by When examining any NFL contest, especially one between historic rivals like the Pittsburgh Steelers and Baltimore Ravens, the final score tells only a fraction of the story.
This recent matchup featuring steelers vs Baltimore Ravens match player stats revealed fascinating insights about both franchises’ current trajectories.
The Ravens secured a convincing 28-14 victory that showcased their strengths while exposing Pittsburgh’s vulnerabilities in several key areas.
What makes this rivalry special is the physical intensity that defines nearly every encounter between these AFC North competitors.
Both franchises have historically built their identities around strong defense, punishing running games, and mental toughness.
However, this particular matchup highlighted an evolving dynamic where Baltimore’s modern offensive approach leverages traditional power football concepts with contemporary spread elements, creating challenges that Pittsburgh struggled to address.
For football enthusiasts seeking deeper understanding, this comprehensive breakdown examines every aspect of this divisional clash.
Steelers Vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
We’ll analyze individual performances within their tactical context, explore how momentum shifted throughout the contest, and consider what these outcomes suggest about both teams’ futures.
By looking beyond the obvious statistics, we can appreciate the strategic chess match that unfolded on the field and understand how specific decisions influenced the final result.
Final Score: Momentum Shifts Revealed
The quarter-by-quarter scoring pattern provides our first insight into how this game developed:
| Team | 1Q | 2Q | 3Q | 4Q | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steelers | 0 | 0 | 14 | 0 | 14 |
| Baltimore Ravens | 7 | 14 | 7 | 0 | 28 |
This breakdown reveals three distinct phases that characterized the matchup:
Phase 1: Ravens’ Early Control (Quarters 1-2) Baltimore established dominance immediately, scoring in both opening quarters while preventing Pittsburgh from generating any offensive rhythm. This 21-0 halftime advantage resulted from excellent execution in all three phases—offense sustaining drives, defense forcing punts, and special teams maintaining favorable field position.
Phase 2: Steelers’ Resurgence (Quarter 3) Pittsburgh demonstrated resilience by scoring 14 points in the third quarter, briefly creating momentum and making the score 21-14. This comeback attempt featured more aggressive downfield passing and improved defensive adjustments against Baltimore’s running game.
Phase 3: Ravens’ Response and Game Management (Quarters 3-4) Baltimore effectively halted Pittsburgh’s momentum with a crucial third-quarter touchdown drive that extended their lead back to 14 points. The scoreless fourth quarter reflected Baltimore’s commitment to conservative, clock-controlling strategy rather than additional scoring opportunities.
This scoring distribution illustrates how Baltimore established an early advantage that proved insurmountable despite Pittsburgh’s brief resurgence.
Steelers Player Stats: Areas of Strength and Concern
Passing: Wilson’s Efficiency
| Player | Completions/Attempts | Yards | Touchdowns | Interceptions | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Russell Wilson | 20/29 | 270 | 2 | 0 | 121.3 |
| Justin Fields | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 39.6 |
Russell Wilson delivered an impressively efficient performance despite the losing effort. His 121.3 passer rating reflected excellent decision-making, as he consistently found open receivers while avoiding turnover-worthy throws. Wilson’s ability to complete 69% of his passes for 270 yards and 2 touchdowns without interceptions demonstrates that quarterback play was not Pittsburgh’s primary issue in this contest.
Particularly noteworthy was Wilson’s success when given adequate protection. On plays where he had at least 2.5 seconds in the pocket, Wilson completed 11 of 14 attempts for 187 yards and both touchdowns. This suggests that when Pittsburgh’s offensive line performed well, their passing attack could be quite effective.
Justin Fields’ single incomplete pass indicates his limited role remained primarily as a situational option rather than a significant part of Pittsburgh’s game plan.
Rushing and Receiving: Imbalanced Attack
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Rushing TDs | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Receiving TDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Najee Harris | 6 | 17 | 0 | 3 | 41 | 0 |
| Jaylen Warren | 2 | 6 | 0 | 4 | 19 | 0 |
| Russell Wilson | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 15 | 0 |
| Darnell Washington | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 0 |
| George Pickens | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 87 | 1 |
| Van Jefferson | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 37 | 1 |
| Mike Williams | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 37 | 0 |
| Calvin Austin III | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 25 | 0 |
The most concerning aspect of Pittsburgh’s performance was their complete inability to establish any running game. Najee Harris managed just 17 yards on 6 carries (2.8 yards per attempt), while backup Jaylen Warren contributed only 6 yards on 2 carries. The team’s total of 29 rushing yards on 11 attempts (2.6-yard average) created significant strategic limitations:
- Made play-action passing less effective due to defenders not respecting the run threat
- Created predictable third-down situations that Baltimore could defend more aggressively
- Prevented Pittsburgh from controlling the clock, leading to a significant time-of-possession disadvantage
- Placed excessive pressure on Wilson and the passing game to generate nearly all offensive production
In the receiving department, George Pickens emerged as Wilson’s preferred target, converting 5 receptions into 87 yards and a touchdown. His ability to create separation against Baltimore’s secondary provided Pittsburgh’s most consistent offensive threat. Van Jefferson added a touchdown among his 2 catches for 37 yards, while Mike Williams contributed a crucial 37-yard reception during Pittsburgh’s third-quarter surge.
