Texans vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
The texans vs baltimore ravens match player stats from October 5, 2025, tell the story of a dominant Houston Texans performance, as Houston defeated Baltimore 44-10. The Texans combined efficient quarterback play, a productive rushing attack, multiple receiving touchdowns, and three interceptions to control the game on both sides of the ball. C.J. Stroud completed 23 of 27 passes for 244 yards and four touchdowns without throwing an interception, while Houston’s defense repeatedly punished Baltimore’s passing mistakes. For the Ravens, Cooper Rush finished with three interceptions, and the offense struggled to establish a consistent ground game. The final score reflected a matchup in which Houston converted its opportunities into points while Baltimore failed to generate the sustained offensive production needed to remain competitive.
This detailed breakdown examines the individual performances, team statistics, scoring progression, passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive impact, and special teams numbers. Rather than focusing on the final score alone, it explains what the supplied statistics reveal about how Houston built its 34-point victory and why Baltimore struggled to respond.
Texans vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The October 5 matchup produced one of Houston’s most convincing statistical performances in the supplied game data. The Texans scored in every quarter, held Baltimore scoreless in the second and fourth quarters, and finished with a significant advantage in passing touchdowns, rushing yards, and turnovers forced.
Houston Texans
Away team
FINAL SCORE
44
–
10
Houston won by 34
Baltimore Ravens
Home team
Game date
October 5, 2025
Point differential
Houston +34
Houston record in supplied data
2-3
Baltimore record in supplied data
1-4
Statistics and records are presented from the supplied game dataset.
Final Score by Quarter
| Quarter | Houston Texans | Baltimore Ravens |
| First quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 17 | 0 |
| Third quarter | 10 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Total | 44 | 10 |
The quarter-by-quarter scoring reveals when the game changed. Houston held a narrow four-point lead after the opening quarter, but its 17-point second quarter created a substantial halftime advantage. Another 10 points in the third quarter extended the margin, and Houston added 10 more in the fourth.
Baltimore scored only once after halftime, producing seven points in the third quarter before being shut out in the final period. Houston’s ability to score consistently while limiting Baltimore’s scoring opportunities was central to the outcome.
The most revealing part of this progression is the second quarter. Houston scored 17 points while Baltimore managed none, turning a relatively competitive opening period into a game that increasingly favored the Texans.
Houston Texans Player Stats
Houston’s offense succeeded because it produced touchdowns through the air, maintained a productive running game, and avoided the turnovers that can undermine an otherwise efficient performance. The Texans’ passing and rushing numbers show that Baltimore faced more than one offensive problem.
C.J. Stroud Player Stats
C.J. Stroud delivered the standout individual performance of the game. He completed 23 of 27 passes for 244 yards, four touchdowns, and zero interceptions. His 143.9 passer rating reflected excellent execution, while his 99.4 ESPN Total QBR indicated how effectively he managed his passing opportunities.
| Statistic | C.J. Stroud |
| Completions | 23 |
| Pass attempts | 27 |
| Completion percentage | 85.2% |
| Passing yards | 244 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 17 |
| Passer rating | 143.9 |
| ESPN Total QBR | 99.4 |
| Rushing attempts | 1 |
| Rushing yards | 30 |
Stroud’s completion percentage is especially revealing. Completing 23 of 27 attempts means he connected on approximately 85.2% of his passes, leaving relatively few wasted opportunities. At the same time, his nine yards per attempt show that the offense was not relying exclusively on short, low-risk throws.
The four passing touchdowns demonstrate the most important aspect of his performance: Houston consistently turned successful passing plays into points. Stroud threw touchdown passes to Nico Collins, Xavier Hutchinson twice, and Jaylin Noel. That distribution also indicates that Houston did not need one receiver to account for every scoring opportunity.
His 30-yard rushing attempt added another dimension. Although it was only one carry, it provided a substantial gain and raised the possibility that Baltimore had to account for Stroud as a runner as well as a passer.
There is an important distinction between completion percentage and overall quarterback efficiency. A quarterback can complete many short passes without creating much offensive value. Stroud combined a high completion rate with strong yards per attempt, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. Those figures make his performance more impressive than any single statistic would suggest.
