Seahawks vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The seahawks vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats from September 14, 2025, reveal how the Seattle Seahawks earned a 31-17 victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers through explosive rushing, efficient passing, and timely defensive plays. Seattle overcame two interceptions by quarterback Sam Darnold to finish strongly in the fourth quarter, while Pittsburgh struggled to turn its offensive opportunities into touchdowns. Kenneth Walker III delivered a major contribution on the ground, Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle’s receivers, and the Seahawks defense created two interceptions that helped shape the result.
The contest offered an important lesson in NFL football: individual statistics matter, but their impact depends on when and how players produce them. Pittsburgh generated some impressive individual numbers, particularly Jaylen Warren’s receiving performance, yet Seattle did a better job converting its opportunities into points. The final quarter proved decisive, as the Seahawks scored 17 points while the Steelers managed only three.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, passing and rushing numbers, receiving performances, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistical differences that explain Seattle’s win. All game figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the September 14, 2025 matchup.
Seahawks vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-17 in their September 14, 2025 meeting. Both teams entered the game seeking an important early-season victory, but Seattle finished with the stronger overall scoring performance.
Seattle Seahawks
Away team
31
Record: 1-1
Pittsburgh Steelers
Home team
17
Record: 1-1
Game date
September 14, 2025
Status
Final
Winning margin
Seattle by 14 points
Score by quarter
| Quarter | Seattle Seahawks | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| First quarter | 7 | 6 |
| Second quarter | 0 | 8 |
| Third quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 17 | 3 |
| Final score | 31 | 17 |
The quarter-by-quarter numbers reveal how the game developed.
Seattle scored seven points in the opening quarter, but Pittsburgh responded with six. The Steelers then added eight points in the second quarter, giving them a 14-7 halftime lead based on the supplied scoring figures.
The Seahawks answered with seven points in the third quarter while keeping Pittsburgh off the scoreboard. That made the contest more competitive heading into the final period.
The biggest difference emerged in the fourth quarter. Seattle scored 17 points, while Pittsburgh added only a field goal. That 14-point difference in the final period matched the final winning margin.
Key takeaway: Seattle’s fourth-quarter scoring surge was the defining feature of the game. The Seahawks converted their late opportunities into points, while Pittsburgh could not match their offensive production.
Passing Statistics: Sam Darnold vs Aaron Rodgers
Quarterback performance was one of the most important parts of this matchup. Sam Darnold finished with more passing yards and touchdowns than Aaron Rodgers, although both quarterbacks threw two interceptions.
The comparison is more interesting than the final passing totals alone suggest. Seattle’s passing attack produced bigger gains, while Pittsburgh had difficulty converting its passing production into a sustained scoring threat.
Quarterback passing comparison
| Passing statistic | Sam Darnold | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 22 | 18 |
| Pass attempts | 33 | 33 |
| Completion percentage | 66.7% | 54.5% |
| Passing yards | 295 | 203 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.9 | 6.2 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 2 |
| Sacks taken | 2 | 3 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 17 | 20 |
| Passer rating | 89.8 | 58.0 |
Source: Supplied game statistics, cross-checked against the official Seattle Seahawks game box score.
Sam Darnold’s performance for Seattle
Darnold completed 22 of 33 passes for 295 yards and two touchdowns. His 66.7% completion rate indicates that he completed roughly two out of every three attempts, while his 8.9 yards per attempt shows that Seattle generated substantial yardage through the air.
However, his two interceptions remain an important part of the evaluation. Turnovers can erase the value of otherwise productive drives, particularly against a defense capable of creating short fields or changing momentum.
Darnold’s performance therefore had two sides:
- Positive: He generated 295 passing yards, threw two touchdown passes, and averaged 8.9 yards per attempt.
- Negative: Two interceptions gave Pittsburgh opportunities to disrupt Seattle’s offensive rhythm.
- Overall assessment: His production was strong enough to support a winning offense, but the turnovers prevented it from being a clean quarterback performance.
A useful distinction is that passing volume does not automatically translate into offensive control. Darnold’s yardage was valuable because Seattle also found ways to score and produce explosive plays. His two interceptions show why his passing numbers should be evaluated alongside the result rather than in isolation.
