Colts vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The colts vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats from November 2, 2025, tell the story of a close game decided by turnovers, defensive pressure, and Pittsburgh’s ability to finish drives. The Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Indianapolis Colts 27-20, despite Indianapolis producing more passing yards and strong performances from several of its receivers.
Indianapolis entered the game with a 7-2 record, including a 2-2 mark on the road. Pittsburgh was 5-3 overall and 3-2 at home. The final seven-point margin does not fully explain how the game unfolded. Indianapolis moved the ball through the air, but three interceptions and three lost fumbles created too many opportunities for Pittsburgh.
For anyone studying the box score, this matchup is a useful example of why raw yardage does not always determine the winner. Daniel Jones threw for 342 yards, while Aaron Rodgers finished with 203 passing yards. Yet Rodgers protected the football, and Pittsburgh’s defense generated five sacks and three interceptions.
This article breaks down the major player performances, team statistics, passing numbers, rushing production, receiving results, defensive impact, special teams, and the factors that ultimately shaped the 27-20 Steelers victory.
Colts vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats Overview
The colts vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats show a sharp contrast between offensive volume and offensive efficiency.
Indianapolis generated 342 passing yards and 55 rushing yards for 397 total offensive yards. Pittsburgh produced 203 passing yards and 38 rushing yards for 241 total yards.
At first glance, Indianapolis appears to have had the stronger offense. The Colts also recorded 31 receptions compared with Pittsburgh’s 25. However, Pittsburgh’s defense made the critical plays when possession changed hands.
The Steelers recorded:
- 3 interceptions
- 5 sacks
- 13 passes defended
- 6 quarterback hits
- 74 total tackles
- 42 solo tackles
Indianapolis recorded:
- 3 sacks
- 6 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 4 quarterback hits
- 71 total tackles
- 37 solo tackles
The biggest statistical difference was turnovers. Indianapolis lost three fumbles and threw three interceptions. Pittsburgh lost one fumble and threw no interceptions.
That turnover margin gave the Steelers a major advantage even though the Colts gained significantly more passing yards.
Final Score
| Team | Score |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 27 |
| Indianapolis Colts | 20 |
The seven-point difference makes this look like a relatively tight contest. The individual statistics provide more context.
Team Records
| Team | Record | Home/Away Record |
| Indianapolis Colts | 7-2 | 2-2 Away |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 5-3 | 3-2 Home |
The result improved Pittsburgh’s position while giving Indianapolis its second loss of the season.
Daniel Jones Passing Performance
Daniel Jones was one of the busiest players in the game.
The Indianapolis quarterback completed 31 of 50 passes for 342 yards and one touchdown. He also threw three interceptions and was sacked five times for 29 yards.
His official passer rating was 63.9.
| Statistic | Daniel Jones |
| Completions | 31 |
| Attempts | 50 |
| Completion Rate | 62.0% |
| Passing Yards | 342 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 3 |
| Sacks | 5 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 29 |
| Passer Rating | 63.9 |
The 342 passing yards stand out immediately. Jones moved the ball through the air and connected repeatedly with Indianapolis receivers.
However, the three interceptions were costly. A quarterback can accumulate large passing numbers while still struggling to protect possessions. That was the central issue in Jones’s performance.
His 31 completions also show that Indianapolis was not completely stagnant offensively. The problem was that several promising drives did not end with points.
The five sacks added another layer to the difficulty. Pittsburgh’s front seven consistently pressured Jones and made it harder for Indianapolis to maintain clean offensive possessions.
From a box-score perspective, Jones had a high-volume statistical game. From a game-management perspective, the interceptions and sacks significantly reduced the value of those passing yards.
Aaron Rodgers Passing Performance
Aaron Rodgers had a very different statistical profile.
The Pittsburgh quarterback completed 25 of 35 passes for 203 yards and one touchdown. He did not throw an interception and was sacked three times for 16 yards.
His passer rating was 95.3.
| Statistic | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 35 |
| Completion Rate | 71.4% |
| Passing Yards | 203 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 3 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 16 |
| Passer Rating | 95.3 |
Rodgers attempted 15 fewer passes than Jones but avoided the turnover problems that affected Indianapolis.
His 71.4% completion rate was also higher than Jones’s 62.0%.
The key point is not that Rodgers produced more yardage. He did not. The important difference was that Pittsburgh got productive quarterback play without giving Indianapolis extra possessions through interceptions.
