New York Giants vs Dallas Cowboys Match Player Stats
The New York Giants vs Dallas Cowboys match player stats provide a detailed look at how the Giants secured a 28-20 victory over the Cowboys on September 14, 2026, according to the game data supplied for this article. New York’s balanced offense, efficient passing, and stronger rushing attack created the main statistical advantages. Quarterback Jaxson Dart completed 23 of 29 passes for 230 yards and three touchdowns, while Dallas quarterback Dak Prescott recorded 175 passing yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. The eight-point final margin tells only part of the story. New York gained 395 total offensive yards compared with Dallas’s 244, showing how consistently the Giants moved the ball through the air and on the ground.
This game provides a useful example of why football analysis requires more than looking at the final score or individual touchdown totals. Passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, turnovers, defensive pressure, and scoring consistency all help explain the result. The following breakdown examines the supplied box-score figures, highlights the players who shaped the contest, and explains which statistics matter most when evaluating the performance of both teams.
Data note: The analysis below uses the game details and player statistics provided in the prompt, with ESPN identified as the source. The figures are presented as supplied rather than independently verified. Readers should consult the ESPN box score for the official game record and any subsequent corrections.
New York Giants vs Dallas Cowboys Match Player Stats: Game Summary
New York Giants
28
Winning team
FINAL
Sep 14, 2026
vs.
Dallas Cowboys
20
Losing team
Total offensive yards
395
New York
Total offensive yards
244
Dallas
Passing touchdowns
3
Giants
Passing touchdowns
2
Cowboys
The supplied box-score data shows that the Giants won in all four quarters, scoring seven points in each period. Dallas scored no points in the opening quarter, seven in the second, seven in the third, and six in the fourth.
| Quarter | New York Giants | Dallas Cowboys |
| First | 7 | 0 |
| Second | 7 | 7 |
| Third | 7 | 7 |
| Fourth | 7 | 6 |
| Final score | 28 | 20 |
The scoring pattern reveals two important points. First, New York established an early lead instead of spending the entire game chasing Dallas. Second, the Giants maintained their scoring pace after halftime, while the Cowboys could not match the home team’s overall production.
Dallas remained competitive on the scoreboard, but the offensive totals suggest that New York created more consistent opportunities to move the chains and reach scoring positions.
Quarterback Stats: Jaxson Dart vs Dak Prescott
Quarterback performance was one of the most important differences in this matchup. Both passers threw multiple touchdown passes, but Dart produced more passing yards on fewer attempts and avoided interceptions.
Jaxson Dart’s passing performance
| Statistic | Jaxson Dart |
| Completions | 23 |
| Pass attempts | 29 |
| Completion percentage | 79.3% |
| Passing yards | 230 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| QBR | 70.7 |
| Passer rating | 134.2 |
Dart’s 23 completions on 29 attempts represent a completion rate of approximately 79.3%. That is an efficient passing performance, particularly when combined with 230 yards and three touchdown passes.
His 7.9 yards per attempt also indicates that New York gained useful yardage without relying entirely on short throws. A high completion rate paired with solid yardage per attempt can help an offense stay ahead of the chains, sustain drives, and reduce the number of difficult third-down situations.
The absence of an interception was another advantage. Dart gave Dallas no recorded interception opportunity from his passes, allowing the Giants to protect possession while generating three passing touchdowns.
His supplied passer rating of 134.2 reinforces the strength of his statistical performance. However, a passer rating and QBR measure different aspects of quarterback play, so they should not be treated as interchangeable numbers.
Dart also contributed as a runner, adding 54 rushing yards on 11 carries. That mobility gave New York another way to gain ground when a passing play did not produce the desired result.
Dak Prescott’s passing performance
| Statistic | Dak Prescott |
| Completions | 22 |
| Pass attempts | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 64.7% |
| Passing yards | 175 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| QBR | 81.9 |
| Passer rating | 84.8 |
Prescott completed 22 of 34 passes, giving him a completion percentage of approximately 64.7%. He threw two touchdown passes, but his 175 passing yards and 5.1 yards per attempt indicate that Dallas generated less passing production overall.
