Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats from the August 29, 2026, NFL preseason game reveal an exciting 42-38 victory for Green Bay, with standout passing performances, explosive receiving plays, and a decisive special teams touchdown. Green Bay finished with four passing touchdowns through quarterback Kyle McCord, while Arizona combined an effective rushing attack with big plays from its receiving group. The game also featured two interceptions by the Packers’ defense and an 81-yard punt return touchdown by Will Sheppard, making special teams one of the biggest differences on the scoreboard.
The final score tells only part of the story. Arizona produced more total passing and rushing yardage combined, but Green Bay converted its passing opportunities into touchdowns more efficiently. Evan Hull delivered a powerful performance on the ground for the Cardinals, and Simi Fehoko stretched the field with two touchdown receptions. On the other side, McCord connected with multiple receivers to produce four passing scores without throwing an interception.
This breakdown examines the individual player statistics, team totals, quarter-by-quarter scoring, defensive contributions, and special teams performances that shaped the contest. It also explains what the numbers suggest about offensive efficiency, turnover impact, and the challenges of evaluating preseason performances.
Data note: The statistics below are based on the supplied ESPN box score data for the August 29, 2026, preseason game. Individual figures are distinguished from team totals, and preseason results should not automatically be treated as predictions of regular-season performance.
Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Packers won 42-38 in a high-scoring preseason contest. Arizona stayed competitive through its passing and rushing production, but Green Bay found more ways to turn its possessions into touchdowns.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals |
| Date | August 29, 2026 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Final score | Packers 42, Cardinals 38 |
| Winning team | Green Bay Packers |
| Losing team | Arizona Cardinals |
| ESPN game ID | 401874102 |
Green Bay’s victory was built around four passing touchdowns, a productive receiving group, and an explosive punt return. Arizona’s offense was productive in both phases of its attack, but two interceptions thrown by Kedon Slovis gave the Packers additional opportunities to control the contest.
The most important statistical distinction is that total yardage and scoring efficiency are not the same thing. Arizona recorded 515 combined passing and rushing yards according to the supplied team totals, while Green Bay recorded 309. However, Green Bay scored four passing touchdowns and received another touchdown from its punt return unit.
That contrast helps explain how a team can accumulate fewer yards yet still win a game.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern shows how quickly the game changed direction. Green Bay built a second-quarter advantage, Arizona responded with 11 points in the third quarter, and the Packers produced an 18-point fourth quarter to secure the win.
| Quarter | Arizona Cardinals | Green Bay Packers |
| First quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 17 | 21 |
| Third quarter | 11 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 18 |
| Final score | 38 | 42 |
First Quarter: Both Teams Establish Their Rhythm
Arizona opened the scoring with a 35-yard field goal by Chad Ryland. Green Bay answered with a field goal of its own, leaving the teams tied at 3-3.
The opening quarter was relatively controlled compared with the offensive explosion that followed. Both teams demonstrated an ability to move the ball into scoring range, but neither finished a possession with a touchdown during this period.
Second Quarter: Offensive Production Accelerates
The second quarter produced 38 combined points. Arizona scored 17, while Green Bay scored 21.
Gardner Minshew II connected with Simi Fehoko for a 41-yard touchdown. Evan Hull added a 47-yard rushing touchdown, showing how Arizona could score through both its passing and running games.
Green Bay responded with a 29-yard touchdown pass from Kyle McCord to J. Michael Sturdivant and a 12-yard touchdown pass to Will Sheppard. Sheppard then added another major contribution with an 81-yard punt return touchdown.
The punt return was particularly important because it generated seven points without requiring the offense to move the ball downfield. In a close game, that type of special teams production can change the result.
Third Quarter: Arizona Takes the Lead
Green Bay did not score in the third quarter, while Arizona added 11 points. Ryland converted a 27-yard field goal, and Hull scored another rushing touchdown from one yard out before Arizona converted a two-point attempt.
That sequence gave the Cardinals a 31-24 advantage entering the final quarter. Hull’s second touchdown confirmed that Arizona’s ground attack remained productive even when the Packers had difficulty sustaining their offense.
Fourth Quarter: Green Bay Produces the Decisive Response
The final quarter was the defining period of the game.
Green Bay began with a 37-yard field goal by Trey Smack. Arizona then extended its lead to 38-27 when Slovis connected with Fehoko for a nine-yard touchdown.
