Cleveland Browns vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats
The cleveland browns vs las vegas raiders match player stats from the Browns’ 24-10 victory in Week 12 of the 2025 NFL season tell a much deeper story than the final score alone. Cleveland won at Allegiant Stadium behind a disruptive defensive performance, two rushing touchdowns from Quinshon Judkins, and several explosive plays in the passing game. Las Vegas moved the ball through the air with Geno Smith, but Cleveland’s pass rush repeatedly ended promising possessions before the Raiders could turn their yardage into points.
The game was played on Sunday, November 23, 2025, despite some listings that may show November 24. The official NFL game center records Cleveland’s 24-10 victory over Las Vegas in Week 12.
What makes this matchup particularly interesting from a statistical perspective is the contrast between the two teams. The Raiders finished with 285 passing yards compared with Cleveland’s 209, and Las Vegas controlled possession for 36:26. Yet the Browns won comfortably because their defense produced 10 sacks, created repeated negative plays, and helped Cleveland convert a relatively modest offensive output into 24 points.
This breakdown examines the quarterback numbers, rushing production, receiving efficiency, defensive impact, turnovers, special teams, and the underlying statistics that explain why Cleveland left Las Vegas with the victory.
Cleveland Browns vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Browns won 24-10, improving to 3-8 at the time of the game, while the Raiders fell to 2-9. The official NFL record confirms the final score and Week 12 placement.
| Category | Cleveland Browns | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Final Score | 24 | 10 |
| Total Offensive Plays | 48 | 75 |
| Total Net Yards | 270 | 268 |
| Passing Yards | 209 gross | 285 gross |
| Net Passing Yards | 206 | 208 |
| Rushing Yards | 64 | 60 |
| Rushing Attempts | 27 | 21 |
| First Downs | 11 | 19 |
| Third Down | 3/12 | 4/17 |
| Sacks Allowed | 1 | 10 |
| Time of Possession | 23:34 | 36:26 |
| Turnovers Lost | 1 | 1 |
| Touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Field Goals | 1/1 | 1/2 |
The most revealing number is total offensive plays. Las Vegas ran 75 plays to Cleveland’s 48, yet the Raiders produced only 268 total net yards. Cleveland generated 270 net yards on 27 fewer plays.
That gap illustrates how strongly Cleveland’s defense affected the game. The Raiders had opportunities to accumulate yardage, but 10 sacks for 77 lost yards significantly damaged their offensive efficiency. The official NFL game summary records those 10 sacks and the resulting 77 yards lost.
Cleveland also scored three touchdowns compared with one for Las Vegas. That scoring efficiency mattered more than the raw yardage totals.
Shedeur Sanders Passing Performance
Shedeur Sanders finished the game 11 of 20 passing for 209 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He averaged 10.5 yards per completion attempt and posted an 87.3 passer rating.
His statistical line was unusual because Cleveland did not rely on high-volume passing. Sanders attempted only 20 passes, completing 11 of them. The offense instead depended on a mixture of efficient explosive completions, the running game, and defensive field position.
Sanders’ Passing Line
| Statistic | Shedeur Sanders |
| Completions | 11 |
| Attempts | 20 |
| Completion Rate | 55.0% |
| Passing Yards | 209 |
| Yards per Attempt | 10.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 3 |
| Passer Rating | 87.3 |
| QBR | 8.6 |
The 10.5 yards-per-attempt figure stands out. Cleveland did not need Sanders to throw frequently because several completions created substantial chunks of yardage.
His biggest statistical limitation was accuracy volume. Completing 55% of his attempts left opportunities on the field, and the interception prevented the performance from being completely clean. Still, the passing game produced 209 gross yards from only 20 attempts.
That is an important distinction when evaluating quarterback performance. Raw completion totals do not tell the entire story. Sanders had fewer attempts than Geno Smith, but his offense generated similar gross passing yardage with less volume.
Geno Smith Passing Performance
Geno Smith produced the larger statistical passing workload for Las Vegas. He completed 30 of 44 attempts for 285 yards and one touchdown without throwing an interception.
At first glance, that looks like the superior quarterback statistical line. Smith completed 68.2% of his passes and recorded a 93.5 passer rating. However, the sack statistics dramatically changed the value of those passing yards.
