Seahawks vs arizona cardinals match player stats
The seahawks vs arizona cardinals match player stats from Week 10 of the 2025 NFL season tell the story of a game that was effectively decided in the opening quarter. Seattle delivered one of its most complete performances of the season, defeating Arizona 44-22 on November 10, 2025. While the final score highlights Seattle’s dominance, a deeper examination of the statistics reveals how explosive offense, disruptive defense, and efficient execution allowed the Seahawks to control nearly every phase of the game.
Coming into the matchup, Seattle held a strong 7-2 record and was looking to strengthen its position among the NFC contenders. Arizona entered the game at 3-6 and needed a significant road victory to keep its season moving in a positive direction. Instead, the Cardinals found themselves overwhelmed early by a Seahawks team that executed at a high level from the opening kickoff.
Statistics often provide a clearer picture than the scoreboard alone. In this game, the numbers explain how Seattle built a massive early lead, why Arizona struggled to recover, and which individual players had the greatest impact on the outcome.
Match Overview
| Category | Result |
| Event | Seattle Seahawks vs Arizona Cardinals |
| Date | November 10, 2025 |
| Week | Week 10 |
| Final Score | Seattle Seahawks 44, Arizona Cardinals 22 |
| Winning Team | Seattle Seahawks |
| Arizona Record | 3-6 |
| Seattle Record | 7-2 |
The Seahawks controlled the contest from start to finish. Although Arizona managed to score in each of the final three quarters, the damage had already been done during a devastating first-quarter performance by Seattle.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
First Quarter: Seattle Takes Immediate Control
The opening quarter was the defining stretch of the game. Seattle exploded for 21 points while Arizona failed to score.
| Quarter | Arizona | Seattle |
| Q1 | 0 | 21 |
When a team falls behind by three touchdowns in the NFL, the entire game plan changes. Arizona was forced into a more aggressive passing approach, while Seattle gained the luxury of balancing its offense and controlling the clock.
The Seahawks’ fast start demonstrated outstanding preparation and execution. Their offense capitalized on scoring opportunities, while their defense consistently disrupted Arizona’s drives.
Second Quarter: Seahawks Extend the Lead
Seattle continued attacking in the second quarter, adding 17 more points. Arizona finally got on the board with seven points of its own, but the deficit continued to grow.
| Quarter | Arizona | Seattle |
| Q2 | 7 | 17 |
At halftime, Seattle had built an enormous advantage. The Cardinals faced an uphill battle against a defense that was generating pressure and forcing difficult situations.
Third Quarter: Arizona Shows Signs of Life
Arizona played its best football during the third quarter. The Cardinals scored eight points while holding Seattle scoreless.
| Quarter | Arizona | Seattle |
| Q3 | 8 | 0 |
This stretch showed resilience from Arizona, but the comeback effort never became a serious threat because of the large deficit created in the first half.
Fourth Quarter: Seahawks Finish the Job
The final quarter ended with Arizona scoring seven points and Seattle adding six more.
| Quarter | Arizona | Seattle |
| Q4 | 7 | 6 |
The Seahawks maintained control and secured a comfortable 44-22 victory.
Seahawks vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats: Passing Analysis
Quarterback performance often shapes NFL outcomes, and this matchup was no exception.
Sam Darnold’s Efficient Performance
| Stat | Value |
| Completions/Attempts | 10/12 |
| Passing Yards | 178 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| QBR | 77.8 |
| Passer Rating | 111.8 |
Sam Darnold did not need a high-volume passing performance because Seattle’s rushing attack controlled the game. What stands out is his efficiency.
Completing 10 of 12 passes represents exceptional accuracy. His 178 passing yards came on limited attempts, averaging 14.8 yards per completion. Those numbers indicate that Seattle consistently generated explosive plays through the air.
A passer rating of 111.8 reflects how effectively Darnold managed the offense despite throwing one interception.
Jacoby Brissett’s Heavy Workload
| Stat | Value |
| Completions/Attempts | 22/44 |
| Passing Yards | 258 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 5 |
| QBR | 30.7 |
| Passer Rating | 83.3 |
At first glance, Brissett’s 258 passing yards may appear impressive. However, context matters.
Arizona’s early deficit forced the Cardinals to throw frequently. Brissett attempted 44 passes, nearly four times as many as Darnold. Despite throwing for more yards, his efficiency lagged significantly behind Seattle’s quarterback.
