seahawks vs tennessee titans match player stats
The seahawks vs tennessee titans match player stats from November 23, 2025, tell the story of an exciting NFL contest in which the Seattle Seahawks defeated the Tennessee Titans 30-24. Seattle combined an efficient passing attack, productive rushing plays, and four sacks to secure the victory. Tennessee showed impressive determination, particularly through its passing game and a spectacular 90-yard punt return touchdown by Chimere Dike, but the Titans could not overcome Seattle’s offensive production.
The game featured several outstanding individual performances. Jaxon Smith-Njigba was the biggest offensive difference-maker, finishing with eight receptions for 167 yards and two touchdowns. Sam Darnold delivered two touchdown passes without throwing an interception, while Kenneth Walker III contributed 71 rushing yards. On the Tennessee side, rookie quarterback Cam Ward passed for 256 yards and added a rushing touchdown. Gunnar Helm and Chimere Dike also played important roles in the Titans’ receiving production.
Although Tennessee recorded more completions and slightly more passing yards, Seattle found greater success turning its offensive opportunities into points. The Seahawks finished with 114 rushing yards, compared with only 64 for Tennessee, and their explosive passing plays helped create the difference on the scoreboard.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback statistics, rushing performances, receiving numbers, defensive contributions, special teams, and the individual players who shaped the result. It also explains what the numbers reveal about each team’s performance and why Seattle ultimately came away with the 30-24 victory.
Seahawks vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The November 23 meeting between Seattle and Tennessee produced a six-point victory for the Seahawks. Both teams scored three points in the opening quarter, but Seattle established control during the second quarter by scoring 13 unanswered points.
Tennessee responded with 14 points in the third quarter, matching Seattle’s scoring output during that period. The Titans added another touchdown in the fourth quarter, but Seattle’s earlier advantage proved sufficient.
Final Score and Match Information
| Match Detail | Result |
| Match | Seattle Seahawks vs Tennessee Titans |
| Date | November 23, 2025 |
| Competition | National Football League |
| Final Score | Seattle 30, Tennessee 24 |
| Winning Team | Seattle Seahawks |
| Losing Team | Tennessee Titans |
| Seattle Record | 8-3 |
| Tennessee Record | 1-10 |
| Seattle Away Record | 5-1 |
| Tennessee Home Record | 0-6 |
| Game Status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401772886 |
The supplied game information does not specify the stadium or venue, so no location is assumed here.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
| Quarter | Seattle Seahawks | Tennessee Titans |
| First Quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Second Quarter | 13 | 0 |
| Third Quarter | 14 | 14 |
| Fourth Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Final Score | 30 | 24 |
The second quarter was particularly important. Seattle scored 13 points while keeping Tennessee off the scoreboard. That stretch created a cushion that allowed the Seahawks to withstand the Titans’ second-half comeback attempt.
Tennessee performed much better after halftime, scoring 21 points across the final two quarters. However, Seattle had already built enough separation to maintain its lead.
Quarterback Performance: Sam Darnold vs Cam Ward
Quarterback efficiency was one of the most interesting aspects of this matchup. Sam Darnold and Cam Ward produced different statistical profiles, but both contributed significantly to their respective offenses.
Darnold completed fewer passes than Ward, yet he generated two passing touchdowns and avoided turnovers. Ward accumulated more completions and passing yards, but his offense was less productive on the ground.
Sam Darnold’s Passing Statistics
Seattle quarterback Sam Darnold completed 16 of 26 passing attempts for 244 yards and two touchdowns. He did not throw an interception and finished with a passer rating of 118.1.
| Passing Category | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 16 |
| Attempts | 26 |
| Completion Percentage | 61.5% |
| Passing Yards | 244 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 9.4 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 1 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 5 |
| QBR | 40.6 |
| Passer Rating | 118.1 |
Darnold’s biggest strength was his ability to produce substantial yardage without needing a high volume of attempts.
His 9.4 yards per attempt reflected Seattle’s ability to generate meaningful gains through the air. Instead of relying entirely on short completions, the Seahawks created opportunities for explosive passing plays.
