Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats

The Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers match player stats from Week 2 of the 2025 NFL season tell a much more detailed story than the 27-18 final score. Green Bay controlled the game through efficient passing, a productive rushing attack, strong third-down defense, and timely plays in the fourth quarter. Washington moved the ball at times, but its offense struggled to turn possessions into points for most of the night.

The game was played at Lambeau Field on September 11, 2025, with Green Bay improving to 2-0 and Washington falling to 1-1. The Packers finished with 404 total yards compared with 230 for Washington, while also holding a substantial advantage in rushing production, 135 yards to 51.

For readers studying individual performances, the most important numbers are not simply passing yards or touchdowns. Jordan Love’s 292 passing yards, Tucker Kraft’s 124 receiving yards, Josh Jacobs’ 84 rushing yards, Jayden Daniels’ 200 passing yards, Zach Ertz’s six receptions, and Bobby Wagner’s 11 tackles each reveal a different part of how the game developed.

Table of Contents

Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Game Overview

Green Bay won 27-18 after leading 14-3 at halftime and 17-3 after three quarters. Washington finally found consistent scoring opportunities in the fourth quarter, but the Packers answered immediately after Washington’s first touchdown and maintained control.

Here are the key team statistics:

Category	Washington	Green Bay
Final score	18	27
Total yards	230	404
Passing yards	179 net	269 net
Rushing yards	51	135
Total plays	65	63
Yards per play	3.5	6.4
First downs	15	22
Third down	5/16	5/12
Fourth down	1/3	0/1
Turnovers	0	0
Sacks allowed	4	2
Time of possession	27:34	32:26
Penalties	5 for 30 yards	10 for 77 yards

The numbers show the central difference. Washington actually ran two more offensive plays than Green Bay, but those plays produced 174 fewer yards. That means the issue was not simply a lack of opportunities. The Commanders had difficulty generating enough yardage per snap.

Green Bay averaged 6.4 yards per offensive play, compared with 3.5 for Washington. That gap is enormous over 60-plus plays and explains why the Packers could maintain a scoring advantage despite committing twice as many penalties.

Jordan Love’s Passing Performance

Jordan Love was one of the most efficient players on the field.

He completed 19 of 31 passes for 292 yards and two touchdowns without an interception. His 9.4 yards per attempt and 113.9 passer rating demonstrate how effectively Green Bay attacked downfield.

The official numbers were:

19 completions
31 attempts
292 passing yards
9.4 yards per attempt
2 touchdowns
0 interceptions
2 sacks for 23 yards
113.9 passer rating
51.3 QBR

Love’s performance was especially important because Washington’s defense was able to generate pressure at different points of the game. Rather than responding with risky throws, Love repeatedly protected the football.

That combination of efficiency and ball security mattered. Washington finished with no interceptions, but it also did not create a turnover that could have changed the game’s momentum.

The Packers’ official recap noted that Love threw the ball away when necessary and produced his second consecutive triple-digit passer rating to open the season.

Why Love’s 292 Yards Matter

The raw yardage becomes more impressive when compared with Green Bay’s 31 attempts.

Love averaged 9.4 yards per attempt, while Washington’s Jayden Daniels averaged only 4.8. That 4.6-yard difference per attempt was one of the clearest statistical indicators of the game.

Love was not simply completing short passes and relying on receivers to create everything afterward. Green Bay consistently produced larger chunks of offense through its tight ends and receivers.

That allowed the Packers to sustain drives without requiring an unusually high number of offensive plays.

Jayden Daniels’ Passing Performance

Jayden Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards and two touchdowns. He did not throw an interception, but his production was significantly less efficient than Love’s.

His statistical line:

24 completions
42 attempts
200 passing yards
4.8 yards per attempt
2 touchdowns
0 interceptions
4 sacks for 21 yards
17.7 QBR
85.4 passer rating

Daniels also rushed seven times for 17 yards.

The most revealing part of his performance was the combination of volume and limited efficiency. He attempted 42 passes, six more than Love, but produced 92 fewer passing yards.

The Packers’ defense also recorded four sacks and 12 quarterback hits according to the game statistics, placing consistent pressure on Washington’s passing game.

Daniels Was More Productive Late

The final score can make Daniels’ performance look worse than it actually was.

