Arizona Cardinals vs Seahawks Match Player Stats

Arizona Cardinals vs Seahawks match player stats from the Seattle Seahawks’ 44-22 victory over the Arizona Cardinals show a game that was decided early by Seattle’s explosive first half, defensive touchdowns, and much stronger rushing production. Arizona eventually moved the ball well through the air, but the deficit created in the opening two quarters was too large to overcome.

One important date correction is worth making before looking at the numbers. The official NFL and ESPN records list this Week 10 game as Sunday, November 9, 2025, rather than November 10. Seattle hosted Arizona at Lumen Field and entered the contest at 6-2, while the Cardinals were 3-5. Seattle finished the game 7-2 and Arizona fell to 3-6. The final score was Seattle 44, Arizona 22.

The headline numbers can be misleading if they are viewed without context. Arizona actually finished with more total offensive yardage in the supplied player data, while Seattle produced the far more damaging plays. Seattle rushed for 198 yards, created five sacks, scored twice on fumble returns, and built a 38-7 halftime advantage. That combination explains why the Seahawks won comfortably despite Arizona finishing with a respectable offensive yardage total.

Arizona Cardinals vs Seahawks match player stats

The most useful way to understand this matchup is to separate passing, rushing, receiving, defense, turnovers, and special teams. Looking at those categories together provides a much clearer picture than simply comparing the final score.

Category	Arizona Cardinals	Seattle Seahawks
Final score	22	44
Passing yards	258 listed for Brissett	178 listed for Darnold
Team rushing yards	129	198
Total offensive yards	387 in supplied data	376 in supplied data
Rushing attempts	23	46
Passing attempts	44 by Brissett	12 by Darnold
Sacks allowed	5	1
Turnovers	2 lost fumbles	3 total turnovers
Defensive TDs	0	2
Possession	26:20	33:40
Third-down efficiency	6/16	6/10

The official ESPN team-stat display records 335 total yards for Arizona and 372 for Seattle after accounting for sack yardage, while the offensive breakdown supplied above gives Arizona 387 and Seattle 376. That difference comes from how team passing totals are presented and how sack yardage is treated. For a player-focused article, the individual passing and rushing figures are the more useful numbers to examine.

How Seattle Seahawks built a 44-22 victory

Seattle’s victory was essentially constructed in the first half.

The Seahawks scored 21 points in the opening quarter and added another 17 in the second. Arizona did not score until the second quarter, meaning Seattle had already created a huge advantage before the Cardinals established any offensive rhythm.

The scoring sequence also explains why conventional offensive statistics do not tell the entire story. Jaxon Smith-Njigba opened the scoring with a 43-yard touchdown reception. DeMarcus Lawrence then returned two Arizona fumbles for touchdowns in the first half.

That defensive production was extraordinary. Lawrence entered the game with only two career touchdowns over his first 148 NFL games, then matched that total in a single first half. Both defensive touchdowns came after Tyrice Knight forced fumbles.

Seattle’s offense added rushing touchdowns from George Holani and Zach Charbonnet, while Jason Myers contributed three field goals.

Arizona did fight back. The Cardinals scored 22 of the game’s final 29 points, including touchdowns from Trey McBride and Marvin Harrison Jr. But by that stage Seattle was already in control.

This is an important lesson when evaluating NFL player statistics. A team can produce productive second-half numbers while still losing decisively because game state changes play calling, defensive pressure, and risk tolerance.

Jacoby Brissett’s passing performance

Jacoby Brissett was Arizona’s primary passer and finished 22 of 44 for 258 yards with two touchdowns and no interceptions. His passer rating was 83.3.

The raw passing total looks solid, particularly considering Arizona spent much of the game playing from behind. However, the five sacks for 52 lost yards had a major impact.

Brissett’s numbers show two different sides of the performance.

On one side, he completed 50 percent of his passes and produced two touchdown throws. His connection with Trey McBride was particularly effective, and he also found Marvin Harrison Jr. for a fourth-quarter touchdown.

On the other side, Seattle’s pass rush repeatedly created negative plays. Five sacks are a significant problem when a quarterback is already facing a large deficit.

The most important distinction is that Brissett did not throw an interception. Arizona’s two lost fumbles were therefore particularly damaging because Seattle converted both into defensive touchdowns.

The official ESPN box score lists Brissett at 22 completions on 44 attempts for 258 yards, two touchdowns, no interceptions, five sacks, and an 83.3 rating.

Trey McBride was Arizona’s offensive standout

Trey McBride was arguably the most productive Arizona skill-position player in the game.

He caught nine passes for 127 yards and one touchdown on 13 targets. His longest reception went for 24 yards.