Aaron Rodgers’ performance for Pittsburgh
Rodgers completed 18 of 33 attempts for 203 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions. His 54.5% completion rate was lower than Darnold’s, and his 6.2 yards per attempt reflected less passing efficiency.
Rodgers was also sacked three times for a combined loss of 20 yards. Those losses reduced Pittsburgh’s net offensive production and made it harder to sustain drives.
His statistical profile highlights three challenges:
- Completion efficiency: Rodgers completed four fewer passes despite attempting the same number of throws.
- Passing production: He finished 92 yards behind Darnold.
- Turnover and pressure management: Two interceptions and three sacks created additional obstacles for Pittsburgh’s offense.
Rodgers did throw a touchdown pass to DK Metcalf, who scored against his former team. That connection helped Pittsburgh reach the end zone, but it was not enough to match Seattle’s overall scoring output.
Mason Rudolph’s limited contribution
Mason Rudolph completed both of his pass attempts for 12 yards without a touchdown or interception. His 2-for-2 line was efficient, but the sample was too small to support a meaningful comparison with the starting quarterbacks.
Rudolph’s contribution is best understood as a limited supporting entry in the box score, not as evidence that he outperformed either starter over the course of the game.
What the quarterback comparison really tells us
Darnold’s advantage was not simply the difference between 295 and 203 yards. He also produced more touchdowns and a higher completion percentage. Both quarterbacks threw two interceptions, so Seattle’s advantage did not come from avoiding passing mistakes altogether.
The more meaningful distinction was what each offense accomplished around those mistakes. Seattle finished with a 14-point victory, while Pittsburgh struggled to maintain its first-half scoring pace after halftime.
Rushing Statistics: Kenneth Walker III Leads Seattle
Seattle’s ground game provided one of the clearest individual advantages in the matchup. Kenneth Walker III rushed for 105 yards on 13 carries, averaging 8.1 yards per attempt and scoring one touchdown.
Pittsburgh, by comparison, recorded 72 rushing yards as a team. Its leading rusher, Jaylen Warren, finished with 48 yards on 14 carries.
Seahawks rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Touchdowns |
| Kenneth Walker III | 13 | 105 | 8.1 | 1 |
| Zach Charbonnet | 15 | 10 | 0.7 | 0 |
| AJ Barner | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 29 | 117 | 4.0 | 1 |
Kenneth Walker III’s explosive rushing performance
Walker was Seattle’s most productive runner. He gained 105 yards on only 13 attempts, with a longest rush of 20 yards and a touchdown.
His 8.1 yards per carry stands out because it indicates that Seattle received substantial yardage whenever he handled the ball. It is also important to recognize that averages can be influenced by a few strong runs. The figure does not mean every carry produced eight yards, but it does show that his overall rushing output was unusually productive in this game.
Walker contributed in three important ways.
First, he created an efficient rushing option. Seattle did not need to give him a very large workload to get more than 100 rushing yards.
Second, he offered a scoring threat. His rushing touchdown gave the offense another way to finish a possession beyond throwing the ball into the end zone.
Third, he provided balance. With Darnold producing nearly 300 passing yards, Walker’s ground production made Seattle’s offense harder to evaluate through passing statistics alone.
The timing of Walker’s contribution also matters. His touchdown came on a 19-yard run in the fourth quarter, extending Seattle’s lead to 31-17. It was a direct example of rushing production translating into a decisive scoreboard advantage.
Zach Charbonnet’s difficult rushing outing
Charbonnet recorded 15 carries for just 10 yards, averaging 0.7 yards per attempt. His longest run gained six yards, and he did not score.
This contrast with Walker is one of the most striking features of Seattle’s rushing statistics. Charbonnet actually received two more carries, but Walker gained 95 more yards.
The difference demonstrates why workload alone is not a reliable measure of rushing success. A running back may receive regular opportunities without finding room to advance, while another may produce much more from fewer touches.
Charbonnet’s figures describe a difficult individual rushing performance. They do not, by themselves, reveal whether the cause was blocking, defensive positioning, play selection, or other factors. Those explanations would require more detailed film or play-by-play analysis.