The distribution of receptions across nine different players demonstrates Wilson’s willingness to progress through his reads rather than locking onto primary targets. This receiving depth represents a potential strength for Pittsburgh’s offense moving forward, though its effectiveness remains contingent on developing a more balanced attack.
Defense: Mixed Performance
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Tackles for Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elandon Roberts | 14 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
| Patrick Queen | 10 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Cameron Heyward | 10 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
| Minkah Fitzpatrick | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Joey Porter Jr. | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
Pittsburgh’s defense faced an enormous challenge against Baltimore’s multifaceted rushing attack. Linebacker Elandon Roberts led all tacklers with 14 total stops, though many came after significant gains had already been surrendered. This high tackle count often indicates a linebacker forced to make plays downfield rather than at or near the line of scrimmage.
Patrick Queen and Cameron Heyward each contributed 10 tackles, with Heyward adding 2 tackles for loss that momentarily disrupted Baltimore’s offensive rhythm. Safety Minkah Fitzpatrick registered 9 tackles, indicating he was frequently involved in run support—not an ideal situation for a defense as it suggests running backs consistently reached the secondary level.
The most glaring defensive deficiency was Pittsburgh’s complete lack of quarterback pressure. Recording zero sacks against Lamar Jackson allowed him to operate comfortably throughout the contest, both as a passer and when deciding to run. This absence of disruption proved particularly costly on third downs, where Baltimore converted an impressive 8 of 12 opportunities (67%).
Rookie cornerback Joey Porter Jr. showed promise with 6 solo tackles, demonstrating solid fundamental technique in open-field situations despite the defense’s overall struggles.
Kicking and Punting: Special Teams Strength
| Player | Field Goals | Extra Points |
|---|---|---|
| Chris Boswell | 0/0 | 2/2 |
| Player | Punts | Yards | Inside 20 | Longest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corliss Waitman | 5 | 257 | 5 | 60 |
While kicker Chris Boswell had minimal impact beyond converting both extra-point attempts, punter Corliss Waitman delivered an exceptional performance that represents Pittsburgh’s clearest advantage in this matchup. Averaging 51.4 yards on 5 punts with all 5 placed inside Baltimore’s 20-yard line, Waitman consistently helped the Steelers maintain favorable field position despite their offensive struggles.
His longest punt traveled 60 yards, demonstrating the leg strength to flip field position in critical situations. Waitman’s directional punting ability also limited return opportunities, helping Pittsburgh’s coverage units minimize Baltimore’s explosive potential in the return game.
Baltimore Ravens Player Stats: Balanced Excellence
Passing: Jackson’s Precision
| Player | Completions/Attempts | Yards | Touchdowns | Interceptions | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamar Jackson | 16/21 | 175 | 2 | 0 | 132 |
Lamar Jackson’s passing statistics exemplify efficient game management rather than volume production. Completing 76% of his attempts for 175 yards with 2 touchdowns and no interceptions, Jackson demonstrated excellent decision-making throughout the contest. His 132 passer rating reflects this precision.
Jackson’s most impressive attribute was his situational awareness. On third downs, he completed 6 of 7 passes for 78 yards and a touchdown, consistently extending drives at critical moments. In the red zone, he was perfect on all 4 attempts with 2 touchdowns, showcasing his improved ability to execute in condensed fields where his running threat creates unique advantages for Baltimore’s offense.
This performance represents Jackson’s continued evolution into a complete quarterback who understands how to balance his dynamic running ability with selective, high-percentage passing opportunities.
Rushing and Receiving: Ground Dominance
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Rushing TDs | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Receiving TDs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Derrick Henry | 26 | 186 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lamar Jackson | 15 | 81 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Justice Hill | 6 | 12 | 0 | 4 | 13 | 1 |
| Mark Andrews | 2 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 27 | 0 |
| Isaiah Likely | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 53 | 0 |
| Rashod Bateman | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 24 | 1 |
The story of this game was Derrick Henry’s dominant rushing performance. Gaining 186 yards on 26 carries (7.15 yards per attempt) with 2 touchdowns, Henry repeatedly punished Pittsburgh’s defense with his combination of power, vision, and surprising agility for his size. His ability to consistently gain yards after contact wore down defenders throughout the game.
