Seahawks vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats
The seahawks vs tennessee titans match player stats from the November 23, 2025 matchup tell a much deeper story than the final 30-24 score. Seattle defeated Tennessee on the road, improving to 8-3 overall and 5-1 away from home, while the Titans fell to 1-10 and remained winless at home. Sam Darnold delivered an efficient passing performance for Seattle with 244 yards and two touchdowns, while Jaxon Smith-Njigba produced the game’s biggest receiving performance with 167 yards and two scores. Tennessee quarterback Cam Ward threw for 256 yards and one touchdown, but Seattle’s four sacks and stronger rushing efficiency helped shape the outcome.
The game was competitive despite the large difference between the teams’ records. Tennessee moved the ball through the air, generated a spectacular 90-yard punt return touchdown from Chimere Dike, and received a solid performance from Ward. Seattle, however, was more efficient in several key areas. The Seahawks averaged 5.7 yards per rushing attempt compared with Tennessee’s 2.9, recorded four sacks compared with one for the Titans, and received a major contribution from Smith-Njigba.
For anyone studying this matchup through individual performances, the numbers reveal why Seattle controlled enough of the game to secure the win. The quarterback statistics, rushing production, receiving efficiency, defensive pressure, special teams plays, and kicking all contributed to the final result.
Seahawks vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Seahawks entered the matchup with a strong 7-3 record and a particularly impressive road mark. After the victory, Seattle moved to 8-3 overall and 5-1 away from home.
Tennessee entered the game in a very different position. The Titans were 1-9 before the contest and dropped to 1-10 after losing their sixth consecutive home game of the season.
The final score was:
| Team | Score |
| Seattle Seahawks | 30 |
| Tennessee Titans | 24 |
A six-point margin does not fully describe the statistical balance of the game. Tennessee actually finished with more passing yards, but Seattle produced more effective rushing numbers and created considerably more defensive pressure.
Key team statistics
| Category | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Final Score | 30 | 24 |
| Passing | 244 yards | 256 yards |
| Rushing | 114 yards | 64 yards |
| Rushing Attempts | 20 | 22 |
| Rushing Average | 5.7 | 2.9 |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks | 4 | 1 |
| Total Tackles | 71 | 46 |
| Fumbles | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
The most important contrast is efficiency. Seattle gained 114 rushing yards on only 20 attempts. Tennessee needed 22 attempts to gain just 64 yards.
That difference of 50 rushing yards gave Seattle an important advantage even though the Titans gained 12 more passing yards.
Seattle Seahawks Passing Performance
Sam Darnold was one of the most important players in the game.
The Seattle quarterback completed 16 of 26 passes for 244 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. He was sacked once for a total loss of five yards and finished with a passer rating of 118.1.
Those numbers show a controlled performance rather than a high-volume passing attack.
Sam Darnold’s numbers
| Statistic | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 16 |
| Attempts | 26 |
| Completion Rate | 61.5% |
| Passing Yards | 244 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack Yardage | 5 |
| Passer Rating | 118.1 |
Darnold’s 244 passing yards came with two touchdowns and zero interceptions. That combination is particularly important because Seattle did not give Tennessee additional possessions through quarterback turnovers.
His 61.5 percent completion rate was not extraordinary, but the quality of the completed passes mattered more than raw completion percentage.
Seattle also did not need Darnold to throw 35 or 40 times. The Seahawks balanced their offense with an effective running game and allowed their passing attack to focus on productive opportunities.
That balance is one of the clearest lessons from the game. A quarterback can produce a highly efficient statistical line without dominating the passing volume when the running game is working.
Cam Ward’s Performance for Tennessee
Cam Ward produced more passing yards than Darnold, but the overall passing comparison still favored Seattle.
Ward completed 28 of 42 passes for 256 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. He was sacked four times for a combined loss of 24 yards and finished with a 91.0 passer rating.
Cam Ward’s numbers
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 28 |
| Attempts | 42 |
| Completion Rate | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 256 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 4 |
| Sack Yardage | 24 |
| Passer Rating | 91.0 |
Ward’s 66.7 percent completion rate was higher than Darnold’s 61.5 percent, and he finished with 12 more passing yards.
However, passing totals alone do not determine quarterback effectiveness.
The four sacks were significant. They cost Tennessee 24 yards and represented lost opportunities to advance the offense. Seattle’s defensive pressure also forced Tennessee to operate under more difficult circumstances.
