49ers vs Seahawks Match Player Stats
The 49ers vs seahawks match player stats from the January 18, 2026 NFC Divisional Playoff tell a much bigger story than the final score alone. Seattle defeated San Francisco 41-6, controlling the game through efficient passing, a powerful rushing attack, explosive special teams plays, and a defense that consistently disrupted the 49ers. For San Francisco, the numbers reveal a difficult offensive performance marked by limited passing production, two lost fumbles, and an inability to turn possessions into touchdowns.
The game was played with a clear postseason purpose, and the statistical difference between the two teams was substantial. Seattle entered the contest with a 14-3 record and a 6-2 home record, while San Francisco arrived at 12-5 overall and 7-2 on the road. Those records suggested a competitive divisional matchup, but the actual performance produced one of the most decisive results of the playoff round.
Rather than focusing only on the 35-point margin, this breakdown examines how individual players contributed to the result. Passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving volume, turnovers, defensive pressure, kicking, and return plays all help explain why Seattle created such a large advantage.
49ers vs seahawks match player stats at a glance
The final score was Seattle 41, San Francisco 6. Seattle scored in every quarter, while San Francisco scored only in the second quarter.
| Category | San Francisco 49ers | Seattle Seahawks |
| Final Score | 6 | 41 |
| Overall Record | 12-5 | 14-3 |
| Home/Away Record | 7-2 away | 6-2 home |
| First Quarter | 0 | 17 |
| Second Quarter | 6 | 7 |
| Third Quarter | 0 | 10 |
| Fourth Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Passing Yards | 128 | 124 |
| Rushing Yards | 108 | 175 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 3 |
| Receiving Yards | 144 | 124 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles Lost | 2 | 0 |
| Field Goals | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Extra Points | 0/0 | 5/5 |
One of the most interesting details is that the passing-yard totals were relatively close. San Francisco finished with 128 team passing yards, compared with 124 for Seattle. Yet Seattle still won 41-6.
That difference demonstrates why individual passing yards cannot be analyzed in isolation. Seattle’s advantage came from the combination of rushing efficiency, touchdowns, turnovers, field position, defensive execution, and special teams.
How the game developed
Seattle immediately established control by scoring 17 points in the opening quarter. San Francisco failed to score during that period, creating an early deficit that became increasingly difficult to overcome.
The Seahawks added another seven points in the second quarter, taking their halftime total to 24. San Francisco managed its only scoring quarter in the second, producing six points.
Seattle then added 10 points in the third quarter and another seven in the fourth. San Francisco was held scoreless during both halves of the second half.
This quarter-by-quarter distribution matters because it shows that Seattle did not simply win through a late-game surge. The Seahawks established an advantage early and continued to extend it.
For a playoff game, that is an important distinction. A team that falls behind by a few points can remain within one or two possessions. A team that enters the second half facing a large deficit must become increasingly aggressive, which can create additional opportunities for defensive mistakes and turnovers.
Seattle avoided that problem by maintaining control throughout the game.
Brock Purdy’s passing performance
Brock Purdy completed 15 of 27 passes for 140 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. He was also sacked twice for a combined loss of 16 yards.
His passing line produced a 53.7 team passing rating in the provided statistics, while his individual passer rating was listed at 31.2.
The raw completion percentage was approximately 55.6 percent. That is not enough by itself to explain the loss, but the combination of limited yardage, no touchdown passes, and an interception shows how little San Francisco received from its primary passing option.
Purdy averaged approximately 9.3 yards per completion, but the offense could not consistently convert that production into scoring opportunities.
His longest rushing play also deserves attention. Purdy carried the ball five times for 37 yards, averaging 7.4 yards per carry, with an 18-yard long. In fact, his rushing output was stronger on a per-carry basis than Christian McCaffrey’s rushing production in this particular game.
That does not mean Purdy’s rushing numbers compensated for the passing struggles. Instead, it highlights how difficult the game became for San Francisco’s offense. When the quarterback becomes one of the team’s more efficient rushers, the offense can gain useful yardage, but it still needs successful passing and scoring opportunities to turn those yards into points.
Mac Jones also saw action
Mac Jones completed two of four passes for four yards. He did not throw a touchdown or interception.
His limited involvement means the majority of San Francisco’s passing workload remained with Purdy. Jones’s four completions attempted were not enough to materially change the offensive profile of the game.
The combined San Francisco passing statistics were:
- 17 completions on 31 attempts
- 128 passing yards
- 4.6 yards per attempt
- No passing touchdowns
- One interception
- Two sacks for 16 yards
- 53.7 team passer rating
The most important number is not necessarily the completion total. It is the absence of touchdown production. Seattle found ways to turn its offensive possessions into points, while San Francisco repeatedly failed to finish drives.