McCord answered with a 28-yard touchdown pass to Kisean Johnson, followed by a successful two-point conversion. Green Bay later took the lead for good with another McCord-to-Johnson touchdown, this time covering 10 yards, with 20 seconds remaining.
The final sequence illustrated the value of finishing drives. Green Bay did not need to dominate every quarter. It needed to capitalize on its late opportunities.
Green Bay Packers Passing Stats
The passing game was Green Bay’s most productive offensive scoring unit. Kyle McCord completed 22 of 35 passes for 226 yards and four touchdowns, with no interceptions in the supplied statistics.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TDs | INTs | Passer rating |
| Kyle McCord | 22/35 | 226 | 4 | 0 | 119.5 |
Kyle McCord’s Four-Touchdown Performance
McCord’s most impressive statistic was his four touchdown passes. He completed 62.9% of his attempts and averaged approximately 6.5 yards per attempt.
The absence of interceptions is equally relevant. A quarterback can produce impressive yardage but undermine the offense by giving away possessions. McCord avoided that problem while directing an attack that scored repeatedly through the air.
Three aspects of his performance stand out:
- Touchdown production: Four passing scores accounted for a substantial share of Green Bay’s points.
- Ball security: He threw no interceptions, helping the offense avoid a major source of lost possessions.
- Late-game execution: His two fourth-quarter touchdown passes helped turn a seven-point deficit into a four-point victory.
However, the performance needs context. This was a preseason game, and the statistics alone do not establish how McCord would perform against a regular-season starting defense. They do show that he made effective use of his opportunities in this contest.
Green Bay’s Passing Efficiency
Green Bay completed 22 of 35 passes for 226 yards and four touchdowns, according to the supplied team passing figures. The team averaged 10.3 yards per completion.
That average suggests the Packers gained meaningful yardage when completing passes. It does not mean every pass was explosive, but the touchdowns to Sturdivant and Johnson show that the offense converted several opportunities into substantial scoring gains.
The contrast between 226 passing yards and four passing touchdowns is especially important. Touchdown totals measure finishing ability, while yardage measures the volume of progress made through the air. Both matter, but they answer different questions.
Arizona Cardinals Passing Stats
Arizona used two quarterbacks in the game. Kedon Slovis handled most of the passing attempts, while Gardner Minshew II was more efficient by completion percentage and produced a touchdown without an interception.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TDs | INTs | Passer rating |
| Kedon Slovis | 21/35 | 223 | 1 | 2 | 64.3 |
| Gardner Minshew II | 7/9 | 126 | 1 | 0 | 155.8 |
| Team total | 28/44 | 326 | 2 | 2 | 84.4 |
The team passing yardage above follows the supplied data. Receiving yardage and passing yardage can differ across box-score summaries because of how individual statistics and team totals are presented. Check the official box score for any stat-by-stat reconciliation.
Kedon Slovis: Yardage Without Consistent Ball Security
Slovis completed 21 of 35 attempts for 223 yards and one touchdown. He also threw two interceptions, which were significant setbacks for the Cardinals.
His completion rate was 60%, and his average gain was approximately 6.4 yards per attempt. Those figures indicate that he moved the ball through the air, but the turnovers reduced the overall value of his passing production.
The main lessons from his performance are:
- Passing yardage does not erase the cost of interceptions.
- A quarterback’s decision-making must be evaluated alongside completion percentage.
- Turnovers can affect the opponent’s scoring chances even when the passing offense generates productive drives.
Slovis did connect with Fehoko for a fourth-quarter touchdown, showing that he could still produce a scoring play late in the game. The two interceptions, however, remain an important part of the statistical picture.
Gardner Minshew II: Efficient Production in Limited Attempts
Minshew completed seven of nine passes for 126 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. His completion rate was 77.8%, and he averaged 14 yards per attempt.
That average is notably higher than Slovis’s. It suggests that Minshew generated more yardage per attempt in his smaller sample, including the 41-yard touchdown pass to Fehoko.
The sample size matters. Nine attempts are not enough to make a broad conclusion about a quarterback’s overall ability or consistency. Still, Minshew’s performance was productive within the opportunities recorded.
Comparing the Two Quarterbacks
Slovis attempted nearly four times as many passes as Minshew and accumulated more total passing yards. Minshew, however, generated 126 yards on just nine attempts.
