Baltimore Ravens vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The baltimore ravens vs green bay packers match player stats from December 28, 2025, tell the story of a dominant Baltimore rushing performance and a Green Bay offense that produced impressive passing numbers but could not keep pace on the scoreboard. The Baltimore Ravens defeated the Green Bay Packers 41-24, with running back Derrick Henry delivering one of the game’s most important individual performances. Henry rushed for 216 yards and four touchdowns on 36 carries, giving Baltimore a powerful offensive foundation. Green Bay quarterback Malik Willis threw for 288 yards and added 60 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, while wide receiver Christian Watson recorded 113 receiving yards and a touchdown. Despite Green Bay’s efficiency through the air, Baltimore’s ability to control the ground game and produce points in key quarters proved decisive.
This matchup offers a useful example of why football statistics must be interpreted together rather than examined as isolated numbers. Green Bay gained substantial passing yardage, but Baltimore created a major advantage through its rushing attack, particularly during a 20-point second quarter. The Ravens also scored 14 points in the fourth quarter while keeping the Packers scoreless in the final period. Examining the box score, individual performances, team totals, and scoring breakdown provides a clearer understanding of how the game developed and why the final margin reached 17 points.
Game Overview and Final Score
The Ravens and Packers met on December 28, 2025, with Green Bay hosting Baltimore. The result was a 41-24 victory for the visiting Ravens.
| Match detail | Information |
| Matchup | Baltimore Ravens vs Green Bay Packers |
| Date | December 28, 2025 |
| Venue designation | Green Bay’s home game |
| Final score | Ravens 41, Packers 24 |
| Baltimore’s listed record | 8-8 overall, 5-2 away |
| Green Bay’s listed record | 9-6-1 overall, 5-3 home |
| Winning team | Baltimore Ravens |
| Losing team | Green Bay Packers |
| Primary statistical story | Baltimore’s 307 rushing yards and four rushing touchdowns |
The records above reflect the supplied game data. The final score is the most direct measure of the outcome, but the underlying statistics explain how Baltimore established control.
The Ravens did not need their quarterback to throw for a large number of yards. Instead, they relied on Henry’s production, useful contributions from quarterback Tyler Huntley as a runner, and an offense that repeatedly converted rushing opportunities into points.
Green Bay followed a different path. Willis delivered an efficient passing performance, and the Packers generated more receiving yards than Baltimore. However, their rushing production was far below the Ravens’ total, leaving the offense with less balance and making it harder to match Baltimore’s scoring pace.
Baltimore Ravens vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The scoring sequence highlights the second quarter as a turning point and the fourth quarter as the period in which Baltimore secured its comfortable final margin.
| Quarter | Baltimore Ravens | Green Bay Packers |
| First quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 20 | 7 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 10 |
| Fourth quarter | 14 | 0 |
| Total | 41 | 24 |
First Quarter: Both Teams Start Evenly
Both teams scored seven points in the opening quarter. The tied score indicated that Green Bay could initially respond to Baltimore’s offense, but it did not predict how strongly the Ravens would take control in the next period.
A level opening quarter is especially important when analyzing a game that eventually becomes a 17-point victory. The final margin was not created immediately. Baltimore built its advantage over the course of the contest, with its second-quarter production providing the clearest separation.
Second Quarter: Baltimore Creates the Main Advantage
Baltimore scored 20 points in the second quarter, while Green Bay added seven. The 13-point difference in this period gave the Ravens a significant lead heading into halftime.
Henry’s four rushing touchdowns across the game are central to understanding Baltimore’s scoring. His ability to gain yardage on repeated carries allowed the Ravens to sustain their ground-based approach and finish drives with touchdowns.
The second-quarter scoring pattern also demonstrates why teams must evaluate defensive performance beyond total yards allowed. Preventing long passes is not enough if an opponent can consistently move the ball on the ground and finish possessions in the end zone.
Third Quarter: Green Bay Responds
The Packers scored 10 points in the third quarter while Baltimore failed to score. This was Green Bay’s strongest period relative to Baltimore, and it showed that the Packers remained capable of generating offense.
