| Tyrone Tracy Jr. | 1 | -5 |
These contributions helped complete the Giants’ receiving total. Tracy’s negative receiving yardage is a reminder that a reception does not always result in a gain. Screens, checkdowns, and other short passes can lose yards if defenders quickly close the space.
Michael Mayer leads Las Vegas
Mayer recorded nine receptions for 89 yards on 10 targets, averaging 9.9 yards per catch. His longest reception was 19 yards.
He was the Raiders’ leading receiver by yardage and provided a consistent option in the passing game. His nine catches accounted for a substantial portion of Las Vegas’s 22 team receptions.
Mayer’s workload indicates that he was a central part of the Raiders’ passing attack. He generated more receiving yards than any other Raiders player listed, but his production was not enough to offset the team’s limited rushing output and turnover problems.
Tre Tucker provides secondary production
Tucker caught five passes for 49 yards, averaging 9.8 yards per reception. He also recorded two rushing attempts for no net rushing yards.
His receiving contribution gave Las Vegas another productive option alongside Mayer. Still, the Raiders needed greater overall offensive production to challenge a team that scored 34 points.
The distinction is important: an individual receiver can perform reasonably well even when the team’s offense struggles. Team outcomes depend on how receiving production combines with rushing, turnovers, field position, and scoring opportunities.
Raiders receiving depth
Other listed Raiders receiving contributions included:
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards |
| Shedrick Jackson | 2 | 20 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 2 | 13 |
| Dont’e Thornton Jr. | 2 | 12 |
| Tyler Lockett | 2 | 9 |
Lockett recorded the Raiders’ listed receiving touchdown. That score provided a positive moment for the passing attack, but it remained the team’s only passing touchdown in the supplied statistics.
What the receiving comparison reveals
The Giants’ leading receiver, Robinson, recorded 24 more receiving yards than Mayer. Robinson’s production came without a passing touchdown, while Mayer’s teammates supplied the Raiders’ passing score.
Both players were productive, but the broader context differed. Robinson’s output supported an offense that also generated three rushing touchdowns. Mayer’s output supported an offense that struggled to run the ball and gave away possession through interceptions.
That distinction helps explain why comparing receiving yards in isolation does not fully describe either team’s offensive performance.
Defensive Player Stats: Giants Turnovers and Pressure
The defensive numbers provide some of the strongest evidence for why New York won comfortably. The Giants recorded two interceptions, four sacks, nine tackles for loss, five passes defended, and nine quarterback hits.
The Raiders recorded two sacks, four passes defended, four tackles for loss, and seven quarterback hits. Although Las Vegas registered more total tackles, it did not produce an interception in the supplied data.
| Defensive statistic | Giants | Raiders |
| Total tackles | 64 | 67 |
| Solo tackles | 36 | 41 |
| Sacks | 4 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 9 | 4 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 4 |
| Quarterback hits | 9 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
Bobby Okereke makes a key defensive contribution
Okereke recorded seven total tackles, including five solo tackles, and intercepted a pass for 47 return yards.
His interception was one of the defining individual defensive statistics for New York. An interception ends the opponent’s possession immediately and can provide the offense with a more favorable starting position for its next drive.
The 47 return yards added value beyond the turnover itself. Defensive takeaways are not all equally valuable in terms of field position, and a significant return can move the ball much closer to scoring territory.
However, return yards should not automatically be treated as points. The supplied figures establish the interception and its return distance, not that Okereke personally scored a touchdown.
Dane Belton adds a second interception
Belton recorded one interception with eight return yards. His contribution gave the Giants a second takeaway and further limited the Raiders’ opportunities to build offensive momentum.
Two interceptions are particularly significant in a game where the losing team scores only 10 points. Each turnover removes an opportunity to advance the ball through a normal offensive drive.
The exact point value of a takeaway depends on what happens afterward, but two interceptions clearly contributed to New York’s ability to control the contest.
Brian Burns pressures the quarterback
Burns recorded four tackles, 1.5 sacks, and three quarterback hits.
Sacks can have several effects beyond the immediate loss of yardage. They can force an offense into longer passing situations, disrupt its timing, and increase the pressure on the quarterback to make difficult decisions on later downs.
Burns’ 1.5 sacks formed part of the Giants’ four-sack team total. His three quarterback hits also demonstrate that his contribution was not limited to plays officially recorded as sacks.
