Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats
Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats from the December 7, 2025 NFL meeting tell a clear story of control, efficiency, and defensive disruption. Seattle defeated Atlanta 37-9, improving to 10-3 while the Falcons dropped to 4-9. The final score was not simply the result of one outstanding performance. Seattle combined efficient passing from Sam Darnold, explosive receiving from Jaxon Smith-Njigba, productive rushing, strong special teams play, and two interceptions to turn a competitive first half into a dominant second half.
For anyone studying the box score, the most important detail is how dramatically the game changed after halftime. Seattle and Atlanta were tied 3-3 after the first quarter and remained tied 6-6 at halftime. Seattle then scored 17 points in the third quarter and added another 14 in the fourth. Atlanta managed only three points after halftime. That scoring pattern shows that the contest was much closer early than the final 37-9 score suggests.
The numbers also reveal why Seattle pulled away. Darnold completed 20 of 30 passes for 249 yards and three touchdowns, while Kirk Cousins completed only 15 of 30 for 162 yards with no touchdowns and two interceptions. Seattle’s offense averaged 5.0 yards per rushing attempt, and its receiving group averaged 12.5 yards per catch. On defense, Ernest Jones IV led Seattle with 11 tackles, while Devon Witherspoon and Nick Emmanwori each produced an interception.
Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats at a Glance
The following figures provide the core statistical picture from the game.
| Category | Seattle Seahawks | Atlanta Falcons |
| Final Score | 37 | 9 |
| Record After Game | 10-3 | 4-9 |
| Passing Leader | Sam Darnold | Kirk Cousins |
| Passing | 20/30, 249 yards, 3 TD, 1 INT | 15/30, 162 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT |
| Passing Rating | 111.7 | 38.5 |
| Leading Rusher | Zach Charbonnet | Bijan Robinson |
| Team Rushing | 26 carries, 129 yards | 31 carries, 120 yards |
| Leading Receiver | Jaxon Smith-Njigba | Kyle Pitts Sr. |
| Team Receiving | 26 receptions, 249 yards, 3 TD | 15 receptions, 162 yards, 0 TD |
| Team Interceptions | 2 | 1 |
| Defensive Tackles Leader | Ernest Jones IV, 11 | A.J. Terrell Jr., 8 |
| Field Goals | Jason Myers, 3/3 | Zane Gonzalez, 3/4 |
| Kick Return Highlight | Rashid Shaheed, 100-yard TD | Deven Thompkins, 47-yard long |
This table makes one point immediately visible: Seattle won in several areas at once. The Seahawks were more productive through the air, more efficient on the ground, more effective at forcing turnovers, and considerably more successful at converting offensive opportunities into points.
Game Flow and Why the Score Became One-Sided
The quarter-by-quarter scoring is one of the most useful ways to understand the matchup.
Seattle scored 3 points in the first quarter, 3 in the second, 17 in the third, and 14 in the fourth. Atlanta followed a very different pattern with 3 points in the first quarter, 3 in the second, no points in the third, and 3 in the fourth.
At halftime, the game was 6-6.
That matters because a quick look at the final score can create the impression that Seattle controlled every minute. The statistical record says otherwise. Atlanta stayed within striking distance for the opening half, but Seattle’s second-half execution changed the game.
The third quarter was the turning point.
Seattle scored 17 points while Atlanta failed to score. Once Seattle established that separation, Atlanta had to chase the game. That situation made the Falcons’ passing problems more damaging. Cousins was unable to produce a touchdown pass and threw two interceptions, while Darnold added three touchdown passes without suffering the same level of turnover damage.
Seattle’s 14 fourth-quarter points then completed the separation.
For analysts, this is a useful reminder that final-score margin and game control are not always identical concepts. The first half was relatively even. The decisive advantage appeared after halftime.
Sam Darnold’s Efficient Passing Performance
Sam Darnold was the statistical centerpiece of Seattle’s passing game.
He completed 20 of 30 attempts for 249 yards, producing an 8.3-yard average per attempt. He threw three touchdowns and one interception. His reported passer rating was 111.7, while his QBR was 65.9.
Those numbers show a quarterback who produced meaningful explosive plays while maintaining a strong completion rate.
