Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Seahawks Match Player Stats
The tampa bay buccaneers vs seahawks match player stats from October 5, 2025, tell the story of a thrilling NFL regular-season game in which the Tampa Bay Buccaneers defeated the Seattle Seahawks 38-35. Both teams produced outstanding offensive performances, but Tampa Bay made better use of its opportunities, with Baker Mayfield delivering an efficient passing performance and Emeka Egbuka creating major problems for Seattle’s defense. The Seahawks also moved the ball effectively, led by Sam Darnold’s four touchdown passes and Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s impressive receiving production, yet the visitors ultimately secured the three-point victory.
The final score alone does not explain how this contest unfolded. Tampa Bay finished with 379 passing yards, while Seattle recorded 341 passing yards and 122 rushing yards. The Buccaneers’ defense generated a crucial interception, and kicker Chase McLaughlin converted all three of his field-goal attempts. These details help explain why Tampa Bay won despite Seattle’s stronger rushing output and Darnold’s four touchdown passes.
This detailed game analysis covers the final score, quarterback statistics, rushing and receiving performances, defensive contributions, special teams, and the individual players who shaped the outcome. It also explains what the numbers reveal about each team’s offensive approach and the factors that separated the winner from the loser.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Seahawks Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Buccaneers and Seahawks delivered a high-scoring matchup featuring productive quarterbacks, explosive receiving plays, and several important defensive moments. Tampa Bay won 38-35, improving its record to 4-1 overall and 3-0 on the road, according to the supplied ESPN game data. Seattle fell to 3-2 overall and 1-2 at home.
Final Score
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 3 | 10 | 15 | 10 | 38 |
| Seattle Seahawks | 0 | 7 | 14 | 14 | 35 |
Tampa Bay built an early advantage, scoring three points in the opening quarter and adding 10 in the second. Seattle responded with seven points before halftime, then increased its offensive output in the second half.
The third quarter was particularly productive for both offenses. Tampa Bay scored 15 points, while Seattle added 14. The Seahawks scored another 14 in the fourth quarter, but their late production was not enough to overcome the deficit.
The quarter-by-quarter figures show that Tampa Bay established an early lead and continued scoring throughout the game. Seattle’s stronger second-half scoring kept the contest competitive until the end.
Game Information
| Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Seattle Seahawks |
| Date | October 5, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL regular season |
| Final score | Buccaneers 38, Seahawks 35 |
| Winner | Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| Losing team | Seattle Seahawks |
| Tampa Bay record shown | 4-1 |
| Seattle record shown | 3-2 |
| ESPN game ID | 401772746 |
The supplied box-score data provides a detailed account of individual player performances. However, it does not contain a complete team-statistics comparison or a full list of scoring plays. Therefore, the analysis below focuses on the confirmed figures rather than assigning unverified events to particular drives.
Baker Mayfield Player Stats: A Highly Efficient Passing Performance
Baker Mayfield was central to Tampa Bay’s victory. He completed 29 of 33 passing attempts for 379 yards and two touchdowns without throwing an interception. His performance combined accuracy with the ability to generate substantial yardage through the air.
Baker Mayfield’s Complete Passing Numbers
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 29 |
| Passing attempts | 33 |
| Completion percentage | 87.9% |
| Passing yards | 379 |
| Yards per attempt | 11.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yardage | 9 yards |
| ESPN QBR | 93.4 |
| Passer rating | 134.7 |
Mayfield’s completion percentage is one of the most striking figures in the game. Completing 29 of 33 attempts means he connected on approximately 87.9% of his passes. That level of accuracy, combined with 11.5 yards per attempt, indicates that his production was not limited to short, low-risk throws.
His 379 passing yards also demonstrate how consistently Tampa Bay generated meaningful gains through the passing game. The Buccaneers finished with 13.1 yards per reception as a team, providing further evidence of their ability to turn completed passes into substantial yardage.
Why Mayfield’s Performance Mattered
Three elements stand out when evaluating Mayfield’s contribution.
- Exceptional accuracy
Mayfield completed nearly nine out of every 10 passes. High completion volume gave Tampa Bay a reliable way to sustain offensive possessions and move the ball downfield.
- Explosive passing production
His 379 yards at 11.5 yards per attempt indicate that Tampa Bay generated considerable value from its completed passes. The offense combined reliability with the ability to gain large chunks of yardage.
- Ball security
Mayfield threw two touchdown passes without an interception. Although he was sacked once for nine yards, he avoided the passing turnovers that can quickly change the direction of a close NFL game.
A quarterback does not need to throw four touchdowns to deliver a winning performance. Mayfield’s combination of passing yardage, accuracy, and ball security helped Tampa Bay produce 38 points.
His performance also highlights an important distinction in football analysis: passing touchdowns are only one measure of quarterback effectiveness. Completion rate, yards per attempt, turnovers, and the ability to support scoring drives all contribute to a more complete evaluation.
Sam Darnold Player Stats: Four Touchdown Passes in a Losing Effort
Sam Darnold produced an impressive statistical performance for Seattle. He completed 28 of 34 attempts for 341 yards and four touchdowns. He also recorded one interception and was not sacked.
Darnold’s passing production was sufficient to keep Seattle’s offense competitive throughout the game. However, the Seahawks still finished three points behind Tampa Bay.
