Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats
The Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats from November 17, 2025, tell the story of a defensive battle in which Philadelphia defeated Detroit 16-9. The Eagles used a stronger rushing attack, disciplined pass coverage, and reliable kicking to secure the home victory. Although Detroit generated explosive plays through its passing game, the Lions struggled to turn those opportunities into enough points to win.
Philadelphia entered the matchup with an 8-2 record, while Detroit arrived at 6-4. The final score reflected a game in which neither offense consistently controlled the passing game. Jared Goff completed 14 of 37 passes for Detroit, while Jalen Hurts completed 14 of 28 for Philadelphia. Both quarterbacks faced pressure, but the Eagles made better use of their ground game and created a decisive turnover through Cooper DeJean’s interception.
The matchup also highlighted a contrast between offensive styles. Detroit recorded more passing yards, including significant contributions from Jahmyr Gibbs and Jameson Williams, but Philadelphia produced 148 rushing yards compared with Detroit’s 74. That difference helped the Eagles maintain a more balanced offensive approach and gave them an advantage in a low-scoring contest.
This breakdown examines the final score, quarterback performances, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistics that explain how Philadelphia secured the seven-point victory.
Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Eagles won 16-9 at home on November 17, 2025. The game featured limited scoring, an important defensive interception, and a clear difference in rushing production.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles |
| Date | November 17, 2025 |
| Final score | Philadelphia Eagles 16, Detroit Lions 9 |
| Winning team | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Venue designation | Philadelphia was the home team |
| Detroit record entering the game | 6-4 |
| Philadelphia record entering the game | 8-2 |
| Winning margin | 7 points |
Philadelphia scored in three of the four quarters, while Detroit managed points in only the second and fourth quarters. The Eagles’ defense prevented Detroit from scoring in the first and third quarters, limiting the Lions’ ability to build momentum.
The most revealing difference was not passing production alone. Detroit’s receiving statistics showed considerable explosive-play potential, but Philadelphia gained twice as many rushing yards and recorded the game’s only interception. Those factors helped determine the outcome.
For the official individual and team figures, consult the ESPN game box score.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
The scoring pattern shows why this game remained competitive despite Philadelphia’s advantage on the ground.
| Quarter | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| First quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 6 | 10 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Final score | 9 | 16 |
Philadelphia opened the scoring with three points in the first quarter. The second quarter produced the game’s biggest scoring difference, with the Eagles adding 10 points and Detroit scoring six.
Neither team scored in the third quarter. That defensive stretch kept Detroit within reach, but the Lions could not generate a scoring surge in the final period. Both teams added three points in the fourth quarter, leaving Philadelphia with a seven-point win.
The second-quarter advantage proved particularly important. In a game where every scoring opportunity mattered, Philadelphia established a lead that its defense could protect without allowing Detroit to take control late.
Quarterback Statistics: Jared Goff vs Jalen Hurts
Quarterback performance provides an important starting point for understanding the result. Both players completed 14 passes, but their passing efficiency, turnover figures, and contributions as runners differed.
| Passing statistic | Jared Goff, Lions | Jalen Hurts, Eagles |
| Completions | 14 | 14 |
| Pass attempts | 37 | 28 |
| Completion percentage | 37.8% | 50.0% |
| Passing yards, player line | 255 | 135 |
| Passing yards, team line | 243 | 124 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.9 | 4.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 | 1 |
| Sack yards lost | 12 | 11 |
| Passer rating | 60.1 | 63.8 |
| QBR | 9.5 | 27.1 |
Note: The supplied statistical extract lists separate player and team passing-yard totals. Those figures are preserved as provided rather than treated as interchangeable.
Jared Goff’s passing performance
Goff finished with 14 completions on 37 attempts, a completion rate of approximately 37.8%. His listed player passing total was 255 yards, with a team passing figure of 243 yards.
His 6.9 yards per attempt was higher than Hurts’ 4.8, indicating that Detroit generated more yardage per pass attempt according to the supplied figures. However, the Lions did not turn that passing production into enough points.
Goff’s most important receiving connections included Jameson Williams, Jahmyr Gibbs, and Amon-Ra St. Brown. Williams averaged 22 yards per reception, while Gibbs averaged 21.4 yards across five catches. Those numbers suggest Detroit’s completed passes often produced meaningful gains rather than relying exclusively on short throws.