Darnold’s completion percentage was 66.7 percent. That is particularly useful when considered alongside the 249 passing yards. Seattle was not simply completing short throws to accumulate possession statistics. The receiving numbers indicate that the Seahawks also generated chunk gains.
His three touchdown passes were especially important because Atlanta failed to produce a passing touchdown of its own.
Darnold was sacked twice for 13 yards, so the Seattle passing attack was not flawless. Atlanta’s defense still created pressure and managed to disrupt the pocket at times. However, those plays did not prevent Darnold from maintaining a strong overall passing performance.
Darnold’s Key Passing Numbers
- Completions: 20
- Attempts: 30
- Completion rate: 66.7 percent
- Passing yards: 249
- Average: 8.3 yards per attempt
- Touchdowns: 3
- Interceptions: 1
- Sacks: 2
- Sack yardage: 13
- QBR: 65.9
- Passer rating: 111.7
The most important takeaway is efficiency rather than raw volume. Darnold threw 30 passes and still produced 249 yards and three touchdowns. Seattle did not need an unusually high passing workload to create a decisive offensive advantage.
Kirk Cousins Faced a Very Different Statistical Reality
Kirk Cousins completed 15 of 30 passes for 162 yards. His average was 5.4 yards per attempt, and he finished without a touchdown pass.
The two interceptions were especially costly.
His reported QBR was 18.3, with a passer rating of 38.5. Those numbers provide a strong statistical contrast with Darnold’s 65.9 QBR and 111.7 rating.
Cousins did have productive individual targets. Kyle Pitts Sr. caught six passes for 90 yards, averaging 15.0 yards per reception. That production shows Atlanta could move the ball through specific receiving opportunities. The larger problem was converting those opportunities into scoring possessions.
Atlanta’s 162 passing yards matched its total receiving yardage, but the Falcons did not turn those yards into a touchdown through the air.
That distinction is important when evaluating quarterback performance. Yardage alone does not explain offensive effectiveness. Touchdowns, turnovers, efficiency, and the ability to sustain scoring drives matter just as much.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba Was Seattle’s Biggest Receiving Weapon
Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered one of the most important individual performances in the game.
He recorded seven receptions for 92 yards and two touchdowns on 10 targets. His average was 13.1 yards per reception, and his longest reception covered 30 yards.
The combination of volume and efficiency stands out.
Ten targets made him one of the central pieces of Seattle’s passing plan. Seven receptions converted those opportunities into consistent production, while two touchdowns gave the Seahawks direct scoring value.
A receiver can post significant yardage without affecting the scoreboard proportionally. Smith-Njigba did both. His 92 yards represented a substantial share of Seattle’s 249 receiving yards, and his two touchdown receptions directly contributed to the widening margin.
His performance also helps explain why Darnold’s passing line was so efficient. Seattle had a dependable target capable of turning opportunities into first downs and touchdowns.
Rashid Shaheed Added Explosive Plays
Rashid Shaheed provided another important dimension to Seattle’s offense and special teams.
As a receiver, he caught four passes for 67 yards, averaging 16.8 yards per reception. His longest reception was 33 yards.
That 16.8-yard average was higher than Smith-Njigba’s 13.1-yard average, even though Smith-Njigba had greater overall production.
Shaheed’s biggest impact, however, came on kick returns.
He returned three kicks for 148 yards, averaging 49.3 yards per return. His longest return was 100 yards, and he scored a touchdown.
A 100-yard kick return touchdown can change field position instantly and can also alter the psychological flow of a game. In this matchup, it gave Seattle another explosive scoring avenue beyond conventional offensive drives.
This is one reason special teams should not be treated as a secondary statistic when analyzing the result. Seattle’s advantage was not limited to offense and defense.
Cooper Kupp Contributed a Touchdown
Cooper Kupp recorded two receptions for 35 yards.
His 17.5-yard average per reception was actually the highest among Seattle’s listed leading receivers. His longest catch covered 24 yards, and one of his two receptions resulted in a touchdown.
That efficiency shows how Seattle distributed scoring opportunities among multiple players.
Smith-Njigba had two touchdown receptions. Kupp had one. Shaheed provided explosive receiving production and a kick return touchdown. The Seahawks therefore had several ways to create points rather than relying on one player.