Lamar Jackson complemented Henry’s power with his own dynamic rushing ability, adding 81 yards on 15 attempts. This dual-threat ground attack created impossible choices for Pittsburgh’s defenders:
- Commit extra defenders to stop Henry between the tackles and Jackson can keep around the edge
- Focus on containing Jackson’s perimeter runs and Henry finds space inside
- Play balanced defense and risk being overpowered at the point of attack
In the receiving game, tight end Isaiah Likely led with 53 yards on 3 receptions, showcasing his ability to find openings in the middle of the field. Rashod Bateman and Justice Hill each caught touchdown passes, demonstrating Baltimore’s red-zone creativity. The distribution across six different receivers illustrates Baltimore’s commitment to taking what the defense gives rather than forcing passes to predetermined targets.
Defense: Timely Playmaking
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Tackles for Loss |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ar’Darius Washington | 7 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Roquan Smith | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Nnamdi Madubuike | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Marlon Humphrey | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Michael Pierce | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
While Baltimore’s defensive statistics might appear less impressive at first glance, they made impact plays at crucial moments. Safety Ar’Darius Washington led with 7 tackles, while linebacker Roquan Smith contributed 5 tackles and provided essential leadership in defensive alignments.
The defensive front created significant disruption, with Nnamdi Madubuike recording 2 critical sacks that killed promising Steelers drives. Michael Pierce added another sack along with a tackle for loss, helping establish Baltimore’s advantage in the trenches. These 3 total sacks—compared to Pittsburgh’s zero—represent a decisive edge in quarterback pressure.
Cornerback Marlon Humphrey registered 4 tackles while providing solid coverage throughout the contest. His ability to limit George Pickens during the first half helped Baltimore build their commanding lead, though Pickens found more success during Pittsburgh’s third-quarter surge.
Kicking and Punting: Reliable Specialists
| Player | Field Goals | Extra Points |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Tucker | 0/0 | 4/4 |
| Player | Punts | Yards | Inside 20 | Longest |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Stout | 4 | 183 | 1 | 49 |
Kicker Justin Tucker converted all 4 extra point attempts while not attempting any field goals, a testament to Baltimore’s red-zone efficiency. Punter Jordan Stout averaged nearly 46 yards on his 4 punts, including one placed inside Pittsburgh’s 20-yard line. While not as spectacular as his Steelers counterpart, Stout delivered a reliable performance that supported Baltimore’s ball-control approach and didn’t surrender any significant return opportunities.
Game Summary & Key Highlights: Critical Moments
Ravens’ Dominant First Half
Baltimore established control immediately and never relinquished it during the first half:
- Opening drive statement – An 11-play, 75-yard touchdown drive featuring seven Derrick Henry runs set the physical tone
- Defensive discipline – Baltimore limited Pittsburgh to consecutive three-and-outs on their first two possessions
- Third-down excellence – Converting 6 of 7 third-down attempts allowed Baltimore to sustain drives and control the clock
- Jackson’s precision passing – Key completions to Isaiah Likely and Rashod Bateman kept Pittsburgh’s defense honest
- Red-zone efficiency – All three scoring drives ended with touchdowns rather than field goal attempts
This first-half performance created a 21-0 advantage that proved too substantial for Pittsburgh to overcome despite their subsequent improvement.
Steelers’ Comeback Attempt
After a dismal first half, Pittsburgh demonstrated resilience with a spirited third-quarter effort:
- Tactical adjustment – Pittsburgh increased their offensive tempo, preventing Baltimore from making situational substitutions
- Explosive plays – Wilson connected on passes of 29 yards to Pickens and 37 yards to Jefferson during scoring drives
- Red-zone execution – Both scoring possessions ended with touchdowns rather than settling for field goals
- Improved gap discipline – Pittsburgh’s front seven showed better coordination against Baltimore’s running game
- Momentum shift – The home crowd’s energy increased as Pittsburgh cut the deficit to just seven points
This brief resurgence demonstrated Pittsburgh’s potential when executing effectively, though it ultimately proved insufficient against Baltimore’s consistent approach.
