Green Bay Packers vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
The green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats from their September 11, 2025 Week 2 meeting tell a much deeper story than the 27-18 final score suggests. Green Bay controlled most of the game at Lambeau Field, built a 14-3 halftime advantage, and then answered Washington’s fourth-quarter push with another touchdown drive before Brandon McManus added a 56-yard field goal. The Packers finished with 404 total yards compared with Washington’s 230, while both teams avoided turnovers.
One important correction is worth making immediately: although some searches may describe this matchup as a Week 1 game, the actual regular-season meeting took place on Thursday, September 11, 2025, in Week 2. Washington entered 1-0 after beating the Giants, while Green Bay was also 1-0 after defeating Detroit. The Packers won the matchup 27-18 and moved to 2-0.
This breakdown focuses on the individual performances behind that result. Rather than simply listing numbers, it explains what those numbers reveal about quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving impact, defensive pressure, special teams and the game-changing moments that separated the two teams.
Green Bay Packers vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup was played at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, with the Packers entering their second consecutive game against a 2024 playoff team. Green Bay had already beaten Detroit 27-13 in Week 1, then followed that result by defeating Washington 27-18.
The scoring pattern was particularly revealing:
| Quarter | Washington | Green Bay |
| First | 0 | 7 |
| Second | 3 | 7 |
| Third | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth | 15 | 10 |
| Final | 18 | 27 |
Washington did not score a touchdown until the fourth quarter. Green Bay, meanwhile, scored in every quarter and never surrendered the lead.
The Packers’ statistical advantage was substantial:
- Total yards: Green Bay 404, Washington 230
- Time of possession: Green Bay 32:26, Washington 27:34
- Green Bay rushing: 135 yards
- Washington rushing: 51 yards
- Green Bay passing: 292 yards
- Washington passing: 200 yards
- Green Bay sacks: 4
- Washington sacks: 2
- Green Bay QB hits: 12
- Washington QB hits: 4
- Turnovers: 0 for both teams
Those numbers help explain why Washington’s late scoring burst was not enough to change the result.
Jordan Love’s Passing Performance
Jordan Love was the most efficient quarterback in the game.
He completed 19 of 31 passes for 292 yards and two touchdowns, without throwing an interception. His 9.4 yards per attempt and 113.9 passer rating were both strong indicators of an effective passing performance. He was also credited with three rushing attempts for 12 yards.
Love’s production becomes even more impressive when viewed against Washington’s defensive pressure.
The Commanders recorded two sacks, but Green Bay’s offense continued generating explosive plays. Love’s 292 passing yards accounted for almost three quarters of the Packers’ 404 total yards.
His touchdown distribution also mattered. Romeo Doubs opened the scoring with a touchdown reception, while Tucker Kraft delivered the decisive touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Why Love’s efficiency mattered
The key difference was not simply the number of passing yards.
Love consistently converted Washington’s defensive opportunities into meaningful offensive gains. Green Bay could run the ball effectively enough to force Washington to respect the ground attack, which created opportunities for play action and intermediate throws.
That balance was especially important late in the game.
After Washington reduced the margin to 17-10, Green Bay responded with a 65-yard touchdown drive. Love completed a crucial third-down pass to Kraft before the Packers used a creative sequence involving Savion Williams, Matthew Golden and Josh Jacobs. The possession ended with Love finding Kraft for an eight-yard touchdown.
That drive effectively restored control.
Jayden Daniels’ Passing Numbers
Jayden Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards and two touchdowns, with no interceptions. He was also sacked four times for 21 yards and finished with a passer rating of 85.4.
At first glance, two touchdown passes and zero interceptions look respectable. The problem was the amount of pressure and the lack of overall offensive efficiency.
Daniels averaged only 4.8 yards per passing attempt. Washington also struggled to establish a consistent running game, which made it harder for the Commanders to keep Green Bay’s pass rush honest.
Daniels under pressure
Green Bay’s defensive strategy was one of the most important elements of the game.
The Packers generated 12 quarterback hits and four sacks. Edgerrin Cooper and Rashan Gary were particularly important in disrupting Washington’s quarterback. The pressure prevented Daniels from consistently extending plays or waiting for deeper routes to develop.
Daniels finished with 17 rushing yards on seven attempts, meaning his mobility did not become the major weapon Washington likely hoped it would be.
This is an important distinction when evaluating quarterback statistics. A quarterback can avoid interceptions and still have an inefficient game if pressure consistently prevents the offense from reaching its normal rhythm.
