The arizona cardinals vs colts match player stats from October 12, 2025, tell the story of a close NFL contest in which the Indianapolis Colts defeated the Arizona Cardinals 31-27. Indianapolis scored 14 points in the fourth quarter to turn the game in its favor, while Arizona’s offense produced 320 passing yards through quarterback Jacoby Brissett. The result reflected a contrast in offensive approaches: Arizona relied heavily on its passing attack, while Indianapolis combined efficient quarterback play with a powerful rushing performance from Jonathan Taylor.

The final score alone does not explain how the game developed. Arizona and Indianapolis each scored seven points in the opening quarter, but their performances diverged in the second half. The Cardinals scored 14 points in the third quarter, building momentum, while the Colts answered with a decisive fourth-quarter surge. Individual performances from Taylor, Brissett, Trey McBride, Tyler Warren, and Josh Downs help explain how the game unfolded.

This article examines the final score, quarterback production, rushing and receiving statistics, defensive contributions, special teams, and the numbers that mattered most. It also explains how to interpret the supplied statistics carefully, particularly where individual and team totals do not align perfectly.

Arizona Cardinals vs Colts Match Player Stats: Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

The Indianapolis Colts won 31-27 against the Arizona Cardinals on October 12, 2025. The game featured changing momentum, productive passing offenses, and a fourth-quarter scoring run that ultimately separated the teams.

Final Score

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total
Arizona Cardinals	7	3	14	3	27
Indianapolis Colts	7	7	3	14	31

According to the supplied game data, Indianapolis entered the contest with a displayed 4-1 record and improved to 5-1. Arizona was listed at 2-4 after the loss, including a 1-2 away record.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring reveals the central pattern of the game:

• First quarter: Both teams scored seven points, establishing an even contest.
• Second quarter: Indianapolis added seven points, while Arizona managed a field goal.
• Third quarter: Arizona scored 14 points and Indianapolis scored three, giving the Cardinals a strong scoring period.
• Fourth quarter: Indianapolis scored 14 points against Arizona’s three, producing the final 31-27 result.

The most important detail is the reversal between the third and fourth quarters. Arizona had its most productive period in the third quarter, but Indianapolis delivered the stronger response when the game reached its final stage.

A four-point margin also makes every scoring opportunity worth examining. A successful third-down conversion, a sustained rushing drive, a field goal, or a defensive stop can have an outsized effect when the final score is this close.

Why the Fourth Quarter Changed the Game

Indianapolis scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Arizona added only three. That 11-point difference in the final period overcame the Cardinals’ third-quarter scoring advantage.

The available data supports a clear conclusion about the scoring pattern, but it does not independently establish the precise play sequence behind every fourth-quarter possession. Without a verified play-by-play account, it would be misleading to assign the comeback to a particular turnover, coaching adjustment, or individual touchdown drive.

What the statistics do establish is that Indianapolis maintained enough offensive production to finish with 31 points and limited Arizona’s final-quarter scoring to a field goal. The Colts’ rushing production offers an important part of that explanation, while their quarterback efficiency helped the offense convert opportunities into points.

Quarterback Comparison: Jacoby Brissett vs Daniel Jones

Quarterback statistics provide one of the clearest ways to compare how Arizona and Indianapolis moved the ball. Jacoby Brissett accumulated more passing yards, while Daniel Jones completed a higher percentage of his attempts and recorded a better passer rating.

Passing statistic	Jacoby Brissett, Cardinals	Daniel Jones, Colts
Completions	27	22
Attempts	44	30
Completion percentage	61.4%	73.3%
Passing yards	320	212
Yards per attempt	7.3	7.1
Passing touchdowns	2	2
Interceptions	1	1
Sacks taken	2	1
Yards lost on sacks	8	7
Passer rating	89.2	101.0
ESPN QBR, as supplied	61.3	60.4

Statistics are reproduced from the supplied game data. Completion percentages are calculated from the listed completions and attempts.

