Seahawks vs Colts Match Player Stats
The seahawks vs colts match player stats from the Seattle Seahawks’ 18-16 victory over the Indianapolis Colts show how a game can be decided by efficiency, field position, defensive execution, and reliable kicking rather than touchdowns. Seattle finished with 314 total yards compared with Indianapolis’ 215, but the Colts controlled the ground game and time of possession. The Seahawks ultimately won because they generated more passing production, protected the football from turnovers, and converted six field-goal attempts through Jason Myers.
This was a fascinating statistical matchup because neither team produced a rushing touchdown, and Seattle did not score a touchdown at all. Indianapolis found the end zone once, but Seattle’s kicking game remained perfect throughout the afternoon. The result was a narrow two-point victory that required Seattle to execute repeatedly in scoring range.
According to the official NFL game record, the matchup was played at Lumen Field on Sunday, December 14, 2025, in Week 15. The supplied data lists December 15, 2025, but the official game record identifies December 14 as the game date. Seattle entered the contest at 10-3 and improved to 11-3 with the win, while Indianapolis fell to 8-6.
Seahawks vs Colts Match Player Stats at a Glance
The most important numbers immediately explain why this game was so competitive.
| Category | Indianapolis Colts | Seattle Seahawks |
| Final Score | 16 | 18 |
| Record After Game | 8-6 | 11-3 |
| Total Yards | 215 | 314 |
| Passing Yards | 120 gross | 271 gross |
| Net Passing Yards | 118 | 264 |
| Rushing Yards | 97 | 50 |
| Total Offensive Plays | 58 | 59 |
| First Downs | 14 | 15 |
| Third Down | 5/13 | 2/13 |
| Fourth Down | 0/0 | 1/1 |
| Turnovers Lost | 1 interception | 0 |
| Field Goals | 3/3 | 6/6 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Time of Possession | 31:05 | 28:55 |
The most striking difference is total offense. Seattle produced 314 yards, which was 99 more than Indianapolis. The Seahawks averaged 5.3 yards per offensive play, while the Colts averaged 3.7.
Yet Indianapolis actually ran for more yards, gaining 97 on the ground compared with Seattle’s 50. That contrast tells us that Seattle’s offensive advantage came primarily through the passing game.
The official NFL team statistics confirm the same basic picture, including Seattle’s 314 total yards, Indianapolis’ 215 total yards, Seattle’s 264 net passing yards, and Indianapolis’ 97 rushing yards.
Seattle Seahawks Offensive Performance
Seattle’s offense was not explosive in the conventional sense because it failed to score a touchdown. However, the Seahawks consistently moved the ball well enough to create opportunities for their kicker.
The offense finished with 314 total yards on 59 plays. That works out to 5.3 yards per play, a strong figure considering the final score remained below 20 points.
The most important offensive advantage was passing efficiency.
Sam Darnold’s Passing Numbers
Sam Darnold completed 22 of 36 passes for 271 yards. He did not throw a touchdown or interception and finished with an 84.4 passer rating.
His statistical line was:
- 22 completions
- 36 attempts
- 271 passing yards
- 0 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 1 sack
- 84.4 passer rating
- 7.5 yards per passing attempt
The absence of touchdowns might make the performance appear less impressive at first glance, but the 271 passing yards were a major reason Seattle finished with nearly 100 more total yards than Indianapolis.
Darnold also avoided throwing an interception, which mattered enormously in a two-point game. Indianapolis did generate a turnover through Coby Bryant’s defensive work, but Seattle’s offense did not give the Colts an interception opportunity.
The NFL’s postgame analysis also noted that Darnold struggled at times early but produced the necessary drives late in the game. That is an important distinction when evaluating quarterback performance. A box score can show 271 yards and zero touchdowns, but the timing of those yards matters.
Jaxon Smith-Njigba Was Seattle’s Biggest Receiving Threat
Jaxon Smith-Njigba delivered the clearest individual receiving performance for Seattle.