This is a useful example of why individual football statistics should be interpreted together. Attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns, interceptions, and game situation all contribute to a fair assessment.
Green Bay Packers Rushing Stats
Green Bay’s rushing attack contributed 83 yards on 17 carries, averaging 4.9 yards per attempt. No Packers running back recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied figures.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs |
| Jaden Nixon | 9 | 44 | 4.9 | 0 |
| Damien Martinez | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 4 | 12 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Kyle McCord | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 17 | 83 | 4.9 | 0 |
Jaden Nixon Leads the Packers on the Ground
Nixon led Green Bay with 44 rushing yards on nine attempts. His 4.9-yard average was solid, providing a useful contribution without requiring a high volume of carries.
His performance also complemented the passing game. A running attack does not need to produce a touchdown on every possession to be useful. It can help maintain balance, keep defenses attentive to multiple threats, and give the offense options on different downs.
Damien Martinez Adds Efficient Runs
Martinez gained 23 yards on three carries, averaging 7.7 yards per attempt. Although his total workload was small, he produced the highest average among Green Bay’s listed rushers.
He also recorded a fumble that was lost, according to the supplied data. That turnover is an important counterpoint to his rushing efficiency. A productive run can help a team, but protecting the ball remains essential.
What Green Bay’s Rushing Numbers Reveal
Green Bay did not rely on a dominant ground game to win. Its 83 rushing yards were well below Arizona’s 166, and the Packers’ scoring advantage came primarily through passing touchdowns and special teams.
The takeaway is not that rushing was unimportant. Rather, the Packers found other ways to score when the ground game was not their primary source of production.
Arizona Cardinals Rushing Stats
Arizona’s rushing performance was one of the strongest individual and team-level features of the contest. The Cardinals recorded 166 rushing yards on 32 attempts, averaging 5.2 yards per carry and scoring twice on the ground.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs |
| Evan Hull | 16 | 107 | 6.7 | 2 |
| Corey Kiner | 5 | 35 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Kedon Slovis | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Tre Stewart | 9 | 12 | 1.3 | 0 |
| Team total | 32 | 166 | 5.2 | 2 |
Evan Hull: Arizona’s Leading Rusher
Hull finished with 107 rushing yards on 16 carries, averaging 6.7 yards per attempt. He scored two rushing touchdowns, including an explosive 47-yard run and a one-yard scoring carry.
His performance combined volume, efficiency, and red-zone production. Hull was not simply collecting yards between the 20-yard lines. He also finished drives by crossing the goal line.
The 47-yard touchdown demonstrated his ability to turn a running opportunity into a major gain. The one-yard touchdown showed a different skill: finishing a short-yardage situation.
These two types of production matter because running backs are often evaluated on more than their total yardage. Long gains demonstrate explosiveness, while short-yardage touchdowns show whether a player can complete a drive when space is limited.
Corey Kiner Provides Additional Ground Production
Kiner gained 35 yards on five carries, averaging seven yards per attempt. Although his workload was smaller than Hull’s, his average indicates that he made productive use of his opportunities.
A secondary runner can provide value by giving the lead back a break, maintaining offensive rhythm, or producing gains when the defense is focused on another player.
Team Rushing Comparison
Arizona carried the ball 15 more times than Green Bay and gained 83 more rushing yards. The Cardinals also scored two rushing touchdowns, while Green Bay recorded none in the supplied statistics.
This advantage helped Arizona remain competitive throughout the game. Yet rushing success alone was not enough to secure the win. The Green Bay’s passing touchdowns and special teams score provided a more direct path to the final 42 points.
Green Bay Packers Receiving Stats
Green Bay’s receiving group played a central role in the victory. J. Michael Sturdivant led the team in receiving yards, while Kisean Johnson led in touchdown receptions among the listed players.
| Receiver | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| J. Michael Sturdivant | 6 | 112 | 18.7 | 1 |
| Kisean Johnson | 4 | 52 | 13.0 | 2 |
| Will Sheppard | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 1 |
| Isaiah Neyor | 3 | 19 | 6.3 | 0 |
| Kaden Prather | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 0 |
| Drake Dabney | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 22 | 226 | 10.3 | 4 |
J. Michael Sturdivant Leads in Receiving Yards
Sturdivant recorded six receptions for 112 yards and one touchdown. His average of 18.7 yards per catch shows how much ground he gained whenever he secured a pass.