Ward avoided interceptions, which was a positive aspect of his performance. The problem was that Seattle’s pass rush found ways to disrupt the pocket without needing to create turnovers.
This is an important distinction when analyzing quarterback statistics. A defense does not need interceptions to have a major impact on a passing offense.
Darnold vs Ward: Quarterback Comparison
The quarterback numbers provide an interesting contrast.
| Category | Sam Darnold | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 16 | 28 |
| Attempts | 26 | 42 |
| Completion Rate | 61.5% | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 244 | 256 |
| TDs | 2 | 1 |
| INTs | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 | 4 |
| Passer Rating | 118.1 | 91.0 |
Ward had the higher completion percentage and more passing yards.
Darnold had the better passer rating, more passing touchdowns, fewer sacks, and fewer attempts.
That difference helps explain why Seattle won despite Tennessee’s strong completion percentage.
Darnold averaged approximately 9.4 passing yards per attempt based on the supplied passing totals and attempts. Ward averaged approximately 6.1 yards per attempt.
This illustrates the difference between volume and efficiency. Ward threw the ball much more often, while Darnold generated more explosive production per attempt.
Seattle’s Rushing Attack
Seattle’s rushing numbers were one of the biggest statistical advantages of the matchup.
The Seahawks ran the ball 20 times for 114 yards, averaging 5.7 yards per carry. They also scored one rushing touchdown.
Kenneth Walker III led Seattle’s rushing attack.
Kenneth Walker III
Walker carried the ball 11 times for 71 yards.
| Statistic | Kenneth Walker III |
| Carries | 11 |
| Rushing Yards | 71 |
| Average | 6.5 yards per carry |
| Team Rushing Share | 55% of Seattle carries |
Walker accounted for more than half of Seattle’s rushing attempts and produced 71 of the team’s 114 rushing yards.
His 6.5 yards per carry was better than the team average, showing that he was an important source of efficient offensive production.
Seattle’s ability to gain 5.7 yards per rushing attempt also reduced pressure on Darnold. The offense did not have to depend entirely on passing plays to move the football.
That balance becomes even more important when comparing the two teams’ rushing production.
Tennessee’s Rushing Performance
Tennessee ran the ball 22 times but gained only 64 yards.
That produced an average of 2.9 yards per attempt.
The Titans did score one rushing touchdown, and Cam Ward was their leading rusher.
Cam Ward’s rushing production
Ward carried the ball six times for 37 yards and one touchdown.
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Carries | 6 |
| Rushing Yards | 37 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Average | 6.2 yards per carry |
Ward’s rushing performance was efficient on an individual level. His 6.2 yards per carry was significantly higher than Tennessee’s overall 2.9 average.
That suggests the Titans’ overall rushing production was limited by the effectiveness of the rest of the ground attack.
The difference between the two teams is striking. Seattle averaged nearly twice as many rushing yards per attempt as Tennessee.
Receiving Leaders
The biggest individual receiving performance came from Seattle wide receiver Jaxon Smith-Njigba.
He recorded eight receptions for 167 yards and two touchdowns.
That means he accounted for a very large portion of Seattle’s total receiving production.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s performance
| Statistic | Jaxon Smith-Njigba |
| Receptions | 8 |
| Receiving Yards | 167 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Yards per Reception | 20.9 |
His 20.9 yards per reception shows how explosive his production was.
Eight receptions are already a substantial contribution, but 167 yards from those catches demonstrates that Seattle was not simply using him for short, high-percentage throws.
Smith-Njigba’s two touchdowns were also directly tied to the final scoring margin.
His performance stands out as one of the clearest reasons Seattle’s passing attack was able to outperform Tennessee despite the Titans having more completions and slightly more total passing yards.
Tennessee’s Leading Receiver
Gunnar Helm led Tennessee in receiving production according to the supplied data.
He finished with six receptions for 51 yards.
| Statistic | Gunnar Helm |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Receiving Yards | 51 |
| Yards per Reception | 8.5 |
Helm’s six catches made him an important part of Tennessee’s passing game, particularly in terms of helping Ward maintain a steady completion total.
However, his average of 8.5 yards per reception was considerably lower than Smith-Njigba’s 20.9 yards per reception.
That contrast highlights the difference between sustaining drives through completions and creating explosive plays.
Tennessee completed 28 passes, compared with Seattle’s 16, but Seattle still matched its opponent’s passing yardage closely because of greater production per completed pass.
