Pittsburgh Steelers vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats
The pittsburgh steelers vs new england patriots match player stats from September 20, 2026 tell a much clearer story than the 20-3 final score alone. New England controlled the game through a combination of efficient rushing, explosive passing plays, defensive pressure, and better situational football, while Pittsburgh struggled to sustain drives and convert opportunities into points. The Patriots won 20-3 at home, improving to 1-1, while the Steelers also moved to 1-1 after the loss. (NFL)
This breakdown uses the supplied ESPN box-score data for the game and focuses on what the numbers actually reveal. Rather than simply listing statistics, the goal is to explain which individual performances mattered, why certain numbers stand out, and how the passing, rushing, receiving, defensive, kicking, and field-position statistics fit together.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats
The September 20 meeting was a low-scoring game, but it was not statistically empty. There were several important individual performances on both sides.
New England won 20-3, scoring in every quarter. The Patriots led 7-0 after the first quarter, 10-3 at halftime, 13-3 after three quarters, and added another touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Pittsburgh’s scoring was limited to a single field goal.
Final Score and Team Overview
| Category | Pittsburgh Steelers | New England Patriots |
| Final Score | 3 | 20 |
| Record After Game | 1-1 | 1-1 |
| First Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Second Quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Third Quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Team Passing | 144 yards | 191 yards |
| Team Rushing | 91 yards | 136 yards |
| Total Offensive Yards | 235 | 327 |
| Passing TDs | 0 | 0 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks Allowed | 4 | 3 |
The most important team-level number is total offense. Pittsburgh generated 235 yards, while New England produced 327. That 92-yard advantage is significant in a game decided by 17 points.
New England also held a 136-91 advantage on the ground. That difference helped the Patriots control the pace and avoid putting the entire offense on Drake Maye’s arm.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The scoring pattern is important because it shows that New England did not need one enormous offensive explosion to win.
First Quarter: Patriots Establish Control
New England opened the game with seven points while Pittsburgh failed to score.
That early advantage mattered because Pittsburgh’s offense never found enough rhythm to create a sustained comeback. Once the Patriots established the lead, they could lean more heavily on their running game and defensive pressure.
Second Quarter: Steelers Finally Get on the Board
Both teams scored three points in the second quarter.
Chris Boswell made one of two field-goal attempts for Pittsburgh, giving the Steelers their only points of the game.
Andy Borregales converted a field goal for New England, maintaining the Patriots’ advantage heading into halftime.
The 10-3 halftime score meant the game was still competitive, but Pittsburgh needed a major offensive adjustment after the break.
Third Quarter: New England Extends the Lead
The Patriots added another field goal while Pittsburgh remained scoreless.
At 13-3, the Steelers were still within two scores, but their offense had not demonstrated enough consistency to suggest a comeback was imminent.
Fourth Quarter: Patriots Close the Game
New England scored seven more points in the fourth quarter.
Pittsburgh again failed to score.
That produced the final 20-3 result and confirmed the broader statistical pattern: New England became increasingly comfortable controlling the game while Pittsburgh could not create enough offensive production.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats: Passing
Quarterback statistics provide one of the clearest explanations for Pittsburgh’s offensive problems.
Aaron Rodgers’ Passing Performance
Aaron Rodgers completed 23 of 39 passes for 187 yards.
His primary passing statistics were:
| Statistic | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 23 |
| Attempts | 39 |
| Completion Rate | 59.0% |
| Passing Yards | 187 |
| Average | 4.8 yards |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 4 |
| Sack Yards | 43 |
| QBR | 24.5 |
| Passer Rating | 60.5 |
The 187 passing yards might initially appear respectable, but the efficiency numbers tell a different story.
Rodgers averaged only 4.8 yards per attempt and was sacked four times for 43 yards. Those sacks reduced the effectiveness of an already limited passing attack.
The most revealing statistic may be the combination of zero touchdowns and one interception. Pittsburgh needed to turn possessions into points, but the offense failed to create a passing touchdown.