Willis’s passing production and rushing ability helped explain why Green Bay could continue moving the ball. However, a productive quarter did not erase the deficit created before halftime. The Packers needed to maintain that momentum into the fourth quarter to threaten a comeback.
Fourth Quarter: Baltimore Finishes Strong
Baltimore scored 14 points in the final quarter, while Green Bay was held to zero. This was the decisive closing stretch.
The Ravens’ fourth-quarter scoring showed that their offensive approach remained productive late in the game. Green Bay, meanwhile, could not add to its total, allowing Baltimore to extend the lead rather than defend a narrow advantage.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers therefore reveal three distinct phases: an even opening, a major Baltimore surge, and a Green Bay response that failed to carry into the final period.
Complete Baltimore Ravens Player Stats
Baltimore’s offense was built around a clear statistical advantage: rushing production. The Ravens recorded 307 rushing yards on 53 attempts, averaging 5.8 yards per carry. Their passing game was efficient enough to complement that ground attack without needing to carry the entire offense.
Baltimore Ravens Passing Stats
| Player | Completions | Attempts | Passing yards | TDs | INTs | Passer rating |
| Tyler Huntley | 16 | 20 | 107 | 1 | 0 | 105.6 |
| Clayton Tune | 1 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Team total | 17 | 24 | 115 | 1 | 1 | Not provided |
Huntley was Baltimore’s primary passer and completed 80% of his attempts. His 107 passing yards might appear modest compared with Willis’s output, but the context matters. Baltimore’s offense was gaining substantial yardage on the ground, so Huntley did not need to attempt many passes or take unnecessary risks.
Huntley’s one touchdown pass went to Zay Flowers, who scored on a 10-yard reception in the fourth quarter. That connection helped Baltimore turn a 10-point lead into a 17-point advantage.
Clayton Tune completed one of four passes for eight yards and threw one interception. His limited passing line should be considered separately from Huntley’s performance rather than treated as representative of the starting quarterback’s efficiency.
The key takeaway is that Baltimore’s passing game supported its larger offensive plan. Huntley completed enough passes to keep the defense accountable while the running game remained the central source of production.
Baltimore Ravens Rushing Stats
The rushing numbers were the most striking part of Baltimore’s performance.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| Derrick Henry | 36 | 216 | 6.0 | 4 | 30 yards |
| Tyler Huntley | 8 | 60 | 7.5 | 0 | 25 yards |
| Keaton Mitchell | 9 | 31 | 3.4 | 0 | 14 yards |
| Team total | 53 | 307 | 5.8 | 4 | 30 yards |
Derrick Henry: The Outstanding Performer
Henry finished with 216 rushing yards and four touchdowns on 36 carries. His average of six yards per attempt demonstrates how consistently Baltimore gained useful yardage through its primary running back.
His four rushing touchdowns were particularly important because touchdowns have a much greater direct effect on the scoreboard than yardage alone. Henry did not simply move Baltimore between the 20-yard lines. He repeatedly finished possessions with points.
The 36 carries also reveal how heavily the Ravens relied on him. He accounted for approximately 68% of Baltimore’s rushing attempts and more than 70% of its rushing yards.
That workload helped Baltimore control the pace of the contest. Sustained rushing drives can keep an opposing offense on the sideline, reduce the need for risky passing plays, and allow a team to manage the game through possession.
Henry’s longest run was 30 yards. While a long gain can change field position quickly, his overall value came from the combination of explosive plays and repeated productive carries.
Tyler Huntley: A Second Rushing Threat
Huntley added 60 rushing yards on eight carries, averaging 7.5 yards per attempt. His longest run was 25 yards.
This contribution mattered because Green Bay had to account for more than one rushing threat. Defenders concentrating on Henry still had to respond when Huntley carried the ball himself.
Huntley’s rushing total represented nearly one-fifth of Baltimore’s team rushing yardage. Combined with his 107 passing yards and one touchdown pass, his performance gave the Ravens a useful balance without requiring a high-volume passing attack.
Keaton Mitchell: Supporting Production
Mitchell recorded 31 rushing yards on nine carries, averaging 3.4 yards per attempt. Although his average was lower than Henry’s and Huntley’s, his attempts helped distribute some of the workload.
