Seattle Seahawks vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats
The seattle seahawks vs new england patriots match player stats from September 9, 2026, tell the story of a close NFL contest decided by defensive pressure, critical turnovers, and a strong fourth-quarter response. The Seattle Seahawks defeated the New England Patriots 13-10, overcoming a seven-point second-quarter deficit to secure a three-point victory at home. Seattle’s defense intercepted Drake Maye three times, while Drew Lock protected the football and connected with Jaxon Smith-Njigba for the Seahawks’ passing touchdown. The result highlights how turnovers, receiving efficiency, and late-game execution can determine a close football game even when the final score suggests that the teams were evenly matched.
This game provides an interesting statistical comparison between two different approaches. New England moved the ball through a combination of short passing plays and quarterback runs, while Seattle generated more yards per reception and made the most of its defensive opportunities. The Patriots had chances to maintain their lead, but their inability to avoid interceptions proved costly. Seattle, meanwhile, stayed within reach before scoring 10 unanswered fourth-quarter points according to the supplied scoring summary and final result.
This article examines the passing, rushing, receiving, defensive, and special-teams numbers, explaining what the reported figures reveal about the contest. It also identifies data discrepancies that readers should understand before using individual statistics in fantasy football analysis, historical comparisons, or sports reporting.
Game information: September 9, 2026 | Final score: Seattle Seahawks 13, New England Patriots 10 | Source data: supplied ESPN box-score extraction, game ID 401872656.
Game Overview: Seahawks 13, Patriots 10
The Seahawks entered the contest as the home team and finished with a reported 1-0 record. New England began its season with a 0-1 record after the narrow defeat. Although the margin was only three points, the defensive statistics show why Seattle had the decisive advantage.
Seahawks Logo, Pacific Northwest, Sports Emblem, Team Identity, NFL Branding PNG
Seattle Seahawks
Home team
13
New England Patriots
Away team
10
Official website of the New England Patriots
Seattle interceptions
3
New England interceptions
0
Seattle passing yards
188
New England passing yards
178
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | New England Patriots | Seattle Seahawks |
| First quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Third quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 10 |
| Final score | 10 | 13 |
The first quarter ended without either team scoring, suggesting that the opening period did not produce points on the supplied scoreboard. New England then recorded seven points in the second quarter and added a field goal after halftime.
Seattle’s scoring pattern was different. The Seahawks recorded a field goal in the third quarter before adding 10 points in the fourth. That late scoring sequence made the difference between a defeat and a victory.
The fourth-quarter numbers are particularly important for understanding the result. Seattle did not need a large offensive performance across the entire game. Instead, it needed enough successful possessions late in the contest to overcome New England’s lead.
The Patriots’ failure to score in the final quarter left them vulnerable to Seattle’s comeback. When a game is separated by only three points, even one additional scoring opportunity can change the outcome.
Seattle Seahawks vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats: Quarterback Comparison
Quarterback performance is one of the most important parts of this matchup because the two teams produced similar passing yardage but very different turnover numbers. Seattle’s listed quarterback, Drew Lock, delivered a more efficient statistical performance, while Drake Maye’s three interceptions gave the Seahawks repeated opportunities to take control.
Quarterback passing statistics
| Passing statistic | Drew Lock, Seattle | Drake Maye, New England |
| Completions | 16 | 23 |
| Pass attempts | 22 | 33 |
| Completion percentage | 72.7% | 69.7% |
| Passing yards | 187 | 178 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.5 | 5.4 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 3 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 3 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 7 | 10 |
| Passer rating | 113.3 | 54.9 |
| ESPN QBR | 79.2 | 66.9 |
Player figures are reproduced from the supplied data. Seattle’s listed team passing totals do not perfectly match the individual passing entries, as discussed below.
Drew Lock’s efficient passing performance
Drew Lock completed 16 of his 22 listed passes for 187 yards and one touchdown, with no interceptions. His completion percentage was approximately 72.7%, and his reported average of 8.5 yards per attempt points to a productive passing performance.
The most important detail is not simply the yardage. Lock generated his passing production without giving New England an interception. That allowed Seattle to preserve its offensive opportunities and avoid the kind of sudden change in possession that repeatedly hurt the Patriots.
His 113.3 passer rating also stands out in the comparison. Passer rating considers completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. It is not a complete measure of quarterback performance, but it helps illustrate the difference between Lock’s clean passing line and Maye’s turnover-heavy outing.