Josh Jacobs Was the Engine of Green Bay’s Ground Game
Josh Jacobs led all rushers with 23 carries for 84 yards and one touchdown.
His average was not spectacular, but his workload was important. Green Bay gave Jacobs enough carries to keep Washington’s defensive front occupied and establish a physical identity.
Jacobs’ touchdown was particularly meaningful because it helped Green Bay build its first-half advantage.
The Packers finished with:
- 30 rushing attempts
- 135 rushing yards
- 4.5 yards per carry
- 1 rushing touchdown
Washington, by comparison, had only 19 rushing attempts for 51 yards, averaging 2.7 yards per carry.
That 84-yard difference in team rushing production was one of the clearest statistical indicators of Green Bay’s control.
Green Bay’s rushing attack was more than Jacobs
Jacobs received the majority of the workload, but Green Bay also used its younger offensive weapons creatively.
Savion Williams had two carries for 24 yards, while Matthew Golden added two carries for 15 yards. Love contributed 12 rushing yards on three attempts.
The Packers therefore did not rely exclusively on traditional handoffs.
One of the game’s most interesting offensive sequences came during the fourth-quarter touchdown drive. Green Bay used a direct snap to Williams for a 16-yard gain and then an end-around to Golden for another nine yards. The sequence forced Washington’s defense to account for multiple ball carriers and helped set up Kraft’s touchdown.
That kind of formation diversity is easy to overlook when reading a conventional box score.
Washington’s Rushing Production Fell Short
Washington’s rushing attack produced only 51 yards on 19 attempts.
Jacory Croskey-Merritt led the team with four carries for 17 yards, while Austin Ekeler recorded eight carries for 17 yards. Daniels added 17 yards on seven rushing attempts.
No Washington runner scored a rushing touchdown.
The low rushing output created a difficult situation for the Commanders. When an offense produces fewer than three yards per carry, it becomes much harder to consistently create manageable third downs.
It also allows the opposing defense to devote greater attention to the quarterback.
That appears to have happened here.
Green Bay could pressure Daniels without having to worry about a consistently productive rushing attack breaking the defensive structure.
Tucker Kraft Was the Breakout Receiving Star
If one non-quarterback stands out from the green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats, it is Tucker Kraft.
The Packers tight end caught six passes for 124 yards and one touchdown, averaging 20.7 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 57 yards.
That is an exceptional receiving line, especially for a tight end.
Kraft was not simply accumulating short completions. His 124 yards came from explosive gains that repeatedly changed field position.
His biggest contribution came late.
With Washington having narrowed the game to 17-10, Kraft caught an important third-down pass for eight yards. Later on the same drive, Love found him open in the end zone for an eight-yard touchdown.
That touchdown pushed Green Bay’s lead back to 24-10 and prevented Washington from turning its fourth-quarter momentum into a genuine comeback.
Kraft’s statistical importance
Kraft’s 124 receiving yards represented more than 40 percent of Green Bay’s passing production.
That matters because Washington could not focus exclusively on Green Bay’s wide receivers. The Packers’ tight end became a major part of the passing attack and created matchup problems across the field.
His performance was one of the clearest examples of a player whose raw numbers directly translated into game-changing moments.
Washington’s Receiving Leaders
Washington had several players contribute through the air.
Zach Ertz
Zach Ertz led Washington with six receptions for 64 yards and one touchdown.
His touchdown came on a 20-yard pass from Daniels early in the fourth quarter. That play finally gave Washington the offensive breakthrough it had been missing for most of the night.
Deebo Samuel Sr.
Deebo Samuel Sr. recorded seven receptions for 44 yards and one touchdown.
His touchdown arrived late in the fourth quarter on a 10-yard slant. Washington then converted the two-point attempt, with Daniels completing a pass to Luke McCaffrey, reducing the deficit to 27-18.
Samuel also made an impact in the return game, recording two kick returns for 78 yards.
Terry McLaurin
Terry McLaurin finished with five receptions for 48 yards.
Although he did not score, his contributions helped Washington move the ball during its fourth-quarter comeback attempt.
The larger issue was that Washington’s receiving production was not accompanied by enough offensive efficiency earlier in the game.
Green Bay’s Receiving Depth
Green Bay’s receiving statistics demonstrate how spread out the passing game became.
