Bengals vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats

The bengals vs baltimore ravens match player stats from November 27, 2025, tell the story of a Cincinnati Bengals team that converted its scoring opportunities into a convincing 32-14 victory over the Baltimore Ravens. Cincinnati built its lead through accurate field goal kicking, two passing touchdowns from Joe Burrow, and a defensive performance that included an interception and two sacks. Baltimore produced several explosive individual plays, particularly through Derrick Henry and Isaiah Likely, but struggled to turn its offensive production into enough points.

The final score alone does not explain how the game unfolded. Baltimore averaged more yards per rushing attempt and more yards per reception, while Cincinnati finished with more passing completions and 128 rushing yards. The biggest differences appeared in scoring consistency, turnovers, and the ability to finish drives. Cincinnati kicker Evan McPherson converted all six of his field goal attempts, providing 18 points that proved central to the outcome.

This detailed breakdown examines the quarterback numbers, rushing production, receiving leaders, defensive contributions, special teams, and team statistics behind the result. It also explains what the numbers reveal about the contrasting performances and why certain individual achievements did not translate into a closer contest.

Bengals vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary

The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Baltimore Ravens 32-14 on November 27, 2025. The supplied ESPN box score lists Cincinnati at 4-8 overall with a 2-4 away record, while Baltimore stood at 6-6 overall with a 3-4 home record.

Final Score

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Cincinnati Bengals	3	9	14	6	32
Baltimore Ravens	7	0	7	0	14

Baltimore opened the scoring with seven first-quarter points, taking an early advantage. Cincinnati responded with three points before producing nine in the second quarter. The Bengals then scored 14 points in the third quarter, their most productive period, before adding six more in the fourth.

The Ravens scored seven points in the first quarter and another seven in the third, but failed to add points in either the second or fourth quarter.

That distribution is important because it shows that Cincinnati’s victory was not simply the result of one late scoring burst. The Bengals gradually established control, then created separation during the third quarter. Their ability to keep adding points while Baltimore repeatedly came up empty made the difference increasingly difficult to overcome.

The Most Important Numbers at a Glance

Statistical Category	Cincinnati Bengals	Baltimore Ravens
Final score	32	14
Passing yards	261	246
Passing touchdowns	2	0
Interceptions thrown	0	1
Rushing attempts	33	22
Rushing yards	128	123
Rushing touchdowns	0	2
Receptions	24	17
Receiving yards	261	246
Field goals made	6	0
Sacks recorded by defense	2	1
Fumbles lost	1	4

The comparison highlights several contrasting strengths. Cincinnati relied heavily on its kicking game and passing touchdowns. Baltimore found the end zone twice on the ground, but its passing attack did not produce a touchdown.

The rushing totals were surprisingly close despite Cincinnati recording 11 more carries. Baltimore generated 123 yards on 22 attempts, compared with Cincinnati’s 128 yards on 33 attempts. This difference points to a more efficient rushing performance from the Ravens on a per-carry basis, even though the Bengals accumulated slightly more total yardage.

Turnovers were another major separator. Cincinnati lost one fumble and threw no interceptions. Baltimore lost four fumbles and threw one interception. Those five recorded turnovers gave the Bengals a substantial advantage in possession security.

Joe Burrow vs Lamar Jackson: Quarterback Player Stats

Quarterback production provides one of the clearest ways to understand this result. Joe Burrow and Lamar Jackson both passed for more than 240 yards, but their touchdown totals, interception numbers, and overall passing efficiency differed considerably.

Joe Burrow’s Passing Performance

Joe Burrow completed 24 of 46 pass attempts for 261 yards, two touchdowns, and zero interceptions.

Passing Statistic	Joe Burrow
Completions	24
Attempts	46
Completion percentage	52.2%
Passing yards	261
Yards per attempt	5.7
Passing touchdowns	2
Interceptions	0
Times sacked	1
Sack yards lost	7
ESPN QBR	53.9
Passer rating	83.7

Burrow’s completion percentage was approximately 52.2%, calculated by dividing 24 completions by 46 attempts. That is not an especially high completion rate, and his 5.7 yards per attempt indicates that Cincinnati did not consistently generate large gains through every passing attempt.