That workload is important because it demonstrates how central McBride was to Arizona’s passing attack. Nine receptions represented a substantial portion of Brissett’s completions, while 13 targets showed that the Cardinals consistently looked his way.

His 127 receiving yards were also a major part of Arizona’s ability to finish with strong passing production despite Seattle’s defensive pressure.

McBride’s touchdown came in the third quarter on a 15-yard reception from Brissett. Arizona followed the score with a successful two-point conversion, cutting the deficit to 38-15.

From a player-evaluation perspective, McBride’s performance is one of the clearest positives Arizona could take from the game. He provided volume, efficiency, and scoring impact even though Seattle’s defense controlled the overall contest.

Marvin Harrison Jr. provided a late scoring spark

Marvin Harrison Jr. finished with a fourth-quarter touchdown reception, giving Arizona another major receiving contribution.

His nine-yard touchdown catch came with 9:50 remaining and reduced the score to 41-22.

The timing mattered. Arizona had already made the game competitive on the scoreboard only in a relative sense because Seattle remained comfortably ahead.

Still, Harrison’s touchdown illustrated why Arizona’s passing attack could generate productive moments even against a defense that had dominated the first half.

For fantasy analysis and individual player evaluation, this distinction is useful. A touchdown can improve a player’s statistical line without necessarily indicating that the offense consistently controlled the game.

Emari Demercado created Arizona’s biggest rushing play

Arizona’s ground game was led by Emari Demercado in terms of yards per carry and total rushing yardage among the listed Cardinals backs.

Demercado carried the ball four times for 64 yards, an outstanding 16.0-yard average. His longest run covered 55 yards.

That single explosive run significantly influenced Arizona’s rushing efficiency.

The problem for the Cardinals was volume. Four carries are not enough to establish a reliable rushing identity, especially when compared with Seattle’s 46 rushing attempts.

Bam Knight received the most rushing attempts among Arizona’s backs with 10 carries, but he gained only 28 yards. Jacoby Brissett added 31 yards on four carries, while Michael Carter recorded four yards on three attempts.

Greg Dortch had two carries for two yards and scored a rushing touchdown.

The overall Arizona rushing line was 23 carries for 129 yards, an average of 5.6 yards per attempt, with one touchdown and a 55-yard long.

That average is strong, but the distribution tells a more complicated story. Much of the efficiency came from explosive plays rather than consistent early-down rushing production.

Seattle’s rushing attack controlled the second layer of the game

The Seahawks ran the ball 46 times for 198 yards and two touchdowns.

That volume was one of the most important statistics in the entire matchup.

Seattle did not need Sam Darnold to throw frequently because the running game repeatedly kept the offense on schedule and allowed the Seahawks to control possession.

Zach Charbonnet led Seattle with 83 rushing yards on 14 attempts, averaging 5.9 yards per carry. He also scored a touchdown and produced a 30-yard long.

Kenneth Walker III carried 14 times for 67 yards, averaging 4.8 yards per attempt.

George Holani added 31 yards on seven carries and scored a rushing touchdown.

Rashid Shaheed contributed 20 yards on two rushing attempts.

The Seahawks therefore had several players capable of producing useful rushing gains rather than relying on one back.

This balanced workload made Seattle’s offense more difficult to predict. Arizona had to defend repeated rushing attempts while also respecting Seattle’s ability to create explosive passes.

Sam Darnold was efficient rather than high-volume

Sam Darnold’s passing line was unusual for a 44-point performance.

He completed 10 of 12 passes for 178 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He was sacked once for four yards and finished with a 111.8 passer rating.

The 14.8 yards per completion figure highlights the explosive nature of Seattle’s passing attack.

Darnold did not need to throw 30 or 35 times because Seattle was already winning through its rushing game and defensive scoring.

His opening touchdown pass to Jaxon Smith-Njigba traveled 43 yards, immediately demonstrating the type of big-play potential Seattle possessed.

The interception and two lost fumbles by Darnold were blemishes on an otherwise highly efficient passing performance. Even so, Seattle’s defense and rushing attack prevented those mistakes from becoming costly.

ESPN’s official box score records Darnold at 10 completions on 12 attempts for 178 yards, one touchdown, one interception, one sack, and a 111.8 rating.

Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered the biggest receiving play

Jaxon Smith-Njigba was Seattle’s leading receiver.

He caught five passes for 93 yards and one touchdown on six targets.

His most important reception was also the game’s first touchdown, a 43-yard strike from Darnold.

That play immediately changed the complexion of the matchup because it gave Seattle an early lead and demonstrated that Arizona could not afford to play aggressively without protecting against explosive passes.