His connection with Jaxon Smith-Njigba was especially important. Smith-Njigba recorded 167 receiving yards and both of Seattle’s passing touchdowns, accounting for a substantial portion of Darnold’s production.
Another important detail was Darnold’s ball security. He finished without an interception, allowing Seattle to maintain offensive possessions without giving Tennessee an opportunity to capitalize on a quarterback turnover.
His 118.1 passer rating was considerably higher than Ward’s 91.0 rating. However, the difference between the quarterbacks should not be judged by passer rating alone. Their supporting offenses, rushing production, and defensive pressure also influenced the final result.
Cam Ward’s Passing Statistics
Tennessee quarterback Cam Ward completed 28 of 42 attempts for 256 yards, one touchdown, and zero interceptions.
| Passing Category | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 28 |
| Attempts | 42 |
| Completion Percentage | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 256 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 6.1 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 4 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 24 |
| QBR | 77.4 |
| Passer Rating | 91.0 |
Ward completed 12 more passes than Darnold and attempted 16 additional throws. He also finished with 12 more passing yards.
His completion percentage of 66.7% demonstrated that he was able to distribute the football consistently. However, Tennessee’s average of 6.1 yards per attempt was considerably lower than Seattle’s 9.4.
That difference is important because it shows how the Seahawks generated more passing production from fewer attempts.
Ward also faced considerable pressure. He was sacked four times for a combined loss of 24 yards. Those negative plays made it harder for Tennessee to maintain favorable down-and-distance situations.
Despite the pressure, Ward protected the football and did not throw an interception. His performance was not defined by turnovers but by the difficulty of consistently creating explosive offensive plays.
Quarterback Comparison
| Statistic | Sam Darnold | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 16 | 28 |
| Attempts | 26 | 42 |
| Completion Percentage | 61.5% | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 244 | 256 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 9.4 | 6.1 |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 | 4 |
| Passer Rating | 118.1 | 91.0 |
The comparison reveals two different approaches to passing offense.
Ward accumulated more total passing yards because Tennessee attempted considerably more passes. Darnold, however, generated more yards per attempt and twice as many passing touchdowns.
Seattle’s quarterback performance was more efficient in terms of explosive production and touchdown conversion.
Rushing Statistics: Which Team Controlled the Ground Game?
The rushing comparison provides one of the clearest explanations for Seattle’s victory.
The Seahawks finished with 114 rushing yards on 20 attempts, averaging 5.7 yards per carry. Tennessee managed only 64 yards on 22 attempts, producing an average of 2.9 yards per carry.
Seattle therefore gained 50 more rushing yards despite attempting two fewer runs.
Seattle Seahawks Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Kenneth Walker III | 11 | 71 | 6.5 | 0 | 19 |
| Zach Charbonnet | 6 | 35 | 5.8 | 1 | 13 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Sam Darnold | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | -1 |
| Team Total | 20 | 114 | 5.7 | 1 | 19 |
Kenneth Walker III’s Contribution
Kenneth Walker III was Seattle’s leading rusher, recording 11 carries for 71 yards.
His 6.5 yards per carry demonstrated how effectively he used his opportunities. Although he did not score a rushing touchdown, his contribution helped Seattle maintain balance between its passing and running attacks.
Walker averaged more than six yards per attempt, giving the Seahawks a dependable option whenever they needed to move the football on the ground.
His longest run covered 19 yards. That play contributed to Seattle’s ability to create favorable offensive situations without depending exclusively on Darnold’s passing.
Walker also contributed as a receiver, adding three catches for 30 yards. His combined production of 101 yards from scrimmage made him an important part of Seattle’s offensive performance.
Zach Charbonnet’s Touchdown Performance
Zach Charbonnet recorded six carries for 35 yards and one rushing touchdown.
His average of 5.8 yards per carry was another positive element of Seattle’s rushing attack.
Charbonnet provided a different type of contribution from Walker. While Walker led the team in rushing yardage, Charbonnet converted his opportunities into a touchdown.
Having two productive running backs gave Seattle additional flexibility and prevented the rushing offense from becoming dependent on a single player.