Rodgers finished with a 95.3 rating, compared with Jones’s 63.9. That difference reflects the value of completion efficiency, touchdown production, and, most importantly, avoiding interceptions.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
The quarterback comparison is one of the most revealing parts of the game.
| Category | Daniel Jones | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 31 | 25 |
| Attempts | 50 | 35 |
| Completion % | 62.0% | 71.4% |
| Passing Yards | 342 | 203 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 3 | 0 |
| Sacks | 5 | 3 |
| Sack Yards | 29 | 16 |
| Passer Rating | 63.9 | 95.3 |
Jones had 139 more passing yards.
Rodgers had three fewer interceptions.
That difference is central to understanding the final score.
The game demonstrates why passing yardage should never be examined alone. Turnovers can erase the advantage created by high offensive volume. Pittsburgh’s defense repeatedly turned pressure into possession changes, while Rodgers protected the ball well enough to keep the Steelers in control of the game’s most important moments.
Jonathan Taylor’s Rushing Numbers
Jonathan Taylor led Indianapolis in the supplied rushing statistics.
He carried the ball 14 times for 45 yards, averaging 3.2 yards per carry. His longest run went for nine yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown.
| Statistic | Jonathan Taylor |
| Carries | 14 |
| Rushing Yards | 45 |
| Average | 3.2 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 |
| Longest Run | 9 |
Taylor’s 45 yards represented the majority of Indianapolis’s individual rushing production.
However, the Colts finished with only 55 rushing yards as a team. That means Indianapolis struggled to create consistent production on the ground outside Taylor’s contribution.
The team averaged 2.9 yards per carry and scored one rushing touchdown.
That limited rushing output placed more responsibility on Jones and the passing attack. Indianapolis responded with 342 passing yards, but the increased passing volume also gave Pittsburgh more opportunities to generate pressure and create turnovers.
Jaylen Warren Leads Pittsburgh’s Rushing Attack
Jaylen Warren provided Pittsburgh’s most important rushing contribution.
He carried the ball 16 times for 31 yards. His average was only 1.9 yards per carry, and his longest run reached eight yards.
The important statistic was touchdowns.
Warren scored two rushing touchdowns.
| Statistic | Jaylen Warren |
| Carries | 16 |
| Rushing Yards | 31 |
| Average | 1.9 |
| Rushing TDs | 2 |
| Longest Run | 8 |
Warren’s average was not impressive, but his scoring impact was significant.
This is another example of why averages should be viewed alongside situational production. A 1.9-yard average does not tell the complete story when a running back converts opportunities into touchdowns.
Pittsburgh finished with 38 rushing yards as a team, meaning Warren accounted for most of the team’s rushing yardage.
The Steelers averaged only 1.7 yards per carry as a team. Yet they still scored two rushing touchdowns.
Rushing Comparison
| Category | Indianapolis | Pittsburgh |
| Team Carries | 19 | 23 |
| Rushing Yards | 55 | 38 |
| Average | 2.9 | 1.7 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 2 |
| Longest Run | 9 | 8 |
Indianapolis had 17 more rushing yards.
Pittsburgh had one more rushing touchdown.
Again, the scoreboard favored the team that converted its opportunities more effectively.
Alec Pierce’s Receiving Performance
Alec Pierce was one of Indianapolis’s biggest receiving threats.
He caught six passes for 115 yards. His average was 19.2 yards per reception, and his longest reception covered 36 yards.
Pierce received 13 targets.
| Statistic | Alec Pierce |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Receiving Yards | 115 |
| Average | 19.2 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 36 |
| Targets | 13 |
Pierce’s 115 yards came on six receptions, giving him one of the strongest efficiency profiles among Indianapolis receivers.
His 36-yard long reception shows his ability to create chunk plays. However, those explosive gains did not translate into a touchdown.
The 13 targets also demonstrate how heavily Indianapolis involved him in the passing game.
Michael Pittman Jr. Provides Volume
Michael Pittman Jr. also finished with 115 receiving yards.
He caught nine passes on 12 targets, averaging 12.8 yards per reception. His longest reception was 21 yards.
| Statistic | Michael Pittman Jr. |
| Receptions | 9 |
| Receiving Yards | 115 |
| Average | 12.8 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 21 |
| Targets | 12 |
Pittman’s nine receptions were the highest total among the listed Indianapolis receivers.
His production was based more on volume than Pierce’s. Pierce averaged 19.2 yards per catch, while Pittman averaged 12.8.
Together, Pierce and Pittman accounted for 230 receiving yards.
