Detroit Lions vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats

The Detroit Lions vs Minnesota Vikings match player stats from the 2025 Week 17 meeting tell a much deeper story than the final 23-10 score suggests. Minnesota defeated Detroit on Christmas Day at U.S. Bank Stadium, using a dominant defensive performance, a major rushing advantage, and reliable kicking to control the game. Jared Goff completed 18 of 29 passes for 197 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions for Detroit, while Minnesota quarterback Max Brosmer completed 9 of 16 passes for only 51 yards without a touchdown or interception. The Vikings still won because their defense forced six Detroit turnovers and their rushing attack produced 158 yards at 5.6 yards per attempt.

One important date correction is worth making at the beginning. The game was played on December 25, 2025, not December 26. ESPN and the NFL both list the matchup as a Week 17 Christmas Day game, with Minnesota winning 23-10.

This article breaks down the individual player numbers, team statistics, offensive efficiency, defensive impact, special teams, and the less obvious details that explain how Minnesota won despite producing almost no effective passing yardage.

Table of Contents

Detroit Lions vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The final score was:

Minnesota Vikings 23, Detroit Lions 10

The scoring pattern was unusual. Detroit led 7-7 at halftime after a long second-quarter drive, but Minnesota controlled the second half. The Vikings scored six points through two third-quarter field goals, then added a fourth-quarter field goal and Jordan Addison’s 65-yard rushing touchdown. Detroit managed only a fourth-quarter field goal after halftime.

Category	Detroit Lions	Minnesota Vikings
Final Score	10	23
Record after game	8-8	8-8
Total Yards	231	161
Passing	163 net yards	3 net yards
Rushing	68 yards	158 yards
Total Plays	64	51
Yards per Play	3.6	3.2
First Downs	16	11
Third Down	5/14	3/13
Turnovers	6	0
Time of Possession	32:30	27:30
Sacks Allowed	5	7

At first glance, Detroit’s 231 total yards compared with Minnesota’s 161 might make the result look surprising. Detroit also held the ball for more than 32 minutes and generated 16 first downs.

But football games are not decided by yardage alone.

Minnesota’s six-turnover advantage completely changed the value of every offensive possession. Detroit repeatedly gained yards but failed to finish drives because the Vikings defense created possession-ending plays. ESPN’s team statistics confirm that Detroit committed four lost fumbles and threw two interceptions, while Minnesota finished without a turnover.

That is the central statistical theme of this matchup.

Jared Goff’s Passing Performance

Jared Goff finished with:

18 completions
29 attempts
197 passing yards
1 touchdown
2 interceptions
5 sacks
34 sack yards lost
64.9 passer rating

The raw passing total looks respectable, but the efficiency numbers reveal a much more difficult outing.

Goff completed 62.1 percent of his attempts, yet Detroit averaged only 3.6 yards per offensive play overall. The Vikings consistently disrupted the pocket, and five sacks accounted for 34 lost yards.

More importantly, Goff was charged with three lost fumbles in addition to his two interceptions. That means the quarterback position became a major part of the turnover problem, although ESPN’s recap also notes that two of the lost fumbles came from errant snaps involving backup center Kingsley Eguakun.

That distinction matters.

A box score records turnovers, but deeper analysis asks how those turnovers happened. Treating every turnover as identical would hide an important part of the game. Minnesota’s defense deserves credit for creating pressure, while Detroit’s offensive execution also contributed to the possession losses.

Goff did throw Detroit’s only passing touchdown, finding Isaac TeSlaa for a four-yard score in the second quarter. That touchdown capped a 19-play, 80-yard drive that lasted more than 10 minutes.

That drive showed what Detroit’s offense could do when it protected the football and maintained possession.

The problem was consistency.

Max Brosmer’s Unusual Passing Numbers

Max Brosmer’s numbers were almost the opposite of Goff’s:

9 completions
16 attempts
51 passing yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions
7 sacks
48 sack yards lost
62.2 passer rating

A quarterback passing for only 51 yards would normally make winning difficult.

Minnesota won anyway.