The interception was another difference between the two quarterbacks. Prescott’s one interception gave New York an additional defensive opportunity and prevented Dallas from maintaining a completely mistake-free passing performance.
The supplied figures list zero sacks against Prescott. That means the recorded sack total did not account for Dallas’s lower passing output. Coverage, the length of completions, down-and-distance situations, and play selection can all affect passing efficiency even when a quarterback is not sacked.
Prescott’s listed QBR of 81.9 is higher than Dart’s 70.7, despite Dart’s stronger passer rating. This is a useful reminder that quarterback metrics can evaluate performance differently. Without the underlying play-by-play methodology and full situational context, the numbers alone do not establish that one rating is more representative than the other.
Head-to-head quarterback comparison
| Category | Jaxson Dart | Dak Prescott |
| Completions | 23 | 22 |
| Attempts | 29 | 34 |
| Completion rate | 79.3% | 64.7% |
| Passing yards | 230 | 175 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.9 | 5.1 |
| Passing TDs | 3 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Passer rating | 134.2 | 84.8 |
Key takeaway: Dart produced 55 more passing yards, one additional passing touchdown, and no interceptions. He also needed five fewer attempts to complete his passes. Those differences help explain why New York gained more from its passing game.
Rushing Stats: Giants Establish the Ground Advantage
The ground game was arguably the clearest statistical advantage in the supplied data. New York recorded 165 rushing yards on 37 carries, while Dallas finished with 69 rushing yards on 18 carries.
That is a difference of 96 rushing yards. The Giants also averaged 4.5 yards per carry compared with Dallas’s 3.8.
New York Giants rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest |
| Cam Skattebo | 18 | 81 | 4.5 | 1 | 13 |
| Jaxson Dart | 11 | 54 | 4.9 | 0 | 22 |
| Devin Singletary | 6 | 16 | 2.7 | 0 | 4 |
| Tyrone Tracy Jr. | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | 8 |
| Team total | 37 | 165 | 4.5 | 1 | 22 |
Cam Skattebo’s contribution
Skattebo led the Giants with 81 rushing yards on 18 carries. His average of 4.5 yards per attempt suggests that New York received steady production from its primary listed ball carrier.
He also scored one rushing touchdown. That contribution mattered because rushing touchdowns allow an offense to finish drives without depending exclusively on its quarterback’s arm.
Skattebo’s longest run was 13 yards. Although that figure does not indicate a major breakaway run, it supports the broader picture of a productive rushing performance built around consistent gains.
Jaxson Dart adds a running threat
Dart’s 54 rushing yards on 11 carries gave New York another productive option. His average of 4.9 yards per carry exceeded the Giants’ team average slightly.
His longest run of 22 yards was also the longest rushing attempt listed for either team. Quarterback runs can force defenders to account for an extra ball carrier, which may create space for running backs or open passing lanes on later plays.
The supplied numbers do not establish which of Dart’s carries were designed runs, scrambles, or other quarterback keepers. Still, his rushing production demonstrates that his contribution extended beyond passing.
Dallas Cowboys rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TDs | Longest |
| Javonte Williams | 12 | 41 | 3.4 | 1 | 8 |
| Dak Prescott | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | 10 |
| Hunter Luepke | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 |
| Emari Demercado | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 4 |
| CeeDee Lamb | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team total | 18 | 69 | 3.8 | 1 | 10 |
Javonte Williams led Dallas with 41 rushing yards and one touchdown. He handled 12 of the team’s 18 listed rushing attempts, making him the main component of the ground attack.
His 3.4 yards per carry was lower than Skattebo’s 4.5. The difference limited Dallas’s ability to match New York’s rushing output on a per-attempt basis.
Prescott added 14 rushing yards on two attempts, but Dallas did not receive enough total production from its ground game to close the gap. As a team, the Cowboys had fewer than half the Giants’ rushing yards.
Why rushing production mattered
The rushing difference had implications beyond the raw yardage total.
- More ways to move the ball: New York could gain yards through both its passing and rushing attacks.
- Scoring flexibility: Both teams recorded one rushing touchdown, but the Giants generated more overall ground production.
- Offensive balance: New York’s 165 rushing yards reduced its dependence on passing alone.