Jacoby Brissett’s Passing Performance

Brissett completed 27 of 44 attempts for 320 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His 7.3 yards per attempt shows that Arizona generated meaningful yardage through the air, even though its passing efficiency was lower than Jones’s by completion percentage and passer rating.

His passing total was 108 yards higher than Jones’s. That difference is significant because it demonstrates how a team can accumulate more passing yardage without winning the game.

Brissett’s 44 attempts also indicate that Arizona placed substantial responsibility on its passing game. The Cardinals’ receivers and tight end Trey McBride gave him several targets capable of producing first downs and gaining yardage after the catch.

However, passing volume must be interpreted alongside the rushing attack and final score. Arizona finished with 88 team rushing yards, compared with Indianapolis’s 150. The Colts therefore had a larger contribution from their ground game, reducing the need for Jones to match Brissett’s passing volume.

Brissett’s performance had three clear statistical features:

• High passing volume: He attempted 44 passes.
• Strong yardage production: He passed for 320 yards.
• Mixed ball security: He threw two touchdown passes but also recorded one interception.

Those figures describe a productive passing performance that did not translate into a team victory.

Daniel Jones’s Passing Efficiency

Jones completed 22 of 30 passes for 212 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His 73.3% completion rate exceeded Brissett’s 61.4%, while his 101.0 passer rating was also higher than Brissett’s 89.2.

The difference in passing volume is important. Jones attempted 14 fewer passes but still produced two touchdown passes, matching Brissett’s total. His 7.1 yards per attempt was close to Brissett’s 7.3, suggesting that the Colts did not sacrifice much average yardage per attempt despite throwing less often.

Jones also contributed 20 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown. That ground production gave Indianapolis another way to reach the end zone without relying exclusively on passing plays.

The supplied ESPN QBR figures show Brissett at 61.3 and Jones at 60.4. QBR and traditional passer rating measure performance differently, so the small difference in QBR should not be treated as contradicting the passer-rating comparison. These metrics use different methods and should not be directly compared as if they were the same scale.

Which Quarterback Had the Better Statistical Game?

The answer depends on the measure.

Brissett led in passing yards, completions, and attempts. Jones led in completion percentage and traditional passer rating, while matching Brissett’s two passing touchdowns. Jones also added a rushing touchdown.

For a complete evaluation, it is useful to consider the following:

1. Passing volume: Brissett produced more yards but required more attempts.
2. Completion efficiency: Jones completed a larger percentage of his passes.
3. Scoring contribution: Both quarterbacks threw two touchdown passes, while Jones also rushed for a score.
4. Turnovers: Each quarterback recorded one interception.
5. Team result: Indianapolis won, but that outcome reflects the combined performance of its offense, defense, and special teams.

The statistics therefore support a balanced assessment rather than the claim that one quarterback dominated every category.

Rushing Stats: Jonathan Taylor Leads Indianapolis

The ground game was one of the most important statistical differences between the teams. Indianapolis recorded 150 rushing yards on 27 attempts, while Arizona accumulated 88 yards on 24 attempts.

That gave the Colts a 62-yard advantage in team rushing production.

Rushing statistic	Arizona Cardinals	Indianapolis Colts
Rushing attempts	24	27
Rushing yards	88	150
Yards per carry	3.7	5.6
Rushing touchdowns	1	2
Longest rush	12 yards	30 yards

Indianapolis averaged 1.9 more rushing yards per attempt than Arizona, based on the rounded team averages supplied. The difference was large enough to influence how each offense could sustain drives.

Jonathan Taylor’s Standout Performance

Jonathan Taylor was Indianapolis’s leading rusher, finishing with 21 carries for 123 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 5.9 yards per carry and recorded a longest rush of 30 yards.

Taylor accounted for 82% of Indianapolis’s listed team rushing attempts and 82% of its team rushing yards, based on the supplied figures. Those shares underline how central he was to the Colts’ ground attack.

His 123 yards were 35 yards more than Arizona’s entire listed team rushing output of 88 yards. That comparison provides a useful measure of the gap between Taylor’s individual production and the Cardinals’ collective rushing performance.