Along with Kraft’s 124 yards:
- Dontayvion Wicks: 4 receptions, 44 yards
- Malik Heath: 1 reception, 37 yards
- Luke Musgrave: 2 receptions, 32 yards
- Romeo Doubs: 3 receptions, 28 yards, 1 touchdown
The Packers finished with 19 receptions for 292 yards and two receiving touchdowns.
That works out to more than 15 yards per reception across the team, highlighting the explosive nature of Green Bay’s passing attack.
The absence of turnovers made that production even more valuable. Green Bay was able to turn its yardage advantage into points without giving Washington short fields through interceptions or fumbles.
Bobby Wagner Led Washington’s Defense
Bobby Wagner was Washington’s defensive tackle leader in the statistical sense, recording 11 total tackles, including three solo tackles.
His workload reflected how often the Packers were able to sustain possessions.
Washington’s defense finished with:
- 65 total tackles
- 35 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 2 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 4 quarterback hits
The Commanders generated some pressure, but they struggled to produce the type of disruption needed to consistently stop Green Bay’s offense.
The difference between four and 12 quarterback hits was particularly significant.
Edgerrin Cooper Led Green Bay’s Defensive Effort
Edgerrin Cooper recorded 10 total tackles, seven solo tackles, half a sack and two quarterback hits.
His performance represented the aggressive style of Green Bay’s defensive effort.
The Packers finished with:
- 60 total tackles
- 42 solo tackles
- 4 sacks
- 3 tackles for loss
- 8 passes defended
- 12 quarterback hits
The overall tackle totals were relatively close, but the quality of Green Bay’s defensive plays was more impactful.
The Packers pressured Daniels, disrupted passing lanes and limited Washington’s ability to create consistent offensive rhythm.
Keisean Nixon’s Coverage Impact
Keisean Nixon deserves attention even though his headline statistics were not necessarily the biggest on the defensive chart.
Nixon repeatedly disrupted Washington’s passing game and finished with multiple pass breakups. He recorded his fifth breakup during the fourth-quarter defensive sequence.
This is a good example of why player evaluation should not rely only on tackles or sacks.
A defensive back can have a major impact by preventing completions, forcing quarterbacks to move to secondary reads and eliminating explosive plays.
Green Bay’s secondary helped create the conditions for the pass rush to succeed.
Green Bay’s Defense Controlled the First Three Quarters
One of the most important facts in the game was Washington’s scoring pattern.
The Commanders scored:
- 0 points in the first quarter
- 3 points in the second
- 0 points in the third
- 15 points in the fourth
That means Washington scored only three points through three quarters.
Green Bay’s defense therefore did not merely win the final score. It controlled the game for most of its duration.
Washington had favorable starting field positions during some drives but still failed to turn those opportunities into touchdowns. Two possessions ended with missed field goals.
That is an important distinction.
Field position was not automatically translating into offensive success for Washington.
Special Teams Also Played a Role
Special teams did not dominate the box score, but several individual performances were noteworthy.
Brandon McManus
Green Bay kicker Brandon McManus made two of three field-goal attempts, including a 56-yarder, and converted all three extra-point attempts.
His nine points were significant.
The 56-yard field goal extended Green Bay’s advantage to 27-10 with 6:42 remaining. That gave Washington an even steeper challenge during its late rally.
Matt Gay
Washington kicker Matt Gay went 1-for-3 on field goals, with a long of 51 yards.
Those missed opportunities mattered because Washington’s offense was already struggling to score touchdowns.
When an offense cannot consistently reach the end zone, field goals become much more important.
Deebo Samuel’s return work
Samuel recorded two kick returns for 78 yards, including a 50-yard long.
Washington finished with 103 kick-return yards, averaging 34.3 yards per return.
Green Bay recorded 57 kick-return yards on two returns.
Washington therefore had some special-teams advantages, but those gains did not overcome its offensive problems.
Jaylin Lane
Jaylin Lane returned three punts for 50 yards, averaging 16.7 yards per return.
Keisean Nixon returned two punts for only three yards for Green Bay.
Washington therefore had a small advantage in punt-return production, although it did not materially change the final result.
The Turnover Battle Was Even
Both teams finished with zero turnovers.
That is an important part of understanding the final score.
Neither offense handed the opponent easy points through interceptions or lost fumbles.
Washington’s zero-turnover performance was especially notable because it meant the Commanders were not beaten by a series of careless mistakes.
Because turnovers were even, the Packers’ victory can be attributed more directly to their superiority in yardage, efficiency, rushing production and defensive pressure.
