Dallas Cowboys vs Detroit Lions Match Player Stats
The dallas cowboys vs detroit lions match player stats tell the story of a high-scoring game in which Detroit converted its opportunities more efficiently and finished with a 44-30 victory. Dallas produced 376 passing yards through Dak Prescott, while Detroit answered with 309 passing yards from Jared Goff and a much more productive rushing attack. The game also featured five Dallas sacks allowed, two interceptions, four Detroit rushing touchdowns, and several major receiving performances.
For readers studying the box score, this matchup is more interesting than the final score alone suggests. Dallas moved the football through the air and had multiple receivers produce significant yardage. Detroit, however, combined efficient quarterback play with explosive rushing efficiency and stronger defensive pressure. Those differences shaped the game.
One data note is important before getting into the numbers. The supplied dataset identifies the matchup as December 5, 2025, while the official NFL game summary lists the game as December 4, 2025. The statistical figures used throughout this article follow the supplied player-stat dataset.
Dallas Cowboys vs Detroit Lions match player stats: game overview
Detroit defeated Dallas 44-30, scoring 10 points in the first quarter, 10 in the second, 7 in the third, and 17 in the fourth. Dallas scored 3, 6, 10, and 11 points across the four quarters.
| Category | Dallas Cowboys | Detroit Lions |
| Final score | 30 | 44 |
| Passing yards | 376 | 309 |
| Rushing yards | 91 | 109 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 4 |
| Interceptions thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks allowed | 5 | 1 |
| Team tackles | 74 | 77 |
| Defensive sacks | 1 | 5 |
| Defensive interceptions | 0 | 2 |
| Field goals | 5/5 | 3/4 |
The first major takeaway is the difference between passing production and overall offensive efficiency.
Dallas actually gained more passing yards. Dak Prescott threw for 376 yards, compared with 309 for Jared Goff. Dallas also averaged 12.1 yards per reception as a team. Yet the Cowboys scored 14 fewer points.
Detroit’s advantage came from its ability to turn offensive possessions into touchdowns. The Lions rushed for 109 yards and four touchdowns. Dallas rushed for 91 yards and one touchdown.
That five-to-one difference in rushing touchdowns is one of the clearest statistical explanations for the final score.
Dak Prescott passing performance
Dak Prescott delivered a high-volume passing performance. He completed 31 of 47 attempts for 376 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions.
His completion percentage was approximately 66.0 percent, calculated from 31 completions on 47 attempts. His average gain was listed at 8.0 yards per attempt, while his passer rating was 79.7.
| Dak Prescott statistic | Result |
| Completions | 31 |
| Attempts | 47 |
| Completion rate | 66.0% |
| Passing yards | 376 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.0 |
| Passing TDs | 1 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks | 5 |
| Sack yards | 50 |
| QBR | 52.5 |
| Passer rating | 79.7 |
The yardage total stands out. A quarterback can throw for more than 350 yards and still finish with an ordinary statistical line when turnovers and sacks offset the production.
That is what happened here.
Prescott averaged 8.0 yards per attempt, which indicates that Dallas was not simply relying on short throws to accumulate yardage. The Cowboys generated meaningful gains through the passing game, but two interceptions and five sacks created negative value at important points.
The five sacks also cost Dallas 50 yards. That means the raw passing total does not fully describe the pressure Dallas faced.
Another useful way to view the performance is through workload. Prescott attempted 47 passes, which accounted for the majority of Dallas’ offensive approach. With only 24 team rushing attempts, the Cowboys leaned heavily on the quarterback.
That approach produced volume but also exposed the offense to turnover and pressure risk.
Jared Goff passing performance
Jared Goff was more efficient by the primary passing measures in the supplied data.
He completed 25 of 34 attempts for 309 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. He was sacked only once for 10 yards.
| Jared Goff statistic | Result |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 34 |
| Completion rate | 73.5% |
| Passing yards | 309 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.1 |
| Passing TDs | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards | 10 |
| QBR | 42.5 |
| Passer rating | 111.0 |
Goff’s 9.1 yards per attempt exceeded Prescott’s 8.0. His passer rating of 111.0 was also substantially higher than Prescott’s 79.7.
The most important difference was turnover avoidance.
Goff did not throw an interception, while Prescott threw two. Detroit’s quarterback also absorbed only one sack compared with five for Dallas.
That combination allowed Detroit to preserve more of its offensive possessions.
It is worth noting that QBR and passer rating measure different aspects of quarterback performance, so they should not be treated as interchangeable statistics. In this dataset, Goff had the higher passer rating while Prescott had the higher listed QBR.