Smith’s Passing Line
| Statistic | Geno Smith |
| Completions | 30 |
| Attempts | 44 |
| Completion Rate | 68.2% |
| Passing Yards | 285 |
| Yards per Attempt | 6.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 10 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 77 |
| Passer Rating | 93.5 |
| QBR | 13.1 |
Smith’s 285 gross passing yards became only 208 net passing yards after accounting for the 77 yards lost on sacks. The official NFL game summary confirms that Las Vegas finished with 285 gross passing yards, 208 net passing yards, and 10 sacks for 77 yards.
That difference is central to understanding the game.
Smith was able to complete passes and keep the Raiders moving between the sacks, but Cleveland consistently won the most important battle at the line of scrimmage. The Browns’ pass rush prevented Las Vegas from turning possession and completion volume into scoring opportunities.
NFL’s Week 12 analysis specifically highlighted Cleveland’s 10 sacks and noted that the Browns pressured Smith on 40.4% of his dropbacks.
Quinshon Judkins Leads Cleveland’s Rushing Attack
Quinshon Judkins was the key contributor in Cleveland’s rushing attack. He carried the ball 16 times for 47 yards and scored two touchdowns.
His 2.9 yards per carry was not an explosive rushing average, but the touchdowns were highly valuable. Judkins also produced the longest Cleveland rushing play at 11 yards.
Judkins’ Rushing Line
| Statistic | Quinshon Judkins |
| Carries | 16 |
| Rushing Yards | 47 |
| Average | 2.9 |
| Long | 11 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
The value of Judkins’ performance came primarily in scoring situations.
Cleveland’s entire rushing unit produced only 64 yards on 27 attempts, an average of 2.4 yards per carry. Yet Judkins converted important opportunities into touchdowns.
The NFL’s player log also records Judkins’ 16 carries, 47 yards, and two touchdowns in the Week 12 victory.
This is a useful reminder that rushing efficiency and rushing impact are not always identical. A running back can have a modest average while still delivering the most important rushing plays of the game.
Dylan Sampson Provides Cleveland’s Biggest Receiving Play
Dylan Sampson had an especially unusual statistical contribution.
As a runner, he carried seven times for 23 yards. As a receiver, he caught two passes for 59 yards and one touchdown.
His receiving average was 29.5 yards per catch, and his longest reception went for 66 yards.
Sampson’s Receiving Line
| Statistic | Dylan Sampson |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Targets | 2 |
| Receiving Yards | 59 |
| Average | 29.5 |
| Long | 66 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
The 66-yard touchdown was one of the most important individual offensive plays of the afternoon.
Sampson’s contribution also demonstrates why a box score should be examined across multiple categories. His rushing numbers were useful but modest. His receiving numbers, however, produced an explosive scoring play that materially changed Cleveland’s scoring total.
Isaiah Bond Adds Another Explosive Play
Isaiah Bond caught two passes for 58 yards.
His average of 29.0 yards per reception shows how much Cleveland’s offense relied on explosive completions rather than sustained high-volume passing.
Bond’s longest catch traveled 52 yards, meaning both of his receptions generated significant field position.
Bond’s Receiving Line
| Statistic | Isaiah Bond |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Targets | 2 |
| Receiving Yards | 58 |
| Average | 29.0 |
| Long | 52 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
Together, Sampson and Bond accounted for 117 receiving yards on only four catches.
That is one of the clearest explanations for Cleveland’s offensive efficiency. The Browns did not need 30 or 40 completed passes to create yardage. A small number of explosive plays supplied much of their passing production.
Harold Fannin Jr. Provides Reliable Short-Area Production
Harold Fannin Jr. led Cleveland in receptions with four.
He received six targets and finished with 40 yards, averaging 10.0 yards per catch. His longest reception was 17 yards.
Fannin’s numbers were less explosive than Sampson’s or Bond’s, but his role was different. His four receptions provided a steady outlet within a passing attack that otherwise produced several large gains.
Cleveland’s Leading Receivers
| Player | Rec. | Targets | Yards | Avg. | Long | TD |
| Dylan Sampson | 2 | 2 | 59 | 29.5 | 66 | 1 |
| Isaiah Bond | 2 | 2 | 58 | 29.0 | 52 | 0 |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 4 | 6 | 40 | 10.0 | 17 | 0 |
| Jerry Jeudy | 1 | 3 | 39 | 39.0 | 39 | 0 |
| Malachi Corley | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Cedric Tillman | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 |
The table shows a striking distribution. Cleveland’s 209 receiving yards came from only 11 receptions, an average of 19.0 yards per catch.