However, the two touchdown passes and absence of interceptions were important. Burrow protected the ball through the air and delivered scoring throws when Cincinnati needed to convert possessions into points.

His 261 passing yards matched the Bengals’ listed team receiving total. Ja’Marr Chase accounted for 110 receiving yards, providing a major portion of the passing game’s production. Other receivers contributed touchdowns, allowing Cincinnati to spread its scoring across different targets.

The quarterback’s statistical line also needs to be interpreted in context. A 52.2% completion rate and an 83.7 passer rating do not suggest a flawless passing performance. Instead, the key distinction was that Burrow’s passing production included two touchdowns without an interception, while Cincinnati’s kicker added six successful field goals.

The combination was more valuable than passing yardage alone would suggest.

Lamar Jackson’s Passing Performance

Lamar Jackson completed 17 of 32 attempts for 246 yards, with no passing touchdowns and one interception.

Passing Statistic	Lamar Jackson
Completions	17
Attempts	32
Completion percentage	53.1%
Passing yards	246
Yards per attempt	7.7
Passing touchdowns	0
Interceptions	1
Times sacked	3
Sack yards lost	23
ESPN QBR	21.3
Passer rating	65.4

Jackson averaged 7.7 yards per passing attempt, comfortably above Burrow’s 5.7. That figure suggests Baltimore generated more yardage per attempt through the air, despite completing fewer passes.

Jackson also recorded 246 passing yards, only 15 fewer than Burrow. The yardage difference was therefore relatively small compared with the 18-point difference on the scoreboard.

The main issue was converting passing production into touchdowns. Jackson did not throw a touchdown pass and was intercepted once. He was also sacked three times for a combined loss of 23 yards, compared with Burrow’s one sack for seven yards.

Those sacks matter because they can push an offense into longer third-down situations, reduce field position, and interrupt the timing of a drive. Although sacks alone do not explain a result, Baltimore’s combination of negative plays, a passing interception, and lost fumbles made it harder to turn promising possessions into points.

Jackson’s rushing ability remained a separate source of production, as he added 27 yards on six carries. However, the overall passing line was less productive in scoring terms than Burrow’s.

Burrow vs Jackson: Who Had the Better Statistical Game?

Category	Advantage
Passing yards	Joe Burrow
Completion percentage	Lamar Jackson
Yards per attempt	Lamar Jackson
Passing touchdowns	Joe Burrow
Interceptions avoided	Joe Burrow
Fewer sacks taken	Joe Burrow
Passer rating	Joe Burrow
ESPN QBR	Joe Burrow

Jackson was more productive on a per-attempt yardage basis, but Burrow delivered the stronger result in the areas most closely connected to Cincinnati’s scoring output.

This comparison illustrates why quarterback analysis should go beyond passing yards. A quarterback can gain yardage without producing passing touchdowns, while another can have a less efficient-looking statistical line and still make more decisive scoring plays.

The supplied figures do not establish that either quarterback was responsible for every offensive success or failure. Football results depend on protection, receiver execution, play calling, field position, and defensive pressure as well as quarterback decisions. Nevertheless, the statistical contrast between two passing touchdowns and zero passing touchdowns is clear.

Rushing Stats: Chase Brown, Derrick Henry, and Lamar Jackson

The ground game produced one of the most interesting contrasts in this matchup. Cincinnati recorded more rushing attempts and slightly more rushing yards, but Baltimore gained more yards per carry and scored both of its rushing touchdowns.

Chase Brown Leads Cincinnati’s Rushing Attack

Chase Brown was Cincinnati’s leading rusher with 15 carries for 78 yards.