The critical detail is that the Vikings did not need Brosmer to produce a high-volume passing performance. Minnesota’s rushing attack, defense, field position, and kicking game compensated for the limited passing production.

ESPN reported that Minnesota finished with only 3 net passing yards after accounting for the 48 yards lost on seven sacks. The Vikings became an unusual example of a team winning despite producing fewer than 10 net passing yards.

That makes Brosmer’s performance particularly interesting from an analytical perspective.

His most important statistic was arguably not a passing number at all: zero interceptions.

Detroit’s offense turned the ball over six times. Minnesota’s offense did not turn it over once.

In a game where possession security was decisive, avoiding catastrophic mistakes was extremely valuable.

Jahmyr Gibbs and Detroit’s Rushing Attack

Jahmyr Gibbs led Detroit in rushing with:

17 carries
41 yards
2.4 yards per carry
8-yard longest run
0 touchdowns

David Montgomery added 25 yards on 10 carries, while Goff contributed two rushing yards on three attempts.

As a team, Detroit managed:

30 carries for 68 yards

That works out to only 2.3 yards per attempt.

The low rushing efficiency created a difficult offensive balance for Detroit. The Lions could not consistently create favorable down-and-distance situations through the ground game, which placed additional pressure on the passing attack.

Gibbs still received the largest share of Detroit’s rushing workload, but Minnesota consistently limited explosive runs.

The contrast with Minnesota’s ground game was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams.

Jordan Addison Changes the Game

Jordan Addison had only one rushing attempt.

It went for 65 yards.

It was a touchdown.

That single play was one of the biggest statistical swings of the game.

With 3:43 remaining in the fourth quarter, Addison took a jet sweep and raced 65 yards for a touchdown that pushed Minnesota’s lead to 20-10.

A single rushing attempt therefore represented more than 40 percent of Minnesota’s rushing yardage on the day.

Minnesota’s overall rushing line was:

28 attempts
158 yards
5.6 yards per carry
2 touchdowns

Aaron Jones Sr. supplied 53 yards and a touchdown on 18 carries, while Ty Chandler added 24 yards on seven attempts. Brosmer contributed 16 rushing yards on two attempts.

This was a strong example of why team rushing efficiency can matter more than the number of attempts.

Detroit actually ran the ball more often, with 30 attempts compared with Minnesota’s 28.

But Minnesota gained 90 more rushing yards.

That difference was enormous.

Amon-Ra St. Brown Leads Detroit Receivers

Amon-Ra St. Brown was Detroit’s leading receiver:

8 receptions
68 yards
13 targets
8.5 yards per reception
23-yard longest reception
0 touchdowns

His 13 targets were more than twice the target total of any other Detroit receiver listed in the box score.

Isaac TeSlaa finished with three catches for 49 yards and Detroit’s only receiving touchdown. Jameson Williams added two receptions for 37 yards, averaging 18.5 yards per catch.

Detroit finished with:

18 receptions for 197 yards

That was considerably more receiving production than Minnesota generated.

Yet the Lions still scored only 10 points.

This is a useful reminder that receiving volume and scoring efficiency are different measurements.

Detroit moved the football through the air, but turnovers and negative plays prevented those yards from translating into enough points.

Justin Jefferson’s Quiet Receiving Line

Justin Jefferson recorded:

4 receptions
30 yards
5 targets
7.5 yards per reception
10-yard longest reception
0 touchdowns

For a receiver of Jefferson’s caliber, those numbers are modest.

However, Minnesota did not need a huge receiving performance.

The Vikings used their rushing attack and defense to control the game, while their passing offense remained conservative and inefficient.

Jefferson’s four catches represented the largest receiving total on Minnesota’s roster, but the entire Vikings receiving group combined for only nine receptions and 51 yards.

That statistic reinforces how unusual Minnesota’s offensive formula was.

The Vikings won despite their passing game contributing very little in net yardage.

The Turnover Battle Explains the Score

If there is one statistic that should sit at the center of any analysis of this game, it is turnovers.

Detroit:

6 turnovers

Minnesota:

0 turnovers

Detroit lost four fumbles and threw two interceptions.

Minnesota lost no fumbles and threw no interceptions.