Seattle’s Rushing Game Added Balance
Seattle finished with 26 rushing attempts for 129 yards.
That worked out to a 5.0-yard average per carry, with a longest run of 27 yards.
Zach Charbonnet led Seattle’s individual rushing production with seven carries for 46 yards. His average was 6.6 yards per carry, and he produced a 27-yard long run.
The numbers show that Seattle’s ground game was efficient even without a massive rushing workload.
This is an important distinction. A team does not necessarily need 30 or 35 rushing attempts to benefit from its running game. If the team is averaging five yards per carry, even a moderate number of attempts can create favorable down-and-distance situations.
Seattle’s 129 rushing yards also prevented Atlanta from focusing entirely on Darnold and the passing game.
Bijan Robinson Led Atlanta’s Rushing Attack
Bijan Robinson carried the ball 20 times for 86 yards.
He averaged 4.3 yards per carry, with a longest run of 11 yards.
Robinson’s workload was substantially heavier than Charbonnet’s. Atlanta gave him 20 rushing attempts, while Seattle’s leading rusher had only seven.
Despite the higher workload, Atlanta’s rushing attack produced 120 team yards, compared with Seattle’s 129.
The Falcons therefore ran the ball more often but did not gain a meaningful advantage in total rushing yardage.
That is an important box-score lesson. Volume and efficiency are different measurements. Robinson’s 86 yards on 20 carries provided Atlanta with a consistent rushing presence, but Seattle’s 129 yards on 26 carries produced the stronger team average.
Atlanta’s Receiving Numbers Showed Missed Opportunities
Kyle Pitts Sr. led Atlanta’s receiving production with six catches for 90 yards.
He averaged 15.0 yards per reception and recorded a long reception of 30 yards. He was targeted 10 times.
Those figures are significant because Pitts generated a large portion of Atlanta’s passing offense.
Tyler Allgeier also contributed two receptions for 33 yards, averaging 16.5 yards per catch.
Atlanta’s team receiving line finished at 15 receptions for 162 yards, averaging 10.8 yards per reception. The Falcons received 28 total targets but converted those opportunities into only 15 receptions.
The central issue was not the complete absence of individual production. Atlanta had players capable of generating yardage. The larger problem was the lack of touchdowns and the two interceptions.
That combination made it difficult for the Falcons to keep pace once Seattle began scoring.
Ernest Jones IV Led Seattle in Tackles
Ernest Jones IV recorded 11 tackles, including five solo tackles.
He led Seattle’s defense in total tackles and provided a strong presence against Atlanta’s offensive activity.
Seattle’s team defense recorded 70 total tackles, 37 solo tackles, one sack, three tackles for loss, 10 passes defended, seven quarterback hits, and one defensive touchdown.
The numbers show that Seattle’s defense was active across multiple areas.
The 10 passes defended are especially notable because they indicate consistent disruption in the passing game. Atlanta’s quarterback line was already under pressure from turnovers, and defensive disruption made it harder for the Falcons to recover.
Devon Witherspoon Made a Major Defensive Impact
Devon Witherspoon finished with seven tackles, including five solo tackles.
He also recorded two tackles for loss, one pass defended, one quarterback hit, and an interception.
The interception was returned for three yards.
Witherspoon’s performance demonstrates why defensive evaluation should go beyond tackle totals. Seven tackles are useful, but the combination of tackles for loss, quarterback pressure, pass defense, and a turnover provides a much broader picture of impact.
His interception was one of two Seattle interceptions in the game.
Nick Emmanwori Added Another Interception
Nick Emmanwori recorded six tackles, five of them solo.
He also produced one sack, two tackles for loss, one pass defended, one quarterback hit, and one interception.
His interception did not produce return yardage, but the turnover itself was valuable.
Seattle finished with two interceptions for three total return yards. Atlanta managed one interception through Mike Hughes, who returned his interception six yards.
The turnover battle therefore favored Seattle in a meaningful way.
Atlanta lost two fumbles, while Seattle had two fumbles but lost neither. That gave Seattle a significant advantage in actual turnovers lost.
Turnovers Were One of the Defining Differences
Seattle committed two recorded fumbles but lost zero.
Atlanta also had two recorded fumbles, but both were lost.