Statistic	Chase Brown
Carries	15
Rushing yards	78
Yards per carry	5.2
Rushing touchdowns	0
Longest run	18 yards

Brown averaged 5.2 yards per carry, an effective rate that helped Cincinnati sustain its ground production. His 78 yards represented the largest rushing total for either Bengals player listed in the supplied data.

However, Brown did not score a rushing touchdown. Cincinnati’s ground game contributed yardage and helped balance the offense, but the team relied on passing touchdowns and field goals to build its final total.

Samaje Perine provided additional volume, carrying 14 times for 39 yards. His 2.8 yards per carry was considerably lower than Brown’s average.

Joe Burrow added eight rushing yards on three carries, while Drew Sample recorded one carry for three yards.

Together, the four listed Cincinnati rushers accounted for all 33 team rushing attempts and 128 yards.

Derrick Henry’s Impact for Baltimore

Derrick Henry led the Ravens with 10 carries for 60 yards and one touchdown.

Statistic	Derrick Henry
Carries	10
Rushing yards	60
Yards per carry	6.0
Rushing touchdowns	1
Longest run	28 yards

Henry averaged six yards per carry and produced the longest rushing play listed for Baltimore, a 28-yard run. His touchdown demonstrated that the Ravens could still generate effective scoring opportunities on the ground.

The challenge was maintaining that effectiveness across the entire game. Baltimore finished with 123 rushing yards, but it did not score in the second or fourth quarter. Its ground production was valuable without being sufficient to keep pace with Cincinnati’s scoring.

Henry also contributed as a receiver, catching one pass for 44 yards. That reception was the longest catch recorded by any Baltimore player in the supplied statistics.

His combined rushing and receiving production shows that he offered value beyond conventional handoffs. The figures do not, however, establish how often those gains occurred on early downs, in short-yardage situations, or during particular scoring drives.

Baltimore’s Other Rushing Contributors

Player	Carries	Rushing Yards	Average	Touchdowns	Longest Run
Derrick Henry	10	60	6.0	1	28
Lamar Jackson	6	27	4.5	0	11
Keaton Mitchell	2	19	9.5	1	18
Rasheen Ali	4	17	4.3	0	9
Team total	22	123	5.6	2	28

Keaton Mitchell averaged 9.5 yards per carry and scored one rushing touchdown on only two attempts. That average was the highest among the listed Baltimore rushers, although it came from a very small sample.

Jackson’s 27 rushing yards added another dimension to Baltimore’s offense. His mobility can create problems for defenses because it forces defenders to account for both designed runs and potential scrambles.

Rasheen Ali contributed 17 yards on four attempts. Although his average was lower than Henry’s and Mitchell’s, he helped Baltimore reach its team total of 123 rushing yards.

Team Rushing Comparison

Statistic	Bengals	Ravens
Carries	33	22
Rushing yards	128	123
Yards per carry	3.9	5.6
Rushing touchdowns	0	2
Longest run	18	28

Cincinnati gained five more rushing yards despite using 11 additional carries. Baltimore’s 5.6 yards per carry compared with Cincinnati’s 3.9 shows that the Ravens were more efficient in their recorded rushing production.

Yet efficiency did not guarantee a victory. Baltimore’s four lost fumbles and lack of passing touchdowns limited the value of its strong rushing averages. Cincinnati, meanwhile, gained additional scoring opportunities through its kicking game.

The lesson is straightforward: rushing efficiency is useful, but it must be considered alongside turnovers, touchdowns, and the production of the entire offense.

Receiving Stats: Ja’Marr Chase and Isaiah Likely Lead Their Teams

The receiving statistics show how both teams generated meaningful yardage through the air, even though their scoring results were different.

Ja’Marr Chase Leads the Bengals

Ja’Marr Chase finished as Cincinnati’s leading receiver with seven receptions for 110 yards.

