Green Bay Packers vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
The green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats from September 11, 2025, tell the story of a Green Bay team that combined efficient passing, productive rushing, and aggressive defensive pressure to secure a 27-18 victory. The Packers finished with 292 passing yards and 135 rushing yards, giving them a balanced offensive performance that Washington struggled to match. Although the Commanders scored 15 points in the fourth quarter, Green Bay’s earlier production provided enough separation to protect the lead and finish the game unbeaten at 2-0.
Jordan Love led the Packers’ passing attack with 292 yards and two touchdowns, while tight end Tucker Kraft delivered the game’s most productive receiving performance with 124 yards and a touchdown. Washington quarterback Jayden Daniels also threw two touchdown passes without an interception, but the Commanders managed only 51 rushing yards as a team. That difference on the ground, combined with Green Bay’s four sacks and eight passes defended, helps explain why Washington could not complete its comeback.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback numbers, rushing and receiving performances, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistical differences that shaped the result. Every player statistic discussed below follows the supplied ESPN box score data.
Green Bay Packers vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on September 11, 2025, with Green Bay hosting Washington. The Packers won 27-18, improving their record to 2-0 overall and 2-0 at home. Washington fell to 1-1 overall and 0-1 away.
Green Bay Packers
27
Record: 2-0
FINAL
27-18
Commanders Logo Change Rumors Gain Momentum Following New Stadium Reveal
Washington Commanders
18
Record: 1-1
September 11, 2025 · NFL regular season
Final score by quarter
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
| Green Bay Packers | 7 | 7 | 3 | 10 | 27 |
| Washington Commanders | 0 | 3 | 0 | 15 | 18 |
Green Bay scored in each quarter, giving its offense a steady scoring rhythm. Washington, by contrast, went scoreless in both the first and third quarters before producing 15 points in the fourth.
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown highlights two important aspects of the contest. First, the Packers established a lead before Washington found its strongest offensive rhythm. Second, the Commanders’ late scoring surge narrowed the margin but did not erase the advantage Green Bay had built earlier.
A fourth-quarter comeback depends on more than scoring quickly. It also requires limiting the opponent’s response and creating enough remaining possessions to overturn the deficit. Washington’s late production made the final score closer, but Green Bay’s balanced attack and defensive pressure helped preserve the win.
Team Statistics: Where Green Bay Gained Its Advantage
The broad team numbers explain why Green Bay controlled the matchup despite Washington’s late push.
| Statistical category | Packers | Commanders |
| Passing yards | 292 | 200 |
| Rushing yards | 135 | 51 |
| Total passing and rushing yards | 427 | 251 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Total touchdowns | 3 | 2 |
| Field goals made | 2 | 1 |
| Extra points made | 3 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 4 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 8 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 12 | 4 |
| Interceptions recorded | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles recorded | 0 | 0 |
Total passing and rushing yards are calculated by adding the supplied passing and rushing totals. They are not a substitute for official total offense figures that may account for additional categories.
1. A 176-yard advantage in combined passing and rushing production
Green Bay recorded 427 combined passing and rushing yards, compared with Washington’s 251. The 176-yard difference is one of the clearest indicators of the Packers’ offensive advantage.
The difference came from both phases of the offense:
- Green Bay gained 92 more passing yards.
- Green Bay gained 84 more rushing yards.
This balance matters because a productive passing game can stretch the defense horizontally and vertically, while an effective rushing attack can create more manageable situations and help sustain possessions.
Washington was not completely ineffective through the air. Its 200 passing yards and two passing touchdowns provided a foundation for scoring. However, the limited ground production made it harder to complement Daniels’ passing with a consistent second offensive threat.
2. Green Bay won the rushing comparison
The Packers recorded 135 rushing yards on 30 attempts, averaging 4.5 yards per carry. Washington managed 51 yards on 19 attempts, averaging 2.7 yards per carry.
That represents an 84-yard rushing advantage for Green Bay. The Packers also scored a rushing touchdown, while Washington did not.
The difference was not simply about the number of carries. Green Bay averaged 1.8 more yards per attempt, allowing its running game to contribute meaningful yardage even when it did not produce a long breakaway run.
3. Defensive pressure favored the Packers
Green Bay recorded four sacks, compared with Washington’s two. The Packers also registered 12 quarterback hits and eight passes defended.
Those numbers suggest a defense that repeatedly challenged Washington’s passing operation. Sacks can create long-yardage situations, while quarterback hits and pass breakups can disrupt timing even when a play does not result in a turnover.