The most damaging statistic was the five sacks. Seattle’s defensive front consistently collapsed the pocket and disrupted Arizona’s offensive rhythm.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
Several differences become clear when comparing both signal callers:
- Darnold completed over 83% of his passes.
- Brissett completed exactly 50% of his attempts.
- Seattle generated more explosive passing plays.
- Arizona faced constant pressure.
- Seattle protected its quarterback far better.
Although Brissett showed toughness and continued competing throughout the game, Darnold delivered the more efficient and impactful performance.
Rushing Statistics Reveal Seattle’s Identity
One of the biggest reasons for Seattle’s victory was its dominance on the ground.
Seattle Team Rushing Production
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 46 |
| Yards | 198 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
Nearly 200 rushing yards is a significant achievement in today’s NFL. More importantly, Seattle remained committed to the run throughout the game.
Their ability to move the chains consistently kept Arizona’s defense on the field and allowed the Seahawks to control tempo.
Zach Charbonnet Leads the Ground Attack
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 14 |
| Yards | 83 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Charbonnet provided physical running and efficient production. Averaging nearly six yards per carry, he repeatedly put Seattle’s offense in favorable situations.
His touchdown further highlighted his importance in the red zone.
Kenneth Walker III Adds Balance
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 14 |
| Yards | 67 |
Walker complemented Charbonnet perfectly. Together, the duo combined for 150 rushing yards and gave Arizona’s defense constant problems.
Seattle’s backfield depth allowed the offense to remain unpredictable and fresh throughout the game.
George Holani Makes an Impact
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 7 |
| Yards | 31 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Holani contributed valuable production and added another rushing touchdown.
The ability of multiple runners to contribute demonstrates how balanced Seattle’s offensive attack was throughout the contest.
Arizona’s Ground Game Was Productive but Limited
Interestingly, Arizona’s rushing numbers were not poor.
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 23 |
| Yards | 129 |
| Average | 5.6 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
The challenge was volume.
Because Arizona fell behind so quickly, the Cardinals could not continue leaning on the run. Teams trailing by multiple scores are often forced into pass-heavy game plans, and that reality reduced the impact of Arizona’s otherwise respectable rushing production.
Emari Demercado’s Explosive Runs
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 4 |
| Yards | 64 |
| Average | 16.0 |
Demercado recorded one of the most efficient rushing performances of the game.
An average of 16 yards per carry demonstrates his big-play ability. Unfortunately for Arizona, game circumstances prevented him from receiving a larger workload.
Jacoby Brissett Contributes as a Runner
| Stat | Value |
| Carries | 4 |
| Yards | 31 |
Brissett’s mobility helped Arizona extend drives at times, but it was not enough to overcome Seattle’s overall defensive dominance.
Greg Dortch Finds the End Zone
Dortch added a rushing touchdown and provided one of the few offensive highlights for Arizona. His score helped keep the Cardinals competitive on the scoreboard, but the gap remained substantial throughout the second half.
Receiving Analysis
While Seattle built its lead through a balanced offensive approach, both teams had standout receiving performances that influenced the flow of the game. The receiving numbers show two different offensive situations. Seattle generated explosive plays with relatively few pass attempts, while Arizona relied on consistent targets to move the football after falling behind.
Seattle Receiving Leaders
| Player | REC | YDS | TD |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 5 | 93 | 1 |
| Cooper Kupp | 2 | 74 | 0 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 1 | 3 | 0 |
Seattle completed only 10 passes, yet those completions produced 178 yards. That level of efficiency reflects an offense that consistently created meaningful gains instead of relying on short completions.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads the Passing Attack
Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered Seattle’s most productive receiving performance. His five receptions for 93 yards and one touchdown made him the primary target throughout the game.
Several aspects of his performance stand out:
- He accounted for more than half of Seattle’s receiving yards.
- His touchdown helped extend Seattle’s early advantage.
- He consistently created separation and turned catches into significant gains.
Although Seattle leaned heavily on its rushing attack, Smith-Njigba ensured the Cardinals could not ignore the passing game.
Cooper Kupp Provides Veteran Production
Cooper Kupp finished with two receptions for 74 yards.