Lock’s single listed sack for seven yards suggests that he was brought down relatively infrequently in the supplied passing record. That does not prove that Seattle’s offensive line dominated every snap, but it does show that sacks were not a major statistical feature of Lock’s listed performance.
A useful way to evaluate a quarterback in a close game is to consider three factors together:
- Passing efficiency: Lock averaged more yards per attempt.
- Ball security: He recorded no interceptions.
- Scoring production: He threw one touchdown, matching Maye’s listed total.
These figures help explain why Seattle could win without producing a large passing-yardage advantage.
Drake Maye’s mixed statistical performance
Maye completed 23 of 33 passes for 178 yards and one touchdown. His completion percentage of approximately 69.7% was respectable, and he completed more passes than Lock.
However, the three interceptions changed the meaning of his passing statistics. A quarterback can complete a high percentage of short passes and still struggle to sustain productive drives if turnovers repeatedly end possessions.
Maye averaged 5.4 yards per attempt, compared with Lock’s 8.5. The difference suggests that Seattle gained more passing yardage from each attempt, even though Maye completed seven more passes.
Maye’s reported passer rating of 54.9 also reflects the effect of his interceptions. His 66.9 ESPN QBR is a separate metric, so it should not be directly compared with passer rating as if both used the same scale or formula.
The key lesson is that completion percentage alone does not establish which quarterback played better. Yardage per attempt, touchdown production, sacks, and interceptions all help explain how a passing performance affected the result.
Why the interception difference mattered
Seattle recorded three interceptions, while New England recorded none. This is the clearest statistical difference in the supplied defensive data.
An interception can have several effects beyond the loss of a possession. It prevents the offense from finishing its drive, gives the opposing team another opportunity to score, and can change how aggressively the teams approach later possessions.
For New England, the three interceptions were especially damaging in a game decided by three points. Without the detailed play-by-play, it would be inaccurate to claim that every interception directly cost the Patriots a score. However, the turnover margin clearly favored Seattle and provides a strong explanation for the result.
Rushing Statistics: How Both Teams Used the Ground Game
Neither team recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied player statistics. Nevertheless, both produced useful yardage on the ground, and the individual rushing performances show how the offenses attempted to balance their passing attacks.
Team rushing comparison
| Rushing statistic | New England Patriots | Seattle Seahawks |
| Rushing attempts | 31 | 22 |
| Rushing yards | 109 | 97 |
| Yards per carry | 3.5 | 4.4 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Longest rush | 16 yards | 14 yards |
New England recorded 12 more rushing yards and nine more attempts than Seattle in the supplied team totals. Seattle, however, averaged 4.4 yards per carry compared with New England’s 3.5.
That difference suggests that Seattle gained more yardage from each rushing attempt, while the Patriots relied on a higher volume of carries. Neither team’s rushing figures indicate a dominant ground performance, but the efficiency gap is worth noting.
Rhamondre Stevenson leads New England’s rushing attack
Rhamondre Stevenson was the Patriots’ leading listed rusher, recording 18 carries for 51 yards. His average was 2.8 yards per carry, and his longest run was 12 yards.
Stevenson’s workload indicates that New England used him regularly as a ball carrier. However, the modest average shows that those carries did not consistently generate substantial gains.
This distinction matters when assessing a running back’s impact. A high number of attempts can indicate trust from the coaching staff, but workload and efficiency measure different things. Stevenson’s 18 carries provided a steady presence in the running game, yet his reported production did not include a touchdown.
He also contributed as a receiver, finishing with five catches for 44 yards. His combined listed rushing and receiving yardage was 95 yards, making him one of New England’s more involved offensive players.
Drake Maye adds a rushing threat
Maye recorded seven rushing attempts for 47 yards, averaging 6.7 yards per carry. His longest listed run was 16 yards.
Those numbers show that Maye’s contribution extended beyond the passing game. Quarterback rushing can help an offense gain first downs when coverage limits passing options or when defenders leave space around the pocket.
His rushing production was also considerably more efficient than Stevenson’s on a per-carry basis. However, the seven carries should be considered separately from his three interceptions. Positive rushing yardage does not cancel out the impact of turnovers.
For analysts, this combination illustrates why quarterback evaluation requires more than a single statistic. Maye contributed 47 rushing yards, but his passing mistakes remained a major feature of the game.