Statistic	Ja’Marr Chase
Receptions	7
Targets	14
Receiving yards	110
Yards per reception	15.7
Receiving touchdowns	0
Longest reception	43 yards

Chase averaged 15.7 yards per catch, making him Cincinnati’s most productive receiver by total yardage. His longest reception covered 43 yards, showing that he could produce a substantial gain on a single completion.

He was targeted 14 times, meaning he accounted for a significant portion of Cincinnati’s passing-game attention. Seven catches on 14 targets produce a 50% catch rate, based on the supplied figures.

That rate does not tell the whole story. Targets can differ in difficulty, distance, and defensive coverage. Still, Chase’s 110 yards gave Cincinnati a dependable source of explosive receiving production.

He did not record a receiving touchdown, so his impact came through advancing the ball rather than finishing a scoring play himself.

Cincinnati’s Supporting Receivers

Player	Receptions	Targets	Receiving Yards	Average	Touchdowns
Ja’Marr Chase	7	14	110	15.7	0
Chase Brown	7	7	35	5.0	0
Andrei Iosivas	1	2	29	29.0	1
Mitchell Tinsley	2	9	22	11.0	0
Mike Gesicki	2	4	19	9.5	0
Samaje Perine	2	2	15	7.5	0
Tanner Hudson	1	2	14	14.0	1
Drew Sample	1	2	14	14.0	0
Noah Fant	1	2	3	3.0	0

Chase Brown’s seven receptions for 35 yards added a useful passing-game contribution to his 78 rushing yards. His 113 combined rushing and receiving yards were the highest combined total among the Cincinnati players detailed in the supplied rushing and receiving tables.

Andrei Iosivas caught one pass for 29 yards and a touchdown. That catch produced the same number of yards as his total receiving output, making it an especially productive scoring contribution.

Tanner Hudson also recorded a receiving touchdown, finishing with one reception for 14 yards.

These contributions help explain how Cincinnati scored two passing touchdowns without relying on Chase to finish either scoring play. His yardage stretched the field, while other receivers converted their opportunities into touchdowns.

The supplied figures show 24 team receptions for 261 yards and two touchdowns. Those totals provide the overall context for the individual performances.

Isaiah Likely Leads Baltimore’s Receiving Production

Isaiah Likely led the Ravens with five receptions for 95 yards.

Statistic	Isaiah Likely
Receptions	5
Targets	6
Receiving yards	95
Yards per reception	19.0
Receiving touchdowns	0
Longest reception	43 yards

Likely averaged 19 yards per reception, the highest average among Baltimore’s leading receivers with multiple catches. He caught five of his six targets, producing an 83.3% catch rate from the supplied numbers.

His 95 yards represented a substantial portion of Baltimore’s 246 passing yards. He also matched Chase’s longest recorded reception with a 43-yard gain.

Despite this production, Likely did not score a receiving touchdown. His performance demonstrates the difference between generating yardage and completing a scoring possession. Baltimore had a productive individual receiving performance, but that production did not result in a passing touchdown.

Baltimore’s Other Receiving Leaders

Player	Receptions	Targets	Receiving Yards	Average	Touchdowns
Isaiah Likely	5	6	95	19.0	0
Mark Andrews	4	6	47	11.8	0
Derrick Henry	1	1	44	44.0	0
DeAndre Hopkins	2	3	25	12.5	0
Charlie Kolar	1	1	17	17.0	0
Keaton Mitchell	2	3	12	6.0	0
Zay Flowers	2	7	6	3.0	0
Rashod Bateman	0	1	0	0.0	0
Devontez Walker	0	2	0	0.0	0

Mark Andrews contributed 47 yards on four receptions. Henry’s single 44-yard catch was also significant, giving Baltimore another way to generate a large gain outside the conventional running game.

DeAndre Hopkins added 25 receiving yards, while Charlie Kolar caught a 17-yard pass. Keaton Mitchell recorded 12 yards on two receptions.

Zay Flowers finished with six yards on two catches despite receiving seven targets. Bateman and Walker did not record a reception in the listed figures.