He was also sacked twice for 17 yards. Houston’s offensive success therefore did not mean the protection was perfect. Instead, the offense was efficient enough to overcome those negative plays without allowing them to dictate the game.
Davis Mills Player Stats
Davis Mills completed two of four passes for 23 yards without a touchdown or interception. His reported passer rating was 67.7.
| Statistic | Davis Mills |
| Completions | 2 |
| Attempts | 4 |
| Completion percentage | 50.0% |
| Passing yards | 23 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Passer rating | 67.7 |
Mills had a limited passing workload compared with Stroud. His numbers should therefore be interpreted in the context of his smaller role rather than treated as a comparable test of quarterback performance.
The four attempts accounted for only a small portion of Houston’s passing volume. Stroud remained the central figure in the offense, and his four touchdown passes established the difference between the teams’ passing performances.
Houston’s Quarterback Efficiency at a Glance
| Passing category | Houston | Baltimore |
| Completions | 25 | 14 |
| Attempts | 31 | 20 |
| Completion percentage | 80.6% | 70.0% |
| Passing yards | 250 | 163 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 3 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.1 | 8.2 |
Note: The team passing averages in this comparison are calculated from the listed completions, attempts, and yards. The supplied dataset reports 8.6 yards per attempt for Houston, which differs from the calculation of 250 divided by 31. Player-level figures are reported separately.
Houston’s four passing touchdowns compared with Baltimore’s zero are among the clearest indicators of the offensive gap. Baltimore generated passing yardage, but it failed to convert that production into a passing touchdown. Houston paired its yardage with scoring plays and protected the ball.
Houston Texans Rushing Stats
The Houston finished with 167 rushing yards on 33 carries, averaging 5.1 yards per attempt and recording one rushing touchdown. Baltimore managed only 44 rushing yards on 19 carries, an average of 2.3 yards per attempt.
That difference of 123 rushing yards helped Houston control the flow of the game. It also gave the Texans a useful alternative to throwing the ball on every possession.
Houston’s Leading Rushers
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Longest run |
| Nick Chubb | 11 | 61 | 5.5 | 1 | 27 |
| C.J. Stroud | 1 | 30 | 30.0 | 0 | 30 |
| Woody Marks | 7 | 24 | 3.4 | 0 | 11 |
| Dameon Pierce | 7 | 21 | 3.0 | 0 | 10 |
| Team total | 33 | 167 | 5.1 | 1 | 30 |
The listed player totals do not include every Houston rushing contribution, so the team total should be used for the overall comparison.
Nick Chubb’s Contribution
Nick Chubb was Houston’s leading conventional ball carrier, finishing with 61 yards on 11 attempts. His 5.5-yard average showed that he was producing useful gains rather than simply absorbing carries.
His longest run was 27 yards, and he scored a rushing touchdown on that run. The score extended Houston’s advantage to 31-3 early in the third quarter.
That touchdown was important for two reasons. First, it added points without requiring another successful passing play. Second, it demonstrated that Houston could exploit the ground game even after building its lead through the air.
Chubb’s performance also reduced the need to depend exclusively on Stroud. When a team has a quarterback playing efficiently, a productive running back can help keep the offense balanced and make defensive adjustments more difficult.
C.J. Stroud’s 30-Yard Run
Stroud recorded 30 rushing yards on a single carry. That was the longest listed rushing gain among Houston’s players, even though he was primarily responsible for the passing offense.
A 30-yard run from the quarterback can change the way a defense approaches later downs. Defenders must remain aware of the possibility that a quarterback will take open space instead of forcing a throw.
It is equally important not to overstate this contribution. One carry does not establish a consistent rushing role, but it does show that Stroud supplied a meaningful gain outside his primary passing responsibilities.
Woody Marks and Dameon Pierce
Woody Marks recorded 24 yards on seven carries, while Dameon Pierce finished with 21 yards on seven attempts. Their averages of 3.4 and 3.0 yards per carry were lower than Chubb’s, but their combined workload contributed to Houston’s 33 rushing attempts.
The value of these carries cannot be judged solely by their averages. A running play can help manage the clock, create a more manageable next down, or prevent an offense from becoming too predictable. The game data does not identify the exact situational value of each carry, so those benefits should be viewed as general football principles rather than claims about every individual run.