The Raiders allowed Smith to be sacked three times and Pickett once, according to the supplied player data. That pressure reduced the offense’s ability to operate cleanly and contributed to a difficult afternoon for the passing attack.
Dru Phillips contributes in multiple defensive situations
Phillips finished with six tackles, three solo tackles, and one tackle for loss.
A tackle for loss is useful because it can put an offense behind its expected position on a drive. When combined with pressure from the defensive line and coverage in the secondary, these plays make it harder to sustain long possessions.
Phillips’ numbers show a contribution in both general tackling and backfield disruption. They do not, by themselves, establish how many individual drives he stopped, but they support the conclusion that New York’s defensive production came from multiple players.
Raiders defenders remain busy
The Raiders recorded 67 total tackles and 41 solo tackles, both higher than the Giants’ corresponding totals.
Devin White led the listed Raiders defensive contributors with eight tackles, including four solo tackles and one quarterback hit. Lonnie Johnson Jr. recorded seven tackles and four solo tackles, while Elandon Roberts recorded six tackles and four solo tackles.
Malcolm Koonce supplied the Raiders’ leading listed pass-rushing contribution with two tackles, one sack, and three quarterback hits.
These statistics show that individual Raiders defenders remained involved throughout the game. However, a high tackle total does not automatically indicate defensive success. Defenders can accumulate tackles when the opposing offense repeatedly advances the ball.
In this contest, New York scored 34 points and averaged 5.0 yards per rushing attempt. The Raiders’ defensive workload therefore needs to be considered alongside the scoring and efficiency figures.
Why New York’s defensive approach was more effective
The Giants held Las Vegas to 10 points and generated two interceptions and four sacks. They also recorded more tackles for loss and quarterback hits than the Raiders.
Together, those numbers suggest that New York was more successful at disrupting the opponent’s offense. The Giants created negative plays, interrupted passing possessions, and limited the Raiders’ scoring output.
It is also important not to overstate the available evidence. The statistics show the number of sacks, interceptions, and quarterback hits, but they do not provide enough information to assign every turnover to a particular coverage scheme or coaching adjustment.
The defensible conclusion is that the Giants’ defense created more disruptive plays and helped keep the Raiders from turning their passing yardage into a competitive score.
Special Teams: Deonte Banks Changes the Game
Special teams were another important part of the Giants’ victory. Deonte Banks returned two kickoffs for 113 yards, averaging 56.5 yards per return. His longest return covered 95 yards and resulted in a touchdown.
That single return deserves special attention because it generated six points without requiring the offense to gain a first down or complete a pass.
Deonte Banks’ kickoff return statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Kickoff returns | 2 |
| Return yards | 113 |
| Average per return | 56.5 yards |
| Longest return | 95 yards |
| Kickoff return touchdowns | 1 |
A 95-yard kickoff return is an explosive play that can change the scoreboard immediately. It also affects the opponent’s ability to recover from a difficult offensive possession.
The supplied data lists Banks’ longest return as a touchdown. His 56.5-yard average is exceptionally high for a two-return sample, so it should not be interpreted as a normal expectation for future games.
Giants kicking production
Ben Sauls converted both field-goal attempts and all four extra-point attempts. He finished with 10 total kicking points.
| Kicking statistic | Ben Sauls | Daniel Carlson |
| Field goals made | 2 | 1 |
| Field-goal attempts | 2 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 32 yards | 42 yards |
| Extra points made | 4 | 1 |
| Total kicking points | 10 | 4 |
Carlson converted his only field-goal attempt, a listed 42-yarder, and made his extra point. His four kicking points represented the Raiders’ successful kicking contributions.
Both kickers were perfect on the attempts recorded. The difference in their total points came from the number of scoring opportunities each team generated, rather than a difference in field-goal accuracy.
Punting and return yardage
The Giants punted twice for 88 yards, averaging 44.0 yards per punt. Jamie Gillan recorded one punt inside the 20-yard line and no touchbacks.
The Raiders punted three times for 171 yards, averaging 57.0 yards per punt. AJ Cole recorded a longest punt of 63 yards and one punt inside the 20, also with no touchbacks.
Cole’s higher average indicates that his punts traveled farther on average. However, punt distance alone is not a complete measure of punting effectiveness. Coverage, return yardage, landing position, and the resulting field position also matter.