Steelers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Touchdowns |
| Jaylen Warren | 14 | 48 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Kenneth Gainwell | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 21 | 72 | 3.4 | 0 |
Jaylen Warren and Pittsburgh’s ground game
Warren led Pittsburgh with 48 rushing yards on 14 attempts. His average of 3.4 yards per carry was well below Walker’s 8.1, and he did not record a rushing touchdown.
Kenneth Gainwell added 20 yards on five carries, averaging 4.0 yards per attempt. His average was better than Warren’s, but his smaller workload meant he could not independently transform the team’s rushing output.
Pittsburgh’s 72 rushing yards were 45 fewer than Seattle’s 117. The Steelers also failed to record a rushing touchdown.
That gap matters because rushing production can influence down-and-distance situations, help an offense control the clock, and create more balanced play-calling options. Pittsburgh’s rushing figures suggest that it did not obtain the same level of ground production as Seattle.
Team rushing comparison
| Statistic | Seahawks | Steelers |
| Rushing attempts | 29 | 21 |
| Rushing yards | 117 | 72 |
| Yards per carry | 4.0 | 3.4 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Difference in rushing yards | +45 | -45 |
Seattle gained more yards on the ground while attempting eight additional rushes. The Seahawks’ average was also 0.6 yards higher per carry.
The combination of more attempts, greater total production, and a rushing touchdown gave Seattle a clear advantage in this part of the game.
Receiving Statistics: Jaxon Smith-Njigba and Jaylen Warren Stand Out
The receiving numbers reveal two different stories. Seattle distributed the ball effectively among its leading receivers, while Pittsburgh relied heavily on Warren’s ability to create yardage through the passing game.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle in receiving yards, but Warren produced the biggest individual receiving total for Pittsburgh.
Seahawks receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 8 | 10 | 103 | 12.9 | 0 |
| Cooper Kupp | 7 | 9 | 90 | 12.9 | 0 |
| Tory Horton | 2 | 4 | 32 | 16.0 | 1 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 2 | 3 | 31 | 15.5 | 0 |
| AJ Barner | 2 | 3 | 26 | 13.0 | 1 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 1 | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 |
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s 103-yard performance
Smith-Njigba caught eight passes on 10 targets for 103 yards. His longest reception covered 43 yards, and he averaged 12.9 yards per catch.
He was Seattle’s leading receiver by both receptions and receiving yards. His 80% catch rate also shows that he converted a large share of the opportunities directed his way.
Smith-Njigba’s contribution was important for several reasons:
- He gave Darnold a reliable high-volume receiving option.
- He produced more than 100 receiving yards.
- His 43-yard longest reception demonstrates his ability to generate a substantial gain on one play.
- He helped Seattle maintain passing production without relying on one receiver for every important contribution.
Smith-Njigba did not score a receiving touchdown, which illustrates why touchdowns should not be the only measure of a receiver’s performance. Yardage, catches, targets, and the ability to move the offense are also useful indicators.
Cooper Kupp provides a strong second option
Kupp finished with seven receptions for 90 yards on nine targets. Like Smith-Njigba, he averaged 12.9 yards per reception.
Together, the two receivers caught 15 passes for 193 yards. That represents a substantial share of Seattle’s 295 passing yards and highlights how effectively the team used its leading wide receivers.
Having two productive targets can make an offense more difficult to defend. A defense cannot focus exclusively on one receiver without potentially leaving another capable option available.
Kupp’s seven catches also helped keep Seattle’s passing attack productive even though Darnold threw two interceptions.
Tory Horton and AJ Barner deliver touchdowns
Seattle’s receiving production extended beyond its top two targets.
Tory Horton caught two passes for 32 yards and a touchdown. His scoring reception helped Seattle open the game with a touchdown and establish an early lead.
AJ Barner also caught two passes, producing 26 yards and a touchdown. His score came on a seven-yard pass from Darnold in the third quarter, bringing the score level at 14-14.
These contributions show the value of receiving depth. Smith-Njigba and Kupp generated most of the yardage, but Horton and Barner provided the touchdown receptions that turned passing production into points.
Elijah Arroyo added two catches for 31 yards, giving Seattle another productive option in the passing game.
