Las Vegas Raiders vs Seahawks Match Player Stats
The las vegas raiders vs seahawks match player stats from August 7, 2025, reveal an entertaining NFL preseason contest that ended in a 23-23 tie at Lumen Field. The Las Vegas Raiders recovered from a slow start and scored 13 points in the fourth quarter, while the Seattle Seahawks combined a productive rushing attack with several important defensive plays. Both teams showed promising individual performances, but interceptions, missed scoring opportunities, and contrasting offensive approaches kept either side from securing a victory.
The matchup offered a useful look at quarterback depth, running back production, receiving efficiency, defensive pressure, and special teams. Aidan O’Connell threw for 205 yards for Las Vegas, while backup quarterback Cam Miller added a touchdown pass on an efficient passing line. Seattle’s ground game produced 170 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, led by George Holani. On the receiving side, Raiders wideout Shedrick Jackson delivered four catches for 76 yards and a touchdown, while Seahawks receiver Tory Horton caught a touchdown pass.
Because this was a preseason game, the numbers deserve to be interpreted in context. Individual statistics help explain what happened on the field, but they do not automatically predict regular-season performance or establish a player’s long-term role. The most useful analysis looks beyond the final score to examine how each player contributed, where each offense found success, and which weaknesses affected the result.
Las Vegas Raiders vs Seahawks Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game took place on August 7, 2025, with Seattle hosting Las Vegas in an NFL preseason matchup. Neither team finished with a win or loss in this contest, as the scoreboard remained level at the end.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Las Vegas Raiders vs. Seattle Seahawks |
| Date | August 7, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue | Seattle’s home field |
| Final score | Raiders 23, Seahawks 23 |
| Result | Tie |
| Raiders’ points | 23 |
| Seahawks’ points | 23 |
| Raiders’ passing yards | 288 |
| Seahawks’ passing yards | 198 |
| Raiders’ rushing yards | 104 |
| Seahawks’ rushing yards | 170 |
| Raiders’ interceptions thrown | 2 |
| Seahawks’ interceptions thrown | 1 |
The statistical comparison highlights two different offensive profiles. Las Vegas gained more passing yards and completed two touchdown passes, but the team also threw two interceptions. Seattle produced fewer passing yards yet gained more on the ground and scored twice through rushing plays.
Those differences help explain how the game remained competitive. The Raiders had the stronger overall passing output, while the Seahawks generated more rushing production and put pressure on the opposing offense through defensive plays.
The result also demonstrates why preseason box scores need more than a win-or-loss interpretation. Coaches use these games to evaluate players, test combinations, assess execution, and identify areas requiring improvement. A tie can contain valuable individual performances even when neither team establishes complete control.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern explains how the Seahawks built an early advantage and how the Raiders gradually returned to the game.
| Quarter | Las Vegas Raiders | Seattle Seahawks |
| First quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 9 |
| Third quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 7 |
| Final score | 23 | 23 |
First quarter: Seattle establishes control
Seattle opened the scoring with a 24-yard rushing touchdown by George Holani. The successful extra point gave the Seahawks a 7-0 lead.
Las Vegas failed to score during the opening quarter. The Raiders had opportunities to establish their passing attack, but Seattle’s defense helped prevent those early possessions from turning into points.
Holani’s touchdown was important because it demonstrated Seattle’s ability to create explosive rushing plays. Rather than relying exclusively on its passing game, the Seahawks found an effective way to attack the Raiders on the ground.
Second quarter: The Seahawks extend their advantage
The second quarter was Seattle’s most productive period, as the team added nine points to its total.
Daniel Carlson put Las Vegas on the scoreboard with a 27-yard field goal. Seattle responded with a touchdown pass from Drew Lock to Tory Horton, although the extra-point attempt was blocked. Jason Myers then converted a 48-yard field goal to give the Seahawks a 16-3 lead.
The Raiders had trouble converting their passing opportunities into touchdowns during this stretch. Seattle’s defense recorded interceptions, limiting Las Vegas’s ability to capitalize on promising possessions.
The 13-point halftime deficit placed pressure on the Raiders to improve their offensive execution after the break.
Third quarter: Las Vegas starts its comeback
The Raiders scored the only points of the third quarter. Aidan O’Connell connected with Dylan Laube on a six-yard touchdown pass, and Carlson converted the extra point.
The touchdown reduced Seattle’s lead to 16-10.
This possession demonstrated the value of involving running backs in the passing game. Laube’s reception gave the Raiders another way to move the ball without depending exclusively on wide receivers to create separation.
Seattle, meanwhile, failed to add to its lead during the quarter. That allowed Las Vegas to enter the final period with a realistic opportunity to tie the game.
Fourth quarter: Late scoring produces a tie
The fourth quarter featured several major scoring developments.