The overall result is clearer: Houston finished with substantially more rushing production than Baltimore and paired that production with four passing touchdowns.
Baltimore Ravens Player Stats
Baltimore’s offensive numbers show why the final score became so lopsided. The Ravens completed 14 passes for 163 passing yards, threw three interceptions, and gained just 44 rushing yards.
The offense did have some productive individual plays. Zay Flowers gained 72 receiving yards, DeAndre Hopkins averaged 23 yards per reception, and Derrick Henry scored a rushing touchdown. Those contributions, however, did not produce enough sustained scoring to challenge Houston.
Cooper Rush Passing Stats
Cooper Rush completed 14 of 20 passes for 179 yards, with no passing touchdowns and three interceptions. He was also sacked once for 16 yards.
| Statistic | Cooper Rush |
| Completions | 14 |
| Attempts | 20 |
| Completion percentage | 70.0% |
| Passing yards | 179 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 3 |
| Sacks taken | 1 |
| Sack yards lost | 16 |
| Passer rating | 58.1 |
| ESPN Total QBR | 35.5 |
Rush’s 179 passing yards and nine yards per attempt show that Baltimore was capable of producing meaningful gains through the air. The difficulty was converting those gains into productive possessions.
Three interceptions are a major problem because they end drives and give the opponent another opportunity to score. They can also force an offense to abandon its preferred balance between passing and running.
Rush did not throw a touchdown pass, so his passing production failed to match Stroud’s four scoring completions. The 58.1 passer rating reflects the combined effect of his completions, yardage, touchdowns, and interceptions under the NFL passer-rating formula.
The interception total requires some care when interpreting quarterback play. An interception is charged to the passer in the official statistics, but evaluating the exact responsibility for a particular turnover requires reviewing the play itself. The supplied numbers establish that Rush threw three interceptions, but they do not by themselves establish the cause of every mistake.
For Baltimore, the central problem was the combination of turnovers and a lack of passing touchdowns. The Ravens had enough passing yardage to produce occasional gains, but not enough error-free possessions to turn those gains into a competitive scoring total.
Why Baltimore’s Passing Yardage Was Misleading
Baltimore’s 163 team passing yards were not negligible. Its 70% completion rate was also respectable in isolation. However, those two figures do not tell the full story.
Consider the following comparison:
- Houston threw four touchdown passes and no interceptions.
- Baltimore threw no touchdown passes and three interceptions.
- Houston’s starting quarterback completed 85.2% of his attempts.
- Baltimore’s quarterback was sacked once and lost 16 yards on the play.
The distinction is between accumulating yards and using those yards efficiently. Houston’s passing game generated points while avoiding turnovers. Baltimore’s passing game produced yardage but repeatedly surrendered possession.
This is why passing statistics should be assessed together. Completion percentage measures how frequently passes are completed, yards per attempt measures average passing production, and touchdowns and interceptions reveal whether the offense is turning its opportunities into favorable outcomes.
Lamar Jackson’s Absence and Game Context
The game was played without Lamar Jackson, according to contemporary reporting. His absence is relevant context because Baltimore was operating with a backup quarterback rather than its usual starter.
Reuters
+1
That context helps explain why quarterback continuity and offensive execution deserve attention when reviewing the Ravens’ performance. It does not erase the three interceptions or establish that the final score would have been different with another quarterback.
A sound statistical analysis distinguishes between what happened and what might have happened under different circumstances. The recorded outcome remains a 44-10 Houston victory, and the official figures show a substantial gap in passing touchdowns and turnover avoidance.
Baltimore Ravens Rushing Stats
Baltimore finished with 44 rushing yards on 19 attempts, averaging 2.3 yards per carry. Derrick Henry accounted for most of that workload, but the team’s overall rushing production was insufficient to provide a dependable alternative to the passing game.
Derrick Henry’s Performance
| Statistic | Derrick Henry |
| Rushing attempts | 15 |
| Rushing yards | 33 |
| Yards per carry | 2.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 7 yards |
| Receiving targets | 3 |
| Receptions | 0 |
| Receiving yards | 0 |
Henry carried the ball 15 times, representing the largest share of Baltimore’s 19 rushing attempts. His 33 yards and 2.2-yard average indicate that Houston limited his ability to generate significant rushing gains.
