Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns match player stats from the September 21, 2025 NFL matchup reveal far more than the final score. Although Green Bay entered the game with a 2 to 0 record and appeared to control much of the contest, Cleveland produced an impressive fourth quarter comeback to secure a hard fought 13 to 10 victory at home. The statistics highlight how defensive pressure, timely rushing plays, and disciplined special teams ultimately outweighed Green Bay’s early offensive success.
For fans, analysts, and fantasy football enthusiasts, this game serves as an excellent example of why player statistics matter just as much as the scoreboard. Passing efficiency, rushing production, defensive stops, quarterback pressure, field position, and special teams execution all played significant roles in determining the outcome. Looking beyond the score offers valuable insight into how Cleveland reversed the momentum and why Green Bay struggled to finish drives late in the game.
This in depth breakdown examines every major performance using official game data, helping you understand which players influenced the contest, where each team succeeded, and which moments proved decisive.
Match Overview
| Match Detail | Information |
| Sport | NFL |
| Week | Week 1 scoreboard listing |
| Date | September 21, 2025 |
| Venue | Cleveland Browns Home Stadium |
| Home Team | Cleveland Browns |
| Away Team | Green Bay Packers |
| Final Score | Cleveland Browns 13, Green Bay Packers 10 |
| Winning Team | Cleveland Browns |
| Green Bay Record | 2 to 1 |
| Cleveland Record | 1 to 2 |
Green Bay appeared to be in control entering the final quarter after building a 10 to 0 lead. However, Cleveland’s defence tightened considerably while the offence finally found enough rhythm to score 13 unanswered points.
The comeback was not built on explosive offensive numbers. Instead, it relied on patient rushing, field position, defensive pressure, and mistake free football during the closing stages.
Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns match player stats clearly demonstrate how close this contest really was. Neither offence produced overwhelming yardage, making every possession increasingly valuable as the game progressed.
Some of the biggest statistical highlights include:
- Jordan Love threw for 183 passing yards and one touchdown.
- Joe Flacco completed 21 passes despite facing consistent pressure.
- Quinshon Judkins rushed for 94 yards and scored the game’s only rushing touchdown.
- Green Bay managed only 81 total rushing yards.
- Cleveland recorded five sacks compared to Green Bay’s two.
- Grant Delpit’s interception shifted momentum during the second half.
- Andre Szmyt scored seven crucial points through accurate kicking.
Rather than relying on explosive offensive production, Cleveland won through efficiency when the game mattered most.
Final Score Summary
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Green Bay Packers | 0 | 3 | 7 | 0 | 10 |
| Cleveland Browns | 0 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 |
The score progression tells an interesting story.
Green Bay controlled the first three quarters but never extended its lead beyond ten points. That allowed Cleveland to remain within striking distance.
Once the Browns found offensive momentum in the fourth quarter, Green Bay struggled to answer, producing no points during the final period.
Quarter by Quarter Breakdown
First Quarter
Neither offence established sustained drives.
Both defensive units played aggressively, forcing punts and limiting big gains. Field position became the dominant storyline, while quarterbacks remained cautious with the football.
Second Quarter
Green Bay finally broke through.
Brandon McManus converted a 39 yard field goal, giving the Packers a 3 to 0 advantage. Cleveland’s offence continued to struggle moving the chains consistently, with Green Bay’s defence controlling the line of scrimmage.
At halftime, the Packers appeared comfortable despite the relatively low scoring pace.
Third Quarter
Green Bay extended the lead after Jordan Love connected for the game’s only passing touchdown.
The Packers entered the fourth quarter leading 10 to 0, and most observers expected them to close out the contest.
Instead, the momentum shifted dramatically.
Fourth Quarter
Everything changed.
Cleveland’s defence forced critical stops while Quinshon Judkins broke through on the ground to ignite the comeback.
Andre Szmyt added two successful field goals, including an impressive 55 yard kick, before Cleveland eventually secured a 13 to 10 victory.
The final quarter illustrated how complementary football often wins close NFL games.
Offensive Overview
Neither team generated elite offensive production, but their approaches differed significantly.
Green Bay attempted to move the football through Jordan Love’s passing while supplementing the attack with Josh Jacobs on the ground.
Cleveland relied more heavily on controlling the clock through its running game and avoiding costly offensive mistakes once momentum shifted.
Team Offensive Comparison
| Category | Packers | Browns |
| Passing Yards | 183 | 142 |
| Passing TD | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Team Rushing Yards | 81 | 96 |
| Rushing Average | 2.6 | 5.1 |
| Team Receiving Yards | 183 | 142 |
| Offensive Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
Although Green Bay finished with more passing production, Cleveland proved significantly more efficient on the ground.
That rushing efficiency ultimately helped sustain drives during the fourth quarter.