His longest run covered 14 yards, and he also caught two passes for seven yards. His contribution was smaller than Henry’s, but it formed part of the overall offensive output.
Baltimore Ravens Receiving Stats
Baltimore’s receivers had relatively low yardage totals because the team relied so heavily on rushing.
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Zay Flowers | 4 | 5 | 30 | 7.5 | 1 |
| Mark Andrews | 4 | 4 | 28 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Isaiah Likely | 3 | 3 | 27 | 9.0 | 0 |
| Rasheen Ali | 2 | 3 | 8 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Keaton Mitchell | 2 | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 |
| Rashod Bateman | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Charlie Kolar | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 16 | 20 | 107 | 6.7 | 1 |
Flowers was Baltimore’s leading receiver by yardage and recorded the team’s only receiving touchdown. His four catches on five targets indicate that Huntley found him regularly when the passing game was needed.
Andrews also caught four passes, finishing with 28 yards. Likely added 27 yards on three receptions, providing another option for short and intermediate throws.
The three players combined for 85 receiving yards, which was most of Baltimore’s passing production to its listed receivers. This was not a game in which the Ravens needed a single receiver to accumulate 100 yards. Their offensive approach depended on converting rushing opportunities into points and using the passing game when it offered an advantage.
Hopkins and Kolar did not record a reception, despite receiving one target each. Those figures are useful for a complete statistical review, but they do not by themselves establish anything about the quality of their routes or the reason a pass was not completed.
Complete Green Bay Packers Player Stats
Green Bay’s offense produced notable passing and receiving numbers, but its rushing output was much lower than Baltimore’s. The Packers finished with 79 rushing yards, compared with the Ravens’ 307.
This difference is one of the most important elements in understanding the result. Green Bay could move the ball through the air, yet Baltimore consistently gained ground on the opposite side of the matchup.
Green Bay Packers Passing Stats
| Player | Completions | Attempts | Passing yards | TDs | INTs | Passer rating |
| Malik Willis | 18 | 21 | 288 | 1 | 0 | 134.6 |
| Clayton Tune | 1 | 4 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0.0 |
| Team total | 19 | 25 | 296 | 1 | 1 | 111.4 |
Willis completed 18 of 21 attempts, a completion rate of approximately 85.7%. He averaged 13.7 passing yards per attempt according to the supplied individual statistics and recorded a passer rating of 134.6.
Those figures indicate an efficient performance through the air. Willis connected with receivers for significant gains and finished with 288 passing yards, 181 more than Huntley.
However, passing efficiency does not automatically translate into a win. A team can gain more yards per passing attempt while losing the overall battle for possession, rushing production, and scoring opportunities.
Willis also contributed two rushing touchdowns. His combined threat as a passer and runner gave Baltimore’s defense several challenges, even though the Packers ultimately lost by 17 points.
The team passing figures require a small distinction: the supplied team total lists 296 passing yards, while Willis’s individual total is 288 yards. Tune contributed the remaining eight yards. His interception also appears in the team passing line.
Green Bay Packers Rushing Stats
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| Malik Willis | 9 | 60 | 6.7 | 2 | 22 yards |
| Emanuel Wilson | 3 | 16 | 5.3 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Josh Jacobs | 4 | 3 | 0.8 | 0 | 1 yard |
| Clayton Tune | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 yards |
| Team total | 17 | 79 | 4.6 | 2 | 22 yards |
Malik Willis: Green Bay’s Leading Rusher
Willis finished with 60 rushing yards on nine carries and scored twice on the ground. His longest run was 22 yards.
These numbers illustrate the value of a mobile quarterback. When a passing play breaks down or defensive coverage leaves a running lane, a quarterback who can gain yards with his legs creates an additional problem for the defense.
Willis’s two rushing touchdowns were a major part of Green Bay’s scoring. He also threw a touchdown pass to Watson, giving him three total offensive touchdowns when passing and rushing scores are combined.
His individual performance was productive, but it could not overcome the team’s large disadvantage in total rushing yardage.