That is a major portion of Indianapolis’s 342 receiving yards.
Josh Downs Adds a Touchdown
Josh Downs finished with six receptions for 57 yards and one touchdown.
He averaged 9.5 yards per reception and recorded a longest reception of 17 yards.
Downs received nine targets.
| Statistic | Josh Downs |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Receiving Yards | 57 |
| Average | 9.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 17 |
| Targets | 9 |
Downs was the only listed Indianapolis receiver with a receiving touchdown.
His six catches provided consistent involvement, while his touchdown gave Indianapolis an important scoring contribution through the air.
Indianapolis Receiving Summary
The Colts finished with 31 receptions for 342 yards, an 11.0-yard average, one touchdown, and 48 targets.
| Player | Rec | Yards | Avg | TD | Long | Targets |
| Alec Pierce | 6 | 115 | 19.2 | 0 | 36 | 13 |
| Michael Pittman Jr. | 9 | 115 | 12.8 | 0 | 21 | 12 |
| Josh Downs | 6 | 57 | 9.5 | 1 | 17 | 9 |
| Team | 31 | 342 | 11.0 | 1 | 36 | 48 |
The numbers show a passing attack capable of producing yardage.
The issue was not a lack of receiving production. The larger problem was the combination of interceptions, sacks, and lost fumbles.
Pittsburgh Receiving Leaders
Pittsburgh’s passing game was more modest statistically.
The Steelers recorded 25 receptions for 203 yards, averaging 8.1 yards per reception. They scored one receiving touchdown on 35 targets.
Calvin Austin III led the listed Pittsburgh receivers with 56 yards.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Avg | TD | Long | Targets |
| Calvin Austin III | 5 | 56 | 11.2 | 0 | 18 | 6 |
| Darnell Washington | 4 | 43 | 10.8 | 0 | 13 | 6 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 4 | 35 | 8.8 | 0 | 16 | 5 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 3 | 27 | 9.0 | 1 | 12 | 4 |
| Team | 25 | 203 | 8.1 | 1 | 18 | 35 |
The distribution was relatively balanced.
No listed Pittsburgh receiver approached the 100-yard mark, but the offense did not need one player to dominate the box score.
The Steelers instead combined modest passing production with defensive turnovers and rushing touchdowns.
Calvin Austin III’s Contribution
Calvin Austin III recorded five receptions for 56 yards.
He averaged 11.2 yards per reception and had an 18-yard long reception.
He was targeted six times.
Austin was Pittsburgh’s leading listed receiver in total yardage. While his numbers were not enormous, he provided consistent production within an offense that finished with 203 passing yards.
Darnell Washington’s Receiving Numbers
Darnell Washington caught four passes for 43 yards.
His 10.8-yard average was close to Austin’s figure, and his longest reception went for 13 yards.
Washington received six targets.
The performance helped Pittsburgh maintain balance across its receiving options rather than relying heavily on one player.
Kenny Gainwell’s Receiving Role
Kenny Gainwell caught four passes for 35 yards.
He averaged 8.8 yards per reception and recorded a 16-yard longest reception.
Gainwell was targeted five times.
His production added another option to Pittsburgh’s passing attack and helped contribute to the team’s 25 total receptions.
Pat Freiermuth Scores Through the Air
Pat Freiermuth caught three passes for 27 yards and one touchdown.
His average was 9.0 yards per reception, with a 12-yard longest reception.
He was targeted four times.
| Statistic | Pat Freiermuth |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Yards | 27 |
| Average | 9.0 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 12 |
| Targets | 4 |
Freiermuth’s biggest contribution was his touchdown.
That scoring play helped Pittsburgh convert its offensive opportunities into points despite producing fewer passing yards than Indianapolis.
Turnovers Were the Defining Statistical Factor
The turnover numbers are arguably the most important part of the colts vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats.
Indianapolis recorded four team fumbles and lost three of them.
Pittsburgh recorded one team fumble and lost one.
The Colts also threw three interceptions.
Pittsburgh threw none.
| Turnover Category | Indianapolis | Pittsburgh |
| Team Fumbles | 4 | 1 |
| Fumbles Lost | 3 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 3 | 0 |
| Total Listed Turnover Losses | 6 | 1 |
This is a huge difference.
Indianapolis gave Pittsburgh six possession-changing mistakes according to the supplied fumble and interception figures, while Pittsburgh recorded one lost fumble and no interceptions.
That turnover imbalance explains why the final result did not match the yardage advantage.
