Cleveland Browns vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
The Cleveland Browns vs Baltimore Ravens match player stats from September 14, 2025, reveal how Baltimore turned a competitive first half into a convincing 41-17 victory at home. Lamar Jackson delivered four passing touchdowns, the Ravens defense created a crucial interception, and Baltimore scored 21 points in the fourth quarter to pull away from Cleveland. Although the Browns produced 115 rushing yards and two passing touchdowns, their offense struggled to match Baltimore’s scoring efficiency. This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback performances, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, turnovers, special teams, and the most important statistical lessons from the matchup.
Cleveland Browns vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Baltimore Ravens hosted the Cleveland Browns on September 14, 2025, in an NFL regular-season matchup. Baltimore won 41-17, improving its record to 1-1 according to the supplied box score, while Cleveland fell to 0-2.
The final margin was 24 points, but the quarter-by-quarter scoring shows that the game became increasingly one-sided as it progressed.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Results
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Cleveland Browns | 0 | 3 | 7 | 7 | 17 |
| Baltimore Ravens | 3 | 7 | 10 | 21 | 41 |
Baltimore started with a three-point lead after the opening quarter. The Ravens added seven points in the second quarter, while Cleveland managed only a field goal. At halftime, Baltimore led 10-3.
The Browns improved their scoring output in the third quarter, adding seven points to Baltimore’s ten. However, the fourth quarter completely changed the shape of the contest. Baltimore scored 21 points in the final period, compared with Cleveland’s seven.
That 14-point difference in the fourth quarter explains much of the final margin. The Ravens combined offensive production with defensive pressure and turnover creation to finish strongly.
Team Statistics at a Glance
| Statistical Category | Cleveland Browns | Baltimore Ravens |
| Final score | 17 | 41 |
| Passing yards | 208 | 225 listed for Jackson |
| Rushing yards | 115 | 45 |
| Receiving yards | 218 | 225 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 4 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded | 3 | 2 |
| Total tackles | 57 | 71 |
| Field goals made | 1 | 2 |
| Extra points made | 2 | 5 |
| Fourth-quarter points | 7 | 21 |
Statistical note: The supplied ESPN extraction contains a discrepancy in Baltimore’s passing totals. Lamar Jackson is listed with 225 passing yards, while the team passing summary lists 197 yards. The Ravens receiving summary also lists 225 receiving yards. These figures should not be treated as interchangeable without checking the original box score. The individual player figures and team totals are retained as supplied.
Source: ESPN official game box score.
Lamar Jackson’s Four-Touchdown Performance
Lamar Jackson was the central figure in Baltimore’s offensive success. He completed 19 of 29 passes, threw four touchdowns, and did not record an interception in the supplied statistics.
Lamar Jackson Passing Statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 19 |
| Pass attempts | 29 |
| Completion percentage | 65.5% |
| Passing yards | 225 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 3 |
| Yards lost to sacks | 28 |
| ESPN QBR | 79.3 |
| Passer rating | 128.6 |
Jackson’s completion percentage was approximately 65.5%, a solid result for a quarterback who averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. The combination of accuracy, productive passing plays, and four touchdowns was more important than completion percentage alone.
His four touchdown passes accounted for the Ravens’ four passing scores. Baltimore did not need a rushing touchdown to build a 41-point total, showing how effectively the passing game converted opportunities into points.
Jackson also took three sacks for a combined loss of 28 yards. That is an important qualification to an otherwise excellent statistical performance. Cleveland’s defensive front found ways to disrupt him, but the pressure did not prevent Jackson from producing a high passer rating or multiple scoring drives.
Why Jackson’s Efficiency Mattered
A quarterback can complete many short passes without creating enough scoring opportunities. Jackson’s 7.8 yards per attempt suggests that his passing production was more than a collection of low-risk completions.
Three factors stand out:
- Touchdown conversion: Four touchdown passes gave Baltimore a direct scoring advantage.
- Ball security: Jackson threw no interceptions, avoiding the kind of turnover that could have helped Cleveland regain momentum.