The supplied box score also lists Mason Rudolph with one pass attempt for zero yards.
The Steelers therefore finished with 23 completions on 40 attempts for 144 team passing yards after accounting for the official team passing figure and sack yardage.
What the Passing Numbers Reveal
The issue was not simply completion percentage.
Rodgers completed passes frequently enough to avoid looking completely ineffective, but Pittsburgh did not generate enough explosive or scoring plays.
His 4.8-yard average illustrates how difficult it was for the Steelers to consistently move the chains through the air.
The four sacks were equally damaging.
New England’s defense recorded four sacks overall, compared with Pittsburgh’s three. The Patriots also registered seven quarterback hits.
That combination created pressure without requiring New England to depend exclusively on turnovers.
Drake Maye’s Passing Performance
Drake Maye completed 14 of 22 passes for 208 yards.
| Statistic | Drake Maye |
| Completions | 14 |
| Attempts | 22 |
| Completion Rate | 63.6% |
| Passing Yards | 208 |
| Average | 9.5 yards |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 3 |
| Sack Yards | 17 |
| QBR | 54.8 |
| Passer Rating | 75.6 |
Maye’s 208 passing yards were 21 more than Rodgers’ 187 despite attempting 17 fewer passes.
That is one of the most important statistical differences in the game.
Maye averaged 9.5 yards per attempt compared with Rodgers’ 4.8. New England therefore got substantially more yardage from each passing attempt.
The Patriots quarterback did throw an interception, so this was not a perfect performance. However, the explosive nature of his passing compensated for the relatively modest completion volume.
Receiving Breakdown
The receiving numbers provide perhaps the biggest explanation for the difference in passing efficiency.
Steelers Receiving Leaders
Pittsburgh’s leading receivers included Germie Bernard, Jaylen Warren, Pat Freiermuth, Roman Wilson, and DK Metcalf.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | Long | Targets |
| Germie Bernard | 4 | 35 | 8.8 | 19 | 8 |
| Jaylen Warren | 2 | 34 | 17.0 | 26 | 4 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 4 | 32 | 8.0 | 9 | 5 |
| Roman Wilson | 5 | 28 | 5.6 | 9 | 6 |
| DK Metcalf | 4 | 27 | 6.8 | 16 | 9 |
| Rico Dowdle | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 13 | 2 |
| Darnell Washington | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 2 |
| Ben Skowronek | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 1 |
Pittsburgh recorded 23 receptions for 187 receiving yards, an 8.1-yard average.
No Steelers receiver scored a touchdown.
Germie Bernard’s Role
Germie Bernard led Pittsburgh with 35 receiving yards on four catches.
His eight targets were also among the highest on the team.
However, 35 yards from eight targets shows how difficult it was for Pittsburgh to turn opportunities into meaningful gains.
Jaylen Warren’s Efficiency
Jaylen Warren had only two receptions, but he gained 34 yards.
His 17.0-yard receiving average was the best among Pittsburgh players with multiple receptions.
That suggests Pittsburgh had opportunities for explosive plays through its running back, although the overall passing offense did not consistently build around them.
DK Metcalf’s Numbers
DK Metcalf received nine targets, the most among Pittsburgh’s listed receivers.
He finished with four receptions for 27 yards.
That works out to only 3.0 receiving yards per target.
For a receiver who can change a game with explosive plays, that limited production was a major constraint on Pittsburgh’s offense.
New England Receiving Leaders
New England’s receiving group produced a much more explosive statistical profile.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | Long | Targets |
| Romeo Doubs | 3 | 96 | 32.0 | 63 | 4 |
| Hunter Henry | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 29 | 5 |
| Eli Raridon | 1 | 30 | 30.0 | 30 | 1 |
| Mack Hollins | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 10 | 2 |
| Kyle Williams | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 | 2 |
| DeMario Douglas | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 | 2 |
| Reggie Gilliam | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 2 |
| Rhamondre Stevenson | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 | 2 |
| Efton Chism III | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | -2 | 1 |
New England completed 14 passes for 208 receiving yards.