Tennessee Titans Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Cam Ward | 6 | 37 | 6.2 | 1 | 14 |
| Tony Pollard | 11 | 20 | 1.8 | 0 | 5 |
| Tyjae Spears | 3 | 4 | 1.3 | 0 | 3 |
| Julius Chestnut | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 3 |
| Team Total | 22 | 64 | 2.9 | 1 | 14 |
Cam Ward’s Rushing Contribution
Ward was Tennessee’s leading individual rusher with 37 yards on six attempts.
He averaged 6.2 yards per carry and recorded one rushing touchdown. His ground production was particularly valuable because Tennessee struggled to establish consistency with its running backs.
Ward’s rushing ability gave the Titans another way to advance the football when passing opportunities became difficult.
His performance also demonstrated the value of quarterback mobility. Even when the offensive line struggled to protect him, Ward could create additional yardage through his own movement.
Tony Pollard’s Difficult Afternoon
Tony Pollard recorded 11 carries for just 20 yards, averaging 1.8 yards per attempt.
That was a challenging statistical result for Tennessee’s primary rushing option.
Pollard received the same number of carries as Walker but finished with 51 fewer rushing yards.
The difference between the two running backs illustrates how important blocking, defensive positioning, and individual running opportunities can be.
Seattle consistently generated better results from its rushing attempts, while Tennessee struggled to establish a productive ground game.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Statistic | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Rushing Attempts | 20 | 22 |
| Rushing Yards | 114 | 64 |
| Yards Per Carry | 5.7 | 2.9 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest Run | 19 | 14 |
The Seahawks gained 50 additional rushing yards and averaged nearly twice as many yards per carry.
This advantage helped Seattle control offensive situations and reduced the need for Darnold to rely on constant passing production.
Receiving Statistics: Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads the Game
The receiving numbers were dominated by Jaxon Smith-Njigba.
The Seattle wide receiver finished with eight receptions for 167 yards and two touchdowns. His performance was the biggest individual receiving contribution in the game and a major reason the Seahawks reached 30 points.
Tennessee distributed its passing production among several receivers, but none matched Smith-Njigba’s overall yardage.
Seattle Seahawks Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 8 | 10 | 167 | 20.9 | 2 | 63 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 3 | 4 | 30 | 10.0 | 0 | 29 |
| Cooper Kupp | 2 | 4 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 |
| AJ Barner | 2 | 4 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 16 | 25 | 244 | 15.3 | 2 | 63 |
Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s Outstanding Performance
Smith-Njigba was Seattle’s most productive offensive player.
His final receiving line included:
- Eight receptions.
- Ten targets.
- 167 receiving yards.
- 20.9 yards per reception.
- Two receiving touchdowns.
- Longest reception of 63 yards.
The most impressive number was his 20.9 yards per reception.
That figure shows how effectively Seattle turned completed passes into substantial offensive gains.
Smith-Njigba also accounted for both of Darnold’s passing touchdowns. His ability to produce explosive plays made it difficult for Tennessee to limit Seattle’s passing attack.
He collected approximately 68.4% of Seattle’s total passing yardage, making his contribution particularly significant.
The eight receptions on ten targets also represented an 80% catch rate.
From an analytical perspective, Smith-Njigba’s performance demonstrates why receiving efficiency matters as much as reception volume. A receiver who consistently creates substantial yardage can change the structure of an opposing defense.
Kenneth Walker III as a Receiving Option
Walker contributed three receptions for 30 yards on four targets.
His 10.0 yards per reception gave Seattle another way to move the ball through the air.
This receiving production complemented his 71 rushing yards. Defenses therefore had to account for him both as a runner and as a pass-catching option.
Cooper Kupp and the Supporting Receivers
Cooper Kupp finished with two receptions for 24 yards on four targets.
AJ Barner also recorded two catches, producing 18 receiving yards.
Elijah Arroyo added one reception for five yards.
Although these players did not approach Smith-Njigba’s yardage, their contributions helped diversify Seattle’s passing attack.
A balanced receiving group can make offensive formations more difficult to defend because the defense cannot focus entirely on one player.