Carlson converted a 56-yard field goal to narrow Seattle’s lead to 16-13. The Seahawks responded with a one-yard rushing touchdown by Jacardia Wright, restoring their advantage to 23-13 after the extra point.
Las Vegas then produced one of its biggest offensive plays of the evening. Cam Miller threw a 41-yard touchdown pass to Shedrick Jackson, and Carlson added the extra point to make the score 23-20.
Carlson subsequently converted another field goal, this time from 51 yards, to tie the game at 23-23.
The Raiders had another opportunity to score before the end, but Carlson’s 55-yard field goal attempt was blocked. Seattle’s defense preserved the tie by preventing the final scoring attempt from going through.
The final quarter showed both the Raiders’ ability to respond under pressure and Seattle’s capacity to make important defensive plays when the game was on the line. The late comeback was a defining feature of this preseason contest.
Las Vegas Raiders Passing Stats
Las Vegas finished with 288 passing yards, 25 completions on 40 attempts, and two passing touchdowns. The team also threw two interceptions and allowed one sack for eight yards.
Those figures indicate that the Raiders generated productive passing plays but did not consistently protect the ball.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Aidan O’Connell | 18/30 | 205 | 6.8 | 1 | 2 | 63.9 |
| Cam Miller | 6/7 | 76 | 10.9 | 1 | 0 | 151.5 |
| Geno Smith | 1/3 | 15 | 5.0 | 0 | 0 | 50.7 |
| Team total | 25/40 | 288 | 7.4 | 2 | 2 | 80.8 |
Aidan O’Connell: The leading passer
O’Connell completed 18 of 30 attempts for 205 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 6.8 yards per attempt and finished with a passer rating of 63.9.
His passing total accounted for most of the Raiders’ aerial production. He also helped establish connections with several receivers, including players who made important gains on intermediate and deep routes.
However, O’Connell’s two interceptions were a significant negative. Both turnovers interrupted offensive possessions and gave Seattle opportunities to control the game.
The first interception came on a pass intended for Dont’e Thornton Jr. that was intercepted by Josh Jobe. Nehemiah Pritchett recorded the second interception on a pass intended for Alex Bachman.
These plays illustrate an important difference between accumulating yards and producing efficient offense. A quarterback can move the ball between the 20-yard lines yet still undermine a drive by making a costly decision near a scoring opportunity.
O’Connell’s performance therefore presented a mixed picture. His 205 yards showed that he could sustain passing production, but the turnovers highlighted an area requiring improvement.
Cam Miller: Efficient production in limited attempts
Miller completed six of seven passes for 76 yards and one touchdown. His 10.9 yards per attempt was the highest among the Raiders’ three listed passers.
His most memorable play was the 41-yard touchdown pass to Shedrick Jackson in the fourth quarter. The completion immediately brought Las Vegas closer to Seattle and helped create the conditions for the late tie.
Miller also avoided interceptions. That distinction matters because his short appearance featured both efficiency and a successful scoring play.
Nevertheless, a seven-attempt sample is too small to support sweeping conclusions about a quarterback’s long-term ability. His high passer rating of 151.5 reflects an excellent statistical line in this particular appearance, not proof that he would maintain the same efficiency over a full game or season.
The most defensible conclusion is that Miller made good use of his limited opportunities and delivered a significant play when the Raiders needed points.
Geno Smith: Limited passing involvement
Smith completed one of three passes for 15 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions recorded in his line.
His numbers represent a very small sample and should not be compared directly with O’Connell’s or Miller’s more extensive workloads. Three attempts offer little evidence about a quarterback’s overall performance, especially in a preseason game where playing time and personnel combinations can vary.
The main takeaway is that Smith contributed a small amount of passing production, while the Raiders’ overall passing output came primarily from O’Connell and Miller.
What the Raiders’ passing numbers reveal
Three details stand out:
- Passing volume: Las Vegas attempted 40 passes, eight more than Seattle.
- Downfield production: The team averaged 7.4 yards per attempt and completed several significant gains.
- Turnover risk: Two interceptions reduced the value of the yardage accumulated.
The passing attack had enough production to support a comeback, but greater ball security could have made the offensive performance more effective.
Seattle Seahawks Passing Stats
Seattle completed 18 of 32 passes for 198 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. The Seahawks averaged 6.5 yards per attempt and allowed one sack for 10 yards.
Although Seattle recorded fewer passing yards than Las Vegas, its offense complemented the passing game with a more productive rushing attack.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Passer rating |
| Drew Lock | 12/22 | 147 | 6.7 | 1 | 1 | 71.6 |
| Jalen Milroe | 6/10 | 61 | 6.1 | 0 | 0 | 77.5 |
| Team total | 18/32 | 198 | 6.5 | 1 | 1 | 73.4 |
Drew Lock: Seattle’s primary passing contributor
Lock completed 12 of 22 passes for 147 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 6.7 yards per attempt and threw one interception.