Neither team recorded an interception or a fumble in the supplied statistics. Green Bay’s defensive edge therefore came through pressure and coverage disruption rather than takeaways.
Quarterback Comparison: Jordan Love vs Jayden Daniels
Quarterback production was central to the outcome. Jordan Love delivered the more efficient statistical performance, while Jayden Daniels produced two touchdown passes but faced a much less productive overall offensive situation.
| Passing statistic | Jordan Love | Jayden Daniels |
| Team | Green Bay Packers | Washington Commanders |
| Completions | 19 | 24 |
| Pass attempts | 31 | 42 |
| Completion percentage | 61.3% | 57.1% |
| Passing yards | 292 | 200 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.4 | 4.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 | 4 |
| Sack yards lost | 23 | 21 |
| QBR | 51.3 | 17.7 |
| Passer rating | 113.9 | 85.4 |
Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completions and attempts. QBR and passer rating are separate measures and should not be compared as though they use the same scale.
Jordan Love’s performance: Efficiency and explosive yardage
Jordan Love completed 19 of 31 passes for 292 yards and two touchdowns. He averaged 9.4 yards per attempt, recorded a 113.9 passer rating, and finished without an interception.
His completion percentage was 61.3%, but the more revealing figure was his average of 9.4 yards per attempt. That number shows that Green Bay generated substantial yardage from its passing opportunities instead of relying exclusively on short completions.
Love’s 292 yards were 92 more than Daniels’ total, even though Love attempted 11 fewer passes. His average of 9.4 yards per attempt was nearly double Washington’s 4.8.
This difference points to a meaningful contrast in offensive efficiency. Washington completed more passes, but Green Bay generated considerably more yardage with fewer attempts.
Love’s performance also benefited from production across multiple receiving options. Tucker Kraft supplied the biggest contribution, but Malik Heath, Luke Musgrave, Dontayvion Wicks, Romeo Doubs, and Chris Brooks also recorded receiving yards.
That distribution matters when evaluating a quarterback. A productive passer needs receivers who can turn opportunities into substantial gains, and Green Bay received useful contributions beyond its leading target.
Love did take two sacks for 23 yards, so the performance was not flawless. Nevertheless, his yardage, touchdown production, and absence of interceptions made him the more efficient passer in this matchup.
Jayden Daniels’ performance: Two touchdowns without an interception
Jayden Daniels completed 24 of 42 passes for 200 yards and two touchdowns. He did not throw an interception, but his 4.8 yards per attempt and 85.4 passer rating were below Love’s figures.
Daniels completed 57.1% of his attempts. His 42 attempts were 11 more than Love’s, yet he finished with 92 fewer passing yards.
This contrast is particularly important because passing volume alone does not indicate offensive success. A quarterback can complete a high number of passes and still struggle to generate the yardage needed to sustain drives or close a scoring gap.
Daniels also took four sacks for 21 yards. Although the total yardage lost on sacks was similar to Love’s, Washington’s quarterback absorbed twice as many sacks.
Four sacks can affect an offense in several ways. They can put a team behind the chains, make subsequent passing situations more predictable, and increase the pressure on the quarterback to produce yardage on later downs.
Daniels’ two touchdown passes demonstrate that Washington could finish some passing opportunities successfully. The larger problem was sustaining enough productive plays around those scores.
His seven rushing attempts produced 17 yards, giving Washington another way to use his mobility. However, that contribution did not significantly change the team’s overall rushing numbers.
Why the efficiency gap mattered more than completion totals
Love’s 61.3% completion rate was only about four percentage points higher than Daniels’ 57.1%. The more substantial difference was the yardage generated per attempt.
Consider the numbers:
- Love averaged 9.4 yards per passing attempt.
- Daniels averaged 4.8 yards per passing attempt.
- Love produced 292 passing yards on 31 attempts.
- Daniels produced 200 passing yards on 42 attempts.
Green Bay gained more from each passing opportunity. This can help an offense reach scoring territory without requiring as many completions or plays.
It is also important not to treat yards per attempt as a complete evaluation of quarterback play. The measure does not independently account for every aspect of pressure, receiver separation, down and distance, or play design. Still, in this particular matchup, the difference aligns with the broader advantage Green Bay held in total offensive yardage.
Running Back Statistics: Josh Jacobs Leads Green Bay
The rushing comparison was one of the most decisive elements of the game. Josh Jacobs led the Packers with 84 yards and a touchdown, while Washington’s leading individual rusher gained only 17 yards.