On punt returns, Gunner Olszewski recorded two returns for 18 yards, averaging 9.0 yards. Alex Bachman returned two punts for one yard, averaging 0.5 yards.
The Giants also recorded two kickoff returns for 113 yards, compared with two Raiders kickoff returns for 52 yards. This provided New York with an additional special-teams advantage.
Team Statistical Comparison: Where the Game Was Won
The team-level figures bring the individual performances together. The Giants gained only 15 more passing yards than the Raiders, but they recorded 92 more rushing yards and three rushing touchdowns.
| Category | Giants | Raiders | Difference |
| Final points | 34 | 10 | Giants +24 |
| Passing yards | 207 | 192 | Giants +15 |
| Rushing yards | 155 | 63 | Giants +92 |
| Total passing and rushing yards | 362 | 255 | Giants +107 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 0 | Giants +3 |
| Interceptions recorded | 2 | 0 | Giants +2 |
| Sacks recorded | 4 | 2 | Giants +2 |
| Tackles for loss | 9 | 4 | Giants +5 |
| Kick return yards | 113 | 52 | Giants +61 |
The combined yardage figures are calculated from the supplied passing and rushing totals. They exclude any adjustment for sack yardage beyond what the team totals already reflect.
1. The ground game created the biggest yardage gap
The Giants gained 155 rushing yards, compared with 63 for Las Vegas. That 92-yard difference was the largest contrast in the two teams’ offensive yardage categories.
The Giants also recorded three rushing touchdowns, while the Raiders recorded none. The combination of yardage and scoring made New York’s rushing advantage more important than a simple comparison of carries would suggest.
2. Turnovers reduced the Raiders’ opportunities
The Giants recorded two interceptions, while the Raiders recorded none. Smith threw both interceptions attributed to the Raiders in the supplied player data.
Interceptions can have a double impact. They stop the offense from continuing its drive and give the opposing team an opportunity to take possession. Their effect on the final score depends on what happens next, but the Giants’ two takeaways were an important defensive advantage.
3. The Giants generated more negative plays
New York recorded four sacks and nine tackles for loss. Las Vegas recorded two sacks and four tackles for loss.
This difference suggests that the Giants were more successful at pushing the Raiders backward and interrupting offensive rhythm. It also helps explain why the Raiders’ 192 passing yards did not translate into a higher score.
4. Special teams added an explosive scoring play
Banks’ 95-yard kickoff return touchdown gave New York a scoring route that did not depend on offensive yardage. The Giants’ 113 kickoff return yards also exceeded the Raiders’ 52.
Explosive special-teams plays can create a major advantage because they produce points or favorable field position without requiring an extended offensive drive.
5. The Giants made better use of their offensive production
New York recorded 362 combined passing and rushing yards, while Las Vegas recorded 255. The 107-yard difference aligned with the 24-point gap on the scoreboard.
Yardage does not determine wins by itself, and teams can lose despite gaining more yards. In this case, however, the Giants’ advantage in rushing production, turnovers, and explosive special-teams plays all pointed in the same direction.
Understanding the Box Score Without Misreading It
A useful statistical analysis needs to distinguish between what the data confirms and what it cannot establish.
The supplied figures support several conclusions: Dart protected the ball, the Giants ran effectively, Robinson led the receiving group, the defense generated two interceptions, and Banks recorded a kickoff return touchdown.
Some other interpretations require caution.
Passing yards do not equal total offense
The Giants recorded 207 passing yards and 155 rushing yards. Looking only at passing would miss much of their offensive contribution.
For a more complete assessment, combine passing and rushing yardage while remembering that official team totals can handle sack yardage differently from simple player-by-player calculations.
Completion percentage does not measure every quarterback decision
Dart’s 73.3% completion rate exceeded Smith’s 71.4%. That comparison is useful, but completion percentage does not measure every factor involved in quarterback performance.
Interceptions, sacks, yards per attempt, touchdowns, and rushing contributions add important context. In this game, Dart’s lack of interceptions and his two rushing touchdowns strengthened his overall statistical profile.
Tackles are not the same as defensive dominance
The Raiders recorded three more total tackles than the Giants. That does not mean they defended more effectively.
Tackles can accumulate when an offense completes passes or gains rushing yardage. Sacks, tackles for loss, turnovers, and points allowed provide additional context for evaluating defensive impact.
Team totals and individual totals should be checked together
The supplied Raiders passing data includes both Smith and Pickett. Smith’s 176 yards plus Pickett’s 16 yards equal the team’s 192 passing yards, which reconciles correctly.
