Dallas Cowboys vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
The dallas cowboys vs washington commanders match player stats from September 20, 2026, tell the story of a Dallas offense that delivered an efficient passing performance and a Washington team that struggled to turn its rushing production into touchdowns. The Dallas Cowboys defeated the Washington Commanders 37-20, with Dak Prescott throwing four touchdown passes and CeeDee Lamb producing 153 receiving yards and two touchdowns. Washington generated 182 rushing yards, but its inability to score on the ground made it difficult to keep pace with Dallas.
The final score only explains part of the contest. Dallas combined accurate quarterback play, explosive receiving production, and reliable kicking to build a 17-point victory. Washington found success through Jayden Daniels’ mobility and Stefon Diggs’ two touchdown receptions, yet its offense could not consistently match Dallas’s scoring efficiency. Examining the individual statistics, team totals, defensive contributions, and special teams numbers provides a clearer understanding of how the game unfolded.
This breakdown uses the supplied ESPN box-score data for the September 20, 2026, matchup. Player statistics are presented as provided, with notable distinctions between passing, rushing, receiving, defense, and special teams. Where the numbers reveal a clear performance trend, the analysis explains what that trend means without inventing unverified plays or quotations.
Game Overview: Dallas Cowboys vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
Dallas Cowboys
Home team
37
1-1 overall
FINAL
Sep 20, 2026
17-point margin
Washington
Away team
20
0-2 overall
Dallas passing
279 yards
4 touchdown passes
Washington rushing
182 yards
0 rushing touchdowns
Dallas receiving
279 yards
4 receiving touchdowns
Dallas field goals
3 of 3
Brandon Aubrey
The game data identifies Dallas as the home team and Washington as the visiting team. Dallas scored in every quarter, while Washington was held scoreless in the opening quarter. That early difference helped establish the pattern of the game.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Dallas Cowboys | Washington Commanders |
| First quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 7 | 10 |
| Third quarter | 10 | 3 |
| Fourth quarter | 10 | 7 |
| Final score | 37 | 20 |
Dallas took a 10-0 lead in the first quarter. Washington responded with 10 points in the second, bringing the game back to level at halftime based on the supplied quarter totals.
The third quarter proved important because Dallas scored 10 points while Washington managed only a field goal. Dallas then added another 10 points in the fourth quarter, creating separation that Washington could not overcome.
One important distinction is that scoring by quarter does not establish the exact timing of every touchdown or turnover. For a precise chronological account, the official play-by-play record is the appropriate reference.
Dak Prescott’s Passing Performance
Dak Prescott was the most influential offensive player in the game. He completed 26 of 31 pass attempts for 279 passing yards, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. His reported passer rating was 143.8, while his ESPN Total QBR was 89.3.
These numbers show how effectively Dallas used its passing game to convert opportunities into points.
Dak Prescott’s individual statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 26 |
| Attempts | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 83.9% |
| Passing yards | 279 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 13 |
| Passer rating | 143.8 |
| Total QBR | 89.3 |
Prescott’s completion percentage of approximately 83.9% is particularly notable. He completed more than four out of every five attempts, allowing Dallas to maintain possession and sustain drives without needing an unusually high number of passes.
His nine yards per attempt also indicate that his production was not limited to short completions. Dallas combined accurate passing with meaningful gains downfield, while its receivers supplied the finishing plays.
Four touchdown passes were the decisive part of his performance. CeeDee Lamb caught two, and Jake Ferguson caught the other two. This distribution gave Dallas two reliable scoring targets rather than forcing the entire offense to depend on one player.
Why Prescott’s efficiency mattered
Quarterback performance is easier to understand when completion percentage, passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions are considered together.
Prescott delivered in all four areas:
- Accuracy: He completed 26 of 31 attempts.
- Production: He recorded 279 passing yards.
- Scoring: Four of his completions resulted in touchdowns.
- Ball security: He threw no interceptions.
The two sacks he absorbed are worth noting because they show that his performance was not entirely free of pressure. However, the pressure did not prevent him from delivering a highly productive passing game.
Prescott also established an important franchise milestone in this matchup. According to the game recap, his fourth touchdown pass brought his career total to 249, moving him past Tony Romo’s previous Dallas franchise record of 248. Read the ESPN game recap for additional game context.