His touchdown pass to Horton helped Seattle establish its early lead. The 10-yard scoring completion capped a drive that gave the Seahawks a 13-3 advantage after the extra-point attempt was blocked.
Lock also contributed to Seattle’s ability to move the chains through short and intermediate passes. His overall yardage led the Seahawks’ quarterbacks, although his interception showed that the passing game was not entirely free of mistakes.
The statistical picture is one of moderate production rather than overwhelming passing dominance. Seattle’s offense gained enough through the air to create scoring opportunities, but its strongest overall advantage came from the running game.
Jalen Milroe: Mobility added another dimension
Milroe completed six of 10 passes for 61 yards. He did not throw a touchdown or an interception, and he finished with a passer rating of 77.5.
His passing numbers were modest, but his rushing contribution made his overall performance more interesting. Milroe gained 38 yards on three carries, averaging 12.7 yards per attempt.
His ability to gain yards with his legs gave Seattle another offensive option. When a quarterback can threaten defenses as a runner, defenders must account for potential rushing attempts as well as receivers running routes.
Milroe’s passing sample was limited, so his statistics should not be treated as a comprehensive measure of his development. Still, the combination of 61 passing yards and 38 rushing yards demonstrates the different ways he contributed to Seattle’s offense.
Comparing the Seattle quarterbacks
Lock generated more passing yards and threw the team’s touchdown pass. Milroe contributed fewer yards through the air but added meaningful rushing production.
Their statistics suggest complementary offensive strengths:
- Lock provided the larger share of Seattle’s passing output.
- Milroe added mobility and a different type of rushing threat.
- Seattle’s single passing interception was fewer than Las Vegas’s two.
- The team’s ground game helped reduce its dependence on passing volume.
The comparison is most useful when viewed as an account of this particular game, rather than a definitive ranking of the quarterbacks.
Raiders Rushing Stats: Individual Player Breakdown
Las Vegas recorded 104 rushing yards on 26 carries, averaging 4.0 yards per attempt. The Raiders did not score a rushing touchdown.
Their rushing output was respectable in volume, but it fell short of Seattle’s 170 yards. The distribution of carries also shows that several players contributed to the ground game rather than one runner handling most of the work.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| Chris Collier | 9 | 42 | 4.7 | 16 | 0 |
| Dylan Laube | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 24 | 0 |
| Raheem Mostert | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 11 | 0 |
| Sincere McCormick | 3 | 11 | 3.7 | 5 | 0 |
| Cam Miller | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Zamir White | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 2 | 0 |
| Aidan O’Connell | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 1 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 3 | -1 | -0.3 | 3 | 0 |
| Team total | 26 | 104 | 4.0 | 24 | 0 |
Chris Collier: The leading rusher by volume
Collier led Las Vegas with nine carries for 42 yards, averaging 4.7 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 16 yards.
His workload made him the Raiders’ leading rusher by both carries and total yardage. He gave the offense a consistent rushing option, particularly during the late stages when Las Vegas needed to move into field-goal range.
Collier’s performance was valuable because he generated production across multiple attempts rather than relying on a single explosive run. That type of contribution can help an offense maintain manageable down-and-distance situations.
However, he did not score a touchdown, and his 42 yards alone could not match Seattle’s combined rushing output.
Dylan Laube: Efficient running and a receiving touchdown
Laube recorded five carries for 34 yards, averaging 6.8 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 24 yards.
He also caught one pass for six yards and a touchdown. That receiving score came in the third quarter and was crucial to the Raiders’ comeback.
Laube’s performance illustrates the value of a running back who can contribute in two phases of the offense. His rushing average was higher than Collier’s, while his touchdown reception gave Las Vegas an important scoring option.
The difference between rushing and receiving touchdowns is worth noting. Laube’s touchdown counted as a passing score for O’Connell and a receiving score for Laube, not a rushing touchdown.
Raheem Mostert: A productive but small sample
Mostert carried the ball once for 11 yards. His 11.0-yard average was the highest among the Raiders’ listed runners, but the single carry is important context.
One successful run can produce a high average without showing whether a player can sustain that efficiency over a larger workload. Mostert’s contribution was positive in this appearance, but his limited number of attempts prevents a broader judgment.
Sincere McCormick and Zamir White
McCormick gained 11 yards on three carries, averaging 3.7 yards per attempt. He also returned one kickoff for 26 yards.
White recorded two carries for two yards and returned one kickoff for 35 yards. His rushing production was limited, but his kickoff return gave Las Vegas useful field position.