The key difference is explosiveness.
Romeo Doubs Changes the Statistical Picture
Romeo Doubs was the standout receiving performer.
He caught only three passes, but those receptions produced 96 yards.
His 32.0-yard average and 63-yard long reception dramatically changed the efficiency of the Patriots passing game.
This is an important lesson when evaluating box scores: reception totals alone do not tell the whole story.
Pittsburgh had more completed passes, but New England produced far more yardage per completion.
Hunter Henry Adds Efficient Production
Hunter Henry caught three passes for 40 yards.
His 29-yard reception was another example of New England producing chunk plays without needing a high volume of throws.
Together, Doubs and Henry accounted for 136 receiving yards.
That represents more than half of New England’s 208 receiving yards.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats: Rushing
The rushing numbers strongly favored New England.
Pittsburgh recorded 91 rushing yards on 23 attempts.
New England recorded 136 rushing yards on 28 attempts.
That means the Patriots gained 45 more rushing yards despite running the ball only five more times.
Steelers Rushing Leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | Long | TDs |
| Jaylen Warren | 11 | 43 | 3.9 | 10 | 0 |
| Rico Dowdle | 7 | 22 | 3.1 | 6 | 0 |
| Travis Homer | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 |
Jaylen Warren led Pittsburgh with 43 rushing yards.
His 11 carries represented nearly half of the Steelers’ rushing attempts.
However, his 3.9-yard average was not enough to consistently create favorable down-and-distance situations.
Rico Dowdle added 22 yards on seven attempts, while Travis Homer produced 16 yards on only two carries.
Homer’s 8.0-yard average was particularly efficient, although his workload was small.
Patriots Rushing Leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | Long | TDs |
| TreVeyon Henderson | 16 | 76 | 4.8 | 39 | 1 |
| Rhamondre Stevenson | 6 | 43 | 7.2 | 24 | 0 |
| Drake Maye | 4 | 17 | 4.3 | 13 | 0 |
TreVeyon Henderson was the Patriots’ leading rusher.
He carried the ball 16 times for 76 yards and scored a rushing touchdown.
His 39-yard run was the longest rushing play listed for either team.
Rhamondre Stevenson was even more efficient on a smaller workload, averaging 7.2 yards per carry.
That combination gave New England both volume and efficiency.
Why the Rushing Difference Mattered
The rushing advantage affected more than the raw yardage total.
New England’s 136 rushing yards helped:
- Keep the offense balanced.
- Reduce pressure on Maye.
- Create favorable down-and-distance situations.
- Keep the Steelers defense from focusing entirely on the passing game.
- Allow the Patriots to protect their lead late.
Pittsburgh, meanwhile, averaged exactly 4.0 yards per carry as a team.
That is not disastrous, but it was not enough to compensate for the team’s passing struggles.
New England averaged 4.9 yards per carry.
The difference of 0.9 yards per rushing attempt became meaningful across 28 carries.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Defense played a major role in determining the outcome.
Pittsburgh recorded 67 total tackles, including 31 solo tackles.
New England recorded 75 tackles, including 42 solo tackles.
The Patriots also produced four sacks compared with Pittsburgh’s three.
| Defensive Category | Steelers | Patriots |
| Total Tackles | 67 | 75 |
| Solo Tackles | 31 | 42 |
| Sacks | 3 | 4 |
| Tackles for Loss | 8 | 6 |
| Passes Defended | 4 | 5 |
| QB Hits | 7 | 7 |
| Defensive TDs | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The interception count was tied at one apiece, but the Patriots converted defensive pressure into a much bigger scoreboard advantage.
New England also recorded a defensive touchdown.
That type of play is particularly valuable in a low-scoring contest because it effectively changes the value of an entire possession.
Patrick Queen and the Steelers Defense
Patrick Queen recorded Pittsburgh’s interception.
The interception resulted in three return yards and no touchdown.
Pittsburgh’s defense also produced three sacks and seven quarterback hits.