Jayden Daniels and Marcus Mariota: Washington’s Quarterback Numbers
Washington’s quarterback statistics require a little more context than Dallas’s because the supplied box score lists production from both Jayden Daniels and Marcus Mariota, alongside two additional players with passing attempts.
Daniels completed 11 of 17 passes for 96 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. Mariota completed 11 of 16 passes for 111 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. Together, the two quarterbacks accounted for most of Washington’s passing production.
Washington quarterback comparison
| Statistic | Jayden Daniels | Marcus Mariota |
| Completions | 11 | 11 |
| Attempts | 17 | 16 |
| Completion percentage | 64.7% | 68.8% |
| Passing yards | 96 | 111 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.6 | 6.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded | 0 | 0 |
| Passer rating | 99.1 | 109.1 |
| Total QBR | 62.1 | 78.1 |
Mariota finished with 15 more passing yards than Daniels despite making one fewer attempt. He also recorded the higher completion percentage and passer rating.
Daniels, however, contributed substantially as a runner. His 69 rushing yards were the highest total among Washington’s listed ball carriers. This dual-threat production is important when evaluating his overall contribution because passing statistics alone do not capture all the yardage he generated.
The supplied game recap also reports that Daniels suffered a dislocated left elbow during the contest. That context matters when interpreting the appearance of Mariota in the passing statistics. The two quarterbacks’ numbers should not be treated as if they necessarily came from identical game situations.
Washington’s combined passing production
The team passing line lists 23 completions on 35 attempts for 207 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. The average was 5.9 yards per attempt, with a team passer rating of 100.5.
Washington protected the football through the air, but its passing attack generated less yardage per attempt than Dallas’s. That difference matters because efficient passing can create scoring opportunities while reducing the number of plays required to reach the end zone.
Washington’s 207 passing yards were also below Prescott’s individual total of 279. In other words, Dallas’s starting quarterback alone threw for 72 more yards than Washington’s entire listed passing offense.
The comparison does not mean that passing yards automatically determine the winner. It does show that Dallas extracted more production from its passing opportunities, particularly in the red zone, where touchdowns are more valuable than simply moving the ball between the 20-yard lines.
Rushing Statistics: Washington Gained More Yards on the Ground
One of the most interesting findings in the box score is that Washington won the rushing-yardage comparison by a wide margin.
Washington recorded 182 rushing yards on 32 carries, averaging 5.7 yards per attempt. Dallas recorded 66 rushing yards on 21 carries, averaging 3.1 yards per attempt.
Yet Dallas won by 17 points.
This contrast demonstrates why rushing totals should never be evaluated without considering touchdowns, passing efficiency, turnovers, and the overall scoring result.
Washington Commanders rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Jayden Daniels | 7 | 69 | 9.9 | 20 | 0 |
| Rachaad White | 7 | 43 | 6.1 | 14 | 0 |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 12 | 43 | 3.6 | 9 | 0 |
| Kaytron Allen | 5 | 24 | 4.8 | 9 | 0 |
| Marcus Mariota | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 | 0 |
| Team total | 32 | 182 | 5.7 | 20 | 0 |
Daniels led Washington’s rushing attack with 69 yards on seven carries. His average of 9.9 yards per attempt was the strongest among the listed Washington runners.
Rachaad White added 43 rushing yards on seven attempts. His 6.1-yard average gave Washington another source of efficient ground production.
Croskey-Merritt also recorded 43 yards, but he needed 12 carries to reach that total. His 3.6-yard average was lower than those of Daniels and White, suggesting that the ground game had varying levels of efficiency depending on the ball carrier.
The most important number in the table is the final column: Washington scored no rushing touchdowns. The team moved the ball on the ground but did not convert that production into direct rushing scores.
Dallas Cowboys rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Javonte Williams | 12 | 30 | 2.5 | 9 | 0 |
| Dak Prescott | 4 | 26 | 6.5 | 11 | 0 |
| Emari Demercado | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 7 | 0 |
| KaVontae Turpin | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0 |
| Hunter Luepke | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 | 0 |
| Team total | 21 | 66 | 3.1 | 11 | 0 |
Dallas did not enjoy the same rushing efficiency. Javonte Williams led the team with 30 yards on 12 attempts, an average of 2.5 yards per carry.
Prescott added 26 rushing yards, making him Dallas’s second-leading runner. His 6.5-yard average was better than that of any Dallas ball carrier with more than one attempt.