Dallas rushing production
Dallas recorded 24 rushing attempts for 91 yards, an average of 3.8 yards per carry, with one rushing touchdown.
Javonte Williams led the Cowboys in rushing.
| Dallas rusher | Carries | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| Javonte Williams | 17 | 67 | 3.9 | 11 | 1 |
| Dak Prescott | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 12 | 0 |
| Malik Davis | 3 | 6 | 2.0 | 3 | 0 |
| KaVontae Turpin | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Team | 24 | 91 | 3.8 | 12 | 1 |
Williams handled 17 of Dallas’ 24 rushing attempts, accounting for more than 70 percent of the team’s rushing attempts.
His 67 yards were important because Dallas needed balance against a Detroit defense that generated five sacks. However, 3.9 yards per carry did not provide the same explosive efficiency that Detroit received from its leading rushers.
Prescott added 14 rushing yards on three attempts. His 12-yard run was the longest Dallas rushing play listed in the data.
The Cowboys’ ground game was productive enough to prevent Detroit from completely ignoring the run, but it did not consistently generate the type of explosive plays that could change the game’s scoring pattern.
Detroit rushing production
The rushing statistics provide one of the clearest explanations for Detroit’s 44 points.
The Lions ran the ball 22 times for 109 yards, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. More importantly, they scored four rushing touchdowns.
| Detroit rusher | Carries | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| David Montgomery | 6 | 60 | 10.0 | 35 | 1 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 12 | 43 | 3.6 | 19 | 3 |
| Jameson Williams | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Malik Cunningham | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0 |
| Jared Goff | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | -1 | 0 |
| Team | 22 | 109 | 5.0 | 35 | 4 |
David Montgomery was particularly explosive. He averaged 10.0 yards per carry and produced a 35-yard run.
Jahmyr Gibbs provided a different type of value. He carried the ball 12 times and scored three rushing touchdowns. His 43 rushing yards were not as impressive on a per-carry basis as Montgomery’s, but the touchdown production was significant.
This is an important lesson when interpreting player statistics.
A player does not need to lead his team in yardage to have a major impact on the scoreboard. Gibbs’ three rushing touchdowns were directly connected to Detroit’s ability to finish drives.
Montgomery’s explosive 35-yard run and Gibbs’ three scores gave Detroit both big-play ability and red-zone production.
Dallas receiving statistics
The Dallas passing attack was productive despite the team’s loss.
CeeDee Lamb led the Cowboys with 121 receiving yards on six receptions. Ryan Flournoy followed with 115 yards and a touchdown on nine catches.
| Dallas receiver | Targets | Receptions | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| CeeDee Lamb | 8 | 6 | 121 | 20.2 | 37 | 0 |
| Ryan Flournoy | 13 | 9 | 115 | 12.8 | 42 | 1 |
| Jake Ferguson | 7 | 5 | 58 | 11.6 | 19 | 0 |
| George Pickens | 9 | 5 | 37 | 7.4 | 11 | 0 |
| KaVontae Turpin | 2 | 2 | 26 | 13.0 | 21 | 0 |
| Luke Schoonmaker | 2 | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 12 | 0 |
| Brevyn Spann-Ford | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Javonte Williams | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 5 | 0 |
| Jonathan Mingo | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
Lamb’s 121 yards came on only six receptions, producing a remarkable 20.2 yards per catch. His 37-yard reception was one of Dallas’ biggest passing plays.
Flournoy was heavily involved, receiving 13 targets. He converted those opportunities into nine receptions for 115 yards and one touchdown. His 42-yard reception was the longest Dallas completion listed in the dataset.
The target distribution shows that Dallas had more than one productive receiving option. Lamb and Flournoy combined for 236 receiving yards.
That accounts for nearly 63 percent of Prescott’s 376 passing yards.
Jake Ferguson also contributed 58 yards on five catches, giving Dallas a third receiver with at least 50 yards.
Detroit receiving statistics
Detroit’s receiving production was spread across several players.
Jameson Williams led the Lions with 96 receiving yards, while Amon-Ra St. Brown added 92. Jahmyr Gibbs contributed 77 receiving yards from the backfield.
| Detroit receiver | Targets | Receptions | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| Jameson Williams | 9 | 7 | 96 | 13.7 | 29 | 0 |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 9 | 6 | 92 | 15.3 | 37 | 0 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 7 | 7 | 77 | 11.0 | 26 | 0 |
| Isaac TeSlaa | 3 | 2 | 20 | 10.0 | 12 | 1 |
| David Montgomery | 1 | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 13 | 0 |
| Anthony Firkser | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Ross Dwelley | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
Williams, St. Brown, and Gibbs combined for 265 receiving yards.