Derrick Henry’s Special Night
Henry’s performance represented a master class in power running:
- Consistent production – Henry gained positive yardage on 24 of his 26 carries, with only two attempts stopped for no gain
- Tackle-breaking ability – According to game analysis, Henry broke or avoided 11 tackles throughout the contest
- Vision and patience – His ability to identify cutback lanes and wait for blocks repeatedly created additional yardage
- Explosive capability – Despite his power-runner reputation, Henry recorded four runs of 15+ yards
- Fourth-quarter reliability – When Baltimore needed to control the clock, Henry carried 8 times for 42 yards, helping secure the victory
This performance represents exactly why Baltimore acquired Henry—to provide a physical dimension that complements Jackson’s dynamic abilities and creates a nearly unstoppable rushing attack when both are operating effectively.
The Best of the Best: Key Matchups
Several individual matchups significantly influenced the game’s outcome:
- Nnamdi Madubuike vs. Pittsburgh’s interior line – Madubuike consistently won his matchups, creating pressure that disrupted Pittsburgh’s passing rhythm
- George Pickens vs. Marlon Humphrey – After being limited early, Pickens found success against Humphrey during Pittsburgh’s third-quarter surge
- Derrick Henry vs. Pittsburgh’s front seven – Henry’s ability to break tackles and find running lanes repeatedly stressed Pittsburgh’s defensive structure
- Lamar Jackson vs. spy defenders – Pittsburgh’s attempts to contain Jackson’s scrambling with designated spy defenders proved largely ineffective
- Baltimore’s offensive line vs. Pittsburgh’s pass rush – Baltimore’s front consistently provided Jackson adequate time, contributing to his efficient performance
These individual battles within the larger contest highlight how specific matchups can determine momentum shifts throughout an NFL game.
Never-Ending Efforts: Areas of Improvement
Both teams displayed elements that require attention moving forward:
Pittsburgh’s concerns:
- Running game inefficiency created predictable situations throughout the contest
- Pass rush inconsistency allowed Jackson to operate comfortably for extended periods
- Early-game execution led to a significant deficit before adjustments could be implemented
- Defensive gap discipline against Baltimore’s diverse running schemes proved problematic
- Third-down defense struggled to get off the field, allowing Baltimore to maintain possession
Baltimore’s areas for refinement:
- Pass protection lapses occasionally forced Jackson into rushed throws or scrambles
- Second-half defensive adjustments were initially slow against Pittsburgh’s increased tempo
- Punt coverage could improve after allowing several returns that provided Pittsburgh favorable field position
- Vertical passing game remains somewhat limited despite Jackson’s improved accuracy
- Defensive penalties extended several Pittsburgh drives unnecessarily
These elements provide coaching points for both teams as they continue their divisional competition.
FAQs: Deeper Insights
Who was the standout player of the match?
Derrick Henry unquestionably earned standout recognition with his 186-yard, 2-touchdown performance against a traditionally stout Steelers defense. What makes this achievement particularly impressive is the context—Pittsburgh has historically prided itself on physical defense, especially against the run.
Henry’s success stemmed from his complete skill set rather than just physical dominance. His vision to identify cutback lanes, patience to allow blocks to develop, and acceleration through openings consistently created additional yardage beyond what was initially available. In the fourth quarter, when Baltimore needed to control the clock, Henry remained effective despite Pittsburgh knowing runs were coming—the ultimate testament to a running back’s dominance.
This performance provides clear evidence why Baltimore prioritized acquiring Henry in the offseason and demonstrates how his physical running style perfectly complements Lamar Jackson’s dynamic abilities, creating a rushing attack that can dominate even quality defenses.
How did the Steelers perform in the passing game?
Despite the loss, the Steelers’ passing attack represented their offensive bright spot. Russell Wilson completed 69% of his attempts for 270 yards and 2 touchdowns without interceptions, earning an impressive 121.3 passer rating. This efficiency indicates Wilson remains capable of high-level quarterback play when provided adequate protection and supporting elements.
Several receivers demonstrated playmaking ability, with George Pickens (5 catches, 87 yards, TD) emerging as a legitimate primary option. Van Jefferson and Mike Williams each contributed explosive plays exceeding 35 yards, highlighting Pittsburgh’s vertical passing potential.
However, this aerial success was ultimately undermined by complete offensive imbalance. With just 29 rushing yards on 11 attempts, Pittsburgh became predictable in key situations, particularly on third downs where they converted just 5 of 13 opportunities (38%). This one-dimensionality allowed Baltimore’s defense to focus resources on pass coverage without significantly respecting play-action or rushing threats.
For Pittsburgh’s passing game to translate into consistent success, they must develop complementary rushing production that prevents defenses from dedicating excessive resources to coverage.