Taylor’s statistical profile shows three major strengths:

• Workload: He handled 21 rushing attempts.
• Efficiency: He averaged 5.9 yards per carry.
• Scoring: He recorded one rushing touchdown.

A productive lead running back can influence a game in ways that do not always appear in a passing box score. Consistent rushing gains can help an offense remain balanced, create shorter third-down situations, and reduce pressure on the quarterback to generate every important yard through the air.

Taylor also caught four passes for 14 yards according to the supplied receiving data. His receiving numbers were modest, but his rushing production was substantial.

Arizona’s Rushing Leaders

Arizona’s leading listed rusher was Bam Knight, who recorded 11 carries for 34 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 3.1 yards per carry, with a longest rush of seven yards.

Michael Carter also gained 34 yards, doing so on nine carries at 3.8 yards per attempt. Although Knight and Carter finished with identical rushing totals, Carter produced his yardage on two fewer attempts.

Brissett added 19 rushing yards on three carries, averaging 6.3 yards per attempt. His longest run was 12 yards. Emari Demercado recorded one carry for one yard.

Arizona rusher	Carries	Yards	Average	TDs
Bam Knight	11	34	3.1	1
Michael Carter	9	34	3.8	0
Jacoby Brissett	3	19	6.3	0
Emari Demercado	1	1	1.0	0
Listed player total	24	88	3.7	1

Arizona’s rushing figures reveal why the Cardinals’ passing success did not produce a larger overall offensive advantage. Their runners averaged 3.7 yards per carry as a team, compared with Indianapolis’s 5.6.

This does not prove that rushing efficiency alone decided the contest. It does show that Indianapolis generated more yardage from each rushing attempt and recorded one additional team rushing touchdown.

Daniel Jones Adds a Second Rushing Threat

Jones finished with five carries for 20 yards and one rushing touchdown. His average of 4.0 yards per carry was lower than Taylor’s, but his scoring contribution mattered because it gave Indianapolis another player capable of finishing a drive on the ground.

A quarterback rushing touchdown also changes the distribution of offensive scoring. Instead of relying entirely on running backs and receivers, the Colts gained a touchdown from their quarterback’s own rushing production.

Together, Taylor and Jones accounted for 143 rushing yards and two touchdowns in the supplied statistics. That combination highlights the variety within Indianapolis’s ground attack.

Receiving Stats: Arizona Cardinals vs Indianapolis Colts

The receiving numbers show that Arizona spread the ball among several targets, while Indianapolis relied on a smaller group of productive pass catchers. Trey McBride led the Cardinals in receptions, while Zay Jones led them in receiving yards. For the Colts, Tyler Warren led in both catches and receiving yards.

These distinctions matter because receptions and receiving yards measure different aspects of a player’s contribution. A receiver can catch the ball frequently without producing the most yardage, while another can gain significant yardage on fewer targets.

Arizona Cardinals Receiving Leaders

Player	Receptions	Yards	Yards per catch	TDs	Targets
Trey McBride	8	72	9.0	1	11
Zay Jones	5	79	15.8	0	8
Michael Wilson	4	44	11.0	0	5
Greg Dortch	3	9	3.0	1	3
Elijah Higgins	2	34	17.0	0	2
Marvin Harrison Jr.	2	32	16.0	0	2
Michael Carter	2	30	15.0	0	5
Bam Knight	1	20	20.0	0	2

Player statistics are reproduced as supplied. The listed player receiving totals do not fully reconcile with the team totals, so they should not be interpreted as a perfectly reconciled statistical ledger.

Trey McBride’s Reliable Production

McBride recorded eight receptions for 72 yards and one touchdown on 11 targets. His eight catches were the highest reception total among Arizona’s listed players.

His reception volume suggests that he was an important option in the Cardinals’ passing game. Tight ends can provide quarterbacks with a target between the defensive line and deeper coverage, especially when a defense makes outside passing routes more difficult.

McBride averaged nine yards per reception. That figure is lower than Zay Jones’s average, but it does not make his performance less valuable. Catching eight passes can help maintain possession and create manageable situations for the offense.