- Potential game control: A productive running game can help a team sustain possessions and manage the clock, although time of possession would be needed to measure that effect directly.
The numbers suggest that the Giants had the more productive ground attack. They do not, by themselves, establish the exact number of minutes each team controlled the ball.
Receiving Stats: Isaiah Likely Leads New York
The receiving statistics provide another explanation for the difference in offensive production. New York’s leading listed receiver was Isaiah Likely, who recorded 78 yards and two touchdowns. Dallas’s leading receiver by yardage was CeeDee Lamb, who finished with 44 yards and one touchdown.
Giants receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Isaiah Likely | 8 | 8 | 78 | 9.8 | 2 |
| Malik Nabers | 6 | 8 | 69 | 11.5 | 0 |
| Darnell Mooney | 2 | 9 | 27 | 13.5 | 0 |
| Malachi Fields | 2 | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 0 |
| Devin Singletary | 4 | 4 | 22 | 5.5 | 1 |
| Theo Johnson | 1 | 4 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 23 | 29 | 230 | 10.0 | 3 |
Isaiah Likely delivers two touchdowns
Likely’s eight receptions on eight targets made him a central part of the Giants’ passing attack. He gained 78 yards and scored twice, giving him the most receiving touchdowns among the listed players.
His 100% catch rate in the supplied statistics is notable, although a perfect catch rate in one game should not automatically be treated as a long-term measure of reliability.
The two touchdowns were especially important because New York’s passing game produced three scoring plays in total. Likely accounted for two-thirds of those listed passing touchdowns.
His longest reception was 19 yards. That figure suggests his contribution was not limited to very short catches, even though the available data does not show the precise routes or coverage assignments involved.
Malik Nabers provides another option
Nabers caught six passes for 69 yards on eight targets. His 11.5 yards per reception exceeded Likely’s average, demonstrating a different form of production.
While Nabers did not record a touchdown in the supplied figures, his yardage helped sustain the passing attack. A receiver’s value cannot be measured only by touchdowns. First-down conversions, the ability to gain yards after the catch, and the capacity to attract defensive attention can all influence an offense.
The available statistics do not identify his first-down catches or yards after contact, so those details should not be assumed.
Dallas receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| CeeDee Lamb | 5 | 8 | 44 | 8.8 | 1 |
| Javonte Williams | 5 | 5 | 31 | 6.2 | 1 |
| George Pickens | 3 | 6 | 28 | 9.3 | 0 |
| Ryan Flournoy | 2 | 4 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Brevyn Spann-Ford | 2 | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Luke Schoonmaker | 1 | 2 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Jonathan Mingo | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 |
| KaVontae Turpin | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Jake Ferguson | 2 | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 22 | 30 | 175 | 8.0 | 2 |
Lamb led Dallas in receiving yards, but his 44-yard total was 34 yards below Likely’s production. Lamb recorded five receptions and one touchdown, giving him a scoring contribution despite the smaller yardage total.
Williams also caught five passes for 31 yards and one touchdown. His dual role as a runner and receiver made him a contributor in both phases of the Cowboys’ offense.
Pickens finished with 28 receiving yards on three catches. His six targets show that he was involved in the passing plan, although the supplied figures do not reveal why some targets did not become receptions.
The overall comparison favors New York. The Giants recorded 230 receiving yards and three receiving touchdowns, compared with Dallas’s 175 yards and two touchdowns. New York averaged 10.0 yards per reception, while Dallas averaged 8.0.
Receiving efficiency and distribution
New York’s receiving production was spread across several players. Likely and Nabers combined for 147 yards, accounting for a substantial share of the team’s passing output. Singletary added four receptions and a receiving touchdown.
Dallas also distributed the ball among multiple receivers, but its leading yardage figure was lower. Lamb and Williams each recorded a touchdown, yet the team did not match New York’s overall receiving yardage.
The practical lesson is that successful passing offenses need both reliable completion rates and enough yardage to keep drives moving. New York achieved stronger results in both categories according to the supplied data.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Pressure, and Interceptions
Offensive production explains much of the difference in this game, but defensive statistics help show how each team attempted to limit its opponent. New York recorded one interception, while Dallas did not record an interception in the supplied data.