These numbers should not be interpreted as a complete evaluation of each player’s performance. Blocking, route assignments, coverage responsibilities, and the difficulty of individual targets are not fully captured in a basic box score. Nevertheless, the figures clearly show that Baltimore’s passing game had yardage production without a recorded passing touchdown.

Receiving Efficiency: What the Numbers Reveal

Cincinnati recorded 261 receiving yards on 24 receptions, averaging 10.9 yards per catch. Baltimore recorded 246 receiving yards on 17 receptions, averaging 14.5 yards per catch.

The Ravens averaged more yards per reception, but the Bengals caught seven more passes and recorded two receiving touchdowns.

This is an important distinction for evaluating offensive efficiency. Baltimore generated more yardage per completed catch, while Cincinnati combined a higher number of receptions with touchdown production. Neither yards per reception nor total catches alone can fully explain the difference in final score.

The more useful conclusion is that Cincinnati converted its passing opportunities into points more effectively.

Defensive Player Stats: Sacks, Interceptions, and Turnovers

The defensive numbers provide another explanation for Cincinnati’s victory. The Bengals recorded two sacks and one interception, while Baltimore recorded one sack and no interceptions.

Cincinnati’s Defensive Performance

Cincinnati’s defense recorded the following team statistics:

Defensive Statistic	Bengals
Total tackles	56
Solo tackles	32
Sacks	2
Tackles for loss	2
Passes defended	6
Quarterback hits	5
Defensive touchdowns	0
Interceptions	1

Joseph Ossai recorded two sacks and two tackles for loss in the supplied defensive statistics. His pass-rushing production contributed to Cincinnati’s ability to disrupt Jackson and create negative plays.

Demetrius Knight Jr. recorded one interception and returned it for 39 yards. The interception was an important defensive event because it ended a Baltimore passing possession and gave Cincinnati an opportunity to take control of the ball.

The 39 return yards also added field-position value beyond the turnover itself. However, the supplied box-score data does not establish exactly how many points, if any, resulted directly from that particular return.

Cincinnati’s six passes defended and five quarterback hits show that the defense challenged Baltimore’s passing game. These statistics support the broader picture of a unit that generated pressure and forced a turnover without needing a defensive touchdown to influence the result.

Baltimore’s Defensive Performance

Defensive Statistic	Ravens
Total tackles	81
Solo tackles	44
Sacks	1
Tackles for loss	4
Passes defended	6
Quarterback hits	7
Defensive touchdowns	0
Interceptions	0

Baltimore recorded more tackles, more tackles for loss, and more quarterback hits than Cincinnati according to the supplied totals. Marlon Humphrey recorded one sack, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits.

The Ravens’ seven quarterback hits suggest that they generated some pressure on Burrow, even though they finished with only one sack. Pressure can affect a quarterback’s timing and decisions without resulting in a sack on every play.

However, Baltimore recorded no interceptions and lost four fumbles. The defense’s individual activity did not prevent Cincinnati from reaching 32 points.

The higher tackle total should also be interpreted carefully. A large number of tackles does not automatically indicate a better defensive performance. Teams can record more tackles because opponents run more plays, complete more passes, or gain yards before being stopped.

Turnovers: A Major Statistical Difference

Turnover Category	Bengals	Ravens
Interceptions thrown	0	1
Fumbles lost	1	4
Total recorded giveaways	1	5

The Bengals recorded one lost fumble and no interceptions. Baltimore recorded one interception thrown and four lost fumbles.

That creates a four-turnover difference in total giveaways.

Turnovers matter because they can end drives before an offense has a chance to score, give the opponent possession, and change field position. A lost fumble can be especially damaging when it occurs during a promising possession, although the supplied summary does not identify the exact location or timing of every fumble.

Cincinnati’s ability to avoid interceptions and lose only one fumble helped it preserve more possessions. Baltimore’s five total giveaways placed additional pressure on an offense that already struggled to produce passing touchdowns.