He was Green Bay’s leading receiver by yardage, finishing with 60 more yards than Johnson. His 29-yard touchdown reception from McCord also helped the Packers answer Arizona’s early second-quarter scoring.
Sturdivant’s performance illustrates the value of a receiver who can make substantial gains on a relatively small number of catches. Six receptions were enough to produce more than 100 yards, giving the passing offense a major source of explosive production.
Kisean Johnson Delivers in the Fourth Quarter
Johnson caught four passes for 52 yards and two touchdowns. Both scores came in the fourth quarter, when Green Bay needed to overcome Arizona’s lead.
His first touchdown was a 28-yard reception, followed by a successful two-point conversion. His second was a 10-yard touchdown catch with 20 seconds remaining.
These scores were more important than their combined yardage alone suggests. They directly changed the scoreboard at the point when the game was most competitive.
Johnson’s performance also highlights a useful distinction in receiver analysis. A player can lead in yards without leading in touchdowns. Sturdivant was Green Bay’s yardage leader, but Johnson made the most decisive scoring contributions late in the game.
Will Sheppard Contributes Through the Air
Sheppard recorded three receptions for 26 yards and one receiving touchdown. His 12-yard touchdown catch came during the second quarter.
His receiving statistics represent only part of his contribution, however. Sheppard also returned a punt 81 yards for a touchdown, making him one of the game’s most influential special teams players.
For player evaluation, this distinction matters. A receiver’s offensive statistics do not necessarily reflect his complete value when he also contributes on special teams.
Arizona Cardinals Receiving Stats
Arizona produced a strong receiving performance, recording 28 receptions and 349 receiving yards in the supplied statistics. Fehoko led in both receiving touchdowns and receiving yards, while Rivaldo Fairweather contributed the highest reception total.
| Receiver | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Simi Fehoko | 5 | 94 | 18.8 | 2 |
| Rivaldo Fairweather | 8 | 89 | 11.1 | 0 |
| Jalen Brooks | 4 | 57 | 14.3 | 0 |
| Ihmir Smith-Marsette | 2 | 41 | 20.5 | 0 |
| Reggie Virgil | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 0 |
| Elijah Higgins | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 0 |
| Evan Hull | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Harrison Wallace III | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 |
| Tre Stewart | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 28 | 349 | 12.5 | 2 |
Simi Fehoko Produces Two Touchdowns
Fehoko finished with five catches for 94 yards and two touchdowns. His 18.8-yard average per reception indicates that his catches produced substantial gains.
Both touchdowns were significant. Minshew found him for a 41-yard score in the second quarter, while Slovis connected with him for a nine-yard touchdown in the fourth.
The two scores also show that Fehoko produced with both quarterbacks. His ability to contribute to different passing combinations was an important part of Arizona’s offense.
However, two touchdowns in one preseason game should not automatically be interpreted as proof of long-term performance. They provide a useful snapshot of what happened on this particular day.
Rivaldo Fairweather Provides a Reliable Target
Fairweather caught eight passes for 89 yards. He led Arizona in receptions and averaged 11.1 yards per catch.
His production suggests a different role from Fehoko’s. Rather than relying on a small number of highly explosive catches, Fairweather accumulated yards through a larger volume of receptions.
That distinction can be useful when assessing a passing offense. One receiver may generate big plays, while another helps sustain drives by making repeated catches.
Jalen Brooks and Ihmir Smith-Marsette Add Depth
Brooks recorded four receptions for 57 yards, averaging 14.3 yards per catch. Smith-Marsette added two receptions for 41 yards, averaging 20.5 yards per catch.
Both players contributed meaningful gains, helping Arizona spread its passing production across multiple targets.
A receiving group becomes harder to defend when several players can contribute. Nevertheless, the number of targets, defensive coverage, route assignments, and game situation would be needed to determine each player’s precise role.
What the Receiving Comparison Shows
Green Bay recorded 226 receiving yards in the supplied team statistics and four receiving touchdowns. Arizona’s receiving figures list 349 yards and two touchdowns.
The difference is revealing: Arizona generated more receiving yardage, but Green Bay produced more passing scores. This is another reason to avoid judging a game solely by yardage totals.
Touchdowns, interceptions, field position, and the timing of scoring plays all affect the result. Green Bay’s receivers converted their opportunities into more passing touchdowns, especially during the decisive fourth quarter.