Sam Darnold’s Complete Passing Numbers
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 28 |
| Passing attempts | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 82.4% |
| Passing yards | 341 |
| Yards per attempt | 10.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| ESPN QBR | 96.5 |
| Passer rating | 135.4 |
Darnold completed approximately 82.4% of his attempts, a strong figure that reflects Seattle’s ability to complete passes consistently. His 341 passing yards also show that the Seahawks could move the ball through the air against Tampa Bay.
Four touchdown passes are particularly notable. Darnold accounted for more passing touchdowns than Mayfield, yet Seattle did not win. This illustrates why individual quarterback statistics cannot be interpreted separately from the entire game.
How Darnold Compared With Mayfield
| Passing Statistic | Baker Mayfield | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 29 | 28 |
| Attempts | 33 | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 87.9% | 82.4% |
| Passing yards | 379 | 341 |
| Yards per attempt | 11.5 | 10.0 |
| Touchdown passes | 2 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 0 |
| Passer rating | 134.7 | 135.4 |
| ESPN QBR | 93.4 | 96.5 |
The comparison reveals two different forms of quarterback production.
Mayfield led in passing yardage, completion percentage, and yards per attempt. He also protected the football throughout the game. Darnold, meanwhile, threw four touchdown passes and avoided being sacked.
Darnold’s higher passer rating and QBR in the supplied data did not translate into a victory. These measures summarize aspects of quarterback performance, but they do not independently determine the final score. Team defense, rushing production, kicking, turnovers, and the timing of scoring opportunities all influence the result.
The most useful conclusion is not that one quarterback played poorly. Both produced strong numbers. Mayfield’s cleaner passing performance formed part of a winning effort, while Darnold’s touchdown production helped Seattle remain within striking distance.
Rushing Statistics: Kenneth Walker III Leads Seattle’s Ground Game
The rushing comparison offers another important explanation of the matchup. Seattle recorded 122 rushing yards on 20 attempts, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. Tampa Bay managed 56 yards on 24 attempts, averaging 2.3 yards per carry.
Seattle therefore had a clear advantage in ground production. The Seahawks gained 66 more rushing yards despite carrying the ball four fewer times.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Statistic | Tampa Bay | Seattle |
| Rushing attempts | 24 | 20 |
| Rushing yards | 56 | 122 |
| Average yards per carry | 2.3 | 6.1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Longest run | 12 yards | 31 yards |
Seattle’s advantage came from greater efficiency and a longer explosive run. However, Tampa Bay scored two rushing touchdowns compared with Seattle’s one. This difference shows that rushing yardage and rushing scoring are related but separate measures.
A team can accumulate large rushing totals without converting every possession into a touchdown. Similarly, a team with modest rushing yardage can still score effectively near the goal line.
Rachaad White’s Rushing Performance
Rachaad White led Tampa Bay in rushing attempts and rushing yards.
| Statistic | Rachaad White |
| Carries | 14 |
| Rushing yards | 41 |
| Yards per carry | 2.9 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 |
| Longest run | 12 yards |
White accounted for 41 of Tampa Bay’s 56 rushing yards and scored both of the team’s rushing touchdowns. His average of 2.9 yards per carry was modest, but his touchdown total made his contribution significant.
His performance demonstrates why rushing efficiency must be considered alongside scoring output. White did not produce a large number of yards per attempt, yet he converted rushing opportunities into points.
For Tampa Bay, that scoring contribution helped complement Mayfield’s passing production. A balanced offense does not always require equal yardage from its passing and rushing attacks. It can also mean using each part of the offense for a different purpose.
Other Tampa Bay Rushing Contributors
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Baker Mayfield | 5 | 15 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Sean Tucker | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Kameron Johnson | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Sterling Shepard | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 0 |
Mayfield added 15 rushing yards, providing another way for Tampa Bay to advance the ball. Tucker and Johnson recorded limited rushing production, while Shepard’s rushing attempt resulted in a loss of five yards.
These smaller contributions matter when assessing total offensive output, but they should not overshadow White’s role as the team’s leading rusher.
Kenneth Walker III’s Explosive Production
Kenneth Walker III was Seattle’s leading rusher, finishing with 86 yards on 10 carries.
| Statistic | Kenneth Walker III |
| Carries | 10 |
| Rushing yards | 86 |
| Yards per carry | 8.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 31 yards |
Walker’s average of 8.6 yards per carry was substantially higher than White’s 2.9. His longest run of 31 yards also supplied Seattle with an explosive ground-play contribution.
Walker gained 86 of Seattle’s 122 rushing yards, accounting for approximately 70.5% of the team’s total. His performance gave the Seahawks an effective rushing threat even as Darnold produced heavily through the air.
The key distinction is that Walker generated yardage without recording a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics. Seattle’s other major rushing contributor, Zach Charbonnet, provided the team’s rushing score.
Zach Charbonnet and Seattle’s Supporting Rushers
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Zach Charbonnet | 9 | 36 | 4.0 | 1 |
| Jalen Milroe | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Charbonnet contributed 36 rushing yards and one touchdown on nine attempts. His 4.0-yard average was lower than Walker’s, but he added scoring value to Seattle’s ground game.
The supplied statistics also list one rushing attempt for Jalen Milroe, which produced no yards. The box-score data records a lost fumble for Milroe, a detail that becomes relevant when considering the turnover comparison.