Even so, Dallas did not need to dominate on the ground to win. The Cowboys’ passing game provided the scoring production that their rushing attack did not.
What the rushing comparison tells us
The difference between Washington’s 182 rushing yards and Dallas’s 66 was 116 yards in Washington’s favor. However, rushing yards do not have equal value in every situation.
A long run that moves the offense from its own territory can help establish field position. A short run near the goal line can be even more valuable if it produces a touchdown. Similarly, a team can accumulate substantial rushing yardage without controlling the scoreboard if it struggles to finish drives.
In this game, Washington’s rushing output was a genuine strength, but the absence of rushing touchdowns limited its direct scoring impact. Dallas, meanwhile, used its passing efficiency to offset a less productive ground game.
Receiving Statistics: CeeDee Lamb Leads Dallas
The receiving numbers provide the clearest explanation for Dallas’s offensive advantage. CeeDee Lamb caught eight passes for 153 yards and two touchdowns, while Jake Ferguson caught four passes for 43 yards and two touchdowns.
Together, Lamb and Ferguson accounted for all four of Prescott’s touchdown passes.
Dallas Cowboys receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| CeeDee Lamb | 8 | 9 | 153 | 19.1 | 2 |
| Jake Ferguson | 4 | 4 | 43 | 10.8 | 2 |
| George Pickens | 6 | 8 | 40 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Ryan Flournoy | 5 | 6 | 23 | 4.6 | 0 |
| Javonte Williams | 3 | 4 | 20 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Team total | 26 | 31 | 279 | 10.7 | 4 |
The player averages are rounded to one decimal place.
CeeDee Lamb’s impact
Lamb’s 153 receiving yards were the highest individual receiving total in the game. He caught eight of nine targets, producing a catch rate of approximately 88.9%.
His 19.1 yards per reception demonstrate that his contribution went beyond simply collecting short passes. Lamb repeatedly turned receptions into substantial gains, giving Dallas a receiver capable of changing field position quickly.
His two touchdowns were equally important. One came on a three-yard reception in the first quarter, and the other on a 24-yard reception in the fourth quarter, according to the scoring record. Those touchdowns helped Dallas score early and then reinforce its lead late in the game.
Lamb’s production illustrates the difference between volume and impact. Eight catches are a strong total on their own, but 153 yards and two touchdowns make the performance particularly valuable.
Jake Ferguson’s scoring contribution
Ferguson produced fewer receiving yards than Lamb, but his four receptions resulted in two touchdowns. He caught scoring passes of 10 and 12 yards.
This is an important example of why receiving yardage and touchdown production should be analyzed separately. A wide receiver may accumulate most of a team’s yardage, while a tight end provides decisive finishes near the goal line.
Ferguson’s two touchdowns meant that Dallas did not rely exclusively on its primary receiver to complete scoring drives. That balance made the passing attack more difficult to defend because different receiving options were responsible for its touchdown production.
George Pickens and the supporting cast
Pickens caught six of eight targets for 40 yards. Although his average of 6.7 yards per reception was considerably lower than Lamb’s, he provided another option for Prescott and contributed to the overall distribution of the passing game.
Flournoy added five catches for 23 yards, while Williams recorded three receptions for 20 yards. Their totals were smaller, but the contributions of secondary receivers can help prevent opposing defenses from concentrating entirely on one target.
Dallas finished with 26 receptions on 31 targets, according to the supplied receiving totals. Its 279 receiving yards and four receiving touchdowns reflected an offense that distributed the ball effectively while still featuring Lamb as its most productive receiver.
Washington Commanders Receiving Statistics
Washington’s receiving production was more evenly distributed among its leading targets. Stefon Diggs led the team in receptions and touchdown catches, while Terry McLaurin led the listed receivers in total receiving yards.
Washington receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Stefon Diggs | 5 | 6 | 47 | 9.4 | 2 |
| Terry McLaurin | 2 | 9 | 50 | 25.0 | 0 |
| Rachaad White | 6 | 6 | 40 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Antonio Williams | 3 | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Dyami Brown | 4 | 6 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Colson Yankoff | 1 | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 |
| Ben Sinnott | 1 | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Treylon Burks | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 23 | 34 | 207 | 9.0 | 2 |
Stefon Diggs provides the touchdowns
Diggs caught five passes for 47 yards and two touchdowns. He was Washington’s only listed receiver with multiple touchdown receptions.
