Texas Longhorns Football vs Georgia Bulldogs Football Match Player Stats
The texas longhorns football vs georgia bulldogs football match player stats reveal how the Georgia Bulldogs turned a competitive first half into a commanding 35-10 victory over the Texas Longhorns on November 16, 2025. Georgia delivered its strongest offensive performance in the fourth quarter, scoring 21 unanswered points to secure the win. Quarterback Gunner Stockton was the standout performer, throwing four touchdown passes while completing 24 of 29 attempts for 229 yards. Texas quarterback Arch Manning finished with 251 passing yards and one touchdown, but the Longhorns struggled to establish a productive rushing attack. Despite recording more total tackles and producing eight tackles for loss, Texas could not prevent Georgia from controlling the game’s decisive moments.
The matchup offered an important look at two SEC programs with different offensive strengths. Georgia demonstrated excellent passing efficiency, effective red-zone execution, and the ability to finish drives. Texas showed flashes of passing-game production but lacked the balance needed to keep the Bulldogs’ defense under pressure. The final score reflected more than a difference in total yardage. It highlighted Georgia’s ability to convert opportunities into touchdowns and Texas’s difficulty maintaining offensive momentum.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual performances, quarterback statistics, rushing and receiving numbers, defensive contributions, special teams, and the most important factors behind Georgia’s victory.
Game Overview: Georgia Bulldogs vs Texas Longhorns
The November 16, 2025, meeting between Georgia and Texas produced a decisive result in favor of the Bulldogs. Georgia entered the contest with a 9-1 overall record and a 7-1 SEC record, while Texas came in at 7-3 overall and 4-2 in conference play.
Georgia eventually won 35-10, using a productive passing offense and a strong fourth-quarter finish to separate itself from Texas.
Final Score
Georgia Bulldogs
35
9-1 overall, 7-1 SEC
Texas Longhorns
10
7-3 overall, 4-2 SEC
| Game information | Details |
| Date | November 16, 2025 |
| Competition | SEC college football |
| Winner | Georgia Bulldogs |
| Final result | Georgia 35, Texas 10 |
| Game status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401752766 |
Scoring by Quarter
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown explains how the game developed and why Georgia ultimately secured a comfortable victory.
| Quarter | Georgia | Texas |
| First | 7 | 3 |
| Second | 7 | 0 |
| Third | 0 | 7 |
| Fourth | 21 | 0 |
| Final | 35 | 10 |
Georgia led 14-3 at halftime. Texas responded with seven points in the third quarter, creating an opportunity to make the game more competitive. However, the Longhorns failed to score in the fourth quarter.
Georgia took advantage of that final period, scoring three touchdowns and extending its lead from four points to 25.
This scoring pattern is especially important when evaluating the individual performances. The Bulldogs did not simply accumulate statistics throughout the game. They produced their most decisive offensive results when the outcome was still within reach.
texas longhorns football vs georgia bulldogs football match player stats: Complete Statistical Breakdown
The individual numbers provide a clearer explanation of the final result. Georgia recorded 229 passing yards and 128 rushing yards, while Texas produced 251 passing yards and only 23 rushing yards.
Although Texas finished with more passing yards, Georgia scored four passing touchdowns compared with Texas’s one.
| Statistical Category | Georgia | Texas |
| Final points | 35 | 10 |
| Passing completions | 24 | 27 |
| Passing attempts | 29 | 43 |
| Passing yards | 229 | 251 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Rushing attempts | 35 | 17 |
| Rushing yards | 128 | 23 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Yards per rushing attempt | 3.7 | 1.4 |
| Receptions | 24 | 27 |
| Receiving yards | 229 | 251 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 4 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded | 3 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 7 | 8 |
| Interceptions recorded | 1 | 1 |
The most revealing difference is offensive efficiency. Texas completed three more passes and gained 22 additional passing yards. However, Georgia scored three more passing touchdowns.
Georgia also attempted 14 more rushing plays and gained 105 additional rushing yards.
These differences show why raw yardage does not always explain a football result. Georgia made better use of its offensive opportunities, while Texas struggled to create enough production on the ground.
Quarterback Performance: Arch Manning vs Gunner Stockton
Quarterback play was one of the biggest differences between the two teams. Arch Manning produced more passing yards, but Gunner Stockton was considerably more efficient and converted his opportunities into touchdowns.
Both quarterbacks threw one interception. However, Stockton’s ability to complete passes at a higher rate and finish scoring drives gave Georgia a major advantage.