Green Bay Packers rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD | Longest run |
| Josh Jacobs | 23 | 84 | 3.7 | 1 | 10 |
| Savion Williams | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 | 16 |
| Matthew Golden | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 0 | 9 |
| Jordan Love | 3 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Team total | 30 | 135 | 4.5 | 1 | 16 |
Josh Jacobs: The foundation of the ground game
Jacobs carried the ball 23 times for 84 yards, averaging 3.7 yards per attempt. He scored one rushing touchdown and recorded a longest run of 10 yards.
His average was lower than Green Bay’s team rushing average, but his workload was important. Jacobs handled the largest share of the team’s carries, giving the Packers a consistent rushing option throughout the game.
A running back’s value is not determined only by his average. Carry volume, scoring contributions, and the ability to remain involved across different situations also matter. Jacobs’ 23 attempts made him the primary ball carrier, and his touchdown added a scoring dimension that Washington did not match on the ground.
His longest run was 10 yards, which means his production did not depend on one extremely long rush. Instead, his total came through repeated carries.
That distinction helps explain the overall team performance. Green Bay had a dependable primary runner, with additional contributions from Williams, Golden, and Love.
Savion Williams provides explosive rushing production
Savion Williams carried twice for 24 yards, averaging 12.0 yards per carry. His longest run covered 16 yards.
Although Williams received far fewer attempts than Jacobs, he generated a strong return from those opportunities. His 24 yards represented a notable contribution from a limited workload.
Small rushing samples should always be interpreted carefully. Two carries are not enough to establish a stable long-term average or prove that a player would maintain the same efficiency with more attempts.
Within this game, however, Williams’ numbers show how secondary rushing contributions can improve a team’s overall production. Green Bay did not need Jacobs to generate every rushing yard himself.
Matthew Golden and Jordan Love add useful yards
Matthew Golden recorded two carries for 15 yards, averaging 7.5 yards per attempt. Love added 12 yards on three carries, averaging 4.0.
Golden’s two attempts supplied additional production outside Jacobs’ workload. Love’s rushing yards also gave the defense another element to consider when containing the quarterback.
Together, the contributions from Williams, Golden, and Love accounted for 51 rushing yards. That is a substantial amount of production from players other than the Packers‘ leading running back.
Washington Commanders rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD | Longest run |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 4 | 17 | 4.3 | 0 | 5 |
| Austin Ekeler | 8 | 17 | 2.1 | 0 | 5 |
| Jayden Daniels | 7 | 17 | 2.4 | 0 | 8 |
| Team total | 19 | 51 | 2.7 | 0 | 8 |
Jacory Croskey-Merritt leads Washington’s individual rushers
Croskey-Merritt carried four times for 17 yards, averaging 4.3 yards per carry. He led the listed Washington rushers in average yards per attempt, although he tied Ekeler and Daniels in total rushing yards.
His longest run was five yards, and he did not score a touchdown.
The limited number of attempts makes it difficult to draw a broad conclusion about his rushing ability. His numbers show that he contributed useful yardage, but Washington did not give him a workload comparable to Jacobs’ 23 carries.
Austin Ekeler’s eight carries produce 17 yards
Ekeler carried eight times for 17 yards, averaging 2.1 yards per attempt. His longest run was five yards, and he did not record a rushing touchdown.
The low average indicates that Washington struggled to turn his rushing opportunities into substantial gains. With eight attempts, his production had a meaningful effect on the team’s overall rushing output.
When a team averages only 2.7 yards per carry, it can become harder to maintain balanced play-calling. Short gains may leave the offense facing longer distances on later downs, potentially increasing its reliance on passing.
The statistics alone do not identify the precise cause of each unsuccessful run, but the aggregate numbers show that Washington’s ground attack was less productive than Green Bay’s.
Daniels’ rushing contribution
Daniels recorded seven carries for 17 yards, averaging 2.4 yards per carry. His longest run was eight yards.
His rushing total matched those of Ekeler and Croskey-Merritt, but the attempts came from the quarterback position. His mobility can create another dimension for an offense, particularly when defenses focus on the passing game.
In this matchup, however, the seven attempts produced only 17 yards and no rushing touchdown. Daniels’ ground contribution did not offset the difference between Washington’s overall rushing output and Green Bay’s.
What the rushing comparison reveals
The Packers’ 135 rushing yards were more than twice Washington’s 51. Green Bay also averaged 4.5 yards per carry, compared with Washington’s 2.7.
Three factors stand out:
- Greater volume: Green Bay attempted 30 rushes, compared with Washington’s 19.
- Better average production: The Packers gained 1.8 more yards per carry.