- Scoring late: Baltimore’s 21-point fourth quarter demonstrated that the offense remained productive when the game entered its decisive stage.
The broader lesson is that quarterback evaluation should combine volume, efficiency, touchdowns, and turnovers. Jackson’s performance was especially strong because those measures aligned in Baltimore’s favor.
Joe Flacco and the Cleveland Browns Passing Game
Joe Flacco led Cleveland’s passing attack, finishing with 25 completions on 45 attempts for 199 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His passer rating was 65.0, while his ESPN QBR was 26.1.
Joe Flacco Passing Statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 45 |
| Completion percentage | 55.6% |
| Passing yards | 199 |
| Yards per attempt | 4.4 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Yards lost to sacks | 11 |
| ESPN QBR | 26.1 |
| Passer rating | 65.0 |
Flacco attempted 45 passes, 16 more than Jackson. Yet the supplied individual totals show that he produced 26 fewer passing yards. His 4.4 yards per attempt also fell well below Jackson’s 7.8.
That difference is one of the clearest statistical explanations for Baltimore’s victory. Cleveland had to rely on a much larger passing workload to generate fewer yards from its starting quarterback, while Baltimore produced four passing touchdowns from a more efficient approach.
The Challenge of High Passing Volume
Forty-five attempts can reflect a team trying to recover from a deficit, sustain drives, or find answers against a difficult defense. The number alone does not establish why Cleveland passed so frequently, but the game flow offers an important context: Baltimore led throughout the contest and expanded that advantage late.
The Browns also had to overcome one interception and a lost fumble credited to Flacco. Those turnovers reduced their ability to sustain offensive momentum.
Flacco’s 25 completions show that Cleveland was able to complete passes consistently enough to move the ball at times. The problem was turning those completions into efficient, sustained scoring production.
Dillon Gabriel’s Limited Appearance
Dillon Gabriel completed all three of his recorded passes for 19 yards and one touchdown.
| Statistic | Dillon Gabriel |
| Completions | 3 |
| Attempts | 3 |
| Passing yards | 19 |
| Completion percentage | 100% |
| Yards per attempt | 6.7, as supplied |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| ESPN QBR | 100.0 |
| Passer rating | 132.6 |
Gabriel’s perfect completion rate and touchdown are notable, but the sample is only three attempts. A short appearance cannot establish that a quarterback would maintain the same efficiency over a full game.
His statistics do, however, help explain why Cleveland’s team passing touchdown total was two despite Flacco recording one touchdown pass in his individual line.
Cleveland Browns Rushing Statistics
Cleveland’s ground game was one of the more productive elements of its performance. The Browns recorded 115 rushing yards on 22 carries, averaging 5.2 yards per attempt.
That average exceeded Baltimore’s listed team rushing average by a wide margin. However, Cleveland did not record a rushing touchdown, limiting the direct scoring impact of its ground production.
Browns Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | Longest Rush | TDs |
| Quinshon Judkins | 10 | 61 | 6.1 | 31 | 0 |
| Jerome Ford | 6 | 31 | 5.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Isaiah Bond | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 | 0 |
| Joe Flacco | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Dylan Sampson | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 3 | 0 |
| Team total | 22 | 115 | 5.2 | 31 | 0 |
Quinshon Judkins Provides the Biggest Ground Threat
Judkins led Cleveland with 61 rushing yards on ten carries. His 6.1-yard average and 31-yard longest run made him the team’s most productive runner in the supplied data.
He accounted for more than half of Cleveland’s listed rushing yards, making his contribution important even though it did not result in a rushing touchdown.
Judkins’ longest run also shows why average yards per carry should be read alongside explosive plays. A single 31-yard gain can lift a player’s average significantly, so the number does not necessarily mean every carry consistently produced six yards.
Jerome Ford Adds a Second Productive Option
Ford gained 31 yards on six attempts, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. His output provided Cleveland with another effective rushing option.
Together, Judkins and Ford produced 92 yards on 16 carries. That represents most of the Browns’ listed rushing output and suggests the primary runners were capable of gaining useful yardage.