Passing Performance Analysis
Quarterback play shaped much of this defensive contest.
Jordan Love
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 18 |
| Attempts | 25 |
| Passing Yards | 183 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 5 |
| QBR | 56.4 |
| Passer Rating | 89.2 |
Jordan Love delivered an efficient first three quarters and threw the game’s only passing touchdown.
However, Cleveland’s pass rush became increasingly disruptive.
Five sacks limited Green Bay’s offensive rhythm, while the interception by Grant Delpit eliminated an important scoring opportunity.
Love’s overall numbers remain respectable, but the pressure he faced prevented the Packers from sustaining drives late in the game.
Joe Flacco
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 21 |
| Attempts | 36 |
| Passing Yards | 142 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 2 |
| QBR | 26.6 |
| Passer Rating | 55.6 |
Joe Flacco’s statistics are not especially impressive at first glance.
His completion total came through patience rather than explosive downfield passing.
Although he failed to throw a touchdown pass, he avoided critical mistakes during Cleveland’s comeback drive and consistently found short completions that kept the offence moving.
His leadership proved more valuable than his raw passing numbers.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
Jordan Love clearly produced better passing statistics.
However, football games are not determined solely by passing yards or quarterback rating.
Cleveland managed the game’s decisive moments more effectively, while Green Bay’s offence stalled during the most important possessions.
This matchup illustrates why context matters when evaluating quarterback performances.
According to the official ESPN game box score, Cleveland’s defensive pressure and fourth quarter execution ultimately made the difference. https://www.espn.com/nfl/
Early Takeaways
Several themes emerged from the opening statistical analysis.
- Cleveland’s defence became stronger as the game progressed.
- Green Bay failed to protect its fourth quarter lead.
- Jordan Love produced solid numbers but faced relentless pressure.
- Joe Flacco managed the game effectively despite modest passing production.
- The Browns’ rushing efficiency created balance during the comeback.
- Defensive execution outweighed offensive yardage.
The opening half of the statistical review already demonstrates that this game was decided by efficiency rather than explosive plays.
Rushing Performance Analysis
While passing statistics often receive the most attention, the rushing battle proved to be one of the biggest reasons Cleveland completed its comeback. The Browns consistently gained more yards per carry, allowing them to control the tempo when the game reached its most important moments.
Green Bay struggled to establish a consistent ground attack throughout the afternoon. Although the Packers remained committed to running the football, Cleveland’s defensive front prevented explosive gains and forced the offence into difficult passing situations.
Green Bay Packers Rushing Stats
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Josh Jacobs | 16 | 30 | 1.9 | 0 | 7 |
Josh Jacobs handled the majority of Green Bay’s rushing workload but found very little room against Cleveland’s defensive line. His longest run of seven yards illustrates how effectively the Browns closed running lanes throughout the game.
With only 30 rushing yards on 16 carries, Green Bay struggled to create manageable second and third downs, placing additional pressure on Jordan Love to move the offence through the air.
Cleveland Browns Rushing Stats
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Quinshon Judkins | 18 | 94 | 5.2 | 1 | 38 |
Quinshon Judkins delivered arguably the most influential offensive performance of the afternoon.
His 94 rushing yards nearly matched Green Bay’s entire team rushing total, while his touchdown provided the spark Cleveland desperately needed during the fourth quarter.
The 38 yard run demonstrated both patience and acceleration, flipping field position and energising the Browns’ offence when momentum had previously favoured Green Bay.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Category | Green Bay | Cleveland |
| Attempts | 31 | 19 |
| Rushing Yards | 81 | 96 |
| Average Per Carry | 2.6 | 5.1 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
An interesting aspect of these numbers is that Green Bay ran the football significantly more often than Cleveland.
Despite having 12 additional rushing attempts, the Packers finished with fewer rushing yards.
That difference in efficiency became one of the defining statistics of the game.
Receiving Performance Analysis
Neither receiving unit produced huge individual numbers, but several players consistently moved the chains.
Instead of explosive passing plays, both offences relied on shorter completions and methodical drives.
Green Bay Packers Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards |
| Matthew Golden | 4 | 52 |
Matthew Golden finished as Green Bay’s leading receiver with 52 yards.
Although he did not produce a game changing play, he remained Jordan Love’s most reliable target during critical possessions.
His ability to create separation on intermediate routes helped sustain several drives during the first three quarters.
Cleveland Browns Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards |
| David Njoku | 5 | 40 |
David Njoku once again demonstrated why he remains one of Cleveland’s most dependable offensive weapons.
Rather than stretching the field vertically, he consistently provided safe targets across the middle of the field.
Those modest gains helped Joe Flacco avoid unnecessary risks while maintaining possession during Cleveland’s comeback.