The challenge was consistency. Goff completed fewer than four out of every 10 attempts, threw an interception, and took two sacks. His listed passer rating was 60.1, and his QBR was 9.5.
These numbers show why total passing yards alone cannot explain quarterback effectiveness. A quarterback may produce explosive plays while still struggling to sustain drives. In this game, Detroit’s passing production did not compensate for its limited rushing output and difficulty converting opportunities into points.
Jalen Hurts’ passing performance
Hurts completed 14 of 28 attempts, finishing with a 50% completion rate. His listed player passing total was 135 yards, with a team passing figure of 124 yards. He threw no interceptions and no passing touchdowns.
His passer rating of 63.8 was slightly higher than Goff’s 60.1, and his QBR of 27.1 exceeded Goff’s 9.5. Although these figures do not indicate an outstanding passing performance, they reflect a game in which Hurts avoided the interception recorded against Detroit’s quarterback.
Hurts also contributed on the ground. He carried the ball 10 times for 31 yards and scored Philadelphia’s rushing touchdown. That contribution was important because the Eagles did not need their quarterback to produce a high-volume passing performance to win.
The central takeaway is that Hurts’ overall contribution extended beyond his passing statistics. His rushing score, combined with Philadelphia’s ground production and defensive work, helped the Eagles win even though their passing game generated limited yardage.
Which quarterback had the better game?
The answer depends on which aspect of performance matters most.
- Passing yardage: Goff’s listed player total was higher.
- Completion percentage: Hurts finished at 50%, compared with Goff’s 37.8%.
- Passing touchdowns: Goff recorded one, while Hurts recorded none.
- Interceptions: Hurts avoided an interception, while Goff threw one.
- Rushing contribution: Hurts recorded 31 yards and a touchdown.
- Overall result: Philadelphia won the game.
Neither quarterback delivered a dominant passing performance. Hurts benefited from a more productive rushing attack and a defense that generated a crucial turnover. Goff’s passing numbers included more yardage and one touchdown, but Detroit’s overall offensive performance was not sufficient.
Rushing Statistics: Philadelphia’s Biggest Advantage
The ground game was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams. Philadelphia finished with 148 rushing yards on 40 attempts, while Detroit recorded 74 yards on 21 attempts.
| Rushing statistic | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Rushing attempts | 21 | 40 |
| Rushing yards | 74 | 148 |
| Yards per carry | 3.5 | 3.7 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Longest run | 11 yards | 17 yards |
Philadelphia gained exactly twice as many rushing yards as Detroit. The Eagles also attempted 19 more rushes and scored the only rushing touchdown in the matchup.
That combination matters because rushing effectiveness is not determined solely by yards per carry. Philadelphia’s average was only slightly higher than Detroit’s, but the Eagles repeatedly used the ground game and produced more total yardage. The additional attempts gave the offense another way to advance the ball when passing opportunities were limited.
Jahmyr Gibbs’ all-purpose contribution
Gibbs was one of Detroit’s most productive offensive players when rushing and receiving are considered together.
| Gibbs statistic | Total |
| Rushing attempts | 12 |
| Rushing yards | 39 |
| Yards per carry | 3.3 |
| Longest rush | 11 yards |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving yards | 107 |
| Yards per reception | 21.4 |
| Longest reception | 42 yards |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
Gibbs gained 39 rushing yards and added 107 receiving yards. That produced 146 combined rushing and receiving yards on the supplied figures, making him a significant source of Detroit’s offensive production.
His receiving average of 21.4 yards per catch stands out. Gibbs was not merely serving as a short-yardage safety valve; his catches generated substantial yardage. His longest reception went for 42 yards.
However, the contrast between his receiving production and rushing output reveals a challenge for Detroit. The Lions could create large gains through Gibbs in the passing game, but their overall rushing attack produced only 74 yards. The offense did not establish the same level of balance as Philadelphia.
Gibbs’ numbers are particularly useful for evaluating his role in this matchup because they show how a running back can influence a game even when the ground game is not consistently productive.
David Montgomery’s rushing performance
Montgomery carried the ball six times for 27 yards, averaging 4.5 yards per attempt. His longest run was seven yards, and he did not record a rushing touchdown.
His average exceeded Gibbs’ 3.3 yards per carry, but Montgomery received fewer opportunities. Together, the two backs accounted for 66 rushing yards on 18 carries.