This is one of the strongest statistical explanations for the final margin. The turnover comparison does not prove that every giveaway directly cost Baltimore points, but it identifies a clear disadvantage in possession security.

Special Teams Stats: Evan McPherson’s Perfect Kicking Day

Special teams were central to Cincinnati’s scoring output. Evan McPherson converted six field goals in six attempts and scored 20 total points, including two extra points.

Evan McPherson’s Kicking Statistics

Kicking Statistic	Evan McPherson
Field goals made	6
Field goal attempts	6
Field goal percentage	100%
Longest field goal	52 yards
Extra points made	2
Total points	20

McPherson’s six successful field goals produced 18 points. His two extra points added another two, bringing his total to 20.

That means McPherson accounted for more than half of Cincinnati’s 32 points. His contribution was particularly important because Cincinnati did not score a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics.

A perfect field goal record is valuable for more than the raw points. It allows an offense to turn drives that stop short of the end zone into points on the scoreboard. In a game where Baltimore failed to score in two quarters, repeatedly adding field goals helped Cincinnati build a lead without requiring every possession to finish with a touchdown.

The longest successful kick was 52 yards, demonstrating that McPherson converted at least one attempt from substantial distance.

Tyler Loop’s Kicking Statistics

Kicking Statistic	Tyler Loop
Field goals made	0
Field goal attempts	0
Extra points made	2
Extra point attempts	2
Total points	2

Loop converted both extra-point attempts following Baltimore’s two touchdowns. The supplied statistics list no field goal attempts for him.

This distinction matters when comparing the kickers. McPherson had six field goal opportunities and converted all six, while Loop’s recorded scoring contribution came from extra points.

It would be inaccurate to conclude from these figures alone that Baltimore’s kicker missed opportunities. The table simply shows that no field goal attempts were recorded.

Punting and Field Position

Cincinnati punter Ryan Rehkow recorded two punts for 105 yards, averaging 52.5 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 54 yards, and one punt went inside the 20-yard line.

Baltimore punter Jordan Stout recorded three punts for 149 yards, averaging 49.7 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 61 yards, and one punt resulted in a touchback. No punts inside the 20-yard line were recorded for Stout.

The averages show that Cincinnati had a slightly higher gross punting average. However, gross distance does not reveal the complete field-position result because returns, touchbacks, and the location of each punt also matter.

Kick and Punt Returns

Baltimore’s kick returners combined for six returns and 162 yards, averaging 27 yards per return. Keaton Mitchell recorded three returns for 91 yards, while Rasheen Ali added three returns for 71 yards.

Cincinnati’s Gary Brightwell recorded three kick returns for 59 yards, averaging 19.7 yards per return.

On punt returns, Cincinnati recorded two returns for a combined 19 yards. Mitchell Tinsley returned one punt for 10 yards, and Charlie Jones returned one for nine yards. The supplied data lists no Baltimore punt returns.

Baltimore’s higher kick-return average gave it useful yardage on special teams. Nevertheless, strong return numbers did not compensate for the team’s turnovers and lack of passing touchdowns.

Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis: How Cincinnati Built the Lead

The scoring breakdown helps explain the game’s momentum without requiring assumptions about individual plays that are not documented in the supplied statistics.

First Quarter: Baltimore Takes the Early Lead

Baltimore scored seven points in the opening quarter, while Cincinnati scored three. The Ravens therefore held a four-point advantage after the first 15 minutes.

The early score showed that Baltimore could establish an initial scoring rhythm. However, the opening quarter did not determine the final result because Cincinnati responded in the following periods.

Second Quarter: Cincinnati Moves Ahead

The Bengals scored nine points in the second quarter, while Baltimore failed to score. Cincinnati therefore turned a four-point deficit into a five-point lead by halftime.

McPherson’s field goal production was especially relevant to the overall scoring pattern. The supplied data confirms six successful field goals for Cincinnati, although it does not identify the exact kick associated with each quarter.