The more significant issue was the lack of rushing touchdowns. Cleveland could gain ground between the tackles or break a longer run, but those gains did not translate into rushing scores in this box score.
Reading Cleveland’s Rushing Numbers Correctly
The Browns’ 5.2-yard average is a positive statistical result, but it should not be used by itself to suggest that the offense performed well overall.
A complete evaluation also considers:
- Whether rushing gains occurred on early downs or in obvious passing situations.
- How often runs produced first downs.
- Whether the team converted opportunities near the goal line.
- Whether the ground game helped control possession and limit the opposing offense’s chances.
The supplied data does not include every down-and-distance situation or possession detail. The safest conclusion is that Cleveland produced useful rushing yardage but did not turn that production into a balanced scoring performance.
Baltimore Ravens Rushing Statistics
Baltimore recorded 45 rushing yards on 21 carries, averaging 2.1 yards per attempt in the supplied team summary. Derrick Henry led the backfield in attempts, while Jackson added a small amount of rushing production.
Ravens Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | Longest Rush | TDs |
| Derrick Henry | 11 | 23 | 2.1 | 8 | 0 |
| Lamar Jackson | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 11 | 0 |
| Justice Hill | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 6 | 0 |
| Zay Flowers | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Mark Andrews | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
| Cooper Rush | 3 | -4 | -1.3 | -1 | 0 |
| Team total | 21 | 45 | 2.1 | 11 | 0 |
Derrick Henry’s Output
Henry carried the ball 11 times for 23 yards, averaging 2.1 yards per attempt. Those figures were modest relative to his workload.
The result is a useful reminder that a team’s success does not always depend on its leading running back producing a large yardage total. Baltimore’s passing attack delivered four touchdowns, allowing the Ravens to score 41 points despite limited rushing production.
Henry did not record a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics. His role should therefore be evaluated through his carries and yardage rather than assuming he was responsible for Baltimore’s scoring output.
Jackson’s Mobility Adds a Different Dimension
Jackson gained 13 yards on two carries, including an 11-yard run. Although that is a small rushing sample, his mobility adds a different challenge for opposing defenses.
Defenders must account for both passing and rushing possibilities when facing a mobile quarterback. That responsibility can influence coverage decisions and the positioning of defenders, even on plays that ultimately become passes.
In this game, the passing production was the more obvious source of Baltimore’s scoring advantage. The rushing figures provide context rather than a competing explanation for the 41-point total.
Cleveland Browns Receiving Statistics
Cleveland’s receivers and pass-catching backs combined for substantial individual contributions. Jerry Jeudy led the Browns with 51 receiving yards, while Harold Fannin Jr. caught five passes for 48 yards.
Browns Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Average | Longest Catch | TDs |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 5 | 5 | 48 | 9.6 | 20 | 0 |
| Jerry Jeudy | 4 | 8 | 51 | 12.8 | 26 | 0 |
| David Njoku | 4 | 5 | 40 | 10.0 | 23 | 0 |
| Jerome Ford | 5 | 6 | 23 | 4.6 | 12 | 0 |
| Cedric Tillman | 2 | 7 | 22 | 11.0 | 18 | 1 |
| Dylan Sampson | 3 | 3 | 13 | 4.3 | 8 | 1 |
| Quinshon Judkins | 3 | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 11 | 0 |
| Isaiah Bond | 1 | 3 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Jamari Thrash | 1 | 1 | 5 | 6.0, as displayed | 5 | 0 |
The supplied receiving table lists 28 team receptions, 218 team receiving yards, and two receiving touchdowns. Individual listed averages are preserved as supplied, although some may reflect source-display rounding or inconsistencies.
Jerry Jeudy’s Downfield Contribution
Jeudy finished with four catches for 51 yards on eight targets. His longest reception was 26 yards, and his average was 12.8 yards per catch.
Jeudy’s figures suggest that Cleveland was able to generate some meaningful gains through its receiving corps. However, his four catches on eight targets also indicate that half of his recorded targets did not become receptions.