Sam Darnold’s efficient performance
Sam Darnold had a much cleaner statistical game for Seattle.
He completed 12 of 17 passes for 124 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. He was sacked twice for a combined loss of 18 yards. His passer rating was listed at 110.9.
Darnold’s completion percentage was approximately 70.6 percent. More importantly, he avoided the turnover that affected San Francisco’s passing game.
His 124 passing yards were only four fewer than San Francisco’s entire team total. Yet the Seahawks were not dependent on Darnold throwing for a huge number of yards because their rushing attack produced 175 yards and three touchdowns.
That balance made Seattle’s offense difficult to defend.
Darnold did not need to carry the offense through volume passing. He needed to make efficient throws, avoid major mistakes, and allow the rushing game to create favorable situations.
That is exactly what the numbers indicate.
Kenneth Walker III was the dominant rusher
Kenneth Walker III produced one of the clearest individual statistical advantages of the game.
He rushed 19 times for 116 yards, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. He scored three rushing touchdowns and recorded a long run of 15 yards.
His 116 rushing yards represented roughly two-thirds of Seattle’s 175 team rushing yards.
The three touchdowns are particularly significant. San Francisco’s entire team produced zero rushing touchdowns, while Walker alone matched or exceeded the scoring output of the entire 49ers rushing unit by a wide margin.
Walker also averaged more than six yards every time he carried the ball. That efficiency allowed Seattle to maintain offensive momentum without depending heavily on deep passing plays.
His performance can therefore be viewed through three separate measures:
- Volume: 19 carries.
- Efficiency: 6.1 yards per carry.
- Scoring: 3 touchdowns.
Having all three elements in one playoff performance is a major reason Seattle controlled the game.
Christian McCaffrey’s rushing numbers
Christian McCaffrey carried the ball 11 times for 35 yards, averaging 3.2 yards per carry. His longest run was eight yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown.
The contrast with Walker is striking.
McCaffrey received 11 rushing attempts compared with Walker’s 19. More importantly, Walker gained 81 more rushing yards despite receiving only eight additional carries.
McCaffrey’s 3.2 yards per carry meant that San Francisco often needed more plays to produce the same amount of rushing yardage Seattle generated with fewer opportunities.
However, his contribution was not limited to rushing. McCaffrey caught five passes for 39 yards, giving him 74 combined rushing and receiving yards in the provided statistics.
That receiving role helped increase his total involvement, even though it did not result in a touchdown.
Seattle’s rushing advantage changed the game
The team rushing totals provide one of the clearest explanations for the final result.
San Francisco:
- 27 carries
- 108 yards
- 4.0 yards per carry
- 0 touchdowns
- 18-yard long
Seattle:
- 33 carries
- 175 yards
- 5.3 yards per carry
- 3 touchdowns
- 30-yard long
Seattle gained 67 more rushing yards on six additional attempts.
The efficiency difference was also meaningful. The Seahawks averaged 5.3 yards per carry, compared with 4.0 for San Francisco.
That 1.3-yard difference may look small when viewed as a single number, but across 33 Seattle rushing attempts it becomes a major source of field-position and possession advantage.
More importantly, Seattle converted its rushing success into touchdowns.
This is a useful lesson when evaluating 49ers vs seahawks match player stats. The most valuable offensive number is not always total yardage. A team can accumulate yards without scoring, while another team can turn efficient drives into touchdowns.
Seattle did both.
San Francisco receiving production
San Francisco recorded 17 receptions for 144 receiving yards, an 8.5-yard average, with no receiving touchdowns. The team had 27 total targets.
Jake Tonges led the 49ers in receiving yardage, catching five passes for 59 yards on six targets. He averaged 11.8 yards per reception and produced a 16-yard long.
Christian McCaffrey also caught five passes, gaining 39 yards on six targets. His receiving average was 7.8 yards per catch, with an 11-yard long.
The lack of a receiving touchdown is important.
San Francisco was able to move the ball through certain portions of the passing game, but those gains did not translate into the end zone. When an offense produces 144 receiving yards without a touchdown, it often indicates that the problem is not simply getting the ball to receivers. The bigger issue is completing drives.
That distinction is especially important in a playoff environment.
Seattle’s receiving production
Seattle’s receiving group produced 12 receptions for 124 yards, averaging 10.3 yards per reception. The Seahawks recorded one receiving touchdown and a 21-yard long.