While the reception total was modest, the yardage demonstrates that his catches came on impactful plays. Instead of catching a high volume of short passes, Kupp stretched the field and helped Seattle maintain offensive momentum.
This type of production illustrates why efficiency can sometimes matter more than volume.
Arizona Receiving Leaders
| Player | REC | YDS | TD |
| Trey McBride | 9 | 127 | 1 |
| Emari Demercado | 3 | 40 | 0 |
| Michael Wilson | 4 | 34 | 0 |
| Marvin Harrison Jr. | 3 | 33 | 1 |
| Elijah Higgins | 2 | 19 | 0 |
| Bam Knight | 1 | 5 | 0 |
Arizona generated 258 receiving yards, largely because it was forced into an aggressive passing approach after falling behind.
Trey McBride Dominates Targets
Trey McBride produced one of the best individual performances of the game despite Arizona’s loss.
His stat line included:
- 9 receptions
- 127 receiving yards
- 1 touchdown
- 13 targets
McBride consistently found openings in Seattle’s defense and became Brissett’s most dependable option.
Even while facing a difficult game script, he remained productive from the first half through the final whistle.
Marvin Harrison Jr. Continues to Contribute
Marvin Harrison Jr. added three receptions for 33 yards and one touchdown.
Although Seattle limited his opportunities compared to McBride, Harrison made the most of his chances by reaching the end zone.
His ability to convert scoring opportunities remains one of Arizona’s offensive strengths.
Defensive Breakdown
The defensive statistics explain why Seattle won comfortably despite Arizona producing respectable offensive yardage.
Seattle Defensive Team Statistics
| Category | Total |
| Total Tackles | 72 |
| Solo Tackles | 41 |
| Sacks | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 10 |
| Pass Deflections | 10 |
| QB Hits | 10 |
| Defensive Touchdowns | 2 |
This was a complete defensive performance.
Five sacks repeatedly disrupted Arizona’s offensive rhythm, while ten quarterback hits ensured Jacoby Brissett faced pressure throughout the evening.
Perhaps the most impressive statistic is the two defensive touchdowns. Defensive scores often change momentum quickly, and Seattle capitalized on those opportunities.
Constant Pressure Makes the Difference
One of the defining characteristics of Seattle’s defense was its ability to pressure the quarterback without allowing Arizona to establish consistency.
The defense accomplished several important objectives:
- Forced Arizona into long-yardage situations.
- Prevented sustained offensive momentum.
- Limited explosive scoring opportunities.
- Created game-changing defensive plays.
When an offense constantly faces pressure, it becomes increasingly difficult to execute even simple passing concepts.
Seattle demonstrated exactly how a dominant pass rush can dictate the outcome of an NFL game.
Arizona Defensive Performance
| Category | Total |
| Total Tackles | 67 |
| Solo Tackles | 38 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 |
| Pass Deflections | 2 |
| QB Hits | 1 |
Arizona’s defense worked hard throughout the game but struggled to contain Seattle’s balanced offense.
Recording only one sack and one quarterback hit allowed Sam Darnold to operate comfortably.
Meanwhile, Seattle’s rushing attack consistently gained positive yardage, reducing pressure on the passing game.
Turnover Analysis
Turnovers influenced momentum even if they did not completely determine the result.
Seattle Turnovers
- 4 team fumbles
- 2 lost fumbles
- 1 interception thrown
Although Seattle committed mistakes with ball security, its overall dominance prevented those errors from becoming costly.
A team capable of controlling both sides of the ball can often overcome occasional turnovers, and Seattle demonstrated exactly that.
Arizona Turnovers
- 2 fumbles
- 2 lost fumbles
- No interceptions thrown
Losing both fumbles proved costly.
Against an efficient offense like Seattle’s, giving away extra possessions significantly reduced Arizona’s chances of mounting a comeback.
Interception Summary
Arizona’s Denzel Burke recorded the game’s only interception, returning it for four yards.
Seattle did not record an interception, but its pass rush proved equally disruptive through sacks and quarterback pressure.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams quietly played an important supporting role.
Seattle Kicking
Jason Myers delivered a flawless outing.
| Category | Result |
| Field Goals | 3 for 3 |
| Longest Field Goal | 46 Yards |
| Extra Points | 5 for 5 |
| Total Points | 14 |
Perfect kicking performances are easy to overlook, but every successful attempt helped Seattle maintain complete control of the scoreboard.