His one-yard touchdown run in the third quarter was Baltimore’s only touchdown. It cut the deficit to 24 points, making the score 34-10 after the extra point. Houston then responded with another touchdown and a field goal, preventing the Ravens from building momentum.
Henry’s touchdown was a positive individual result, but it did not change the larger offensive picture. Baltimore needed more explosive runs, more sustained drives, and better passing efficiency to make the contest competitive.
The contrast with Nick Chubb is particularly useful. Chubb averaged 5.5 yards per carry and broke a 27-yard touchdown run, while Henry averaged 2.2 yards per carry and recorded a longest gain of seven yards. That difference illustrates how the two rushing attacks affected their teams’ offensive options.
It would be inaccurate to attribute Baltimore’s struggles entirely to Henry. Rushing output also depends on blocking, defensive alignment, down and distance, and the score. The available statistics establish that Houston limited the Ravens’ ground production, but they do not isolate the contribution of each blocking assignment or defensive player.
Keaton Mitchell and Justice Hill
Baltimore’s other listed rushers were Keaton Mitchell and Justice Hill.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run |
| Keaton Mitchell | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 6 |
| Justice Hill | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 |
Mitchell gained eight yards on three carries, while Hill gained three yards on one attempt. Their workloads were small, and neither recorded a rushing touchdown.
The combined production of Baltimore’s three listed rushers was 44 yards, confirming that the team did not find a reliable path to substantial ground gains.
For an offense that is struggling to protect possessions, a productive rushing game can provide more than yardage. It can help manage down and distance, reduce pressure on the quarterback, and create a more balanced attack. Baltimore’s rushing numbers suggest that those benefits were limited in this matchup.
Texans vs Baltimore Ravens Receiving Stats
The receiving statistics offer another explanation for Houston’s offensive advantage. The Texans spread production among several players, and four different passing scores helped them reach 44 points.
Baltimore also had receivers capable of creating meaningful gains. The difference was that its leading targets did not record a receiving touchdown, and its passing attack was undermined by three interceptions.
Houston Texans Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | TD | Longest catch |
| Christian Kirk | 4 | 64 | 16.0 | 0 | 47 |
| Dalton Schultz | 5 | 60 | 12.0 | 0 | 21 |
| Nico Collins | 4 | 52 | 13.0 | 1 | 24 |
| Jayden Higgins | 4 | 32 | 8.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Xavier Hutchinson | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 2 | 10 |
| Jaylin Noel | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 1 | 9 |
These are the receiving figures supplied for the matchup. The individual rows shown here should not be assumed to include every Houston receiver or every team passing-yard component.
Christian Kirk: Houston’s Leading Receiver by Yardage
Christian Kirk led the supplied Houston receiving figures with 64 yards on four receptions. His average of 16 yards per catch and longest reception of 47 yards indicate that his contributions included a substantial downfield gain.
Kirk did not record a touchdown, but receiving value is not limited to scoring plays. A long completion can move an offense into scoring range, improve field position, and create opportunities for another receiver or the running game.
His production also demonstrates that Houston could gain meaningful yardage without depending on one particular scoring target. Kirk led the listed receivers in yardage, while Collins, Hutchinson, and Noel supplied the touchdowns.
Dalton Schultz: Reliable Short-to-Intermediate Production
Dalton Schultz caught five passes for 60 yards, averaging 12 yards per reception. He had six listed targets and did not score a touchdown.
His five catches were the most among the listed Houston receivers. That reception volume suggests a useful role in sustaining the passing attack, even though the supplied statistics do not identify the precise down, distance, or route for each catch.
Schultz’s performance also illustrates why a receiver can contribute to an efficient passing offense without appearing in the touchdown column. Moving the chains and gaining yards between the larger plays can help keep drives alive.
Nico Collins: A Touchdown and 52 Receiving Yards
Nico Collins recorded four receptions for 52 yards and one touchdown. His 13-yard average per catch provided a combination of yardage and scoring value.
Collins scored on a 10-yard pass from Stroud in the second quarter, extending Houston’s lead to 17-3. That score was one of the plays that helped the Texans establish control before halftime.