His first scoring catch came on a four-yard pass from Daniels in the second quarter. His second was a 20-yard touchdown reception from Mariota in the fourth quarter.
Those scores show that Washington could still produce through the air even as Dallas built its advantage. Diggs converted opportunities into points, but his touchdowns were not enough to match the Cowboys’ four passing scores and three successful field goals.
Terry McLaurin’s yardage efficiency
McLaurin finished with 50 yards on two receptions, giving him the team’s highest receiving-yard total. His average of 25 yards per catch was also the highest among Washington’s listed receivers with multiple receptions.
However, his nine targets compared with two receptions produce a catch rate of approximately 22.2%. This suggests that his targets did not turn into completed passes as frequently as those of several other Washington receivers.
That statistic should be interpreted carefully. Target location, defensive coverage, throw quality, and game situation can all affect a receiver’s catch rate. The box score alone does not establish why a pass was incomplete.
Rachaad White’s role in the passing game
White caught all six of his listed targets for 40 yards. His six receptions gave Washington a dependable short-range option in addition to his 43 rushing yards.
Combining his rushing and receiving production, White recorded 83 yards from scrimmage. That total made him a useful contributor in two different phases of the offense.
His involvement also demonstrates why a player’s full contribution cannot always be assessed by examining a single statistical category. White’s receiving role complemented his work in the running game, even though Washington ultimately fell short.
Defensive Player Stats and Team Tackling
The defensive statistics reveal another useful contrast. Washington recorded two sacks, while Dallas recorded none. Both teams registered three tackles for loss, but Dallas finished with more total tackles, more solo tackles, and more passes defended.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Dallas Cowboys | Washington Commanders |
| Total tackles | 73 | 61 |
| Solo tackles | 47 | 39 |
| Sacks | 0 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 6 | 6 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
Dallas recorded 12 more total tackles than Washington. It also registered eight additional solo tackles and twice as many passes defended.
Washington’s two sacks were a positive result for its defense, showing that it could generate some pressure on the quarterback. However, the team did not record an interception, and the supplied statistics do not show a defensive touchdown.
Dallas did not sack the opposing quarterbacks according to the supplied defensive totals, but it did register four passes defended. Its six quarterback hits matched Washington’s total, suggesting that both defenses created some pressure even though their sack numbers differed.
The Cowboys’ defensive result is best understood in combination with their offensive output. Dallas did not need its defense to dominate every statistical category because its offense consistently produced touchdowns and its kicker converted all three field-goal attempts.
Dallas defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles |
| Dee Winters | 9 | 7 |
| Caleb Downs | 9 | 6 |
| Jaishawn Barham | 7 | 4 |
Winters and Downs tied for the highest tackle total among the listed Dallas defensive leaders, recording nine each.
Barham added seven tackles. The supplied game recap also credits Barham with forcing a fumble on a screen pass to Dyami Brown during the third quarter. Dee Winters recovered that fumble, giving Dallas possession in Washington territory.
That sequence is important because defensive plays can influence the next offensive possession without appearing as points in the defensive scoring column. A forced fumble and recovery can shorten the distance an offense must travel to score, increasing the value of the defense’s contribution.
Washington defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles |
| Leo Chenal | 12 | 6 |
| Jeremy Reaves | 7 | 4 |
| Amik Robertson | 5 | 5 |
Chenal led the listed Washington defenders with 12 tackles. Reaves recorded seven, while Robertson finished with five, all of them solo tackles.
These numbers indicate that Washington’s defenders were involved in a substantial number of plays. However, tackle totals do not necessarily indicate how effectively a defense prevented scoring. A defense may record many tackles because it is repeatedly required to stop an opponent’s completed passes or rushing attempts.
The more useful evaluation combines tackles with sacks, turnovers, red-zone stops, and points allowed. On the final scoreboard, Dallas scored 37 points, while Washington scored 20.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change an NFL game quickly because they remove an offensive possession and give the opposing team a chance to score.
The supplied statistics show three Washington team fumbles, with one lost. Dallas recorded no fumbles, and its team line lists one fumble recovery.