Steelers receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD |
| Jaylen Warren | 4 | 86 | 21.5 | 0 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 3 | 31 | 10.3 | 0 |
| Jonnu Smith | 4 | 27 | 6.8 | 0 |
| Calvin Austin III | 1 | 22 | 22.0 | 0 |
| DK Metcalf | 3 | 20 | 6.7 | 1 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 3 | 16 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Roman Wilson | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Connor Heyward | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Darnell Washington | 0 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 |
Jaylen Warren’s standout receiving numbers
Warren caught all four of his targets for 86 yards, averaging 21.5 yards per reception. His longest catch went for 65 yards.
That was an impressive individual contribution, especially for a running back. Warren generated more receiving yards than any other Pittsburgh player, despite receiving only four targets.
His performance also illustrates why rushing and receiving statistics should be examined together. Warren produced 48 rushing yards and 86 receiving yards, giving him 134 combined yards from scrimmage.
However, his receiving success did not automatically translate into a Pittsburgh victory. Warren did not score a receiving touchdown, and the Steelers’ overall offense still finished behind Seattle in total yardage and points.
DK Metcalf scores against his former team
Metcalf caught three passes for 20 yards and one touchdown. Although his overall receiving yardage was limited, his touchdown was a valuable contribution to Pittsburgh’s scoring effort.
His two-yard touchdown reception from Rodgers helped Pittsburgh build its second-quarter lead. The Steelers converted the score with a successful two-point attempt, accounting for eight points on the possession.
Metcalf’s line is a useful reminder that a receiver’s impact cannot always be measured by yardage alone. A short catch in the end zone may contribute more directly to the final result than a longer reception that does not lead to points.
Receiving comparison: Seattle’s balance versus Pittsburgh’s biggest gain
Seattle recorded 22 receptions for 295 receiving yards and two touchdown catches. Pittsburgh’s receivers combined for 20 receptions and 215 receiving yards, with one touchdown catch.
The supplied player statistics show that Seattle had 80 more receiving yards and one additional receiving touchdown.
Warren’s 86 receiving yards were a major bright spot for Pittsburgh, but Seattle’s combination of Smith-Njigba, Kupp, Horton, Barner, and Arroyo provided a broader range of productive contributions.
That balance helped Seattle maintain its passing threat throughout the contest.
Defensive Statistics: Interceptions, Sacks, and Tackles
Defense played a significant role in determining the final outcome. Both teams recorded two interceptions, but Seattle’s ability to limit Pittsburgh’s scoring after halftime proved especially important.
The defensive figures also highlight the difference between making individual plays and producing a complete defensive performance. Pittsburgh recorded more total tackles and tackles for loss in the supplied statistics, yet Seattle allowed only three points in the second half.
Seattle Seahawks defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Ernest Jones IV | 10 | 8 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Tyrice Knight | 8 | 5 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Byron Murphy II | 5 | Not specified | 1.5 | 1 |
Ernest Jones IV led Seattle with 10 total tackles, including eight solo tackles. His production reflects a significant role in stopping Pittsburgh’s offensive players.
Tyrice Knight recorded eight tackles, five of them solo. Byron Murphy II contributed five tackles, 1.5 sacks, and one tackle for loss, making him one of Seattle’s notable contributors in the pass rush.
Murphy’s sack production was particularly relevant against Rodgers. Quarterback pressure can disrupt passing timing, reduce the time available to find receivers, and force an offense into difficult situations on later downs.
Seattle’s defense recorded three sacks, eight quarterback hits, five passes defended, and two tackles for loss in the supplied team statistics. The combination of pressure and coverage helped limit Pittsburgh’s ability to build consistent offensive momentum.
Pittsburgh Steelers defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss |
| Payton Wilson | 10 | 8 | 1 | 1 |
| Chuck Clark | 8 | 6 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Juan Thornhill | 7 | 5 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Jack Sawyer | 7 | 4 | Not specified | Not specified |
Payton Wilson led Pittsburgh with 10 tackles, including eight solo stops. He also recorded a sack and a tackle for loss, giving him a productive all-around defensive line.
