Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chargers Match Player Stats
The pittsburgh steelers vs chargers match player stats from November 10, 2025, reveal how the Los Angeles Chargers secured a convincing 25-10 victory over the Pittsburgh Steelers in their NFL Week 9 regular-season matchup. The Chargers combined efficient quarterback play, a productive rushing attack, explosive receiving performances, and a strong defensive effort to control the game. Justin Herbert threw for 220 yards and one touchdown without an interception, while Ladd McConkey delivered an outstanding performance with 107 receiving yards and a touchdown. On the Pittsburgh side, Aaron Rodgers finished with 161 passing yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions. Jaylen Warren provided the Steelers’ most consistent offensive contribution, rushing for 70 yards.
The final score reflected more than a difference in offensive production. Los Angeles gained advantages in passing yards, rushing yards, receiving yards, and turnovers. Pittsburgh’s defense managed five sacks and nine quarterback hits, but those efforts were not enough to overcome the offensive mistakes and scoring difficulties. The Steelers scored only three points during the first three quarters before finding the end zone in the fourth.
This breakdown examines the complete player statistics, team performances, quarterback comparisons, rushing and receiving contributions, defensive production, special teams, and the key factors that determined the result.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chargers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The November 10 contest brought together two teams with different offensive approaches. Pittsburgh entered the game with a 5-4 record, while Los Angeles held a 7-3 record. The Chargers used their home advantage and a balanced offensive approach to improve their position during the regular season.
Here is a quick overview of the matchup.
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Los Angeles Chargers vs. Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Sport | National Football League |
| Competition | NFL Regular Season |
| Week | Week 9 |
| Date | November 10, 2025 |
| Game ID | 401772927 |
| Final Result | Chargers 25, Steelers 10 |
| Winning Team | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Losing Team | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Winning Margin | 15 points |
| Steelers Record | 5-4 |
| Steelers Away Record | 2-2 |
| Chargers Record | 7-3 |
| Chargers Home Record | 4-2 |
| Match Status | Final |
The supplied box score does not specify the stadium name, so it is better not to assign a venue without additional confirmation.
Final Score by Quarter
The scoring pattern shows how Los Angeles gradually established control. Pittsburgh managed only a field goal in the opening quarter and failed to score in the second and third periods.
| Quarter | Pittsburgh Steelers | Los Angeles Chargers |
| First Quarter | 3 | 2 |
| Second Quarter | 0 | 10 |
| Third Quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth Quarter | 7 | 10 |
| Final Score | 10 | 25 |
The first quarter was relatively close, with Pittsburgh holding a one-point advantage. However, the Chargers scored 10 points in the second quarter and added another field goal in the third.
The biggest difference appeared in the fourth quarter. Although Pittsburgh finally scored a touchdown, Los Angeles matched that production with another 10 points. The Chargers therefore maintained their advantage until the final whistle.
What the Score Reveals
Three important observations stand out:
- Pittsburgh struggled to maintain scoring consistency: The Steelers went scoreless in the second and third quarters.
- Los Angeles produced points in every quarter: The Chargers maintained offensive production throughout the contest.
- The fourth-quarter response came too late: Pittsburgh scored seven points in the final period, but the Chargers added 10.
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown demonstrates that the result was not determined by one isolated scoring sequence. Los Angeles maintained a more consistent level of production across the entire game.
Complete Team Statistical Comparison
Before examining individual performances, comparing the two teams provides a clearer understanding of their strengths and weaknesses.
| Statistical Category | Pittsburgh Steelers | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Final Points | 10 | 25 |
| Passing Yards | 161 | 220 |
| Rushing Yards | 73 | 115 |
| Receiving Yards | 161 | 220 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Completions | 16 | 20 |
| Passing Attempts | 31 | 33 |
| Rushing Attempts | 16 | 31 |
| Total Receptions | 16 | 20 |
| Total Targets | 28 | 33 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks Allowed | 3 | 5 |
| Total Defensive Tackles | 82 | 46 |
| Defensive Sacks | 5 | 3 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 0 |
| Field Goals Made | 1 | 3 |
The Chargers held a 59-yard advantage in passing production and a 42-yard advantage on the ground. Their total offensive yardage was 335 yards, compared with Pittsburgh’s 234.
Another important difference was the number of turnovers. Rodgers threw two interceptions, and Pittsburgh also lost one fumble. Herbert did not throw an interception, and the Chargers did not lose a fumble.
The statistics suggest that Los Angeles combined greater offensive production with better ball security. Those two advantages created a difficult situation for Pittsburgh throughout the game.
Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Stats
Aaron Rodgers started at quarterback for Pittsburgh and completed 16 of his 31 passing attempts. He recorded 161 passing yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions.
His performance included some productive moments, but the interceptions significantly affected Pittsburgh’s ability to build offensive momentum.
Aaron Rodgers Complete Passing Statistics
| Statistic | Aaron Rodgers |
| Jersey Number | #8 |
| Completions | 16 |
| Passing Attempts | 31 |
| Completion Percentage | 51.6% |
| Passing Yards | 161 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 5.2 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks Taken | 3 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 13 |
| QBR | 4.2 |
| Passer Rating | 50.6 |
Rodgers completed approximately 51.6% of his passes. His average of 5.2 yards per attempt indicates that Pittsburgh did not consistently generate substantial gains through the passing game.
His single touchdown was a positive contribution, but the two interceptions created a much bigger problem. Turnovers can change field position, remove scoring opportunities, and force a defense to spend more time on the field.
Why Rodgers’ Performance Was Difficult
There are four major areas worth examining.
- Completion efficiency
Completing 16 of 31 passes meant that nearly half of Pittsburgh’s attempts did not result in completions. That limited the offense’s ability to sustain drives.
- Interception problems
Two interceptions were among the most damaging individual statistics in the matchup. Both contributed to the Chargers’ advantage in ball security.
- Limited passing production
Rodgers finished with 161 yards. That was 59 fewer than Herbert’s total, despite attempting only two fewer passes.
- Quarterback pressure
The Chargers recorded three sacks against Rodgers. Their pass rush also contributed to the difficulty of sustaining a consistent passing attack.
His 50.6 passer rating and 4.2 QBR reflected a challenging afternoon. The numbers should be considered alongside the pressure, turnovers, and limited offensive production rather than treated as isolated measures of quarterback quality.
Roman Wilson Provides Pittsburgh’s Passing Touchdown
Roman Wilson was one of the more productive Steelers receivers. He caught two passes for 35 yards and scored Pittsburgh’s only receiving touchdown.
His 27-yard longest reception was also the longest completed pass listed among Pittsburgh’s receivers.
Wilson’s contribution was particularly important because the Steelers struggled to produce consistent passing gains. Even with only two receptions, he finished tied for the team’s highest receiving yardage total.
Los Angeles Chargers Quarterback Stats
Justin Herbert delivered the more efficient quarterback performance. He completed 20 of 33 attempts for 220 yards and one touchdown without throwing an interception.
His ability to protect the football while producing more passing yards helped Los Angeles maintain control.
Justin Herbert Complete Passing Statistics
| Statistic | Justin Herbert |
| Jersey Number | #10 |
| Completions | 20 |
| Passing Attempts | 33 |
| Completion Percentage | 60.6% |
| Passing Yards | 220 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 6.7 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 5 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 21 |
| QBR | 30.5 |
| Passer Rating | 90.5 |
Herbert completed 60.6% of his passes, giving him a noticeable advantage over Rodgers in completion percentage.
His 6.7 yards per attempt also demonstrated stronger passing efficiency. He generated more yardage while making fewer costly mistakes.
What Made Herbert’s Performance Effective?
Herbert’s performance was not completely free of problems. Pittsburgh’s defensive front recorded five sacks and nine quarterback hits, showing that the Steelers were capable of disrupting the passing game.
However, Herbert avoided interceptions despite that pressure.
His performance featured three important strengths:
- Better completion percentage: Herbert completed 20 passes from 33 attempts.
- Greater passing production: He recorded 220 yards, compared with Rodgers’ 161.
- Improved ball security: He finished without an interception.
The difference between the two quarterbacks was not simply the number of touchdowns. Both threw one touchdown. The major distinction was that Herbert generated more passing yards while avoiding the turnovers that affected Pittsburgh.
Herbert’s Contribution as a Runner
Herbert also contributed to the rushing attack.
| Rushing Statistic | Justin Herbert |
| Carries | 5 |
| Rushing Yards | 19 |
| Average | 3.8 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Rush | 15 yards |
His five rushing attempts produced 19 yards. Although this was not a major part of his statistical contribution, it gave the Chargers another option when passing opportunities were limited.
Pittsburgh Steelers Rushing Stats
Pittsburgh recorded 73 rushing yards on 16 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.
Jaylen Warren led the team with 70 yards. His performance represented almost all of the Steelers’ rushing production.
Steelers Running Back Statistics
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Longest |
| Jaylen Warren | 14 | 70 | 5.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 5 |
| Team Total | 16 | 73 | 4.6 | 0 | 14 |
Jaylen Warren Leads the Steelers
Warren was Pittsburgh’s most productive rushing player.