Turnover comparison
| Statistic | Dallas Cowboys | Washington Commanders |
| Team fumbles | 0 | 3 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Fumbles recovered | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | 0 | 0 |
The individual Washington fumble entries identify Dyami Brown with one fumble lost, Jayden Daniels with one fumble, and Jaylin Lane with one fumble recovered by Washington. Croskey-Merritt is also listed with a recovery.
The Dallas defensive recap describes a key sequence in which Barham forced Brown’s fumble and Winters recovered the ball. This turnover gave Dallas a valuable field-position advantage and helped set up another touchdown pass from Prescott to Ferguson.
There is a reporting distinction worth making here: a forced fumble is a defensive action, while a fumble lost is an offensive turnover. A team’s total fumble count, recovery count, and lost-fumble count therefore describe different aspects of ball security.
Neither team recorded an interception. Dallas’s advantage in this category came from the fumble exchange rather than from intercepting a pass.
The broader lesson is that protecting the ball involves more than avoiding interceptions. A team can throw no interceptions and still lose possession through a fumble. Washington’s one lost fumble was particularly costly because the recovery occurred in a position that helped Dallas create another scoring opportunity.
Special Teams: Brandon Aubrey’s Perfect Field-Goal Day
Special teams contributed directly to the final margin. Dallas kicker Brandon Aubrey made all three field-goal attempts and all four extra-point attempts. Washington kicker Drew Stevens made two of three field goals and both extra points.
Kicking statistics
| Statistic | Brandon Aubrey, Dallas | Drew Stevens, Washington |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 66.7% |
| Longest field goal | 60 yards | 47 yards |
| Extra points made | 4 | 2 |
| Extra points attempted | 4 | 2 |
| Total kicking points | 13 | 8 |
Aubrey scored 13 points through kicking, including nine points from field goals and four from extra points. His successful 60-yard field goal was the longest kick listed in the supplied statistics.
Stevens scored eight points. He converted two field goals and both extra points but missed one field-goal attempt.
The five-point difference in kicking points is meaningful, especially in a game where the final margin was 17 points. Dallas also benefited from converting all four of its touchdowns into successful extra-point attempts.
Kicking statistics are often overlooked when readers focus on quarterbacks and receivers, but they are an important part of the final score. Three successful field goals can reward drives that reach scoring range but do not produce touchdowns. Reliable extra-point kicking also ensures that a touchdown delivers its expected additional point.
Return-game statistics
| Player | Team | Return type | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| KaVontae Turpin | Dallas | Kickoff | 4 | 122 | 30.5 | 35 |
| Jaylin Lane | Washington | Kickoff | 6 | 120 | 20.0 | 33 |
| KaVontae Turpin | Dallas | Punt | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 |
| Jaylin Lane | Washington | Punt | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 14 |
Turpin averaged 30.5 yards per kickoff return, substantially higher than Lane’s 20-yard average. Although Washington recorded two more kickoff returns, Dallas gained two additional kickoff-return yards overall.
Return averages can help explain starting field position, but they do not by themselves establish the precise starting point of every drive. Blocking, penalties, kick placement, and touchbacks also affect the final result.
Punting statistics
Bryan Anger punted once for Dallas, recording 48 yards. Tress Way punted once for Washington, recording 47 yards.
Both punts traveled close to 50 yards. Neither was recorded as a touchback, and neither was listed as landing inside the opponent’s 20-yard line.
The low punt totals reflect the supplied box score, but they should not be used alone to infer how often each team controlled possession. Punting frequency depends on drive outcomes, field position, and whether an offense reaches scoring range.
Team Statistics: Where Dallas Created the Advantage
The clearest way to compare the two teams is to place their main offensive numbers side by side.
| Team statistic | Dallas | Washington |
| Passing yards | 279 | 207 |
| Rushing yards | 66 | 182 |
| Receiving yards | 279 | 207 |
| Passing touchdowns | 4 | 2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Final points | 37 | 20 |
Dallas held a 72-yard advantage in passing production and a 116-yard deficit in rushing production. The difference in total yards from these two categories was therefore 44 yards in Dallas’s favor.
This calculation is based on the listed passing and rushing totals. It is useful for understanding the offensive balance, but total yardage does not capture every aspect of field position or drive efficiency.
Dallas’s advantage in passing touchdowns was more significant than its modest net yardage advantage. The Cowboys threw four touchdown passes, twice Washington’s total. Both teams recorded no rushing touchdowns, making the passing game the primary source of offensive touchdowns in this matchup.