Arch Manning’s Passing Statistics
Arch Manning health speculation dismissed by Steve Sarkisian – ESPN
Arch Manning
Texas passing leader
251 yards
27 completions on 43 attempts
| Passing Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 27 |
| Attempts | 43 |
| Completion percentage | 62.8% |
| Passing yards | 251 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.8 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| QBR | 63.9 |
Manning completed 27 of his 43 passing attempts, giving him a completion percentage of approximately 62.8%. His 251 passing yards were the highest individual passing total in the game.
However, the yardage did not translate into enough points. His average of 5.8 yards per attempt indicates that Texas found it difficult to generate consistently productive gains through the air.
Manning’s single touchdown pass provided Texas with its only passing score. The interception also interrupted an offensive opportunity and gave Georgia’s defense a chance to regain control.
One important detail is the relationship between Manning’s passing workload and the team’s rushing production. Texas attempted 43 passes but managed just 23 rushing yards. That imbalance placed additional responsibility on the quarterback.
When an offense cannot consistently threaten the defense with its running game, opposing defenders can focus more attention on the passing attack. Georgia benefited from that situation by limiting Texas’s ability to create explosive offensive sequences.
Manning also recorded five rushing attempts for minus-17 yards. Those negative rushing numbers contributed to Texas finishing with only 23 total team rushing yards.
His passing total was respectable, but the overall offensive performance needed more support from the running game.
Gunner Stockton’s Passing Statistics
Stockton’s 5 TDs lead No. 5 Georgia past No. 10 Texas in Athens – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta
Gunner Stockton
Georgia passing leader
4 TDs
24 completions on 29 attempts
| Passing Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 29 |
| Completion percentage | 82.8% |
| Passing yards | 229 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.9 |
| Touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| QBR | 94.4 |
Stockton delivered one of the most influential individual performances of the matchup. He completed 24 of 29 passes, producing an outstanding completion percentage of approximately 82.8%.
His 229 passing yards were slightly below Manning’s total, but his 7.9 yards per attempt demonstrated greater efficiency.
The most important number was four touchdown passes.
Stockton found the end zone four times through the air, accounting for a substantial portion of Georgia’s 35 points. His ability to distribute the ball to different receivers made the Bulldogs’ passing offense difficult to contain.
His QBR of 94.4 also stood well above Manning’s 63.9.
Stockton was not perfect. He threw one interception, matching Manning’s turnover total. However, his four touchdown passes outweighed that mistake and helped Georgia maintain control.
He also contributed 29 rushing yards on six attempts and scored one rushing touchdown. That additional threat gave Georgia another way to move the football when passing opportunities were limited.
Arch Manning vs Gunner Stockton: Who Played Better?
The quarterback comparison is particularly interesting because Manning finished with more passing yards, while Stockton produced a substantially better scoring performance.
| Category | Arch Manning | Gunner Stockton |
| Completions | 27 | 24 |
| Attempts | 43 | 29 |
| Completion rate | 62.8% | 82.8% |
| Passing yards | 251 | 229 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.8 | 7.9 |
| Passing TDs | 1 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| QBR | 63.9 | 94.4 |
| Rushing yards | -17 | 29 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 1 |
Stockton had the stronger overall performance.
Manning gained 22 more passing yards, but he needed 14 additional attempts to do so. Stockton completed a higher percentage of his throws, generated more yards per attempt, and delivered four times as many passing touchdowns.
The difference becomes even clearer when rushing contributions are included. Stockton added 29 yards and a rushing touchdown, while Manning lost 17 rushing yards.
This does not mean Manning was solely responsible for Texas’s defeat. Football is a team sport, and offensive line performance, rushing efficiency, defensive execution, and play-calling all influence a quarterback’s numbers.
Nevertheless, Stockton’s statistical advantage in efficiency and scoring was one of the clearest reasons Georgia won.
Rushing Statistics: Georgia Established the Ground Advantage
The rushing comparison was arguably the most important statistical difference outside quarterback efficiency.
Georgia recorded 128 rushing yards on 35 attempts. Texas managed only 23 yards on 17 attempts.
That created a 105-yard advantage for the Bulldogs.
A productive running game can influence an entire football matchup. It helps an offense maintain possession, creates manageable passing situations, and forces defenders to respect multiple offensive threats.
Georgia achieved those benefits more consistently than Texas.