Overall, Seattle’s rushing attack was more efficient. Tampa Bay, however, extracted more rushing touchdowns from its opportunities. That difference helped make the final result possible despite the substantial gap in total rushing yards.
Receiving Statistics: Emeka Egbuka Leads Tampa Bay
The receiving numbers explain much of Tampa Bay’s passing success. Emeka Egbuka led the Buccaneers with 163 receiving yards and one touchdown on seven catches. His average of 23.3 yards per reception was the highest among Tampa Bay’s principal receiving contributors.
Seattle also had a standout receiver in Jaxon Smith-Njigba, who recorded 132 yards and one touchdown on eight receptions.
Emeka Egbuka’s Breakout Receiving Performance
| Statistic | Emeka Egbuka |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Targets | 7 |
| Receiving yards | 163 |
| Yards per reception | 23.3 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 57 yards |
Egbuka’s 163 receiving yards represented approximately 43% of Tampa Bay’s total passing yardage. He also averaged 23.3 yards every time he caught a pass.
These numbers point to a major downfield contribution. Egbuka did not simply accumulate yards through a high volume of short receptions. His longest reception of 57 yards demonstrates the ability to produce substantial gains on individual plays.
His seven catches on seven listed targets also indicate that he converted every recorded target into a reception in the supplied data. That is an exceptional result for a receiver who generated so much yardage.
Egbuka’s performance was especially important because Tampa Bay did not rely on one receiver alone. The Buccaneers distributed the ball to several players, allowing the offense to combine explosive gains with contributions from the tight end, running backs, and other wide receivers.
Tampa Bay’s Leading Receivers
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs |
| Emeka Egbuka | 7 | 7 | 163 | 23.3 | 1 |
| Cade Otton | 4 | 5 | 81 | 20.3 | 0 |
| Tez Johnson | 4 | 4 | 59 | 14.8 | 0 |
| Rachaad White | 4 | 4 | 30 | 7.5 | 0 |
| Chris Godwin Jr. | 3 | 4 | 26 | 8.7 | 0 |
| Sterling Shepard | 4 | 5 | 24 | 6.0 | 1 |
| Sean Tucker | 3 | 3 | -4 | -1.3 | 0 |
Cade Otton was another important contributor, recording four catches for 81 yards. His 20.3 yards per reception was unusually productive for a tight end and gave Tampa Bay another option for gaining significant yardage through the air.
Tez Johnson added 59 yards on four receptions, while Rachaad White contributed 30 receiving yards. Chris Godwin Jr. recorded three catches for 26 yards.
Sterling Shepard finished with 24 receiving yards and one touchdown. His scoring contribution illustrates why receiving yardage alone does not capture every player’s value. A receiver can contribute to the scoreboard even without leading the team in catches or yards.
Sean Tucker recorded three receptions for minus-four yards. Although negative receiving yardage is unusual, it is part of the supplied box-score data and should not be omitted from a complete statistical account.
Tampa Bay’s distribution of production helped make the passing attack difficult to evaluate through a single player. Egbuka was the primary explosive threat, Otton generated substantial yardage, and other contributors provided additional options.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba Leads Seattle’s Receiving Group
Jaxon Smith-Njigba was Seattle’s leading receiver, finishing with 132 yards and a touchdown on eight receptions.
| Statistic | Jaxon Smith-Njigba |
| Receptions | 8 |
| Targets | 8 |
| Receiving yards | 132 |
| Yards per reception | 16.5 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 53 yards |
Smith-Njigba accounted for approximately 38.7% of Seattle’s 341 passing yards. His 16.5 yards per reception showed that he was productive both in terms of catching the ball and gaining yardage after or during receptions.
His longest reception of 53 yards also indicates that Seattle could generate explosive passing plays. The Seahawks were not dependent exclusively on short completions to move downfield.
Smith-Njigba’s production complemented Darnold’s four touchdown passes and helped Seattle maintain a productive passing offense. His statistics were strong enough to make him one of the most influential individual performers in the game, even though Seattle lost.
Seattle’s Leading Receivers
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 8 | 8 | 132 | 16.5 | 1 |
| Cooper Kupp | 6 | 9 | 59 | 9.8 | 0 |
| AJ Barner | 7 | 9 | 53 | 7.6 | 2 |
| Tory Horton | 3 | 7 | 39 | 13.0 | 1 |
| Dareke Young | 1 | 4 | 36 | 36.0 | 0 |
| Zach Charbonnet | 1 | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 1 | 2 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Cooper Kupp recorded six receptions for 59 yards, providing Seattle with a consistent receiving option. AJ Barner had seven catches for 53 yards and two touchdowns, making him an important contributor to the team’s scoring output.
Tory Horton added three receptions for 39 yards and one touchdown. Dareke Young recorded a single catch for 36 yards, demonstrating how a relatively low reception total can still produce a meaningful yardage contribution.
Zach Charbonnet and Elijah Arroyo added 12 and 10 receiving yards, respectively. Kenneth Walker III recorded one reception for no gain.
The most important distinction in Seattle’s receiving group is the variety of contributions. Smith-Njigba led the team in yardage, while Barner led the listed receivers in receiving touchdowns. Kupp supplied additional volume, and Horton contributed another touchdown.