McBride also recorded a 26-yard longest reception. His touchdown added a direct scoring contribution, making his performance relevant in both the yardage and scoring categories.

His 11 targets compared with eight catches produce a catch rate of 72.7%. This is a useful descriptive calculation, although it does not account for the difficulty of individual throws, defensive coverage, or whether a pass was realistically catchable.

Zay Jones Leads Arizona in Receiving Yards

Zay Jones finished with five receptions for 79 yards, averaging 15.8 yards per catch. His 24-yard longest reception was the highest listed receiving yardage total among Arizona’s players.

Jones gained seven more yards than McBride despite recording three fewer receptions. This difference illustrates the contrast between reception volume and average gain per catch.

His average of 15.8 yards per reception indicates that his completed receptions generated more yardage on average than McBride’s. In practical terms, that production can help an offense advance more quickly downfield.

However, Jones did not record a receiving touchdown in the supplied data. McBride and Greg Dortch each recorded one, making them Arizona’s listed receiving touchdown scorers.

Michael Wilson, Elijah Higgins, and Marvin Harrison Jr.

Michael Wilson caught four passes for 44 yards, averaging 11 yards per reception. His longest reception was 30 yards, the highest listed individual long among Arizona’s receivers.

Elijah Higgins caught two passes for 34 yards, averaging 17 yards per reception. He received two targets in the supplied figures, giving him a listed catch rate of 100%.

Marvin Harrison Jr. also recorded two receptions, gaining 32 yards at an average of 16 yards per catch. His longest reception was 21 yards.

These numbers illustrate how Arizona’s passing production was distributed across different roles. Wilson contributed a combination of catches and yardage, while Higgins and Harrison generated more than 15 yards per reception on their limited listed opportunities.

It would be premature to conclude that any one of these players was consistently open or that a particular route caused the result. The box score records outcomes, not the full details of coverage, route design, or separation.

Greg Dortch’s Scoring Contribution

Dortch recorded three receptions for nine yards and one touchdown. His average was only three yards per catch, but his touchdown demonstrates why yardage alone does not capture a receiver’s entire contribution.

A short reception that ends in a touchdown can be more important to the final score than a longer catch that does not produce points. The exact value of a play depends on the game situation, field position, and whether the offense ultimately scores.

Dortch also returned four kickoffs for 114 yards, averaging 28.5 yards per return. His longest kickoff return was 36 yards. That return production gave him a separate contribution on special teams in addition to his work as a receiver.

Indianapolis Colts Receiving Leaders

Player	Receptions	Yards	Yards per catch	TDs	Targets
Tyler Warren	6	63	10.5	1	9
Josh Downs	6	42	7.0	1	7
Alec Pierce	2	48	24.0	0	2
Michael Pittman Jr.	2	20	10.0	0	3
Mo Alie-Cox	1	16	16.0	0	2
Jonathan Taylor	4	14	3.5	0	4
Ameer Abdullah	1	9	9.0	0	1

Tyler Warren’s All-Around Receiving Contribution

Warren recorded six receptions for 63 yards and one touchdown on nine targets. He led Indianapolis in receiving yards and tied for the team’s highest reception total among the listed players.

His average of 10.5 yards per catch shows a productive combination of catch volume and yardage. Warren did not need a large number of receptions to lead the Colts’ receiving group in total yards.

His touchdown was another important element. Indianapolis had two listed receiving touchdown scorers, Warren and Josh Downs, and both finished with six receptions.

Warren’s production also demonstrates why tight ends can be central to an offense. They can serve as short and intermediate targets, provide options over the middle, and contribute in the red zone. The supplied statistics establish his production, although they do not reveal the precise routes or coverage assignments involved.

Josh Downs and Alec Pierce Provide Different Types of Production

Downs caught six passes for 42 yards and one touchdown. His average of seven yards per reception was lower than Warren’s, but his six catches gave Jones another reliable source of completed passes in the supplied figures.