That created a six-possession advantage in the turnover column.

It also explains why Minnesota could win despite having fewer total yards.

Turnovers change expected scoring opportunities. A team that moves the ball 40 yards and then loses the ball has not necessarily created a meaningful scoring opportunity. Meanwhile, a defense that takes possession away can prevent points while simultaneously creating a new opportunity for its offense.

Minnesota’s defense repeatedly produced exactly that kind of leverage.

Blake Cashman Leads the Vikings Defense

Blake Cashman was Minnesota’s leading tackler with:

17 total tackles
6 solo tackles
1 sack
1 tackle for loss
1 quarterback hit

Seventeen tackles is a significant workload for a single defender.

Minnesota finished with:

79 total tackles
40 solo tackles
5 sacks
8 tackles for loss
5 passes defended
8 quarterback hits

The Vikings’ defensive pressure was particularly important because Detroit’s passing offense had enough volume to move the football.

Five sacks did more than add to the defensive stat sheet. They removed 34 yards from Detroit’s passing production and repeatedly put the offense behind schedule.

Detroit’s Defensive Production

Daniel Thomas led Detroit with seven tackles, including three solo tackles.

Detroit’s defense finished with:

59 total tackles
29 solo tackles
7 sacks
6 tackles for loss
2 passes defended
8 quarterback hits

The seven sacks are notable because Detroit actually generated more sacks than Minnesota.

That creates another interesting contrast.

Detroit’s defense successfully pressured Brosmer, but Minnesota avoided turnovers. The Vikings also compensated for their passing problems through rushing efficiency and field-goal production.

This is why sacks alone do not explain defensive success.

A defense can create pressure without necessarily producing turnovers or enough stops to win. Minnesota’s defense combined pressure with possession-changing plays.

Six Turnovers vs Seven Sacks

The defensive comparison becomes clearer when the most important statistics are placed side by side.

Defensive Metric	Detroit	Minnesota
Total Tackles	59	79
Solo Tackles	29	40
Sacks	7	5
Tackles for Loss	6	8
Passes Defended	2	5
QB Hits	8	8
Takeaways	0	6

Detroit’s seven sacks are impressive.

But Minnesota’s six takeaways were more directly connected to the final result.

This does not mean sacks are unimportant. It means the context of the play matters. Minnesota converted defensive disruption into possession changes, while Detroit’s pressure did not produce an interception or fumble recovery.

Detroit’s Special Teams Numbers

Detroit’s special teams contributed several solid individual performances.

Jake Bates

Bates finished:

1-for-1 on field goals
Long: 48 yards
1-for-1 on extra points
4 points

His 48-yard field goal came in the fourth quarter and briefly reduced Minnesota’s advantage to 13-10.

Jack Fox

Fox punted three times for:

159 total yards
53.0-yard average
70-yard longest punt
2 punts inside the 20

That was an excellent raw punting average.

Tom Kennedy

Kennedy returned four kickoffs for:

116 yards
29.0-yard average
31-yard longest return

Kalif Raymond also handled five punt returns for 31 yards.

Detroit’s special teams therefore provided useful field-position plays, even though the offense could not turn enough possessions into points.

Minnesota’s Kicking Game Was Crucial

Will Reichard had a major role in Minnesota’s scoring.

He finished:

3-for-3 on field goals
Long: 56 yards
2-for-2 on extra points
11 total points

Reichard’s 52-yard and 56-yard field goals came in the third quarter, turning a 7-7 halftime game into a 13-7 Minnesota lead.

The 56-yard kick was particularly valuable because Minnesota’s offense had limited passing success.

Instead of requiring touchdowns, the Vikings repeatedly converted scoring opportunities into field goals.

That allowed the defense to carry more of the team’s overall workload.

Ryan Wright’s Punting Workload

Minnesota punter Ryan Wright had a busy evening:

7 punts
358 total yards
51.1-yard average
63-yard longest punt

The number of punts reflects the limitations of Minnesota’s offense.

But it also shows how the Vikings managed the field-position battle. When Minnesota could not sustain drives, it still had a punting unit capable of producing substantial field position.