Targets alone do not reveal whether an incompletion was caused by coverage, pressure, a difficult throw, or another factor. They do show that Jeudy was involved in the passing plan without turning every opportunity into a completed pass.
Harold Fannin Jr. Shows Reliable Target Conversion
Fannin recorded five catches on five targets for 48 yards. His 100% catch rate in the supplied figures stands out because he converted every listed opportunity.
His 9.6 yards per reception reflects a different type of contribution from Jeudy’s more explosive average. Fannin delivered steady yardage through a greater number of shorter completions.
A high catch rate over five targets is encouraging, but it should not be treated as proof of a player’s long-term efficiency. Route depth, defensive coverage, and future target volume all affect how such numbers develop over a season.
David Njoku and the Supporting Receivers
Njoku recorded four receptions for 40 yards on five targets. He added another reliable outlet in the passing game, with a longest catch of 23 yards.
Tillman and Sampson each recorded a receiving touchdown according to the supplied player table. Those scoring contributions mattered because they accounted for the two touchdown passes listed for Cleveland as a team.
Even with several players producing receiving yardage, the Browns were unable to match Baltimore’s four passing touchdowns. The difference was not simply the presence or absence of individual catches. It was the conversion of passing opportunities into points.
Baltimore Ravens Receiving Statistics
Baltimore’s receiving production was led by Zay Flowers, who recorded seven catches for 75 yards. DeAndre Hopkins produced the team’s longest reception, while Devontez Walker and Tylan Wallace contributed touchdown catches.
Ravens Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Average | Longest Catch | TDs |
| Zay Flowers | 7 | 11 | 75 | 10.7 | 19 | 0 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 2 | 2 | 64 | 32.0 | 41 | 1 |
| Devontez Walker | 2 | 2 | 26 | 13.0 | 24 | 2 |
| Tylan Wallace | 2 | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 15 | 1 |
| Justice Hill | 3 | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Rashod Bateman | 2 | 4 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 0 |
| Mark Andrews | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
| Zaire Mitchell-Paden | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
Baltimore’s supplied team receiving total was 225 yards on 19 receptions and 28 targets, with four receiving touchdowns. Those figures highlight the team’s ability to turn a relatively limited number of receptions into scoring plays.
Zay Flowers Leads in Volume
Flowers recorded seven receptions on 11 targets for 75 yards. He led Baltimore in both catches and receiving yards in the supplied statistics.
His 10.7 yards per reception gave the Ravens a dependable source of intermediate gains. The 11 targets also show that he was a regular part of the passing attack.
Flowers did not record a receiving touchdown, but that does not make his contribution less valuable. A receiver can help an offense sustain drives, move the chains, and create favorable field position without being the player who finishes the scoring play.
DeAndre Hopkins Produces the Longest Catch
Hopkins caught both of his targets for 64 yards and one touchdown. His 41-yard reception was the longest listed receiving play for either team.
A 32.0-yard average per reception indicates how much his two catches contributed to the total. This is an example of why total receiving yards and reception count should be examined together.
Hopkins generated substantial yardage on limited volume. However, the two-target sample is too small to establish a stable season-long average.
Devontez Walker and Tylan Wallace Finish Scoring Plays
Walker recorded two catches for 26 yards and two touchdowns, while Wallace caught two passes for 25 yards and one touchdown.
Their touchdown totals are particularly important when evaluating Baltimore’s efficiency. Both players produced scoring receptions despite limited target volume.
The supplied numbers credit Walker with two touchdown receptions and Wallace with one, while Hopkins added another. Together, those four scores account for Jackson’s four listed passing touchdowns.
This distribution illustrates an important feature of Baltimore’s offensive performance: the Ravens did not rely on a single receiver to score all their touchdowns. Flowers provided the largest volume of receiving production, while other players delivered the scoring finishes.
Defensive Player Statistics: Browns vs Ravens
Defense played a major role in determining the final result. Baltimore recorded one interception, a defensive touchdown, nine quarterback hits, and 71 total tackles in the supplied statistics. Cleveland recorded three sacks and also generated pressure, but its defensive production did not prevent Baltimore from reaching 41 points.