Washington was held to only three points through three quarters, but Daniels helped produce two fourth-quarter touchdowns. The first was a 20-yard touchdown pass to Zach Ertz. Later, Daniels connected with Deebo Samuel Sr. for a 10-yard touchdown and then completed the two-point conversion to Luke McCaffrey.

That late production showed Washington could move the ball against Green Bay when the Packers shifted toward a more conservative defensive approach. However, the comeback started too late to change the outcome.

Josh Jacobs Leads the Packers’ Rushing Attack

Josh Jacobs was Green Bay’s leading rusher.

He carried the ball 23 times for 84 yards and one touchdown. His average was 3.7 yards per carry, with a long run of 10 yards.

His line:

23 carries
84 yards
3.7 yards per carry
1 touchdown
10-yard long

Jacobs did not need to produce explosive runs on every possession. His value came from volume, physical consistency, and his ability to keep the offense balanced.

Green Bay finished with 135 rushing yards on 30 attempts, averaging 4.5 yards per carry as a team. That was 84 more rushing yards than Washington.

Jacobs’ touchdown also helped establish Green Bay’s control near the goal line. The Packers opened the game with two touchdown drives of more than 90 yards, and Jacobs supplied one of the early scores.

Washington’s Rushing Game Struggled

Washington’s entire rushing attack produced only 51 yards on 19 carries.

The leading individual totals were:

Player	Carries	Yards	Average	TD	Long
Austin Ekeler	8	17	2.1	0	5
Jacory Croskey-Merritt	4	17	4.3	0	5
Jayden Daniels	7	17	2.4	0	8

No Washington runner reached 20 yards.

That created a difficult offensive environment because Green Bay could focus more attention on the passing game. When a team averages only 2.7 yards per rushing attempt, it becomes harder to stay ahead of the chains.

Washington’s 51 rushing yards were less than half of Green Bay’s 135. The difference also contributed to the Packers controlling possession for 32:26 compared with Washington’s 27:34.

Tucker Kraft Was the Breakout Receiving Performer

Tucker Kraft produced perhaps the most eye-catching receiving performance of the game.

He caught six passes for 124 yards and one touchdown on seven targets.

His numbers:

6 receptions
124 yards
20.7 yards per reception
1 touchdown
57-yard long
7 targets

Kraft accounted for more than 40 percent of Green Bay’s receiving yardage.

His 57-yard reception was particularly significant because it demonstrated the explosive element that Washington struggled to contain. A tight end producing more than 20 yards per catch creates matchup problems that can change defensive structures.

Kraft also caught the touchdown that restored Green Bay’s two-score advantage in the fourth quarter.

After Washington reduced the deficit to 17-10, the Packers responded with a nine-play, 65-yard drive. Kraft finished the possession with an eight-yard touchdown reception.

That sequence is one of the most important moments when studying the Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers match player stats.

Washington Receiving Leaders

Washington’s receiving production was distributed among several players.

Zach Ertz

Ertz led Washington with:

6 receptions
64 yards
10.7 yards per reception
1 touchdown
20-yard long
8 targets

His 20-yard touchdown catch early in the fourth quarter was the play that gave Washington realistic comeback hopes.

Deebo Samuel Sr.

Samuel finished with:

7 receptions
44 yards
6.3 yards per reception
1 touchdown
12-yard long
8 targets

He also returned two kickoffs for 78 yards, including a 50-yard return.

Samuel’s involvement across multiple phases made him one of Washington’s most active players. His receiving touchdown came late in the fourth quarter and cut the deficit to 27-18.

Terry McLaurin

McLaurin recorded:

5 receptions
48 yards
9.6 yards per reception
0 touchdowns
14-yard long
9 targets

His nine targets were the most among Washington receivers, although Ertz and Samuel produced more receiving yards.

Other Washington Receivers

Luke McCaffrey caught one pass for 19 yards.

Noah Brown recorded one reception for nine yards.

Ben Sinnott had one reception for seven yards.

Austin Ekeler caught two passes for seven yards.

Jaylin Lane caught one pass for two yards.

Jacory Croskey-Merritt was targeted once without recording a reception.

Washington completed 24 passes for 200 yards, matching Daniels’ passing total because the team’s gross passing yardage was exactly 200 before sack losses.

Green Bay’s Receiving Distribution

Green Bay’s passing game was more explosive overall.