- Scoring impact: Jacobs scored a rushing touchdown, while Washington did not.
The combination of these factors gave Green Bay more ways to support its passing game. Washington’s lower rushing production left Daniels responsible for a larger share of the offense’s yardage creation.
Receiving Statistics: Tucker Kraft Delivers the Biggest Performance
The receiving numbers provide another clear explanation for Green Bay’s offensive advantage. Tucker Kraft led the game with 124 receiving yards, while Zach Ertz was Washington’s leading receiver with 64 yards.
Green Bay Packers receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD | Longest catch |
| Tucker Kraft | 6 | 7 | 124 | 20.7 | 1 | 57 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 4 | 6 | 44 | 11.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Malik Heath | 1 | 1 | 37 | 37.0 | 0 | 37 |
| Luke Musgrave | 1 | 2 | 32 | 32.0 | 0 | 23 |
| Romeo Doubs | 3 | 5 | 28 | 9.3 | 1 | 17 |
| Chris Brooks | 3 | 4 | 27 | 9.0 | 0 | 16 |
| Matthew Golden | 0 | 2 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 0 |
| Team total | 19 | 27 | 292 | 15.4 | 2 | 57 |
Average per catch is calculated from receiving yards divided by receptions. It is not applicable when a player has no receptions.
Tucker Kraft: Green Bay’s leading receiving weapon
Kraft caught six passes on seven targets for 124 yards and one touchdown. His average of 20.7 yards per reception was the highest among Green Bay’s listed players with multiple catches.
His longest reception covered 57 yards, illustrating the explosive potential of his contribution.
Kraft’s performance was important for two reasons. First, he generated a large share of the Packers’ passing yardage. Second, he produced that yardage on only seven targets, giving Green Bay substantial output without requiring an unusually high number of opportunities for one receiver.
His 124 yards represented approximately 42.5% of Green Bay’s 292 passing yards. That concentration shows how influential his performance was, although the remaining 168 yards came from the other receiving contributors.
Kraft also scored one of Love’s two passing touchdowns. That combination of yardage and scoring made him one of the game’s most significant offensive performers.
Dontayvion Wicks contributes four catches
Wicks caught four passes on six targets for 44 yards. He averaged 11.0 yards per reception and recorded a longest catch of 14 yards.
His production was less explosive than Kraft’s, but it gave Love another reliable source of receiving yardage. Four receptions also meant that Wicks contributed a meaningful share of Green Bay’s completed passes.
A receiving group benefits when multiple players can turn targets into positive gains. Defenses cannot focus exclusively on the leading receiver when other players are also capable of contributing.
Malik Heath and Luke Musgrave make the most of their opportunities
Heath recorded one reception for 37 yards on one target. Musgrave caught one pass for 32 yards on two targets.
Heath’s single catch averaged 37 yards, while Musgrave averaged 32 yards per reception. Their small reception totals mean these averages should not be interpreted as typical rates of production, but both players made substantial contributions on limited opportunities.
Their combined 69 yards represented nearly one-quarter of Green Bay’s passing total. This illustrates how a small number of successful plays can influence a team’s final yardage figures.
Romeo Doubs provides a scoring contribution
Doubs caught three passes for 28 yards and one touchdown on five targets. His longest reception was 17 yards.
Although his yardage total was lower than Kraft’s and Wicks’, the touchdown was valuable. Scoring plays often have a greater direct effect on the result than additional yardage that does not produce points.
Doubs’ contribution also meant Green Bay’s two passing touchdowns were distributed between two receivers rather than concentrated in one player.
Chris Brooks adds receiving versatility
Brooks caught three passes on four targets for 27 yards, averaging 9.0 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 16 yards.
His involvement gave Love another option in the passing game. Brooks’ production was not the largest on the team, but it contributed to Green Bay’s ability to spread the ball around.
Golden, by contrast, received two targets but did not record a reception. That difference reinforces the importance of distinguishing between opportunities and completed production when reviewing receiving statistics.
Washington Commanders receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TD | Longest catch |
| Zach Ertz | 6 | 8 | 64 | 10.7 | 1 | 20 |
| Terry McLaurin | 5 | 9 | 48 | 9.6 | 0 | 14 |
| Deebo Samuel Sr. | 7 | 8 | 44 | 6.3 | 1 | 12 |
| Luke McCaffrey | 1 | 1 | 19 | 19.0 | 0 | 19 |
| Noah Brown | 1 | 4 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 |
| Ben Sinnott | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 |
| Austin Ekeler | 2 | 4 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 4 |
| Jaylin Lane | 1 | 4 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Jacory Croskey-Merritt | 0 | 1 | 0 | N/A | 0 | 0 |
| Team total | 24 | 40 | 200 | 8.3 | 2 | 20 |
Zach Ertz leads Washington’s receiving group
Ertz caught six passes for 64 yards and one touchdown on eight targets. He averaged 10.7 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 20 yards.