Chuck Clark added eight tackles, while Juan Thornhill and Jack Sawyer each recorded seven.
Pittsburgh’s defense finished with two sacks, six tackles for loss, six passes defended, and eight quarterback hits according to the supplied team figures. These numbers suggest that the Steelers created pressure and made plays behind the line of scrimmage.
However, defensive activity does not always equal defensive control. A unit can record numerous tackles and pressures yet still concede large gains or struggle to prevent touchdowns at crucial moments.
Interceptions and turnover comparison
| Defensive statistic | Seahawks | Steelers |
| Interceptions recorded | 2 | 2 |
| Interception return yards | 28 | 43 |
| Interception return touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns in supplied team summary | 1 | 0 |
Seattle’s Coby Bryant and Derion Kendrick each recorded an interception. Pittsburgh’s Nick Herbig and Jalen Ramsey also intercepted passes.
Both defenses therefore produced two interceptions, meaning the interception count alone does not explain the difference in the final score.
The more useful conclusion is that neither quarterback was protected from turnover risk. Darnold’s two interceptions were offset by Rodgers’ two interceptions, while Seattle still found a way to score more consistently.
The supplied defensive summary also lists one Seattle defensive touchdown. However, the scoring log identifies George Holani’s fourth-quarter kickoff recovery in the end zone as a special-teams touchdown, not a defensive touchdown. These classifications should not be treated as interchangeable when interpreting the box score.
Special Teams Statistics: A Decisive Fourth-Quarter Contribution
Special teams provided one of the most important scoring developments of the game. George Holani recovered a kickoff in the end zone for a Seattle touchdown, helping the Seahawks build their lead during the final quarter.
That play deserves separate attention because it did not come from a conventional offensive drive.
Kicking statistics
| Statistic | Jason Myers, Seattle | Chris Boswell, Pittsburgh |
| Field goals | 1 of 2 | 3 of 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 50.0% | 100.0% |
| Longest field goal | 54 yards | 48 yards |
| Extra points | 4 of 4 | Not applicable |
| Total points | 6 | 9 |
Boswell was perfect on field-goal attempts, making all three of his kicks and scoring nine points. Myers made one field goal from two attempts and converted all four extra points.
At first glance, Pittsburgh’s superior field-goal accuracy appears to favor the Steelers. However, field-goal performance must be considered alongside touchdown production. Seattle scored four touchdowns in the game, including its kickoff recovery score, while Pittsburgh scored two touchdowns.
The difference between converting a drive into three points and scoring a touchdown can be crucial in a close game. Pittsburgh’s reliable kicking helped keep the score competitive, but it could not compensate for Seattle’s stronger late scoring output.
Kick returns and punt returns
| Statistic | Seattle Seahawks | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Kick returns | 5 | 4 |
| Kick-return yards | 133 | 78 |
| Average kick return | 26.6 | 19.5 |
| Punt returns | 2 | 0 |
| Punt-return yards | 30 | 0 |
George Holani led Seattle’s kick-return production with five returns for 133 yards, averaging 26.6 yards per return. His longest kick return was 32 yards.
Tory Horton returned two punts for 30 yards, averaging 15.0 yards per return. His longest punt return covered 22 yards.
Pittsburgh recorded 78 kick-return yards across four returns, averaging 19.5 yards per attempt. Kaleb Johnson handled three of those returns for 58 yards, while Kenny Gainwell added one return for 20 yards.
Seattle’s 55-yard advantage in kick-return yardage gave it better average field-position opportunities on those plays. Return yardage does not guarantee points, but it can reduce the distance an offense must cover to reach scoring range.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Michael Dickson, Seattle | Corliss Waitman, Pittsburgh |
| Punts | 4 | 4 |
| Total punting yards | 175 | 221 |
| Average punt | 43.8 | 55.3 |
| Longest punt | 52 yards | 64 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 1 |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 1 |
Waitman averaged 55.3 yards per punt, compared with Dickson’s 43.8. Pittsburgh’s punter also recorded the longer individual kick.
However, average distance is only one measure of punting effectiveness. A longer punt is not automatically more valuable if it travels into the end zone for a touchback or gives the opponent favorable return opportunities.