Player	Receptions	Yards	Average	TD	Long	Targets
Tucker Kraft	6	124	20.7	1	57	7
Dontayvion Wicks	4	44	11.0	0	14	6
Malik Heath	1	37	37.0	0	37	2
Luke Musgrave	2	32	16.0	0	23	2
Romeo Doubs	3	28	9.3	1	17	5
Chris Brooks	3	27	9.0	0	16	4
Matthew Golden	0	0	0.0	0	0	2

The key difference was efficiency.

Green Bay completed 19 passes for 292 yards, producing 15.4 yards per reception. Washington completed 24 passes for 200 yards at 8.3 yards per reception.

That is a striking contrast. Washington completed five more passes, but Green Bay generated 92 more receiving yards.

Bobby Wagner Leads Washington in Tackles

Bobby Wagner recorded 11 total tackles, the most for Washington.

His defensive line was:

11 total tackles
3 solo tackles
0 sacks
0 tackles for loss
0 passes defended
0 quarterback hits

Washington finished with 65 total tackles and 35 solo tackles.

Although Wagner’s tackle total was impressive, tackles alone do not fully explain defensive impact. Green Bay’s ability to produce 404 yards and 22 first downs indicates that Washington’s defense struggled to consistently end drives.

Still, Wagner’s 11 tackles showed his involvement throughout the game.

Edgerrin Cooper Leads Green Bay’s Defense

Edgerrin Cooper recorded 10 total tackles for Green Bay, including seven solo tackles and half a sack.

His line included:

10 total tackles
7 solo tackles
0.5 sacks
0 tackles for loss
0 passes defended
2 quarterback hits

Green Bay’s defense finished with four sacks, three tackles for loss, eight passes defended, and 12 quarterback hits.

The pressure was particularly important against Daniels. The Packers repeatedly forced him to operate under pressure instead of allowing him to establish a comfortable rhythm.

The Packers’ Pass Rush Changed the Game

One of the strongest themes in the Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers match player stats was the difference in quarterback pressure.

Washington sacked Love twice for 23 yards.

Green Bay sacked Daniels four times for 21 yards.

More importantly, Green Bay registered 12 quarterback hits.

The Packers did not rely solely on sacks. They repeatedly made Daniels move, throw under pressure, or abandon plays.

Micah Parsons, Rashan Gary, Edgerrin Cooper, and other Green Bay defenders contributed to the pressure. The official game recap described the pass rush and secondary coverage as major factors in limiting Washington’s offense.

This is why sack totals should be viewed alongside quarterback hits and passing efficiency. Four sacks by themselves tell only part of the story.

Third Down Efficiency Explains Another Important Difference

Washington converted five of 16 third downs.

Green Bay converted five of 12.

The Packers therefore converted 41.7 percent of their third downs compared with Washington’s 31.3 percent.

That difference may appear modest, but third-down efficiency is closely connected to possession and scoring opportunities.

Green Bay also converted its offensive possessions more efficiently despite facing Washington’s pressure. The Packers finished with 22 first downs, while Washington recorded 15.

Red Zone Efficiency

Washington went 1-for-1 in the red zone.

Green Bay went 3-for-4.

This is another important detail.

Washington’s perfect red-zone record looks excellent in isolation, but it had fewer red-zone opportunities because it struggled to move the ball consistently into scoring territory.

Green Bay reached the red zone four times and scored touchdowns on three of those possessions.

That difference helped turn yardage into points.

Field Goals Were a Major Story

Washington kicker Matt Gay finished 1-for-3 on field goals.

His successful kick was from 51 yards.

He also missed attempts from 58 and 52 yards.

Those missed opportunities were particularly costly because Washington was held to only three points through the first three quarters. The Packers’ official recap specifically highlighted the missed field goals as part of Washington’s early scoring problems.

Green Bay kicker Brandon McManus went 2-for-3.

He made a 22-yard field goal and a 56-yard field goal, while another attempt hit the upright at the end of the first half.

McManus finished with nine points from field goals and extra points.

Special Teams Comparison

Washington had the better kickoff return yardage.

The Commanders recorded 103 kickoff return yards on three returns, averaging 34.3 yards per return.

Green Bay recorded 57 kickoff return yards on two returns, averaging 28.5 yards per return.

Washington also had 50 punt return yards, while Green Bay finished with only one punt return yard.

Jaylin Lane was especially productive on punt returns, with three returns for 50 yards and a long of 24.