He finished with:
- 7 receptions
- 113 receiving yards
- 16.1 yards per reception
- 0 touchdowns
- 39-yard longest reception
His 113 yards represented more than 40 percent of Seattle’s gross passing yardage.
That level of production made him the centerpiece of Seattle’s passing attack. More importantly, his average of 16.1 yards per reception indicates that his impact was not limited to short completions.
Smith-Njigba also became particularly important as the game progressed. Seattle needed chunk plays to compensate for its limited rushing production, and his ability to create meaningful gains through the air gave the offense a way to consistently move into scoring range.
Zach Charbonnet Led Seattle’s Rushing Production
Zach Charbonnet was Seattle’s listed rushing leader with:
- 8 carries
- 31 yards
- 3.9 yards per carry
- 0 touchdowns
- 8-yard longest run
Seattle collectively rushed for only 50 yards, averaging 2.3 yards per rushing attempt.
That is one of the clearest weaknesses in the Seahawks’ offensive statistics.
The team could not consistently create rushing efficiency, so the passing game carried most of the workload. This made Seattle’s ability to avoid turnovers and convert field-goal opportunities even more important.
Indianapolis Colts Offensive Performance
Indianapolis approached the game differently.
The Colts generated only 215 total yards, but they rushed for 97 yards and held the ball for 31:05. Their ability to maintain possession helped keep the game within reach despite Seattle’s large advantage in passing production.
Philip Rivers’ Passing Performance
Philip Rivers completed 18 of 27 passes for 120 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He was also sacked once and finished with a 73.1 passer rating.
His listed numbers were:
- 18 completions
- 27 attempts
- 120 passing yards
- 1 touchdown
- 1 interception
- 1 sack
- 73.1 passer rating
The passing yardage was modest, but the context matters.
Rivers was not asked to throw 40 or 50 times. Indianapolis relied more heavily on the running game and controlled possession. The Colts also managed to score their only touchdown through the passing attack.
The official NFL record confirms that Rivers returned to NFL action in this game after a long absence, making the performance particularly notable from a historical perspective. He nearly helped Indianapolis pull off the upset, but Seattle’s late response ultimately prevented the road victory.
Jonathan Taylor Carried the Ground Game
Jonathan Taylor was Indianapolis’ leading rusher with:
- 25 carries
- 87 rushing yards
- 3.5 yards per carry
- 0 touchdowns
- 11-yard longest run
Taylor accounted for the overwhelming majority of Indianapolis’ rushing workload.
His 25 carries were also a major reason the Colts were able to keep the clock moving and maintain possession. Even though he did not reach the end zone, he gave Indianapolis a dependable way to control the game without requiring constant quarterback passing volume.
The 3.5-yard average was not dominant, but it was sufficient to support the Colts’ possession-based approach.
Ameer Abdullah Led Indianapolis Receivers
Ameer Abdullah led the Colts in receptions with:
- 5 receptions
- 32 yards
- 6.4 yards per reception
- 0 touchdowns
- 14-yard longest reception
Indianapolis did not have a receiver approach Seattle’s 113-yard performance from Smith-Njigba.
That difference in explosive receiving production is one of the biggest reasons Seattle accumulated 271 passing yards while Indianapolis had only 120 gross passing yards.
Abdullah’s contribution was more about volume and dependable short gains than explosive plays.
Seahawks vs Colts Match Player Stats: Quarterback Comparison
A quarterback comparison makes the contrast between the teams particularly clear.
| Statistic | Sam Darnold | Philip Rivers |
| Completions | 22 | 18 |
| Attempts | 36 | 27 |
| Completion Rate | 61.1% | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 271 | 120 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 7.5 | 4.4 |
| TD Passes | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Passer Rating | 84.4 | 73.1 |
Rivers actually had the higher completion percentage, but Darnold generated far more yardage.
That difference is important.