Team Receiving Comparison
| Category | Packers | Browns |
| Receptions | 18 | 21 |
| Receiving Yards | 183 | 142 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
Green Bay clearly produced more receiving yards and scored the game’s only passing touchdown.
However, Cleveland’s receivers excelled in another important area by securing possession and extending drives with timely catches.
The contrast highlights an important football principle: efficiency often matters more than total yardage.
Offensive Efficiency Comparison
Raw statistics only tell part of the story.
When examining offensive efficiency, several trends become obvious.
Green Bay Packers
Strengths
- Better passing production.
- Higher passing efficiency.
- Early game control.
- Successful touchdown drive.
Weaknesses
- Five sacks allowed.
- Ineffective rushing attack.
- Scoreless fourth quarter.
- Missed opportunity to extend the lead.
Cleveland Browns
Strengths
- Productive rushing attack.
- Better yards per rushing attempt.
- Strong fourth quarter execution.
- Excellent ball security on rushing plays.
Weaknesses
- Limited passing yardage.
- One interception.
- Slow offensive start.
Although Green Bay generated more offensive yards through the air, Cleveland executed more efficiently when it mattered most.
Player Spotlight
Jordan Love
Jordan Love delivered a respectable statistical performance, completing 18 of 25 passes for 183 yards and one touchdown.
For much of the afternoon, he appeared in control of Green Bay’s offence.
The biggest challenge came from Cleveland’s relentless pass rush. Being sacked five times disrupted both rhythm and field position, ultimately limiting Green Bay’s ability to close out the contest.
Joe Flacco
Joe Flacco’s box score may not immediately stand out, but experienced football fans understand that quarterback play cannot always be measured by touchdowns alone.
He remained composed despite trailing by ten points and helped guide Cleveland through a disciplined fourth quarter comeback.
Rather than forcing dangerous throws, he accepted shorter completions and trusted the running game.
Quinshon Judkins
Judkins emerged as Cleveland’s offensive star.
His combination of vision, balance and acceleration consistently challenged Green Bay’s defence.
Scoring the game’s only rushing touchdown while averaging more than five yards per carry made him one of the most impactful players on the field.
Matthew Golden
Golden led all Green Bay receivers with 52 yards.
His contributions kept several drives alive and provided Jordan Love with a dependable receiving option throughout the afternoon.
Although the Packers’ offence slowed during the final quarter, Golden remained one of its brightest performers.
David Njoku
Njoku’s five receptions reflected his value as a reliable target.
He repeatedly converted short passing opportunities into meaningful gains, helping Cleveland maintain possession during critical stretches.
His consistency complemented the Browns’ balanced offensive approach.
Statistical Trends That Defined the Game
Reviewing the numbers reveals several important themes.
First, Cleveland won despite throwing for fewer yards.
Second, Green Bay controlled much of the game but failed to capitalise on several opportunities to extend its advantage.
Third, rushing efficiency proved more valuable than rushing volume.
Finally, defensive pressure became the deciding factor during the closing stages.
The Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns match player stats clearly show that Cleveland succeeded through balance rather than offensive fireworks.
Five sacks, efficient rushing and timely special teams execution combined to overturn a ten point deficit and secure an impressive home victory.
Defensive Performance Analysis
Defence ultimately decided this game. While both teams produced impressive moments on that side of the ball, Cleveland’s defence made the bigger plays when the outcome was still in doubt. Consistent quarterback pressure, disciplined tackling and a timely interception helped the Browns erase a ten point deficit and protect their late lead.
Green Bay’s defence also performed well for most of the afternoon, holding Cleveland scoreless through three quarters. However, the unit could not maintain that level during the final period as the Browns found success on the ground and capitalised on favourable field position.
Green Bay Defensive Statistics
| Category | Total |
| Total Tackles | 62 |
| Solo Tackles | 34 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 |
| Pass Deflections | 3 |
| Quarterback Hits | 10 |
One of the standout performers for Green Bay was Quay Walker.
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles |
| Quay Walker | 14 | 6 |
Walker was active throughout the game, reading running plays effectively and limiting additional yards after contact. His fourteen tackles reflected both his consistency and his ability to remain around the football on nearly every defensive series.
Although Green Bay generated ten quarterback hits, the defence was unable to prevent Cleveland’s decisive fourth quarter scoring drives.
Cleveland Defensive Statistics
| Category | Total |
| Total Tackles | 77 |
| Solo Tackles | 41 |
| Sacks | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 6 |
| Pass Deflections | 2 |
| Quarterback Hits | 7 |
Carson Schwesinger produced one of Cleveland’s strongest defensive performances.
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks |
| Carson Schwesinger | 10 | 7 | 1 |
His combination of tackling and pass rushing helped disrupt Green Bay’s offence during the second half.
The Browns also benefited from Grant Delpit’s interception, which resulted in a 25 yard return and shifted momentum in Cleveland’s favour during a crucial stage of the game.