He carried the ball 14 times for 70 yards, averaging five yards per attempt. His longest run covered 14 yards.
One interesting detail is that Warren produced 70 of the team’s 73 rushing yards. This means Pittsburgh relied heavily on one running back for its ground production.
His average of five yards per carry was higher than the Chargers’ team rushing average of 3.7 yards. This suggests that Warren was reasonably effective when given opportunities.
However, individual efficiency does not always translate into overall offensive success.
Pittsburgh finished without a rushing touchdown. Warren’s production helped move the ball, but the team could not turn its ground-game contribution into enough points.
Kaleb Johnson’s Contribution
Kaleb Johnson received two rushing attempts and gained three yards.
His average was 1.5 yards per carry, with a longest run of five yards.
His limited workload meant that Warren remained the primary contributor in the Steelers’ rushing attack.
Why Pittsburgh’s Rushing Numbers Were Not Enough
The Steelers actually averaged more yards per carry than Los Angeles. However, the Chargers recorded significantly more rushing attempts.
Pittsburgh ran the ball 16 times, while Los Angeles attempted 31 rushes.
That difference gave the Chargers more opportunities to control the pace of the game and generate rushing production.
The Steelers’ rushing efficiency was respectable, but the overall volume and lack of a rushing touchdown limited its impact on the scoreboard.
Los Angeles Chargers Rushing Stats
The Chargers produced 115 rushing yards on 31 attempts. Their average was 3.7 yards per carry.
Kimani Vidal led the backfield with 95 rushing yards and one touchdown.
Chargers Rushing Player Statistics
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Longest |
| Kimani Vidal | 25 | 95 | 3.8 | 1 | 12 |
| Justin Herbert | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 0 | 15 |
| Jaret Patterson | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Team Total | 31 | 115 | 3.7 | 1 | 15 |
Kimani Vidal’s Strong Performance
Vidal was the leading rushing contributor for Los Angeles.
He carried the ball 25 times for 95 yards and scored one rushing touchdown. His average was 3.8 yards per attempt.
The most important part of his contribution was consistency. Vidal handled a substantial share of the team’s rushing workload and gave the Chargers a reliable option on the ground.
His 95 rushing yards were 25 more than Warren’s 70.
Although Warren had the better average, Vidal’s larger workload and touchdown production made his contribution particularly valuable.
Jaret Patterson’s Limited Role
Patterson recorded one carry for one yard.
His statistical contribution was small, but he added another option to the Chargers’ rushing rotation.
Comparing the Two Ground Attacks
The rushing comparison provides an interesting example of why average yards per carry should not be considered the only measure of effectiveness.
| Category | Steelers | Chargers |
| Rushing Attempts | 16 | 31 |
| Rushing Yards | 73 | 115 |
| Average Per Carry | 4.6 | 3.7 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Longest Rush | 14 | 15 |
Pittsburgh averaged 0.9 more yards per carry, but Los Angeles gained 42 more rushing yards because it ran the ball nearly twice as often.
The Chargers also scored a rushing touchdown, while Pittsburgh failed to reach the end zone on the ground.
The overall result shows that rushing volume, scoring efficiency, and game circumstances matter alongside average yardage.
Pittsburgh Steelers Receiving Stats
The Steelers recorded 16 receptions for 161 yards and one touchdown.
Roman Wilson and DK Metcalf shared the team’s highest receiving yardage total with 35 yards each.
Complete Steelers Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD | Longest | Targets |
| Roman Wilson | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 1 | 27 | 3 |
| DK Metcalf | 3 | 35 | 11.7 | 0 | 19 | 7 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 3 | 33 | 11.0 | 0 | 15 | 3 |
| Jaylen Warren | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 | 18 | 2 |
| Darnell Washington | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 | 15 | 1 |
| Calvin Austin III | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | 8 | 7 |
| Jonnu Smith | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 2 | 4 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Team Total | 16 | 161 | 10.1 | 1 | 27 | 28 |
Roman Wilson’s Touchdown Contribution
Wilson finished with two receptions for 35 yards and one touchdown.
His average of 17.5 yards per reception was the highest among Pittsburgh players with multiple catches.
He also produced the team’s longest reception at 27 yards.
Wilson’s performance demonstrated his ability to generate meaningful yardage on limited opportunities. His touchdown was especially important because Pittsburgh managed only one offensive touchdown during the game.
DK Metcalf’s Receiving Production
Metcalf caught three passes for 35 yards.
He received seven targets, which was tied for the highest target total on the team with Calvin Austin III.
Despite receiving seven opportunities, Metcalf finished with 35 yards and no touchdown.