That is extremely different from Las Vegas, which completed 30 passes to gain 285 yards at an average of 9.5 yards per reception.
Las Vegas Receiving Production
Geno Smith completed 30 passes, and the Raiders spread those completions across several players.
Tyler Lockett led Las Vegas in receiving yardage with 62 yards on four receptions. Ashton Jeanty followed with 58 yards on eight catches, while Brock Bowers added 55 yards on six receptions.
Raiders’ Leading Receivers
| Player | Rec. | Targets | Yards | Avg. | Long | TD |
| Tyler Lockett | 4 | 5 | 62 | 15.5 | 33 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 8 | 8 | 58 | 7.3 | 25 | 1 |
| Brock Bowers | 6 | 9 | 55 | 9.2 | 15 | 0 |
| Ian Thomas | 4 | 4 | 36 | 9.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Tre Tucker | 3 | 10 | 28 | 9.3 | 19 | 0 |
| Raheem Mostert | 3 | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 18 | 0 |
| Michael Mayer | 1 | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Dont’e Thornton Jr. | 1 | 2 | 14 | 14.0 | 14 | 0 |
The Raiders’ distribution tells us that the offense was active and capable of completing passes to multiple players.
The issue was not simply getting the ball to receivers. The larger problem was sustaining possessions when Cleveland’s defensive front created pressure.
Tre Tucker, for example, received 10 targets but caught only three passes. Brock Bowers received nine targets and caught six. The Raiders generated volume, but that volume did not consistently translate into touchdowns.
Ashton Jeanty’s Dual-Threat Contribution
Ashton Jeanty contributed both on the ground and through the air.
He carried 17 times for 50 yards, averaging 2.9 yards per attempt. He also caught eight passes for 58 yards and one touchdown.
Jeanty’s Complete Offensive Production
| Category | Stat |
| Rushing Attempts | 17 |
| Rushing Yards | 50 |
| Rushing Average | 2.9 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 |
| Receptions | 8 |
| Receiving Yards | 58 |
| Receiving Average | 7.3 |
| Receiving TDs | 1 |
| Total Touches | 25 |
| Total Yards | 108 |
| Total TDs | 1 |
Jeanty’s 108 combined yards made him one of the Raiders’ most involved offensive players.
His eight receptions were particularly important because Las Vegas often used the passing game to supplement an inefficient ground attack.
However, his 50 rushing yards on 17 carries reflected the broader problem. The Raiders managed only 60 rushing yards as a team on 21 attempts.
Las Vegas Could Not Establish the Run
The Raiders’ rushing attack finished with 60 yards.
Jeanty accounted for 50 of those yards. Geno Smith added eight yards on three carries, while Raheem Mostert had two yards on one carry.
Raiders Rushing
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| Ashton Jeanty | 17 | 50 | 2.9 | 12 | 0 |
| Geno Smith | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 9 | 0 |
| Raheem Mostert | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
| Team | 21 | 60 | 2.9 | 12 | 0 |
Cleveland’s defense therefore had little reason to fear a consistently productive ground attack.
Once the Raiders became increasingly dependent on Smith’s arm, Cleveland’s pass rush could attack the quarterback with greater frequency.
That combination was damaging: limited rushing efficiency forced more passing, while the passing game repeatedly encountered a fierce pass rush.
Myles Garrett Dominates the Defensive Statistics
Myles Garrett was the most disruptive defender in the game.
He finished with five tackles, four solo tackles, three sacks, four tackles for loss, and six quarterback hits.
Garrett’s Defensive Line
| Statistic | Myles Garrett |
| Tackles | 5 |
| Solo Tackles | 4 |
| Sacks | 3 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 |
| QB Hits | 6 |
Three sacks alone would have represented an excellent pass-rushing performance. Adding six quarterback hits and four tackles for loss shows how frequently Garrett affected the Raiders’ offense.
His impact was not limited to plays officially recorded as sacks. Quarterback hits can disrupt timing, force hurried decisions, and influence subsequent play calls.
NFL’s Week 12 analysis singled out Cleveland’s defensive performance and reported that the Browns generated 10 sacks against Smith.