The Biggest Statistical Difference: 404 Yards vs. 230
The single clearest number from the matchup may be total offense.
Green Bay generated 404 total yards.
Washington generated 230.
That is a difference of 174 yards.
The Packers gained 292 passing yards and 135 rushing yards. Washington managed 200 passing yards and only 51 rushing yards.
This tells us that Green Bay won the game in two complementary ways.
First, its passing attack generated explosive plays.
Second, its rushing attack consistently produced enough yardage to maintain offensive balance.
Washington struggled in both areas simultaneously.
Why the Final Score Was Closer Than the Game
The final score of 27-18 makes the matchup look relatively competitive.
The underlying game flow was different.
Green Bay led 14-3 at halftime. Washington remained scoreless in the third quarter while Green Bay added another field goal.
Only in the fourth quarter did the Commanders begin consistently finding the end zone.
Washington scored 15 fourth-quarter points, but Green Bay answered with 10.
The most important response came immediately after Washington cut the deficit to seven points.
Green Bay’s 65-yard touchdown drive restored the two-score advantage. The Packers then added McManus’ 56-yard field goal.
Washington’s late touchdown reduced the margin again, but Green Bay recovered the onside kick and eventually stopped Washington on downs to close out the victory.
What the Player Stats Say About Each Team
Green Bay Packers
The Packers’ statistical profile was built around balance.
Passing: Efficient and explosive.
Rushing: Consistent enough to prevent the offense from becoming one-dimensional.
Receiving: Multiple contributors, with Kraft emerging as the dominant matchup.
Defense: Aggressive pass rush and strong coverage.
Special teams: Reliable enough to capitalize on long-distance field-goal opportunities.
Turnovers: Clean.
That combination explains why Green Bay controlled the game.
Washington Commanders
Washington’s profile was much more uneven.
Passing: Daniels avoided interceptions but faced heavy pressure.
Rushing: Too little production.
Receiving: Ertz and Samuel produced touchdowns, while McLaurin contributed steadily.
Defense: Wagner led the tackle count, but the unit struggled to slow Green Bay’s explosive plays.
Special teams: Samuel provided excellent return production, but missed field goals reduced scoring opportunities.
Turnovers: Clean.
The Commanders were not careless with the football. Their main problem was failing to generate enough offense before the fourth quarter.
Most Important Player Matchups
Jordan Love vs. Jayden Daniels
Love clearly won the statistical quarterback battle.
| Category | Jordan Love | Jayden Daniels |
| Completions | 19 | 24 |
| Attempts | 31 | 42 |
| Completion rate | 61.3% | 57.1% |
| Passing yards | 292 | 200 |
| TD passes | 2 | 2 |
| INT | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 2 | 4 |
| Passer rating | 113.9 | 85.4 |
Daniels completed five more passes, but Love produced 92 more passing yards on 11 fewer attempts.
That is a major efficiency difference.
Josh Jacobs vs. Washington’s run defense
Jacobs carried the ball 23 times for 84 yards and a touchdown.
Washington’s entire rushing offense produced only 51 yards.
The contrast shows how effectively Green Bay established its ground game compared with Washington.
Tucker Kraft vs. Washington’s coverage
Kraft’s six catches for 124 yards and a touchdown were arguably the biggest individual receiving numbers of the night.
His production was especially damaging because many of his receptions produced substantial chunks of yardage.
What Can Be Learned From the Box Score
The most useful lesson from these green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats is that box-score totals become more meaningful when connected to game context.
For example, Daniels’ two touchdown passes should not be viewed in isolation.
He also:
- Attempted 42 passes
- Completed only 57.1%
- Averaged 4.8 yards per attempt
- Was sacked four times
- Took 12 quarterback hits
- Finished with 200 passing yards
Likewise, Love’s two touchdowns were only part of his impact.
He also:
- Completed 19 of 31 passes
- Produced 292 yards
- Averaged 9.4 yards per attempt
- Avoided interceptions
- Finished with a 113.9 rating
- Helped lead a 404-yard offense
That is why the final score should be analyzed alongside efficiency rather than separately from it.
A Closer Look at Offensive Efficiency
Green Bay’s passing game averaged 9.4 yards per attempt.
Washington’s passing game averaged 4.8.
That is nearly a two-to-one difference.
Green Bay also averaged 4.5 yards per rushing attempt, compared with Washington’s 2.7.