He led Washington in receiving yards, despite recording fewer receptions than Samuel. Ertz’s touchdown was also one of the Commanders’ two passing scores.
His production gave Daniels a productive target in the passing game. However, Ertz’s 64 yards were still 60 fewer than Kraft’s 124.
The contrast between the leading receivers helps explain the larger difference between the offenses. Green Bay’s top receiving contributor generated both more yardage and a longer explosive play.
Terry McLaurin records five catches for 48 yards
McLaurin caught five of nine targets for 48 yards. His average was 9.6 yards per reception, and his longest catch was 14 yards.
His nine targets were the highest among Washington’s listed receivers. He was clearly involved in the passing attack, but his total yardage remained relatively modest compared with the number of opportunities.
This is an important distinction for evaluating receiver performance. Targets indicate how often a quarterback looks toward a player, while receptions and yardage indicate what the offense actually gains from those opportunities.
McLaurin’s numbers show a substantial role in Washington’s passing game, but they do not suggest the same level of explosive production Kraft provided for Green Bay.
Deebo Samuel Sr. produces seven receptions and a touchdown
Samuel caught seven passes on eight targets for 44 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 6.3 yards per reception, with a longest catch of 12 yards.
He led Washington in receptions among the listed players and matched Ertz with one receiving touchdown.
Samuel’s contribution was productive in terms of completed passes and scoring, but the average of 6.3 yards per catch indicates that those receptions generated relatively limited yardage. The statistic does not tell us why each play developed as it did, but it demonstrates the difference between reception volume and receiving efficiency.
Washington needed more yardage from its passing opportunities to match Green Bay’s 15.4 yards per team reception.
Contributions from Washington’s supporting receivers
Luke McCaffrey caught one pass for 19 yards on one target. Noah Brown added nine yards on one reception from four targets, while Ben Sinnott caught one pass for seven yards.
Ekeler added two receptions for seven yards, and Jaylin Lane caught one pass for two yards. Croskey-Merritt was targeted once but did not record a reception.
These players had different roles and opportunity levels, so their individual numbers should not be interpreted identically. Nevertheless, the combined receiving total of 200 yards shows that Washington’s passing attack produced less yardage than Green Bay’s, despite recording five more receptions.
Why the receiving efficiency gap was decisive
Green Bay averaged 15.4 yards per reception, while Washington averaged 8.3. The difference of 7.1 yards per catch is substantial.
The Packers also recorded 292 receiving yards on 27 targets, compared with Washington’s 200 yards on 40 targets.
Using the supplied totals, Green Bay generated approximately 10.8 receiving yards per target, while Washington generated 5.0. These are simple calculations based on the reported team receiving yards and targets.
That comparison reveals a major difference in the value generated by each passing opportunity. Green Bay’s receivers turned a smaller number of targets into more total yardage, giving Love a more productive passing environment.
Defensive Player Stats: Green Bay Applies More Pressure
The defensive numbers show how Green Bay made Washington’s passing game less efficient. The Packers recorded four sacks, 12 quarterback hits, and eight passes defended. Washington finished with two sacks, four quarterback hits, and three passes defended.
Neither defense recorded an interception or a defensive touchdown, and neither team had a recorded fumble in the supplied statistics. Green Bay’s advantage came from pressure and disruption rather than turnovers.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Packers | Commanders |
| Total tackles | 60 | 65 |
| Solo tackles | 42 | 35 |
| Sacks | 4 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 8 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 12 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Edgerrin Cooper leads the Packers’ tacklers
Cooper recorded 10 total tackles, including seven solo tackles. He also registered half a sack and two quarterback hits.
His contribution combined run defense, tackling, and pressure-related production. The 10 tackles made him Green Bay’s leading tackler in the supplied figures.
Tackle totals do not automatically establish which defender played best. Players can accumulate tackles because opponents repeatedly target their area, and a tackle can occur after a successful offensive gain. Cooper’s numbers are most informative when considered alongside his quarterback hits and partial sack.
Quay Walker and Javon Bullard support the defense
Walker finished with eight total tackles, four solo tackles, and one quarterback hit. His tackle production helped Green Bay maintain a strong presence across the defensive front and second level.