Bijan Robinson was charged with one fumble that Atlanta lost. The team was also credited with another lost fumble.
Combined with Cousins’ two interceptions, Atlanta suffered four turnovers in the statistical record.
Seattle threw one interception but recovered both of its fumbles.
This is a major reason the final score became so uneven.
Turnovers create more than a simple change in possession. They can produce short fields, prevent scoring drives, stop promising possessions, and create momentum swings.
Seattle’s defense generated two interceptions while the offense avoided losing either recorded fumble. Atlanta did not receive the same protection from its turnover margin.
A.J. Terrell Jr. Led Atlanta in Tackles
A.J. Terrell Jr. led Atlanta’s defense with eight tackles.
He recorded seven solo tackles, one tackle for loss, and one pass defended.
Mike Hughes recorded six tackles, all six solo, along with one tackle for loss and one pass defended. Divine Deablo also had six tackles, including four solo tackles and one tackle for loss.
Atlanta’s defense finished with 63 total tackles, 39 solo tackles, two sacks, seven tackles for loss, three passes defended, and three quarterback hits.
Those numbers show that Atlanta was active defensively. The problem was not simply a lack of defensive effort.
Seattle’s offense still generated 378 total offensive yards when combining its 249 passing yards and 129 rushing yards. Atlanta’s corresponding figures were 282 total yards from 162 passing yards and 120 rushing yards.
The difference of 96 total yards is substantial.
Special Teams Gave Seattle Another Advantage
Jason Myers converted all three of his field-goal attempts.
He was 3-for-3, with a long field goal of 48 yards. He also made all four extra-point attempts, finishing with 12 points.
Zane Gonzalez went 3-for-4 on field goals, with a long of 43 yards.
The kicking difference was relatively small compared with the offensive and defensive gaps, but Myers’ perfect field-goal performance ensured Seattle converted its opportunities.
Michael Dickson punted three times for 148 yards, averaging 49.3 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 52 yards, and two punts finished inside the 20-yard line.
Atlanta punter Bradley Pinion recorded two punts for 84 yards, averaging 42.0 yards. His longest punt was 45 yards, with two punts inside the 20.
Seattle also received an enormous special teams contribution from Shaheed’s 100-yard kick return touchdown.
Comparing the Offensive Efficiency
The offensive totals tell a straightforward story.
Seattle:
- 249 passing yards
- 129 rushing yards
- 378 combined passing and rushing yards
- 26 receptions
- 3 passing touchdowns
- 5.0 yards per rushing attempt
- 12.5 yards per reception
Atlanta:
- 162 passing yards
- 120 rushing yards
- 282 combined passing and rushing yards
- 15 receptions
- 0 passing touchdowns
- 3.9 yards per rushing attempt
- 10.8 yards per reception
Seattle gained 96 more combined passing and rushing yards.
The difference was not enormous on the ground. Seattle had 129 rushing yards compared with Atlanta’s 120. The major separation came through the passing game.
Seattle produced 87 more passing yards than Atlanta and scored three passing touchdowns.
That combination is central to understanding the final result.
What the Box Score Says About Seattle’s Winning Formula
The Seahawks’ victory can be broken into several connected advantages.
1. Efficient quarterback play
Darnold completed two-thirds of his passes and produced three touchdowns.
2. Multiple receiving threats
Smith-Njigba, Shaheed, and Kupp all made meaningful contributions.
3. Efficient rushing
Seattle averaged 5.0 yards per carry.
4. Defensive turnovers
Witherspoon and Emmanwori each intercepted Cousins.
5. Strong special teams
Shaheed produced a 100-yard kick return touchdown, while Myers made all three field goals.
6. Better turnover protection
Seattle lost zero fumbles, while Atlanta lost two.
These advantages worked together rather than appearing in isolation.
What Atlanta Could Have Done Better
The statistics also point toward several areas where Atlanta struggled.
The first is quarterback efficiency. Cousins completed exactly half of his 30 attempts and produced no touchdowns while throwing two interceptions.
The second is offensive conversion. Atlanta moved the ball through players such as Pitts, but the offense could not translate those gains into touchdowns.
The third is turnover management. Four lost possessions through interceptions and lost fumbles made it difficult to compete after halftime.