Seattle’s Jadarian Price provides the leading rushing total
Jadarian Price led Seattle’s listed rushing group with 10 carries for 52 yards. He averaged 5.2 yards per carry, with a longest run of 13 yards.
Price’s average was the strongest among the leading listed rushers from either team. Although he did not score a rushing touchdown, his production helped Seattle maintain a credible ground option alongside its passing game.
George Holani added eight carries for 29 yards, averaging 3.6 yards per carry. Drew Lock contributed two carries for 13 yards, while Emanuel Wilson recorded two carries for three yards.
Price’s 52 yards were only one yard more than Stevenson’s 51, but he reached that total on eight fewer carries. This is a useful example of the difference between rushing volume and rushing efficiency.
Seattle’s reported 4.4-yard team average suggests that the Seahawks were more productive on a per-carry basis overall. However, the team totals and player entries should be checked against the original box score before being used for precise statistical reconciliation.
Receiving Statistics: Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads Seattle
The receiving numbers reveal one of the strongest individual performances in the supplied data. Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with 122 receiving yards and one touchdown, giving the Seahawks a clear primary passing target.
Leading receivers from both teams
| Player | Team | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | Seahawks | 8 | 122 | 15.3 | 1 |
| Cooper Kupp | Seahawks | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 0 |
| Brady Russell | Seahawks | 2 | 20 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Mack Hollins | Patriots | 4 | 51 | 12.8 | 0 |
| Rhamondre Stevenson | Patriots | 5 | 44 | 8.8 | 0 |
| Hunter Henry | Patriots | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 0 |
| A.J. Brown | Patriots | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 0 |
| DeMario Douglas | Patriots | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 0 |
Receiving figures follow the supplied extraction. Player listings and team totals may contain source inconsistencies.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s standout performance
Smith-Njigba recorded eight receptions on 11 targets for 122 yards and a touchdown. His reported average of 15.3 yards per reception indicates that his catches generated meaningful yardage rather than being limited to short gains.
His longest reception was 45 yards, the largest listed reception for either team. A single long catch can change field position quickly, while consistent involvement gives a quarterback a reliable option on important downs.
Smith-Njigba’s production is particularly significant because Seattle’s total passing yardage was modest. His 122 yards represented a substantial portion of the team’s listed passing output.
His performance can be assessed through four useful indicators:
- Target involvement: 11 targets made him a central part of Seattle’s passing plan.
- Reliable hands: Eight catches converted most of those opportunities into receptions.
- Downfield production: His 45-yard longest catch demonstrates the ability to generate a substantial gain.
- Scoring impact: His one touchdown supplied direct scoring value.
These statistics make Smith-Njigba the leading listed receiving performer of the matchup. They do not, by themselves, establish how often he beat a defender in single coverage or how many yards he gained after contact. Those questions would require play-by-play or advanced tracking data.
Cooper Kupp adds another receiving option
Kupp recorded two receptions for 35 yards on three targets, according to the supplied figures. His 17.5 yards per reception was higher than Smith-Njigba’s average, although Kupp had far fewer catches.
This is a useful reminder that receiving average and total production are not interchangeable. A receiver with two catches can record a high average, but a player with eight catches may contribute more consistently throughout the game.
Kupp’s longest reception was 24 yards. His listed production gave Seattle another option capable of generating meaningful yardage without requiring a large number of targets.
Brady Russell and the supporting receivers
Brady Russell finished with two catches for 20 yards, while AJ Barner recorded two catches for 13 yards. Jadarian Price added two receptions for six yards, and Rashid Shaheed recorded one catch for four yards.
The supplied entries suggest that Seattle spread some of its passing work across several players while relying most heavily on Smith-Njigba for yardage. However, Smith-Njigba’s 11 targets were much higher than the target counts shown for most of his teammates.
A varied receiving group can help an offense respond to different defensive coverages. Short passes to running backs or tight ends can provide alternatives when outside receivers are closely covered, while wide receivers can create larger gains downfield.
The available figures support the conclusion that Smith-Njigba was the primary receiving weapon. They do not provide enough detail to reconstruct Seattle’s complete route combinations or offensive play design.
Mack Hollins leads the Patriots in receiving yards
Hollins led New England’s listed receivers with four catches for 51 yards on five targets. His average was 12.8 yards per reception, and his longest catch was 19 yards.
Hollins produced more receiving yards than any listed Patriots teammate. His 51-yard total was seven yards greater than Stevenson’s receiving output, making him New England’s most productive receiver by yardage in the supplied data.