Tennessee Titans Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Gunnar Helm | 6 | 7 | 51 | 8.5 | 0 | 15 |
| Chimere Dike | 5 | 7 | 44 | 8.8 | 1 | 25 |
| James Proche II | 3 | 3 | 42 | 14.0 | 0 | 23 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 3 | 4 | 40 | 13.3 | 0 | 26 |
| Xavier Restrepo | 2 | 4 | 26 | 13.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Tony Pollard | 4 | 6 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 | 10 |
| Tyjae Spears | 4 | 5 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 | 12 |
| Van Jefferson | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | 11 |
| Team Total | 28 | 38 | 256 | 9.1 | 1 | 26 |
Gunnar Helm’s Consistent Production
Gunnar Helm led Tennessee in receiving yards with 51.
He recorded six catches on seven targets, averaging 8.5 yards per reception.
His six receptions provided Ward with a reliable passing option and helped Tennessee maintain offensive movement.
Helm did not record a receiving touchdown, but his involvement was important because he consistently contributed to the passing game.
Chimere Dike’s Touchdown Contribution
Chimere Dike finished with five receptions for 44 yards and one receiving touchdown.
He averaged 8.8 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 25 yards.
Dike’s contribution extended beyond receiving. He also produced one of the most memorable special-teams plays of the game by returning a punt 90 yards for a touchdown.
His combination of receiving and return production made him one of Tennessee’s most influential players.
James Proche II and Chig Okonkwo
James Proche II caught three passes for 42 yards on three targets.
His 14.0 yards per reception represented one of Tennessee’s better receiving averages.
Chig Okonkwo also contributed three catches, finishing with 40 yards and an average of 13.3 yards per reception.
Both players gave Ward additional options and helped Tennessee produce 256 passing yards.
Receiving Comparison
| Statistic | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Receptions | 16 | 28 |
| Targets | 25 | 38 |
| Receiving Yards | 244 | 256 |
| Yards Per Reception | 15.3 | 9.1 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 63 | 26 |
Tennessee recorded more receptions and 12 additional receiving yards.
However, Seattle averaged 15.3 yards per reception compared with Tennessee’s 9.1.
This difference reveals an important aspect of the game. Tennessee relied more heavily on completing a larger number of shorter passes, while Seattle generated more explosive gains.
Smith-Njigba’s two touchdowns also gave Seattle a significant advantage in receiving production.
Defensive Player Statistics and Tackling Leaders
Seattle’s defensive performance was another major factor in the result.
The Seahawks recorded four sacks, six tackles for loss, six pass deflections, and 11 quarterback hits.
Tennessee recorded one sack, three tackles for loss, five pass deflections, and three quarterback hits.
These numbers show that Seattle generated more consistent pressure against the opposing quarterback.
Seattle Seahawks Defensive Statistics
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | TFL | Pass Deflections |
| Drake Thomas | 10 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Patrick O’Connell | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Nick Emmanwori | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Byron Murphy II | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Leonard Williams | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Devon Witherspoon | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| D’Anthony Bell | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandon Pili | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Derick Hall | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Coby Bryant | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Josh Jobe | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Riq Woolen | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ty Okada | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| DeMarcus Lawrence | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Quinton Bohanna | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Uchenna Nwosu | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The table highlights selected defenders with recorded contributions. Additional players also appeared in the supplied defensive statistics.
Drake Thomas Leads Seattle in Tackles
Drake Thomas finished with ten total tackles, including six solo tackles and one tackle for loss.
He was Seattle’s leading tackler in the game.
His involvement reflected the importance of consistent defensive activity, particularly against a Tennessee offense that attempted 42 passes.
Thomas helped Seattle limit Tennessee’s ability to generate easy offensive gains.
Patrick O’Connell’s Impact
Patrick O’Connell recorded nine tackles, four solo tackles, one sack, and one tackle for loss.
His sack was part of Seattle’s four-sack team performance.
O’Connell’s ability to contribute both as a tackler and pass rusher gave Seattle another defensive presence.
Defensive Line Contributions
Several Seattle defenders contributed to quarterback pressure.
- Byron Murphy II recorded five tackles and one sack.
- Leonard Williams recorded four tackles and one sack.