The defensive figures also show that Dallas generated two sacks, compared with none for New York. That is an important qualification: the Giants won despite recording fewer sacks, which means their advantage cannot be explained by sack totals alone.
Dallas Cowboys defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | QB hits |
| Donovan Ezeiruaku | 10 | 4 | 0.5 | 2 |
| Jalen Thompson | 9 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Caleb Downs | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
| DaRon Bland | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| DeMarvion Overshown | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Donovan Ezeiruaku led the listed Dallas defenders with 10 total tackles. He also recorded half a sack, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits.
Caleb Downs added eight tackles and one sack. His pressure production was a positive defensive contribution, but Dallas still allowed 395 total offensive yards.
This contrast highlights a useful distinction in football analysis. A defender can produce a strong individual performance without the defense as a whole achieving its objective. Tackles and sacks describe individual actions, while yards allowed and points conceded show the broader defensive outcome.
The Cowboys’ supplied defensive totals were:
- 81 total tackles
- 35 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 3 tackles for loss
- 2 passes defended
- 6 quarterback hits
These numbers show that Dallas generated some pressure and recorded a high tackle count. However, the defense did not prevent New York from producing three passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown.
New York Giants defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Passes defended |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Arvell Reese | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Deonte Banks | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Chauncey Golston | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Tremaine Edmunds led New York’s listed defenders with eight total tackles, seven of them solo. His numbers indicate that he made several individual stops.
Deonte Banks recorded two passes defended, giving him the strongest listed contribution in that category among the Giants’ defenders. Passes defended can reflect effective coverage, although the statistic does not independently tell us whether a player prevented a completion on a critical third down or near the goal line.
Jevon Holland also recorded one interception, with no return yards or touchdown. That interception was the only one attributed to New York in the supplied figures.
The Giants’ team defensive totals were:
- 49 total tackles
- 38 solo tackles
- 0 sacks
- 1 tackle for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 3 quarterback hits
New York’s defensive statistics were not uniformly superior to Dallas’s. The Giants recorded fewer tackles and no sacks, but they also allowed the opposing offense to produce only 244 total yards. This is why evaluating a defense requires looking beyond a single category.
What the defensive comparison tells us
Three points stand out.
- Dallas generated more recorded quarterback pressure. The Cowboys finished with two sacks and six quarterback hits.
- New York created a takeaway. Holland’s interception gave the Giants a defensive play that Dallas did not match with an interception of its own.
- The Giants limited total offensive output. Dallas finished with 244 yards, 151 fewer than New York’s 395.
The available data does not provide enough information to attribute the entire yardage difference to a particular coverage scheme, defensive adjustment, or coaching decision. It does, however, establish that New York’s defense contributed to a winning performance even without recording a sack.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change the direction of an NFL game, especially when a team is trying to recover from a scoring deficit. The supplied statistics record one interception by New York and no Dallas interceptions.
New York’s fumble data requires a little more care. The Giants were credited with four fumbles, one lost, and three recovered. The listed player entries include fumbles by Tyrone Tracy Jr., Isaiah Likely, Jaxson Dart, and Cam Skattebo.
| Team | Interceptions thrown | Fumbles listed | Fumbles lost |
| New York Giants | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| Dallas Cowboys | 1 | 1 recovered by Dallas player | 0 listed as lost |
The Dallas row needs clarification: the supplied data lists Shavon Revel Jr. with zero fumbles, zero lost, and one recovered. A recovered fumble is not the same as a fumble committed by that player. Therefore, it would be misleading to describe the entry as a Dallas fumble lost.
Similarly, the supplied team fumble totals do not provide a complete, independently verified turnover summary for both sides. The safest interpretation is to report the entries as recorded and avoid deriving a definitive turnover differential from incomplete player-level details.
Why ball security still matters
New York won despite having multiple player-level fumble entries. The team total records only one lost fumble, meaning not every listed fumble resulted in the opponent gaining possession.
For Dallas, Prescott’s interception was a clear negative in the supplied passing statistics. However, a full assessment of turnover impact would require the play-by-play record, including where the interception occurred, whether it immediately led to points, and how each possession ended.