Stevenson’s five catches for 44 yards also deserve attention. His involvement in both rushing and receiving gave New England a potential outlet when the passing game needed a shorter option.
Hunter Henry and A.J. Brown each recorded three receptions for 26 yards. DeMario Douglas had five catches for 20 yards on seven targets, indicating a higher number of short receptions relative to his yardage total.
The contrast between Hollins and Douglas is useful. Hollins averaged 12.8 yards per catch, while Douglas averaged 4.0. Both can contribute to an offense, but their listed production came in different ways.
New England’s receiving figures show that the team had several contributors rather than one receiver accounting for all its passing yardage. Even so, the three interceptions limited the value of its completed passes.
Defensive Player Stats: The Biggest Difference in the Game
Seattle’s defense is the strongest explanation for the final result in the supplied statistics. The Seahawks recorded three interceptions, three sacks, nine tackles for loss, and six passes defended. New England recorded two sacks, three tackles for loss, and two passes defended.
The Patriots generated pressure of their own, but they did not record an interception in the provided data. That difference matters because defensive success is not limited to stopping a play. It can also involve taking possession away from the offense.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Seattle Seahawks | New England Patriots |
| Total tackles | 74 | 52 |
| Solo tackles | 44 | 38 |
| Sacks | 3 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 9 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 6 | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 6 |
| Interceptions | 3 | 0 |
| Interception return yards | 30 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
These team totals are taken from the supplied extraction. The tackle totals, in particular, should be verified against the official box score because the individual defensive entries and team totals may not reconcile perfectly.
Three interceptions swing the defensive comparison
Seattle’s three reported interceptions were attributed to Nehemiah Pritchett, Julian Love, and Josh Jobe.
| Defensive back | Interceptions | Return yards | Defensive touchdowns |
| Nehemiah Pritchett | 1 | 30 | 0 |
| Julian Love | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Jobe | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Pritchett’s interception included a reported return of 30 yards. Love and Jobe each recorded an interception without return yardage in the supplied data.
The value of an interception goes beyond the return itself. It ends the opponent’s possession, prevents that drive from continuing, and gives the defense’s offense another chance to score. A long return may also provide better starting field position for the next drive.
The supplied statistics do not identify the exact quarter or field position of each interception. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that one particular interception directly caused Seattle’s fourth-quarter comeback. What can be said confidently from the provided numbers is that Seattle won the interception comparison by three.
Seattle creates pressure and disrupts plays
The Seahawks recorded three sacks and nine tackles for loss. Those numbers suggest that Seattle’s defense had success disrupting New England’s offensive plays behind or near the line of scrimmage.
A sack ends a passing play with a loss of yardage, often making the next down more difficult. A tackle for loss can have a similar effect on a rushing play, reducing the offense’s available yardage and potentially forcing a longer third down.
Seattle also recorded six passes defended. This category can include plays in which a defender breaks up or deflects a pass without intercepting it. It indicates activity in coverage, although it does not reveal the complete quality of the defensive coverage on every snap.
New England’s defense recorded six quarterback hits, one more than Seattle’s five. That is an important qualification: the Patriots were not statistically inactive when pressuring the opposing quarterback.
The difference was in the overall defensive results. Seattle recorded more sacks and tackles for loss in the supplied totals, and it converted three pass-defense opportunities into interceptions.
New England’s defense still generated pressure
The Patriots’ two sacks, three tackles for loss, and six quarterback hits show that they had opportunities to disrupt Seattle’s offense. Their defensive performance should not be described as a complete failure simply because they lost.
A defense can pressure the quarterback and still lose if it cannot force turnovers or prevent important scoring drives. Equally, a defense can allow passing yardage but succeed by protecting the end zone and creating turnovers.
New England did not record a defensive touchdown in the supplied data. Seattle did not record one either, meaning the defensive difference came from interceptions, pressure, and the effect those plays had on possession rather than defensive scoring.
Special Teams: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams often become particularly important in close games because field goals can supply points when an offense cannot finish a drive with a touchdown. In a 13-10 result, successful kicking is an important part of the statistical story.
Kicking comparison
| Kicking statistic | Jason Myers, Seattle | Andy Borregales, New England |
| Field goals made | 2 of 2 | 1 of 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 30 yards | 50 yards |
| Extra points made | 1 of 1 | 1 of 1 |
| Reported total points | 7 | 4 |
Myers converted both of his listed field-goal attempts and added one extra point, finishing with seven reported points. Borregales converted one field goal and one extra point, producing four reported points.