Smith-Njigba’s five receptions were half of Seattle’s total completions, making him the clear focal point of the passing game.

His 93 yards also accounted for more than half of Seattle’s listed receiving yardage.

Cooper Kupp added an important big-play element

Cooper Kupp caught two passes for 74 yards.

That is an extremely efficient receiving performance because his two catches averaged 37 yards each.

Although Smith-Njigba received more targets and catches, Kupp’s production helped explain why Seattle could finish with 178 passing yards despite attempting only 12 passes.

When a team can create explosive gains without relying on high passing volume, it can keep the defense uncertain while continuing to emphasize the running game.

Seattle’s defense changed the game

The defensive statistics are where this matchup becomes especially interesting.

Seattle recorded five sacks, 10 tackles for loss, 10 passes defended, and 10 quarterback hits. The defense also scored two touchdowns.

Nick Emmanwori led Seattle with nine tackles, including five solo tackles. He also recorded half a sack and four quarterback hits.

The pressure numbers demonstrate that Seattle did more than simply wait for Arizona to make mistakes.

The Seahawks actively disrupted Brissett’s passing environment.

Five sacks for 52 yards lost were especially damaging because Arizona’s offense was already attempting to recover from a large early deficit.

The two defensive touchdowns made the impact even greater.

DeMarcus Lawrence’s two defensive touchdowns were historic

DeMarcus Lawrence was the defining defensive player of the contest.

He returned two fumbles for touchdowns in the first half. According to ESPN’s recap, Lawrence became the fourth player in NFL history to record multiple fumble-return touchdowns in a single game. NFL.com also reported that he became the first player to return two fumbles for touchdowns in the same game when both returns exceeded 20 yards.

The unusual part was that Lawrence did not create either fumble himself.

Tyrice Knight forced both fumbles, and Lawrence became the beneficiary.

This is a good example of why defensive box scores need to be interpreted as connected events rather than isolated statistics.

Knight’s pressure created the turnover.

Lawrence’s recovery and speed converted it into seven points.

The Seahawks therefore received maximum value from two defensive plays.

Arizona’s defense had positives despite the score

Arizona’s defensive statistics were not empty.

Cody Simon led the Cardinals with six tackles, including three solo tackles.

As a team, Arizona recorded 67 tackles, 38 solo tackles, one sack, five tackles for loss, two passes defended, and one quarterback hit.

The lack of pressure compared with Seattle was the more important problem.

Arizona recorded only one sack while Seattle produced five.

That four-sack difference mattered because Seattle’s offense was able to remain aggressive while Arizona’s offense repeatedly faced negative plays.

Arizona did record one interception through Denzel Burke, who returned it four yards. However, the Cardinals could not turn that turnover into enough momentum to change the game.

Turnovers were more important than total yardage

One of the most valuable lessons from these Arizona Cardinals vs Seahawks match player stats is that total yardage alone does not explain the result.

Arizona’s supplied offensive total is 387 yards, compared with 376 for Seattle.

If someone looked only at those figures, the 44-22 score would appear surprising.

But Seattle produced two defensive touchdowns.

The Seahawks also controlled the rushing volume and possession.

ESPN’s team statistics show Arizona with two turnovers and Seattle with three, but Seattle’s three turnovers did not hurt nearly as much because the Seahawks had already built a massive lead. Arizona’s two lost fumbles were particularly damaging because both became Seattle touchdowns.

This is why turnover timing matters.

A turnover deep in your own territory can be much more damaging than a turnover after a long drive has already stalled.

Seattle’s defensive touchdowns effectively created a 14-point swing without requiring the offense to gain another yard.

Time of possession favored Seattle

Seattle held the ball for 33:40 compared with Arizona’s 26:20.

That difference of more than seven minutes is another indicator of how the Seahawks controlled the game.

Seattle’s 46 rushing attempts naturally contributed to that possession advantage.

The Seahawks were able to sustain drives, run clock, and limit Arizona’s opportunities.

Arizona, by contrast, needed to pass more frequently because of the scoreboard.

That created a cycle:

1. Seattle built an early lead.
2. Arizona had to become more aggressive.
3. Seattle’s pass rush created pressure.
4. Arizona lost valuable plays through sacks and fumbles.
5. Seattle continued running the ball.
6. The clock continued moving against Arizona.

That sequence is more informative than any single player statistic.

Why Arizona’s 22 points do not tell the whole story

Arizona scored 22 points, but its scoring was heavily concentrated after Seattle had already established a commanding lead.

The Cardinals scored seven points in the second quarter, eight in the third, and seven in the fourth.

Seattle, meanwhile, scored 38 points before halftime.