Likewise, the Giants’ three leading rushers combine for 155 yards, matching the team rushing total.
There is, however, a discrepancy in the supplied defensive-touchdown figure. It lists two Giants defensive touchdowns, but the scoring details independently establish a 95-yard kickoff return touchdown and do not identify two separate defensive touchdowns. The kickoff return is a special-teams score, not automatically a defensive touchdown. Without a verified scoring play-by-play, the two defensive touchdowns should not be treated as independently confirmed.
For publication-quality reporting, the official play-by-play and box score should be used to resolve that field before presenting a definitive defensive-touchdown total.
This distinction matters because accurate sports analysis depends on separating verified results from data fields that may be mislabeled or inconsistent.
Key Takeaways From the Player Statistics
The most meaningful findings from the game can be summarized in six points:
- Jaxson Dart delivered the more efficient overall quarterback performance. He completed 73.3% of his passes, threw no interceptions, and added two rushing touchdowns.
- Tyrone Tracy Jr. led the Giants in rushing yards. His 62 yards helped New York establish a productive ground game.
- Wan’Dale Robinson was the Giants’ leading receiver. He caught 11 passes for 113 yards and provided Dart with a consistent target.
- Michael Mayer led the Raiders’ receiving group. His nine receptions and 89 yards were the team’s leading individual receiving figures.
- The Giants’ defense created more disruption. New York recorded two interceptions, four sacks, and nine tackles for loss.
- Deonte Banks supplied a major special-teams contribution. His 95-yard kickoff return touchdown added an explosive scoring play to the Giants’ victory.
These findings explain why the final result cannot be understood through passing yards alone. The Giants won across several complementary areas, particularly rushing efficiency, turnover production, and special teams.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the New York Giants vs Las Vegas Raiders game?
The New York Giants defeated the Las Vegas Raiders 34-10 on December 29, 2025. New York scored in all four quarters, while Las Vegas was held scoreless in the first and fourth quarters.
2. How many passing yards did Jaxson Dart record against the Raiders?
Jaxson Dart completed 22 of 30 passes for 207 yards, with no passing touchdowns and no interceptions. He also rushed nine times for 48 yards and two touchdowns.
3. Who led the Giants in rushing against the Raiders?
Tyrone Tracy Jr. led the Giants with 62 rushing yards on 14 carries, averaging 4.4 yards per carry. Devin Singletary added 45 yards and one rushing touchdown, while Dart scored twice on the ground.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the Giants vs Raiders game?
Wan’Dale Robinson led the Giants with 11 receptions for 113 yards on 14 targets. For Las Vegas, Michael Mayer led the receiving group with nine catches for 89 yards on 10 targets.
5. How many interceptions did the Giants record against the Raiders?
The Giants recorded two interceptions. Bobby Okereke returned one for 47 yards, and Dane Belton returned the other for eight yards. Geno Smith was responsible for the two interceptions thrown by Las Vegas in the supplied statistics.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the Giants and Raiders?
The biggest difference in offensive yardage was rushing production. New York gained 155 rushing yards, compared with 63 for Las Vegas, a 92-yard advantage. The Giants also scored three rushing touchdowns and recorded two interceptions on defense.
Conclusion
The New York Giants’ 34-10 victory over the Las Vegas Raiders was defined by a combination of rushing production, quarterback efficiency, defensive takeaways, and special-teams execution. The Giants recorded 155 rushing yards, scored three rushing touchdowns, and gained a substantial advantage in disruptive defensive plays.
Jaxson Dart completed 22 of 30 passes without throwing an interception and added two rushing touchdowns. Tyrone Tracy Jr. led the Giants in rushing yards, while Wan’Dale Robinson delivered the strongest receiving performance with 113 yards. Deonte Banks also made a major contribution with his 95-yard kickoff return touchdown.
For Las Vegas, Michael Mayer led the receiving group, and Geno Smith threw the team’s only passing touchdown. However, the Raiders’ limited rushing production, two interceptions thrown, and inability to match New York’s scoring output proved costly.
The central lesson from these statistics is that individual passing numbers tell only part of the story. New York’s advantage came from combining an effective ground game with reliable ball security, defensive pressure, and an explosive special-teams play. Examining all these categories together provides a more accurate explanation of the result than focusing on any single player or statistic.