Cleveland’s Defensive Front Won the Game
The Browns recorded 89 tackles, including 45 solo tackles. They also registered 10 sacks, 13 tackles for loss, five passes defended, and 20 quarterback hits.
Those 20 quarterback hits are particularly notable.
Cleveland Defensive Production
| Category | Cleveland |
| Total Tackles | 89 |
| Solo Tackles | 45 |
| Sacks | 10 |
| Tackles for Loss | 13 |
| Passes Defended | 5 |
| QB Hits | 20 |
Carson Schwesinger led Cleveland with 11 tackles, including six solo tackles and one tackle for loss.
Devin Bush added nine tackles, four solo tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits.
Isaiah McGuire recorded seven tackles, four solo tackles, one sack, and two tackles for loss.
The overall defensive performance was therefore more than just Garrett’s individual production. Multiple Cleveland defenders contributed to the pressure that eventually overwhelmed the Raiders’ passing game.
Maxx Crosby Still Produced for Las Vegas
Maxx Crosby was one of the Raiders’ most active defenders.
He finished with eight tackles, five solo tackles, five tackles for loss, and three quarterback hits.
Crosby’s Defensive Line
| Statistic | Maxx Crosby |
| Tackles | 8 |
| Solo Tackles | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 |
| QB Hits | 3 |
Crosby’s five tackles for loss were particularly notable.
However, the Raiders generated only one sack as a team, compared with Cleveland’s 10. That difference became one of the defining statistical mismatches in the game.
The Raiders did record one interception through Charles Snowden, who returned it 18 yards, but they could not generate enough consistent defensive pressure to prevent Cleveland’s explosive plays.
Turnovers Were Even, But Pressure Was Not
Both teams lost one fumble.
Cleveland’s lost fumble was charged to Jerry Jeudy. Las Vegas lost one fumble involving Geno Smith.
The Raiders also intercepted Sanders once through Charles Snowden.
Cleveland recorded no interceptions.
Turnover Summary
| Category | Cleveland | Las Vegas |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions Made | 0 | 1 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 1 |
| Total Turnovers Lost | 2 | 1 |
This means Cleveland did not win the turnover battle in the traditional sense.
Instead, the Browns won through defensive pressure and scoring efficiency.
That distinction is important because turnovers alone cannot explain the 24-10 result. Cleveland gave the Raiders one additional takeaway opportunity through Sanders’ interception, but the Browns compensated by repeatedly disrupting Smith before the Raiders could finish drives.
Third Down Efficiency Shows Another Problem for Both Teams
Neither offense was particularly effective on third down.
Cleveland converted 3 of 12 third downs, a 25.0% rate.
Las Vegas converted 4 of 17, a 23.5% rate.
Third Down Comparison
| Team | Conversions | Attempts | Rate |
| Cleveland | 3 | 12 | 25.0% |
| Las Vegas | 4 | 17 | 23.5% |
These numbers demonstrate that neither offense consistently sustained drives through third-down conversions.
The difference came elsewhere.
Cleveland’s defense created negative plays and short possessions, while Cleveland’s offense generated enough explosive plays to score three touchdowns.
The official game summary confirms the third-down figures and the broader efficiency split.
Time of Possession Favored Las Vegas
The Raiders held the ball for 36:26.
Cleveland had possession for only 23:34.
Normally, a large possession advantage can be a positive sign for the offense holding the ball longer. In this game, it did not lead to enough scoring.
Possession and Production
Las Vegas:
- 36:26 possession
- 75 offensive plays
- 268 total net yards
- 10 points
Cleveland:
- 23:34 possession
- 48 offensive plays
- 270 total net yards
- 24 points
This is perhaps the most revealing comparison in the entire box score.
Cleveland produced slightly more total net yardage while running 27 fewer offensive plays.
That means the Browns were far more productive on a per-play basis.
The official game summary lists 48 offensive plays for Cleveland and 75 for Las Vegas.
Explosive Plays Made the Difference
Cleveland’s passing game produced 209 yards from 11 receptions.
That works out to 19.0 yards per reception.
The Raiders recorded 285 passing yards on 30 completions, averaging 9.5 yards per reception.
This gives us two very different offensive profiles.
Cleveland:
- Lower completion volume
- Higher yards per reception
- Multiple explosive plays
- Three touchdowns
- Shorter possessions
Las Vegas:
- High completion volume
- More passing attempts
- More total passing yards
- Lower yards per reception
- One passing touchdown
- Heavy sack losses
The Browns’ offense was therefore more explosive, while the Raiders’ offense was more volume-oriented.