Receiving Comparison Between the Teams
| Team Receiving Statistic | Tampa Bay | Seattle |
| Receptions | 29 | 28 |
| Targets | 32 | 34 |
| Receiving yards | 379 | 341 |
| Yards per reception | 13.1 | 12.2 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 | 4 |
| Longest reception | 57 yards | 53 yards |
Tampa Bay gained 38 more receiving yards and averaged 0.9 more yards per reception. Seattle recorded more receiving touchdowns, with four compared with Tampa Bay’s two.
This difference reinforces a central theme of the matchup: Seattle was particularly productive at turning passing opportunities into touchdowns, while Tampa Bay generated more total passing yardage and combined its receiving production with two rushing touchdowns and three made field goals.
The numbers describe different offensive strengths rather than a simple case of one passing attack dominating every category.
Defensive Player Stats: Lavonte David Makes a Crucial Interception
Although the game featured substantial offensive production, defensive plays still mattered. Tampa Bay recorded one interception, credited to Lavonte David, while Seattle did not record an interception.
The Buccaneers’ defensive statistics also included six passes defended and two quarterback hits. Seattle recorded one sack, six tackles for loss, two quarterback hits, and two passes defended.
Tampa Bay Defensive Statistics
| Defensive Statistic | Result |
| Total tackles | 63 |
| Solo tackles | 32 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 1 |
| Passes defended | 6 |
| Quarterback hits | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 |
Lavonte David led Tampa Bay’s listed defensive performers with nine total tackles, including five solo tackles. He also recorded one tackle for loss, one pass defended, and an interception returned for three yards.
The interception was a significant defensive contribution because it gave Tampa Bay a takeaway in a game where both quarterbacks generated large amounts of passing yardage. Turnovers can be particularly important in close contests because they interrupt an opponent’s possession and can change the number of scoring opportunities available to each team.
The supplied data does not establish the exact point impact of David’s interception, so it would be inaccurate to attribute a specific number of points to the play without reviewing the scoring sequence. Nevertheless, the takeaway was a clear difference in the defensive box score.
Tampa Bay recorded no sacks, which suggests the defense did not generate a sack in the supplied statistical record. It did, however, record six passes defended and two quarterback hits, indicating that the defense still affected passing plays in other ways.
Seattle Defensive Statistics
| Defensive Statistic | Result |
| Total tackles | 71 |
| Solo tackles | 42 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 |
| Passes defended | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 |
Seattle recorded more total tackles and solo tackles than Tampa Bay. The Seahawks also produced six tackles for loss and one sack, compared with Tampa Bay’s one tackle for loss and zero sacks.
Leonard Williams recorded four total tackles, including one solo tackle. His figures form part of Seattle’s broader defensive effort, although the supplied data does not assign him a sack.
Despite generating more tackles for loss, Seattle did not record an interception. The defense also allowed Mayfield to complete 29 passes for 379 yards without a passing turnover.
This illustrates why tackle totals should not be treated as a direct measure of defensive success. A defense may accumulate tackles because it repeatedly brings down opposing players, but the more revealing questions include whether it prevents first downs, forces turnovers, limits explosive plays, and stops scoring opportunities.
In this game, Tampa Bay’s passing efficiency and Egbuka’s explosive production presented a substantial challenge for Seattle’s defense.
Turnovers and Ball Security: A Key Statistical Difference
Turnovers can have an outsized impact in games decided by a field goal. The supplied statistics show one interception by Tampa Bay and none by Seattle, as well as one Seattle fumble lost.
Turnover Summary
| Team | Interceptions Thrown | Fumbles Lost | Recorded Takeaways |
| Tampa Bay | 0 | 0 | 1 interception |
| Seattle | 1 | 1 | 0 interceptions |
The supplied team fumble statistics record no Tampa Bay fumbles lost and one fumble lost by Seattle. Jalen Milroe is credited with the lost fumble in the individual statistics. Tampa Bay’s defensive interception was credited to David.
These figures suggest that Tampa Bay had the cleaner turnover profile. The Buccaneers avoided interceptions and lost fumbles, while Seattle recorded one of each.
There is an important distinction between identifying a statistical difference and claiming it directly determined the final score. The data supports the conclusion that Tampa Bay won the turnover comparison. It does not, on its own, establish precisely how many points resulted from those turnovers.
In a 38-35 game, ball security is especially relevant because one additional possession or one lost scoring opportunity can change the outcome. However, turnover analysis should be combined with efficiency, scoring production, and special teams rather than used as the sole explanation for the result.
Special Teams Statistics: Chase McLaughlin’s Perfect Kicking Day
Special teams supplied another measurable difference between the teams. Tampa Bay kicker Chase McLaughlin made all three field-goal attempts and all three extra-point attempts. Seattle kicker Jason Myers missed his only field-goal attempt but converted all five extra points.
Kicking Comparison
| Statistic | Chase McLaughlin | Jason Myers |
| Field goals made | 3 | 0 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 0% |
| Extra points made | 3 | 5 |
| Extra-point attempts | 3 | 5 |
| Total points | 12 | 5 |
| Longest field goal | 39 yards | Not recorded as made |
McLaughlin scored 12 points through kicking, including nine points from field goals and three from extra points. His perfect field-goal record gave Tampa Bay reliable scoring whenever the offense converted an opportunity into a successful kick.
Myers scored five points through extra points but missed his only field-goal attempt. The contrast is important, although the supplied data does not specify the exact game situation or the potential scoring impact of the missed kick.