Cooper Kupp led the group with five receptions for 60 yards on five targets. He averaged 12.0 yards per reception and recorded the team’s longest receiving play of 21 yards.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba caught three passes for 19 yards on four targets. His average was 6.3 yards per reception, but one of his receptions resulted in a touchdown.
The difference between Seattle and San Francisco receiving production shows why touchdown efficiency matters.
San Francisco had more receptions and more receiving yards, but Seattle scored the receiving touchdown.
Again, the lesson is that volume does not automatically equal offensive effectiveness.
Cooper Kupp’s efficiency stands out
Kupp’s five receptions from five targets are notable because he caught every pass thrown his way in the provided statistics.
He finished with 60 yards and averaged 12.0 yards per reception.
That means Seattle obtained reliable production without requiring a large number of targets. Five targets produced 60 yards, giving Darnold an efficient option within a relatively low-volume passing attack.
This is one of the reasons the Seahawks could remain balanced. Their passing offense did not need to dominate the box score because the rushing game was already generating significant production.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s touchdown impact
Smith-Njigba caught three passes for 19 yards and one touchdown.
His yardage was modest compared with Kupp’s total, but the touchdown made his contribution more valuable than the raw receiving total might suggest.
This is another example of why player statistics should be read within game context.
A player with 19 receiving yards and a touchdown can have a greater direct impact on the scoreboard than a player who collects more yardage without reaching the end zone.
Turnovers were a major factor
San Francisco recorded three fumbles and lost two of them.
Seattle recorded zero fumbles and lost zero.
San Francisco also threw one interception, while Seattle threw none.
That produces a substantial turnover contrast.
San Francisco had three recorded turnovers in total through two lost fumbles and one interception. Seattle protected the football throughout the game.
In a playoff matchup, giving an opponent extra possessions can be extremely costly. Every lost possession can prevent your offense from scoring while simultaneously giving the opponent another chance to score.
Seattle’s clean turnover sheet allowed the Seahawks to maximize their offensive opportunities.
The defensive interception by Ernest Jones IV was particularly important on an individual level. He recorded one interception, with zero return yards and zero defensive touchdowns.
Seattle’s defense disrupted San Francisco
Seattle’s defense recorded:
- 66 total tackles
- 38 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 4 tackles for loss
- 7 pass defenses
- 5 quarterback hits
- 1 defensive touchdown
San Francisco’s defense recorded:
- 60 total tackles
- 33 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 6 tackles for loss
- 3 quarterback hits
The sack numbers were identical, but Seattle generated more quarterback hits and significantly more pass defenses.
The defensive touchdown also added directly to the scoreboard.
That is important because the 41 points were not generated exclusively by Seattle’s offense. Defensive and special teams contributions helped expand the margin.
The defensive pressure tells a deeper story
Two sacks apiece might suggest that both defensive fronts performed similarly.
The additional quarterback-hit numbers suggest otherwise.
Seattle recorded five quarterback hits compared with three from San Francisco. The Seahawks also recorded seven pass defenses.
This indicates a defense that was active against the passing game beyond simply recording sacks.
A defense does not need to sack the quarterback repeatedly to affect an offense. Incomplete passes, hurried decisions, disrupted routes, tipped balls, and contested throws can all reduce offensive efficiency.
San Francisco’s 53.7 team passer rating provides additional evidence that the passing offense struggled to turn opportunities into productive possessions.
Special teams created another Seattle advantage
The special teams statistics provide one of the most dramatic differences in the game.
San Francisco recorded five kick returns for 114 yards, averaging 22.8 yards per return. The longest return was 27 yards.
Seattle’s Rashid Shaheed returned two kicks for 126 yards, averaging an extraordinary 63.0 yards per return. His longest return was 95 yards, and he scored a return touchdown.
That one play had enormous statistical and scoreboard value.
Shaheed gained more kick-return yardage on two returns than San Francisco gained on five returns.
A 95-yard return touchdown also represents a direct scoring possession without requiring the offense to move the ball down the field.
This is one of the clearest examples of how football games can be decided outside the traditional offensive box score.
Rashid Shaheed’s return was a game-changing play
Shaheed’s 95-yard return touchdown stands out as one of the biggest individual special teams contributions in the game.
His average of 63.0 yards per return is exceptional, and the touchdown added seven points to Seattle’s score after the successful extra point.
San Francisco’s return unit was much more conventional by comparison, averaging 22.8 yards per kick return.
The difference created hidden yardage and direct scoring value for Seattle.
When evaluating a playoff performance, special teams should not be treated as an afterthought. A return touchdown can completely alter the pressure on the opposing offense.
Kicking was reliable on both sides
Eddy Pineiro converted both of his field-goal attempts for San Francisco. His longest field goal was 56 yards, and he scored six points.