Josh Jacobs and Emanuel Wilson
Jacobs recorded only three rushing yards on four attempts, averaging less than one yard per carry. Wilson produced 16 yards on three carries.
Jacobs’s limited rushing total is especially notable because the Packers finished with just 79 team rushing yards. When a team’s primary conventional rushing options struggle to generate consistent yardage, the offense can become more dependent on its quarterback and passing game.
That dependence is not always a problem, particularly when the quarterback is passing efficiently. In this matchup, however, Green Bay needed more overall offensive balance to keep pace with Baltimore’s scoring.
Green Bay Packers Receiving Stats
The Packers’ receiving numbers were stronger than Baltimore’s in both total yardage and average yards per catch.
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Christian Watson | 5 | 6 | 113 | 22.6 | 1 |
| Romeo Doubs | 3 | 4 | 62 | 20.7 | 0 |
| Jayden Reed | 4 | 4 | 41 | 10.3 | 0 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 4 | 34 | 34.0 | 0 |
| Matthew Golden | 1 | 3 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Chris Brooks | 1 | 2 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Josh Jacobs | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 19 | 25 | 296 | 15.6 | 1 |
Christian Watson: Green Bay’s Leading Receiver
Watson caught five passes for 113 yards and one touchdown. His average of 22.6 yards per reception made him the Packers’ most productive receiver by yardage.
His longest reception was 39 yards, and he scored Green Bay’s opening touchdown on a deep connection with Willis. That play helped the Packers match Baltimore’s early scoring.
Watson’s output demonstrates how an explosive receiver can generate substantial production without needing a very high number of receptions. Five catches were enough for him to exceed 100 yards because each successful connection covered considerable ground.
His performance was one of Green Bay’s clearest offensive positives. The limitation was that the team’s passing success did not translate into enough total points to overcome Baltimore’s rushing advantage.
Romeo Doubs and Jayden Reed
Doubs finished with 62 yards on three catches, averaging 20.7 yards per reception. His longest catch was 40 yards, the longest reception listed for either team.
Reed added 41 yards on four receptions. He offered a different type of contribution, catching several passes while averaging 10.3 yards per reception.
Together, Doubs and Reed gave Willis additional options beyond Watson. The Packers’ passing attack was not dependent on one receiver alone, and the receiving distribution indicates that several players contributed to the team’s yardage total.
Contributions From the Remaining Receivers
Melton caught one pass for 34 yards, while Golden recorded 12 yards on one reception. Brooks, Whyle, Wilson, and Wicks each recorded one catch.
Jacobs caught one pass but finished without a receiving yard. Individual receiving lines like this can help explain the distribution of targets, although they do not reveal the complete play design or the circumstances surrounding each catch.
The central conclusion remains that Green Bay had an effective passing attack. Its 296 team passing yards and 15.6 yards per reception exceeded Baltimore’s corresponding figures, but those advantages were not enough to offset the difference in rushing output.
Baltimore Ravens vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Team Comparison
Individual performances explain much of the game, but the team statistics show why Baltimore won despite Green Bay’s stronger passing numbers.
| Team statistic | Baltimore Ravens | Green Bay Packers |
| Final score | 41 | 24 |
| Total offensive yards | 414 | 363 |
| Passing yards | 107 | 284 |
| Rushing yards | 307 | 79 |
| Rushing attempts | 53 | 17 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 4 | 2 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Total touchdowns | 5 | 3 |
| Time of possession | 40:16 | 19:44 |
| Total offensive plays | 74 | 44 |
| Yards per offensive play | 5.6 | 8.2 |
| Turnovers | 0 | 2 |
Note: These team totals come from the game statistics. Individual and team passing-yardage figures can differ because of how player totals and team totals are recorded. Green Bay’s turnover total includes its lost fumble and interception.
Total Yards: Baltimore Wins the Overall Battle
Baltimore finished with 414 total yards, while Green Bay recorded 363. The difference was 51 yards.
At first glance, that gap might seem modest given the 17-point final margin. However, total yards do not measure how many drives finish in touchdowns, how long a team controls possession, or whether a turnover ends an opportunity.