Texas Longhorns Rushing Leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TD |
| Quintrevion Wisner | 9 | 37 | 4.1 | 0 |
| Arch Manning | 5 | -17 | -3.4 | 0 |
| Ryan Wingo | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| CJ Baxter | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 17 | 23 | 1.4 | 0 |
Quintrevion Wisner’s Ground Production
Texas Longhorns RB Tre Wisner Announces Final Decision on Future
Quintrevion Wisner
37 yards
9 carries, 4.1 yards per attempt
Wisner was Texas’s leading rusher with 37 yards on nine carries. His average of 4.1 yards per attempt was considerably better than the team’s overall average of 1.4.
His longest run covered 16 yards, demonstrating that he could create meaningful gains when the blocking and running lane allowed him to move into open space.
However, Wisner did not score a rushing touchdown. His individual production was not enough to establish a dependable ground attack.
The limited number of rushing opportunities also matters. Nine carries represented more than half of the four listed Texas players’ combined rushing attempts, showing how little consistent production Texas received from its other rushing options.
Arch Manning’s Rushing Contribution
Manning finished with five rushing attempts for minus-17 yards.
Quarterback rushing statistics require some context because negative yardage can include plays where a quarterback is brought down behind the line of scrimmage. The supplied box-score figures do not provide enough information to assign every lost yard to a specific play type.
Still, the result was significant for Texas.
Instead of adding positive yardage to the offense, Manning’s rushing total reduced the team’s overall ground production.
This made it even more difficult for Texas to create balance between its passing and rushing attacks.
Georgia Bulldogs Rushing Leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TD |
| Nate Frazier | 16 | 72 | 4.5 | 0 |
| Gunner Stockton | 6 | 29 | 4.8 | 1 |
| Chauncey Bowens | 8 | 19 | 2.4 | 0 |
| Dillon Bell | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Dwight Phillips Jr. | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Rod Robinson II | 2 | -3 | -1.5 | 0 |
| Team total | 35 | 128 | 3.7 | 1 |
Nate Frazier Led Georgia’s Running Game
Why Nate Frazier may be DeAndre Swift 2.0
Nate Frazier
72 yards
16 carries, 4.5 yards per attempt
Frazier was Georgia’s leading rusher, recording 72 yards on 16 attempts.
His average of 4.5 yards per carry gave Georgia a dependable rushing option. His longest run covered 21 yards, helping the Bulldogs create positive field position.
Frazier did not score a rushing touchdown, but his contribution was valuable because he helped maintain offensive balance.
Georgia did not need to depend entirely on Stockton’s passing ability. The team could use Frazier to move the football on the ground while keeping the passing game available for more productive scoring opportunities.
His 16 carries also represented the largest individual rushing workload in the matchup.
Stockton Added a Rushing Touchdown
Stockton’s contribution was not limited to passing.
He added 29 rushing yards on six attempts, averaging 4.8 yards per carry. His rushing touchdown gave Georgia another scoring option and increased the pressure on Texas’s defense.
When a quarterback can threaten the defense with both passing and running, defensive players must account for more possibilities.
Stockton’s combined contribution of 258 passing and rushing yards illustrates his influence on the game, although those totals combine different statistical categories rather than represent passing yards alone.
Why Georgia’s Rushing Advantage Mattered
Georgia’s 128 rushing yards provided an important foundation for its offensive performance.
The Bulldogs had 18 more rushing attempts than Texas and produced more than five times the Longhorns’ rushing yardage.
The difference helped Georgia avoid becoming predictable.
Texas, on the other hand, had to rely heavily on Manning’s passing arm. When the rushing game produces just 1.4 yards per attempt, sustaining drives becomes considerably more challenging.
The running-game advantage was not the only reason Georgia won, but it helped create the conditions for Stockton’s efficient passing performance.
Receiving Statistics: Which Players Made the Biggest Impact?
The receiving numbers reveal how both offenses distributed the football and which players made the most of their opportunities.
Texas had 27 receptions for 251 yards and one touchdown. Georgia recorded 24 receptions for 229 yards and four touchdowns.
The Longhorns produced more receptions and receiving yards, but the Bulldogs were significantly more productive in the scoring area.
Texas Longhorns Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| DeAndre Moore Jr. | 5 | 75 | 15.0 | 0 |
| Emmett Mosley V | 3 | 66 | 22.0 | 0 |
| Ryan Wingo | 9 | 62 | 6.9 | 1 |
| Parker Livingstone | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 0 |
| CJ Baxter | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Quintrevion Wisner | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Jack Endries | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 27 | 251 | 9.3 | 1 |
DeAndre Moore Jr. Led Texas in Receiving Yards
DeAndre Moore Jr.