Bullard recorded five tackles, all of them solo. His total was lower than Cooper’s and Walker’s, but his five solo tackles show that he finished those plays without assistance.
These statistics do not provide every detail needed to evaluate positioning or coverage assignments. They do, however, identify two defenders who contributed directly to Green Bay’s tackling effort.
Rashan Gary generates pressure
Gary recorded three tackles, including one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
His sack was part of a four-sack team performance. The tackle for loss also shows that his contribution extended beyond bringing the quarterback down.
Defensive pressure can influence passing efficiency even when it does not produce a sack. A quarterback may have to release the ball earlier, abandon a read, or adjust his movement in the pocket. Gary’s recorded production provides direct evidence of his involvement in the pressure effort, although the supplied figures do not identify the outcome of every pressured play.
Devonte Wyatt adds a productive defensive performance
Wyatt recorded two tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, two passes defended, and two quarterback hits.
The combination is notable because it includes both pressure and disruption in the passing game. Two passes defended indicate that Wyatt also affected passing plays without necessarily making a tackle on the receiver.
His two quarterback hits and sack contributed to Green Bay’s overall pressure advantage. Together with Gary’s figures, Wyatt’s performance illustrates how multiple defenders contributed rather than leaving all the work to one player.
Washington’s defensive leaders
Bobby Wagner led the Commanders with 11 total tackles and three solo tackles. His 11 tackles were the highest individual total listed for either team.
Quan Martin recorded seven total tackles, four solo tackles, and one pass defended. Marshon Lattimore and Mike Sainristil each finished with six total tackles and five solo tackles, while Lattimore also recorded one pass defended.
Dorance Armstrong produced one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit alongside six total tackles. Jacob Martin added half a sack and one quarterback hit on three total tackles.
Washington’s defenders were active, and the team’s 65 total tackles exceeded Green Bay’s 60. That number alone, however, does not indicate superior defensive performance. Tackles reflect how many plays end with a defender making contact, not necessarily how effectively the defense prevents yardage or scoring.
The more revealing difference is that Green Bay recorded twice as many sacks and three more passes defended. The Packers also registered eight more quarterback hits.
Why pressure mattered without turnovers
Both teams finished without interceptions, and neither recorded a fumble in the supplied data. Green Bay therefore did not win through a major advantage in takeaways.
Instead, the defensive figures point to a different path to victory:
- Four sacks created more negative plays for Washington.
- Twelve quarterback hits showed repeated contact with the passer.
- Eight passes defended reflected disruption in the passing game.
- Washington’s four quarterback hits and two sacks represented a lower level of recorded pressure.
This distinction is important when assessing defensive performances. Turnovers can rapidly change a game, but defenses can also influence results by limiting offensive efficiency, creating difficult down-and-distance situations, and making completed passes less productive.
Green Bay’s defensive production complemented its offensive advantage. The Packers gained more yards on offense while also producing more pressure on defense.
Special Teams Statistics: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams did not produce a touchdown for either side, but the kicking numbers contributed to the final scoring difference.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Brandon McManus, Green Bay | Matt Gay, Washington |
| Field goals made | 2 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 66.7% | 33.3% |
| Longest field goal | 56 yards | 51 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 1 |
| Total kicking points | 9 | 4 |
Brandon McManus gives Green Bay nine kicking points
McManus made two of three field-goal attempts and all three extra points. He finished with nine points, including a long field goal of 56 yards.
His successful attempts accounted for a meaningful portion of Green Bay’s 27 points. The two made field goals contributed six points, while the three extra points supplied another three.
McManus did miss one field goal, so his performance was not perfect. Still, his 66.7% field-goal rate was twice Washington’s recorded percentage.
Matt Gay’s kicking numbers
Gay made one of three field-goal attempts and his only extra-point attempt. His longest successful field goal was 51 yards, and he finished with four points.
His field-goal conversion rate was 33.3%. The two unsuccessful attempts meant Washington missed potential scoring opportunities, although the supplied statistics alone do not establish how those attempts affected the game’s momentum or play-calling.
The contrast is straightforward: Green Bay received nine kicking points, while Washington received four. That five-point difference formed part of the final nine-point margin.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Daniel Whelan, Green Bay | Tress Way, Washington |
| Punts | 4 | 4 |
| Total punting yards | 213 | 187 |
| Average per punt | 53.3 | 46.8 |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 0 | 3 |
| Longest punt | 55 yards | 55 yards |
Whelan averaged 53.3 yards per punt, compared with Way’s 46.8. Both recorded a longest punt of 55 yards.