Defensive Player Stats and Key Contributors
Defense shaped the contest in ways that a final score cannot fully explain. Arizona generated three sacks, while Green Bay also recorded three sacks and added two interceptions according to the supplied defensive statistics.
| Defensive category | Arizona Cardinals | Green Bay Packers |
| Total tackles | 47 | 84 |
| Solo tackles | 36 | 48 |
| Sacks | 3 | 3 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 9 |
| Quarterback hits | 6 | 10 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
Defensive tackle totals can vary between individual and team summaries depending on how assisted tackles and other plays are counted. The figures above reproduce the supplied data.
Nyjalik Kelly Leads Green Bay’s Listed Defensive Contributors
Kelly recorded six total tackles, five solo tackles, one sack, three tackles for loss, one pass defended, and two quarterback hits.
His three tackles for loss are particularly noteworthy. They show that his production extended beyond completing tackles after ordinary gains. Plays behind the line of scrimmage can disrupt offensive timing, force longer down-and-distance situations, and reduce the likelihood of sustaining a drive.
Kelly’s pass defense and quarterback hits also demonstrate involvement in more than one defensive phase. His performance was one of Green Bay’s most notable individual defensive contributions.
BJ Ojulari Makes an Impact for Arizona
Ojulari finished with four total tackles, two quarterback hits, one tackle for loss, and 1.5 sacks.
The sack total indicates that he helped pressure the opposing quarterback, even though Arizona ultimately conceded 42 points. Defensive pressure can be productive without immediately leading to a turnover, but it needs to be combined with sound coverage and successful stops to limit scoring.
The supplied statistics show that Ojulari was an important individual contributor, but they do not provide enough information to assess every defensive assignment or coverage responsibility.
Green Bay’s Interceptions Change the Statistical Picture
The supplied figures credit Green Bay’s defense with two interceptions: one by Arron Mosby, who returned the ball two yards, and one by Kelly, with no return yardage.
Slovis threw both interceptions. Those turnovers are important because they can end promising offensive possessions and give the opposing team opportunities to score.
Green Bay’s defense did not prevent Arizona from gaining yardage. Instead, it produced several disruptive plays, including interceptions, sacks, and tackles for loss.
That is an important distinction. A defense can allow substantial yardage while still creating game-changing moments. Conversely, a team can limit yards but struggle to prevent touchdowns. Both types of evidence are needed to assess defensive performance fairly.
Why Defensive Totals Need Context
Green Bay’s supplied total of 84 tackles is substantially higher than Arizona’s 47. That difference should not automatically be interpreted as proof that Green Bay’s defenders performed better.
Tackles can accumulate because a defense faces more plays, spends more time on the field, or allows more completed passes and rushing attempts. Arizona’s offense also held the ball for a long period, according to the game’s published team statistics, so defensive workload is an important consideration.
A stronger assessment would combine tackles with defensive snaps, missed tackles, yards allowed per play, pressure rate, coverage performance, and turnovers.
Special Teams Stats: Will Sheppard’s 81-Yard Punt Return
Special teams provided one of the clearest differences between the teams. Sheppard returned a punt 81 yards for a touchdown, giving Green Bay seven points without requiring its offense to run a scoring drive.
| Special teams category | Arizona Cardinals | Green Bay Packers |
| Leading kicker | Chad Ryland | Trey Smack |
| Field goals | 3/3 | 2/2 |
| Extra points | 3/3 | 4/4 |
| Kicking points | 12 | 10 |
| Punting average | 46.0 yards | 51.0 yards |
| Punt returns | 4 for 17 yards | 2 for 81 yards |
| Punt return touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
Will Sheppard’s Punt Return Touchdown
The 81-yard return was a major scoring play. It gave Green Bay a touchdown in a game that finished with a four-point margin.
The value of a punt return touchdown extends beyond the points scored. It also avoids the need for the offense to gain first downs and navigate the field. A single return can therefore produce a large change in the scoreboard without using an offensive possession in the usual way.
Sheppard’s performance is an excellent reminder that player statistics should be considered across all phases of the game. His receiving line was modest compared with Sturdivant’s, but his special teams contribution was one of the game’s biggest plays.
Kicker Comparison
Ryland converted all three field goals and all three extra points, finishing with 12 kicking points. Smack converted both field goals and all four extra points, finishing with 10 kicking points.