75 yards
5 receptions, 15.0 yards per catch
Moore was Texas’s leading receiver with five catches for 75 yards.
His average of 15 yards per reception was a productive figure, and he provided one of Manning’s most dependable downfield options.
His longest reception was 19 yards. Although he did not record a touchdown, his ability to generate receiving yardage helped Texas move the football through the air.
Moore’s performance also demonstrates that Texas had individual receiving talent available. The main problem was converting those productive plays into additional points.
Emmett Mosley V Provided Explosive Receiving Production
The College Football Playoff tweaked its strength of schedule metric. Will that help? | KSL.com
Emmett Mosley V
66 yards
3 receptions, 22.0 yards per catch
Mosley finished with 66 receiving yards on only three catches.
His 22-yard average was the highest among Texas players with multiple receptions. He also recorded the longest reception for the Longhorns, a 40-yard gain.
This was an important contribution because it demonstrated Texas’s ability to create explosive passing plays.
However, explosive receptions do not automatically produce points. Texas needed to sustain those opportunities and finish more drives in the end zone.
Mosley’s performance was one of the positive offensive takeaways for the Longhorns despite the defeat.
Ryan Wingo Recorded Texas’s Only Receiving Touchdown
Ryan Wingo
9 receptions
62 yards and 1 touchdown
Wingo led Texas in receptions, catching nine passes for 62 yards and one touchdown.
His reception total showed that he was regularly involved in the passing offense. He provided Manning with a reliable short-to-intermediate receiving option.
His touchdown was particularly important because Texas struggled to score throughout the contest.
However, his average of 6.9 yards per reception was lower than Moore’s and Mosley’s. That suggests much of his contribution came through shorter completions rather than large downfield gains.
Wingo’s combination of nine receptions and a touchdown made him one of Texas’s most involved offensive players.
Georgia Bulldogs Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| London Humphreys | 2 | 55 | 27.5 | 1 |
| Zachariah Branch | 6 | 41 | 6.8 | 0 |
| Oscar Delp | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Noah Thomas | 4 | 32 | 8.0 | 2 |
| Chauncey Bowens | 3 | 22 | 7.3 | 0 |
| Dillon Bell | 2 | 20 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Cash Jones | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 0 |
| Lawson Luckie | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 1 |
| Team total | 24 | 229 | 9.5 | 4 |
London Humphreys Delivered the Highest Receiving Average
Georgia scores 35-10 win over Texas with fourth-quarter domination
London Humphreys
55 yards
2 receptions, 27.5 yards per catch, 1 TD
Humphreys recorded 55 receiving yards on two receptions, averaging an impressive 27.5 yards per catch.
He also caught one touchdown pass, making his limited number of receptions particularly valuable.
His longest reception was 30 yards. This production showed how Georgia could generate meaningful offensive results without requiring one receiver to dominate the reception count.
Humphreys was a good example of efficiency in the passing game. He caught only two passes, but those opportunities produced substantial yardage and a touchdown.
Noah Thomas Was Georgia’s Touchdown Leader
Noah Thomas
2 TDs
4 receptions, 32 receiving yards
Thomas made one of the most important contributions to Georgia’s scoring production.
He caught four passes for 32 yards and two touchdowns. His average was eight yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 17 yards.
Although his yardage total was lower than Humphreys’s, Thomas made a major difference in the scoring column.
His two touchdowns demonstrated the importance of finishing plays near the end zone. A receiver does not need to accumulate 100 yards to influence the final score significantly.
Thomas’s performance was particularly valuable because Georgia received touchdown production from multiple receivers rather than depending on one player.
Zachariah Branch Added Receiving and Special Teams Value
Zachariah Branch
41 yards
6 receptions and 63 kick return yards
Branch caught six passes for 41 yards and also contributed as a kick returner.
His receiving average was 6.8 yards per catch. While he did not record a receiving touchdown, his involvement provided Georgia with another option in the passing game.
His return production was also significant. Branch returned two kickoffs for 63 yards, averaging 31.5 yards per return.
His longest kick return covered 44 yards, helping Georgia improve its field position.
The ability to contribute in both offensive receiving and return situations made Branch an important all-around player in this matchup.
Receiving Comparison: Georgia Converted More Opportunities
The receiving comparison provides one of the clearest examples of the difference between volume and scoring efficiency.