His average was 11.7 yards per reception, indicating that his completed catches still produced reasonable gains.
However, the difference between his targets and receptions shows that Pittsburgh did not consistently convert opportunities into completed passes.
Pat Freiermuth Adds Reliable Yardage
Freiermuth recorded three receptions for 33 yards.
He averaged 11 yards per catch and produced a longest reception of 15 yards.
His three receptions tied Metcalf for the highest reception total among Pittsburgh’s listed pass catchers.
Freiermuth provided another option for Rodgers, although his production was not enough to change the overall offensive situation.
Jaylen Warren as a Receiving Option
Warren contributed beyond his rushing responsibilities.
He caught two passes for 21 yards, averaging 10.5 yards per reception.
His longest reception was 18 yards.
Combining his rushing and receiving production gives him 91 yards from scrimmage:
- Rushing yards: 70
- Receiving yards: 21
- Total yards from scrimmage: 91
This makes Warren one of the Steelers’ most productive offensive players in the matchup.
Other Steelers Receiving Contributions
Darnell Washington caught one pass for 15 yards, while Calvin Austin III finished with two receptions for 14 yards.
Jonnu Smith recorded one reception for four yards. Kenny Gainwell also caught two passes, producing four receiving yards.
The distribution shows that Pittsburgh used several receiving options. However, no individual player exceeded 35 receiving yards, which limited the offense’s ability to produce explosive passing gains.
Los Angeles Chargers Receiving Stats
The Chargers recorded 20 receptions for 220 yards and one passing touchdown.
Ladd McConkey was the clear standout, finishing with 107 yards and one touchdown on four receptions.
Complete Chargers Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD | Longest | Targets |
| Ladd McConkey | 4 | 107 | 26.8 | 1 | 58 | 6 |
| Quentin Johnston | 5 | 42 | 8.4 | 0 | 15 | 10 |
| Keenan Allen | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 | 12 | 5 |
| Kimani Vidal | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | 13 | 1 |
| Oronde Gadsden | 3 | 13 | 4.3 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| Tyler Conklin | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 | 1 |
| Tucker Fisk | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 | 1 |
| Tre’ Harris | 2 | 4 | 2.0 | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 | 1 |
| Team Total | 20 | 220 | 11.0 | 1 | 58 | 33 |
Ladd McConkey Delivers the Biggest Receiving Performance
McConkey was the most productive receiver on either team.
He recorded four receptions for 107 yards and one touchdown. His average of 26.8 yards per catch was outstanding.
His longest reception covered 58 yards, demonstrating his ability to create substantial gains through the passing game.
The most impressive detail is that McConkey gained 107 yards on only four catches. He accounted for nearly half of the Chargers’ total receiving yardage.
This performance gave Herbert a reliable explosive target and helped Los Angeles create separation in passing production.
Quentin Johnston’s Contribution
Johnston led the Chargers in receptions with five.
He finished with 42 receiving yards on 10 targets, averaging 8.4 yards per catch.
Although his yardage was much lower than McConkey’s, his five catches provided another route to moving the chains.
His 10 targets were the highest among all listed Chargers receivers. This indicates that he was a frequent option in the passing offense.
Keenan Allen Adds Another Receiving Option
Allen caught two passes for 19 yards.
His average was 9.5 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 12 yards.
He did not record a touchdown, but his involvement added depth to the Chargers’ passing attack.
Kimani Vidal’s Receiving Contribution
Vidal was primarily responsible for the Chargers’ rushing production, but he also caught one pass for 13 yards.
His receiving contribution brought his total offensive yardage to 108:
- Rushing yards: 95
- Receiving yards: 13
- Total yards from scrimmage: 108
He also scored one rushing touchdown.
Vidal and McConkey therefore provided two different types of offensive production. Vidal established a strong ground presence, while McConkey delivered the most explosive passing performance.
Receiving Depth Beyond the Leading Players
The Chargers also received contributions from Oronde Gadsden, Tyler Conklin, Tucker Fisk, Tre’ Harris, and Derius Davis.
Gadsden caught three passes for 13 yards, while Conklin added 12 yards on one reception.
Fisk recorded seven receiving yards. Harris finished with four yards on two catches, and Davis added three yards.
These contributions were smaller, but they demonstrate how Herbert distributed the football across multiple options.
Defensive Player Statistics: Steelers vs Chargers
Defense was another important part of this matchup.
Pittsburgh recorded five sacks compared with three for Los Angeles. The Steelers also generated nine quarterback hits, while the Chargers recorded five.
However, the Chargers produced two interceptions, which became a major factor in the final result.