Jason Myers also made both of his field-goal attempts for Seattle. His longest was 31 yards, and he converted all five extra-point attempts.
Myers finished with 11 kicking points.
Both kickers were perfect on their field-goal attempts, but Seattle’s greater scoring production gave Myers more opportunities to add extra points.
Pineiro’s 56-yard field goal was especially notable because it represented a successful long-distance conversion in an otherwise difficult offensive performance.
Punting and field position
Thomas Morstead punted once for San Francisco for 51 yards, with the punt landing inside the 20-yard line.
Seattle’s Michael Dickson punted three times for 149 total yards, averaging 49.7 yards per punt. Two of his punts went inside the 20, and his longest was 54 yards.
The higher number of Seattle punts does not necessarily indicate poor offense. Seattle scored 41 points, so its three punts were simply part of a game in which the Seahawks also produced several successful scoring drives.
Morstead’s single punt reflects San Francisco’s smaller number of extended possessions and overall offensive struggles.
Why the final score was so large
The final score of 41-6 can look surprising when comparing the passing-yard totals.
Seattle had only 124 passing yards compared with San Francisco’s 128.
But football is not decided by passing yardage alone.
Seattle created its advantage through several connected areas:
1. Rushing touchdowns
Seattle scored three rushing touchdowns, while San Francisco scored none.
2. Rushing efficiency
The Seahawks averaged 5.3 yards per carry compared with San Francisco’s 4.0.
3. Turnover protection
Seattle committed no turnovers, while San Francisco lost two fumbles and threw an interception.
4. Special teams scoring
Shaheed produced a 95-yard kick-return touchdown.
5. Defensive production
Seattle recorded an interception and a defensive touchdown while also producing seven pass defenses.
6. Passing efficiency
Darnold completed 70.6 percent of his passes and threw one touchdown without an interception.
Taken together, those factors explain the margin far better than passing yardage alone.
What the player statistics reveal about San Francisco
The San Francisco numbers point toward several specific problems.
The first was finishing drives.
The 49ers produced 108 rushing yards and 144 receiving yards, yet scored only six points. Yardage without touchdowns was the central problem.
The second was ball security.
Two lost fumbles and an interception created three lost opportunities.
The third was quarterback efficiency.
Purdy completed 15 of 27 passes for 140 yards with no touchdown and one interception. The overall passing attack produced only 128 net team passing yards in the provided team statistics.
The fourth was rushing efficiency from the primary running back.
McCaffrey averaged only 3.2 yards per carry.
None of these statistics alone explains a 35-point loss. Together, they create a clear picture of an offense that struggled to sustain and finish productive possessions.
What the player statistics reveal about Seattle
Seattle’s profile was almost the opposite.
The Seahawks did not need huge passing numbers because the running game was highly productive.
Walker generated 116 rushing yards and three touchdowns.
Darnold completed 12 of 17 passes with one touchdown and no interception.
Kupp caught all five of his targets for 60 yards.
Smith-Njigba scored a receiving touchdown.
Shaheed added a 95-yard kick-return touchdown.
The defense produced an interception and a defensive touchdown while registering seven pass defenses.
Most importantly, Seattle avoided turnovers.
The result was a team performance in which several units contributed directly to the scoreboard.
A closer look at offensive balance
Seattle’s offense generated 175 rushing yards and 124 passing yards in the supplied statistics.
That is a balanced statistical foundation, but the balance was tilted toward the run in a way that worked extremely well.
The Seahawks averaged 5.3 yards per rushing attempt, giving them efficient access to first downs and scoring territory.
San Francisco, meanwhile, generated 108 rushing yards and 128 passing yards. Its overall yardage was not nonexistent, but the offense lacked the touchdown production needed to make those yards meaningful.
This distinction is critical when analyzing football statistics.
A team can gain substantial yardage while still losing badly if the yards come without scoring, turnovers interrupt drives, or special teams and defense give the opponent additional points.
Individual statistical leaders
The major statistical leaders from the matchup were:
Passing: Brock Purdy led San Francisco with 140 passing yards, while Sam Darnold led Seattle with 124 yards and one touchdown.
Rushing: Kenneth Walker III was the clear leader with 116 yards and three touchdowns.
Receiving: Cooper Kupp led Seattle with 60 receiving yards, while Jake Tonges led San Francisco with 59.
Rushing efficiency: Brock Purdy averaged 7.4 yards per carry among the listed San Francisco players with five or more carries, while Walker averaged 6.1.
Kick returns: Rashid Shaheed dominated with 126 return yards and a 95-yard touchdown.