Special Teams Also Favored Cleveland in Important Moments
Andre Szmyt converted his only field-goal attempt, a 53-yarder, and made all three extra points for six total points.
Daniel Carlson made one of two field-goal attempts for Las Vegas and converted his only extra point.
Kicking Comparison
| Kicker | FG | FG Rate | Long | XP | Points |
| Andre Szmyt | 1/1 | 100% | 53 | 3/3 | 6 |
| Daniel Carlson | 1/2 | 50% | 41 | 1/1 | 4 |
Cleveland also received strong punt-return production.
Gage Larvadain returned four punts for 61 yards, averaging 15.3 yards per return, with a long of 44 yards.
The Raiders’ Alex Bachman returned two punts for only 10 yards.
Cleveland’s kick return unit produced 86 yards on three returns, while Las Vegas had 79 yards on three returns.
Punting Comparison
Both teams punted eight times.
Corey Bojorquez averaged 39.8 yards per punt for Cleveland, while AJ Cole averaged 46.8 yards for Las Vegas.
Punting
| Punter | Punts | Yards | Average | Long | Inside 20 |
| Corey Bojorquez | 8 | 318 | 39.8 | 46 | 2 |
| AJ Cole | 8 | 374 | 46.8 | 56 | 1 |
Cole had the better gross average, but Cleveland’s return production helped offset some of that field-position advantage.
The special teams battle therefore had several separate components rather than one simple winner.
What the Total Offensive Numbers Really Tell Us
A basic reading of the box score might suggest that Las Vegas played the more productive offensive game because the Raiders recorded 285 passing yards and 19 first downs.
The deeper numbers point somewhere else.
Cleveland had:
- 270 total net yards
- 5.6 yards per offensive play
- 64 rushing yards
- 206 net passing yards
- Three touchdowns
Las Vegas had:
- 268 total net yards
- 3.6 yards per offensive play
- 60 rushing yards
- 208 net passing yards
- One touchdown
The 5.6 versus 3.6 yards-per-play difference is enormous.
Cleveland averaged two additional yards per offensive play.
That is the statistical fingerprint of an offense that was less busy but more explosive.
Why the Browns Won Despite Losing Several Traditional Statistical Categories
The Browns did not dominate every category.
Las Vegas had more:
- First downs
- Offensive plays
- Passing completions
- Passing attempts
- Gross passing yards
- Time of possession
Yet Cleveland won by 14 points.
The explanation is efficiency.
The Browns scored touchdowns on explosive opportunities, while their defense repeatedly ended Raiders drives with sacks and tackles behind the line.
The official NFL game summary shows that Cleveland finished with 10 tackles for loss and 10 sacks, while Las Vegas recorded four tackles for loss and one sack.
That 10-to-1 sack difference is difficult to overcome, particularly when the team being pressured attempts 44 passes.
A Closer Look at Cleveland’s Offensive Efficiency
Cleveland’s offense generated 270 net yards on 48 plays.
That equals 5.6 yards per offensive play.
The Browns’ passing game was particularly explosive. Sanders averaged 10.5 yards per attempt, while the team averaged 19.0 yards per completed reception.
However, the running game was much less efficient at 2.4 yards per carry.
This creates a useful picture of Cleveland’s offensive identity in this matchup.
The Browns did not consistently push the Raiders backward on the ground. Instead, they used selected rushing situations to reach scoring territory and relied on explosive passing plays to create large chunks of yardage.
A Closer Look at Las Vegas’ Offensive Efficiency
Las Vegas generated 268 net yards on 75 plays.
That resulted in only 3.6 yards per offensive play.
The Raiders’ 285 gross passing yards look impressive until the 77 sack yards are removed.
Smith’s 30 completions also demonstrate that the Raiders could move the football through short and intermediate throws.
The problem was the cost of the negative plays.
Ten sacks on 44 pass attempts represent a major disruption rate. The Raiders repeatedly had possessions extended by completions but then lost substantial yardage when Cleveland’s front reached Smith.
The result was a large volume of offensive activity without comparable scoring production.
The Most Important Player Stats From the Game
If the box score needs to be reduced to a few numbers, these are among the most useful.