Downs received seven targets, resulting in a listed catch rate of 85.7%. As with other catch-rate calculations, this is descriptive rather than a complete measure of receiver performance.

Pierce recorded two receptions for 48 yards, averaging 24 yards per catch. His longest reception was 26 yards, and both of his listed targets resulted in catches.

Pierce’s production illustrates the value of explosive gains. He recorded 48 yards on two receptions, exceeding the total receiving yards of Downs despite catching four fewer passes.

The difference between Downs and Pierce should not be reduced to a simple ranking. Downs contributed more catches and a touchdown, while Pierce produced more yardage per reception. Both types of production can serve different purposes within an offensive plan.

Michael Pittman Jr. and the Supporting Receiving Group

Pittman caught two passes for 20 yards, averaging 10 yards per catch. Mo Alie-Cox caught one pass for 16 yards, while running back Ameer Abdullah recorded one reception for nine yards.

Taylor added four receptions for 14 yards. His receiving average of 3.5 yards per catch was modest, but his main statistical impact came on the ground.

The supplied team totals list Indianapolis with 22 receptions for 212 yards and two receiving touchdowns. The individual entries do not sum to those team totals, so the table should be used to compare the listed performances rather than treated as a fully reconciled play-by-play record.

Team Offensive Comparison

Looking at the offenses together provides more context than examining individual players in isolation.

Offensive category	Arizona Cardinals	Indianapolis Colts
Passing yards	320	212
Rushing yards	88	150
Total yards, calculated	408	362
Passing touchdowns	2	2
Rushing touchdowns	1	2
Listed team rushing attempts	24	27
Listed team passing completions	27	22
Final score	27	31

Calculated total yards equal the supplied passing yards plus rushing yards. They are not a substitute for official total-offense figures, which can depend on statistical conventions and whether sack yardage is included in net passing totals.

Arizona Generated More Listed Total Yardage

Arizona’s listed passing and rushing totals combine to 408 yards, compared with Indianapolis’s 362. This is a 46-yard difference in Arizona’s favor.

Yet Indianapolis won by four points. This is a useful reminder that total yardage and final score measure different things.

An offense can move the ball effectively without converting every opportunity into points. A team may gain substantial yardage between the 20-yard lines but struggle to finish drives. It may also accumulate passing yards while falling behind in rushing efficiency.

The supplied data does not include enough verified drive-level information to calculate red-zone conversion rates, third-down success rates, or points per possession. Those metrics would help explain how Indianapolis won despite Arizona’s higher calculated total-yardage figure.

Indianapolis Had the Stronger Listed Rushing Output

The Colts gained 150 rushing yards at 5.6 yards per carry, while Arizona recorded 88 at 3.7 yards per carry.

The 62-yard rushing advantage is one of the clearest differences in the supplied team statistics. Indianapolis also recorded two rushing touchdowns compared with Arizona’s one.

A strong rushing game can help an offense control its pace, create opportunities for play-action passes, and keep a defense from focusing entirely on the quarterback. However, the box score alone cannot confirm how much Indianapolis used these tactics.

The measured outcome is straightforward: the Colts gained more rushing yards, averaged more per attempt, and recorded more rushing touchdowns.

Arizona Relied More Heavily on Passing Volume

Brissett attempted 44 passes, compared with Jones’s 30. Arizona’s 320 passing yards were the higher total, but the Cardinals’ ground game contributed less yardage.

This imbalance does not necessarily mean Arizona used the wrong offensive strategy. Teams often increase passing volume when chasing points or when the passing game offers the clearest path to yardage. Establishing the exact reason would require a verified play-by-play record and information about the score at the time of each attempt.

The numbers nevertheless show two distinct offensive profiles: Arizona generated more listed passing yards, while Indianapolis generated more listed rushing yards and more rushing touchdowns.

Defensive Player Stats and Turnover Impact

Defense is often difficult to evaluate using only the final score. A defense may allow several touchdowns yet still create important stops, pressure the quarterback, or force a turnover. In this contest, the supplied statistics show one interception for each team, along with differences in quarterback pressure and tackles for loss.