The fourth is explosive scoring. Seattle found multiple ways to generate major plays, including a 100-yard kick return touchdown. Atlanta did not match that level of game-changing production.
The fifth is second-half execution. Atlanta scored only three points after halftime while Seattle scored 31.
That final statistic may be the clearest summary of the game.
A Closer Look at the Second-Half Collapse
The 31-3 second-half scoring margin deserves special attention.
At halftime, neither team had established control. Seattle led 6-6 in scoring terms, meaning the game remained open.
Then Seattle scored 17 points in the third quarter.
Atlanta scored zero.
Seattle followed that with 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Atlanta added only a field goal.
The final 37-9 score was therefore built primarily after halftime.
From an analytical standpoint, this suggests that Seattle’s adjustments and execution were more effective over the final two quarters. Atlanta’s inability to produce a touchdown after halftime prevented the team from responding to Seattle’s offensive surge.
Why Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s Numbers Matter
Smith-Njigba’s seven catches for 92 yards and two touchdowns are more meaningful when placed within Seattle’s entire passing attack.
Seattle completed 20 passes for 249 yards.
Smith-Njigba accounted for 92 of those yards, meaning he supplied a substantial portion of the team’s receiving production. His 10 targets also represented one-third of Seattle’s 30 pass attempts.
He was therefore not simply efficient. He was heavily involved.
That combination of opportunity, production, and scoring impact makes his performance one of the clearest individual stories from the matchup.
Why Kyle Pitts Sr.’s Performance Still Deserves Attention
It would be easy to overlook Pitts because Atlanta lost by 28 points.
That would be a mistake.
Pitts caught six passes for 90 yards on 10 targets, averaging 15.0 yards per reception. Those numbers show that Atlanta had a productive receiving option capable of creating meaningful gains.
The issue was that his production did not lead to a touchdown.
This illustrates an important principle in player-stat analysis: individual success and team success can diverge.
A player can perform well while the overall offense struggles. Pitts’ box score is a good example.
Understanding the Defensive Numbers
Seattle recorded 70 total tackles compared with Atlanta’s 63.
Seattle also recorded:
- 37 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 3 tackles for loss
- 10 passes defended
- 7 quarterback hits
- 2 interceptions
Atlanta recorded:
- 39 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 7 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 3 quarterback hits
- 1 interception
Atlanta actually recorded more sacks, two compared with Seattle’s one.
Yet Seattle produced significantly more pass defenses and quarterback disruption overall, while also generating two interceptions.
This is a useful reminder that sacks are only one component of defensive pressure.
How to Read the Player Statistics Correctly
When evaluating a game like this, it is tempting to identify the player with the highest yardage total and stop there.
A better approach is to examine five areas:
- Volume: How many opportunities did the player receive?
- Efficiency: What did the player produce per opportunity?
- Scoring impact: Did the production lead directly to points?
- Turnover impact: Did the player create or prevent turnovers?
- Game context: Did the production occur while the game was competitive?
Using those criteria produces a more accurate picture.
Smith-Njigba had strong volume, strong efficiency, and direct scoring impact.
Darnold combined efficiency with three passing touchdowns.
Witherspoon and Emmanwori created turnovers.
Shaheed contributed both receiving production and a return touchdown.
Pitts had excellent individual receiving numbers despite Atlanta’s offensive struggles.
This approach is more useful than simply ranking players by yards.
Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The statistical record produces several clear conclusions.
Seattle’s passing game was the biggest offensive difference. Darnold’s 249 yards and three touchdowns significantly outperformed Cousins’ 162 yards and zero touchdowns.
Seattle’s rushing attack was also more efficient. The Seahawks averaged 5.0 yards per carry compared with Atlanta’s 3.9.
The receiving production was more balanced in Seattle’s favor. Smith-Njigba led with 92 yards and two touchdowns, while Kupp added a touchdown and Shaheed supplied 67 yards.
Atlanta’s best receiving performance came from Pitts, who posted 90 yards.
The turnover battle heavily favored Seattle. The Seahawks lost no fumbles and intercepted Cousins twice. Atlanta lost two fumbles and threw two interceptions.
Special teams also provided Seattle with a major scoring play through Shaheed’s 100-yard kick return touchdown.