That left only eight rushing yards across Detroit’s other three listed rushing attempts. The figures underline how much of the Lions’ ground production came from their primary running backs and how little the team gained outside those contributions.
Saquon Barkley’s role in Philadelphia’s attack
Barkley led the Eagles in rushing attempts, carrying the ball 26 times for 83 yards.
| Barkley statistic | Total |
| Carries | 26 |
| Rushing yards | 83 |
| Yards per carry | 3.2 |
| Longest run | 14 yards |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving yards | 7 |
Barkley’s 83 rushing yards represented more than half of Philadelphia’s listed team rushing total. His 26 carries also accounted for most of the Eagles’ 40 rushing attempts.
His 3.2 yards per carry was not especially explosive. Nevertheless, his workload helped Philadelphia keep the ball moving through repeated rushing attempts. A running back can contribute to a winning offense through sustained involvement even without producing a high average or scoring a touchdown.
Barkley also recorded one reception for seven yards, bringing his listed combined rushing and receiving total to 90 yards.
Tank Bigsby’s efficiency
Bigsby provided Philadelphia with a more explosive rushing average. He carried the ball four times for 34 yards, averaging 8.5 yards per carry.
His longest run was 17 yards, and he did not score a touchdown. Although his sample was small, his average was substantially higher than Barkley’s.
Bigsby’s production gave the Eagles another source of rushing yardage without requiring Barkley to account for every positive run. His four carries produced nearly as many yards as Gibbs’ 12 rushing attempts.
This difference illustrates why both volume and efficiency should be considered when evaluating running backs. Barkley handled the larger workload, while Bigsby generated more yards per carry.
Hurts as a rushing threat
Hurts carried the ball 10 times for 31 yards, averaging 3.1 yards per attempt. His longest run was 12 yards, and he scored one rushing touchdown.
His 31 rushing yards were not the largest contribution on Philadelphia’s offense, but the touchdown was decisive. A quarterback’s rushing production can create scoring opportunities that do not appear in the passing touchdown column.
Hurts’ rushing score also demonstrates why quarterback statistics should be evaluated across the entire offensive role. Looking only at his passing totals would omit one of the most important plays reflected in the supplied scoring statistics.
Receiving Statistics: Explosive Plays vs Consistent Production
Detroit’s receivers generated more listed receiving yardage than Philadelphia’s pass catchers. The Lions recorded 255 team receiving yards, compared with 135 for the Eagles.
| Receiving statistic | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Receptions | 14 | 14 |
| Receiving yards | 255 | 135 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Longest reception | 42 yards | 34 yards |
| Targets | 36 | 27 |
Both teams recorded 14 receptions, but Detroit gained 120 more receiving yards. That difference shows how much more yardage the Lions generated from their completed passes.
However, receiving yards do not tell the entire story. Detroit’s production included explosive gains, yet Philadelphia won by avoiding an interception on offense, controlling the rushing game, and scoring through its quarterback’s legs and its kicker’s field goals.
Jameson Williams leads Detroit’s receiving impact
Williams caught four passes for 88 yards and one touchdown. His 22 yards per reception led Detroit’s listed primary receiving contributors, and his longest catch covered 40 yards.
| Williams statistic | Total |
| Targets | 7 |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving yards | 88 |
| Yards per reception | 22.0 |
| Longest reception | 40 yards |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
Williams’ production was a major bright spot for Detroit. His four catches accounted for a substantial portion of the team’s receiving yards, and he scored the Lions’ listed receiving touchdown.
The 40-yard longest reception also highlights his ability to generate significant gains. However, four catches on seven targets meant that his opportunities did not all become completions. More importantly, his touchdown was not enough to overcome Philadelphia’s scoring advantage.
Williams’ performance illustrates the difference between individual success and team success. A receiver can deliver explosive plays while the offense still struggles to sustain drives or score often enough.
Amon-Ra St. Brown’s contribution
St. Brown caught two passes for 42 yards on 12 targets. His average was 21 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 34 yards. He did not record a receiving touchdown.
His yardage per catch was strong, but the relationship between targets and receptions stands out. Twelve targets resulted in two catches according to the supplied figures.
That does not, by itself, establish why the other targets did not become receptions. Coverage, throw placement, pressure, and other play-level factors would need to be examined before assigning a specific cause.