Their contrasting contributions show why offensive statistics should be separated from special teams. White’s return yardage did not count toward his rushing total, even though both contributions helped the Raiders during the game.
Ashton Jeanty and quarterback rushing
Jeanty recorded three carries for minus one yard. That result indicates that Seattle limited his opportunities to gain positive yardage in this appearance.
Quarterbacks Miller and O’Connell also contributed rushing attempts, gaining four yards and one yard, respectively. Those numbers were small compared with the production of the primary runners.
The overall lesson from the Raiders’ rushing statistics is that the team had several useful individual contributions but lacked the touchdown production Seattle generated on the ground.
Seattle Seahawks Rushing Stats: Individual Player Breakdown
Seattle’s rushing game was one of the clearest statistical advantages in the matchup. The Seahawks recorded 170 yards on 32 carries, averaging 5.3 yards per attempt and scoring two rushing touchdowns.
Their production exceeded Las Vegas by 66 rushing yards. Seattle also gained more than a yard per carry above the Raiders’ average, helping the offense create scoring opportunities without needing to rely exclusively on passing.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| George Holani | 7 | 61 | 8.7 | 24 | 1 |
| Jalen Milroe | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 27 | 0 |
| Jacardia Wright | 7 | 34 | 4.9 | 11 | 1 |
| Anthony Tyus III | 6 | 23 | 3.8 | 8 | 0 |
| Damien Martinez | 6 | 10 | 1.7 | 5 | 0 |
| Drew Lock | 3 | 4 | 1.3 | 2 | 0 |
| Team total | 32 | 170 | 5.3 | 27 | 2 |
George Holani: Seattle’s leading rusher
Holani finished with seven carries for 61 yards, averaging 8.7 yards per attempt. He recorded the longest run of 24 yards and scored Seattle’s opening touchdown.
His performance was efficient in both volume and impact. Holani averaged nearly nine yards per carry, giving the Seahawks a strong return from his seven rushing attempts.
His first-quarter touchdown also helped Seattle establish control early. Scoring first allowed the Seahawks to play with a lead while the Raiders worked to find their offensive rhythm.
Holani’s receiving contribution added to his overall value. He caught one pass for 20 yards, providing another way to advance the ball.
The combination of rushing production, a touchdown, and a receiving gain made Holani one of Seattle’s most productive offensive players in this matchup.
Jalen Milroe: A major rushing threat
Milroe gained 38 yards on three carries, averaging 12.7 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 27 yards.
That rushing average was the highest among Seattle’s listed players. It also exceeded his passing average of 6.1 yards per attempt, highlighting how much his mobility contributed to his statistical output.
A mobile quarterback can change defensive responsibilities. Linebackers and edge defenders must decide whether to pursue the running back, pressure the quarterback, or protect against a possible scramble. That extra uncertainty can create space for an offense.
Milroe’s numbers do not establish how consistently he would produce those gains over a full season, but they demonstrate the impact his running ability had in this game.
Jacardia Wright: A touchdown in a key moment
Wright carried seven times for 34 yards, averaging 4.9 yards per attempt. He scored Seattle’s second rushing touchdown on a one-yard run in the fourth quarter.
That score mattered because it arrived after Las Vegas had begun reducing the deficit. Wright’s touchdown restored Seattle’s 10-point lead at 23-13.
His seven carries also matched Holani’s workload, showing that Seattle distributed opportunities between multiple runners. Wright’s role was different from Holani’s explosive first-quarter contribution, but his short-yardage touchdown was equally important to the scoreboard.
Anthony Tyus III and Damien Martinez
Tyus recorded six carries for 23 yards, averaging 3.8 yards per attempt. He helped Seattle sustain its ground attack through a series of runs during the fourth quarter.
Martinez also had six carries, gaining 10 yards. His average of 1.7 yards per attempt was lower than those of Seattle’s other primary runners.
Martinez’s rushing line was modest, although he also caught two passes for 15 yards. His receiving contribution provided additional value beyond his work as a ball carrier.
These contrasting performances illustrate why the rushing average should be considered alongside a player’s overall responsibilities. A running back’s role can include pass protection, receiving routes, short-yardage work, and other tasks that are not fully reflected in rushing totals.
Why Seattle’s rushing advantage mattered
Seattle’s 170 rushing yards helped compensate for its lower passing total. The Seahawks did not need to win the passing-yardage comparison to generate enough points to remain competitive.
Three factors stand out:
- Holani supplied explosive gains and the opening touchdown.
- Wright converted a short-yardage opportunity into a crucial fourth-quarter score.
- Milroe added a mobile quarterback dimension that created another rushing threat.
Together, those contributions helped Seattle average 5.3 yards per carry and finish with two rushing touchdowns.
Receiving Stats: Which Players Made the Biggest Impact?