His performance fits into a wider pattern: Houston did not need one player to dominate every category. Collins supplied a touchdown, Kirk led the listed receivers in yardage, and Schultz led them in receptions. Different contributions supported the same offensive result.
Xavier Hutchinson: Two Receiving Touchdowns
Xavier Hutchinson recorded three receptions for 18 yards and two touchdowns. Although his total yardage was modest, his scoring production was particularly important.
Hutchinson opened Houston’s scoring with a five-yard touchdown reception in the first quarter. He then caught another touchdown pass, this time from 10 yards, late in the second quarter.
Those two catches demonstrate why touchdown totals and yardage totals should be considered separately. Hutchinson’s 18 yards did not lead the team, but he converted two of his receptions into scores.
His first touchdown gave Houston an early lead. His second helped extend that advantage to 24-3 shortly before halftime. Both scores contributed directly to the widening margin.
Jaylin Noel: A Fourth-Quarter Touchdown
Jaylin Noel finished with two receptions for 13 yards and one touchdown in the supplied receiving data. His four-yard touchdown catch from Stroud opened Houston’s scoring in the fourth quarter.
That play made the score 41-10 and effectively reinforced Houston’s control of the game. Noel also recorded a kick return and a punt return in the supplied special teams statistics, giving him contributions in more than one phase.
The receiving total alone does not fully describe his role on the day. His touchdown was valuable because it extended Houston’s advantage when Baltimore needed a defensive stop to preserve any chance of a comeback.
Baltimore Ravens Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | TD | Longest catch |
| Zay Flowers | 5 | 72 | 14.4 | 0 | 56 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 2 | 46 | 23.0 | 0 | 29 |
| Mark Andrews | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 | 12 |
| Isaiah Likely | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 |
Zay Flowers: Baltimore’s Leading Receiver
Zay Flowers led Baltimore with five receptions for 72 yards. His average was 14.4 yards per catch, and his longest reception covered 56 yards.
That 56-yard completion was Baltimore’s longest listed passing play and helped create the opportunity for Henry’s one-yard touchdown run. It was an important reminder that the Ravens could still produce explosive plays even while struggling to sustain their offense.
Flowers did not score a receiving touchdown. Baltimore’s only touchdown came on the ground, which meant the passing attack failed to convert its receiving production into a direct passing score.
The distinction between explosive plays and consistent offense matters here. One long completion can move a team rapidly downfield, but a competitive offense must also avoid turnovers and sustain enough successful possessions to score repeatedly.
DeAndre Hopkins: High Yardage per Reception
Hopkins caught two passes for 46 yards, averaging 23 yards per reception. His longest catch was 29 yards, and he did not record a touchdown.
His average was the highest among Baltimore’s listed receivers. That figure suggests that his catches were productive when measured by yardage, although a two-catch sample is too small to establish a broad pattern about his performance over time.
Hopkins and Flowers combined for 118 receiving yards in the supplied figures. Their production provided Baltimore with some downfield success, but the offense did not convert that yardage into enough points to change the game’s direction.
Mark Andrews and Isaiah Likely
Mark Andrews recorded two receptions for 22 yards, while Isaiah Likely caught one pass for 12 yards. Neither player scored.
Their contributions added to Baltimore’s receiving output, but the team’s broader difficulty remained the same: no passing touchdowns and three interceptions.
A receiver’s impact should not be measured only by whether he scored. Catch totals, yardage, route involvement, and down-to-down efficiency all matter. In this game, however, Baltimore’s combined offensive result remained insufficient despite the yardage from its leading receivers.
Defensive Player Stats and Turnover Analysis
The defensive statistics provide one of the strongest explanations for Houston’s 34-point victory. The Texans recorded three interceptions, while Baltimore did not intercept a pass.
| Defensive category | Houston Texans | Baltimore Ravens |
| Total tackles | 56 | 82 |
| Solo tackles | 29 | 39 |
| Sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 0 |
| Quarterback hits | 2 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 3 | 0 |
| Interception return yards | 20 | 0 |
Baltimore recorded more tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits. Those numbers do not mean the Ravens’ defense performed better overall. A defense that spends more time responding to sustained offensive possessions can accumulate tackles while still allowing a high score.