- Derick Hall recorded three tackles and one sack.
- Patrick O’Connell added another sack.
Together, these players accounted for all four of Seattle’s recorded sacks.
Their collective pressure was important because Tennessee needed additional time to develop its passing plays.
Devon Witherspoon’s Coverage Contribution
Devon Witherspoon recorded four tackles and two pass deflections.
Pass deflections are an important defensive statistic because they demonstrate how defenders can disrupt passing opportunities without necessarily recording an interception.
Witherspoon’s two deflections represented a useful contribution to Seattle’s coverage performance.
Tennessee Titans Defensive Statistics
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | TFL | Pass Deflections |
| Kevin Winston Jr. | 10 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Cedric Gray | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalyn Armour-Davis | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cody Barton | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arden Key | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Amani Hooker | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mike Brown | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sebastian Joseph-Day | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeffery Simmons | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Darrell Baker Jr. | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Samuel Womack III | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Julius Chestnut | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Marcus Harris | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Kevin Winston Jr. Leads Tennessee’s Defense
Kevin Winston Jr. recorded ten total tackles, six solo tackles, and one tackle for loss.
He matched Drake Thomas for the highest individual tackle total in the game.
His performance was an important part of Tennessee’s defensive effort, particularly because Seattle generated 114 rushing yards and 244 passing yards.
Cedric Gray’s Defensive Activity
Cedric Gray recorded seven tackles, including six solo tackles.
His contribution helped Tennessee remain active defensively despite Seattle’s offensive success.
However, the Titans struggled to create consistent pressure on Darnold.
Arden Key’s Pass-Rushing Performance
Arden Key was Tennessee’s leading pass rusher.
He recorded two tackles, one sack, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits.
His two tackles for loss were particularly notable because they showed his ability to disrupt Seattle’s offensive plays behind the line of scrimmage.
Although Key produced the Titans’ only recorded sack, Tennessee needed more consistent pressure to limit Darnold’s effectiveness.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Total Tackles | 71 | 46 |
| Solo Tackles | 41 | 30 |
| Sacks | 4 | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 6 | 3 |
| Pass Deflections | 6 | 5 |
| Quarterback Hits | 11 | 3 |
Seattle held the advantage in every listed defensive category.
The most significant difference was quarterback pressure. The Seahawks recorded 11 quarterback hits compared with Tennessee’s three.
That pressure helped Seattle disrupt Tennessee’s offensive rhythm, even though Ward still managed 256 passing yards without throwing an interception.
Special Teams Performance: Chimere Dike’s 90-Yard Punt Return
Special teams produced one of the most exciting moments of the contest.
Chimere Dike returned a punt 90 yards for a touchdown, giving Tennessee a major scoring contribution outside its conventional offensive production.
This play was especially important because it allowed the Titans to generate points without relying on a long offensive drive.
Kick Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Rashid Shaheed | Seattle | 2 | 38 | 19.0 | 22 |
| Cody White | Seattle | 1 | 18 | 18.0 | 18 |
| Chimere Dike | Tennessee | 5 | 98 | 19.6 | 29 |
| Julius Chestnut | Tennessee | 1 | 32 | 32.0 | 32 |
Tennessee recorded 130 kick-return yards on six attempts, averaging 21.7 yards per return.
Seattle produced 56 yards on three returns, averaging 18.7 yards.
The Titans therefore held the advantage in total kick-return yardage.
Punt Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Rashid Shaheed | Seattle | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 0 |
| Chimere Dike | Tennessee | 1 | 90 | 90.0 | 1 |
Dike’s 90-yard return was a major special-teams achievement.
It also demonstrated how return production can change a game’s momentum. A single successful return can create an immediate scoring opportunity without requiring an offense to advance the ball through multiple possessions.
Kicking Statistics
| Category | Jason Myers | Joey Slye |
| Team | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Field Goals | 3/3 | 1/1 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 47 yards | 22 yards |
| Extra Points | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Kicking Points | 12 | 6 |
Jason Myers delivered a perfect kicking performance for Seattle.
He converted all three field-goal attempts and all three extra points, finishing with 12 kicking points.