Completion percentage alone does not measure how much an offense gained from its passing game. Darnold completed 22 passes, six more than Rivers, and gained 151 more passing yards.
At the same time, Rivers produced Indianapolis’ only touchdown pass.
The two quarterbacks therefore contributed in different ways. Darnold provided volume and explosive yardage without a touchdown, while Rivers produced fewer yards but contributed directly to the Colts’ only touchdown.
Seattle’s Receiving Advantage Was Significant
The receiving numbers show one of the clearest statistical gaps.
Seattle recorded 22 receptions for 271 yards, an average of 12.3 yards per reception.
Indianapolis recorded 18 receptions for 120 yards, an average of 6.7 yards per reception.
That is a major difference in receiving efficiency.
Seattle averaged 5.6 more yards per reception than Indianapolis.
This helps explain how the Seahawks could score only field goals and still generate enough offense to win. Their passing game consistently created larger chunks of yardage, allowing Seattle to move into field-goal range even when drives failed to reach the end zone.
For Indianapolis, the passing attack was much more conservative. The Colts needed their rushing game and possession advantage to compensate.
Defensive Player Stats
The offensive numbers receive most of the attention, but the defensive performances were equally important.
Indianapolis Defensive Leaders
Zaire Franklin led the Colts with 10 total tackles, including 7 solo tackles.
Laiatu Latu recorded Indianapolis’ lone sack.
The Colts also recorded an interception through Coby Bryant’s defensive contribution, although the supplied statistics list Bryant as a Seattle player. Because the supplied player data and team attribution conflict on this specific entry, the safest interpretation is to retain the supplied box-score figure without assigning the interception to the wrong defense.
The broader defensive picture is clearer: Indianapolis held Seattle without a touchdown and limited the Seahawks to only 18 points despite allowing 314 total yards.
That is an important accomplishment.
Seattle Defensive Leaders
Ernest Jones IV led Seattle with 10 total tackles and 5 solo tackles.
Nick Emmanwori recorded Seattle’s listed sack.
Seattle’s defense also benefited from the offense’s ability to avoid interceptions. In a game this close, every possession mattered.
The Seahawks did not dominate every statistical category. Their third-down defense was actually less efficient than Indianapolis’ offense, with Seattle allowing the Colts to convert 5 of 13 third downs while Seattle converted only 2 of 13 offensively.
Yet the Seahawks still found ways to limit the final scoring output.
The Kicking Game Decided the Matchup
If there is one part of the seahawks vs colts match player stats that best explains the final score, it is the kicking performance.
Jason Myers was perfect for Seattle.
He made:
- 6 of 6 field goals
- Longest field goal of 56 yards
- 18 total points
Those 18 points represented Seattle’s entire offensive scoring output.
That is extraordinary for a winning team.
Every Seattle point came from the kicker.
Blake Grupe also delivered a strong performance for Indianapolis, making:
- 3 of 3 field goals
- Longest field goal of 60 yards
- 1 of 1 extra point
- 10 total points
Grupe’s 60-yard field goal was longer than Myers’ longest attempt, but Seattle had more opportunities and converted all six field-goal attempts.
This was ultimately the difference.
The Colts scored one touchdown, one extra point, and three field goals. Seattle scored six field goals.
That means Seattle converted its offensive opportunities into points with exceptional consistency even without reaching the end zone.
Special Teams and Field Position
Special teams played a meaningful supporting role.
Rashid Shaheed handled Seattle’s kick return duties effectively, recording:
- 5 kick returns
- 131 yards
- 26.2-yard average
- 30-yard longest return
He also recorded one punt return for 6 yards.
For Indianapolis, Ameer Abdullah had:
- 2 kick returns
- 71 yards
- 35.5-yard average
- 44-yard longest return
Coleman Owen recorded one punt return for 2 yards.
The return statistics show that both teams received useful field-position contributions, although Seattle had more total kick-return yardage.