The broader lesson is that turnovers should be evaluated by both frequency and consequence. One lost fumble near the goal line may have a greater effect than a recovered fumble deep in a team’s own territory.
Special Teams Stats
Special teams contributed to the overall game record through kick returns, punting, and extra points. The supplied data does not list a field goal attempt for either kicker, so the scoring comparison centers on touchdowns and extra points.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Dominic Zvada, NYG | Brandon Aubrey, DAL |
| Field goals attempted | 0 | 0 |
| Extra points made | 4 | 2 |
| Extra points attempted | 4 | 3 |
| Total kicking points | 4 | 2 |
Zvada converted all four listed extra-point attempts, while Aubrey made two of three. These figures align with the supplied final score when combined with the reported touchdowns: New York had four touchdowns and four successful extra points, while Dallas had three touchdowns and two successful extra points.
No field goals were recorded in the provided statistics. That means neither team relied on a field goal to add to its final total in this box-score account.
Kick returns
| Team | Returner | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Dallas | KaVontae Turpin | 5 | 122 | 24.4 |
| New York | Deonte Banks | 2 | 37 | 18.5 |
| New York | Braxton Berrios | 1 | 28 | 28.0 |
Turpin provided Dallas with 122 kick-return yards on five returns, averaging 24.4 yards per return. His longest return was 31 yards.
New York’s listed returners combined for 65 yards on three returns. Berrios averaged 28 yards on his one return, while Banks averaged 18.5 yards across two returns.
Dallas therefore had the stronger total kick-return yardage in the supplied data. That advantage did not translate into a win, which illustrates why special teams should be assessed alongside offense and defense rather than in isolation.
Punting
| Statistic | Jordan Stout, NYG | Bryan Anger, DAL |
| Punts | 1 | 2 |
| Total punt yards | 46 | 96 |
| Average punt | 46.0 | 48.0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Longest punt | 46 | 50 |
Anger recorded two punts for 96 yards, while Stout recorded one for 46 yards. Both punters placed every recorded punt inside the 20-yard line according to the supplied data.
The sample is small, so these figures should not be treated as a comprehensive ranking of either punter. They simply describe the special-teams production listed for this game.
Team Statistics Comparison
The overall team numbers bring the main findings together. New York produced more passing yards, more rushing yards, more total offensive yards, and more passing touchdowns.
| Team statistic | Giants | Cowboys |
| Passing yards | 230 | 175 |
| Rushing yards | 165 | 69 |
| Total offensive yards | 395 | 244 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 2 |
| Total touchdowns | 4 | 3 |
| Final score | 28 | 20 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 0 | 2 |
New York’s 395 offensive yards were 151 more than Dallas’s 244. This is a meaningful difference because it reflects advantages in both major offensive categories, not just one exceptional passing or rushing performance.
The Giants gained 55 more passing yards and 96 more rushing yards. Their combined advantage was 151 yards, matching the difference between the supplied team totals.
The numbers also show that Dallas was not completely shut down. The Cowboys scored 20 points, threw two touchdown passes, and recorded one rushing touchdown. Their issue was that the offense did not produce enough total yardage to match New York’s scoring pace.
Three statistical reasons the Giants won
- More efficient quarterback production
Dart completed 79.3% of his passes and averaged 7.9 yards per attempt. Prescott completed 64.7% and averaged 5.1 yards per attempt. Dart also threw one more touchdown and one fewer interception.
- A clear advantage on the ground
New York recorded 165 rushing yards compared with Dallas’s 69. The Giants’ 4.5 yards per carry also exceeded the Cowboys’ 3.8. That difference helped New York create a more balanced offensive performance.
- More productive receiving output
The Giants finished with 230 receiving yards and three passing touchdowns. Dallas recorded 175 receiving yards and two passing touchdowns. Likely’s two touchdown catches were particularly important to the scoring difference.
These factors provide a more complete explanation than the final score alone. New York’s victory was supported by stronger production across several offensive categories, while Dallas’s better sack and kick-return numbers were not enough to overcome the overall yardage gap.
What These Player Stats Mean for Future Matchups
A single game provides a useful snapshot, but it should not be treated as proof that the same statistical advantages will continue in future meetings. Matchups, injuries, opponent quality, game plans, and field position can all change from one week to the next.