Baltimore’s scoreless second quarter created an early problem. Even before Cincinnati’s third-quarter surge, the Ravens had lost the lead and needed a stronger response after halftime.

Third Quarter: The Decisive Scoring Stretch

Cincinnati scored 14 points in the third quarter, while Baltimore added seven. The Bengals increased their lead by another seven points during the period.

This was Cincinnati’s highest-scoring quarter and a major reason the game became more difficult for Baltimore to recover. The Bengals combined sustained scoring with a defense that recorded two sacks and an interception across the game.

Baltimore did find the end zone during the third quarter, but matching the opponent’s scoring pace was not enough to close the existing gap.

Fourth Quarter: Cincinnati Protects the Advantage

The Bengals scored six additional points in the fourth quarter, while Baltimore failed to score.

The final period completed a game in which Cincinnati scored in every quarter and Baltimore scored in only two. That difference illustrates the Bengals’ greater consistency on the scoreboard.

The supplied figures do not provide enough detail to attribute each quarter’s scoring to a specific play or drive. The reliable conclusion is that Cincinnati continued adding points while Baltimore’s offense could not produce a fourth-quarter response.

Why the Bengals Won: Five Statistical Takeaways

1. Cincinnati Converted Field Goal Opportunities

Six successful field goals gave the Bengals 18 points before accounting for extra points or touchdowns. McPherson’s 20 total points were the largest individual scoring contribution recorded in the supplied data.

This helped Cincinnati maintain scoring momentum even when drives did not end in touchdowns.

2. Burrow Produced Two Passing Touchdowns Without an Interception

Burrow’s 261 yards were only slightly higher than Jackson’s 246, but Burrow recorded two passing touchdowns and no interceptions.

Jackson generated more yards per attempt, yet he did not record a passing touchdown and threw one interception. The contrast shows how yardage totals and scoring efficiency can tell different stories.

3. Baltimore’s Turnovers Limited Its Chances

Baltimore lost four fumbles and threw one interception. Cincinnati lost one fumble and threw no interceptions.

The resulting four-turnover gap gave Cincinnati a major advantage in protecting possession. Although the supplied figures do not show the points directly attributable to each turnover, the difference is too large to ignore when evaluating the game.

4. The Ravens Rushed Efficiently but Could Not Sustain Scoring

Baltimore averaged 5.6 yards per carry and scored two rushing touchdowns. Cincinnati averaged 3.9 yards per carry and recorded no rushing touchdowns.

Despite those advantages, Baltimore scored only 14 total points. The rushing attack was productive, but the full offensive performance did not match Cincinnati’s combination of passing touchdowns, field goals, and ball security.

5. Cincinnati Scored in Every Quarter

The Bengals recorded points in all four quarters. Baltimore scored in the first and third quarters but was held scoreless in the second and fourth.

That consistency created a scoring pattern in which Cincinnati could extend its lead while Baltimore struggled to answer. It is one of the clearest differences visible in the quarter-by-quarter totals.

Statistical Limitations and How to Read the Box Score

A box score is a valuable starting point for understanding a football game, but it cannot explain every tactical detail.

The figures establish passing totals, rushing attempts, receiving production, sacks, turnovers, and special-teams output. They do not independently show every play’s down and distance, the coverage used on a particular target, the location of each fumble, or the exact field position after each return.

Some distinctions are particularly important:

• Yards versus points: High yardage does not automatically translate into touchdowns.
• Efficiency versus volume: A high average can come from a small number of attempts, as seen in Mitchell’s two carries for 19 yards.
• Tackles versus defensive quality: More tackles do not necessarily mean a stronger overall defensive performance.
• Pressure versus sacks: Quarterback hits and sacks measure related but different aspects of defensive pressure.
• Turnovers versus direct scoring impact: A giveaway can damage a possession, but the box score alone may not show exactly how many points it caused.
• Quarterback ratings versus complete performance: QBR and passer rating summarize different aspects of passing play and should not be treated as interchangeable measurements.