A missed field goal does not automatically mean a team would have won if the attempt had been successful. The game’s subsequent sequence of possessions and decisions might have changed. The accurate conclusion is that Tampa Bay received more successful field-goal production from its kicker.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | Riley Dixon, Tampa Bay | Michael Dickson, Seattle |
| Punts | 2 | 1 |
| Total punt yards | 91 | 38 |
| Average | 45.5 yards | 38.0 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 1 |
| Longest punt | 51 yards | 38 yards |
Riley Dixon averaged 45.5 yards per punt, while Michael Dickson averaged 38.0 yards. Both punters placed one punt inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, according to the supplied statistics.
The small number of punts limits the conclusions that can be drawn from this comparison. Still, Dixon’s longer average and 51-yard longest punt indicate a stronger raw distance profile in this particular game.
Kick Returns
| Player or Team | Returns | Return Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| Josh Williams, Tampa Bay | 5 | 129 | 25.8 | 28 |
| Dareke Young, Seattle | 5 | 154 | 30.8 | 50 |
| George Holani, Seattle | 2 | 42 | 21.0 | 24 |
| Seattle team total | 7 | 196 | 28.0 | 50 |
Seattle generated more kick-return yardage, finishing with 196 yards on seven returns. Tampa Bay’s listed returner, Josh Williams, recorded 129 yards on five attempts.
Dareke Young’s 50-yard longest return was the biggest individual return listed in the supplied data. These figures show that Seattle also had an advantage in kick-return production.
However, the game result demonstrates that superior returns alone do not guarantee victory. Kick returns are only one part of field position, and their value depends on where each possession begins, how the offense performs afterward, and whether the team converts the opportunity into points.
Why Tampa Bay Won Despite Seattle’s Rushing Advantage
The central question in this matchup is why Tampa Bay won despite Seattle producing more rushing yards and more passing touchdowns.
The supplied figures point to several complementary factors.
1. Tampa Bay Produced More Passing Yards
Mayfield threw for 379 yards, compared with Darnold’s 341. Tampa Bay also averaged 11.5 yards per passing attempt, while Seattle averaged 10.0.
That difference gave the Buccaneers an advantage in total passing production, even though Seattle recorded more passing touchdowns.
2. Mayfield Avoided Interceptions
Mayfield finished without an interception. Darnold threw one.
Avoiding turnovers helped Tampa Bay maintain a cleaner offensive record. It also meant that Mayfield’s substantial passing output did not come with the same interception cost recorded in Seattle’s quarterback statistics.
3. Tampa Bay Converted Rushing Opportunities Into Touchdowns
White scored two rushing touchdowns, while Seattle’s rushing attack recorded one through Charbonnet.
Seattle was more efficient between the tackles and on longer runs, but Tampa Bay generated more rushing scores. That distinction is especially important when analyzing the difference between yardage and scoring.
4. The Buccaneers Made All Three Field Goals
McLaughlin converted every field-goal attempt. Myers missed his only attempt.
Tampa Bay’s nine field-goal points provided an additional source of scoring beyond touchdowns. In a three-point game, successful kicking is a relevant part of the overall explanation, although the precise impact of the missed Seattle attempt depends on the circumstances of the play.
5. Tampa Bay Recorded the Only Interception
David’s interception gave the Buccaneers a takeaway that Seattle did not match with an interception of its own.
The supplied fumble statistics also record a Seattle fumble lost. Together, the turnover figures favor Tampa Bay.
6. Tampa Bay’s Receivers Generated More Total Yardage
Egbuka’s 163 yards and Otton’s 81 yards were major contributions to Tampa Bay’s 379 passing yards. Seattle’s leading receiver, Smith-Njigba, recorded 132 yards.
Seattle’s receiving group scored more touchdowns, but Tampa Bay’s passing game gained more yards overall and maintained a higher average per reception.
The strongest interpretation is that Tampa Bay combined passing efficiency, rushing touchdowns, clean quarterback play, successful field goals, and a takeaway. Seattle produced several impressive individual statistics but did not outperform Tampa Bay in every area that contributes to the final score.
Statistical Comparison: Which Team Controlled the Game?
A closer look at the major statistical categories shows that the game was competitive because the teams excelled in different areas. Tampa Bay was more productive through the air and more successful on field goals, while Seattle gained more yards on the ground and recorded more passing touchdowns.
Key Team and Player Comparisons
| Category | Tampa Bay Buccaneers | Seattle Seahawks | Advantage |
| Final score | 38 | 35 | Tampa Bay |
| Passing yards | 379 | 341 | Tampa Bay |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 4 | Seattle |
| Rushing yards | 56 | 122 | Seattle |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 | 1 | Tampa Bay |
| Receiving yards | 379 | 341 | Tampa Bay |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 | 4 | Seattle |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 0 | Tampa Bay |
| Field goals made | 3 | 0 | Tampa Bay |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 0% | Tampa Bay |
| Kick-return yards | 129 | 196 | Seattle |
| Longest listed reception | 57 yards | 53 yards | Tampa Bay |
| Longest rushing attempt | 12 yards | 31 yards | Seattle |
This comparison shows why it is misleading to identify a single statistic as the reason for the result. Seattle was more productive in several categories, including rushing yards, passing touchdowns, and kick returns. Tampa Bay, however, led in final points, passing yardage, rushing touchdowns, and field-goal production.