Receiving production provides another important perspective on the game. Las Vegas recorded 296 receiving yards on 25 catches, while Seattle recorded 208 receiving yards on 18 catches according to the supplied receiving totals.
The Raiders’ leading receiver was Shedrick Jackson, who gained 76 yards and scored a touchdown. Seattle’s leading touchdown receiver was Tory Horton, whose first-half score helped the Seahawks build their lead.
The difference in receiving yards should be interpreted alongside passing statistics, because the two categories describe different aspects of the offense. Receiving totals reflect yards credited to pass catchers, while passing totals and team passing statistics may use different accounting conventions, particularly when sacks and other plays are included.
Las Vegas Raiders receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Longest catch | TD |
| Shedrick Jackson | 4 | 76 | 19.0 | 41 | 1 |
| Alex Bachman | 2 | 36 | 18.0 | 33 | 0 |
| Phillip Dorsett II | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Carter Runyon | 3 | 33 | 11.0 | 20 | 0 |
| Ian Thomas | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 25 | 0 |
| Qadir Ismail | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 19 | 0 |
| Dont’e Thornton Jr. | 1 | 17 | 17.0 | 17 | 0 |
| Collin Johnson | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 10 | 0 |
| Tre Tucker | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 15 | 0 |
| Justin Shorter | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 6 | 0 |
| Dylan Laube | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 1 |
| Jack Bech | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tommy Mellott | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | -2 | 0 |
Receiving figures above follow the supplied player data. A player’s targets and catches are separate measures, so not every target results in a reception.
Shedrick Jackson: The Raiders’ standout receiver
Jackson caught four passes for 76 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 19.0 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 41 yards.
His fourth-quarter touchdown was one of the defining plays of the game. Miller connected with Jackson on a 41-yard pass, reducing Seattle’s lead and helping set up the Raiders’ eventual tie.
Jackson’s average of 19 yards per catch indicates that his contribution was not limited to short, low-risk completions. He generated significant yardage on relatively few receptions.
The touchdown also demonstrates the value of connecting on a downfield pass late in a game. A single explosive completion can quickly change the scoreboard and shift momentum.
Alex Bachman and Phillip Dorsett II
Bachman caught two passes for 36 yards, averaging 18.0 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 33 yards.
Dorsett caught three passes for 36 yards, averaging 12.0 yards per catch. Their combined production gave Las Vegas additional receiving options beyond Jackson.
Bachman’s performance deserves a balanced assessment because he was also the intended target on one of O’Connell’s interceptions. His receiving yardage was useful, but the interception illustrates why individual statistics should be evaluated in context rather than treating each category as a complete account of performance.
Carter Runyon and Ian Thomas
Runyon caught three passes for 33 yards, while Thomas recorded two catches for 24 yards.
Both players contributed to the Raiders’ ability to spread the ball across the field. Their production gave the quarterbacks additional outlets and helped prevent the passing attack from depending on one receiver.
Runyon also caught a six-yard pass from Miller during the fourth-quarter drive that led to Carlson’s 51-yard field goal. Thomas produced a notable 25-yard reception, helping Las Vegas advance the ball.
Seattle Seahawks receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Longest catch | TD |
| Tory Horton | 3 | 31 | 10.3 | 13 | 1 |
| Dareke Young | 1 | 31 | 31.0 | 31 | 0 |
| George Holani | 1 | 20 | 20.0 | 20 | 0 |
| Marshall Lang | 2 | 20 | 10.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Robbie Ouzts | 1 | 17 | 17.0 | 17 | 0 |
| Tyrone Broden | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 15 | 0 |
| Jake Bobo | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 10 | 0 |
| Damien Martinez | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 8 | 0 |
| Ricky White III | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 14 | 0 |
| Elijah Arroyo | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 10 | 0 |
| Eric Saubert | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 | 0 |
| Brady Russell | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 | 0 |
| Cody White | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
Tory Horton: Seattle’s touchdown receiver
Horton caught three passes for 31 yards and one touchdown. His 10-yard touchdown reception from Lock helped Seattle take a 13-3 lead in the second quarter.
Although his receiving yardage was lower than Jackson’s, Horton delivered a valuable scoring contribution. Touchdowns are important because they convert offensive progress into points, which ultimately determine the result.
Horton’s performance also illustrates why total receiving yards alone cannot identify the most influential player in a game. His touchdown came during a period when Seattle was establishing a substantial lead.
Dareke Young: Production on limited opportunities
Young caught one pass for 31 yards. His 31.0 yards per reception led the Seahawks’ listed receivers.
A single catch can be meaningful when it creates a large gain, but one target or reception provides a limited basis for predicting future performance. Young’s contribution was efficient in this game, although the small sample should remain part of any evaluation.