These totals indicate that both kickers were successful on their recorded attempts. Myers made one more field goal than Borregales, which is consistent with Seattle’s greater field-goal production in the supplied data.
The listed longest field goal for Borregales was 50 yards, compared with 30 yards for Myers. The longest successful kick is a measure of distance, not total scoring contribution. Myers’ two conversions were more important to the reported point totals than the distance of either kicker’s longest attempt.
Punting performance
| Punting statistic | Michael Dickson, Seattle | Mitch Wishnowsky, New England |
| Punts | 5 | 4 |
| Total punting yards | 227 | 177 |
| Average yards per punt | 45.4 | 44.3 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 3 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Longest punt | 50 yards | 46 yards |
Dickson averaged 45.4 yards per punt, while Wishnowsky averaged 44.3. Both placed three punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, according to the supplied figures.
A punt inside the 20 can help a defense by forcing the opponent to begin its possession deep in its own territory. That can make scoring more difficult because the offense must cover more distance to reach the end zone.
However, punt average alone does not measure the full value of a punter. Hang time, placement, return opportunities, and the resulting field position all matter. The supplied table does not include enough information to evaluate those details.
Kick and punt returns
Seattle’s Rashid Shaheed recorded three kick returns for 80 yards, averaging 26.7 yards per return, with a longest return of 30 yards. He also recorded one punt return for nine yards.
New England’s Kyle Williams recorded two kick returns for 58 yards, averaging 29.0 yards, while Lan Larison recorded two for 49 yards, averaging 24.5 yards. The Patriots’ team total was four returns for 107 yards.
The Patriots therefore produced more total kick-return yardage in the supplied figures, while Seattle’s listed returner handled three kickoffs and a punt. These numbers show that New England’s return unit had a useful role in field-position management, even though the team lost.
Neither team’s supplied return figures include a return touchdown. The overall result was therefore shaped more by offensive scoring, defensive turnovers, and kicking than by a special-teams touchdown.
How Seattle Won Despite a Close Score
The three-point margin can make the game appear evenly balanced. Several statistics, however, help explain why Seattle had the advantage.
1. Seattle protected the football
Lock recorded no interceptions in the supplied passing line. Maye recorded three.
This was the most significant difference between the quarterbacks. Seattle could continue working through its offensive possessions without giving New England the same turnover opportunities that Maye gave the Seahawks.
2. Seattle gained more yards per passing attempt
Lock’s reported 8.5 yards per attempt exceeded Maye’s 5.4. This difference indicates that Seattle gained more passing yardage per attempt, although it does not show exactly how much of that advantage came from route design, receiver separation, or individual defensive mistakes.
3. Smith-Njigba produced the biggest receiving performance
Smith-Njigba’s eight catches, 122 yards, and one touchdown gave Seattle a major source of offensive production. His 45-yard longest reception also indicates that Seattle had the ability to generate a substantial gain through the air.
4. Seattle’s defense recorded more disruptive plays
The supplied team figures credit Seattle with three sacks and nine tackles for loss. The Seahawks also recorded three interceptions, while New England recorded none.
Those results suggest that Seattle’s defense had more success turning individual plays into major setbacks for the opponent.
5. Seattle finished stronger in the fourth quarter
According to the supplied scoring summary, Seattle scored 10 points in the final quarter while New England scored none. That late scoring difference transformed a game in which the Patriots had held a lead into a Seahawks victory.
Without the full play-by-play, the precise sequence of the scoring drives cannot be independently reconstructed from the statistics provided. The quarter totals nevertheless establish the key outcome: Seattle outscored New England late.
What the Team Statistics Reveal
The most useful comparisons involve efficiency and possession value rather than total yardage alone.
| Category | Statistical advantage | What it suggests |
| Passing efficiency | Seattle | More yards per attempt |
| Passing ball security | Seattle | No interceptions by Lock |
| Rushing volume | New England | More carries and total rushing yards |
| Rushing efficiency | Seattle | Higher reported yards per carry |
| Leading receiver | Seattle | Smith-Njigba’s 122 yards and touchdown |
| Interceptions | Seattle | Three takeaways in the supplied data |
| Quarterback pressure | Mixed | New England recorded more quarterback hits, Seattle more sacks |
| Late scoring | Seattle | 10 fourth-quarter points against zero |
The table highlights an important principle of football analysis: the team that accumulates more of one type of statistic does not necessarily win.