The most meaningful distinction is the combination of these categories. Seattle’s ability to generate explosive plays helped keep the score close, but Tampa Bay’s more efficient passing performance and successful kicking contributed to its narrow victory.
The comparison also highlights the difference between statistical volume and scoring efficiency. A team may gain more yards in one phase without generating enough additional points to overcome its opponent.
Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis of the 38-35 Result
The scoring pattern offers a useful view of how the game developed. Tampa Bay scored in every quarter, while Seattle was held scoreless in the first period before finding its rhythm.
First Quarter: Tampa Bay Takes the Early Lead
Tampa Bay scored three points in the opening quarter, while Seattle recorded zero. The early advantage gave the Buccaneers a narrow lead without creating a large gap between the teams.
An opening-quarter lead can influence how an offense approaches later possessions. A team that falls behind may become more aggressive, while the leading team can continue using the approaches that have already produced points.
The available quarter scores confirm Tampa Bay’s early advantage, but they do not provide enough detail to identify every drive, play call, or scoring sequence. Any more specific description would require the full play-by-play record.
Second Quarter: The Buccaneers Extend Their Advantage
Tampa Bay added 10 points in the second quarter, compared with seven for Seattle. The Buccaneers therefore entered halftime with a 13-7 lead based on the supplied quarter totals.
The second-quarter scoring difference was modest, but it added to Tampa Bay’s opening advantage. Seattle remained within one touchdown, leaving plenty of room for the game to change after halftime.
Mayfield’s overall passing production and White’s two rushing touchdowns illustrate the different ways Tampa Bay scored throughout the contest. The supplied data does not identify which exact touchdowns occurred in each quarter, so individual scoring events should not be assigned to a particular period without further verification.
Third Quarter: Both Offenses Find More Points
The third quarter was the highest-scoring period for Tampa Bay. The Buccaneers added 15 points, while Seattle scored 14.
Tampa Bay’s lead remained important, but Seattle’s scoring response demonstrated that the Seahawks could keep pace. The quarter totals also show why a three-point final margin should not be interpreted as evidence that one offense consistently controlled every possession.
Both teams had the ability to produce points in the second half. The final outcome depended on their cumulative scoring across all four quarters.
Fourth Quarter: Seattle’s Late Push Falls Short
Seattle scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Tampa Bay added 10. The Seahawks outscored the Buccaneers in the final period but still lost by three points.
That outcome is one of the clearest lessons from the scoring table. Winning the final quarter does not guarantee winning the game. The earlier periods matter just as much, and Tampa Bay’s 13-7 halftime lead and 15-point third-quarter performance formed part of the foundation for its victory.
The available figures establish the fourth-quarter scoring difference, but they do not provide the clock times, possession sequence, or exact final-play details. Those elements should not be invented when explaining how the game ended.
The Most Important Individual Performances
Several players stand out when the box score is evaluated across passing, rushing, receiving, defense, and special teams.
Baker Mayfield: The Winning Quarterback
Mayfield’s 379 passing yards, two touchdowns, and zero interceptions gave Tampa Bay an outstanding statistical foundation. His 87.9% completion rate and 11.5 yards per attempt show that he combined accuracy with meaningful yardage.
His contribution was not simply about accumulating passing yards. He also avoided an interception while helping lead an offense that scored 38 points.
The absence of a passing turnover is particularly important in a contest decided by three points. Although it is impossible to determine from the supplied statistics exactly how much that factor changed the result, ball security was a clear advantage for Tampa Bay.
Emeka Egbuka: Tampa Bay’s Most Productive Receiver
Egbuka’s seven catches for 163 yards and one touchdown made him the Buccaneers’ leading receiver. His 57-yard longest reception demonstrates the explosive potential of Tampa Bay’s passing game.
He also generated those yards on seven listed targets, meaning his reception total matched his target total in the supplied data.
For readers comparing receiving performances, the combination of total yards, yards per reception, targets, and touchdowns provides a more complete assessment than any single number. Egbuka was productive in all the major categories relevant to his role.
Rachaad White: A Valuable Scoring Contributor
White’s 41 rushing yards were not a large total compared with Walker’s 86, but White scored twice on the ground.
His performance is a useful reminder that rushing statistics should be evaluated in context. A running back can have a modest average and still make a major contribution if those carries produce touchdowns.
White also added 30 receiving yards on four catches, giving him 71 combined rushing and receiving yards in the supplied statistics.
Sam Darnold: Four Touchdowns and 341 Passing Yards
Darnold’s four touchdown passes were a major part of Seattle’s offensive output. He completed 28 passes for 341 yards, averaged 10.0 yards per attempt, and was not sacked.
His interception was the primary negative item in the supplied passing line. Nevertheless, the overall numbers show that he delivered a productive performance in a game Seattle narrowly lost.
It would be inaccurate to label Darnold’s performance poor simply because the Seahawks lost. Individual production and team results are related, but they are not interchangeable.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba: Seattle’s Leading Receiver
Smith-Njigba gained 132 yards on eight receptions and scored one touchdown. His 53-yard longest reception shows that he supplied Seattle with an explosive receiving threat.
He finished 31 yards behind Egbuka in receiving yardage. Both receivers had important roles in their respective passing attacks, but Egbuka’s larger yardage total gave Tampa Bay the stronger individual receiving performance by that measure.