Marshall Lang and the supporting receivers
Lang caught two passes for 20 yards, while Holani added a 20-yard reception. Ouzts contributed 17 yards on one catch, and Broden gained 15 yards on his lone reception.
These contributions helped Seattle distribute receiving production among multiple players. The offense did not rely entirely on Horton to create passing gains.
The broader takeaway is that Seattle’s receiving group supplied useful contributions, but the team generated a larger share of its overall offensive yardage through rushing than Las Vegas did.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Defense played a decisive role in preventing the game from becoming a high-scoring passing contest. Both teams recorded interceptions, and both produced a sack. Seattle also registered more tackles for loss and quarterback hits.
| Defensive category | Las Vegas Raiders | Seattle Seahawks |
| Total tackles | 64 | 67 |
| Solo tackles | 43 | 38 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 1 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 2 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 2 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Seattle’s defense creates turnover opportunities
Seattle recorded two interceptions, compared with one for Las Vegas.
Josh Jobe intercepted O’Connell and returned the ball 28 yards. Nehemiah Pritchett recorded another interception, returning it eight yards.
These turnovers were especially important because they interrupted Raiders possessions and limited the offense’s ability to turn passing yardage into points.
An interception is not simply a negative statistic for the quarterback. It is also a defensive achievement that can change field position, create scoring opportunities, and influence the opponent’s play-calling.
Seattle’s two interceptions helped it build an early lead, although the defense could not prevent Las Vegas from completing its late comeback.
Isaiah Pola-Mao leads the Raiders’ interception production
Pola-Mao recorded Las Vegas’s interception, with no return yards or defensive touchdown listed.
The takeaway gave the Raiders a defensive success in a game where Seattle’s rushing production created repeated opportunities. It also prevented the Seahawks from finishing every passing possession without a turnover.
However, the Raiders’ overall defensive line included only one tackle for loss and two quarterback hits. Those figures suggest that Seattle was able to run the ball without facing the same level of disruption recorded by the Seahawks’ defense.
Quarterback pressure and tackles for loss
Both defenses recorded one sack, but Seattle had seven quarterback hits compared with two for Las Vegas.
The Seahawks also recorded five tackles for loss, while the Raiders finished with one.
These figures point to an advantage for Seattle in disrupting plays behind the line of scrimmage and applying pressure. Quarterback hits do not always result in sacks, but they can force rushed decisions, disrupt timing, and reduce passing efficiency.
Still, team totals do not identify every individual contribution. A full defensive evaluation would also consider coverage assignments, missed tackles, run fits, penalties, and the quality of each opponent’s opportunities.
The defensive comparison is therefore best understood as a summary of the statistical impact rather than a complete measure of each unit’s performance.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams played an important role in the final result. Carlson converted three field goals, including a 56-yard kick, while Myers made his only field-goal attempt for Seattle.
However, the Raiders also missed scoring opportunities, including a blocked field-goal attempt late in the fourth quarter. Seattle’s blocked extra-point attempt affected its second-quarter scoring total.
Kicking comparison
| Player | Field goals | Longest field goal | Extra points | Total kicking points |
| Daniel Carlson, Raiders | 3/5 | 56 yards | 2/2 | 11 |
| Jason Myers, Seahawks | 1/1 | 48 yards | 2/3 | 5 |
Carlson’s 56-yard field goal was a notable achievement because it required the kicker to convert from long range. His 51-yard field goal later tied the game at 23-23.
The Raiders’ kicking line also shows that successful conversions did not tell the entire story. Carlson finished three of five on field goals, and his blocked 55-yard attempt prevented Las Vegas from potentially taking the lead in the final seconds.
Myers was perfect on field goals, making his 48-yard attempt. However, he converted two of three extra-point attempts, with the unsuccessful attempt coming after Horton’s touchdown.
These details demonstrate why field-goal percentage and total kicking points should be examined together. A kicker may make a long field goal while still having an uneven overall performance.
Punting comparison
| Player | Punts | Total yards | Average | Longest punt | Inside the 20 |
| AJ Cole, Raiders | 2 | 83 | 41.5 | 52 | 1 |
| Michael Dickson, Seahawks | 4 | 222 | 55.5 | 77 | 0 |
Dickson averaged 55.5 yards per punt, compared with Cole’s 41.5. His longest punt covered 77 yards, demonstrating the distance Seattle could generate when its offense failed to sustain a drive.
Cole’s two punts averaged fewer yards, but one finished inside the 20-yard line. That placement is important because a well-positioned punt can force the opposing offense to travel a greater distance to score.
Punting should not be evaluated on distance alone. Hang time, direction, return opportunities, and the location where the ball lands all influence the practical value of a punt.