Baltimore’s production was concentrated in a ground game that repeatedly moved the chains. Green Bay produced more yards per play, but it ran far fewer plays overall. The Packers’ average of 8.2 yards per play was higher than Baltimore’s 5.6, yet the Ravens had 30 more offensive plays.
This is an important distinction when analyzing football statistics: efficiency on individual plays and the volume of opportunities are separate measurements. A team can be more explosive per play and still lose the total production battle if it has significantly fewer plays.
Time of Possession: Baltimore Controls the Game
The Ravens held the ball for 40 minutes and 16 seconds, compared with 19 minutes and 44 seconds for the Packers.
That is a difference of 20 minutes and 32 seconds, an unusually large gap that reflects Baltimore’s ability to sustain possession.
The rushing attack was central to this advantage. Long drives can consume valuable time, keep the opponent’s offense off the field, and reduce the number of possessions available for a comeback.
Green Bay’s passing game generated more yardage per attempt, but the Packers had fewer opportunities to use it. Baltimore’s possession advantage also made it easier to manage the game late, particularly after building a lead in the second quarter.
Turnovers: An Important Difference
The Ravens finished without a turnover, while Green Bay recorded two turnovers.
The Packers lost a fumble by Willis and threw an interception that Baltimore’s Marlon Humphrey returned for six yards. Humphrey’s interception was particularly important because it came during the fourth quarter, after Baltimore had established a 34-24 lead.
The turnover did not produce a defensive touchdown, but it returned possession to Baltimore at a critical point. The Ravens later added another touchdown to complete the 41-24 victory.
Turnovers can change a game’s direction even when they do not directly produce points. They end an offense’s possession, give the opponent another opportunity, and can undermine momentum. In this matchup, Green Bay’s two turnovers contrasted with Baltimore’s clean ball security.
Third-Down Efficiency and First Downs
The available game recap lists Baltimore with 10 successful third-down conversions on 14 attempts, compared with Green Bay’s three conversions on six attempts.
| Measurement | Baltimore | Green Bay |
| Third-down conversions | 10 of 14 | 3 of 6 |
| Conversion rate | 71.4% | 50.0% |
| First downs | 30 | 18 |
Baltimore’s third-down conversion rate was approximately 21.4 percentage points higher. That helped the Ravens extend drives instead of repeatedly giving the ball back to Green Bay.
The difference in first downs also supports the possession story. Baltimore recorded 12 more first downs, indicating that its offense consistently advanced the ball into situations where it could continue a drive.
The third-down figures should be interpreted alongside the rushing statistics. A productive ground game can create manageable situations on later downs, while a quarterback’s mobility can help convert difficult situations into first downs.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Offensive yardage attracts much of the attention in a high-scoring game, but defensive performances help explain why one team can turn its opportunities into a win.
Baltimore Ravens Defensive Stats
| Defensive category | Baltimore total |
| Total tackles | 56 |
| Solo tackles | 24 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 1 |
| Passes defended | 1 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 |
Baltimore recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits. These numbers show that the defense created some pressure on Willis, although they do not measure every pressure or disruption on a passing play.
Humphrey’s interception was the most notable individual defensive contribution in the supplied statistics. His play interrupted Green Bay’s offense at an important point in the fourth quarter.
The Ravens also limited Green Bay to 79 rushing yards. That is particularly relevant because Willis was a mobile quarterback who could gain yards outside the passing game. Even with his two rushing touchdowns, the Packers could not establish the same volume of ground production that Baltimore achieved.
Green Bay Packers Defensive Stats
| Defensive category | Green Bay total |
| Total tackles | 89 |
| Solo tackles | 49 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 |
| Passes defended | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 |
Green Bay recorded more total tackles and solo tackles than Baltimore. That does not necessarily mean its defense played better. Tackles often accumulate when an opponent runs many plays, and Baltimore had 74 offensive plays compared with Green Bay’s 44.
The Packers managed one sack and four quarterback hits. However, they struggled to prevent the Ravens from gaining yardage on the ground. Baltimore’s 307 rushing yards and four rushing touchdowns indicate that Green Bay had difficulty consistently stopping the main feature of the opposing offense.