Arizona Kicking
Chad Ryland attempted no field goals but converted both extra-point attempts.
| Category | Result |
| Field Goals | 0 for 0 |
| Extra Points | 2 for 2 |
Arizona’s inability to create field-goal opportunities reflected Seattle’s defensive success.
Kick Return Comparison
| Team | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Arizona | 7 | 146 | 20.9 |
| Seattle | 3 | 67 | 22.3 |
Seattle posted the higher average return, while Arizona accumulated more total yards because it received more kickoff opportunities following Seattle’s scoring drives.
Punting Summary
Arizona punted four times for an average of 40.8 yards, placing two punts inside the 20-yard line.
Seattle did not punt during the game.
That single statistic illustrates just how efficient the Seahawks’ offense was. Every possession resulted in points, a turnover, or the end of a half without requiring a punt.
Biggest Player Performances
Several players significantly influenced the outcome.
Seattle Seahawks
Sam Darnold
Completed 10 of 12 passes while posting a passer rating of 111.8.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba
Finished with 93 receiving yards and one touchdown.
Zach Charbonnet
Led Seattle’s rushing attack with 83 yards and one touchdown.
Jason Myers
Scored 14 points through perfect kicking.
Seattle Defense
Produced five sacks, two defensive touchdowns, ten quarterback hits, and consistently controlled the game.
Arizona Cardinals
Trey McBride
Recorded 127 receiving yards and one touchdown while serving as Arizona’s primary offensive weapon.
Jacoby Brissett
Passed for 258 yards and two touchdowns despite facing relentless pressure.
Emari Demercado
Averaged an outstanding 16.0 yards per carry while contributing as both a runner and receiver.
Advanced Game Insights
Looking beyond the traditional statistics reveals several reasons Seattle secured such a convincing victory.
Offensive Efficiency
Seattle attempted only 12 passes but generated explosive plays through the air while controlling the game on the ground with 198 rushing yards.
That balance prevented Arizona from focusing on a single aspect of Seattle’s offense.
Defensive Dominance
Five sacks, ten quarterback hits, ten pass deflections, and two defensive touchdowns represent one of Seattle’s strongest defensive performances of the season.
Pressure consistently disrupted Arizona’s offensive rhythm.
Early Momentum
Scoring 21 unanswered points in the opening quarter completely changed the game’s direction.
Arizona spent the remaining three quarters trying to recover instead of executing its original game plan.
Red Zone Execution
Seattle consistently finished drives with points.
Whether through touchdowns or field goals, nearly every productive possession added to the scoreboard.
Why Seattle Won
The seahawks vs arizona cardinals match player stats reveal several decisive advantages for Seattle:
- A dominant rushing attack with 198 yards.
- Efficient quarterback play from Sam Darnold.
- Five sacks by the defense.
- Two defensive touchdowns.
- Perfect kicking by Jason Myers.
- Complete control during the opening half.
- Balanced offensive play calling.
- Consistent execution in all three phases of the game.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Seahawks vs Cardinals Week 10 game?
Seattle defeated Arizona 44-22 on November 10, 2025.
Who led the Seahawks in rushing?
Zach Charbonnet led Seattle with 83 rushing yards and one touchdown.
Which receiver had the most receiving yards?
Trey McBride finished with a game-high 127 receiving yards and one touchdown.
How many sacks did Seattle record?
Seattle’s defense recorded five sacks while consistently pressuring Arizona’s quarterbacks.
Did Seattle punt during the game?
No. Seattle did not punt, highlighting the offense’s remarkable efficiency throughout the contest.
Conclusion
The seahawks vs arizona cardinals match player stats highlight a performance built on efficiency, balance, and disciplined execution. Seattle established control early with a dominant first quarter and never allowed Arizona to regain momentum. The Seahawks combined productive quarterback play, a powerful rushing attack, reliable special teams, and an aggressive defense to secure a convincing 44-22 victory.
Arizona showed determination during the second half, particularly through the performances of Trey McBride and Jacoby Brissett, but the early deficit proved too large to overcome. Seattle’s ability to generate explosive plays, protect its quarterback, pressure the opposing passer, and consistently convert scoring opportunities ultimately defined the outcome. From an analytical perspective, this matchup serves as an excellent example of how complementary football across offense, defense, and special teams can produce a complete team victory.