Texas recorded:
- 27 receptions.
- 251 receiving yards.
- 9.3 yards per reception.
- One receiving touchdown.
Georgia recorded:
- 24 receptions.
- 229 receiving yards.
- 9.5 yards per reception.
- Four receiving touchdowns.
Texas gained 22 more receiving yards and recorded three more catches. However, Georgia produced three additional receiving touchdowns.
The Bulldogs were better at turning receiving opportunities into points.
That difference ultimately mattered more than the modest advantage Texas held in total receiving yardage.
Defensive Player Statistics and Team Performance
Offensive production often attracts the most attention, but Georgia’s defense also played an important role in the outcome.
Texas recorded 68 total tackles, including 46 solo tackles. Georgia recorded 51 total tackles and 33 solo tackles.
Texas also finished with eight tackles for loss, one more than Georgia’s seven.
However, Georgia recorded three sacks compared with Texas’s two and defended four passes compared with Texas’s one.
Both defenses recorded an interception.
| Defensive Category | Texas | Georgia |
| Total tackles | 68 | 51 |
| Solo tackles | 46 | 33 |
| Sacks | 2 | 3 |
| Tackles for loss | 8 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 1 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Texas Defense: Anthony Hill Jr. Recorded an Interception
Anthony Hill Jr. Setting Elite Standard for Texas Defense
Anthony Hill Jr.
Texas interception leader
1 interception
0 return yards, 0 defensive touchdowns
Hill recorded Texas’s interception in the matchup.
Interceptions are important because they end an opposing possession and give the defense an opportunity to change the game’s momentum.
His interception showed that Texas could create defensive opportunities even while struggling to control the overall contest.
However, the Longhorns could not turn that defensive contribution into enough offensive production to change the final result.
Texas’s defensive statistics also show that the unit remained active throughout the game. Its eight tackles for loss indicated an ability to disrupt plays behind the line of scrimmage.
The problem was that Georgia continued to produce touchdowns despite those defensive efforts.
Georgia Defense: KJ Bolden Produced a Turnover
KJ Bolden
Georgia interception leader
1 interception
0 return yards, 0 defensive touchdowns
Bolden recorded Georgia’s interception, matching Texas’s defensive turnover total.
His contribution helped the Bulldogs prevent Texas from having a completely clean passing performance.
Georgia also recorded three sacks and four passes defended. Those numbers reflect the defense’s ability to create pressure and interfere with passing opportunities.
The Bulldogs did not need to dominate every defensive statistical category. Their ability to limit Texas’s running game and produce important defensive plays was enough to support the offense.
Georgia’s Three Sacks Made a Difference
Georgia recorded three sacks, one more than Texas.
That advantage was important because pressure can disrupt a quarterback’s timing and reduce the effectiveness of passing plays.
Manning attempted 43 passes, giving Georgia’s defensive front numerous opportunities to pressure him.
The Longhorns’ inability to generate a consistent running threat also made it easier for Georgia to focus on stopping the passing game.
Texas recorded two sacks against Stockton, but Georgia’s offense remained efficient enough to score 35 points.
The defensive comparison therefore supports a broader conclusion: Georgia did not need to win every statistical battle. It needed to perform well in the categories that affected possession outcomes and scoring opportunities.
Special Teams Statistics: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams did not receive as much attention as the passing and rushing performances, but they contributed to the field-position battle.
Georgia had an advantage in kick-return production, while Texas received a useful contribution from punter Jack Bouwmeester.
Kicking Statistics
| Kicker | Team | Field Goals | Extra Points | Total Points |
| Mason Shipley | Texas | 1/1 | 1/1 | 4 |
| Peyton Woodring | Georgia | 0/0 | 5/5 | 5 |
Mason Shipley: Shipley converted his only field-goal attempt, making a 33-yard kick. He also successfully converted his extra-point attempt. His four total points accounted for Texas’s field goal and the extra point following its touchdown.
Peyton Woodring: Woodring converted all five extra-point attempts. Georgia did not attempt a field goal, so his scoring contribution came entirely from successful point-after attempts.
Both kickers were perfect on their recorded attempts. The difference was the number of scoring opportunities their respective offenses created.
Punting Statistics
| Punter | Team | Punts | Total Yards | Average | Inside 20 |
| Jack Bouwmeester | Texas | 5 | 209 | 41.8 | 3 |
| Brett Thorson | Georgia | 5 | 173 | 34.6 | 1 |
Bouwmeester averaged 41.8 yards per punt, compared with Thorson’s 34.6-yard average.