The available statistics nevertheless show that Detroit gave St. Brown a substantial share of its passing opportunities while recording relatively few completions to him.
Jahmyr Gibbs as a receiver
Gibbs caught five passes for 107 yards on eight targets. His 42-yard longest reception was the longest listed catch for either team’s individual receiving contributors in the supplied data.
Gibbs’ receiving output exceeded that of any other listed Detroit player. Combined with his 39 rushing yards, it gave him 146 yards from scrimmage.
His role demonstrates the value of using a running back as a receiving option. A back who can generate large gains through the air gives the offense another way to exploit space, especially when conventional rushing plays produce limited yardage.
For Detroit, Gibbs’ receiving performance was productive, but it could not fully offset the team’s broader difficulties.
A.J. Brown leads Philadelphia’s receivers
Brown recorded seven receptions for 49 yards on 11 targets. He averaged seven yards per catch, and his longest reception was 12 yards. He did not score a receiving touchdown.
Brown led the Eagles in receptions and receiving yards among the listed Philadelphia players. Yet his average gain was much lower than the leading Detroit receivers’ averages.
His numbers suggest a different receiving pattern. Philadelphia’s passing game produced fewer total yards and relied less on explosive receiving gains, while the team leaned more heavily on rushing production.
Brown’s seven catches gave Hurts a regular passing option, but Philadelphia’s offense ultimately depended on a wider combination of rushing, passing, and kicking contributions.
Jahan Dotson and Dallas Goedert
Dotson caught two passes for 43 yards on two targets. His average of 21.5 yards per reception and longest catch of 34 yards made him an efficient contributor in limited opportunities.
Goedert also caught two passes, recording 24 yards. He did not score a receiving touchdown.
Dotson’s production is a useful reminder that target volume and receiving efficiency are different measures. Brown had more catches and targets, but Dotson gained nearly as many yards on just two receptions.
Philadelphia’s listed receiving production was spread across several players, but none recorded a receiving touchdown. The offense’s scoring came through other channels.
DeVonta Smith and the remaining receiving contributors
Smith caught one pass for eight yards. Barkley added one reception for seven yards, while Kylen Granson caught one pass for four yards.
These smaller totals formed part of Philadelphia’s overall receiving output. They were not individually decisive, but they contributed to the distribution of passing opportunities across the offense.
The most important comparison remains the difference between the teams’ receiving totals. Detroit generated more passing yardage, but Philadelphia found other ways to score and did not need a passing touchdown to finish ahead.
Defensive Player Stats: The Difference-Making Performances
Defense played a central role in Philadelphia’s victory. The Eagles recorded two sacks and one interception, while Detroit registered one sack and no interceptions. Philadelphia also recorded 10 passes defended compared with Detroit’s three.
| Defensive statistic | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Total tackles | 69 | 52 |
| Solo tackles | 39 | 30 |
| Sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 3 | 10 |
| Quarterback hurries | 2 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
The Lions recorded more total tackles, but the Eagles produced more sacks, pass breakups, quarterback hurries, and interceptions. This is an important distinction when interpreting defensive statistics.
A high tackle count can reflect a defense that spends more time making stops after opponents have already gained yards. It does not automatically indicate superior defensive performance. Philadelphia’s pressure and coverage numbers show that its defense affected Detroit’s passing opportunities in several ways.
Jack Campbell leads Detroit in tackles
Campbell recorded 15 total tackles, including seven solo tackles and one tackle for loss. He was Detroit’s leading tackler by a significant margin.
| Lions defender | Total tackles | Additional supplied statistics |
| Jack Campbell | 15 | 7 solo tackles, 1 tackle for loss |
| Rock Ya-Sin | 6 | Not specified |
| Alex Anzalone | 6 | Not specified |
| Brian Branch | 6 | Not specified |
| Thomas Harper | 5 | Not specified |
| Tyleik Williams | 4 | Not specified |
| Amik Robertson | 3 | Not specified |
| Derrick Barnes | 3 | Not specified |
| DJ Reader | 3 | Not specified |
| Aidan Hutchinson | 3 | 0.5 sack |
| Alim McNeill | 3 | Not specified |
Campbell’s 15 tackles made him one of the most statistically active defenders in the game. His tackle for loss also indicates that at least one of his stops came behind the line of scrimmage.