The ESPN statistics supplied for this matchup support a strong overall explanation of Cincinnati’s win. However, a complete tactical evaluation would require verified play-by-play details and film context. Keeping that distinction clear makes the analysis more reliable and prevents individual statistics from being overstated.

How This Game Fits Into the Bengals-Ravens Rivalry

Cincinnati and Baltimore compete in the AFC North, a division where divisional matchups can carry significant implications for standings and postseason positioning.

The teams have different offensive strengths. Cincinnati has often been associated with a passing attack built around Burrow and Chase, while Baltimore has featured Jackson’s mobility and a powerful running game. Those general characteristics provide context, but they should not be used as a substitute for the statistics from a specific game.

In this matchup, the numbers show that Baltimore’s rushing efficiency and receiving yardage were not enough to overcome its turnover disadvantage. Cincinnati’s passing touchdowns and field goal production provided a more reliable route to points.

The supplied records also place the teams in different positions at the time represented by the box score. Cincinnati was listed at 4-8 overall, while Baltimore was listed at 6-6. The result therefore represented a win for Cincinnati despite its lower displayed overall record.

A single game cannot establish a permanent trend for either team. It can, however, reveal the factors that shaped one particular result: possession security, scoring conversion, and the ability to add points throughout the contest.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the final score of the Bengals vs Baltimore Ravens game on November 27, 2025?

The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Baltimore Ravens 32-14. Cincinnati scored in all four quarters, while Baltimore scored seven points in the first quarter and seven in the third.

2. How many passing yards did Joe Burrow and Lamar Jackson record?

Joe Burrow passed for 261 yards on 24 completions from 46 attempts. Lamar Jackson passed for 246 yards on 17 completions from 32 attempts.

3. Who was the leading receiver in the game?

Ja’Marr Chase led Cincinnati with seven receptions for 110 yards. Isaiah Likely led Baltimore with five receptions for 95 yards.

4. Which player scored the most points?

Cincinnati kicker Evan McPherson scored 20 points. He made all six field goal attempts and converted both extra-point attempts.

5. How many turnovers did the Bengals and Ravens record?

The Bengals recorded one lost fumble and no interceptions. The Ravens recorded four lost fumbles and one interception, giving Baltimore five total giveaways compared with Cincinnati’s one.

6. Who led the teams in rushing yards?

Chase Brown led Cincinnati with 78 rushing yards on 15 carries. Derrick Henry led Baltimore with 60 yards on 10 carries and scored one rushing touchdown.

Conclusion

The November 27, 2025, matchup between Cincinnati and Baltimore demonstrated why football results cannot be understood through yardage totals alone. Baltimore generated 123 rushing yards at 5.6 yards per carry and averaged 14.5 yards per reception. Yet the Ravens scored no passing touchdowns and recorded five total giveaways.

Cincinnati combined 261 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, a lower turnover total, and six successful field goals to secure a 32-14 victory. Joe Burrow’s touchdown production, Ja’Marr Chase’s 110 receiving yards, Chase Brown’s 78 rushing yards, Joseph Ossai’s two sacks, and Demetrius Knight Jr.’s interception were important parts of the statistical picture.

Evan McPherson’s perfect six-for-six field goal performance stood out as the game’s defining individual scoring contribution. His 20 points showed how reliable kicking can transform otherwise incomplete offensive possessions into a substantial scoreboard advantage.

The central takeaway from the bengals vs baltimore ravens match player stats is that Cincinnati converted opportunities more effectively, protected possession better, and maintained scoring pressure across all four quarters. Baltimore showed genuine rushing and receiving efficiency, but those strengths could not overcome its turnovers and lack of passing touchdowns.

For readers evaluating this matchup, the most useful approach is to consider quarterback production, rushing efficiency, receiving contributions, turnovers, defensive pressure, and special teams together. No single statistic tells the whole story, but the combination explains why Cincinnati finished with an 18-point victory.