Pittsburgh Steelers Defensive Statistics
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo | Sacks | TFL | PD | QB Hits |
| Patrick Queen | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalen Ramsey | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Payton Wilson | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keeanu Benton | 7 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Cameron Heyward | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Malik Harrison | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| James Pierre | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Kyle Dugger | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Derrick Harmon | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Watt | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Nick Herbig | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Darius Slay | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Brandin Echols | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Alex Highsmith | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Juan Thornhill | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ben Skowronek | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spencer Anderson | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Roman Wilson | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Connor Heyward | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carson Bruener | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yahya Black | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Sawyer | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joey Porter Jr. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 82 | 36 | 5 | 11 | 5 | 9 |
Patrick Queen Leads Pittsburgh in Tackles
Queen finished with 12 total tackles, the highest individual tackle total in the game.
He recorded two solo tackles and 10 assisted tackles according to the supplied total and solo figures.
His tackle production indicates how frequently he was involved in defensive plays.
Jalen Ramsey followed with eight total tackles, while Payton Wilson and Keeanu Benton each recorded seven.
Alex Highsmith Leads the Steelers in Sacks
Highsmith delivered an important pass-rushing performance.
He recorded two sacks, two tackles for loss, and three quarterback hits.
His two sacks represented the highest individual sack total for Pittsburgh.
T.J. Watt, Nick Herbig, and Keeanu Benton each recorded one sack.
Together, these performances helped Pittsburgh finish with five team sacks.
T.J. Watt and Nick Herbig Add Pressure
Watt recorded three total tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, one pass defended, and three quarterback hits.
Herbig also finished with one sack and two tackles for loss.
Although the Steelers did not win the game, their defensive front produced meaningful pressure against Herbert.
The contrast is important: Pittsburgh’s defense generated more sacks, but its offense could not take full advantage of the defensive work.
Los Angeles Chargers Defensive Statistics
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo | Sacks | TFL | PD | QB Hits |
| Daiyan Henley | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Molden | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| RJ Mickens | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Del’Shawn Phillips | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Denzel Perryman | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Da’Shawn Hand | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Donte Jackson | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Khalil Mack | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Justin Eboigbe | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Derwin James Jr. | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tuli Tuipulotu | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cam Hart | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Bud Dupree | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Benjamin St-Juste | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kendall Williamson | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamaree Caldwell | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Odafe Oweh | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Teair Tart | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nikko Reed | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 46 | 30 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
Daiyan Henley Leads the Chargers Defense
Henley recorded six total tackles, including five solo tackles.
He led the Chargers in total tackles and helped anchor the defensive effort.
Elijah Molden followed with five tackles, while RJ Mickens recorded four.
The Chargers did not need to match Pittsburgh’s total tackle count to win. Their defensive contribution was particularly valuable because of the turnovers they generated.
Khalil Mack Records a Sack
Mack finished with three total tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
Tuli Tuipulotu also recorded one sack, while Bud Dupree added another.
The three players combined for the Chargers’ three team sacks.
Donte Jackson and RJ Mickens Produce Interceptions
The most important defensive plays for Los Angeles came from the secondary.
Donte Jackson recorded one interception, returning it for 21 yards.
RJ Mickens also intercepted Rodgers, producing 10 return yards.
Together, their interceptions generated 31 return yards.
These plays were particularly valuable because they stopped Pittsburgh possessions and prevented the Steelers from building offensive momentum.
Interception and Turnover Statistics
Turnovers were one of the clearest differences between the teams.
| Turnover Category | Pittsburgh Steelers | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Interceptions Thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions Recorded | 0 | 2 |
| Interception Return Yards | 0 | 31 |
| Interception Return Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles | 2 | 0 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles Recovered | 1 | 1 |
The Chargers recorded two interceptions and returned them for a combined 31 yards.
Pittsburgh recorded no interceptions on defense.
The Steelers also lost one fumble. Combining the two interceptions and one lost fumble gives Pittsburgh three offensive turnovers.
Los Angeles did not throw an interception or lose a fumble.
Donte Jackson’s Interception
Jackson recorded one interception and returned it for 21 yards.
His play helped the Chargers disrupt a Pittsburgh possession and maintain their defensive advantage.
RJ Mickens’ Interception
Mickens also intercepted Rodgers and returned the ball for 10 yards.
His contribution brought the Chargers’ total interception return yardage to 31.
Why Turnovers Mattered
Turnovers have several effects beyond the immediate loss of possession.
They can:
- Remove opportunities to score.
- Give the opposing offense better field position.
- Increase pressure on the team that commits them.
- Change the momentum of a game.
- Force an offense to take additional risks when trying to recover.