Kenneth Walker III: Seattle’s Rushing Standout
Walker recorded 86 rushing yards on 10 carries, averaging 8.6 yards per attempt. His 31-yard longest run was the biggest listed rushing gain in the game.
He was Seattle’s leading rusher by a substantial margin, accounting for roughly seven out of every 10 team rushing yards.
Walker did not record a rushing touchdown, but his ability to generate yardage helped balance Seattle’s passing attack and gave the Seahawks a productive option on the ground.
Lavonte David: The Defensive Difference
David recorded nine total tackles, five solo tackles, one tackle for loss, one pass defended, and one interception.
His interception stands out because Seattle did not record one. In a close game with high offensive production, the ability to create a turnover can be an important advantage.
David’s statistics show contributions beyond the takeaway, including his tackle total and pass defense. His overall performance was one of the most notable defensive efforts recorded in the supplied box score.
Chase McLaughlin: Reliable Scoring Through Kicking
McLaughlin converted three field goals and three extra points. His 12 kicking points were the highest total listed for either kicker.
His perfect field-goal record contrasts with Myers’ missed attempt. Although the exact point swing cannot be established without a full review of the game situation, McLaughlin’s successful kicks were a clear component of Tampa Bay’s scoring performance.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Tampa Bay’s Offense
Tampa Bay’s offensive numbers reveal an approach built around efficient passing and useful contributions from multiple players.
The Buccaneers threw for 379 yards, completed 29 of 33 attempts, and averaged 11.5 yards per attempt. Those figures suggest that the passing game combined a high completion rate with substantial yardage per attempt.
Egbuka was the leading explosive receiver, while Otton added 81 yards. Tez Johnson, Godwin, Shepard, and White also contributed receptions.
This distribution matters because an offense that can generate yardage through several receivers gives a defense more players to account for. The numbers do not establish the exact coverage schemes Seattle used, but they show that Tampa Bay’s passing production was not restricted to one receiver.
The rushing game was less efficient overall. Tampa Bay averaged just 2.3 yards per carry, compared with Seattle’s 6.1. Yet White recorded two rushing touchdowns.
That combination suggests a distinction between the Buccaneers’ methods of gaining yards and scoring. Their passing attack generated substantial yardage, while White provided valuable rushing production in scoring situations.
The kicking numbers add another layer. McLaughlin converted all three field goals, allowing Tampa Bay to collect points from field-goal attempts as well as touchdowns.
Taken together, these figures show that Tampa Bay did not need to dominate every offensive category to win. The team generated strong passing production, received scoring contributions from its running back, and converted its field-goal opportunities.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Seattle’s Offense
Seattle’s offense was productive in both the passing and rushing games. Darnold threw four touchdown passes and completed 28 of 34 attempts, while Walker averaged 8.6 yards per carry.
The Seahawks also distributed receiving production across several players. Smith-Njigba gained 132 yards, Kupp recorded 59, and Barner added 53 yards and two touchdowns. Horton contributed another touchdown.
These numbers indicate that Seattle could move the ball through multiple offensive channels. Its passing attack produced four touchdowns, and its rushing attack generated more than 120 yards.
However, offensive yardage and touchdown totals do not reveal every aspect of possession efficiency. A complete analysis would also consider third-down conversions, red-zone efficiency, total possessions, time of possession, and penalties. Those figures are not included in the supplied data.
The turnover figures also deserve attention. Darnold threw one interception, and Seattle recorded one lost fumble. These mistakes are relevant in a close game because they can remove offensive opportunities or provide the opponent with additional possession.
Seattle’s missed field goal is another confirmed difference. Myers converted all five extra points but did not make his only field-goal attempt.
The strongest conclusion is that Seattle’s offense performed well enough to score 35 points, but its overall production did not exceed Tampa Bay’s. The Seahawks’ passing touchdowns and rushing efficiency were impressive, yet Tampa Bay’s combined offensive and special-teams output proved sufficient for victory.
How to Read NFL Player Statistics Correctly
For readers researching a specific matchup, a box score is most useful when the numbers are interpreted together rather than treated as isolated achievements.
Passing Yards Versus Passing Touchdowns
Passing yards measure the distance gained through completed passes, while passing touchdowns record scoring plays credited to the quarterback.
Mayfield’s 379 yards exceeded Darnold’s 341, but Darnold threw four touchdown passes compared with Mayfield’s two. Both figures are important because they describe different aspects of quarterback production.
A quarterback can gain many yards without throwing many touchdowns, particularly when the offense scores through rushing plays or field goals. Conversely, a quarterback can throw multiple touchdown passes without leading the game in total yardage.
Yards Per Attempt
Yards per attempt divide a quarterback’s passing yardage by his attempts. It helps readers compare passing efficiency while accounting for differences in passing volume.
Mayfield averaged 11.5 yards per attempt, while Darnold averaged 10.0. This suggests that Tampa Bay gained more passing yardage per attempt during the game.
Yards per attempt does not independently measure quarterback quality. It should be read alongside completion percentage, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and the broader game situation.
Yards Per Carry
Yards per carry show the average yardage gained per rushing attempt. Walker’s 8.6-yard average was significantly higher than White’s 2.9.
However, an average can be influenced by a small number of long runs. Walker’s 31-yard longest attempt was a substantial contribution to his total, while White’s longest run was 12 yards.