That created a completely different strategic environment.

Arizona’s later production showed offensive resilience, but Seattle’s early scoring meant the Cardinals had little margin for error.

The Seahawks could become conservative.

Arizona had to take more chances.

That difference often creates inflated passing numbers for the trailing team because the offense must throw more frequently.

Comparing the quarterbacks

The quarterback comparison is one of the clearest examples of efficiency versus volume.

Statistic	Jacoby Brissett	Sam Darnold
Completions	22	10
Attempts	44	12
Completion rate	50.0%	83.3%
Passing yards	258	178
Touchdowns	2	1
Interceptions	0	1
Sacks	5	1
Rating	83.3	111.8

Brissett produced 80 more passing yards, but Darnold produced those yards on dramatically fewer attempts.

Darnold averaged 14.8 yards per completion, while Brissett averaged 11.7 yards per completion based on the listed figures.

The bigger difference was pressure.

Brissett absorbed five sacks.

Darnold absorbed one.

That suggests Seattle’s offensive environment was far more favorable than Arizona’s.

Comparing the running games

Statistic	Arizona	Seattle
Attempts	23	46
Yards	129	198
Average	5.6	4.3
Touchdowns	1	2
Long	55	30

Arizona actually had the better average per rushing attempt.

Yet Seattle’s rushing game was more influential because it had twice as many attempts.

This is a valuable distinction.

Efficiency tells you how productive each individual play was.

Volume tells you how often a team successfully used that part of the offense.

Seattle’s 46 rushing attempts meant the running game was not just an occasional source of explosive plays. It was a core part of the game plan.

Comparing the receiving production

Player	Team	Receptions	Yards	TD	Targets
Trey McBride	Arizona	9	127	1	13
Jaxon Smith-Njigba	Seattle	5	93	1	6
Cooper Kupp	Seattle	2	74	0	Not supplied
Marvin Harrison Jr.	Arizona	Part of team total	Part of team total	1	Not supplied

McBride was the volume leader.

Smith-Njigba was the explosive-play leader for Seattle’s passing attack.

Kupp was extremely efficient on limited opportunities.

These are three different forms of receiving value, and treating them as interchangeable would miss important context.

Special teams also favored Seattle

Jason Myers was perfect on field goals, converting all three attempts.

He also made all five extra-point attempts for 14 total points.

His longest field goal was 46 yards.

Arizona’s Chad Ryland converted both extra-point attempts and finished with two points.

Arizona also generated useful kick-return production. Bam Knight returned four kicks for 79 yards, while Greg Dortch returned three for 67 yards. The Cardinals finished with 146 kick-return yards.

Seattle’s Rashid Shaheed returned three kicks for 67 yards, averaging 22.3 yards per return.

Arizona therefore had some positive special-teams production, but Seattle’s field-goal accuracy and offensive scoring opportunities made the greater impact.

What the statistics say about Seattle’s game plan

Seattle’s game plan appears much clearer when the statistics are arranged by sequence rather than category.

The Seahawks attacked early through the passing game, immediately connecting with Smith-Njigba for a 43-yard touchdown.

They then benefited from defensive pressure and turnovers.

Once the lead became substantial, the running game became even more valuable.

Charbonnet, Walker, and Holani combined for a steady stream of rushing attempts that helped Seattle control the clock.

The result was an offense that did not need high passing volume.

Seattle finished with only 12 pass attempts by Darnold but still generated 178 passing yards.

That is the definition of high-value passing efficiency.

What the statistics say about Arizona’s game plan

Arizona’s offensive approach was almost the reverse.

Because the Cardinals fell behind immediately, Brissett had to throw 44 passes.

That created opportunities for McBride and other receivers, but it also exposed the offense to Seattle’s pass rush.

The Cardinals’ rushing attack was efficient at 5.6 yards per attempt, but it received only 23 attempts.

Demercado’s 55-yard run demonstrates the explosive potential Arizona possessed.

The challenge was consistency.

A team cannot rely on a 55-yard run to compensate for a large deficit every week.

Arizona needed more sustained drives, fewer negative plays, and better protection.

The biggest statistical lessons from the matchup

Several conclusions stand out when the complete box score is considered.

1. Explosive defensive plays can overwhelm offensive yardage

Seattle’s two defensive touchdowns were probably the single biggest statistical reason the score became so lopsided.

2. Rushing volume mattered

Arizona averaged more yards per carry, but Seattle ran the ball twice as often.

3. Pass protection was decisive

Five Arizona sacks versus one Seattle sack created a major difference in offensive stability.

4. McBride was a major positive

Nine catches, 127 yards, and a touchdown made McBride one of the game’s most productive offensive players.