Myles Garrett
Three sacks, four tackles for loss, and six quarterback hits.
Quinshon Judkins
16 carries, 47 yards, and two rushing touchdowns.
Dylan Sampson
59 receiving yards and one touchdown on two receptions.
Isaiah Bond
58 receiving yards on only two receptions.
Geno Smith
30 completions for 285 gross passing yards, but 10 sacks for 77 lost yards.
Ashton Jeanty
108 combined rushing and receiving yards with one receiving touchdown.
Maxx Crosby
Eight tackles and five tackles for loss.
Cleveland Defense
10 sacks and 20 quarterback hits.
These statistics explain much more about the final score than simply looking at passing yardage.
What This Game Reveals About Player Evaluation
The matchup also offers a useful lesson for anyone studying NFL player statistics.
A quarterback’s passing yardage should be considered alongside sacks.
A running back’s rushing average should be considered alongside touchdown production and game situation.
A receiver’s total yardage should be considered alongside targets and reception volume.
A defense should be evaluated through pressures, sacks, tackles for loss, and scoring prevention rather than tackles alone.
This is especially important in games where one side has significantly more offensive plays.
Las Vegas ran 75 plays, meaning its players naturally accumulated more opportunities in several statistical categories. Cleveland ran only 48 plays but generated more yards per play.
Raw volume therefore does not always equal greater efficiency.
Final Statistical Assessment
The cleveland browns vs las vegas raiders match player stats show two teams taking very different paths through the same game.
Cleveland’s offense was compact and explosive. Sanders threw only 20 passes, but the Browns produced 209 passing yards. Sampson and Bond combined for 117 receiving yards on four catches, while Judkins scored twice on the ground.
Las Vegas relied much more heavily on volume. Smith threw 44 passes and completed 30 of them for 285 yards. Jeanty contributed 108 combined yards and Bowers added 55 receiving yards.
But Cleveland’s defensive performance changed the equation.
Ten sacks, 13 tackles for loss, and 20 quarterback hits prevented Las Vegas from turning its 75 offensive plays and 36:26 possession advantage into enough points.
The game therefore became a strong example of why football statistics need context. The Raiders accumulated more first downs and more passing completions, but Cleveland generated more yards per play and far more defensive disruption.
The final score, 24-10, reflected that efficiency gap.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Cleveland Browns and Las Vegas Raiders?
The Cleveland Browns defeated the Las Vegas Raiders 24-10 in Week 12 of the 2025 NFL season. The official NFL game center records the matchup at Allegiant Stadium.
Who was the leading rusher for the Browns?
Quinshon Judkins led Cleveland with 16 carries for 47 yards and two touchdowns.
How many sacks did the Browns record?
Cleveland recorded 10 sacks for 77 yards lost. Myles Garrett led the team with three sacks.
How did Geno Smith perform against Cleveland?
Geno Smith completed 30 of 44 passes for 285 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. He was also sacked 10 times for 77 yards.
Who led the Browns in receiving?
Dylan Sampson led Cleveland in receiving yards with 59 yards and one touchdown on two receptions. Isaiah Bond followed with 58 yards on two catches.
Did the Raiders win the time-of-possession battle?
Yes. Las Vegas held possession for 36:26 compared with Cleveland’s 23:34. Despite that advantage, the Raiders scored only 10 points.
Conclusion
The cleveland browns vs las vegas raiders match player stats reveal a game defined by efficiency, explosive plays, and defensive pressure rather than simple offensive volume.
Cleveland’s 24-10 victory was supported by three major statistical factors. The Browns produced 270 net yards on only 48 offensive plays, their offense generated several high-value explosive completions, and their defense recorded 10 sacks with 20 quarterback hits.
Myles Garrett was the most disruptive individual defender, while Quinshon Judkins provided two crucial rushing touchdowns. Dylan Sampson and Isaiah Bond supplied explosive receiving production despite limited opportunities.
For Las Vegas, Geno Smith’s 285 passing yards and 30 completions showed that the Raiders could move the football through the air. Ashton Jeanty also produced 108 combined yards. However, the 10 sacks against Smith transformed those passing numbers into a much less effective offensive performance.
Ultimately, the box score shows why the Browns won despite trailing in several volume statistics. Cleveland created more damage per opportunity, protected its scoring opportunities better, and consistently disrupted Las Vegas in the backfield.