However, Detroit’s overall defensive numbers reveal a mixed performance. The Lions made 69 tackles and recorded four tackles for loss, but they produced only one sack and no interceptions. They also defended three passes, fewer than Philadelphia’s 10.
The figures show that Detroit’s defense was involved throughout the game, but it did not produce the same level of disruption in the passing game as the Eagles.
Aidan Hutchinson’s pass-rush contribution
Hutchinson recorded three total tackles and half a sack. The half-sack formed part of Detroit’s team total of one sack.
His listed numbers do not indicate a high-volume statistical performance, but sacks are only one part of evaluating a pass rusher. Pressures, quarterback movement, and the timing of individual plays can also matter. The supplied data records two quarterback hurries for Detroit as a team but does not assign those hurries to specific defenders.
It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute all of Detroit’s quarterback pressure to Hutchinson. His confirmed contribution in the provided figures was three tackles and half a sack.
Philadelphia’s defensive pressure
Philadelphia recorded two sacks, seven quarterback hurries, and 10 passes defended. Those figures provide a stronger picture of the defense’s effect on Detroit’s passing game than tackle totals alone.
Jaelan Phillips recorded one sack and five tackles. Nakobe Dean also recorded a sack, alongside three tackles. Their contributions accounted for the two sacks listed for the Eagles.
| Eagles defender | Total tackles | Additional supplied statistics |
| Zack Baun | 7 | Not specified |
| Jalen Carter | 5 | Not specified |
| Jaelan Phillips | 5 | 1 sack |
| Andrew Mukuba | 4 | Not specified |
| Adoree’ Jackson | 4 | Not specified |
| Reed Blankenship | 4 | Not specified |
| Cooper DeJean | 3 | 1 interception |
| Nakobe Dean | 3 | 1 sack |
| Moro Ojomo | 3 | Not specified |
| Kelee Ringo | 2 | Not specified |
| Jihaad Campbell | 2 | Not specified |
The Eagles’ pass defense was especially notable. Ten passes defended suggest that Philadelphia frequently challenged Detroit’s passing attempts, although that statistic alone cannot establish how many of those plays directly prevented completions or changed possession.
Combined with the interception, the coverage figures show that Philadelphia’s defense did more than tackle receivers after catches. It also created opportunities to stop the passing game before those plays could develop.
Cooper DeJean’s interception
DeJean recorded the game’s listed interception for Philadelphia, returning it 21 yards without scoring a touchdown.
The interception was one of the clearest differences between the two defenses. Detroit recorded no interceptions, while Philadelphia took the ball away once.
Turnovers can have a disproportionate effect in low-scoring games. When both offenses struggle to score touchdowns consistently, an interception can remove an opportunity from one team and give the other a chance to gain possession.
The supplied figures do not establish the exact field position or the subsequent scoring sequence associated with DeJean’s return, so those details should not be inferred. What the statistics confirm is that Philadelphia created the game’s interception and Detroit did not record one of its own.
Kicking Statistics: Jake Elliott’s Perfect Field-Goal Record
Special teams contributed directly to the final score. Philadelphia kicker Jake Elliott made all three of his field-goal attempts, while Detroit kicker Jake Bates converted one field goal.
| Kicking statistic | Jake Bates, Detroit | Jake Elliott, Philadelphia |
| Field goals made | 1 | 3 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 54 yards | 49 yards |
| Extra points made | 0 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 1 | 1 |
| Total points | 3 | 10 |
Elliott scored 10 points, making three field goals and one extra point. Bates scored three points through a successful 54-yard field goal, but he missed his only extra-point attempt.
The difference in field-goal production was significant. Philadelphia made two more field goals than Detroit, accounting for six additional points from that category alone.
Elliott’s longest successful kick was 49 yards, while Bates made a longer field goal from 54 yards. Bates therefore recorded the longer individual kick, but Elliott produced more total points.
This distinction matters when comparing kickers. Longest field goal measures distance, while points and conversion percentage reflect how the kicking performance contributed to the team’s scoring.
Why field goals mattered in this game
Philadelphia did not record a passing touchdown, and Barkley did not score a rushing touchdown. Instead, the Eagles relied on Hurts’ rushing touchdown and Elliott’s successful kicks.
In a low-scoring contest, the ability to convert drives into field goals can provide a meaningful advantage. Philadelphia’s three successful field goals helped build a lead that its defense maintained.