Both kickers were perfect on their recorded attempts. Ryland’s three field goals helped Arizona maintain scoring pressure, while Smack contributed to Green Bay’s final total through two field goals and four successful extra points.
Punting and Return Production
Jack Browning averaged 46 yards on three punts for Arizona. Daniel Whelan averaged 51 yards on four punts for Green Bay.
The Packers’ listed punt return average was 40.5 yards, driven by Sheppard’s long touchdown return. Arizona averaged 4.3 yards per punt return across four returns.
These averages should be interpreted carefully because one extraordinary return can dramatically increase a team’s average. Green Bay’s 81-yard touchdown is precisely the type of play that makes the aggregate figure look much higher than a typical return.
Team Statistics Comparison
The broader team figures help explain why the game ended 42-38 even though Arizona generated more yardage.
| Statistical category | Arizona Cardinals | Green Bay Packers |
| Final score | 38 | 42 |
| Passing yards | 326 | 226 |
| Rushing yards | 166 | 83 |
| Combined passing and rushing yards | 492 | 309 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 4 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 3 | 3 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Kicking points | 12 | 10 |
Important data clarification: The supplied passing and receiving summaries contain different yardage totals, and publicly indexed game summaries may report passing yards differently from receiving yards. The combined 492 and 309 figures above are calculated from the supplied passing and rushing totals. For publication, use one consistent official box-score view if exact reconciliation of every team total is required.
Arizona’s Yardage Advantage
Arizona’s listed passing and rushing totals add up to 492 yards, compared with 309 for Green Bay. The Cardinals also had 166 rushing yards, twice Green Bay’s 83.
That level of production normally gives a team plenty of opportunities to score. Arizona also converted its rushing opportunities into two touchdowns and received two passing touchdowns from its quarterbacks.
However, yardage measures progress rather than the exact number of points generated from that progress. Drives can end with field goals, turnovers, failed conversions, or punts. A team can also concede field position through a special teams mistake.
Green Bay’s Scoring Advantage
Green Bay’s four passing touchdowns and Sheppard’s punt return touchdown were decisive. The passing scores came from McCord, while the return touchdown added a score outside the traditional offensive categories.
The Packers also avoided interceptions in the supplied quarterback figures. Arizona’s two interceptions created a clear difference in ball security.
The final result therefore reflects several factors working together: passing touchdown production, special teams execution, and defensive turnovers. No single yardage total fully explains the outcome.
Key Takeaways From the Match Player Statistics
The game offers several useful lessons for anyone comparing individual NFL performances.
1. Touchdown Production Can Matter More Than Raw Yardage
Arizona generated substantially more combined passing and rushing yardage in the supplied figures, yet Green Bay scored four passing touchdowns and won the game.
This does not mean yardage is unimportant. It means yardage must be evaluated alongside how often an offense turns its gains into points.
2. Turnovers Can Offset Offensive Success
Slovis recorded 223 passing yards and a touchdown, but his two interceptions were a major negative. McCord’s 226 yards and four touchdowns came without an interception.
The passing yardage totals were close, but the scoring and turnover outcomes were not. Looking at several categories together produces a more complete assessment than comparing passing yards alone.
3. Explosive Plays Can Change a Close Game
Hull’s 47-yard rushing touchdown, Fehoko’s 41-yard touchdown reception, Sturdivant’s 29-yard scoring catch, and Sheppard’s 81-yard punt return were all major plays.
Explosive plays can produce points quickly and reduce the number of successful plays needed to reach the end zone. However, one or two long gains do not necessarily prove that an offense was consistent throughout the game.
4. Different Players Can Lead Different Statistical Categories
There was no single player who led every category.
- McCord led Green Bay’s passing production and touchdown passes.
- Sturdivant led the Packers in receiving yards.
- Johnson led Green Bay in receiving touchdowns.
- Hull led Arizona in rushing yards and rushing touchdowns.
- Fehoko led the Cardinals in receiving touchdowns.
- Sheppard made the standout special teams contribution.
- Kelly and Ojulari were notable defensive performers.
This is why a complete box score is more useful than a simple list of the game’s top yardage leaders.
5. Preseason Statistics Need a Different Interpretation
Preseason games help coaches assess players, test combinations, and evaluate performance in game conditions. They do not necessarily provide a reliable forecast of regular-season output.