In this matchup, Pittsburgh’s three giveaways were especially damaging because its offense was already struggling to produce points.
The Chargers protected the football and capitalized on defensive opportunities.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams also contributed to the overall statistical difference.
The Chargers made three field goals, while Pittsburgh converted one.
Cameron Dicker scored 11 kicking points, compared with four for Chris Boswell.
Pittsburgh Steelers Kicking Stats
| Statistic | Chris Boswell |
| Field Goals Made | 1 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 50.0% |
| Longest Field Goal | 59 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 1 |
| Extra Points Attempted | 1 |
| Total Kicking Points | 4 |
Boswell converted one of his two field-goal attempts.
His longest successful field goal was 59 yards.
He also converted his only extra-point attempt.
Los Angeles Chargers Kicking Stats
| Statistic | Cameron Dicker |
| Field Goals Made | 3 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 4 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 75.0% |
| Longest Field Goal | 59 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 2 |
| Extra Points Attempted | 2 |
| Total Kicking Points | 11 |
Dicker made three of four field-goal attempts and converted both extra points.
His 11 kicking points were seven more than Boswell’s total.
Both kickers recorded a longest successful field goal of 59 yards.
Special Teams Comparison
| Category | Steelers | Chargers |
| Field Goals Made | 1 | 3 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 2 | 4 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 50% | 75% |
| Extra Points Made | 1 | 2 |
| Kicking Points | 4 | 11 |
| Longest Field Goal | 59 yards | 59 yards |
The Chargers’ advantage in field-goal production helped them maintain their lead.
Dicker’s three successful field goals also show that Los Angeles could convert offensive possessions into points even when it did not score a touchdown.
Kick Return Statistics
Both teams recorded three kick returns.
Pittsburgh gained 84 return yards, while Los Angeles finished with 76.
Steelers Kick Returns
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest | TD |
| Kenny Gainwell | 2 | 61 | 30.5 | 36 | 0 |
| Ke’Shawn Williams | 1 | 23 | 23.0 | 23 | 0 |
| Team Total | 3 | 84 | 28.0 | 36 | 0 |
Gainwell led Pittsburgh with 61 kick return yards on two attempts.
His average was 30.5 yards per return, and his longest return covered 36 yards.
Ke’Shawn Williams added 23 yards on one return.
Chargers Kick Returns
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest | TD |
| Trayveon Williams | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 26 | 0 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 25 | 25.0 | 25 | 0 |
| Team Total | 3 | 76 | 25.3 | 26 | 0 |
Trayveon Williams recorded 51 return yards on two attempts.
Davis added 25 yards on one return.
Pittsburgh held a small advantage in both total kick return yards and average return distance.
However, neither team scored a kick return touchdown.
Punt Return Statistics
Punt returns provided another small area of comparison.
| Statistic | Steelers | Chargers |
| Punt Returns | 2 | 1 |
| Return Yards | 11 | 5 |
| Average | 5.5 | 5.0 |
| Longest Return | 11 | 5 |
| Return Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Ke’Shawn Williams recorded both Pittsburgh punt returns, gaining 11 yards.
Derius Davis handled the Chargers’ only punt return, gaining five yards.
Pittsburgh held a slight statistical advantage in this category.
Punting Statistics
Both punters handled multiple opportunities during the game.
Pittsburgh Steelers Punting
| Statistic | Corliss Waitman |
| Punts | 4 |
| Total Punt Yards | 183 |
| Average Distance | 45.8 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 |
| Inside the 20 | 2 |
| Longest Punt | 51 yards |
Waitman averaged 45.8 yards across four punts.
Two of his punts landed inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, and he did not record a touchback.
Los Angeles Chargers Punting
| Statistic | JK Scott |
| Punts | 6 |
| Total Punt Yards | 263 |
| Average Distance | 43.8 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 |
| Inside the 20 | 3 |
| Longest Punt | 55 yards |
Scott punted six times for 263 yards.
His average was 43.8 yards, and three punts landed inside the 20-yard line.
Although Scott averaged two fewer yards per punt than Waitman, he recorded more punts inside the 20 and had a longer individual punt.
Five Major Reasons the Chargers Won
The final score was influenced by several statistical advantages rather than one individual performance.
1. Herbert Protected the Football
Herbert threw for 220 yards and one touchdown without an interception.
Rodgers also threw one touchdown, but his two interceptions created significant problems.
Quarterback ball security was one of the most important differences between the teams.
2. McConkey Produced Explosive Receiving Yardage
McConkey finished with 107 yards and a touchdown on four receptions.
His 58-yard longest catch helped give the Chargers a major advantage in receiving production.