Receiving Efficiency Tells a Bigger Story
One of the most useful ways to understand the game is to look beyond receptions.
Seattle recorded 16 receptions for 244 yards. That works out to 15.25 yards per reception as a team.
Tennessee recorded 28 receptions for 256 yards. That works out to approximately 9.14 yards per reception.
The difference is substantial.
Seattle’s receivers produced much more yardage per catch. Tennessee relied on a higher volume of completions to produce a similar overall passing total.
This is why a box score should be analyzed as a collection of connected statistics rather than a list of isolated numbers.
A team can have more completions and still have a less explosive passing attack.
Defensive Player and Team Impact
The supplied data provides team-level defensive totals rather than complete individual tackle statistics.
Seattle recorded 71 total tackles, while Tennessee recorded 46.
Seattle also recorded four sacks.
Tennessee recorded one sack.
Defensive comparison
| Defensive Category | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Total Tackles | 71 | 46 |
| Sacks | 4 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles | 0 | 0 |
The sack difference is particularly important.
Seattle’s defense reached Ward four times, creating 24 yards of lost passing yardage. Tennessee reached Darnold only once.
This does not mean that sacks alone decided the game, but they were an important part of the overall statistical advantage.
Seattle also avoided giving up an interception, while Tennessee likewise avoided throwing one.
So the turnover battle was even in terms of interceptions and fumbles.
That makes the differences in rushing efficiency, receiving explosiveness, and defensive pressure even more important.
Special Teams Made the Game More Complicated
Special teams produced one of the most memorable moments of the game.
Tennessee’s Chimere Dike returned a punt 90 yards for a touchdown.
That was an enormous play.
Chimere Dike’s punt return
| Statistic | Chimere Dike |
| Punt Returns | 1 |
| Return Yards | 90 |
| Average | 90.0 |
| Long Return | 90 yards |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Dike’s return was not merely a positive special teams play. It directly produced a touchdown.
That type of explosive play can change the momentum of an NFL game almost instantly.
Seattle’s Rashid Shaheed also contributed in the return game.
He recorded three punt returns for 40 yards, averaging 13.3 yards per return. His longest return was 20 yards.
Rashid Shaheed’s return numbers
| Statistic | Rashid Shaheed |
| Punt Returns | 3 |
| Return Yards | 40 |
| Average | 13.3 |
| Long Return | 20 yards |
Seattle also recorded three kick returns for 56 yards, while Tennessee had six kick returns for 130 yards.
Tennessee’s kick return average was 21.7 yards, compared with Seattle’s 18.7.
So although Tennessee did not win the game, its return teams provided several positive moments.
Kicking Performance
Seattle kicker Jason Myers was perfect on his field goal attempts.
He converted all three field goal attempts, including a long of 47 yards. He also converted all three extra-point attempts.
His total contribution was 12 points.
Jason Myers
| Statistic | Result |
| Field Goals | 3/3 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Long | 47 yards |
| Extra Points | 3/3 |
| Total Points | 12 |
Tennessee kicker Joey Slye also had a perfect field goal day.
He converted his only field goal attempt from 22 yards and made all three extra points.
His total was six points.
Joey Slye
| Statistic | Result |
| Field Goals | 1/1 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Long | 22 yards |
| Extra Points | 3/3 |
| Total Points | 6 |
The kicking comparison therefore favored Seattle by six points.
Those six points exactly match the final margin of victory, although it would be incorrect to suggest that the kickers alone determined the result.
Seattle’s overall offensive and defensive performance created the opportunities that Myers converted.
Punting Comparison
Seattle punter Michael Dickson punted twice for 106 yards.
His average was 53.0 yards per punt, with a long of 60 yards.
Tennessee’s Johnny Hekker punted three times for 135 yards.
He averaged 45.0 yards per punt, with a long of 49 yards.
| Statistic | Michael Dickson | Johnny Hekker |
| Punts | 2 | 3 |
| Total Yards | 106 | 135 |
| Average | 53.0 | 45.0 |
| Long | 60 | 49 |
Seattle’s punting numbers were stronger on a per-punt basis.
However, punting statistics should always be interpreted within game context. A higher average does not automatically mean better field-position results on every individual possession.
Why Seattle Won the Game
The final score was close, but several statistical advantages explain Seattle’s victory.
1. Seattle ran the ball more efficiently
The Seahawks gained 114 rushing yards on 20 attempts.