So it would be inaccurate to describe the Steelers defense as completely ineffective.
The larger problem was that the defense could not consistently compensate for the offense.
Holding New England to 20 points is a reasonably respectable result.
But when your own offense scores only three points, even a decent defensive performance can become insufficient.
New England Defensive Performance
The Patriots defense recorded four sacks, five passes defended, and seven quarterback hits.
Gabe Jacas recorded New England’s interception, returning it 11 yards.
The Patriots also had one defensive touchdown according to the supplied team defensive statistics.
The pressure statistics are particularly important.
Rodgers was sacked four times and finished with a 60.5 passer rating.
The Patriots did not need to generate a huge number of turnovers because their pressure consistently disrupted Pittsburgh’s offensive rhythm.
NFL’s official coverage of the game also highlighted Pittsburgh’s offensive struggles, including the Steelers’ difficulties on third down and costly turnover situations. (NFL)
Turnovers and Hidden Yardage
Turnovers are often where a low-scoring NFL game is decided.
Both teams recorded one interception.
Both teams also had two fumbles listed.
Pittsburgh lost one of its two fumbles.
New England also lost one of its two fumbles.
So the basic turnover count was relatively even.
However, not all turnovers occur at equal moments.
A turnover that stops a scoring opportunity can be more damaging than one occurring after a long drive has already stalled.
The supplied game information indicates that Pittsburgh had multiple costly ball-security moments.
That contributed to the offense repeatedly losing momentum.
Kicking and Special Teams
Special teams did not produce the game’s headline, but the numbers still deserve attention.
Chris Boswell
Chris Boswell went 1-for-2 on field-goal attempts.
He scored three points, with a long of 56 yards.
The missed field goal matters because Pittsburgh’s offense had so few scoring opportunities.
When an offense produces only one field goal, every missed scoring opportunity becomes more significant.
Andy Borregales
Andy Borregales made two of three field-goal attempts.
He also converted both extra-point attempts.
His eight points represented a substantial portion of New England’s scoring total.
Punting Comparison
Pittsburgh’s Cameron Johnston punted eight times for 385 yards.
That produced an average of 48.1 yards per punt, with three punts placed inside the 20-yard line.
New England’s Mitch Wishnowsky punted four times for 185 yards.
His average was 46.3 yards, with one punt inside the 20.
The number of punts is revealing.
Pittsburgh punted twice as often as New England.
That is another indirect indicator of offensive inconsistency.
A team can lose despite strong punting, but eight punts in a game where the offense scores only three points illustrates how often Pittsburgh failed to sustain drives.
Return Game
Pittsburgh recorded five kick returns for 118 yards.
The Steelers averaged 23.6 yards per kick return and had a long of 26 yards.
New England recorded one kick return for 29 yards.
On punt returns, Pittsburgh had two returns for 21 yards.
New England had four returns for 40 yards.
The return game did not determine the final score, but Pittsburgh’s kick-return volume provided field-position opportunities that the offense could not consistently convert.
The Most Important Numbers From the Game
Looking beyond individual players, several statistics explain the outcome.
1. Total offense
New England:
327 yards
Pittsburgh:
235 yards
Difference:
92 yards
That is the clearest overall indicator of offensive control.
2. Rushing production
New England:
136 yards
Pittsburgh:
91 yards
The Patriots had the better balance.
3. Passing efficiency
Drake Maye:
9.5 yards per attempt
Aaron Rodgers:
4.8 yards per attempt
That 4.7-yard difference per attempt is enormous.
4. Sacks
New England:
4
Pittsburgh:
3
The Patriots generated one additional sack and held Rodgers to only 144 team passing yards after sack yardage.
5. Scoring consistency
New England scored in all four quarters.
Pittsburgh scored in only one.
That tells us almost as much as the final score itself.
What the Box Score Says About Aaron Rodgers
Rodgers’ performance deserves context.
His 23 completions were actually 9 more than Maye’s 14.
Yet Maye produced more passing yards.