Dallas also converted three field goals, while Washington converted two. Combined with the four-to-two passing-touchdown advantage, this gave Dallas multiple paths to scoring.
Washington’s offense was not without strengths. It gained 182 rushing yards, averaged 5.7 yards per carry, and produced two touchdown passes without an interception. But its ground production did not lead to rushing touchdowns, and it did not match Dallas’s passing efficiency.
A note on passing-yard totals
The supplied data lists Dallas’s individual passing total and receiving total as 279 yards, but one team-passing entry gives 266 yards. The 266-yard figure conflicts with Prescott’s 279 passing yards and the 279 receiving yards shown elsewhere in the supplied data.
For consistency, this article uses the 279-yard figure reported for Prescott and Dallas’s receiving group. When publishing statistical articles, checking conflicting totals against the official box score is important because even a small discrepancy can undermine reader confidence.
Key Matchup Takeaways and Statistical Insights
The numbers support several conclusions about the game. Each is based on the supplied box-score information rather than on assumptions about unrecorded plays.
1. Passing efficiency was the biggest statistical difference
Prescott averaged 9.0 yards per attempt, while Daniels averaged 5.6. Mariota averaged 6.9, but Dallas still produced more passing yards and twice as many passing touchdowns.
The contrast suggests that Dallas was more productive with its passing opportunities. A quarterback who consistently completes passes for meaningful gains can move the offense into scoring position with fewer plays.
2. Lamb supplied explosive receiving production
Lamb’s 153 yards represented more than half of Prescott’s 279 passing yards. His two touchdowns also gave Dallas a dependable scoring option throughout the game.
His production combined high reception volume, a strong average per catch, and direct scoring impact. That combination is more informative than looking at catches alone.
3. Ferguson made his receptions count
Ferguson caught only four passes, but two became touchdowns. This illustrates the importance of scoring efficiency, particularly for tight ends who may be targeted near the goal line.
A player does not need the highest yardage total to have a major effect on the result. Ferguson’s touchdown production was central to Dallas’s offensive success.
4. Washington’s rushing attack showed promise
The Commanders averaged 5.7 yards per carry and recorded 182 rushing yards. Daniels was particularly productive, averaging 9.9 yards per attempt on the ground.
Those numbers indicate that Washington could gain ground yardage effectively. The main limitation was the lack of rushing touchdowns, which reduced the direct scoring benefit of that production.
5. Dallas benefited from the turnover margin
Washington lost one fumble, while Dallas did not lose a fumble or throw an interception. The forced fumble and recovery in the third quarter created a favorable scoring opportunity for Dallas.
Turnover margin is not the only explanation for a result, but this sequence shows how ball security can affect both possession and field position.
6. Special teams helped extend the margin
Aubrey’s three field goals and four extra points produced 13 points. Washington’s kicker contributed eight.
The difference in kicking points supported Dallas’s larger offensive advantage. Reliable kicking also allowed Dallas to collect points from drives that did not end with a touchdown.
7. The final score reflected more than total rushing yards
Washington’s rushing advantage did not translate into a victory because Dallas was more effective through the air and converted more opportunities into touchdowns.
This is a useful reminder when comparing NFL performances: yards are a measure of production, but points measure the final scoring result. Both deserve attention, but they answer different questions.
How to Read the Dallas Cowboys vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
For readers comparing individual NFL performances, a useful statistical review should go beyond identifying the player with the most yards. Different categories measure different parts of a player’s contribution.
Passing statistics
Start with completions, attempts, passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. Completion percentage measures how frequently a quarterback completes a pass, while yards per attempt offers a basic measure of passing production relative to the number of throws.
Touchdowns show how many scoring plays a quarterback creates through the air. Interceptions indicate passes caught by the opposing defense. Passer rating combines several passing measures into one figure, while Total QBR is a separate ESPN metric and should not be treated as interchangeable with passer rating.
Rushing statistics
Carries and rushing yards establish how much work a player received and how much ground he gained. Yards per carry provides a quick efficiency comparison, while rushing touchdowns measure direct scoring output.
A quarterback’s rushing production deserves separate attention because it adds another dimension to the offense. Daniels’ 69 rushing yards, for example, help explain why his overall contribution cannot be judged from his 96 passing yards alone.