No Pittsburgh receiver reached 40 yards.
3. Vidal Established a Productive Ground Attack
Vidal recorded 95 rushing yards and one touchdown.
His 25 carries gave Los Angeles a dependable ground-game presence.
The Chargers finished with 115 rushing yards, compared with 73 for Pittsburgh.
4. The Chargers Defense Generated Two Interceptions
Jackson and Mickens each intercepted Rodgers.
These plays helped Los Angeles control possession and limited Pittsburgh’s ability to build momentum.
The Chargers also recovered one fumble according to the supplied defensive and fumble statistics.
5. Dicker Converted More Field Goals
Dicker made three field goals, while Boswell made one.
The difference in kicking production helped Los Angeles maintain its scoring advantage.
The Chargers did not rely entirely on touchdowns to build their 25-point total.
Which Players Had the Biggest Impact?
Several players produced notable performances, but their contributions affected the game in different ways.
| Player | Team | Key Performance |
| Justin Herbert | Chargers | 220 passing yards, 1 TD, 0 INT |
| Ladd McConkey | Chargers | 107 receiving yards, 1 TD |
| Kimani Vidal | Chargers | 95 rushing yards, 1 TD |
| Cameron Dicker | Chargers | 11 kicking points |
| Donte Jackson | Chargers | 1 interception, 21 return yards |
| RJ Mickens | Chargers | 1 interception, 10 return yards |
| Aaron Rodgers | Steelers | 161 passing yards, 1 TD, 2 INT |
| Jaylen Warren | Steelers | 70 rushing yards |
| Roman Wilson | Steelers | 35 receiving yards, 1 TD |
| Patrick Queen | Steelers | 12 total tackles |
| Alex Highsmith | Steelers | 2 sacks |
| Kenny Gainwell | Steelers | 61 kick return yards |
Best Quarterback Performance
Justin Herbert had the stronger statistical performance.
He produced more passing yards, a higher completion percentage, a better passer rating, and no interceptions.
Best Receiving Performance
Ladd McConkey was the standout receiver.
His 107 yards were more than three times the receiving yardage of Pittsburgh’s leading individual receivers.
Best Rushing Performance
Kimani Vidal led all running backs with 95 rushing yards and one touchdown.
Best Defensive Performance
Patrick Queen led the game in total tackles with 12.
Alex Highsmith led the Steelers in sacks with two, while Donte Jackson and RJ Mickens supplied the Chargers’ two interceptions.
Best Special Teams Performance
Cameron Dicker led all kickers with 11 points.
His three field goals were an important part of Los Angeles’ scoring production.
Statistical Analysis: What the Numbers Really Mean
Looking beyond the final score reveals several lessons about the way this game developed.
Offensive Production Was More Balanced in Los Angeles
The Chargers gained 220 passing yards and 115 rushing yards.
Pittsburgh gained 161 passing yards and 73 rushing yards.
Los Angeles therefore had an advantage in both major offensive yardage categories.
The combined difference was 101 yards.
This advantage indicates that the Chargers were able to generate more offensive production through different methods rather than relying on a single player.
Pittsburgh Had More Defensive Sacks but Lost
The Steelers recorded five sacks, compared with three for Los Angeles.
At first glance, that suggests Pittsburgh’s pass rush performed better.
However, sacks alone do not determine defensive success.
The Chargers still recorded more passing yards and avoided interceptions.
The Steelers also failed to convert their defensive pressure into enough offensive scoring.
This is an important distinction when evaluating defensive statistics. Pressure can disrupt an opposing quarterback, but the offense must still take advantage of the resulting opportunities.
Ball Security Created a Significant Difference
Pittsburgh committed three turnovers according to the supplied interception and fumble figures.
Los Angeles committed none.
This was one of the clearest advantages for the Chargers.
Even when Pittsburgh produced defensive stops, its offense struggled to maintain possession and convert drives into points.
The Receiving Difference Was Substantial
The Chargers recorded 220 receiving yards, compared with Pittsburgh’s 161.
McConkey’s 107 yards accounted for a large share of that advantage.
The Steelers had a more evenly distributed receiving performance, but no player reached the same level of individual production.
Rushing Volume Favored Los Angeles
Pittsburgh had a better rushing average, but the Chargers attempted 15 more carries.
Those additional attempts helped Los Angeles generate 42 more rushing yards and one rushing touchdown.
This is why evaluating a running game requires more than comparing average yards per carry.
Attempts, total production, touchdowns, and the role of the running game in the overall offense all matter.
What the Result Meant for Both Teams
The Chargers entered the matchup with a 7-3 record and improved their performance with a 25-10 victory.