Cleveland Browns Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Additional Contribution |
| Devin Bush | 8 | 4 | 1.0 | 1 tackle for loss, 2 passes defended |
| Greg Newsome II | 7 | 6 | 0 | Strong tackling total |
| Grant Delpit | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 pass defended |
| Mason Graham | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Myles Garrett | 5 | 2 | 1.5 | 2 tackles for loss, 2 QB hits |
| Carson Schwesinger | 5 | 2 | 0 | 5 total tackles |
| Cameron Thomas | 3 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 QB hit |
Cleveland recorded 57 total tackles, 28 solo tackles, three sacks, five tackles for loss, five passes defended, and five quarterback hits.
Myles Garrett Creates Pressure
Garrett recorded five tackles, 1.5 sacks, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits. These numbers show that he made a measurable contribution to Cleveland’s pass rush.
Sacks and quarterback hits are useful measures of defensive disruption, but they do not fully capture every pressure or effect on a quarterback’s decision-making. The supplied box score does not include a complete pressure chart, so conclusions should remain tied to the recorded statistics.
Despite Garrett’s production, Baltimore’s passing attack remained highly effective. The contrast illustrates how a defense can generate individual wins without consistently stopping the opponent’s scoring process.
Devin Bush Adds a Sack and Pass Deflections
Bush led Cleveland with eight total tackles and also recorded one sack and two passes defended. His contribution extended beyond simply finishing tackles.
Tackles for loss and pass deflections can disrupt offensive rhythm by limiting gains or preventing completions. Bush’s figures therefore show activity in several areas of defensive play.
The Browns’ challenge was maintaining that disruption across four quarters. Baltimore’s 21-point fourth quarter suggests the Ravens found enough successful scoring opportunities late to overcome the defensive plays Cleveland had made earlier.
Baltimore Ravens Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Additional Contribution |
| Roquan Smith | 15 | 8 | 0 | 3 tackles for loss, 2 QB hits, 1 defensive touchdown |
| Malaki Starks | 7 | 4 | 0 | 7 total tackles |
| Tavius Robinson | 6 | 4 | 1.0 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Teddye Buchanan | 6 | 2 | 0 | 6 total tackles |
| Kyle Hamilton | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 tackle for loss |
| John Jenkins | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Nate Wiggins | 3 | 2 | 0 | 3 passes defended, 1 interception |
The Ravens recorded 71 total tackles, 44 solo tackles, two sacks, seven tackles for loss, five passes defended, and nine quarterback hits.
Roquan Smith’s All-Around Impact
Smith led all listed defenders with 15 total tackles. He also recorded three tackles for loss, two quarterback hits, and a defensive touchdown.
His tackle total reflects involvement across a wide range of defensive plays. Tackles for loss are particularly useful because they indicate that a defender stopped an offensive player behind the line of scrimmage.
The defensive touchdown is another major detail. It gave Baltimore a scoring contribution beyond its four passing touchdowns and field goals, demonstrating that the defense also helped build the winning margin.
Nate Wiggins Changes the Turnover Battle
Wiggins recorded one interception and returned it for 61 yards. The return did not result in an interception-return touchdown, according to the supplied data, but the turnover itself was significant.
An interception ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defense’s team an opportunity to take control of the ball. A long return can also improve field position.
Baltimore’s one interception was especially important because Cleveland’s offense was already struggling to generate the same passing efficiency as Jackson. The turnover added another obstacle for the Browns to overcome.
Turnovers and Their Influence on the Final Score
Turnovers can change the outcome of a game even when a team produces useful yardage. In this matchup, the supplied figures show that Cleveland lost one fumble and threw one interception, while Baltimore recorded one interception and did not lose a fumble.
Turnover Summary
| Category | Cleveland Browns | Baltimore Ravens |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 1 |
| Fumbles | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive fumble recoveries | 0 | 2, as supplied |
| Interception return yards | 0 | 61 |
Baltimore’s two listed fumble recoveries and one interception helped create a favorable turnover picture. The Browns, by contrast, lost the ball on one fumble and threw an interception.