For readers comparing these teams over time, the most useful approach is to examine trends across multiple games.
Track quarterback efficiency, not just passing yards
Passing yards can increase simply because a team attempts more passes. Completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown rate, and interception rate provide additional context.
Dart’s performance in this supplied game was efficient across several measures. To establish whether that performance represents a lasting trend, compare it with his statistics from other games rather than relying on one result.
Compare rushing output with attempts
A team that gains 100 rushing yards on 20 carries is producing five yards per carry. A team that gains the same total on 30 carries is producing about 3.3 yards per carry.
This distinction helps explain why the Giants’ 165 yards on 37 attempts represent more than just a high volume of rushing plays. Their 4.5-yard average also exceeded Dallas’s 3.8.
Evaluate receiving roles separately
A receiver with a high yardage total may be a deep threat, a possession target, or a player who gains extra yards after the catch. Receptions, targets, yards per catch, touchdowns, and longest receptions can help distinguish these roles.
Likely’s eight receptions and two touchdowns indicate substantial production in this box-score account. Nabers’ 69 yards provide a second major receiving contribution, while Dallas relied on Lamb and Williams for its two listed receiving touchdowns.
Keep defensive statistics in context
Sacks, tackles, interceptions, and passes defended describe different parts of defensive performance. No single figure explains how well a unit performed over a complete game.
Dallas recorded more sacks, but New York allowed fewer total offensive yards. A more detailed analysis would combine those figures with third-down conversion rates, red-zone defense, time of possession, and play-by-play context.
Verify the game record before publishing updates
Sports statistics can be corrected after a game, and some third-party summaries may display incomplete or conflicting information. Before using a box score in a published article, confirm the date, final score, player totals, and team totals against the official record.
For this matchup, the figures above follow the supplied data. They should not be interpreted as independently verified historical facts until the game record and player entries have been checked against the official source.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the New York Giants vs Dallas Cowboys game?
According to the supplied game data, the New York Giants defeated the Dallas Cowboys 28-20 on September 14, 2026. New York scored seven points in each quarter.
2. How many passing yards did Jaxson Dart record?
Jaxson Dart completed 23 of 29 passes for 230 yards and three touchdowns, with no interceptions recorded in the supplied statistics. His passer rating was 134.2.
3. How did Dak Prescott perform against the Giants?
Dak Prescott completed 22 of 34 passes for 175 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His listed passer rating was 84.8, and he added 14 rushing yards on two carries.
4. Who led the Giants in rushing and receiving?
Cam Skattebo led New York in rushing with 81 yards on 18 carries and one touchdown. Isaiah Likely led the listed receiving group with 78 yards on eight receptions and two touchdowns.
5. Which team had more total offensive yards?
The Giants recorded 395 total offensive yards, compared with 244 for the Cowboys. New York gained 230 passing yards and 165 rushing yards, while Dallas recorded 175 passing yards and 69 rushing yards.
6. Which defensive player recorded an interception?
Jevon Holland was credited with one interception for New York in the supplied statistics. No interceptions were recorded for Dallas.
Conclusion
The New York Giants vs Dallas Cowboys match player stats show a game in which New York’s offensive balance made the difference. The Giants won 28-20, led by Jaxson Dart’s 230 passing yards and three touchdown passes, Cam Skattebo’s 81 rushing yards, and Isaiah Likely’s two receiving touchdowns.
Dallas produced two passing touchdowns through Dak Prescott and received additional contributions from Javonte Williams and CeeDee Lamb. The Cowboys also recorded two sacks and more kick-return yards, but their 244 total offensive yards fell well short of New York’s 395.
The clearest statistical distinction was the Giants’ ability to gain yards through both passing and rushing. Their advantage of 151 total offensive yards, combined with one fewer interception and one additional passing touchdown, provides a strong numerical explanation for the result.
For anyone reviewing the matchup, the most informative measures are quarterback efficiency, rushing output, receiving production, turnovers, and total offensive yards. Together, these statistics provide a more useful account of the game than the final score alone. The player figures in this article remain subject to verification against the official box score before being treated as a confirmed historical record.