The absence of an interception also meant Green Bay did not take the ball away through the passing game. Combined with the lost fumble by Willis, the turnover battle favored Baltimore.
How the Defensive Numbers Should Be Read
Defensive statistics require context. A high tackle count can indicate heavy involvement, but it can also reflect how frequently an opponent reaches the second level of the defense. Likewise, a low sack total does not necessarily mean a defense generated no pressure.
For this game, the most useful defensive measurements are the rushing yards allowed, turnovers created, and ability to stop drives. Baltimore had the advantage in these areas, helping it protect the lead.
Special Teams and Kicking Statistics
Special teams did not produce the most memorable statistics in this matchup, but the kicking figures provide a complete picture of the scoring.
| Player | Team | Field goals | Extra points | Total kicking points |
| Tyler Loop | Baltimore | 2 of 2 | 5 of 5 | 11 |
| Brandon McManus | Green Bay | 1 of 1 | 3 of 3 | 6 |
Loop made both field-goal attempts, including a 22-yard kick and a 34-yard kick. He also converted all five extra points.
McManus made his only field-goal attempt, a 24-yard kick, and converted all three extra points. Both kickers were perfect on the attempts listed.
Baltimore’s scoring advantage therefore did not come from missed field goals by Green Bay. Instead, the difference was primarily the Ravens’ five touchdowns compared with Green Bay’s three, along with the additional field-goal points Baltimore scored.
Kick Returns
| Team or player | Returns | Return yards | Average |
| LaJohntay Wester, Baltimore | 4 | 96 | 24.0 |
| Bo Melton, Green Bay | 4 | 95 | 23.8 |
| Nate Hobbs, Green Bay | 2 | 45 | 22.5 |
| Emanuel Wilson, Green Bay | 1 | 23 | 23.0 |
| Green Bay team total | 7 | 163 | 23.3 |
Wester averaged 24 yards per kick return for Baltimore. Melton averaged 23.8 yards on four returns for Green Bay.
These averages were similar, so the kick-return numbers do not suggest a major advantage for either side. The difference in the final score was driven more clearly by Baltimore’s rushing production, time of possession, and turnovers.
Baltimore recorded one punt for 42 yards, while Green Bay did not record a punt in the supplied statistics. Neither team recorded a punt return.
The Most Important Statistical Matchups
The individual box score becomes more meaningful when the main player comparisons are considered together.
Derrick Henry vs Green Bay’s Rushing Defense
Henry’s 216 yards and four touchdowns were the defining individual numbers. His 6.0 yards per carry meant that Baltimore did not have to rely exclusively on long runs to produce yardage.
Green Bay’s entire team rushing total was 79 yards. Henry alone gained 137 more rushing yards than the Packers produced collectively.
This comparison is particularly revealing because it places the most productive individual runner against the opposing team’s entire rushing output. Baltimore could continue leaning on Henry because the running game repeatedly delivered positive results.
Tyler Huntley vs Malik Willis
The quarterback comparison illustrates two different types of successful production.
| Statistic | Tyler Huntley | Malik Willis |
| Passing completions | 16 | 18 |
| Passing attempts | 20 | 21 |
| Passing yards | 107 | 288 |
| Passing TDs | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Rushing yards | 60 | 60 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 2 |
| Passer rating | 105.6 | 134.6 |
Willis had the stronger passing line and produced more total offensive touchdowns. Huntley, however, played within an offense that gained 307 rushing yards from its running backs and quarterback combined.
The comparison demonstrates why quarterback statistics cannot be evaluated without considering the offensive system around the player. Willis’s passing production was impressive, but Huntley’s supporting ground game allowed Baltimore to score 41 points while asking less of its passing attack.
Both quarterbacks contributed 60 rushing yards. The key difference was that Willis scored twice as a runner, while Baltimore received four rushing touchdowns from Henry.
Christian Watson vs Baltimore’s Receiving Group
Watson led Green Bay with 113 receiving yards. Baltimore’s leading receiver, Flowers, recorded 30 yards and a touchdown.