Dickson placed two punts inside the 20-yard line, while Waitman recorded one. That figure suggests Seattle had more success placing punts in the designated field-position area, despite Pittsburgh’s greater average distance.
Team Statistics: Where Seattle Gained the Advantage
The team totals provide a broader view of why the Seahawks won. Seattle generated more net yards and held the ball for longer, while Pittsburgh’s offense produced less overall yardage.
Overall team comparison
| Team statistic | Seattle Seahawks | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Final points | 31 | 17 |
| Total net yards | 395 | 267 |
| Passing yards before sack losses | 295 | 215 |
| Rushing yards | 117 | 72 |
| Time of possession | 31:17 | 28:43 |
| Penalties | 2 | 2 |
| Penalty yards | 10 | 15 |
Note: Pittsburgh’s combined passing yards are 215 when Rodgers’ 203 yards and Rudolph’s 12 yards are added. Net passing production after sack losses is lower. Net total yards account for sack losses.
Total yardage and offensive efficiency
Seattle recorded 395 total net yards, compared with Pittsburgh’s 267. That created a 128-yard advantage for the Seahawks.
The difference is meaningful because total net yardage combines passing and rushing production while accounting for losses on sacks. It offers a useful summary of how much ground an offense gained through its plays.
Seattle also generated 117 rushing yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 72. Its passing production was higher as well, with Darnold throwing for 295 yards and Pittsburgh’s quarterbacks combining for 215.
The Seahawks therefore had advantages in both major offensive categories. They were not dependent on one method of moving the ball.
Time of possession
Seattle controlled the ball for 31 minutes and 17 seconds, while Pittsburgh held it for 28 minutes and 43 seconds.
The difference was two minutes and 34 seconds in Seattle’s favor.
Time of possession can help a team manage the game by keeping its offense on the field and limiting the opposing offense’s opportunities. However, possession time alone does not prove that a team played better. A long possession that ends without points may be less valuable than a short touchdown drive.
In this matchup, the possession advantage accompanied a much larger advantage in total net yards and the final score. That makes it more relevant as part of the overall performance rather than as an isolated statistic.
Penalties and ball security
Both teams were charged with two penalties. Seattle lost 10 yards on penalties, while Pittsburgh lost 15.
The low penalty totals suggest that flags were not a major statistical difference between the teams in this game. The five-yard difference was small compared with the 128-yard gap in net offensive production.
Neither team recorded a fumble in the supplied data. Both offenses did, however, throw two interceptions.
This means the turnover battle was even when measured by interceptions and recorded fumbles. Seattle’s victory was therefore not simply the result of Pittsburgh losing the ball more often. The Seahawks produced more yardage, scored more touchdowns, and had the stronger fourth quarter.
Why the Seahawks Won: Five Key Statistical Findings
The game becomes easier to understand when its main numbers are considered together rather than separately.
1. Kenneth Walker III delivered the biggest rushing advantage
Walker rushed for 105 yards and a touchdown on 13 carries. Pittsburgh’s entire rushing attack produced 72 yards.
Seattle gained 45 more rushing yards as a team, while Walker alone outgained Pittsburgh’s leading rusher, Warren, by 57 yards.
That difference helped create a more balanced offense for Seattle and gave it a reliable way to advance the ball without relying entirely on passing.
2. Seattle generated more from its passing game
Darnold finished with 295 passing yards and two touchdowns. Rodgers produced 203 yards and one touchdown.
Although both quarterbacks threw two interceptions, Darnold’s greater passing output gave Seattle more opportunities to move the ball downfield.
Smith-Njigba and Kupp also combined for 193 receiving yards, helping Seattle distribute the passing workload across its leading targets.
3. Pittsburgh’s rushing production lacked a touchdown
The Steelers finished with 72 rushing yards and no rushing touchdowns. Warren was productive as a receiver, but his 48 rushing yards did not provide the same ground-game impact that Walker delivered for Seattle.
The absence of a rushing touchdown meant Pittsburgh had fewer scoring options when its passing attack struggled.
4. The final quarter changed the game
Seattle scored 17 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Pittsburgh’s three. The Seahawks’ late scoring included Myers’ 54-yard field goal, Holani’s kickoff-recovery touchdown, and Walker’s rushing touchdown.