Joey Slye also converted every recorded attempt, making one field goal and three extra points.
Myers’ additional field goals gave Seattle valuable points that helped establish its winning margin.
Punting Statistics
| Category | Michael Dickson | Johnny Hekker |
| Team | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Punts | 2 | 3 |
| Total Punt Yards | 106 | 135 |
| Average | 53.0 | 45.0 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Inside 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Longest Punt | 60 yards | 49 yards |
Michael Dickson averaged 53.0 yards per punt, compared with Johnny Hekker’s 45.0.
Seattle’s punting average was eight yards higher.
However, Tennessee had one additional punt, and both teams recorded zero touchbacks and zero punts inside the 20-yard line in the supplied statistics.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can significantly influence NFL results, particularly in games decided by one possession.
Neither team recorded an interception or lost a fumble in the supplied statistics.
| Turnover Category | Seattle | Tennessee |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles Lost | 0 | 0 |
| Recorded Turnovers | 0 | 0 |
Both quarterbacks protected the football throughout the contest.
Darnold’s two touchdown passes came without an interception, while Ward also finished without throwing a pick.
This means Seattle’s victory cannot be explained by a major turnover advantage.
Instead, the difference came from offensive efficiency, rushing production, defensive pressure, and Seattle’s ability to convert opportunities into touchdowns and field goals.
Five Major Factors Behind Seattle’s 30-24 Victory
The final result was influenced by several statistical advantages rather than one isolated performance.
1. Jaxon Smith-Njigba Created Explosive Passing Production
Smith-Njigba finished with 167 receiving yards and two touchdowns.
His 20.9 yards per reception was the highest average among the listed primary receivers for either team.
He also produced both of Seattle’s passing touchdowns.
This combination of yardage and scoring made him the most influential offensive player in the contest.
2. Seattle Won the Rushing Battle
Seattle gained 114 rushing yards, while Tennessee managed 64.
The 50-yard difference was significant.
Walker and Charbonnet combined for 106 rushing yards, giving Seattle a productive two-player rushing foundation.
Tennessee’s running backs struggled to find similar consistency.
3. Darnold Produced More Passing Touchdowns
Ward finished with 256 passing yards, slightly ahead of Darnold’s 244.
However, Darnold threw two touchdown passes compared with Ward’s one.
His higher yards-per-attempt average also indicated that Seattle generated more production from each passing opportunity.
4. Seattle Generated More Quarterback Pressure
The Seahawks recorded four sacks and 11 quarterback hits.
Tennessee recorded one sack and three quarterback hits.
Ward was pressured throughout the contest, and his four sacks resulted in 24 lost yards.
Seattle’s defensive front made it more difficult for Tennessee to maintain consistent offensive drives.
5. Jason Myers Converted Three Field Goals
Myers finished three-for-three on field-goal attempts.
Those nine points were valuable in a game Seattle won by six.
Although Tennessee’s punt return touchdown helped keep the game competitive, Seattle’s successful kicking provided additional scoring support.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The numbers offer a deeper understanding of how the game developed and why the final result favored Seattle.
Seattle’s Offensive Identity
Seattle’s offensive performance combined explosive receiving production with an effective running game.
The Seahawks did not need Darnold to attempt 40 or more passes. Instead, they generated 244 passing yards from 26 attempts while maintaining a productive ground attack.
Three statistical details stand out:
- 9.4 passing yards per attempt.
- 5.7 rushing yards per carry.
- Two receiving touchdowns from Smith-Njigba.
These figures indicate that Seattle was able to create substantial gains through multiple offensive approaches.
The balance between Walker’s rushing production and Smith-Njigba’s receiving impact also made the offense less predictable.
Tennessee’s Offensive Challenges
Tennessee’s offense completed 28 passes and accumulated 256 passing yards.
Those numbers show that the Titans were capable of moving the football.
However, their rushing production was much weaker.
The team averaged only 2.9 yards per carry, making it difficult to establish an equally effective ground threat.
Ward also faced four sacks.
The combination of limited rushing efficiency and defensive pressure created additional challenges for the Tennessee offense.
The Importance of Explosive Plays
One of the most useful ways to understand this matchup is to separate total yardage from the quality of individual plays.