Pittsburgh’s Three Interceptions
Pittsburgh recorded three interceptions.
The defensive players credited with the interceptions were:
- Payton Wilson: 1 interception, 17 return yards
- Jack Sawyer: 1 interception, 4 return yards
- Joey Porter Jr.: 1 interception, 0 return yards
The Steelers finished with 21 interception return yards and no interception return touchdowns.
The importance of these plays goes beyond return yardage.
An interception immediately ends the opposing offense’s possession and gives the defense a chance to create points. Even without a defensive touchdown, three interceptions can dramatically change field position and momentum.
Pittsburgh’s Defensive Pressure
The Steelers recorded five sacks compared with Indianapolis’s three.
They also registered:
- 74 total tackles
- 42 solo tackles
- 5 tackles for loss
- 13 passes defended
- 6 quarterback hits
Indianapolis recorded:
- 71 total tackles
- 37 solo tackles
- 6 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 4 quarterback hits
- 3 sacks
The most obvious difference is pass defense.
Pittsburgh recorded 13 passes defended, more than four times Indianapolis’s total of three.
That number, combined with three interceptions, shows how active the Steelers defense was against the passing game.
The five sacks also helped disrupt Jones’s rhythm.
For readers analyzing quarterback performance, this defensive context matters. A quarterback’s statistics cannot be separated completely from the pressure and coverage he faces.
Comparing the Defenses
| Defensive Category | Indianapolis | Pittsburgh |
| Total Tackles | 71 | 74 |
| Solo Tackles | 37 | 42 |
| Sacks | 3 | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 6 | 5 |
| Passes Defended | 3 | 13 |
| QB Hits | 4 | 6 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 3 |
The Steelers had the stronger statistical performance in several high-impact categories.
Indianapolis recorded one more tackle for loss, but Pittsburgh dominated in interceptions, sacks, passes defended, and quarterback hits.
Those are precisely the types of defensive plays that can decide a close game.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams did not dominate the box score, but both teams had productive moments.
Indianapolis kick returner Ameer Abdullah recorded three returns for 74 yards, averaging 24.7 yards per return. His longest return was 27 yards.
Pittsburgh’s Ke’Shawn Williams also had three kick returns for 74 yards, averaging 24.7 yards per return. His longest return reached 30 yards.
Kick Returns
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Ameer Abdullah | 3 | 74 | 24.7 | 27 |
| Ke’Shawn Williams | 3 | 74 | 24.7 | 30 |
The return yardage was identical, although Williams recorded the longer individual return.
Punt Return Statistics
Josh Downs returned three punts for Indianapolis.
He finished with 23 punt return yards and averaged 7.7 yards per return. His longest return was 12 yards.
Ke’Shawn Williams returned two punts for Pittsburgh.
He also had 23 total punt return yards, but his average was higher at 11.5 yards per return. His longest return was 15 yards.
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Josh Downs | 3 | 23 | 7.7 | 12 |
| Ke’Shawn Williams | 2 | 23 | 11.5 | 15 |
Both players finished with the same total return yardage.
Williams needed one fewer return to reach that total.
Kicking Comparison
Michael Badgley was perfect for Indianapolis.
He made two of two field-goal attempts and both extra-point attempts. His longest field goal was 53 yards, and he scored eight points.
Chris Boswell was also perfect for Pittsburgh.
He made two of two field goals and three of three extra points. His longest field goal was 46 yards, and he scored nine points.
| Category | Michael Badgley | Chris Boswell |
| Field Goals | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| FG Percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Long FG | 53 | 46 |
| Extra Points | 2/2 | 3/3 |
| Points | 8 | 9 |
Both kickers delivered without a missed attempt.
Badgley’s 53-yard field goal was the longer successful kick, while Boswell scored one more total point because Pittsburgh scored three touchdowns compared with Indianapolis’s two.
Punting Statistics
Rigoberto Sanchez punted twice for Indianapolis.
He recorded 110 total punt yards, averaging 55.0 yards per punt. One punt landed inside the 20-yard line, and his longest punt was 57 yards.
Pittsburgh’s Corliss Waitman punted five times for 252 yards.
He averaged 50.4 yards per punt, had two punts inside the 20, and recorded a long punt of 67 yards.
| Category | Rigoberto Sanchez | Corliss Waitman |
| Punts | 2 | 5 |
| Punt Yards | 110 | 252 |
| Average | 55.0 | 50.4 |
| Inside 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Long | 57 | 67 |
The punting numbers also provide insight into the game flow.