The Ravens’ two fumbles were not listed as lost. This distinction matters because a fumble does not automatically become a turnover. The opposing team must recover it for possession to change.
The turnover figures also need to be interpreted carefully. They explain part of Baltimore’s advantage, but the box score alone does not establish how many points directly followed each turnover. A detailed drive chart would be needed to calculate the exact scoring impact.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams supplied additional scoring and field-position information. Baltimore made both of its field goals and all five extra points, while Cleveland made its only field-goal attempt and both extra points.
Kicking Statistics
| Statistic | Andre Szmyt, Cleveland | Tyler Loop, Baltimore |
| Field goals made | 1 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 2 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 38 yards | 43 yards |
| Extra points made | 2 | 5 |
| Extra points attempted | 2 | 5 |
| Total kicking points | 5 | 11 |
Loop accounted for 11 kicking points, compared with five for Szmyt. Baltimore’s five extra points also reflect the greater number of touchdowns scored by the Ravens.
Both kickers converted every listed attempt. The difference in points came from opportunity volume rather than missed kicks.
Kick Returns
| Statistic | Cleveland Browns | Baltimore Ravens |
| Kick returns | 5 | 3 |
| Kick-return yards | 94 | 79 |
| Average return | 18.8 | 26.3 |
| Longest return | 25 yards | 33 yards |
| Kick-return touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Cleveland recorded more total kick-return yards because it had five returns, while Baltimore averaged more yards per return.
Tylan Wallace led Baltimore’s listed kick-return production with 79 yards on three returns. His 26.3-yard average and 33-yard longest return gave the Ravens useful starting-field-position potential.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | Corey Bojorquez, Cleveland | Jordan Stout, Baltimore |
| Punts | 5 | 5 |
| Total punt yards | 223 | 259 |
| Average distance per punt | 44.6 yards | 51.8 yards |
| Longest punt | 53 yards | 58 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 2 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Stout averaged 51.8 yards per punt, compared with Bojorquez’s 44.6 yards. Cleveland placed three punts inside the 20-yard line, one more than Baltimore.
Punting distance is only one measure of performance. Placement and the opponent’s resulting starting field position also matter. The supplied numbers show a distance advantage for Baltimore but do not provide enough information to assess every punt’s full impact.
Why Baltimore Won: Five Key Statistical Reasons
The final result was not explained by a single category. Baltimore combined passing efficiency, touchdown production, defensive turnovers, late scoring, and reliable kicking.
1. Jackson Produced Four Passing Touchdowns
Jackson’s four touchdown passes were the clearest individual difference. Cleveland’s team passing total included two touchdowns, while Baltimore’s included four.
That difference meant Baltimore scored more often through the air, even though Cleveland recorded 115 rushing yards compared with Baltimore’s 45.
2. Baltimore Generated More From Its Passing Opportunities
Jackson averaged 7.8 yards per attempt in the supplied player line. Flacco averaged 4.4.
The gap indicates that Baltimore obtained more passing yardage per attempt from its starting quarterback. Cleveland needed substantially more attempts to generate its listed passing production.
3. The Ravens Won the Recorded Turnover Battle
Baltimore intercepted Flacco and did not lose a fumble. Cleveland recorded one lost fumble and one interception thrown.
Although the exact number of points created by those turnovers cannot be established from the supplied summary alone, ball security favored the Ravens.
4. Baltimore’s Defense Added a Scoring Play
Smith’s defensive touchdown gave Baltimore another route to scoring beyond its offensive passing touchdowns and field goals.
Defensive scoring is especially valuable because it can increase the lead without requiring the offense to complete a conventional scoring drive.
5. The Fourth Quarter Settled the Contest
Baltimore scored 21 points in the final quarter. Cleveland scored seven.
That 14-point gap in the final period turned a game that had been more closely contested earlier into a 24-point defeat for Cleveland.