Washington’s punting figures included three punts inside the 20-yard line, while Green Bay recorded none. That distinction suggests Washington had more recorded punts that placed the opposition inside its own 20-yard line.
Punting average and placement measure different aspects of performance. A longer punt can provide greater distance, while a punt inside the 20 can limit the opponent’s starting field position. The supplied numbers show that each punter had a different statistical strength.
Kick returns: Deebo Samuel Sr. provides a long return
Samuel returned two kickoffs for 78 yards, averaging 39.0 yards per return. His longest return covered 50 yards.
Luke McCaffrey added one return for 25 yards. Washington finished with 103 kick-return yards on three returns, averaging 34.3 yards.
Green Bay recorded 57 kick-return yards on two returns. Savion Williams returned one kickoff for 30 yards, while Emanuel Wilson returned one for 27 yards.
Washington therefore held the advantage in total kick-return yardage and average return distance. Samuel’s 50-yard return was the longest recorded by either team in the supplied kick-return figures.
These returns provided Washington with useful field-position potential, even though the team did not turn a kick return into a touchdown.
Punt returns: Jaylin Lane leads Washington
Lane returned three punts for 50 yards, averaging 16.7 yards per return. His longest punt return covered 24 yards.
Green Bay recorded three punt returns for just one net yard. Keisean Nixon returned two punts for three yards, while Golden returned one for minus two yards.
Washington’s advantage in punt-return yardage was therefore substantial. Lane generated 49 more return yards than Green Bay’s punt-return group.
This was an area where Washington performed better statistically. It is worth acknowledging that difference rather than treating every category as a Packers advantage. Green Bay won the game through the broader combination of offense, defensive pressure, and kicking production, while Washington produced more yardage on both kick returns and punt returns.
How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter
The scoring pattern helps connect the individual numbers to the final result.
First quarter: Green Bay establishes the lead
Green Bay scored seven points in the opening quarter, while Washington failed to score.
That early advantage gave the Packers a foundation to build on. The Commanders would eventually score 18 points, but starting without a first-quarter score meant they spent the remainder of the game trying to close the gap.
Second quarter: Both teams get on the scoreboard
Green Bay added seven points in the second quarter, bringing its halftime scoring total to 14. Washington scored a field goal, giving the Commanders three points by halftime.
The Packers therefore held a 14-3 lead at the interval. Their two touchdowns had created a meaningful advantage, while Washington had managed only one scoring play.
Third quarter: Green Bay extends its advantage
The Packers added three points in the third quarter, while Washington again failed to score.
That made the score 17-3 heading into the fourth quarter. Green Bay’s third-quarter field goal increased the lead without requiring a touchdown, while Washington’s scoreless period made its eventual comeback more difficult.
The quarter also fits the broader statistical picture: the Packers’ offense had generated more yardage, and the defense had kept Washington from scoring during the first and third quarters.
Fourth quarter: Washington makes a late push
Washington scored 15 points in the fourth quarter, its most productive period of the game. Green Bay responded with 10 points of its own.
The Commanders’ late scoring improved the final margin, but the Packers still won by nine points. Washington’s 15-point quarter demonstrated that the offense could produce scoring late in the contest, yet the earlier deficit proved too large to overcome.
The overall sequence is more informative than the final score alone. Green Bay scored consistently across all four quarters, while Washington’s production was concentrated heavily in the final period.
Five Key Takeaways From the Player Statistics
1. Jordan Love delivered the more efficient passing performance
Love threw for 292 yards and two touchdowns on 31 attempts. Daniels also threw two touchdowns, but needed 42 attempts to generate 200 yards.
The contrast in yards per attempt, 9.4 to 4.8, is the clearest indicator of the difference between their passing performances in this game.
2. Tucker Kraft was the leading receiving performer
Kraft’s six receptions produced 124 yards and one touchdown. His 57-yard longest catch gave Green Bay an explosive play that Washington’s leading receiver, Ertz, did not match in total yardage.
Kraft’s production was especially significant because he generated more than 40% of the Packers’ passing yardage.
3. Josh Jacobs gave Green Bay a dependable rushing workload
Jacobs’ 23 carries and 84 yards provided the Packers with a consistent ground option. His rushing touchdown also gave Green Bay a scoring route that Washington did not have.
Green Bay’s 135 rushing yards compared with Washington’s 51, making the ground game one of the clearest team-level differences.
4. Green Bay’s defense disrupted the passing game
Four sacks, 12 quarterback hits, and eight passes defended helped the Packers limit Washington’s offensive efficiency.