Houston’s three interceptions were especially important because they directly reflected its ability to take the ball away. The Texans also defended four passes, compared with none recorded for Baltimore in the supplied dataset.
Jalen Pitre’s Two Interceptions
Jalen Pitre recorded two interceptions and returned them for a combined 20 yards. His performance was a major defensive contribution because both turnovers stopped Baltimore possessions.
An interception can have value beyond the immediate loss of possession. It prevents the offense from completing its drive, creates a new opportunity for the defense’s team, and can affect the opponent’s play selection and confidence.
Pitre’s contribution is particularly relevant in a game where Houston’s quarterback threw no interceptions. The Texans protected the ball offensively while their defense generated three takeaways.
The official Ravens game recap also identified Pitre’s interception of a pass intended for Derrick Henry after halftime as a turning point. Houston capitalized on that turnover and extended its lead. Read the official Ravens game recap for additional context on the key plays.
Kamari Lassiter’s Interception
Kamari Lassiter recorded one interception with no return yards. Although the supplied statistics do not assign a return to the play, the interception still counted as a turnover and prevented Baltimore from continuing that possession.
Pitre and Lassiter combined for Houston’s three recorded interceptions. This distribution is useful because it shows that the defensive impact was not confined to one player.
Comparing the Pass Rush
Houston recorded one sack and two quarterback hits. Baltimore recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits.
Baltimore’s higher pressure-related totals show why sacks alone cannot explain the final score. The Ravens generated more recorded quarterback pressure, but Houston still completed 23 of 27 passes for 244 yards and four touchdowns through Stroud.
The Texans’ offensive line did allow two sacks, yet those plays did not prevent the offense from producing points consistently. Meanwhile, Baltimore’s defense did not record an interception to offset Houston’s offensive production.
A complete defensive evaluation therefore requires more than counting sacks. Turnovers, passing touchdowns allowed, field position, and the ability to prevent scoring drives also matter.
Why Turnovers Changed the Matchup
The most important turnover comparison was three interceptions by Houston’s defense against zero interceptions thrown by Houston’s quarterbacks.
That difference favored Houston in two ways. The Texans protected their own possessions and gained additional opportunities when Baltimore lost the ball.
It is not possible to calculate the exact number of points directly caused by each interception using only the summary statistics. Nevertheless, the three-to-zero interception difference, combined with the 44-10 final score, supports the conclusion that ball security was a central factor in the outcome.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams did not attract the same attention as Stroud’s four touchdown passes or Houston’s three interceptions, but the kicking and return numbers provide a more complete picture of the game.
Kicking Statistics
| Statistic | Ka’imi Fairbairn, Houston | Tyler Loop, Baltimore |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 2 |
| Field goal percentage | 100% | 50% |
| Longest field goal | 57 yards | 27 yards |
| Extra points made | 5 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 5 | 1 |
| Total kicking points | 14 | 4 |
Ka’imi Fairbairn converted all three field-goal attempts and all five extra points, finishing with 14 kicking points. His longest successful field goal covered 57 yards.
Tyler Loop made one of two field-goal attempts and converted his only extra-point attempt. His longest successful field goal was 27 yards, and he finished with four kicking points.
Fairbairn’s 57-yard field goal was particularly notable because long-distance kicks can convert a drive into points even when an offense cannot reach the end zone. His perfect field-goal record also meant Houston did not waste any of its three field-goal opportunities.
Baltimore’s missed field goal represented a lost scoring opportunity. Although one missed kick alone cannot explain a 34-point defeat, it contributed to the difference in how efficiently the teams converted their available chances.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | Houston | Baltimore |
| Punts | 1 | 4 |
| Total punting yards | 59 | 182 |
| Average punt | 59.0 yards | 45.5 yards |
| Longest punt | 59 yards | 60 yards |
| Punter | Tommy Townsend | Jordan Stout |
Houston punted once for 59 yards, while Baltimore punted four times for 182 yards. The Texans’ single punt is consistent with the offense’s ability to sustain productive possessions, while Baltimore’s four punts indicate that it had several drives end without a scoring result.
Punting statistics should be interpreted alongside offensive performance. A high punt total does not automatically indicate poor punting, just as a low total does not prove that a team dominated. In this matchup, the difference becomes more meaningful when considered with Houston’s 44 points and Baltimore’s 10.