That contrast shows why completion totals should not be viewed in isolation.
Rodgers completed 59.0% of his passes, while Maye completed 63.6%.
More importantly, Maye averaged 9.5 yards per attempt.
Rodgers averaged only 4.8.
The Steelers therefore completed more passes without getting enough value from those completions.
The four sacks also hurt.
For Pittsburgh’s offense to improve in similar situations, the central challenge is not merely increasing completion volume. The offense needs to create more successful early-down plays, protect the quarterback, and turn completions into first downs and scoring opportunities.
What the Box Score Says About Drake Maye
Maye’s 208 passing yards on 22 attempts were efficient.
He was not asked to throw excessively.
That is important because New England’s rushing attack gave the offense another reliable source of yardage.
Maye did throw one interception, which prevented this from being a flawless performance.
Still, the overall offensive structure worked.
New England could run the football, hit explosive passing plays, and rely on its defense when necessary.
That balance is reflected directly in the final score.
Who Was the Most Valuable Player?
TreVeyon Henderson deserves serious consideration because of his 76 rushing yards, 4.8-yard average, 39-yard long run, and rushing touchdown.
Romeo Doubs was arguably the most explosive offensive player from a pure yardage perspective.
He produced 96 yards on only three catches.
Drake Maye was also important because he averaged 9.5 yards per passing attempt while completing 14 of 22 passes.
Defensively, the Patriots’ four sacks and one interception helped maintain control.
Rather than identifying only one statistical hero, the better conclusion is that New England won through complementary football.
Its running game supported the passing game.
Its passing game created explosive plays.
Its defense pressured Rodgers.
Its special teams contributed eight points from the kicker.
That combination is why the Patriots could win comfortably despite producing only 20 total points.
Pittsburgh’s Biggest Statistical Problem
The biggest problem was offensive efficiency.
Pittsburgh finished with:
- 144 team passing yards
- 91 rushing yards
- 235 total yards
- 3 points
- 0 offensive touchdowns
- 4 sacks allowed
- 1 interception thrown
The Steelers were not completely incapable of moving the football.
They simply could not convert enough of their yardage into points.
That distinction is important.
A team can accumulate 300 yards and still lose because of turnovers and red-zone failures. Pittsburgh’s issue was even more severe because it never approached that level of offensive production.
New England’s Biggest Statistical Advantage
New England’s biggest advantage was efficiency.
The Patriots produced:
- 191 team passing yards
- 136 rushing yards
- 327 total yards
- 20 points
- 1 rushing touchdown
- 4 sacks
- 1 interception
- 1 defensive touchdown according to the supplied defensive statistics
The Patriots did not need 400 or 500 yards.
They simply got substantially more value from their possessions than Pittsburgh did.
That is one of the strongest lessons from this box score.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs New England Patriots Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
For readers searching specifically for the pittsburgh steelers vs new england patriots match player stats, the most useful conclusions are these:
Aaron Rodgers
Rodgers completed 23 of 39 passes for 187 yards, with one interception and four sacks.
Drake Maye
Maye completed 14 of 22 passes for 208 yards, with one interception and three sacks.
Jaylen Warren
Warren led Pittsburgh in rushing with 43 yards and added 34 receiving yards.
TreVeyon Henderson
Henderson led the Patriots in rushing with 76 yards and scored the game’s rushing touchdown for New England.
Romeo Doubs
Doubs was New England’s leading receiver with 96 yards on only three receptions.
DK Metcalf
Metcalf received nine targets but finished with four catches for 27 yards.
Defensive Pressure
New England recorded four sacks, while Pittsburgh had three.
Team Yardage
New England finished with 327 total yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 235.
These numbers explain the game more effectively than simply stating the 20-3 final score.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
A useful approach to NFL box-score analysis is to avoid treating every statistic as equally important.
For example, Rodgers’ 23 completions sound positive until you compare them with his 187 yards, 4.8-yard average, one interception, and four sacks.
Likewise, Doubs’ three receptions might look modest until you see that they produced 96 yards.