The result was an unusual game in which Minnesota won despite running only 51 offensive plays and producing just 161 total yards.

Why Minnesota Won With 161 Total Yards

This is arguably the most important analytical question.

Minnesota gained only 161 total yards.

Detroit gained 231.

Detroit possessed the ball for 32:30.

Minnesota possessed it for 27:30.

Detroit generated 16 first downs.

Minnesota generated 11.

Yet Minnesota won by 13 points.

The answer is the combination of turnovers, rushing efficiency, defensive stops, and kicking.

Minnesota’s offense did not need to accumulate large yardage totals because its defense repeatedly ended Detroit possessions.

At the same time, Minnesota’s rushing attack averaged 5.6 yards per attempt compared with Detroit’s 2.3.

That meant Minnesota generated more explosive value from a smaller number of rushing attempts.

The Vikings also went 3-for-13 on third down, but they were 1-for-1 in the red zone. Detroit was 1-for-1 in the red zone as well, so the major difference was not red-zone conversion percentage.

Instead, Detroit simply had far fewer clean opportunities to reach the red zone because turnovers repeatedly stopped drives.

The Halftime Score Hid the Bigger Problem

At halftime, the score was tied 7-7.

Detroit’s second-quarter touchdown came after a 19-play, 80-yard possession.

That drive demonstrated that the Lions could sustain offense against Minnesota.

But sustaining one excellent drive is not the same as sustaining an entire game.

The third quarter changed the rhythm.

Minnesota kicked two field goals.

Detroit failed to score.

The Vikings entered the fourth quarter with a 13-7 lead and then added two more scores.

This sequence illustrates how defensive pressure can gradually change a game rather than deciding it on a single play.

Minnesota did not need to dominate every possession.

It simply needed to prevent Detroit from turning possessions into touchdowns while waiting for its own defense and running game to create opportunities.

The Goff Turnovers Were the Biggest Offensive Issue

Goff’s two interceptions were damaging, but the four lost fumbles were even more significant when viewed as part of the complete turnover picture.

ESPN’s recap reports that Goff was charged with three lost fumbles, with one occurring on a sack and two coming from errant snaps involving backup center Kingsley Eguakun.

That context matters when evaluating the quarterback’s performance.

It would be too simplistic to attribute all six Detroit turnovers to poor quarterback decisions.

At the same time, the quarterback and center exchange is part of offensive execution, and the Vikings defense deserves credit for capitalizing on mistakes.

The broader lesson is that offensive efficiency is not just about completions and yards. Ball security can be just as important.

The Statistical Contrast Between the Teams

A useful way to understand the matchup is to compare the core efficiency numbers.

Detroit

Detroit produced:

231 total yards
163 passing yards
68 rushing yards
18 completions
197 receiving yards
30 rushing attempts
6 turnovers
2.3 rushing yards per attempt

Minnesota

Minnesota produced:

161 total yards
3 net passing yards
158 rushing yards
9 completions
51 receiving yards
28 rushing attempts
0 turnovers
5.6 rushing yards per attempt

The numbers almost look like they belong to different games.

Detroit won the raw yardage battle.

Minnesota won the possession battle in the most important sense: it protected the ball.

Detroit produced more offensive volume.

Minnesota produced more efficient rushing and more defensive impact.

That contrast is what made the final score possible.

What the Player Stats Reveal That the Box Score Alone Does Not

The most useful way to study this matchup is not to search for one superstar statistic.

Instead, look at the interaction between categories.

1. Volume did not equal efficiency

Detroit had 64 offensive plays compared with Minnesota’s 51.

But Detroit averaged 3.6 yards per play, while Minnesota averaged 3.2.

Those numbers are relatively close, yet Detroit’s six turnovers made the overall offensive output much less valuable.

2. Minnesota’s rushing efficiency mattered

Minnesota averaged 5.6 yards per rush.

Detroit averaged 2.3.

That 3.3-yard difference per attempt is substantial.

3. Defensive takeaways outweighed raw yardage

Minnesota did not need to win total yards.

It needed to win possessions.

Six takeaways created an enormous advantage.