Their balanced offense and defensive takeaways provided a strong foundation for the win.
The Steelers entered with a 5-4 record and left the game with a difficult statistical result.
Their defense generated five sacks, but the offense could not maintain consistency.
The difference between the teams was particularly clear in quarterback efficiency, passing production, rushing volume, and turnovers.
For Los Angeles, the result demonstrated the value of combining an effective passing attack with a dependable running game.
For Pittsburgh, the statistics highlighted the importance of reducing turnovers and improving offensive consistency.
The match also illustrated how a team can produce some positive individual performances without generating enough collective production to win.
Lessons from the Match for NFL Fans and Analysts
This matchup offers several useful lessons for anyone studying NFL player statistics.
Individual Efficiency Does Not Always Guarantee a Team Victory
Jaylen Warren averaged five yards per carry, better than Kimani Vidal’s 3.8-yard average. Yet Vidal finished with more rushing yards and a touchdown.
This demonstrates why individual averages should be considered alongside total workload and scoring contributions.
Turnover Prevention Can Be More Important Than Passing Volume
Rodgers attempted 31 passes, while Herbert attempted 33. Their workloads were similar, but their results were different.
Herbert threw no interceptions, while Rodgers threw two.
A quarterback can complete several productive passes, but turnovers can erase the value of those gains.
Defensive Pressure Must Lead to Offensive Opportunities
Pittsburgh recorded five sacks and nine quarterback hits. These numbers show that the defensive front created pressure.
However, the Steelers could not turn that defensive production into enough points.
A complete game analysis must consider how offense, defense, and special teams work together.
Explosive Plays Can Change the Statistical Picture
McConkey’s 58-yard reception was one of the biggest individual plays reflected in the receiving statistics.
His 107 total receiving yards demonstrated how a small number of successful plays can produce substantial offensive production.
This is another reason to examine longest receptions alongside total receptions and receiving averages.
Official Box Score and Statistical Reference
For readers who want to examine the original game statistics, the ESPN official box score for Chargers vs. Steelers, Game ID 401772927 provides the reference for the matchup.
The statistics in this article are organized around the supplied game data. Individual player totals, team comparisons, and analytical observations should be distinguished from broader season averages or career statistics.
It is also important to avoid assuming that every player with a low statistical contribution had a poor performance. Defensive assignments, blocking responsibilities, playing time, and opportunities do not always appear in a traditional box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chargers game on November 10, 2025?
The Los Angeles Chargers defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 25-10 in their NFL Week 9 regular-season matchup on November 10, 2025.
2. How many passing yards did Justin Herbert record against the Steelers?
Justin Herbert recorded 220 passing yards on 20 completions from 33 attempts. He threw one touchdown and did not record an interception.
3. How many passing yards did Aaron Rodgers have against the Chargers?
Aaron Rodgers finished with 161 passing yards on 16 completions from 31 attempts. He threw one touchdown and two interceptions.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Ladd McConkey was the leading receiver. He recorded four receptions for 107 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 58 yards.
5. Who led the game in rushing yards?
Kimani Vidal led all players with 95 rushing yards on 25 carries. He averaged 3.8 yards per carry and scored one rushing touchdown.
6. How many interceptions did the Chargers record against Pittsburgh?
The Chargers recorded two interceptions. Donte Jackson returned one for 21 yards, while RJ Mickens returned the other for 10 yards.
Conclusion
The November 10, 2025, matchup between the Los Angeles Chargers and Pittsburgh Steelers finished with a 25-10 victory for Los Angeles. The statistical breakdown shows that the Chargers performed better in several important offensive categories and made fewer costly mistakes.
Justin Herbert finished with 220 passing yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. Ladd McConkey delivered the strongest receiving performance with 107 yards and a touchdown, while Kimani Vidal added 95 rushing yards and another touchdown.
Pittsburgh also had some impressive individual performances. Jaylen Warren rushed for 70 yards, Roman Wilson scored the team’s only receiving touchdown, Patrick Queen led the game with 12 tackles, and Alex Highsmith recorded two sacks.
However, the Steelers struggled to turn those contributions into consistent scoring opportunities. Aaron Rodgers threw two interceptions, and Pittsburgh lost one fumble. The offense also failed to score during the second and third quarters.
The Chargers’ advantages in passing production, rushing volume, turnovers, and field-goal production ultimately explained the 15-point difference.
Overall, the game demonstrated the importance of balanced offensive production, quarterback decision-making, defensive takeaways, and reliable special teams. Looking at all these categories together provides a much clearer understanding of why Los Angeles earned the victory.