The Titans gained 64 yards on 22 attempts.
The 50-yard difference in rushing production gave Seattle a clear advantage.
2. Seattle generated more explosive receiving production
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s 167 yards and two touchdowns were the standout numbers of the entire game.
His average of 20.9 yards per reception was a major source of Seattle’s offensive explosiveness.
3. Seattle protected Darnold better
Darnold was sacked once.
Ward was sacked four times.
That difference represents 19 additional yards of sack loss for Tennessee and, more importantly, several disrupted offensive plays.
4. Seattle converted field-goal opportunities
Myers made all three of his field goal attempts.
Tennessee’s Slye made his only attempt.
Seattle therefore received six more points from field goals.
5. Seattle avoided turnovers
Neither team recorded an interception or fumble according to the supplied data.
Seattle did not give Tennessee an easy extra possession through a turnover.
Why Tennessee Still Had a Chance
The Titans’ record did not accurately predict how competitive the game would be.
Their passing offense generated 256 yards.
Ward completed 66.7 percent of his passes.
The Titans also received an extraordinary 90-yard punt return touchdown from Dike.
Those plays helped Tennessee remain within striking distance.
Ward’s 37 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown also added an important dimension.
The biggest issue was consistency.
Tennessee could generate individual explosive moments, but its overall rushing attack averaged only 2.9 yards per attempt.
At the same time, Seattle’s defense consistently created pressure on Ward.
That combination made it difficult for Tennessee to sustain enough offensive efficiency to overcome Seattle’s balanced attack.
A Closer Look at the Offensive Efficiency
A useful way to analyze this game is to compare how each team accumulated its yardage.
Seattle produced:
- 244 passing yards
- 114 rushing yards
- 358 combined passing and rushing yards
Tennessee produced:
- 256 passing yards
- 64 rushing yards
- 320 combined passing and rushing yards
That gives Seattle an advantage of 38 combined yards using the supplied passing and rushing figures.
The difference is especially interesting because Tennessee had more passing yards.
Seattle gained 12 fewer passing yards but made up the difference and then some through its running game.
This is a classic example of complementary football. A team does not necessarily need to win every statistical category to win the game. It needs enough advantages in the areas that matter most.
What the Player Stats Reveal About Seattle
Seattle’s numbers suggest a balanced team capable of winning in multiple ways.
Darnold did not need to throw 40-plus passes.
Walker provided efficient rushing production.
Smith-Njigba provided explosive receiving production.
The defense created four sacks.
Myers converted every kick.
Dickson averaged 53.0 yards per punt.
The result was a complete team performance.
One of the strongest conclusions from the data is that Seattle did not rely on a single statistical category.
Instead, the Seahawks combined efficient rushing, explosive receiving, defensive pressure, reliable kicking, and clean ball security.
What the Player Stats Reveal About Tennessee
Tennessee’s performance was more uneven.
Ward showed that he could produce through the air and on the ground.
He threw for 256 yards, added 37 rushing yards, and scored one rushing touchdown.
Dike produced one of the biggest special teams plays possible with his 90-yard touchdown return.
Slye was perfect on his field goal and extra-point attempts.
Yet the Titans struggled to generate consistent rushing production outside Ward.
Their four sacks allowed also placed additional pressure on the offense.
The receiving attack produced 28 completions, but the average yards per catch was much lower than Seattle’s.
The result was an offense that could move the ball but had difficulty matching Seattle’s efficiency.
Player Stats That Deserve the Most Attention
If you are reviewing this matchup quickly, these are the numbers that matter most:
Sam Darnold: 16/26, 244 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 118.1 rating.
Cam Ward: 28/42, 256 yards, 1 TD, 0 INT, 91.0 rating.
Kenneth Walker III: 11 carries, 71 yards.
Cam Ward rushing: 6 carries, 37 yards, 1 TD.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba: 8 receptions, 167 yards, 2 TD.
Gunnar Helm: 6 receptions, 51 yards.
Chimere Dike: 90-yard punt return touchdown.
Rashid Shaheed: 3 punt returns, 40 yards.
Jason Myers: 3/3 field goals and 3/3 extra points.
These players account for many of the most meaningful individual statistical moments from the matchup.
How to Read This Box Score Correctly
A common mistake when looking at NFL player statistics is to focus only on the player with the highest yardage total.
That would make Ward’s 256 passing yards appear more impressive than Darnold’s 244.