Green Bay’s Keisean Nixon had two punt returns for three yards, while Matthew Golden had one for minus-two yards.

So, interestingly, Washington held an advantage in return yardage even though Green Bay won comfortably.

That is a useful reminder that individual phases can favor the losing team while the overall game still moves decisively in the opposite direction.

Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: What the Numbers Reveal

The deeper story is not simply that Green Bay scored nine more points.

The Packers won the efficiency battle in several connected areas.

1. Green Bay Created More Explosive Passing Plays

Love averaged 9.4 yards per attempt.

Daniels averaged 4.8.

Kraft alone averaged 20.7 yards per reception.

This gave Green Bay more opportunities to turn individual plays into major field-position gains.

2. Green Bay Ran the Ball More Effectively

The Packers averaged 4.5 yards per carry.

Washington averaged 2.7.

That created a more balanced offensive structure for Green Bay.

3. Washington Had Trouble Protecting Daniels

Daniels was sacked four times and hit repeatedly.

The pressure limited the number of comfortable downfield opportunities Washington could create.

4. The Packers Capitalized on Fourth-Quarter Moments

Washington cut the deficit to 17-10.

Instead of allowing the comeback to develop, Green Bay answered with a 65-yard touchdown drive.

That response was arguably one of the defining sequences of the game.

5. Turnovers Did Not Decide the Game

Neither team lost a fumble or threw an interception.

That makes the yardage and efficiency differences even more important.

Green Bay won without relying on a turnover advantage.

A Drive-Level Look at the Fourth Quarter

The fourth quarter provides the clearest explanation of why Washington’s late comeback did not succeed.

Washington opened the scoring in the quarter with Ertz’s 20-yard touchdown.

The Packers immediately responded.

Love connected with Wicks for 11 yards to begin the drive. A defensive holding penalty helped Green Bay cross midfield. Kraft then converted a crucial third down before Savion Williams gained 16 yards on a direct snap.

Matthew Golden added nine yards on a sweep.

Jacobs helped Green Bay reach the goal line, and Love used play action to find Kraft for the touchdown.

The sequence produced a 24-10 advantage.

Later, McManus hit a 56-yard field goal to make it 27-10.

Washington responded with Samuel’s touchdown and a successful two-point conversion, but there was too little time remaining.

This sequence shows why late scoring totals can sometimes hide the competitive shape of a game.

Washington scored 15 fourth-quarter points, but Green Bay had already created enough separation.

Penalties: Washington Was Cleaner

One unusual part of the box score was the penalty difference.

Washington committed five penalties for 30 yards.

Green Bay committed 10 penalties for 77 yards.

So the Packers were far from perfect.

In fact, Green Bay’s penalty total became a focus for the team afterward. Packers head coach Matt LaFleur later described the 10 penalties for 77 yards as an issue that needed correction.

This matters because the final score should not be interpreted as evidence that every part of Green Bay’s performance was efficient.

The Packers won despite losing the penalty battle.

Time of Possession and Offensive Control

Green Bay held the ball for 32:26.

Washington had possession for 27:34.

That five-minute difference is meaningful, but it was not the primary reason for the outcome.

The more important statistic is what each team did with its possessions.

Green Bay produced 404 yards on 63 offensive plays.

Washington produced 230 yards on 65 plays.

The Packers therefore generated significantly more yardage despite running fewer plays.

That is a strong indicator of offensive efficiency.

Why the Passing Statistics Matter More Than Completion Percentage

At first glance, Daniels’ 24 completions might look better than Love’s 19.

But completion totals cannot be evaluated in isolation.

Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards.

Love completed 19 of 31 for 292 yards.

The difference is 92 passing yards in favor of Love despite 11 fewer attempts.

That means Green Bay’s passing attack was substantially more productive on a per-attempt basis.

The same principle applies to receiving.

Washington’s receivers caught 24 passes.

Green Bay’s receivers caught 19.

Yet Green Bay gained 292 receiving yards compared with Washington’s 200.

This is exactly why advanced box-score reading should focus on efficiency as well as volume.

Washington’s Most Productive Individual Performances

Several Commanders players had notable statistical contributions despite the defeat.

Zach Ertz: 6 receptions, 64 yards, 1 touchdown.

Deebo Samuel Sr.: 7 receptions, 44 yards, 1 touchdown, plus 78 kickoff return yards.

Terry McLaurin: 5 receptions, 48 yards on nine targets.