Punting Comparison
Indianapolis punter Rigoberto Sanchez recorded:
- 5 punts
- 228 total yards
- 45.6-yard average
- 59-yard longest punt
Seattle punter Michael Dickson recorded:
- 4 punts
- 193 total yards
- 48.3-yard average
- 52-yard longest punt
Dickson had the better average, while Sanchez produced the longer individual punt.
The official team statistics also show Seattle had the stronger net punting average, 47.8 compared with Indianapolis’ 40.4.
Why Seattle Won Despite Losing the Rushing Battle
This is one of the most useful lessons from the game.
Indianapolis rushed for 97 yards.
Seattle rushed for 50.
Ordinarily, the team with nearly twice as many rushing yards would appear to have the advantage. But football is not decided by one statistical category.
Seattle dominated through the air.
The Seahawks gained 264 net passing yards, while Indianapolis gained 118.
That created a net passing advantage of 146 yards for Seattle.
When the rushing difference is combined with the passing difference, Seattle’s total offensive advantage becomes clear.
The Seahawks finished with 314 total yards.
The Colts finished with 215.
Seattle gained 99 more total yards despite rushing for 47 fewer yards.
The difference came from explosive passing production.
Third Down Was a Strange Part of the Game
Neither offense was particularly efficient on third down.
Indianapolis converted 5 of 13 third downs, or 38.5 percent.
Seattle converted only 2 of 13, or 15.4 percent.
This is unusual because Seattle still gained 314 total yards and won the game.
The explanation is that Seattle did not need to rely heavily on third-down conversions to produce scoring opportunities. Its passing attack created enough yardage on earlier downs to help the team reach field-goal range.
Indianapolis, meanwhile, was better on third down but could not turn that advantage into enough points.
This is a valuable reminder that third-down percentage should not be viewed in isolation.
Red Zone Efficiency Tells Another Story
The red-zone statistics make the final score even more interesting.
Indianapolis went 1 for 1 in the red zone, scoring a touchdown.
Seattle went 0 for 2.
On the surface, Indianapolis had the clear red-zone advantage.
But Seattle compensated outside the red zone.
Instead of repeatedly reaching the end zone, the Seahawks converted field-goal attempts from distance.
That produced six successful field goals.
The game therefore illustrates the difference between red-zone efficiency and scoring efficiency.
A team can be perfect in the red zone and still lose if its opponent consistently generates field-goal opportunities and converts them.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers were another critical factor.
The supplied player data lists one fumble for each quarterback, but neither fumble was lost.
The more meaningful difference came through interceptions.
Darnold threw zero interceptions.
Rivers threw one.
Seattle therefore avoided giving Indianapolis a second-chance possession through an interception.
In a game decided by two points, protecting the football is particularly valuable.
The official team statistics show Indianapolis finished with one turnover through the interception, while Seattle finished without a lost turnover despite recording a fumble that was not lost.
That small advantage helped Seattle maintain control of the overall possession battle.
Time of Possession Favored Indianapolis
Indianapolis held the ball for 31:05.
Seattle had possession for 28:55.
The Colts therefore had a 2:10 advantage in time of possession.
That fits the overall offensive strategy.
Indianapolis ran 30 rushing plays and attempted only 27 passes. Seattle ran only 22 rushing plays but attempted 36 passes.
The Colts emphasized balance with a strong rushing component.
Seattle leaned much more heavily toward the passing game.
This difference in philosophy helps explain why Indianapolis could control the clock despite producing significantly fewer total yards.
The Most Important Statistical Takeaways
Several numbers stand above the rest.
1. Seattle’s 314 total yards
The Seahawks generated 99 more yards than Indianapolis.
2. Seattle’s 271 gross passing yards
This was the offensive foundation of the victory.
3. Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s 113 receiving yards
He was Seattle’s most productive offensive skill player.
4. Jason Myers’ 18 points
Myers scored every Seattle point.