The quarter-by-quarter figures provide the clearest explanation of when the result became decisive. Baltimore maintained its offensive production late, while Cleveland could not match the Ravens’ pace.
Statistical Comparisons That Require Context
Box scores make comparisons easy, but several categories need careful interpretation to avoid misleading conclusions.
More Rushing Yards Did Not Mean Cleveland Controlled the Game
Cleveland produced 70 more rushing yards than Baltimore. However, the Browns did not score a rushing touchdown, and their passing efficiency was considerably lower than Jackson’s.
Total yardage is useful, but it does not directly measure scoring efficiency. A team can gain yards without converting enough possessions into touchdowns.
Completion Percentage Does Not Tell the Whole Story
Gabriel completed all three of his passes, but the sample was too small for a fair comparison with Jackson or Flacco.
Flacco completed 55.6% of his attempts, while Jackson completed approximately 65.5%. Those percentages are informative, but they should be read alongside yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks.
Tackles Do Not Automatically Mean Defensive Dominance
Smith’s 15 tackles led the listed defenders. However, a high tackle total can reflect how frequently an opponent runs plays in a defender’s area, not just how effectively the defense stops those plays.
Tackles for loss, sacks, turnovers, and points allowed provide additional context. Baltimore’s interception and defensive touchdown were particularly important because they directly changed possession or scoring.
Receiving Yards Need to Be Checked Against Passing Totals
The supplied extraction lists Jackson with 225 passing yards and Baltimore’s team passing summary with 197 yards. Baltimore’s receiving summary also lists 225 yards.
Those figures do not align cleanly. Passing yards and receiving yards can differ in some circumstances because of statistical conventions, but the 28-yard discrepancy between Jackson’s listed total and the team passing total should be verified against the original box score before being used in a definitive statistical calculation.
The most reliable approach is to preserve the individual figures as reported while avoiding calculations that depend on the inconsistent team total.
What the Matchup Reveals About Both Teams
The game offers several useful observations about offensive balance, quarterback efficiency, and defensive impact.
Lessons for Cleveland
Cleveland’s 115 rushing yards and several productive receiving performances show that the offense was capable of gaining yardage in multiple ways. Judkins averaged 6.1 yards per carry, and three primary pass catchers recorded at least 40 receiving yards.
The problem was converting those gains into enough points to remain competitive. Flacco’s low yards-per-attempt figure, one interception, and one lost fumble all limited the offense’s margin for error.
The Browns’ statistical profile suggests three areas worth examining in future box scores:
- Passing efficiency rather than pass volume alone.
- Turnover prevention across both passing and rushing plays.
- Touchdown conversion when the offense reaches scoring range.
These are analytical priorities, not claims about a specific coaching decision. The supplied figures do not provide enough detail to establish the exact play-calling reasons behind the result.
Lessons for Baltimore
Baltimore demonstrated that a productive passing game can compensate for a modest rushing total. Henry gained only 23 yards, and the team listed 45 rushing yards overall, yet Jackson’s four touchdown passes helped the Ravens reach 41 points.
The defense added value by recording an interception and a defensive touchdown. Special teams also converted every listed field-goal and extra-point attempt.
The most notable strength was the combination of scoring efficiency and ball security. Baltimore did not need a dominant rushing performance to create a large lead because its passing game and defense supplied the decisive plays.
Why Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis Matters
A final score compresses four quarters of football into one number. Looking at individual periods reveals how the result developed.
Baltimore led 10-3 at halftime, then increased the lead in the third quarter before scoring 21 points in the fourth. Cleveland’s offense improved its scoring output after a scoreless first quarter, but the late gap was too large to overcome.
For readers comparing future matchups, quarter-by-quarter scoring helps distinguish a game decided early from one that becomes lopsided late. It also prevents the final score from obscuring periods when the teams were more evenly matched.
How to Analyze an NFL Player Box Score Accurately
A useful player-stat analysis should move beyond listing every number. The following method makes it easier to understand why a team won and which individual performances mattered most.