Receiving statistics
Receptions, targets, receiving yards, and touchdowns should be read together. Targets show how often a player was thrown the ball, while receptions show how many passes he caught.
Catch rate is calculated by dividing receptions by targets. Yards per reception divides receiving yards by receptions. Both can help describe a player’s performance, but neither fully explains route difficulty, defensive coverage, or the quality of the passes thrown.
Defensive statistics
Total tackles show how frequently a defender was credited with stopping or assisting in stopping an opponent. Sacks record tackles of the quarterback behind the line of scrimmage, while tackles for loss record qualifying tackles behind the line of scrimmage.
Passes defended measure credited defensive plays that disrupt or prevent completions. Quarterback hits measure pressure that results in a credited hit on the passer. These categories should be considered together rather than treating any single number as a complete measure of defensive quality.
Special teams statistics
Field-goal percentage measures made kicks against attempts. Return averages measure yards gained per return, and punting averages describe the distance of punts.
These numbers are useful because special teams influence scoring and field position even when the players involved do not appear in passing or receiving leaderboards.
Statistical Limitations and Data Accuracy
A detailed game analysis is only as reliable as the statistics behind it. The supplied figures contain a few points that readers should keep in mind when comparing individual performances.
First, team and individual passing totals must agree with the relevant receiving statistics. The Dallas passing discrepancy noted earlier illustrates why a final verification against the official box score is worthwhile.
Second, player statistics should be read in context. Daniels and Mariota both recorded touchdown passes, but their numbers represent separate quarterback performances within the same team game. Their completion percentages and averages should not be interpreted as though they faced precisely the same circumstances.
Third, individual statistics do not establish the cause of every result. A receiver’s low catch rate does not automatically mean he performed poorly, just as a defender’s high tackle count does not automatically prove superior coverage. Film analysis and play-by-play records can provide context that a summary box score cannot.
Finally, the statistics should be treated as a record of this specific matchup rather than as a complete assessment of either team’s season. One game can reveal strengths, weaknesses, and tactical patterns, but it cannot establish that the same results will continue in future contests.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Dallas Cowboys vs Washington Commanders game?
The Dallas Cowboys defeated the Washington Commanders 37-20 on September 20, 2026. Dallas scored in all four quarters and finished with a 17-point victory.
2. How many passing yards did Dak Prescott record?
Dak Prescott completed 26 of 31 passes for 279 yards, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. His passer rating was 143.8.
3. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
CeeDee Lamb led all listed receivers with eight receptions for 153 yards and two touchdowns. His 19.1 yards per reception made him Dallas’s most productive receiving threat.
4. How many rushing yards did Jayden Daniels gain?
Jayden Daniels recorded 69 rushing yards on seven carries, averaging 9.9 yards per attempt. He did not score a rushing touchdown.
5. Which team had more rushing yards?
Washington led the rushing comparison with 182 yards on 32 carries. Dallas recorded 66 rushing yards on 21 carries, but the Cowboys won because of their stronger passing and scoring production.
6. How many touchdown passes did each team record?
Dallas recorded four passing touchdowns, with two caught by CeeDee Lamb and two by Jake Ferguson. Washington recorded two passing touchdowns, both caught by Stefon Diggs.
Conclusion
The dallas cowboys vs washington commanders match player stats show why Dallas emerged with a 37-20 victory despite Washington’s advantage in rushing yards. Dak Prescott completed 26 passes for 279 yards and four touchdowns, while CeeDee Lamb recorded 153 receiving yards and two scores. Jake Ferguson also caught two touchdown passes, giving Dallas multiple productive targets in the passing game.
Washington’s strongest statistical contribution came on the ground, where the team gained 182 yards. Jayden Daniels led the rushing effort with 69 yards, and Stefon Diggs scored both of Washington’s receiving touchdowns. However, the Commanders did not score a rushing touchdown and lost one fumble, while Dallas converted its passing opportunities and made all three field-goal attempts.
The defensive and special teams figures add further context. Washington recorded two sacks, but Dallas finished with more tackles and passes defended. Brandon Aubrey’s perfect field-goal performance also helped extend the difference on the scoreboard.
Taken together, these statistics illustrate the importance of evaluating passing efficiency, receiving production, scoring opportunities, turnovers, and kicking alongside rushing yardage. Washington produced more ground yards, but Dallas converted its offensive opportunities into more points. That difference ultimately defined the result.