5. Indianapolis’ 97 rushing yards
The Colts controlled the ground game but could not translate that advantage into enough points.
6. Seattle’s zero interceptions
Darnold avoided the major passing mistake that could have changed the game.
7. Indianapolis’ 60-yard field goal
Blake Grupe demonstrated strong long-range kicking ability and kept Indianapolis within striking distance.
8. Seattle’s 6-for-6 field-goal performance
This was the ultimate difference-maker.
What the Player Stats Say About Each Team
The numbers tell two different stories.
Seattle looked like a team that could generate yardage through the passing game but struggled to finish drives with touchdowns.
Indianapolis looked like a team capable of controlling the clock and running effectively but lacked enough passing production to keep pace statistically.
For Seattle, the formula was:
Passing yardage + field-goal accuracy + ball security = victory.
For Indianapolis, the formula was closer to:
Rushing production + possession control + red-zone execution = competitive game.
The problem for the Colts was that their formula produced 16 points, while Seattle’s produced 18.
A Closer Look at the Final Quarter
The fourth quarter was especially important because Seattle had to respond repeatedly.
The Seahawks entered the final period needing to turn their yardage advantage into points. Rather than finding the end zone, they relied on Myers.
The official NFL postgame analysis noted that Darnold led three consecutive fourth-quarter field-goal drives of 66, 82, and 25 yards. That sequence is central to understanding the victory.
It demonstrates that Seattle’s offense did not collapse when touchdowns were unavailable.
Instead, it repeatedly moved the ball far enough to create scoring opportunities.
That is a different form of offensive efficiency.
Why Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s Performance Matters
A 113-yard receiving performance in a game that ends 18-16 deserves special attention.
Smith-Njigba averaged 16.1 yards per catch.
That means Seattle did not simply rely on short completions to accumulate passing yardage. The receiver produced meaningful chunks of offense.
His 39-yard reception was the longest listed Seattle reception and helped stretch the Indianapolis defense.
The value of a receiver in a low-scoring game is not simply measured by touchdowns. Consistently creating first downs, moving the offense into scoring territory, and generating field position can be equally important.
Smith-Njigba did exactly that.
Jonathan Taylor’s Role in Indianapolis’ Game Plan
Taylor’s 25 carries were a major part of Indianapolis’ strategy.
His 87 rushing yards did not produce a touchdown, but the workload kept the Colts’ offense grounded.
A 25-carry workload also helped Indianapolis maintain its time-of-possession advantage.
The issue was efficiency.
At 3.5 yards per carry, Taylor produced solid but not overwhelming gains. Against a Seattle offense that was generating 7.5 yards per pass attempt, the Colts needed their rushing game to produce more explosive plays or more scoring opportunities.
Taylor did his part in terms of workload, but the overall offense could not match Seattle’s passing output.
The Kicking Battle Was Not Simply About Distance
It would be easy to focus on Grupe’s 60-yard field goal and call him the more impressive kicker because he made the longer kick.
But the more important statistic was Myers’ perfect 6-for-6 performance.
Kicking is about opportunity as much as distance.
Seattle created six field-goal opportunities and converted every one.
Indianapolis created three and converted every one.
Both kickers were perfect.
Seattle simply gave Myers twice as many opportunities.
That is an offensive success as much as a kicking success.
What This Game Teaches About Box Score Analysis
The seahawks vs colts match player stats are a useful example of why a single statistic rarely explains an NFL result.
If you only look at rushing yards, Indianapolis appears to have the advantage.
If you only look at time of possession, Indianapolis again appears stronger.
If you only look at third-down percentage, Indianapolis has the edge.
If you only look at red-zone efficiency, Indianapolis was perfect.
Yet Seattle won.
Why?
Because the Seahawks dominated total yards, passing production, yards per play, field-goal opportunities, and turnover avoidance.
This is why a strong postgame analysis needs to connect the statistics instead of simply listing them.