Pittsburgh punted five times compared with Indianapolis’s two. That indicates the Steelers had more possessions that ended without scores or turnovers, while Indianapolis converted more of its drives into offensive yardage.
Yet Pittsburgh’s defense repeatedly compensated by creating turnovers.
Why Indianapolis Lost Despite 342 Passing Yards
The most important question from the game is simple.
How did Indianapolis lose after gaining so much through the air?
The answer is turnovers and defensive efficiency.
Indianapolis produced 342 passing yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 203. The Colts also had 55 rushing yards compared with 38 for the Steelers.
That gives Indianapolis a combined 397 yards from passing and rushing, while Pittsburgh had 241.
Despite that 156-yard difference, Pittsburgh won by seven points.
The explanation is that not all yards carry the same value.
A 20-yard completion that ends with an interception is less valuable than a 10-yard completion that keeps a scoring drive alive.
Indianapolis’s three interceptions were particularly damaging because they ended possessions immediately.
The three lost fumbles added even more opportunities for Pittsburgh.
On the other side, Rodgers threw no interceptions.
Pittsburgh’s defense also produced five sacks and three interceptions. That combination allowed the Steelers to compensate for their limited offensive yardage.
What the Game Says About Efficiency
The box score offers a valuable lesson about offensive efficiency.
Indianapolis attempted 50 passes.
Pittsburgh attempted only 35.
That difference explains much of the yardage gap.
More attempts naturally create more opportunities to accumulate passing yards. But they also create more opportunities for sacks, incompletions, and interceptions.
Jones had 15 more pass attempts than Rodgers and finished with 139 more yards.
But he also threw three interceptions and absorbed five sacks.
Rodgers had fewer opportunities but completed 71.4% of his passes, threw one touchdown, and avoided interceptions.
This is why quarterback analysis should consider multiple categories rather than focusing on passing yardage alone.
What the Receiving Numbers Reveal
Indianapolis’s receivers produced 342 yards.
Alec Pierce and Michael Pittman Jr. each reached 115 yards.
That means two Colts receivers accounted for 230 yards.
Josh Downs added 57 yards and a touchdown.
Pittsburgh’s listed receiving leaders had much lower totals. Calvin Austin III led the group with 56 yards.
However, Pittsburgh’s receiving corps did not need huge individual numbers.
The Steelers scored through a combination of passing, rushing, and defensive opportunities.
Pat Freiermuth’s receiving touchdown and Jaylen Warren’s two rushing touchdowns were especially important because they converted offensive possessions into points.
What the Defensive Numbers Reveal
Pittsburgh’s defensive statistics are among the strongest indicators of why the Steelers won.
Five sacks created pressure.
Three interceptions created turnovers.
Thirteen passes defended show how difficult the secondary made life for Indianapolis’s passing attack.
Six quarterback hits added more evidence of consistent pressure.
The Steelers did not simply stop Indianapolis from gaining yards. They created negative plays and possession-changing events.
That distinction is important.
A defense can allow yardage and still win if it consistently prevents touchdowns and generates turnovers.
Pittsburgh’s defense did exactly that.
Key Players From the Matchup
Several players stand out when the complete statistics are considered.
Daniel Jones
Jones finished with 342 passing yards and one touchdown. His yardage total was excellent, but three interceptions and five sacks hurt Indianapolis.
Aaron Rodgers
Rodgers produced 203 passing yards and one touchdown. His biggest statistical advantage was ball security. He finished without an interception.
Jonathan Taylor
Taylor led Indianapolis with 45 rushing yards on 14 carries. His 3.2-yard average reflected a difficult rushing environment.
Jaylen Warren
Warren recorded 31 rushing yards on 16 carries but scored two touchdowns. His scoring production was highly valuable.
Alec Pierce
Pierce posted 115 receiving yards on six receptions and averaged 19.2 yards per catch.
Michael Pittman Jr.
Pittman also reached 115 receiving yards, doing so on nine receptions.
Josh Downs
Downs contributed six receptions, 57 yards, one receiving touchdown, and 23 punt return yards.
Pittsburgh Defense
The Steelers defense recorded three interceptions, five sacks, 13 passes defended, and six quarterback hits.
How to Read These Match Player Stats Correctly
Readers often search for player statistics because they want a quick answer about who performed well.
The best approach is to look at several layers.
First, check the final score.
Second, examine passing production.
Third, compare rushing efficiency.