Watson’s receiving-yardage advantage was substantial. Nevertheless, Flowers’s touchdown helped Baltimore turn its passing game into points at a key moment in the fourth quarter.
Green Bay also received 62 yards from Doubs and 41 from Reed, giving the Packers several productive receivers. Baltimore’s receiving distribution was more modest, reflecting the different offensive emphasis of the two teams.
Turnover Management
Baltimore’s zero turnovers compared with Green Bay’s two is another major contrast.
An offense that protects the ball preserves its scoring opportunities. A turnover-free performance also prevents the defense from being placed in a difficult position after a mistake.
Green Bay’s lost fumble and interception were not the only reasons for the loss, but they added to the challenge of overcoming Baltimore’s rushing advantage.
What the Statistics Reveal About Baltimore’s Winning Strategy
The most important lesson from this game is that a team does not need to win every statistical category to win the football game.
Green Bay had more passing yards and a higher yards-per-play average. Willis was efficient, Watson had an outstanding receiving performance, and the Packers scored 24 points. Yet Baltimore won by 17.
Several factors help explain the outcome.
First, Baltimore’s rushing attack created a repeatable source of offense. Henry’s 216 yards and four touchdowns were supported by Huntley’s 60 rushing yards and Mitchell’s 31. The team did not rely on one isolated explosive play.
Second, Baltimore controlled possession. The Ravens held the ball for more than 40 minutes, leaving Green Bay with fewer opportunities to run its offense. Their 30 first downs and 10 third-down conversions helped sustain that advantage.
Third, the Ravens finished drives with touchdowns. Baltimore scored five touchdowns, four of them on the ground. This was a more productive way to convert its offensive success into points than depending on field goals alone.
Fourth, Baltimore protected the football. The Ravens recorded no turnovers, while Green Bay lost possession twice. That difference helped preserve Baltimore’s advantage.
Finally, the Ravens finished the game strongly. After allowing 10 points in the third quarter, Baltimore scored 14 in the fourth and shut out Green Bay in the final period.
These factors worked together. The rushing attack helped control possession, possession reduced Green Bay’s opportunities, and the turnover advantage helped Baltimore protect its lead.
What Green Bay Could Learn From the Game
The Packers’ passing statistics were strong enough to suggest that their offense had productive elements. Their challenge was translating those gains into a more balanced team performance.
Improve the Balance Between Passing and Rushing
Green Bay finished with 284 passing yards in the supplied team summary and 79 rushing yards. The Packers’ rushing attack did score twice through Willis, but the overall rushing total was far below Baltimore’s.
A more productive conventional rushing game could help an offense maintain possession, avoid predictable passing situations, and reduce pressure on the quarterback. Jacobs’s three yards on four carries were a clear statistical weakness in this matchup.
Protect Possessions
The two turnovers were costly because Green Bay was already facing an opponent capable of sustaining long drives. Protecting the ball would have given the Packers more opportunities to use their efficient passing attack.
The lesson is not that every turnover automatically decides a game. Rather, turnovers become especially damaging when the opposing team can also control the clock and score consistently.
Turn Efficient Passing Into More Scoring Opportunities
Willis averaged 13.7 yards per passing attempt according to his individual line, and Watson averaged 22.6 yards per catch. Those figures show that Green Bay could create explosive passing plays.
The next step is to make that production more consistent across full possessions. Passing yardage has value, but the goal is to convert it into touchdowns while limiting the opponent’s opportunities.
Strengthen Run Defense
Allowing 307 rushing yards and four rushing touchdowns made it difficult for Green Bay to stay competitive. Tackles and quarterback hits were not enough to offset the Ravens’ success on the ground.
For a defense facing a powerful runner, limiting early gains and creating unfavorable down-and-distance situations can be more valuable than focusing only on sacks or interceptions.
Historical and Statistical Context
Henry’s performance was notable because of both its volume and scoring output. He recorded 216 rushing yards and four rushing touchdowns, matching his career high in rushing touchdowns, according to the Baltimore Ravens‘ official recap.
The performance also reinforced a recurring principle of NFL football: a dominant running back can shape the entire game even when the opposing quarterback throws for substantially more yards.