Team Defensive Comparison

Defensive statistic	Arizona Cardinals	Indianapolis Colts
Total tackles	66	65
Solo tackles	37	49
Sacks	1	2
Tackles for loss	3	6
Passes defended	4	3
Quarterback hits	6	12
Defensive touchdowns	0	0
Interceptions	1	1

Indianapolis Generated More Quarterback Pressure

Indianapolis recorded two sacks, six tackles for loss, and 12 quarterback hits. Arizona recorded one sack, three tackles for loss, and six quarterback hits.

The Colts therefore doubled Arizona’s listed quarterback hits and tackles for loss. They also recorded one additional sack.

Quarterback hits and sacks measure different outcomes. A quarterback hit records contact on the passer, while a sack records a play on which the defense brings the quarterback down behind the line of scrimmage. A defense can generate pressure without recording a sack, and pressure can affect a quarterback’s ability to complete passes even when the play produces positive yardage.

The difference in pressure statistics is particularly relevant when considering Brissett’s 44 pass attempts. More passing attempts create more opportunities for the defense to pressure the quarterback, but they also increase the number of passing plays on which the defense must execute.

The supplied numbers establish that Indianapolis recorded more pressure-related defensive events. They do not, by themselves, prove that pressure caused Brissett’s interception or explain every incomplete pass.

Mack Wilson Sr. Records an Interception

Mack Wilson Sr. recorded one interception for Arizona, with nine return yards and no defensive touchdown.

An interception can change field position and interrupt an opponent’s scoring opportunity. Its value depends on when it occurs, where the defense gains possession, and what the offense does afterward.

Arizona’s interception was a meaningful defensive contribution, but the supplied data does not establish that it led directly to a touchdown. It is important to distinguish the recorded turnover from its downstream effect on the scoreboard.

Mekhi Blackmon’s Interception for Indianapolis

Mekhi Blackmon recorded one interception for Indianapolis, also returning it nine yards without a defensive touchdown.

The identical return-yardage figures make the interceptions easy to compare statistically, but their game impact may have differed depending on timing and field position. Those details require a verified play-by-play account.

Both teams therefore recorded an interception, and neither was credited with a defensive touchdown in the supplied data. Turnover count alone does not explain the result because each team recorded the same number of interceptions.

Tackles and Pass Deflections

Arizona recorded 66 total tackles, one more than Indianapolis’s 65. However, Indianapolis recorded 49 solo tackles compared with Arizona’s 37.

Solo tackles are credited to an individual defender without shared tackling credit. Total tackles can include both solo and assisted tackles, depending on the statistical definition used by the source.

Indianapolis also recorded three passes defended, while Arizona recorded four. The Cardinals therefore had one more pass defended in the supplied figures, despite losing the game.

These numbers reinforce the importance of considering multiple defensive categories. A team can lead in total tackles or passes defended while trailing in sacks, pressure, rushing efficiency, or the final score.

Special Teams Stats: Kick Returns, Punting, and Kicking

Special teams affect field position and scoring opportunities. Although these statistics may receive less attention than quarterback and receiver production, they can influence how much work an offense must do to reach scoring range.

Kick Return Comparison

Player or team	Returns	Yards	Average	Longest return
Greg Dortch, Arizona	4	114	28.5	36
Anthony Gould, Indianapolis	3	76	25.3	26
Ashton Dulin, Indianapolis	2	59	29.5	32
Indianapolis team total	5	135	27.0	32

Dortch averaged 28.5 yards per kickoff return and recorded a long return of 36 yards. His 114 return yards represented a substantial contribution to Arizona’s special teams production.

Indianapolis recorded five kickoff returns for 135 yards, averaging 27 yards per return. Gould and Dulin accounted for the listed Colts return yardage.

The return averages show that both teams generated yardage after kickoffs. However, return yards should not be confused with offensive scrimmage yards. They contribute to field position rather than directly adding to the passing or rushing totals.

Punt Returns

Arizona’s Dortch recorded one punt return for 12 yards. Indianapolis’s Anthony Gould recorded one punt return for no gain.