Fourth, inspect receiving volume.
Fifth, look at turnovers.
Finally, examine defensive impact and special teams.
That process prevents one impressive statistic from creating a misleading conclusion.
For example, Indianapolis’s 342 passing yards might suggest that Jones clearly outplayed Rodgers.
But the full box score tells a different story.
Jones had more yards but three interceptions.
Rodgers had fewer yards but no interceptions and a higher passer rating.
Similarly, Warren’s 1.9 rushing average does not look impressive. Yet his two touchdowns made his contribution important to the final result.
Stats are most useful when they are interpreted together.
Where the Steelers Had the Biggest Advantage
The Steelers’ largest advantages came in three areas.
Turnover Creation
Pittsburgh recorded three interceptions while Indianapolis threw three.
The Steelers also had a much better fumble profile.
Defensive Pressure
Pittsburgh produced five sacks and six quarterback hits.
That pressure disrupted Indianapolis’s passing game despite the Colts’ high yardage total.
Scoring Efficiency
Pittsburgh’s offense scored two rushing touchdowns and one receiving touchdown.
Indianapolis recorded one rushing touchdown and one receiving touchdown.
The Steelers therefore produced three touchdowns, while Indianapolis produced two.
Those extra scoring opportunities were enough to overcome the yardage deficit.
Where Indianapolis Had the Advantage
Indianapolis clearly performed better in offensive yardage.
The Colts had:
- 342 passing yards
- 55 rushing yards
- 397 combined passing and rushing yards
- 31 receptions
- 115 receiving yards each from Pierce and Pittman
Their passing game was capable of moving the football.
The challenge was converting that movement into a clean scoring performance.
Three interceptions and three lost fumbles prevented Indianapolis from turning its yardage advantage into a win.
The Biggest Statistical Takeaway
The clearest takeaway from the colts vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats is that possession quality mattered more than raw yardage.
Indianapolis moved the ball.
Pittsburgh protected the football and created turnovers.
The Steelers defense made more impact plays, and the offense converted enough opportunities to score 27 points.
That combination produced the 27-20 victory.
For analysts, fantasy football readers, and fans reviewing the game, this is an important distinction. A player can lead in yards without producing the most valuable performance.
The same applies to teams.
Indianapolis won the yardage battle but lost the scoreboard battle.
Pittsburgh won the turnover battle and ultimately won the game.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Colts vs Steelers game on November 2, 2025?
The Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Indianapolis Colts 27-20 on November 2, 2025.
How many passing yards did Daniel Jones have?
Daniel Jones completed 31 of 50 passes for 342 yards, one touchdown, and three interceptions. He was sacked five times for 29 yards and finished with a 63.9 passer rating.
How many passing yards did Aaron Rodgers have?
Aaron Rodgers completed 25 of 35 passes for 203 yards and one touchdown. He threw no interceptions, was sacked three times for 16 yards, and recorded a 95.3 passer rating.
Who led the Colts in receiving?
Alec Pierce and Michael Pittman Jr. each recorded 115 receiving yards. Pierce had six receptions, while Pittman caught nine passes.
Who led Pittsburgh in rushing?
Jaylen Warren led the Steelers with 16 carries for 31 yards and two rushing touchdowns.
How many interceptions did the Steelers record?
Pittsburgh recorded three interceptions. Payton Wilson, Jack Sawyer, and Joey Porter Jr. each recorded one interception.
Conclusion
The colts vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats show a game where Indianapolis won the yardage battle but Pittsburgh won the critical statistical battles.
Daniel Jones threw for 342 yards, and Indianapolis received 115-yard performances from both Alec Pierce and Michael Pittman Jr. Jonathan Taylor also led the Colts in rushing with 45 yards.
However, three interceptions and three lost fumbles severely damaged Indianapolis’s chances.
Aaron Rodgers threw for 203 yards and one touchdown without an interception. Jaylen Warren added two rushing touchdowns, while Pat Freiermuth contributed a receiving touchdown.
The Steelers defense made the decisive difference. Pittsburgh recorded three interceptions, five sacks, 13 passes defended, and six quarterback hits.
The final score of 27-20 therefore makes sense when the complete box score is considered. Indianapolis generated more yardage, but Pittsburgh created more high-impact plays and protected its possessions more effectively.
For readers reviewing this matchup, the central lesson is straightforward: passing yards and rushing yards provide important context, but turnovers, touchdowns, sacks, and defensive takeaways often determine who actually wins the game.