Kicking: Eddy Pineiro and Jason Myers were both perfect on field goals.
Interceptions: Ernest Jones IV recorded Seattle’s interception.
Defensive scoring: Seattle recorded one defensive touchdown.
These leaders demonstrate that the game’s biggest individual statistical advantages came from Walker’s rushing production and Shaheed’s return performance.
How to interpret the box score correctly
A common mistake when reading football statistics is focusing on the largest yardage number.
For this matchup, that approach would miss the central story.
San Francisco actually had more passing yards and more receiving yards in the supplied statistics. Yet Seattle won by 35 points.
The correct approach is to connect the numbers.
Start with scoring.
Then examine touchdowns.
Then look at turnovers.
After that, evaluate efficiency rather than volume.
Finally, examine special teams and defensive scoring.
Using that method makes the result much easier to understand.
The Seahawks were more efficient at turning their opportunities into points.
Important statistical takeaways
Several numbers deserve to be remembered from this matchup:
- Seattle scored 17 points in the first quarter.
- San Francisco scored only six points in the entire game.
- Kenneth Walker III rushed for 116 yards and three touchdowns.
- Seattle rushed for 175 yards compared with San Francisco’s 108.
- Sam Darnold threw one touchdown without an interception.
- Brock Purdy threw one interception and no touchdowns.
- San Francisco lost two fumbles.
- Seattle committed no fumbles.
- Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown.
- Cooper Kupp caught all five of his targets for 60 yards.
- Jake Tonges led San Francisco with 59 receiving yards.
- Seattle recorded seven pass defenses.
- Ernest Jones IV recorded an interception.
- Both teams converted all of their field-goal attempts.
- Seattle scored 41 points while San Francisco scored six.
These numbers provide a more complete explanation of the final result than the score alone.
Common mistakes when comparing these teams
Mistake 1: Looking only at passing yards
Passing yards were nearly identical, but the scoring difference was enormous.
Mistake 2: Ignoring turnovers
Three San Francisco turnovers were highly relevant to the outcome.
Mistake 3: Treating receiving yards as the same as scoring impact
San Francisco had more receiving yards but no receiving touchdowns.
Mistake 4: Ignoring special teams
Shaheed’s 95-yard return touchdown directly changed the scoreboard.
Mistake 5: Ignoring rushing touchdowns
Walker alone produced three rushing touchdowns.
Mistake 6: Judging defenses only by sacks
Both teams had two sacks, but Seattle recorded more quarterback hits, more pass defenses, and a defensive touchdown.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the 49ers and Seahawks?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the San Francisco 49ers 41-6 in the NFC Divisional Playoffs on January 18, 2026.
Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Kenneth Walker III led all listed rushers with 116 yards on 19 carries and scored three rushing touchdowns.
How did Brock Purdy perform?
Brock Purdy completed 15 of 27 passes for 140 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. He was also sacked twice for 16 yards.
How did Sam Darnold perform?
Sam Darnold completed 12 of 17 passes for 124 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. His listed passer rating was 110.9.
Who led the game in receiving?
Cooper Kupp led Seattle with five receptions for 60 yards on five targets. Jake Tonges led San Francisco with five receptions for 59 yards on six targets.
What was the biggest special teams play?
Rashid Shaheed returned a kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown. He finished with 126 kick-return yards on two returns.
Conclusion
The 49ers vs seahawks match player stats show that Seattle’s 41-6 victory was built on complete team execution rather than one statistical category.
Kenneth Walker III was the standout offensive player after rushing for 116 yards and three touchdowns. Sam Darnold delivered an efficient passing performance without throwing an interception. Cooper Kupp provided reliable receiving production, while Jaxon Smith-Njigba added a receiving touchdown.
Seattle’s defense also made a major contribution. The Seahawks recorded an interception, seven pass defenses, five quarterback hits, and a defensive touchdown. Their ability to protect the football was equally important because they finished without a recorded fumble.
For San Francisco, the statistics show an offense that gained some yardage but could not convert it into points. The 49ers had 108 rushing yards and 144 receiving yards, yet produced only six points. Two lost fumbles and an interception further reduced their ability to sustain scoring opportunities.
The special teams contrast was another defining feature. Rashid Shaheed’s 95-yard kickoff return touchdown provided Seattle with a direct scoring play that did not require an offensive drive.
Ultimately, the 49ers vs seahawks match player stats demonstrate why postseason football must be evaluated through efficiency, touchdowns, turnovers, defensive disruption, and special teams impact rather than yardage totals alone. Seattle won the most important statistical battle of all: converting opportunities into points while preventing San Francisco from doing the same.