Defensive Comparison
The numbers reveal several key differences.
- Cleveland recorded five sacks compared to Green Bay’s two.
- The Browns finished with fifteen more total tackles.
- Cleveland forced the more impactful turnover.
- Green Bay generated more quarterback hits but could not consistently finish drives with sacks.
In close NFL games, pressure on the opposing quarterback often changes everything. Cleveland demonstrated that perfectly in this matchup.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams quietly played a major role in determining the winner.
Field Goal Statistics
| Kicker | Field Goals | Long | Extra Points | Total Points |
| Brandon McManus | 1 of 2 | 39 | 1 of 1 | 4 |
| Andre Szmyt | 2 of 2 | 55 | 1 of 1 | 7 |
Andre Szmyt delivered one of the game’s defining performances.
His successful 55 yard field goal not only added valuable points but also demonstrated confidence from long range. Converting every kick placed additional pressure on Green Bay late in the contest.
Punting Comparison
| Punter | Punts | Yards | Average | Long |
| Daniel Whelan | 5 | 265 | 53.0 | 63 |
| Corey Bojorquez | 6 | 291 | 48.5 | 58 |
Daniel Whelan averaged more than fifty three yards per punt, consistently flipping field position for Green Bay.
Meanwhile, Corey Bojorquez produced steady punts that helped Cleveland maintain favourable defensive situations throughout the game.
Return Game
Green Bay
- Savion Williams recorded three kickoff returns for 78 yards.
- Matthew Golden returned two punts for eight yards.
Cleveland
- Kaden Davis returned one kickoff for 28 yards.
- DeAndre Carter added a 27 yard kickoff return.
- Carter also contributed fifteen punt return yards.
Neither team scored on a return, but both units avoided costly mistakes and helped their offences begin drives with reasonable field position.
Biggest Turning Points
Several moments shaped the final result.
Cleveland’s Fourth Quarter Comeback
After trailing 10 to 0 entering the final quarter, the Browns completely changed the momentum of the game.
The combination of improved rushing, defensive pressure and accurate kicking resulted in thirteen unanswered points.
Five Sacks on Jordan Love
Cleveland’s defensive front consistently collapsed Green Bay’s pocket.
Each sack either ended promising drives or created long yardage situations that became difficult to overcome.
Quinshon Judkins’ Running Performance
Judkins consistently gained positive yardage and eventually scored the game’s only rushing touchdown.
His ability to move the chains reduced pressure on Joe Flacco while helping Cleveland control the clock.
Grant Delpit’s Interception
Turnovers frequently decide close games.
Delpit’s interception denied Green Bay an opportunity to extend its lead and immediately shifted momentum toward Cleveland.
What the Statistics Tell Us
The Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns match player stats reveal a contest that was much closer than many fans might expect after seeing only the final score.
Green Bay produced more passing yards and controlled the first three quarters, but several statistical categories favoured Cleveland when it mattered most.
The Browns won because they were more efficient in key situations.
- Their rushing attack averaged more than five yards per carry.
- Their defence generated five sacks.
- Their kicker converted every scoring opportunity.
- Their defence also forced one of the game’s biggest turnovers.
Meanwhile, Green Bay struggled to sustain offensive momentum once Cleveland’s pass rush intensified during the fourth quarter.
Rather than relying on explosive offensive production, Cleveland combined disciplined defence, efficient rushing and reliable special teams to earn an impressive victory.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the September 21, 2025 game between the Packers and Browns?
The Cleveland Browns defeated the Green Bay Packers 13 to 10 after scoring thirteen unanswered points during the fourth quarter.
Who led Green Bay in passing?
Jordan Love completed 18 of 25 passes for 183 yards, one touchdown and one interception.
Who was Cleveland’s leading rusher?
Quinshon Judkins rushed 18 times for 94 yards and one touchdown, making him the game’s leading rusher.
Which player recorded the most tackles?
Quay Walker led all players with 14 total tackles for Green Bay.
How many sacks did Cleveland record?
The Browns finished with five sacks, compared to two by Green Bay.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers vs Cleveland Browns match player stats highlight how football games are often decided by execution rather than overall yardage. Green Bay controlled much of the contest through efficient passing and disciplined defence, yet Cleveland remained within reach and capitalised when opportunities appeared during the fourth quarter.
Quinshon Judkins provided balance with an outstanding rushing performance, the Browns’ defence consistently pressured Jordan Love, and Andre Szmyt delivered every kick that was asked of him. Although the Packers produced more passing yards, Cleveland’s superior rushing efficiency, defensive pressure and flawless kicking proved decisive.
From an analytical perspective, this matchup serves as an excellent example of why evaluating complete player statistics provides a much clearer understanding of a game’s outcome than simply looking at the final score.