That represents roughly 86 percent of Detroit’s 309 passing yards.
The most interesting part is Gibbs’ involvement. He contributed 43 rushing yards and three rushing touchdowns while also catching seven passes for 77 yards.
That gave him 120 combined rushing and receiving yards.
His production illustrates why looking only at rushing or receiving tables can miss the full influence of a player.
Amon-Ra St. Brown and Jameson Williams
The two Detroit wide receivers offered different forms of production.
Williams averaged 13.7 yards per reception and recorded 96 yards on seven catches. His longest reception went for 29 yards.
St. Brown caught six passes for 92 yards and averaged 15.3 yards per reception. His longest catch was 37 yards.
Together they produced 188 yards on 13 receptions.
That combination gave Detroit reliable intermediate and explosive receiving production without requiring either receiver to score a touchdown.
The absence of a receiving touchdown from both players is notable because Detroit still scored 44 points. It reinforces the importance of the rushing attack and the overall distribution of touchdowns.
Defensive player stats and pressure
The defensive numbers show a significant difference in pressure.
Dallas recorded 74 tackles, 31 solo tackles, four tackles for loss, one sack, one pass defended, and eight quarterback hits.
Detroit recorded 77 tackles, 53 solo tackles, six tackles for loss, five sacks, 11 passes defended, and 11 quarterback hits.
| Defensive category | Dallas | Detroit |
| Total tackles | 74 | 77 |
| Solo tackles | 31 | 53 |
| Sacks | 1 | 5 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 1 | 11 |
| QB hits | 8 | 11 |
| Defensive TDs | 0 | 0 |
The sack difference is particularly important.
Detroit generated five sacks compared with one from Dallas.
That four-sack advantage contributed directly to the difference in negative plays. Prescott lost 50 yards on five sacks, while Goff lost only 10 yards on one sack.
Detroit also recorded 11 passes defended compared with one for Dallas. The Lions intercepted Prescott twice.
Those numbers indicate that Detroit’s defense created more disruption in both the passing game and the secondary.
Turnovers and ball security
Turnovers were another important part of the statistical story.
Dallas committed three listed fumbles, losing one. Prescott and George Pickens each had a fumble that was not lost, while Jake Ferguson had one fumble that was lost.
Dallas also threw two interceptions.
Detroit recorded no team fumbles and threw no interceptions.
The Lions recorded two interceptions, with Derrick Barnes returning one for 23 yards and D.J. Reed recording the other with no return yardage.
That creates a four-interception differential between the teams in the passing game.
Dallas had two interceptions thrown and Detroit had none.
For an offense that already allowed five sacks, those interceptions made it harder for Dallas to convert its substantial yardage into points.
Special teams production
Special teams also deserve attention when examining the full box score.
KaVontae Turpin handled all seven Dallas kick returns, gaining 176 yards at an average of 25.1 yards per return. His longest return was 27 yards.
Detroit recorded 261 kick return yards on eight returns.
Jacob Saylors returned five kicks for 141 yards, averaging 28.2 yards. Tom Kennedy returned three for 120 yards, averaging an impressive 40.0 yards per return. His longest return was 42 yards.
Dallas did not record a team punt return, although Turpin was credited with one listed punt return for zero yards.
Detroit’s Tom Kennedy returned one punt for 21 yards.
The kicking numbers were also notable.
Brandon Aubrey was perfect on five field-goal attempts and added one extra point, finishing with 16 points.
Jake Bates made three of four field-goal attempts and converted all five extra-point attempts for 14 points.
Aubrey’s five field goals were especially important because Dallas needed to rely on field goals while Detroit was converting more of its scoring opportunities into touchdowns.
Why Dallas gained more passing yards but scored fewer points
This is arguably the most useful analytical question in the box score.
Dallas threw for 376 yards, 67 more than Detroit.
Yet Detroit scored 44 points compared with Dallas’ 30.
The answer lies in how those yards were converted.
Dallas:
- 376 passing yards
- 91 rushing yards
- 467 total yards before considering sack yardage
- 1 passing touchdown
- 1 rushing touchdown
- 2 interceptions
- 5 sacks allowed
Detroit:
- 309 passing yards
- 109 rushing yards
- 418 offensive yards before considering sack yardage
- 1 passing touchdown
- 4 rushing touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 1 sack allowed
The basic yardage totals favor Dallas, but the scoring efficiency favors Detroit.
The Lions produced four rushing touchdowns. Dallas produced only one.