Tennessee actually finished with 12 more passing yards than Seattle.
Yet Seattle generated two passing touchdowns, averaged more yards per attempt, and had a receiver who averaged 20.9 yards per catch.
This demonstrates that total yardage does not always explain which offense performed more effectively.
Explosive plays can produce a larger scoring impact than a greater number of short completions.
Defensive Pressure Made a Difference
Seattle’s four sacks and 11 quarterback hits were important because they disrupted Tennessee’s passing rhythm.
The Titans still completed 28 passes, but the pressure created negative plays and reduced their ability to operate comfortably.
Seattle’s defensive performance was therefore not simply about stopping every passing attempt. It was about making Tennessee work harder for its offensive production.
Seahawks vs Titans Match Player Stats: Complete Team Comparison
The following table brings together the most important team-level statistics from the matchup.
| Category | Seattle Seahawks | Tennessee Titans |
| Final Score | 30 | 24 |
| Passing Completions | 16 | 28 |
| Passing Attempts | 26 | 42 |
| Passing Yards | 244 | 256 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Rushing Attempts | 20 | 22 |
| Rushing Yards | 114 | 64 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Receiving Receptions | 16 | 28 |
| Receiving Yards | 244 | 256 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Sacks Recorded | 4 | 1 |
| Tackles | 71 | 46 |
| Solo Tackles | 41 | 30 |
| Tackles for Loss | 6 | 3 |
| Pass Deflections | 6 | 5 |
| Quarterback Hits | 11 | 3 |
| Field Goals Made | 3 | 1 |
| Kick Return Yards | 56 | 130 |
| Punt Return Yards | 40 | 90 |
The overall comparison highlights Seattle’s advantages in rushing efficiency, passing touchdowns, defensive pressure, and kicking production.
Tennessee performed better in passing volume and return yardage.
However, Seattle’s stronger offensive efficiency and defensive production were more influential in determining the final score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Seahawks vs Tennessee Titans game on November 23, 2025?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Tennessee Titans 30-24. Seattle established a 13-point advantage in the second quarter and maintained enough of a lead to secure the victory.
2. How many passing yards did Sam Darnold record against Tennessee?
Sam Darnold recorded 244 passing yards on 16 completions from 26 attempts. He threw two touchdown passes and did not record an interception.
3. How many receiving yards did Jaxon Smith-Njigba have?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba recorded 167 receiving yards on eight receptions from ten targets. He averaged 20.9 yards per catch and scored two receiving touchdowns.
4. How many passing yards did Cam Ward record?
Cam Ward completed 28 of 42 passes for 256 yards. He recorded one passing touchdown, no interceptions, and a passer rating of 91.0.
5. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Kenneth Walker III was the leading rusher with 71 yards on 11 carries. He averaged 6.5 yards per attempt for Seattle.
6. How many sacks did the Seahawks record against the Titans?
Seattle recorded four sacks, while Tennessee recorded one. The Seahawks also registered 11 quarterback hits compared with three by the Titans.
Conclusion
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Tennessee Titans 30-24 on November 23, 2025, in a matchup defined by explosive receiving production, rushing efficiency, and defensive pressure.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered the standout offensive performance with 167 receiving yards and two touchdowns. Sam Darnold completed 16 passes for 244 yards and two scores without throwing an interception. Kenneth Walker III added 71 rushing yards, while Zach Charbonnet contributed a rushing touchdown.
Tennessee also had several impressive individual performances. Cam Ward passed for 256 yards and recorded a rushing touchdown, Gunnar Helm led the team with 51 receiving yards, and Chimere Dike produced a memorable 90-yard punt return touchdown.
However, Seattle’s advantages were more significant in several important areas. The Seahawks gained 50 more rushing yards, recorded three additional sacks, generated eight more quarterback hits, and converted three field goals.
The statistics show that Tennessee was competitive in passing volume and special teams, but Seattle was more effective at creating explosive offensive plays and disrupting the opposing quarterback.
Ultimately, the Seahawks’ balanced offense and stronger defensive pressure provided the foundation for their six-point victory.