Step 1: Start With the Score and Game Flow
Record the final score, venue, date, and quarter-by-quarter results. These details establish the context for interpreting individual statistics.
In this matchup, the 41-17 final score and Baltimore’s 21-point fourth quarter immediately identify the decisive period.
Step 2: Compare Quarterback Efficiency
Review completions, attempts, yards, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and yards per attempt. Do not rely on passing yards alone.
Jackson’s four touchdowns and 7.8 yards per attempt stand out against Flacco’s one individual passing touchdown, one interception, and 4.4 yards per attempt.
Step 3: Separate Rushing Volume From Rushing Effectiveness
Check carries, total yards, average yards per carry, longest run, and rushing touchdowns.
Cleveland led the supplied team rushing totals, but neither team recorded a rushing touchdown. That context prevents rushing yardage from being mistaken for the main source of Baltimore’s scoring success.
Step 4: Identify Both Receiving Volume and Scoring Impact
Targets, receptions, receiving yards, longest catches, and touchdowns reveal different parts of a receiver’s contribution.
Flowers led Baltimore in catches and receiving yards, while Walker recorded two touchdown receptions. Hopkins added the longest catch. Each player influenced the game in a different way.
Step 5: Check Defensive Plays and Turnovers
Look at interceptions, fumbles lost, sacks, quarterback hits, and tackles for loss. These categories help explain why a possession ended or why an offense struggled to maintain momentum.
Wiggins’ interception and Smith’s defensive touchdown are especially important in this game.
Step 6: Verify Inconsistent Figures Before Publishing
When individual and team totals conflict, return to the original box score rather than silently changing the numbers.
This is particularly important for Baltimore’s passing-yard discrepancy in the supplied data. A trustworthy article should make such limitations clear instead of presenting a potentially incorrect total as certain.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Cleveland Browns vs Baltimore Ravens game on September 14, 2025?
The Baltimore Ravens defeated the Cleveland Browns 41-17. Baltimore scored 21 points in the fourth quarter to establish the final 24-point margin.
2. How many passing touchdowns did Lamar Jackson throw against Cleveland?
Lamar Jackson threw four passing touchdowns and recorded no interceptions in the supplied box score. He completed 19 of 29 attempts and was listed with 225 passing yards.
3. How many passing yards did Joe Flacco record?
Joe Flacco recorded 199 passing yards on 25 completions from 45 attempts. He threw one touchdown and one interception, with a listed passer rating of 65.0.
4. Who led Cleveland in rushing yards?
Quinshon Judkins led Cleveland with 61 rushing yards on ten carries. He averaged 6.1 yards per carry, and his longest run covered 31 yards.
5. Who led the Ravens in receiving yards?
Zay Flowers led Baltimore with 75 receiving yards on seven catches. DeAndre Hopkins recorded 64 receiving yards and the game’s longest listed reception, a 41-yard catch.
6. Which defensive players made the biggest impact?
Roquan Smith led Baltimore with 15 tackles and recorded a defensive touchdown. Nate Wiggins intercepted a pass and returned it 61 yards. For Cleveland, Myles Garrett recorded 1.5 sacks, while Devin Bush added one sack and two passes defended.
Conclusion
The September 14, 2025, matchup ended with a 41-17 Baltimore Ravens victory over the Cleveland Browns. Lamar Jackson’s four passing touchdowns, Baltimore’s defensive turnover production, and the Ravens’ 21-point fourth quarter were the defining elements of the result.
Cleveland produced 115 rushing yards and received contributions from Judkins, Jeudy, Fannin, and Njoku, but those gains did not overcome the passing-efficiency gap and turnover disadvantage. Baltimore’s modest rushing output also shows why total rushing yards alone cannot explain a team’s success.
For readers examining the Cleveland Browns vs Baltimore Ravens match player stats, the most useful approach is to evaluate quarterback efficiency, touchdown production, receiving contributions, defensive plays, turnovers, and quarter-by-quarter scoring together. That broader view explains not only who won, but how Baltimore built its advantage and why Cleveland struggled to keep pace.