Detroit also avoided interceptions and allowed only one sack.
That combination helped Detroit turn fewer total offensive yards into more points.
This is why box-score analysis should not stop at total yards.
Total yardage measures how much ground an offense covered. It does not fully measure how efficiently those yards were turned into scoring opportunities.
The importance of third-level efficiency
Another useful way to interpret the game is to separate explosive plays from drive finishing.
Dallas had several explosive passing plays. Lamb recorded a 37-yard catch and Flournoy had a 42-yard reception.
Detroit also generated explosive plays through both phases. Montgomery had a 35-yard run, St. Brown had a 37-yard reception, and multiple Lions players produced gains of at least 20 yards.
The difference was that Detroit paired those explosive gains with touchdown production.
Gibbs scored three rushing touchdowns.
Montgomery scored another.
Isaac TeSlaa added Detroit’s receiving touchdown.
That gave the Lions five offensive touchdowns from four different players.
Dallas had only two offensive touchdowns in the supplied data, one passing touchdown and one rushing touchdown.
The difference between big plays and finished drives is therefore central to understanding the final score.
The role of CeeDee Lamb
Lamb’s 121 receiving yards deserve special attention because they came on only six catches.
His 20.2 yards per reception was the highest average among Dallas players with multiple receptions in the supplied statistics.
He also generated a 37-yard reception.
From an individual production perspective, it was an efficient outing.
However, receiving yardage is only one part of offensive success. Lamb did not record a receiving touchdown, and Dallas’ overall passing production was undermined by the two interceptions and five sacks.
His performance demonstrates why individual excellence does not always translate directly into a team result.
The role of Jahmyr Gibbs
Gibbs was one of the most complete statistical contributors in the matchup.
He carried the ball 12 times for 43 yards and three touchdowns.
He also caught seven passes for 77 yards.
That produced 120 combined rushing and receiving yards.
The touchdown count is particularly important. Gibbs accounted for three of Detroit’s four rushing touchdowns.
His receiving workload also forced Dallas to account for him outside the traditional running game.
For anyone reviewing the dallas cowboys vs detroit lions match player stats, Gibbs’ combined production is one of the strongest examples of why skill-position players should be evaluated across multiple statistical categories.
The Ryan Flournoy breakout
Flournoy was another standout statistical performer.
He received 13 targets, the most among Dallas pass catchers in the supplied data.
He caught nine passes for 115 yards and one touchdown.
His 42-yard reception was the longest Dallas receiving play listed.
A nine-catch, 115-yard performance represents a significant share of a team’s passing offense. In this game, Flournoy provided both volume and explosive production.
His touchdown was also one of only two offensive touchdowns Dallas produced.
Field goals versus touchdowns
Brandon Aubrey’s performance deserves separate mention.
He made all five of his field-goal attempts, including a long of 63 yards.
He finished with 16 points.
That was an excellent individual kicking line based strictly on the supplied statistics.
However, the scoring distribution again shows why field-goal success cannot be evaluated separately from touchdown production.
Dallas converted five field goals and one extra point.
Detroit made three field goals, five extra points, and scored five offensive touchdowns.
Dallas therefore produced more field goals, but Detroit produced more touchdowns.
That distinction explains a large portion of the 44-30 scoreline.
What the box score says about offensive balance
Dallas’ offensive approach was heavily weighted toward passing.
Prescott attempted 47 passes while the Cowboys recorded only 24 rushing attempts.
Detroit’s offense was more balanced in terms of its statistical output. Goff attempted 34 passes, while the Lions ran the ball 22 times.
The raw attempt totals do not look dramatically different, but the touchdown distribution changes the interpretation.
Detroit’s running game produced four touchdowns.
Dallas’ running game produced one.
This gave Detroit an additional scoring pathway that Dallas could not match.
What the defensive statistics reveal
The defensive comparison is equally important.
Detroit produced:
- Five sacks
- Six tackles for loss
- Eleven passes defended
- Eleven quarterback hits
- Two interceptions
Dallas produced:
- One sack
- Four tackles for loss
- One pass defended
- Eight quarterback hits
- No interceptions
The most striking difference is pass defense.
Detroit’s defense recorded 11 passes defended and intercepted Prescott twice.
Dallas recorded only one pass defended and did not intercept Goff.
That difference suggests Detroit was more disruptive in coverage while also producing stronger pass-rush pressure.
The five sacks were especially costly because they came against a quarterback who attempted 47 passes.
More passing attempts create more opportunities for pressure and turnover events, so the combination of high volume and defensive disruption became significant.