Kick Returns
| Team or player | Returns | Return yards | Average | Longest |
| Houston team | 2 | 58 | 29.0 | 31 |
| Jaylin Noel | 1 | 31 | 31.0 | 31 |
| Tremon Smith | 1 | 27 | 27.0 | 27 |
| Baltimore team | 8 | 186 | 23.3 | 32 |
| Keaton Mitchell | 5 | 120 | 24.0 | 32 |
| Rasheen Ali | 3 | 66 | 22.0 | 28 |
Baltimore recorded more kick returns because it received more kickoffs during the game. Keaton Mitchell led the listed returners with 120 yards on five returns, averaging 24 yards per return.
Houston’s two kick returns averaged 29 yards. Jaylin Noel recorded a 31-yard return, while Tremon Smith gained 27 yards on his return.
Return averages are useful for understanding field-position opportunities, but they do not reveal the starting position of every possession. They should therefore be treated as one part of the special teams evaluation rather than a complete measure of field-position performance.
Punt Returns
| Team or player | Returns | Return yards | Average | Longest |
| Houston, Jaylin Noel | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 12 |
| Baltimore, LaJohntay Wester | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 16 |
Baltimore’s LaJohntay Wester recorded a 16-yard punt return, while Houston’s Jaylin Noel gained 12 yards on his return. Both players produced positive yardage, but the return totals were too limited to outweigh the differences in offensive touchdowns and interceptions.
Team Statistics Comparison
The overall team numbers bring together the main themes of the matchup: Houston’s passing efficiency, a productive running game, and a decisive advantage in turnovers forced.
| Team statistic | Houston Texans | Baltimore Ravens |
| Final score | 44 | 10 |
| Passing yards | 250 | 163 |
| Rushing yards | 167 | 44 |
| Rushing attempts | 33 | 19 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 | 0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 3 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Total tackles | 56 | 82 |
| Sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 0 |
Houston gained 417 yards through the combined passing and rushing figures supplied for the team, compared with Baltimore’s 207 yards. The resulting difference was 210 yards.
The yardage advantage supports the final score, but it is not the only reason Houston won so comfortably. The four-to-zero advantage in passing touchdowns and the three interceptions forced were equally important features of the performance.
Both teams recorded one rushing touchdown. The difference came from the passing game: Houston turned four completions into touchdowns, while Baltimore did not record a passing score.
The fumble statistics also deserve attention. Neither team recorded a fumble in the supplied data, meaning Baltimore’s three interceptions were its principal recorded turnover problem. Houston avoided both interceptions and lost fumbles, giving the offense a cleaner overall performance.
Three Numbers That Best Explain the Result
4
Houston passing TDs
Touchdown conversion
Houston repeatedly converted passing opportunities into points. Four passing touchdowns gave the Texans a scoring advantage that Baltimore’s passing game could not match.
3
Interceptions
Defensive takeaways
Houston’s defense intercepted Cooper Rush three times. Baltimore did not intercept a Houston pass, creating a decisive difference in possession security.
123
Rushing-yard edge
Ground-game production
Houston’s 167 rushing yards compared with Baltimore’s 44. The 123-yard difference helped the Texans maintain offensive balance and limited Baltimore’s ability to control the game through its running attack.
These three figures explain more about the outcome than the final score alone. Houston scored efficiently through the air, protected the football, and produced substantially more rushing yardage. Baltimore struggled to match those contributions across all three areas.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Each Team
Houston’s Offensive Balance
Houston’s performance was not built on passing yardage alone. Stroud delivered four touchdowns, Chubb led the rushing attack with 61 yards, and several receivers contributed catches or scoring plays.
This balance made the Texans difficult to contain using only one defensive adjustment. Limiting a leading receiver would not necessarily stop the running game, and focusing on the run would not eliminate Stroud’s passing options.
The statistics do not prove that Houston’s offensive plan was flawless. Two sacks and the lower averages recorded by some running backs show there were still plays that produced limited gains. However, those negative plays did not prevent the Texans from scoring 44 points.