Finally, the second-half scoring difference was decisive. Seattle scored 31 points after halftime while Atlanta scored only three.
Player Stat Summary
Seattle Seahawks
Sam Darnold: 20/30 passing, 249 yards, 3 touchdowns, 1 interception, 111.7 rating.
Zach Charbonnet: 7 carries, 46 yards, 6.6 average, 27-yard long.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba: 7 receptions, 92 yards, 2 touchdowns, 10 targets.
Rashid Shaheed: 4 receptions, 67 yards, plus 148 kick-return yards and a 100-yard return touchdown.
Cooper Kupp: 2 receptions, 35 yards, 1 touchdown.
Ernest Jones IV: 11 tackles.
Devon Witherspoon: 7 tackles, 2 tackles for loss, 1 pass defended, 1 quarterback hit, 1 interception.
Nick Emmanwori: 6 tackles, 1 sack, 2 tackles for loss, 1 pass defended, 1 quarterback hit, 1 interception.
Jason Myers: 3/3 field goals, 4/4 extra points, 12 points.
Atlanta Falcons
Kirk Cousins: 15/30 passing, 162 yards, 0 touchdowns, 2 interceptions, 38.5 rating.
Bijan Robinson: 20 carries, 86 yards, 4.3 average, 11-yard long.
Kyle Pitts Sr.: 6 receptions, 90 yards, 15.0 average, 10 targets.
Tyler Allgeier: 2 receptions, 33 yards, 16.5 average.
A.J. Terrell Jr.: 8 tackles, 7 solo tackles, 1 tackle for loss, 1 pass defended.
Mike Hughes: 6 tackles, 6 solo tackles, 1 tackle for loss, 1 pass defended, 1 interception.
Divine Deablo: 6 tackles, 4 solo tackles, 1 tackle for loss.
Zane Gonzalez: 3/4 field goals, 75 percent, 43-yard long.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Seahawks vs Falcons game on December 7, 2025?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Atlanta Falcons 37-9 on December 7, 2025.
How many passing touchdowns did Sam Darnold have?
Sam Darnold threw three touchdown passes. He completed 20 of 30 attempts for 249 yards and one interception.
How many interceptions did Kirk Cousins throw?
Kirk Cousins threw two interceptions. Seattle defenders Devon Witherspoon and Nick Emmanwori each recorded one.
Who was Seattle’s leading receiver?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with seven receptions for 92 yards and two touchdowns on 10 targets.
Who led the Falcons in receiving?
Kyle Pitts Sr. led Atlanta with six receptions for 90 yards. He was targeted 10 times and averaged 15.0 yards per reception.
What was the biggest special teams play?
Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 100 yards for a touchdown. He finished with three kick returns for 148 yards, averaging 49.3 yards per return.
Conclusion
The Seahawks vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats show a game that was competitive at halftime but decisively controlled by Seattle in the second half. The 6-6 halftime score gave Atlanta a realistic opportunity, but Seattle responded with 31 second-half points while allowing only three.
Sam Darnold’s 249 passing yards and three touchdowns provided the offensive foundation. Jaxon Smith-Njigba was the leading receiving weapon with 92 yards and two touchdowns, while Zach Charbonnet helped Seattle maintain a productive ground attack. Rashid Shaheed added another explosive dimension with a 100-yard kick return touchdown.
Defensively, Seattle benefited from two interceptions, including one each from Devon Witherspoon and Nick Emmanwori. Ernest Jones IV led the team with 11 tackles, while the defense recorded 10 passes defended and seven quarterback hits.
Atlanta had individual bright spots. Bijan Robinson rushed for 86 yards, and Kyle Pitts Sr. produced 90 receiving yards. However, the Falcons could not turn that production into touchdowns. Cousins finished with no touchdown passes and two interceptions, while Atlanta lost both of its recorded fumbles.
The most revealing statistical difference was therefore not one individual category. Seattle combined better quarterback production, more efficient rushing, stronger receiving output, superior turnover results, and a major special teams touchdown. Once those advantages accumulated after halftime, the game moved firmly in Seattle’s direction.
For readers examining this matchup through the box score, the central lesson is simple: the final 37-9 margin was created by Seattle’s ability to convert opportunities into points and Atlanta’s inability to respond once the game entered the second half.