A more complete rushing analysis would consider the number of attempts, longest runs, touchdowns, and consistency across carries. These figures help distinguish a player who repeatedly gains short yardage from one whose production includes explosive runs.
Receiving Yards and Targets
Receiving yards show how much yardage a receiver gained, while targets indicate how often the quarterback directed a pass toward that player.
Egbuka finished with 163 yards on seven targets in the supplied statistics. Smith-Njigba recorded 132 yards on eight targets.
These totals demonstrate the importance of combining volume and efficiency. A receiver who gains substantial yardage on a limited number of targets may have a different role from one who catches many short passes.
Receiving touchdowns also deserve separate consideration because the player who gains the most yards is not necessarily the player who scores the most touchdowns.
Defensive Statistics
Tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and interceptions each describe a different part of defensive performance.
Seattle recorded more tackles and tackles for loss, while Tampa Bay recorded the only interception. These figures show that defensive success cannot be summarized by tackle totals alone.
For a fuller assessment, readers should also consider points allowed, yards allowed, turnovers, opponent conversion rates, and the circumstances of important defensive plays.
Special Teams Statistics
Field goals, extra points, punts, and returns can influence the outcome even when the main offensive categories are close.
McLaughlin’s three made field goals and Myers’ missed attempt are particularly relevant in this matchup. Kick-return yardage also favored Seattle, illustrating that the special-teams comparison was not one-sided in every category.
A careful reader should distinguish the confirmed statistics from interpretations about their impact. The numbers establish what happened statistically; the full play-by-play record provides the context needed to explain exactly when and how those events affected the game.
Official Box Score and Statistical Verification
The statistics discussed in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the October 5, 2025, game. Readers who need to verify individual player figures, review the official game record, or examine additional details can consult the official ESPN box score for Buccaneers vs. Seahawks.
For accurate statistical reporting, it is important to distinguish confirmed box-score information from interpretation. The final score, player totals, and quarter scores are presented as supplied. Explanations of why those numbers mattered are analytical interpretations, not claims about unverified play calls or scoring sequences.
The supplied data does not contain every team-level metric, including a complete comparison of first downs, third-down efficiency, total plays, penalties, or time of possession. Those categories should not be assigned invented values. A detailed article can still explain the major statistical differences while being transparent about the information available.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Seahawks game on October 5, 2025?
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers defeated the Seattle Seahawks 38-35 in their NFL regular-season matchup on October 5, 2025. Tampa Bay scored 13 points in the first half and 25 in the second half, while Seattle scored seven before halftime and 28 afterward.
2. How many passing yards did Baker Mayfield record against Seattle?
Baker Mayfield completed 29 of 33 passes for 379 yards and two touchdowns. He threw no interceptions and recorded a 134.7 passer rating, according to the supplied box-score data.
3. How many touchdowns did Sam Darnold throw against the Buccaneers?
Sam Darnold threw four touchdown passes for Seattle. He completed 28 of 34 attempts for 341 yards and one interception. Despite his four passing touchdowns, the Seahawks lost by three points.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the Buccaneers vs Seahawks game?
Emeka Egbuka led all listed receivers with 163 receiving yards on seven receptions for Tampa Bay. He averaged 23.3 yards per reception and recorded one receiving touchdown. Seattle’s leading receiver was Jaxon Smith-Njigba, who gained 132 yards on eight catches and scored once.
5. Which running back had the most rushing yards in the game?
Kenneth Walker III led all listed players with 86 rushing yards on 10 carries. He averaged 8.6 yards per carry, with a longest run of 31 yards. Tampa Bay’s leading rusher, Rachaad White, recorded 41 rushing yards and two touchdowns.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between Tampa Bay and Seattle?
Tampa Bay gained more passing yards, made all three of its field goals, and recorded the only interception. Seattle gained more rushing yards and recorded more passing touchdowns. The Buccaneers combined their passing production, rushing scores, successful field goals, and cleaner turnover record to secure the 38-35 victory.
Conclusion
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Seahawks match player stats reveal how two productive offenses produced a close, high-scoring NFL contest on October 5, 2025. Tampa Bay won 38-35, but Seattle performed well in several major statistical categories.
Baker Mayfield completed 29 of 33 passes for 379 yards and two touchdowns without an interception. Emeka Egbuka led the Buccaneers with 163 receiving yards, while Rachaad White contributed two rushing touchdowns. Chase McLaughlin also made all three field goals, providing Tampa Bay with reliable scoring from special teams.
Seattle’s strongest performances came from Sam Darnold, who threw four touchdown passes for 341 yards, Kenneth Walker III, who gained 86 rushing yards, and Jaxon Smith-Njigba, who recorded 132 receiving yards. The Seahawks also gained 122 rushing yards as a team, substantially more than Tampa Bay’s 56.
Despite those advantages, Seattle finished three points behind. Tampa Bay’s passing efficiency, rushing touchdowns, successful field goals, and interception advantage help explain the result. Seattle’s offensive production kept the game competitive, but its statistical strengths in rushing and passing touchdowns did not translate into a higher final score.
The key lesson from this matchup is that individual statistics become more meaningful when evaluated together. Passing yards, rushing efficiency, touchdowns, turnovers, and kicking performance each provide part of the explanation. Looking at the complete picture offers a more accurate understanding of the game than relying on the final score or a single player’s numbers.