Kickoff and punt returns
| Team | Kick returns | Kick return yards | Average | Punt returns | Punt return yards |
| Las Vegas Raiders | 2 | 61 | 30.5 | 2 | 20 |
| Seattle Seahawks | 3 | 51 | 17.0 | 1 | 5 |
Las Vegas averaged 30.5 yards per kickoff return, compared with Seattle’s 17.0. Zamir White recorded a 35-yard return, while Sincere McCormick returned one kickoff for 26 yards.
Seattle’s kickoff returns were led by John Rhys Plumlee, who gained 26 yards, and Damien Martinez, who recorded two returns for 25 yards.
In punt returns, Laube gained 20 yards on two attempts for Las Vegas. Horton returned one punt for five yards for Seattle.
These figures suggest that Las Vegas gained more return yardage per opportunity. Better return positioning can shorten the distance an offense must travel, making it easier to reach field-goal range or create a touchdown opportunity.
Nevertheless, return averages are influenced by the number of attempts, kick placement, coverage, and game situation. They should not be treated as a standalone measure of special-teams quality.
Team Statistics Comparison: Raiders vs. Seahawks
The overall team statistics help explain why the final score was tied despite the difference in passing and rushing production.
| Statistic | Las Vegas Raiders | Seattle Seahawks |
| Total net yards | 392 | 368 |
| Passing yards | 288 | 198 |
| Rushing yards | 104 | 170 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded | 1 | 2 |
| Total penalties | 10 | 9 |
| Penalty yards | 80 | 78 |
| Time of possession | 28:52 | 31:08 |
The team totals show that Las Vegas finished with 24 more net yards than Seattle, even though the Seahawks held the advantage in rushing production and time of possession.
That difference is an important reminder that total yardage does not directly determine the winner. Teams can accumulate yards without scoring touchdowns, and turnovers can erase the value of otherwise productive possessions.
Passing versus rushing
The Raiders gained 90 more passing yards than Seattle, while the Seahawks gained 66 more rushing yards than Las Vegas.
This was the central statistical contrast of the game. The Raiders generated their offensive production mainly through the air, while Seattle balanced its passing attack with a more effective ground game.
Both approaches produced 23 points, but neither team consistently converted its advantages into enough scoring to win.
Turnovers and scoring opportunities
Las Vegas threw two interceptions, while Seattle threw one. Seattle’s defense recorded two interceptions in total, giving it an advantage in takeaways.
Turnovers can have a direct impact on scoring because they end offensive possessions and can give the opposing team favorable field position. The Raiders’ two interceptions were particularly costly in a game decided by a tie.
Seattle also had opportunities that did not become points, including a blocked extra point and a fourth-quarter drive that ended without a score. The Raiders missed or had field-goal attempts blocked as well.
The overall result reflected a combination of productive offensive plays and missed opportunities on both sides.
Penalties and possession
Las Vegas committed 10 penalties for 80 yards, while Seattle committed nine for 78 yards.
The penalty totals were relatively close, with the Raiders assessed one additional penalty and two more penalty yards.
Seattle held the ball for 31 minutes and eight seconds, compared with 28 minutes and 52 seconds for Las Vegas. The difference was two minutes and 16 seconds.
Possession time can help a team control the tempo, but it does not necessarily mean the offense was more efficient. The Raiders gained more net yards despite holding the ball for less time, while Seattle’s longer possessions were supported by its rushing production.
For readers examining the complete official record, the Seahawks’ official box score provides a reference for the final score and recorded game statistics.
What the Match Player Statistics Tell Us
The numbers reveal several important lessons about the game, especially when passing, rushing, defense, and special teams are considered together.
1. Las Vegas showed passing potential but needed better ball security
The Raiders’ 288 passing yards and two touchdown passes demonstrated that the team could move the ball through the air. Jackson’s 76 receiving yards and touchdown were a major part of that production.
However, two interceptions made it harder to convert passing success into a winning result. Protecting the ball would have improved the value of the Raiders’ offensive output.
2. Seattle’s rushing attack was a major strength
The Seahawks gained 170 rushing yards and scored two rushing touchdowns. Holani’s 61 yards and touchdown led the group, while Milroe added 38 rushing yards.
That production gave Seattle an effective alternative when its passing attack was not generating large numbers.
3. Cam Miller delivered an efficient performance
Miller completed six of seven passes for 76 yards and a touchdown without an interception. His connection with Jackson produced one of the game’s biggest plays.
The small sample limits broader conclusions, but his performance was an encouraging statistical contribution in this matchup.
4. Defensive turnovers helped Seattle build its lead
Seattle’s two interceptions disrupted the Raiders’ offense and helped the Seahawks establish an early advantage.
The Raiders did record an interception of their own, but Seattle’s defense produced more takeaways and more quarterback hits.