Player roles, opponent personnel, playing time, and the level of competition can all differ. A receiver who produces a touchdown in a preseason game may not receive the same number of targets in the regular season.
The best approach is to use these numbers as evidence of what happened in this game, not as a guarantee of future performance.
How to Read NFL Match Player Stats Correctly
For readers comparing individual performances, the following method provides a useful starting point.
Step 1: Start With the Final Score and Scoring Summary
The final score establishes the result, while the quarter-by-quarter breakdown shows when each team gained or lost momentum.
In this matchup, the most important sequence was Green Bay’s 18-point fourth quarter after Arizona had taken a 31-24 lead.
Step 2: Compare Quarterback Production
Review completions, attempts, passing yards, touchdowns, interceptions, and passer rating.
Do not treat one category as a complete measure of quarterback performance. McCord’s four touchdowns and zero interceptions provide a different picture from a comparison based only on total yards.
Step 3: Evaluate Rushing and Receiving Separately
Rushing statistics show how effectively a team gained ground on designed running plays and quarterback runs. Receiving statistics show how targets were converted into catches, yardage, and touchdowns.
For this game, Hull’s rushing production and Sturdivant’s receiving production demonstrate two different ways players can influence a result.
Step 4: Include Defensive and Special Teams Contributions
Interceptions, sacks, tackles for loss, field goals, punts, and returns help explain outcomes that offensive statistics cannot fully capture.
Sheppard’s punt return touchdown is the clearest example. Ignoring special teams would leave out one of the Packers’ most important scoring plays.
Step 5: Consider Playing Time and Game Context
Preseason player evaluation requires information about snaps, opposition, assignments, and the circumstances in which statistics were recorded.
A player with fewer attempts may have been efficient, but a small sample can exaggerate that efficiency. A player with many tackles may have been highly active, but the total alone does not show whether the defense consistently stopped the offense.
Step 6: Verify Figures Before Publishing
For a sports article, the final score, player totals, and team totals should come from a consistent source. When different summaries disagree, avoid combining figures without checking their definitions.
The ESPN box score for the Packers vs Cardinals game is the relevant reference for checking the recorded statistics.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals game?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Arizona Cardinals 42-38 in the preseason matchup played on August 29, 2026.
2. How many touchdowns did Kyle McCord throw?
Kyle McCord threw four touchdown passes for Green Bay. He completed 22 of 35 attempts for 226 yards and recorded no interceptions in the supplied statistics.
3. Who led the Cardinals in rushing yards?
Evan Hull led Arizona with 107 rushing yards on 16 carries. He averaged 6.7 yards per carry and scored two rushing touchdowns.
4. Who was Green Bay’s leading receiver?
- Michael Sturdivant led Green Bay with six receptions for 112 yards and one touchdown. His average was 18.7 yards per reception.
5. Which player recorded the longest punt return touchdown?
Will Sheppard recorded an 81-yard punt return touchdown for Green Bay. The return was one of the game’s most important special teams plays.
6. Why did Green Bay win despite Arizona’s yardage advantage?
Green Bay scored four passing touchdowns, avoided interceptions in the supplied quarterback statistics, and added an 81-yard punt return touchdown. Arizona produced more yardage but threw two interceptions, and the Packers were more productive in key scoring situations.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Arizona Cardinals 42-38 in a preseason game defined by explosive plays, productive offensive performances, and a dramatic fourth quarter. Kyle McCord’s four touchdown passes gave Green Bay a major advantage through the air, while J. Michael Sturdivant and Kisean Johnson delivered important receiving contributions.
Arizona also produced several outstanding individual performances. Evan Hull rushed for 107 yards and two touchdowns, while Simi Fehoko caught five passes for 94 yards and two scores. Gardner Minshew II added an efficient passing performance, and Rivaldo Fairweather provided a consistent receiving target.
The Packers’ 81-yard punt return touchdown by Will Sheppard was another decisive moment. Combined with the defensive interceptions and McCord’s ball security, it helped Green Bay overcome Arizona’s substantial yardage advantage.
Ultimately, the Green Bay Packers vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats demonstrate why a complete game analysis must consider more than total yards. Touchdowns, turnovers, explosive plays, defensive pressure, and special teams all contributed to the final result. Because the contest was played during the preseason, its statistics are best understood as a record of individual and team performance on that day rather than a guarantee of future results.