Although Washington did not throw an interception and did not record a fumble, Green Bay still found ways to pressure Daniels and challenge passing plays.
5. Washington’s late scoring did not erase its earlier struggles
The Commanders scored 15 fourth-quarter points, but they had managed only three points across the first three quarters.
Their final-quarter output was a genuine positive, yet it did not offset the 176-yard gap in combined passing and rushing production or Green Bay’s advantage in kicking points.
How to Interpret These Match Player Stats Accurately
Player statistics are most useful when they are examined in context rather than treated as isolated rankings.
For readers analyzing the green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats, several principles help distinguish meaningful performance indicators from misleading comparisons.
Start with team totals. Passing and rushing yardage reveal the broad offensive picture. In this game, Green Bay’s 427 combined passing and rushing yards compared with Washington’s 251.
Compare production with opportunity. Love needed 31 passing attempts to generate 292 yards, while Daniels attempted 42 passes for 200 yards. Receiving statistics tell a similar story: Green Bay gained 292 yards on 27 targets, and Washington gained 200 on 40.
Separate scoring from yardage. Two passing touchdowns for each quarterback do not mean their passing performances were equivalent. Love’s greater yardage and efficiency, Jacobs’ rushing touchdown, and McManus’ kicking production all contributed to the result.
Read defensive statistics together. Tackles alone are not enough to evaluate a defense. Sacks, quarterback hits, passes defended, and tackles for loss provide additional context. Green Bay’s four sacks and eight passes defended are more revealing than the small difference in total tackles.
Recognize the limits of a single game. One matchup can show what happened on a particular night, but it cannot establish a player’s long-term ability or predict every future performance. Small samples, game situations, opponent quality, and individual assignments all affect statistical interpretation.
For the official box score and its full player-by-player breakdown, consult the ESPN NFL box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Packers vs Commanders game on September 11, 2025?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Washington Commanders 27-18. Green Bay scored in all four quarters, while Washington scored 15 of its 18 points in the fourth quarter.
2. How many passing yards did Jordan Love and Jayden Daniels record?
Jordan Love threw for 292 yards on 19 completions from 31 attempts, with two touchdowns and no interceptions. Jayden Daniels recorded 200 passing yards on 24 completions from 42 attempts, also with two touchdowns and no interceptions.
3. Who was the leading receiver in the Packers vs Commanders matchup?
Tucker Kraft led all listed receivers with six receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 57 yards, and he averaged 20.7 yards per catch.
4. Who led the game in rushing yards?
Josh Jacobs led the listed players with 84 rushing yards on 23 carries and one touchdown. Washington’s leading individual rusher, Jacory Croskey-Merritt, recorded 17 yards on four carries.
5. Which team had better defensive statistics?
Green Bay recorded four sacks, 12 quarterback hits, and eight passes defended. Washington recorded two sacks, four quarterback hits, and three passes defended. The Packers also recorded one more tackle for loss than the Commanders.
6. Did either team record an interception or fumble?
Neither team recorded an interception or a fumble in the supplied box score. Green Bay’s defensive advantage came from quarterback pressure and pass disruption rather than turnovers.
Conclusion
The green bay packers vs washington commanders match player stats reveal why Green Bay earned its 27-18 victory on September 11, 2025. The Packers produced 292 passing yards and 135 rushing yards, compared with Washington’s 200 passing yards and 51 rushing yards. Their 427 combined passing and rushing yards gave them a 176-yard advantage over the Commanders.
Jordan Love led the passing game with two touchdowns, 292 yards, and a 113.9 passer rating. Tucker Kraft was the leading receiver with 124 yards and a touchdown, while Josh Jacobs contributed 84 rushing yards and a rushing score. These performances gave Green Bay production through multiple offensive channels.
Washington had its own contributors. Jayden Daniels threw two touchdown passes without an interception, Zach Ertz led the Commanders with 64 receiving yards, and Deebo Samuel Sr. recorded seven receptions and a touchdown. Washington also generated more kick-return and punt-return yardage than Green Bay.
The decisive differences came from offensive efficiency, rushing production, defensive pressure, and kicking. Green Bay recorded four sacks and 12 quarterback hits, while Brandon McManus contributed nine points. Washington’s 15-point fourth quarter made the finish more competitive, but the Packers’ earlier scoring advantage remained intact.
Taken together, the statistics show that Green Bay won through a more productive offense and a defense that repeatedly disrupted the opposing quarterback. Washington’s late scoring and return-game contributions were notable, but they were not enough to overcome the overall yardage gap and Green Bay’s balanced scoring performance.