5. Special teams helped determine the final score
Carlson’s long field goals helped Las Vegas stay within reach, and his 51-yard kick tied the game. However, the blocked 55-yard attempt at the end prevented the Raiders from taking the lead.
Seattle’s blocked extra point also affected the scoring margin. In a game that ended level, these details were especially important.
6. A preseason tie requires careful interpretation
Preseason games are useful for examining individual production, execution, and depth. They are less reliable as direct predictors of regular-season outcomes because playing time, personnel combinations, and strategic priorities can differ.
The statistics provide evidence of what happened in this game, but they cannot establish how every player would perform under a full regular-season workload.
How to Read NFL Player Statistics Correctly
Readers often focus on passing yards, rushing yards, touchdowns, and the final score. Those figures are useful, but a fuller interpretation requires examining how the numbers relate to one another.
Here are five practical ways to evaluate a box score.
- Compare efficiency with volume. A player with 34 rushing yards on five carries averaged 6.8 yards per attempt, while another might gain more total yards on substantially more carries. Both figures matter because they describe different aspects of performance.
- Separate passing and receiving production. A quarterback receives credit for passing yards and touchdowns, while a receiver receives credit for receiving yards and touchdown receptions. The same scoring play can appear in both players’ statistical lines without representing two touchdowns.
- Check turnovers alongside yardage. A quarterback who throws for 200 yards but records two interceptions has a different statistical profile from one who throws for 180 yards without a turnover. Yardage alone cannot capture the cost of lost possessions.
- Look beyond the offense. Interceptions, sacks, quarterback hits, field goals, punts, and returns can all affect scoring opportunities. A close game may turn on special-teams plays rather than a major difference in total yardage.
- Account for sample size. A player with one carry for 11 yards has an 11.0-yard average, but that single attempt cannot establish consistent rushing efficiency. Larger samples usually provide a more stable basis for comparison.
Applying these principles makes box-score analysis more useful for fans, fantasy football readers, and anyone trying to understand the reasons behind a game’s result.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Raiders vs. Seahawks game on August 7, 2025?
The Las Vegas Raiders and Seattle Seahawks tied 23-23 in their NFL preseason matchup on August 7, 2025. Las Vegas scored 13 points in the fourth quarter to complete its comeback.
2. Who had the most passing yards in the game?
Aidan O’Connell led all listed quarterbacks with 205 passing yards for the Raiders. Seattle’s leading passer was Drew Lock, who finished with 147 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.
3. Which player recorded the most rushing yards?
George Holani led the game with 61 rushing yards on seven carries for Seattle. He averaged 8.7 yards per carry and scored a 24-yard rushing touchdown in the first quarter.
4. Who was the leading receiver for the Las Vegas Raiders?
Shedrick Jackson led the Raiders with four receptions for 76 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was a 41-yard scoring pass from Cam Miller in the fourth quarter.
5. How many interceptions occurred during the game?
The Seahawks recorded two interceptions, while the Raiders recorded one. Las Vegas quarterbacks threw two interceptions, and Seattle’s quarterbacks threw one.
6. Why did the game end in a tie?
The Raiders erased Seattle’s lead with a late touchdown and two field goals in the fourth quarter. Both teams finished with 23 points, and Carlson’s final field-goal attempt was blocked, leaving the score tied.
Conclusion
The August 7, 2025, preseason matchup between the Las Vegas Raiders and Seattle Seahawks provided a close contest with several noteworthy individual performances. The 23-23 final score reflected the contrasting strengths of the two offenses and their inability to maintain an advantage through the final whistle.
Las Vegas finished with 392 net yards and 288 passing yards, led by Aidan O’Connell’s 205 passing yards and Shedrick Jackson’s 76 receiving yards. Cam Miller added an efficient passing performance and a 41-yard touchdown connection with Jackson that helped bring the Raiders back into the game. Daniel Carlson also played a significant role by converting three field goals, including the 51-yard kick that tied the score.
Seattle’s main advantage came on the ground. The Seahawks gained 170 rushing yards, averaged 5.3 yards per carry, and recorded two rushing touchdowns. George Holani led the rushing attack with 61 yards and a touchdown, while Jalen Milroe added 38 rushing yards. Tory Horton also contributed a receiving touchdown, and Seattle’s defense recorded two interceptions.
Ultimately, the game demonstrated that yardage, efficiency, turnovers, and special teams all influence the outcome of an NFL contest. The Raiders generated more passing yards and slightly more net yards, while the Seahawks gained more rushing yards and created additional takeaways. Neither side converted those advantages into a decisive win.
For anyone reviewing the las vegas raiders vs seahawks match player stats, the most meaningful conclusion is that both teams displayed useful offensive contributions while exposing areas that needed improvement. The statistics offer a detailed record of this preseason game, but they should be understood as a snapshot of one contest rather than a definitive prediction of future performance.