The Texas punter also placed three punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line. Georgia recorded one such punt.
Bouwmeester’s longest punt traveled 45 yards, while Thorson’s longest covered 49 yards.
These numbers show that Texas received a useful contribution from its punting unit. However, good punting could not compensate for the offense’s inability to produce enough points.
Kick Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Zachariah Branch | Georgia | 2 | 63 | 31.5 | 44 |
| Ryan Niblett | Texas | 1 | 18 | 18.0 | 18 |
| DeAndre Moore Jr. | Texas | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 11 |
Branch was the standout kick returner.
His two returns produced 63 yards, with an average of 31.5 yards. His longest return traveled 44 yards.
Texas’s two listed kick returns produced 29 yards combined.
Georgia’s advantage in this category helped the Bulldogs gain better starting field position and created another opportunity for the team to support its offensive production.
Punt Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Zachariah Branch | Georgia | 3 | 30 | 10.0 | 15 |
| Texas | Texas | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Branch also handled Georgia’s punt returns, recording 30 yards on three attempts.
His average was 10 yards per return, and his longest return covered 15 yards.
Texas did not record a punt return in the supplied box-score data.
Branch’s contributions in both kick and punt returns made him one of Georgia’s most versatile performers.
How Georgia Won the Game: Five Decisive Factors
The final score of 35-10 was the result of several connected factors. Georgia performed better in passing efficiency, rushing production, touchdown conversion, and late-game execution.
The following five areas explain the result in greater detail.
1. Gunner Stockton’s Passing Efficiency
Stockton was the biggest individual difference-maker.
He completed 82.8% of his passes and averaged 7.9 yards per attempt. More importantly, he threw four touchdowns.
Manning gained more passing yards, but Stockton needed fewer attempts to produce his total.
This distinction is important when evaluating quarterback performance. A quarterback’s value cannot be judged by passing yards alone. Completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, turnovers, and contributions to the running game provide a more complete picture.
Stockton performed particularly well in the areas that directly influenced the scoreboard.
2. Georgia Dominated the Rushing Comparison
Georgia finished with 128 rushing yards, while Texas managed only 23.
That difference gave the Bulldogs more offensive flexibility.
Frazier’s 72 yards provided a consistent running option, while Stockton added 29 yards and a rushing touchdown.
Texas struggled to create the same balance.
Wisner led the Longhorns with 37 yards, but the team’s 1.4 yards per carry was not enough to keep Georgia’s defense concerned about the running game.
A productive ground attack can help an offense control the pace and create favorable passing situations. Georgia benefited from both advantages.
3. Georgia’s Receivers Finished Scoring Opportunities
Georgia recorded four receiving touchdowns.
Noah Thomas caught two, while London Humphreys and Lawson Luckie each added one.
Texas had one receiving touchdown, scored by Ryan Wingo.
This was a substantial difference despite Texas gaining more receiving yards.
Georgia demonstrated that scoring efficiency was more important than accumulating additional receptions.
The Bulldogs distributed their touchdown production among different targets, making it difficult for Texas to focus its defensive attention on a single receiver.
4. The Bulldogs Produced a Strong Fourth Quarter
The fourth quarter was the decisive period.
Georgia entered the final quarter with a 14-10 lead after Texas scored seven points in the third.
Instead of allowing Texas to build momentum, Georgia scored 21 unanswered points.
Texas failed to score during the same period.
The 21-point fourth quarter transformed a competitive game into a convincing victory.
It also demonstrated Georgia’s ability to maintain offensive execution late in the contest.
5. Georgia Created a More Effective Overall Offensive Balance
Georgia combined 229 passing yards with 128 rushing yards.
Texas recorded 251 passing yards but only 23 rushing yards.
The Bulldogs therefore had a more balanced offensive performance.
Their ability to threaten through both phases made it harder for Texas to predict the next play.
Texas, meanwhile, became more dependent on Manning’s passing production.
When a team struggles to run the football, the defense can place more emphasis on stopping passes. That can reduce the quarterback’s available options and make sustaining long drives more difficult.
Quarter-by-Quarter Game Analysis
Looking at the scoring progression provides a useful way to understand the change in momentum.
First Quarter: Georgia Took an Early Lead
Georgia scored seven points in the opening quarter, while Texas managed three.
The Bulldogs established an early advantage, but the three-point difference meant the game remained competitive.