Detroit’s single field goal limited the contribution from its kicking game. Even though the Lions recorded a receiving touchdown, their total of nine points was not enough to catch the Eagles.
Punting Statistics and Field Position
The punting figures show that Philadelphia used its punter more frequently during the game.
| Punting statistic | Jack Fox, Detroit | Braden Mann, Philadelphia |
| Punts | 4 | 7 |
| Total punting yards | 169 | 289 |
| Average punt | 42.3 yards | 41.3 yards |
| Longest punt | 55 yards | 48 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 4 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Fox averaged 42.3 yards per punt, slightly higher than Mann’s 41.3-yard average. Fox also recorded the longer punt at 55 yards.
Mann, however, punted seven times and placed four punts inside the 20-yard line. Fox recorded four punts, with two inside the 20.
These numbers require context. A higher punt count can reflect more offensive possessions ending without a score, but it does not independently prove that a team performed poorly in every phase. Similarly, a longer punt does not necessarily mean better field-position management if the ball travels into the end zone or the return creates additional yardage.
Neither punter recorded a touchback in the supplied statistics. Philadelphia’s four punts inside the 20 indicate that Mann frequently placed the ball in a position that could make the opposing offense work its way down the field.
The available figures do not provide every punt’s starting field position or return outcome, so the exact net field-position advantage cannot be calculated from these totals alone.
Kick Returns and Punt Returns
Return production was modest for both teams, with Detroit recording more kick returns and more punt returns.
| Return statistic | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Kick returns | 3 | 1 |
| Kick-return yards | 62 | 22 |
| Average kick return | 20.7 yards | 22.0 yards |
| Longest kick return | 26 yards | 22 yards |
| Punt returns | 3 | 1 |
| Punt-return yards | 3 | 0 |
Detroit accumulated 62 kick-return yards across three returns, while Philadelphia recorded 22 yards on one return. Philadelphia’s average was slightly higher, but Detroit produced more total return yardage because it had more opportunities.
Kalif Raymond recorded two kick returns for 36 yards, averaging 18 yards per return. His longest kick return was 21 yards. Jacob Saylors added one return for 26 yards, giving him the longest kick return listed for Detroit.
On punt returns, Raymond recorded three returns for three yards. Philadelphia’s Xavier Gipson had one punt return for no yards. These figures show that neither team generated substantial field-position gains through punt returns.
Return statistics are most useful when assessed alongside starting field position, offensive efficiency, and kicking placement. The available numbers establish the volume and yardage of returns, but they do not support a precise calculation of how many points were gained or lost because of return decisions.
Fumbles and Ball Security
Turnover figures beyond interceptions are also relevant when comparing the two offenses.
| Ball-security statistic | Detroit Lions | Philadelphia Eagles |
| Team fumbles | 0 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles recovered | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown by quarterback | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive interceptions | 0 | 1 |
Detroit recorded no team fumbles and lost none. Philadelphia recorded two fumbles but did not lose either, according to the supplied extract.
Hurts was credited with one fumble, while Xavier Gipson was also credited with one. Neither fumble was listed as lost. The extract separately records Philadelphia recovering one fumble.
The key distinction is between committing a fumble and losing possession. A fumble creates a risk, but it does not become a turnover if the offense retains or regains the ball.
Philadelphia’s ball security was not perfect, but the Eagles avoided losing a fumble. Detroit, meanwhile, did not fumble but did throw an interception. The final turnover comparison therefore favors Philadelphia because the Eagles recorded the game’s only interception and did not lose a fumble.
Five Key Statistical Takeaways
The individual numbers become more useful when viewed together. Five patterns explain the outcome more clearly than any single player’s total.
1. Philadelphia doubled Detroit’s rushing yardage
The Eagles gained 148 rushing yards, while Detroit recorded 74. The 74-yard difference gave Philadelphia a substantial advantage in a game where passing production was limited.
Philadelphia also attempted 40 rushes compared with Detroit’s 21. This difference in volume allowed the Eagles to build more of their offense around the ground game.
2. Detroit generated more receiving yards but scored fewer points
Detroit’s listed receiving total was 255 yards, compared with Philadelphia’s 135. Williams and Gibbs were especially productive, combining for 195 receiving yards.
Despite that output, Detroit finished with nine points. The contrast demonstrates why yardage totals should not be treated as equivalent to scoring efficiency.