The best analysis therefore connects volume with efficiency.
For quarterbacks, look at:
- Completion percentage
- Yards per attempt
- Touchdowns
- Interceptions
- Sacks
- Passer rating
For running backs, look at:
- Carries
- Yards per carry
- Long runs
- Touchdowns
- Receiving contribution
For receivers, examine:
- Targets
- Receptions
- Receiving yards
- Yards per reception
- Longest reception
- Touchdowns
For defenses, consider:
- Sacks
- Quarterback hits
- Tackles for loss
- Interceptions
- Passes defended
- Defensive touchdowns
This approach gives a more complete picture than relying on one headline statistic.
Why the 20-3 Score Was Statistically Logical
The final score may look surprisingly low considering the Patriots produced 327 yards.
That is because New England did not consistently finish drives with touchdowns.
The Patriots had 191 passing yards and 136 rushing yards, but their scoring included field goals and only one rushing touchdown.
Pittsburgh, meanwhile, generated just 235 yards and scored only three points.
So the game was not dominated by an overwhelming number of scoring possessions.
Instead, New England repeatedly won the underlying battles.
The Patriots gained more yards.
They ran more effectively.
They produced more explosive passing plays.
They recorded more sacks.
They scored in every quarter.
Pittsburgh could not generate a corresponding offensive response.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of the Steelers vs Patriots game on September 20, 2026?
The New England Patriots defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 20-3 on September 20, 2026, in Week 2. (NFL)
How many passing yards did Aaron Rodgers have?
Aaron Rodgers completed 23 of 39 passes for 187 yards, with no passing touchdowns and one interception.
How many passing yards did Drake Maye have?
Drake Maye completed 14 of 22 passes for 208 yards, with no passing touchdowns and one interception.
Who led the Patriots in rushing?
TreVeyon Henderson led New England with 76 rushing yards on 16 carries and scored one rushing touchdown.
Who was the Patriots’ leading receiver?
Romeo Doubs led New England with 96 receiving yards on three receptions. His longest catch covered 63 yards.
Which team had more total offensive yards?
New England had 327 total yards, compared with 235 for Pittsburgh, giving the Patriots a 92-yard advantage.
Conclusion
The pittsburgh steelers vs new england patriots match player stats show that New England’s 20-3 victory was built on efficiency rather than overwhelming scoring volume.
The Patriots gained 327 total yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 235. Their rushing attack produced 136 yards, while Pittsburgh managed 91. Drake Maye averaged 9.5 yards per passing attempt, while Aaron Rodgers averaged 4.8. TreVeyon Henderson provided a rushing touchdown and a 39-yard run, while Romeo Doubs supplied 96 receiving yards on only three catches.
Pittsburgh’s defense did produce an interception and three sacks, but the offense could not capitalize. Rodgers finished with 187 passing yards, one interception, and four sacks, while the Steelers failed to score an offensive touchdown.
The receiving statistics further highlight the contrast. Pittsburgh completed more passes, but New England created significantly more explosive gains. Doubs’ 96 yards and Henderson’s 39-yard run were especially important because they gave the Patriots chunks of field position without requiring a high volume of plays.
The pittsburgh steelers vs new england patriots match player stats therefore point to one central conclusion: New England won because it consistently generated more value from its offensive possessions while its defense applied enough pressure to prevent Pittsburgh from establishing rhythm.
For readers comparing individual performances, the most notable statistical standouts were Drake Maye’s efficient passing, TreVeyon Henderson’s balanced rushing performance, Romeo Doubs’ explosive receiving production, and New England’s four-sack defensive effort. For Pittsburgh, Jaylen Warren provided useful contributions on the ground and through the air, but the team’s overall offensive efficiency was not sufficient to stay competitive.
The game is a strong example of why NFL player statistics should be read together rather than individually. Completion totals, rushing attempts, receptions, sacks, turnovers, yards per attempt, and scoring all interact. Once those numbers are viewed as a complete picture, the 20-3 result becomes much easier to understand.