Bobby Wagner: 11 total tackles.

Jaylin Lane: 50 punt return yards.

These performances show that Washington did have individual success.

The problem was that those contributions were not consistently connected into sustained offensive production.

Green Bay’s Most Productive Individual Performances

Green Bay had several players whose numbers directly contributed to the victory.

Jordan Love: 19-of-31 passing, 292 yards, 2 touchdowns, 0 interceptions.

Tucker Kraft: 6 receptions, 124 yards, 1 touchdown.

Josh Jacobs: 23 carries, 84 yards, 1 touchdown.

Dontayvion Wicks: 4 receptions, 44 yards.

Edgerrin Cooper: 10 tackles and 0.5 sack.

Brandon McManus: 2 field goals and 3 extra points.

The distribution matters. Green Bay did not rely on one player to create every scoring opportunity.

What This Game Says About Offensive Efficiency

The biggest statistical lesson from the matchup is that efficiency can outweigh volume.

Washington:

65 offensive plays
230 total yards
3.5 yards per play

Green Bay:

63 offensive plays
404 total yards
6.4 yards per play

The Packers generated 174 more yards on two fewer plays.

That is not a small statistical difference. It demonstrates how much more productive Green Bay was when it had the ball.

The Packers also produced 22 first downs compared with Washington’s 15.

When combined with the passing and rushing numbers, the picture becomes consistent across multiple categories.

How to Read Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats Correctly

If you are using this game as a reference for player analysis, do not rely on one statistic.

A better process is:

Start with total offensive production.
Compare passing efficiency.
Compare rushing efficiency.
Review sacks and quarterback hits.
Examine third-down conversion rates.
Check red-zone performance.
Review field-goal opportunities.
Examine receiving distribution.
Look at special teams separately.
Consider game situation before judging late statistics.

This approach prevents one impressive stat from dominating the entire analysis.

For example, Washington’s 15 fourth-quarter points were real and important, but they do not mean the offense played efficiently throughout the game.

Likewise, Green Bay’s 10 penalties were a genuine weakness, but they did not erase the Packers’ major advantages in yardage and scoring.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score between Washington and Green Bay?

The Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Commanders 27-18 at Lambeau Field in Week 2 of the 2025 regular season.

Who was the leading passer in the game?

Jordan Love led both quarterbacks with 292 passing yards. He completed 19 of 31 passes for two touchdowns and no interceptions.

How did Jayden Daniels perform?

Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. He was also sacked four times and rushed for 17 yards.

Who led Green Bay in receiving?

Tucker Kraft led the Packers with six receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception covered 57 yards.

Who led Washington in receiving?

Zach Ertz led Washington in receiving yards with 64 and caught six passes, including a 20-yard touchdown. Deebo Samuel Sr. led the Commanders with seven receptions.

Which team had the better rushing performance?

Green Bay had the stronger rushing production, gaining 135 yards on 30 carries for a 4.5-yard average. Washington produced 51 yards on 19 carries.

Conclusion

The Washington Commanders vs Green Bay Packers match player stats from September 2025 show a game defined by efficiency, explosive passing, defensive pressure, and timely fourth-quarter responses.

Jordan Love’s 292 passing yards and two touchdowns gave Green Bay a significant advantage through the air. Tucker Kraft was the standout receiver with 124 yards and a touchdown, while Josh Jacobs supplied 84 rushing yards and a score. Green Bay’s defense added four sacks and 12 quarterback hits, creating persistent pressure on Daniels.

Washington’s individual performers still produced meaningful numbers. Zach Ertz caught six passes for 64 yards and a touchdown, Deebo Samuel Sr. recorded seven receptions and a touchdown while also providing strong kickoff returns, and Bobby Wagner led the defense with 11 tackles.

The most important statistical difference was overall efficiency. Green Bay generated 404 yards on 63 plays, while Washington produced 230 yards on 65 plays. The Packers also averaged 4.5 yards per rush compared with Washington’s 2.7 and 9.4 yards per pass attempt compared with 4.8 for Daniels.

Washington’s late scoring surge made the final margin closer than the earlier portions of the game suggested, but Green Bay’s ability to answer the first fourth-quarter touchdown with a 65-yard touchdown drive restored control.

For the complete official game recap and additional team analysis, the Green Bay Packers official game recap provides the primary source for the game’s scoring sequence and player performances.