Baltimore’s Difficulty Sustaining Drives
Baltimore’s 163 passing yards and 44 rushing yards gave it 207 combined yards in the supplied team figures. That production was well below Houston’s 417 yards.
The Ravens did produce a 56-yard completion to Flowers and a touchdown run by Henry. Yet those individual successes were not enough to compensate for the interceptions, limited rushing output, and lack of passing touchdowns.
The key distinction is between producing isolated successful plays and maintaining an effective offense over an entire game. Baltimore had the former but struggled with the latter.
The Importance of Ball Security
Turnovers are especially costly when the opposing offense is playing efficiently. Houston did not throw an interception, while Baltimore threw three. That contrast made it harder for the Ravens to keep pace.
A team that repeatedly loses possession must overcome both the immediate cost of the turnover and the lost opportunity to score. The opponent, meanwhile, can benefit from additional offensive possessions and favorable changes in field position.
Houston’s three interceptions forced were therefore more than a defensive statistic. They were part of the broader explanation for why Baltimore could not sustain a comeback.
Why the Second Quarter Mattered So Much
Houston entered the second quarter with a 7-3 lead. By halftime, the Texans led 24-3 after scoring 17 points without allowing Baltimore to add to its total.
That 14-point difference in second-quarter scoring gave Houston a substantial cushion. Baltimore then needed to score repeatedly while preventing the Texans from adding further points.
Instead, Houston scored another 10 points in the third quarter and 10 more in the fourth. Baltimore’s seven third-quarter points were its only scoring after the opening period.
The progression shows how an early scoring advantage can change the strategic demands of a game. A team trailing by 21 points must generally pursue a different scoring pace from one competing in a close contest. Houston’s continued scoring prevented Baltimore from making up the deficit.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Texans vs Baltimore Ravens game?
The Houston Texans defeated the Baltimore Ravens 44-10 on October 5, 2025. Houston scored in all four quarters, while Baltimore was held scoreless in the second and fourth quarters.
2. How many passing touchdowns did C.J. Stroud record against the Ravens?
C.J. Stroud threw four touchdown passes on 23 completions from 27 attempts. He finished with 244 passing yards, a 143.9 passer rating, and zero interceptions.
3. How many interceptions did Cooper Rush throw?
Cooper Rush threw three interceptions while completing 14 of 20 passes for 179 yards. He did not record a passing touchdown, and his final passer rating was 58.1.
4. Who was Houston’s leading rusher in the game?
Nick Chubb led Houston’s listed running backs with 61 yards on 11 carries. He averaged 5.5 yards per carry and scored a 27-yard rushing touchdown.
5. Who were the leading receivers for both teams?
Christian Kirk led Houston’s supplied receiving figures with 64 yards on four catches. Zay Flowers led Baltimore with 72 yards on five receptions, including a long catch of 56 yards.
6. How many rushing yards did each team record?
Houston recorded 167 rushing yards on 33 carries, averaging 5.1 yards per attempt. Baltimore gained 44 yards on 19 carries, averaging 2.3 yards per attempt. Houston therefore finished with a 123-yard advantage on the ground.
Conclusion
The texans vs baltimore ravens match player stats reveal a convincing Houston victory built on quarterback efficiency, offensive balance, and defensive takeaways. C.J. Stroud completed 23 of 27 passes for 244 yards and four touchdowns without an interception, while Nick Chubb added 61 rushing yards and a touchdown. Houston’s receivers contributed multiple scoring plays, and Ka’imi Fairbairn converted all three field goals and five extra points.
Baltimore showed flashes of offensive production through Zay Flowers’ 72 receiving yards, DeAndre Hopkins’ 46 yards, and Derrick Henry’s rushing touchdown. However, the Ravens struggled to sustain their offense, finished with only 44 rushing yards, and threw three interceptions through Cooper Rush.
The final 44-10 score reflected the difference between the teams’ ability to turn opportunities into points. Houston combined productive passing with a substantial rushing advantage and disciplined ball security. Baltimore generated some meaningful individual plays but could not overcome its turnovers or establish a consistent scoring attack.
Ultimately, the most important figures are Stroud’s four passing touchdowns, Houston’s 167 rushing yards, and the three interceptions forced by the Texans’ defense. Together, these numbers explain why Houston controlled the matchup and secured a 34-point victory.