4. Special teams added points at the right moments

Reichard’s three field goals provided 11 points.

Those points were especially important because Minnesota’s passing offense was ineffective.

5. One explosive rushing play changed the game

Addison’s 65-yard touchdown run turned a 13-10 game into a 20-10 game.

That play effectively ended Detroit’s realistic comeback opportunity.

What Fantasy Football Readers Should Take From the Numbers

Although this game was primarily about team performance, the player statistics also provide useful fantasy football context.

Jahmyr Gibbs received 17 rushing attempts but averaged only 2.4 yards per carry. His workload was substantial, but the matchup environment limited his rushing efficiency.

Amon-Ra St. Brown received 13 targets and caught eight passes for 68 yards. His target volume was strong even though he did not score.

Justin Jefferson caught four passes for 30 yards on five targets. His involvement was lower than fantasy managers would normally expect from his overall reputation, but Minnesota’s offensive approach was heavily tilted toward the running game.

Jordan Addison’s rushing touchdown was the biggest individual explosive play for Minnesota, but it came on a single rushing attempt rather than through consistent offensive volume.

The key fantasy lesson is simple: a player’s reputation does not guarantee a particular box-score outcome. Game script, quarterback performance, defensive pressure, and play-calling can all reshape individual production.

How the Game Could Be Used for Matchup Analysis

This matchup also provides a practical framework for analyzing future NFL games.

When evaluating two teams, do not stop at:

Passing yards
Rushing yards
First downs
Time of possession

Also examine:

Turnover differential
Yards per rush
Sacks and sack yardage
Third-down efficiency
Red-zone opportunities
Explosive plays
Field-goal production
Pressure on the quarterback
Fumbles lost

The Detroit-Minnesota game is a strong example because the basic yardage numbers point in one direction while the scoreboard points in another.

The deeper numbers explain why.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Detroit Lions vs Minnesota Vikings game?

The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Detroit Lions 23-10 on December 25, 2025, at U.S. Bank Stadium.

Who was Detroit’s leading passer?

Jared Goff completed 18 of 29 passes for 197 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions. He was also sacked five times for 34 yards.

Who led the Vikings in rushing?

Jordan Addison led Minnesota in rushing yards with 65 yards and a touchdown on one rushing attempt. Aaron Jones Sr. led the Vikings in rushing attempts with 18 and gained 53 yards and one touchdown.

Who led Detroit in receiving?

Amon-Ra St. Brown led Detroit with eight receptions for 68 yards on 13 targets. He did not score a touchdown.

How many turnovers did each team have?

Detroit committed six turnovers, including four lost fumbles and two interceptions. Minnesota committed zero turnovers.

Why did Minnesota win despite having fewer total yards?

Minnesota benefited from a six-to-zero turnover advantage, a 158-68 rushing advantage, five sacks, and three successful field goals. Detroit gained more total yards, but its turnovers repeatedly ended promising possessions.

Conclusion

The Detroit Lions vs Minnesota Vikings match player stats from December 25, 2025, show why football cannot be evaluated through total yardage alone.

Detroit generated 231 total yards compared with Minnesota’s 161. Jared Goff passed for 197 yards, Amon-Ra St. Brown caught eight passes, and the Lions held the ball for 32 minutes and 30 seconds.

Still, Minnesota controlled the categories that ultimately mattered most.

The Vikings forced six turnovers and committed none. Their rushing attack produced 158 yards at 5.6 yards per carry, more than twice Detroit’s 2.3-yard average. Blake Cashman recorded 17 tackles, Minnesota produced five sacks, and Will Reichard converted three field goals.

Jordan Addison’s 65-yard rushing touchdown then provided the decisive explosive play late in the fourth quarter.

The game therefore stands as a useful example of how defensive pressure, ball security, rushing efficiency, and situational kicking can overcome a significant disadvantage in total offensive yardage.

For readers studying individual performances, the biggest lesson is to examine player statistics within the context of the entire game. A quarterback’s passing yards, a receiver’s targets, a running back’s carries, or a defense’s sack total can tell part of the story. The combination of those numbers tells much more.