But the complete picture is different.
Darnold threw fewer passes, was sacked less often, produced one more passing touchdown, and finished with a significantly higher passer rating.
Similarly, Tennessee had more receptions as a team, but Seattle generated much more yardage per reception.
The right approach is to compare volume, efficiency, scoring, and negative plays together.
For this game, that method makes Seattle’s victory easier to understand.
Key Statistical Takeaways
The most important takeaways from the matchup include:
- Seattle won 30-24.
- Sam Darnold threw for 244 yards and two touchdowns.
- Cam Ward threw for 256 yards and one touchdown.
- Darnold had the higher passer rating, 118.1 to 91.0.
- Seattle rushed for 114 yards at 5.7 yards per attempt.
- Tennessee rushed for 64 yards at 2.9 yards per attempt.
- Kenneth Walker III led Seattle with 71 rushing yards.
- Cam Ward led Tennessee with 37 rushing yards and one touchdown.
- Jaxon Smith-Njigba had 167 receiving yards and two touchdowns.
- Gunnar Helm led Tennessee with six receptions for 51 yards.
- Seattle recorded four sacks while Tennessee had one.
- Chimere Dike returned a punt 90 yards for a touchdown.
- Jason Myers scored 12 points and made all three field goals.
- Neither team recorded a fumble or interception.
- Seattle improved to 8-3, while Tennessee fell to 1-10.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Seahawks in passing against the Titans?
Sam Darnold led Seattle in passing. He completed 16 of 26 passes for 244 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. His passer rating was 118.1.
Who led the Seahawks in rushing?
Kenneth Walker III was Seattle’s leading rusher. He carried the ball 11 times for 71 yards.
Who led the Seahawks in receiving?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with eight receptions for 167 yards and two touchdowns. His 167 yards were the highest receiving total listed for either team.
Who led Tennessee in passing?
Cam Ward led Tennessee with 256 passing yards. He completed 28 of 42 attempts for one touchdown and no interceptions.
How many sacks did Seattle record?
Seattle recorded four sacks against Tennessee quarterback Cam Ward. Tennessee recorded one sack against Sam Darnold.
Who scored the long punt return touchdown?
Chimere Dike scored Tennessee’s 90-yard punt return touchdown. He had one punt return for 90 yards.
Conclusion
The seahawks vs tennessee titans match player stats provide a clear explanation of how Seattle escaped with a 30-24 road victory.
Sam Darnold was highly efficient, throwing for 244 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions while taking only one sack. Cam Ward produced more passing yards and completed a higher percentage of his attempts, but Seattle’s defense pressured him four times and limited Tennessee’s overall offensive efficiency.
The biggest difference came on the ground. Seattle gained 114 rushing yards on 20 attempts, averaging 5.7 yards per carry. Tennessee managed only 64 rushing yards on 22 attempts, averaging 2.9 yards per carry. Kenneth Walker III was especially effective, producing 71 yards on 11 carries.
The passing game also featured a major individual difference. Jaxon Smith-Njigba produced eight receptions for 167 yards and two touchdowns. His explosive 20.9 yards per reception helped Seattle generate big plays without requiring Darnold to throw a high volume of passes.
Tennessee had its own standout moments. Ward contributed 37 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Chimere Dike delivered the game’s spectacular 90-yard punt return touchdown. Those plays kept the Titans competitive.
Seattle’s special teams were also reliable. Jason Myers converted all three field goals and all three extra points for 12 points. Michael Dickson averaged 53.0 yards on two punts.
Ultimately, the statistics show a Seattle team that was more balanced and efficient. Tennessee moved the ball through the air and created explosive special teams plays, but Seattle’s rushing advantage, defensive pressure, receiving explosiveness, and kicking consistency combined to produce the six-point victory.
For readers studying individual performances, the most important lesson from this matchup is that raw yardage does not tell the entire story. Ward finished with more passing yards than Darnold, and Tennessee completed far more passes, but Seattle produced more efficient rushing, more sacks, more explosive receiving production, and a stronger overall balance between offense, defense, and special teams.
The final 30-24 score was therefore more than a simple win-loss result. The underlying numbers show why Seattle was able to turn its statistical advantages into another road victory while Tennessee continued to struggle at home.
The seahawks vs tennessee titans match player stats are best understood as a complete picture of efficiency, explosiveness, defensive pressure, and situational execution rather than as isolated individual totals.