5. Seattle did not need a high-volume passing game

Darnold’s 10-of-12 performance demonstrates how much efficiency can matter when a team runs the football effectively.

6. Game script shaped the statistics

Arizona’s passing volume was partly a product of trailing by a large margin.

Seattle’s rushing volume was partly a product of leading by a large margin.

That context should always be considered before evaluating individual players.

How to read these player statistics correctly

If you are researching a matchup for fantasy football, player evaluation, historical analysis, or sports content, avoid relying on one statistic.

A better approach is to examine four layers.

First, volume. Look at carries, targets, and passing attempts.

Second, efficiency. Compare yards per attempt, yards per reception, and completion percentage.

Third, impact plays. Identify touchdowns, turnovers, explosive gains, sacks, and tackles for loss.

Fourth, game context. Ask whether the player was operating with a lead, chasing a deficit, or playing in a balanced game.

Using that framework, McBride’s nine catches become more impressive because he was heavily involved throughout Arizona’s comeback attempts.

Darnold’s 178 yards become more impressive because he needed only 12 attempts to produce them.

Charbonnet’s 83 rushing yards become more meaningful because they came as part of Seattle’s 46-carry ground attack.

Lawrence’s two defensive touchdowns become the most dramatic example of game-changing efficiency.

What fans should remember from the 44-22 result

The final score tells us Seattle dominated.

The player statistics tell us why.

Seattle’s defense created two touchdowns from fumbles.

The Seahawks ran for 198 yards.

Darnold completed 83.3 percent of his passes.

Smith-Njigba produced a 43-yard touchdown.

Charbonnet and Holani supplied rushing touchdowns.

Myers converted all three field-goal attempts.

Arizona did have legitimate positives.

McBride produced 127 receiving yards.

Demercado averaged 16 yards per carry.

Brissett threw two touchdowns without an interception.

Arizona finished with 129 rushing yards and 258 passing yards in the supplied player totals.

But the Cardinals could not overcome the combination of early defensive breakdowns, turnovers, sacks, and Seattle’s control of possession.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Cardinals vs Seahawks game in 2025?

The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Arizona Cardinals 44-22 in Week 10 of the 2025 NFL season. The official records list the game as being played on November 9, 2025, at Lumen Field in Seattle.

Who was Arizona’s leading receiver?

Trey McBride led Arizona with nine receptions for 127 yards and one touchdown on 13 targets.

Who was Seattle’s leading receiver?

Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with five receptions for 93 yards and one touchdown. His 43-yard touchdown was Seattle’s first score of the game.

How many rushing yards did Seattle have?

Seattle rushed for 198 yards on 46 attempts, averaging 4.3 yards per carry and scoring two rushing touchdowns.

How did Jacoby Brissett perform?

Brissett completed 22 of 44 passes for 258 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. He was sacked five times for 52 yards and finished with an 83.3 passer rating.

Why did Seattle win despite Arizona’s strong offensive yardage?

Seattle created more decisive plays. The Seahawks scored two defensive touchdowns, rushed 46 times for 198 yards, produced five sacks, controlled possession, and built a 38-7 halftime lead. Arizona’s later offensive production was not enough to erase that deficit.

Conclusion

The Arizona Cardinals vs Seahawks match player stats from this Week 10 meeting reveal a game that was much more about situational dominance than raw yardage.

Arizona had productive individual performances. Trey McBride was excellent as a receiver, Emari Demercado generated a 55-yard rushing play, and Jacoby Brissett threw two touchdown passes without an interception.

Seattle, however, controlled the areas that most directly affected the result.

The Seahawks rushed 46 times, generated 198 rushing yards, pressured Brissett five times, scored two defensive touchdowns, and converted their scoring opportunities efficiently. Jaxon Smith-Njigba supplied an early 43-yard touchdown, Zach Charbonnet and George Holani scored on the ground, and DeMarcus Lawrence produced one of the most unusual defensive performances of the season with two fumble-return touchdowns.

The biggest takeaway is that box-score totals need context. Arizona’s passing numbers were larger because the Cardinals spent much of the afternoon chasing the scoreboard. Seattle’s passing numbers were smaller because the Seahawks did not need to throw frequently. The 44-22 result was therefore driven less by one statistical category and more by Seattle’s ability to combine explosive defense, efficient passing, sustained rushing volume, and clock control.

For readers analyzing this matchup for player evaluation, fantasy research, historical comparison, or future game previews, the most valuable numbers are not necessarily the biggest ones. Sacks, turnovers, rushing attempts, target distribution, explosive plays, and scoring sequence often explain the outcome far better than total yardage alone.