New England recorded more rushing attempts and more total rushing yards in the supplied team totals. It also registered more quarterback hits. Yet Seattle was more efficient in the listed passing and rushing averages and had the decisive interception advantage.
The result is consistent with a game in which defensive turnovers and late scoring outweighed differences in offensive workload.
Data Accuracy Notes for Readers and Publishers
Sports statistics should be presented with care, especially when a story is based on extracted text rather than a verified play-by-play feed. The supplied dataset contains some discrepancies that matter for readers who want exact totals.
First, the listed Seattle passing entries show Lock completing 16 of 22 passes for 187 yards and Sam Darnold completing one of two passes for 13 yards. Those individual entries add up to 17 completions on 24 attempts and 200 passing yards, whereas the supplied team passing total lists 188 yards. The team total therefore does not reconcile with the individual entries.
Second, the supplied data identifies Smith-Njigba’s 122 receiving yards and touchdown, but the listed receiving entries do not reconcile cleanly with the Seattle team receiving total. The figures should not be silently adjusted to force them to match.
Third, the defensive section lists 74 total tackles for Seattle and 52 for New England. Such figures may depend on the source’s statistical definitions, but the supplied individual defensive entries should be checked before using those totals in a detailed player-by-player comparison.
Finally, this article is based on the provided extraction for the stated September 9, 2026, matchup. I could not independently confirm that exact game record through the search results available for this response. Readers seeking authoritative verification should consult the ESPN NFL box-score page and compare the original passing, receiving, and defensive tables before republishing exact figures.
These qualifications do not change the main reported result of 13-10, but they matter when precision is essential. The safest approach is to retain the stated final score and clearly attributed player statistics while verifying any inconsistent team totals against the original record.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Seattle Seahawks vs New England Patriots game?
According to the supplied game data, the Seattle Seahawks defeated the New England Patriots 13-10 on September 9, 2026. Seattle scored 10 points in the fourth quarter to complete the reported comeback.
2. Which quarterback had better statistics in the game?
Drew Lock had the more efficient passing line in the supplied data. He completed 16 of 22 passes for 187 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. Drake Maye completed 23 of 33 passes for 178 yards, one touchdown, and three interceptions.
3. Who led Seattle in receiving yards?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle’s listed receivers with eight receptions for 122 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 45 yards, making him the leading listed receiving performer in the matchup.
4. Which Patriots player led the team in rushing?
Rhamondre Stevenson led New England’s listed rushing group with 18 carries for 51 yards. Drake Maye added 47 rushing yards on seven carries, making the quarterback another important contributor to the ground game.
5. How many interceptions did the Seahawks record?
Seattle recorded three interceptions in the supplied statistics. Nehemiah Pritchett, Julian Love, and Josh Jobe were each credited with one interception. New England recorded no interceptions in the same data.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
The interception difference was one of the clearest distinctions. Seattle recorded three interceptions while New England recorded none. Seattle also had higher reported yards per passing attempt and yards per rushing attempt, while New England recorded more rushing attempts and total rushing yards.
Conclusion
The supplied seattle seahawks vs new england patriots match player stats describe a close contest in which Seattle overcame an early deficit to win 13-10. The Seahawks’ late scoring, more efficient listed passing performance, and three interceptions were central features of the reported result.
Drew Lock completed 16 of 22 listed passes for 187 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. Drake Maye threw for 178 yards and one touchdown but was intercepted three times. On the ground, Rhamondre Stevenson led New England with 51 rushing yards, while Jadarian Price led Seattle with 52. In the receiving game, Jaxon Smith-Njigba stood out with eight catches, 122 yards, and a touchdown.
The defensive comparison reinforces the importance of turnovers in close NFL games. Seattle’s three interceptions, three sacks, and nine tackles for loss helped distinguish its performance, although New England also generated quarterback pressure. The quarter-by-quarter scoring further shows how Seattle’s 10-point fourth quarter changed the outcome.
For anyone reviewing the seattle seahawks vs new england patriots match player stats, the most useful takeaway is that passing efficiency, ball security, receiving production, and defensive takeaways provide a fuller explanation of a result than the final score alone. Because some individual and team totals in the supplied extraction do not reconcile, the original box score should be checked before treating every statistical figure as definitive.