What fans should take away from the stats
The dallas cowboys vs detroit lions match player stats reveal several useful lessons.
First, Dallas was not ineffective offensively. The Cowboys threw for 376 yards and had multiple productive receivers.
Second, Detroit was more efficient with its opportunities. Goff threw one touchdown without an interception and was sacked only once.
Third, the Detroit rushing attack made the biggest scoring difference. The Lions averaged 5.0 yards per carry and scored four rushing touchdowns.
Fourth, defensive pressure mattered. Detroit recorded five sacks and two interceptions.
Fifth, individual receiving production can be misleading when separated from scoring efficiency. Lamb and Flournoy combined for 236 receiving yards, but Dallas still scored only 30 points.
Finally, special teams contributed meaningful points for Dallas through Aubrey’s five successful field goals, but Detroit’s higher touchdown total ultimately produced the larger scoring output.
Dallas Cowboys vs Detroit Lions match player stats at a glance
For readers who want the most important numbers without going through the entire box score, these are the primary statistical leaders.
Dallas leaders
Passing: Dak Prescott, 31/47, 376 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT
Rushing: Javonte Williams, 17 carries, 67 yards, 1 TD
Receiving: CeeDee Lamb, 6 receptions, 121 yards
Receiving volume: Ryan Flournoy, 9 receptions on 13 targets, 115 yards, 1 TD
Kicking: Brandon Aubrey, 5/5 field goals, 16 points
Kick returns: KaVontae Turpin, 7 returns, 176 yards
Detroit leaders
Passing: Jared Goff, 25/34, 309 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT
Rushing: David Montgomery, 60 yards on six carries
Rushing touchdowns: Jahmyr Gibbs, 3
Receiving: Jameson Williams, 7 receptions, 96 yards
Receiving volume: Amon-Ra St. Brown, 6 receptions, 92 yards
All-purpose impact: Jahmyr Gibbs, 43 rushing yards plus 77 receiving yards and 3 rushing touchdowns
Kicking: Jake Bates, 3/4 field goals, 5/5 extra points
Kick returns: Tom Kennedy, 3 returns, 120 yards
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of the Cowboys vs Lions game?
Detroit defeated Dallas 44-30. Detroit scored 10, 10, 7, and 17 points by quarter, while Dallas scored 3, 6, 10, and 11.
How many passing yards did Dak Prescott have?
Dak Prescott completed 31 of 47 passes for 376 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions.
How many passing yards did Jared Goff have?
Jared Goff completed 25 of 34 passes for 309 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions.
Who led Dallas in receiving?
CeeDee Lamb led Dallas with six receptions for 121 yards. Ryan Flournoy was also highly productive with nine catches for 115 yards and one touchdown.
Who led Detroit in rushing touchdowns?
Jahmyr Gibbs led Detroit with three rushing touchdowns. He also recorded 43 rushing yards and 77 receiving yards.
How many sacks did each defense record?
Detroit recorded five sacks, while Dallas recorded one sack. Detroit also intercepted Dak Prescott twice, while Dallas did not intercept Jared Goff.
Conclusion
The dallas cowboys vs detroit lions match player stats provide a detailed explanation for a 44-30 Detroit victory.
Dallas generated substantial passing production through Dak Prescott, CeeDee Lamb, Ryan Flournoy, and Jake Ferguson. Prescott finished with 376 passing yards, while Lamb and Flournoy each surpassed 115 receiving yards.
Detroit, however, was more efficient in the areas that most directly influenced the scoreboard. Jared Goff threw for 309 yards with one touchdown and no interceptions. The Lions rushed for 109 yards and scored four rushing touchdowns.
Jahmyr Gibbs was central to that success with three rushing touchdowns and 77 receiving yards. David Montgomery added 60 rushing yards on only six attempts, including a 35-yard run.
The defensive numbers reinforce the same story. Detroit recorded five sacks, two interceptions, 11 passes defended, and 11 quarterback hits. Dallas recorded one sack, no interceptions, and one pass defended.
Dallas’ Brandon Aubrey was perfect on five field-goal attempts and scored 16 points, while Detroit relied more heavily on touchdowns to produce its 44-point total.
The final box score therefore shows a game where Dallas produced impressive passing yardage, but Detroit combined quarterback efficiency, rushing touchdowns, defensive pressure, and turnover avoidance to create the larger scoring output.
For anyone researching dallas cowboys vs detroit lions match player stats, the most important numbers are not limited to passing and receiving yards. The deeper picture comes from touchdown distribution, sacks, turnovers, rushing efficiency, and the way individual performances contributed to actual points.