So the Packers won both major efficiency battles:
- Passing efficiency
- Rushing efficiency
When one team wins both categories while also avoiding turnovers, it becomes difficult for the opponent to maintain control of the game.
Why Washington’s Fourth-Quarter Comeback Fell Short
Washington’s fourth-quarter offense deserves credit.
The Commanders scored 15 points in the final quarter and turned an apparently comfortable Green Bay lead into a one-score game late.
But the comeback began too late.
The Packers had already built a 17-3 advantage by the third quarter.
After Ertz’s touchdown reduced the score to 17-10, Green Bay immediately responded with the Kraft touchdown.
After McManus made it 27-10, Washington scored again through Samuel and converted a two-point attempt.
The problem was that there was too little time left and Green Bay maintained possession effectively enough to prevent another full comeback.
What the Matchup Reveals About Player Value
Player statistics are most useful when they explain influence.
Tucker Kraft’s 124 receiving yards mattered because they included explosive gains and a fourth-quarter touchdown.
Edgerrin Cooper’s 10 tackles mattered because his defensive activity came alongside pressure and disruption.
Josh Jacobs’ 84 rushing yards mattered because they helped Green Bay sustain balance.
Love’s 292 passing yards mattered because they came with two touchdowns, no interceptions and a high yards-per-attempt figure.
Daniels’ 200 yards mattered because they came within an offense that struggled to run the football and faced substantial pressure.
This is the difference between simply reading a box score and analyzing it.
Green Bay Packers vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The most important statistical conclusions are straightforward.
Jordan Love was the more efficient quarterback. His 292 yards on 31 attempts significantly exceeded Daniels’ 200 yards on 42 attempts.
Tucker Kraft was the game’s standout receiving weapon. His six catches for 124 yards and a touchdown changed the game.
Josh Jacobs gave Green Bay its rushing foundation. His 23 carries and one touchdown helped maintain offensive balance.
Green Bay’s defense won the pressure battle. Four sacks and 12 quarterback hits severely limited Daniels.
Washington struggled to run the football. The Commanders produced only 51 rushing yards.
Turnovers did not decide the game. Both teams finished without a turnover.
Green Bay dominated total offense. The 404-230 yardage difference was one of the strongest indicators of the final result.
Washington’s fourth-quarter production was real but late. The Commanders scored 15 points in the fourth but could not erase the deficit.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Packers vs Commanders game in 2025?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Commanders 27-18 at Lambeau Field on September 11, 2025. The game was part of Week 2 of the regular season.
What were Jordan Love’s stats against Washington?
Jordan Love completed 19 of 31 passes for 292 yards, two touchdowns and zero interceptions. He was sacked twice and finished with a 113.9 passer rating.
How did Jayden Daniels perform against Green Bay?
Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards and two touchdowns with no interceptions. He was sacked four times and finished with an 85.4 passer rating.
Who led the Packers in receiving?
Tucker Kraft led Green Bay with six receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown. His 57-yard reception was the longest catch of the game for the Packers.
Who led the Packers in rushing?
Josh Jacobs led Green Bay with 23 carries for 84 yards and one touchdown. The Packers finished with 135 rushing yards as a team.
How many turnovers did the Packers and Commanders have?
Neither team committed a turnover. Both Green Bay and Washington finished the game without a fumble loss or interception.
Conclusion
The green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats show why Green Bay’s 27-18 victory was more convincing than the final margin suggests.
The Packers dominated total offense, producing 404 yards to Washington’s 230. Jordan Love delivered the stronger quarterback performance with 292 passing yards, two touchdowns and no interceptions. Josh Jacobs supplied 84 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Tucker Kraft produced the game’s most impressive receiving line with 124 yards and a touchdown.
Defensively, Green Bay’s pressure was decisive. The Packers recorded four sacks and 12 quarterback hits, making life difficult for Jayden Daniels throughout the first three quarters. Washington eventually found offensive momentum in the fourth quarter, but the late surge could not erase the deficit.
Perhaps the most important takeaway is that Green Bay won without relying on turnovers. The Packers created their advantage through efficiency, balance, explosive passing plays and defensive pressure. Washington’s zero-turnover performance shows that the Commanders did not lose because of careless mistakes. They lost because Green Bay consistently produced more value on both sides of the football.
For anyone studying the green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats, the numbers therefore point to a clear conclusion: Green Bay’s victory was built on superior offensive efficiency and defensive disruption, while Washington’s late scoring surge made the final score look closer than the overall performance actually was.