Full Key Player Statistics
Seattle Seahawks
| Player | Category | Performance |
| Sam Darnold | Passing | 22/36, 271 yards, 0 TD, 0 INT |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | Receiving | 7 receptions, 113 yards |
| Zach Charbonnet | Rushing | 8 carries, 31 yards |
| Ernest Jones IV | Tackles | 10 total, 5 solo |
| Nick Emmanwori | Sacks | 1 |
| Rashid Shaheed | Kick Returns | 5 returns, 131 yards |
| Rashid Shaheed | Punt Returns | 1 return, 6 yards |
| Jason Myers | Kicking | 6/6 FG, 18 points |
| Michael Dickson | Punting | 4 punts, 193 yards |
Indianapolis Colts
| Player | Category | Performance |
| Philip Rivers | Passing | 18/27, 120 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT |
| Jonathan Taylor | Rushing | 25 carries, 87 yards |
| Ameer Abdullah | Receiving | 5 receptions, 32 yards |
| Zaire Franklin | Tackles | 10 total, 7 solo |
| Laiatu Latu | Sacks | 1 |
| Ameer Abdullah | Kick Returns | 2 returns, 71 yards |
| Coleman Owen | Punt Returns | 1 return, 2 yards |
| Blake Grupe | Kicking | 3/3 FG, 10 points |
| Rigoberto Sanchez | Punting | 5 punts, 228 yards |
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of Seahawks vs Colts?
Seattle defeated Indianapolis 18-16. The Seahawks scored all 18 of their points through six successful field goals, while Indianapolis scored one touchdown, one extra point, and three field goals.
Who was the leading passer in Seahawks vs Colts?
Sam Darnold led all passers with 271 yards for Seattle. He completed 22 of 36 attempts with no touchdowns and no interceptions.
Who led the Colts in rushing?
Jonathan Taylor led Indianapolis with 25 carries for 87 yards, averaging 3.5 yards per carry.
Who led Seattle in receiving?
Jaxon Smith-Njigba led the Seahawks with 7 receptions for 113 yards. He averaged 16.1 yards per reception and recorded a long reception of 39 yards.
Who scored the most points in the game?
Seattle kicker Jason Myers scored 18 points by making all six of his field-goal attempts. His longest successful kick was 56 yards.
Did either team score a rushing touchdown?
No. Neither Seattle nor Indianapolis recorded a rushing touchdown. Seattle did not score a touchdown at all, while Indianapolis scored one passing touchdown.
Conclusion
The seahawks vs colts match player stats show a game that was much closer than the total-yardage difference might suggest.
Seattle finished with 314 total yards compared with Indianapolis’ 215. The Seahawks’ biggest advantage came through the passing game, where Sam Darnold produced 271 yards and Jaxon Smith-Njigba added 113 receiving yards.
Indianapolis countered with a stronger rushing attack. Jonathan Taylor carried 25 times for 87 yards, and the Colts controlled the clock for more than 31 minutes.
The decisive difference was Seattle’s ability to turn offensive possessions into points.
Jason Myers made all six field-goal attempts and accounted for all 18 Seahawks points. Blake Grupe was also perfect, going 3-for-3 on field goals, but Indianapolis could not create enough scoring opportunities to overcome Seattle’s passing advantage.
The final statistics provide a clear lesson: winning an NFL game does not always require a touchdown-heavy offense. Seattle moved the ball effectively, protected against interceptions, created field-goal opportunities, and converted every one.
Indianapolis remained competitive because of its rushing game, possession control, red-zone execution, and reliable kicking. Seattle ultimately had just enough offensive production and enough late-game execution to secure the 18-16 victory.
For readers studying NFL player statistics, this matchup is a strong example of why individual numbers should always be viewed within the larger game context. Yardage, efficiency, turnovers, field position, possession time, third-down performance, red-zone opportunities, and kicking accuracy all contributed to the final result.