Texas had not yet fallen too far behind, and its passing attack still had an opportunity to influence the outcome.
Second Quarter: Georgia Extended Its Advantage
Georgia added another seven points in the second quarter.
Texas failed to score, leaving the halftime score at 14-3.
The Bulldogs had established control without needing an overwhelming offensive performance.
Texas needed a stronger second-half response to avoid allowing Georgia to dictate the remainder of the contest.
Third Quarter: Texas Found an Opportunity
Texas scored seven points in the third quarter, while Georgia did not add to its total.
The score moved to 14-10.
This was an important moment because Texas reduced the deficit to four points.
At that stage, the Longhorns were still within one scoring possession of taking the lead.
The third-quarter response showed that Texas could produce points against Georgia’s defense. However, the team needed to maintain that momentum in the final period.
Fourth Quarter: Georgia Took Complete Control
The final quarter belonged to Georgia.
The Bulldogs scored 21 points, while Texas remained scoreless.
This was the most important statistical development of the entire game.
Georgia’s offense converted its opportunities into touchdowns, and the defense prevented Texas from responding.
The fourth-quarter performance secured the 35-10 victory and highlighted the difference in late-game execution.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The numbers provide several broader lessons about the performance of the two SEC programs.
Georgia’s Offensive Identity
Georgia’s performance demonstrated the value of combining efficient quarterback play with a productive running game.
Stockton’s four passing touchdowns were the headline statistic, but Frazier’s rushing production also played a major role.
The Bulldogs did not rely on a single player to create all their offense.
Their receiving production was distributed among several targets, while Branch added value through returns.
This variety made Georgia’s offense more difficult to defend.
Texas Had Passing Yardage Without Enough Scoring Production
Texas gained 251 passing yards, which was more than Georgia’s 229.
However, those yards produced only one passing touchdown.
This difference highlights why offensive efficiency matters.
A team can move the football between the 20-yard lines but still struggle to score if it cannot finish drives.
Texas needed more production from its running game and better overall scoring execution.
Defensive Effort Does Not Always Equal Defensive Control
Texas recorded 68 tackles and eight tackles for loss.
Those figures were higher than Georgia’s 51 tackles and seven tackles for loss.
Yet Georgia won by 25 points.
This is an important distinction when analyzing defensive statistics.
A high tackle count can reflect a large amount of defensive activity, but it does not automatically mean a defense controlled the game.
The more important questions are whether the defense prevented touchdowns, forced turnovers, created pressure, and limited the opponent’s scoring opportunities.
Georgia’s defense allowed Texas only 10 points, which was a significant achievement.
Touchdown Production Was the Biggest Statistical Difference
Georgia scored five touchdowns in total, including four passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown.
Texas scored one touchdown and added one field goal.
That difference explains much of the final result.
Georgia did not need to produce dramatically more passing or receiving yards. It needed to finish its offensive possessions more effectively.
The Bulldogs did exactly that.
Historical and Statistical Context of the Matchup
The November 16, 2025, game was an important SEC matchup between two nationally recognized college football programs.
Georgia entered the contest with a strong conference record, while Texas was attempting to improve its position after a 7-3 start.
The final result gave Georgia another conference victory and moved its record to 9-1 overall and 7-1 in SEC play.
Texas fell to 7-3 overall and 4-2 in conference competition.
These records provide useful context, but they should not be treated as a complete explanation of the teams’ performances.
A team’s season record reflects its entire schedule, while an individual game requires a more specific evaluation of the players, matchups, and execution involved.
For this reason, the most useful way to understand this contest is to examine the individual statistics alongside the scoring progression.
The official ESPN college football box score provides the original game record and statistical breakdown for readers who want to examine the numbers directly.
Key Statistical Takeaways From Georgia’s 35-10 Victory
Several numbers deserve particular attention when reviewing the performance.
| Statistical Takeaway | What It Shows |
| Stockton’s 4 passing TDs | Georgia’s quarterback converted passing opportunities into scores. |
| Stockton’s 82.8% completion rate | Georgia maintained excellent passing efficiency. |
| Manning’s 251 passing yards | Texas generated more passing yardage. |
| Georgia’s 128 rushing yards | The Bulldogs established a much stronger ground attack. |
| Texas’s 23 rushing yards | The Longhorns struggled to create offensive balance. |
| Thomas’s 2 receiving TDs | Georgia received important scoring production from its receivers. |
| Branch’s 63 kick return yards | Georgia gained useful field-position advantages. |
| Georgia’s 21 fourth-quarter points | The Bulldogs finished the game decisively. |
| One interception by each defense | Both teams created a turnover through the air. |
| Georgia’s 3 sacks | The Bulldogs generated slightly more quarterback pressure. |
The biggest lesson is that statistical volume and scoring efficiency are not the same thing.