This sequence converted a competitive game into a comfortable 14-point victory.
5. Special teams contributed directly to the scoreboard
Holani’s kickoff-recovery touchdown was not merely a field-position improvement. It put seven points on the board, including the successful extra point.
That score mattered because it allowed Seattle to increase its lead without needing a conventional offensive drive. In a game where both quarterbacks threw multiple interceptions, a special-teams touchdown provided a valuable alternative source of scoring.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The seahawks vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats offer useful lessons for readers who want to understand more than the final result.
For Seattle, the strongest pattern was offensive balance. The team generated more net yards, gained more rushing yards, and received meaningful contributions from multiple receivers. Walker’s rushing touchdown and the fourth-quarter special-teams score were especially important.
For Pittsburgh, Warren’s 86 receiving yards and Boswell’s perfect field-goal record were notable positives. The defense also produced two interceptions and multiple plays behind the line of scrimmage.
Yet those contributions did not add up to enough points. Pittsburgh scored only three points in the second half, and its rushing game did not produce a touchdown.
When reading an NFL box score, three principles are worth remembering:
- Separate volume from efficiency. A player can receive many attempts without gaining much yardage, as the rushing comparison between Walker and Charbonnet demonstrates.
- Evaluate turnovers in context. Both starting quarterbacks threw two interceptions, so the turnover count does not explain the winner by itself.
- Connect individual production to team scoring. Warren’s receiving numbers were impressive, but Seattle’s broader offensive production and late scoring made the greater difference.
These principles make player statistics more useful for evaluating performances, comparing players, and understanding how a team converted its opportunities into a result.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Seahawks vs Steelers game on September 14, 2025?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-17. Seattle scored 17 points in the fourth quarter, while Pittsburgh managed only three points in the final period.
2. How many passing yards did Sam Darnold record against the Steelers?
Sam Darnold completed 22 of 33 passes for 295 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions. He averaged 8.9 yards per attempt and finished with an 89.8 passer rating.
3. Who was Seattle’s leading rusher in the game?
Kenneth Walker III led Seattle with 105 rushing yards on 13 carries. He averaged 8.1 yards per carry and scored one rushing touchdown.
4. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle with 103 receiving yards on eight catches. Jaylen Warren led Pittsburgh with 86 receiving yards on four catches, including a 65-yard reception.
5. How many interceptions did each team record?
Both teams recorded two interceptions. Seattle’s Coby Bryant and Derion Kendrick each intercepted a pass, while Pittsburgh’s Nick Herbig and Jalen Ramsey also recorded one interception apiece.
6. What was the biggest difference between the two teams?
Seattle finished with 395 total net yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 267. The Seahawks also gained more rushing yards, produced more passing yards, and scored 17 points in the fourth quarter. Those advantages helped them secure the 31-17 victory.
Conclusion
The September 14, 2025 matchup between Seattle and Pittsburgh demonstrated the importance of offensive balance, explosive plays, and late-game execution. Seattle won 31-17 by combining Sam Darnold’s 295 passing yards with Kenneth Walker III’s 105 rushing yards and productive performances from its receiving group.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led Seattle’s receivers with 103 yards, while Cooper Kupp added 90. For Pittsburgh, Jaylen Warren delivered 86 receiving yards and 48 rushing yards, and Chris Boswell converted all three of his field-goal attempts.
Both starting quarterbacks threw two interceptions, making it clear that Seattle’s victory was not simply a result of avoiding mistakes. Instead, the Seahawks generated more total net yards, produced a stronger ground game, and capitalized on scoring opportunities late in the contest.
The most decisive difference was the fourth quarter, when Seattle scored 17 points and Pittsburgh managed only three. Walker’s rushing touchdown and Holani’s kickoff-recovery touchdown helped turn Seattle’s statistical advantages into a convincing final result.
Ultimately, these player figures show why individual achievements must be evaluated alongside team performance. Strong receiving numbers, efficient kicking, and defensive turnovers can all contribute to a competitive game, but the ability to combine those elements into sustained scoring is what determines the winner.