3. Philadelphia made the more impactful defensive plays
The Eagles recorded two sacks, seven quarterback hurries, 10 passes defended, and one interception. Detroit had one sack, two quarterback hurries, three passes defended, and no interceptions.
These statistics point to Philadelphia generating more disruption in the passing game. DeJean’s interception was particularly important because it gave the Eagles the only defensive takeaway recorded in the supplied data.
4. Elliott’s field goals supplied a major scoring advantage
Elliott converted three field goals and one extra point for 10 total points. Bates made one field goal for three points and missed his extra point.
The Eagles’ additional field-goal production helped them win without a passing touchdown. Philadelphia’s scoring was spread across kicking and rushing, rather than depending on a prolific passing performance.
5. Hurts contributed a touchdown without throwing one
Hurts did not throw a touchdown pass, but he scored a rushing touchdown and gained 31 rushing yards.
This is a reminder that quarterback production must be assessed across passing and rushing. A passing-only comparison would overlook the touchdown that contributed directly to Philadelphia’s victory.
How the Match Statistics Explain Philadelphia’s Victory
The result was shaped by a combination of rushing production, defensive disruption, and kicking accuracy. Philadelphia did not dominate every offensive category, but it performed better in several areas that directly influenced the scoreboard.
Detroit’s passing attack generated more receiving yards and included an impressive performance from Gibbs. Williams also supplied the Lions’ receiving touchdown. However, Detroit’s low completion percentage, interception, and limited rushing production restricted its ability to turn those individual performances into a winning result.
Philadelphia took a different route. Barkley handled 26 carries, Bigsby supplied efficient runs, and Hurts added a rushing touchdown. Elliott converted all three field-goal attempts, while the defense generated an interception and two sacks.
The game therefore illustrates an important principle of football analysis: the team with more passing yards does not necessarily control the game. Rushing volume, turnovers, scoring efficiency, and defensive pressure can have a greater effect on the final result than total yardage alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles game?
The Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Detroit Lions 16-9 on November 17, 2025. Philadelphia won by seven points in a low-scoring game.
2. How did Jared Goff perform against the Eagles?
Goff completed 14 of 37 passes, threw one touchdown and one interception, and recorded a 60.1 passer rating. The supplied player statistics list 255 passing yards, while the team passing line lists 243 yards.
3. How many rushing yards did Saquon Barkley record?
Barkley rushed 26 times for 83 yards, averaging 3.2 yards per carry. He did not score a rushing touchdown, but his workload helped Philadelphia establish its ground game.
4. Who led Detroit in receiving yards?
Jahmyr Gibbs led Detroit’s listed receivers with 107 receiving yards on five receptions. Jameson Williams followed with 88 yards and one receiving touchdown.
5. Which defense recorded the most sacks and interceptions?
Philadelphia recorded two sacks and one interception. Detroit recorded one sack and no interceptions. Jaelan Phillips and Nakobe Dean each recorded one sack, while Cooper DeJean registered the interception.
6. Why did Philadelphia win despite recording fewer passing yards?
Philadelphia gained 148 rushing yards compared with Detroit’s 74, avoided an interception on offense, and recorded the game’s only interception on defense. Jake Elliott also made all three of his field-goal attempts, helping the Eagles reach 16 points.
Conclusion
The Detroit Lions vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats reveal a game decided by execution in several key areas rather than by passing yardage alone. Philadelphia won 16-9 by producing 148 rushing yards, scoring a rushing touchdown through Jalen Hurts, and converting three field goals through Jake Elliott.
Detroit’s passing attack showed flashes of effectiveness, particularly through Jahmyr Gibbs and Jameson Williams. Gibbs recorded 107 receiving yards, while Williams contributed 88 yards and a touchdown. However, the Lions managed only 74 rushing yards, and Jared Goff’s interception added to the challenges facing the offense.
Defensively, Philadelphia generated two sacks, seven quarterback hurries, and one interception. Cooper DeJean’s interception and the Eagles’ ability to disrupt Detroit’s passing game helped protect their lead. Although Detroit recorded more total tackles, Philadelphia produced more impactful plays in coverage and against the quarterback.
The final statistical picture is clear: Detroit created more receiving yardage, but Philadelphia combined a stronger rushing attack, dependable kicking, and effective defensive pressure to secure the victory. The matchup demonstrates why a complete player-stat analysis must consider how individual performances contribute to scoring, possession, and the final outcome.