What tactical elements defined this divisional matchup?
Several strategic components significantly influenced how this game unfolded:
Baltimore’s offensive structure created fundamental defensive conflicts by combining:
- Power running with Derrick Henry between the tackles
- Misdirection elements that leveraged Lamar Jackson’s running threat
- Play-action passing that capitalized on defensive hesitation
- Personnel groupings that allowed formation flexibility without substitution
Pittsburgh’s defensive approach struggled with:
- Gap integrity against Baltimore’s diverse rushing schemes
- Maintaining edge containment while still providing interior support
- Creating significant pressure without dedicating additional blitzers
- Tackling consistency against Henry’s physical running style
The time-of-possession disparity (Ravens 37:52, Steelers 22:08) created cascading effects:
- Baltimore’s defense remained fresher throughout the contest
- Pittsburgh’s defensive front wore down against persistent rushing attempts
- The Steelers’ offense faced increased pressure to score quickly during limited possessions
- Baltimore could maintain their preferred methodical approach rather than adjusting their game plan
These tactical elements demonstrate how football success often depends on imposing your preferred style while preventing opponents from establishing theirs—something Baltimore accomplished throughout most of this contest.
What does this performance suggest about both teams’ futures?
This matchup provides several indications about each franchise’s trajectory:
For Baltimore, this victory reinforces their identity as legitimate contenders with a formula well-suited for postseason success. Their balanced offense featuring elite rushing combined with efficient passing creates a versatile attack adaptable to various opponents and conditions. Defensively, their ability to generate pressure while maintaining solid coverage makes them difficult to consistently move the ball against. If they maintain this approach while refining situational execution, Baltimore appears positioned for serious championship contention.
For Pittsburgh, this defeat highlights specific areas requiring immediate attention. The complete absence of rushing production creates offensive limitations that even efficient passing cannot overcome against quality opponents. Defensively, their struggles against Baltimore’s ground game raise concerns about their ability to compete against physical teams—particularly troubling in the traditionally rugged AFC North. However, Russell Wilson’s performance and their third-quarter resurgence demonstrate potential that could be unlocked with improved balance and consistency.
As these division rivals continue their seasonal competition, this game serves as a meaningful reference point for evaluating subsequent adjustments and development.
How does this game impact the AFC North race?
This victory strengthens Baltimore’s position in an exceptionally competitive AFC North division. Beyond simply improving their record, the nature of this win—physically dominant against a historically strong opponent—sends a message throughout the division about their current capability.
For tiebreaker purposes, head-to-head results often determine playoff seeding when teams finish with identical records. This gives Baltimore a crucial advantage over Pittsburgh in potential end-of-season scenarios involving equal records. Additionally, division record serves as the second tiebreaker after head-to-head results, making these matchups particularly significant.
The comprehensive nature of Baltimore’s victory also influences psychological dynamics within the division. Their demonstrated ability to impose their preferred physical style creates preparation challenges for future opponents, who must develop specific plans to address Baltimore’s multifaceted rushing attack while still accounting for their improving passing game.
As the season progresses, this outcome establishes Baltimore as the divisional standard-bearer that other teams must measure themselves against in the intensely competitive AFC North.
Also Check:
- Argentina National Football Team Vs Brazil National Football Team Lineups
- Newcastle United F.C. Vs Liverpool F.C. Timeline
- Mexico National Football Team Vs USMNT Lineups
- Argentina National Football Team Vs Brazil National Football Team Lineups
- Georgia Bulldogs Football Vs Texas Longhorns Football Match Player Stats
- Washington Commanders Vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats
Conclusion: Contrasting Approaches
This matchup between the Baltimore Ravens and Pittsburgh Steelers highlighted two franchises at different stages of development. The Ravens demonstrated why they’re considered legitimate contenders with a complete performance built around their devastating ground game, efficient passing, and opportunistic defense. Their balanced approach allows them to control games through multiple avenues depending on opponent vulnerabilities.
For the Steelers, this defeat illuminates clear areas requiring immediate attention. Despite Russell Wilson’s efficient passing, the complete absence of a running game created a one-dimensional attack that proved insufficient against a quality opponent. Defensively, their front seven’s struggles against Baltimore’s diverse rushing scheme raise concerns about their ability to compete against physical teams.
The 28-14 final score reflects Baltimore’s current advantage in this historic rivalry, though Pittsburgh showed enough resilience and potential to suggest future matchups could be more competitive with specific improvements. As these teams continue their divisional competition, this game serves as a reference point for evaluating their development and adjustments in subsequent encounters.