Baltimore’s offensive identity in this matchup was clear from the numbers. Its 53 rushing attempts compared with Green Bay’s 17. The Ravens also ran 30 more offensive plays and held possession for more than twice as long.
These figures should not be treated as proof that rushing is always superior to passing. Football strategy depends on personnel, matchups, field position, score, and game situation. In this particular contest, however, Baltimore’s ground attack was the most effective way to create and protect its lead.
For the official game recap and further context about the performances, see the Baltimore Ravens’ report on the Packers matchup.
How to Interpret Football Player Statistics Correctly
For readers comparing box scores, several practical principles help avoid misleading conclusions.
- Separate individual totals from team totals. A quarterback’s passing yards do not include his rushing yards, and team totals may include production from multiple players.
- Compare volume and efficiency. Thirty-six carries for 216 yards reveal both workload and production. A high average over only a few attempts tells a different story.
- Prioritize touchdowns when assessing scoring impact. Yardage shows how far the offense moved the ball, while touchdowns show how often it finished with the most valuable scoring result.
- Consider possession and opportunities. A team with more plays has more chances to accumulate yards, sustain drives, and score.
- Account for turnovers. Interceptions and lost fumbles can end possessions regardless of how efficiently a team performed before the mistake.
- Use the game situation as context. A team trailing late may pass more frequently, while a team protecting a lead may run more often to consume time.
These principles are useful when reviewing any NFL box score, not just this Ravens and Packers matchup. They help distinguish eye-catching individual totals from the wider patterns that explain a result.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Baltimore Ravens vs Green Bay Packers game on December 28, 2025?
The Baltimore Ravens defeated the Green Bay Packers 41-24. Baltimore scored 20 points in the second quarter and another 14 in the fourth to secure the victory.
2. How many rushing yards did Derrick Henry have against the Packers?
Derrick Henry rushed for 216 yards on 36 carries, averaging 6.0 yards per carry. He scored four rushing touchdowns, making him the game’s standout offensive performer.
3. How did Malik Willis perform against the Ravens?
Malik Willis completed 18 of 21 passes for 288 yards and one passing touchdown without an interception. He also rushed for 60 yards and two touchdowns, finishing with three total offensive touchdowns.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Christian Watson led all listed receivers with 113 receiving yards on five catches and one touchdown. His average was 22.6 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 39 yards.
5. Why did Baltimore win despite Green Bay’s passing advantage?
Baltimore won through a combination of rushing production, possession control, and ball security. The Ravens rushed for 307 yards, held the ball for 40:16, and committed no turnovers. Green Bay recorded 79 rushing yards and two turnovers.
6. What were the final team statistics for rushing and passing?
Baltimore recorded 307 rushing yards and 107 passing yards in its primary quarterback’s line. Green Bay’s team summary lists 79 rushing yards and 284 passing yards. These figures show how Baltimore relied on its ground game while Green Bay generated most of its yardage through the air.
Conclusion
The Baltimore Ravens‘ 41-24 victory over the Green Bay Packers was defined by a powerful rushing attack, effective possession management, and a strong finish. Derrick Henry’s 216 rushing yards and four touchdowns were the most important individual statistics, while Tyler Huntley’s efficient passing and 60 rushing yards helped Baltimore maintain offensive balance.
Green Bay also had impressive individual performances. Malik Willis threw for 288 yards, rushed for 60 yards, and scored three total offensive touchdowns. Christian Watson added 113 receiving yards and a touchdown. However, the Packers could not match Baltimore’s rushing volume, sustain possession for long periods, or avoid costly turnovers.
The most revealing numbers are the Ravens’ 307 rushing yards, 30 additional offensive plays, 40:16 time of possession, and zero turnovers. Together, these statistics explain why Baltimore prevailed even though Green Bay generated more yards per play and substantially more passing yardage.
Ultimately, the game demonstrates the importance of evaluating player statistics in context. Individual yardage totals matter, but the combination of touchdowns, rushing efficiency, possession, turnovers, and scoring timing provides a much clearer explanation of an NFL result.