Texas produced more passing yards and more total receptions, but Georgia scored considerably more touchdowns.
The Bulldogs also established a much stronger rushing attack and performed exceptionally well in the final quarter.
What Texas Could Have Done Differently
Although Georgia deserved the victory, Texas’s statistical performance offers several areas for examination.
Improve the Running Game
The most obvious issue was Texas’s 23 rushing yards.
The Longhorns needed a more effective ground attack to reduce pressure on Manning and prevent Georgia from focusing heavily on the passing game.
Wisner’s 37 individual rushing yards showed some positive production, but the team total remained far too low.
Create More Productive Passing Opportunities
Manning gained 251 yards, but his 5.8 yards per attempt indicated that Texas needed more efficient passing production.
The offense had multiple receivers who could contribute.
Moore gained 75 yards, Mosley recorded 66, and Wingo caught nine passes.
However, Texas needed to convert more of those opportunities into touchdowns.
Maintain Defensive Discipline in the Fourth Quarter
Texas allowed 21 points in the final period.
The defense had recorded eight tackles for loss and an interception, but those contributions did not prevent Georgia from taking control late.
Maintaining pressure, limiting explosive plays, and preventing successful scoring drives would have been essential to keeping the game competitive.
Reduce Dependence on the Quarterback
Manning attempted 43 passes.
That workload was considerably higher than Stockton’s 29 attempts.
The difference reflects the distinct offensive situations both quarterbacks faced.
A more productive rushing game could have helped Texas distribute its offensive responsibility and reduce the need to rely so heavily on passing.
These are statistical observations rather than claims about specific coaching decisions or unverified play-calling mistakes.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Texas Longhorns vs Georgia Bulldogs football game?
Georgia defeated Texas 35-10 on November 16, 2025. The Bulldogs scored 21 points in the fourth quarter to secure the victory.
2. How many passing yards did Arch Manning record against Georgia?
Arch Manning completed 27 of 43 passes for 251 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His reported QBR was 63.9.
3. How many touchdowns did Gunner Stockton throw against Texas?
Gunner Stockton threw four touchdown passes. He completed 24 of 29 attempts for 229 yards and one interception. He also scored one rushing touchdown.
4. Who was the leading rusher in the Georgia vs Texas game?
Nate Frazier was the leading rusher overall, recording 72 yards on 16 carries for Georgia. Quintrevion Wisner led Texas with 37 yards on nine attempts.
5. Who had the most receiving yards in the game?
DeAndre Moore Jr. led all receivers with 75 yards on five catches for Texas. Georgia’s leading receiver by yardage was London Humphreys, who recorded 55 yards on two receptions and one touchdown.
6. Why did Georgia defeat Texas by 25 points?
Georgia won because it combined efficient quarterback play, a stronger running game, and better touchdown conversion. The Bulldogs also scored 21 unanswered points in the fourth quarter, while Texas failed to score during that period.
Conclusion
The November 16, 2025, meeting between Georgia and Texas demonstrated how offensive efficiency and late-game execution can determine the outcome of a major college football contest. Georgia secured a 35-10 victory through an outstanding performance from Gunner Stockton, who threw four touchdown passes and completed 82.8% of his attempts.
Nate Frazier contributed 72 rushing yards, while Noah Thomas caught two touchdown passes. London Humphreys also provided an important scoring contribution, and Zachariah Branch added valuable receiving and return production.
Texas had some positive individual performances. Arch Manning passed for 251 yards, DeAndre Moore Jr. led the receiving group with 75 yards, and Quintrevion Wisner finished as the team’s leading rusher with 37 yards. However, the Longhorns’ 23 rushing yards and limited touchdown production prevented them from keeping pace with Georgia.
The decisive difference came in the fourth quarter, when Georgia scored 21 points without allowing Texas to respond. Ultimately, the Bulldogs were more efficient in the passing game, more productive on the ground, and considerably better at converting offensive opportunities into touchdowns.
The texas longhorns football vs georgia bulldogs football match player stats demonstrate that total yardage alone cannot explain a football result. Georgia’s superior scoring efficiency, balanced offensive production, and strong finish were the defining factors behind its 35-10 win.