The supplied figures show a small advantage for Arizona in this category. One return is not enough to establish a broad trend in punt-return effectiveness, but it records a useful difference between the teams’ special teams outcomes.

Kicking Performance

Kicker	Field goals	Extra points	Total points
Chad Ryland, Arizona	2/2	3/3	9
Michael Badgley, Indianapolis	1/1	4/4	7

Ryland converted both listed field-goal attempts, including a longest field goal of 44 yards. He also converted all three extra-point attempts and finished with nine kicking points.

Badgley converted his only field-goal attempt, a longest listed distance of 45 yards. He also made all four extra points, finishing with seven points.

Both kickers were perfect on their listed attempts. The difference in their scoring totals reflects the number of field goals and extra points attempted, not a difference in conversion percentage.

Arizona’s nine kicking points and Indianapolis’s seven do not represent all points scored by their respective teams. Touchdowns and their associated extra points are recorded separately in scoring summaries, and team scoring totals include contributions from all scoring plays.

Punting and Field Position

Arizona punter Pat O’Donnell recorded two punts for 92 yards, averaging 46 yards per punt. His longest punt was 49 yards, and one punt finished inside the 20-yard line.

Indianapolis punter Rigoberto Sanchez recorded three punts for 165 yards, averaging 55 yards per punt. His longest punt was 57 yards. One punt was listed with a touchback, and one finished inside the 20.

Sanchez’s listed average was nine yards higher than O’Donnell’s. However, punt averages alone do not fully measure effectiveness because the starting field position, hang time, return yardage, and placement all matter.

A punt that travels a long distance but results in a touchback may have a different strategic outcome from a shorter punt that pins the opponent near its own goal line. The supplied figures do not provide enough information to compare every punt’s net yardage.

Key Statistical Takeaways From the Game

The most useful way to read a football box score is to identify the major statistical contrasts and then consider how they relate to the final result.

1. Jonathan Taylor Was the Leading Rushing Force

Taylor gained 123 yards on 21 carries, averaging 5.9 yards per attempt and recording one touchdown. He produced more rushing yards than Arizona’s entire listed rushing group.

His performance was a defining feature of Indianapolis’s offensive production and provides a clear contrast with Arizona’s team average of 3.7 yards per carry.

2. Brissett Produced More Passing Yards

Brissett passed for 320 yards, compared with Jones’s 212. He also completed five more passes, although he attempted 14 more throws.

This difference shows why passing yardage should be evaluated alongside efficiency, rushing production, touchdowns, turnovers, and the final score.

3. Jones Had the Higher Traditional Passer Rating

Jones recorded a 101.0 passer rating, while Brissett finished at 89.2. Jones completed 73.3% of his attempts, compared with Brissett’s 61.4%.

Both quarterbacks threw two touchdowns and one interception, but Jones added a rushing touchdown. His statistical profile was therefore more efficient by traditional passing measures, even though Brissett accumulated more passing yards.

4. The Colts Had the Rushing Advantage

Indianapolis recorded 150 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns. Arizona recorded 88 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown.

That difference helped Indianapolis produce a more balanced statistical performance, with contributions from both its passing and rushing attacks.

5. Both Teams Recorded an Interception

Wilson and Blackmon each recorded one interception. Neither team had a defensive touchdown listed.

The identical interception totals mean turnovers alone cannot explain the winner. The timing of turnovers, the resulting field position, and the offensive response would be necessary to establish their precise impact.

6. Fourth-Quarter Scoring Separated the Teams

Indianapolis scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Arizona scored three. That was the clearest scoring difference between the teams in the supplied quarter-by-quarter breakdown.

Arizona’s 14-point third quarter was productive, but Indianapolis’s final-quarter output proved decisive in the recorded result.

How to Interpret NFL Player Statistics Correctly

Player statistics help readers understand a game, but they are most useful when their limitations are recognized.

Passing Yards Do Not Tell the Whole Story

A quarterback who throws for 320 yards may have produced more passing offense than a quarterback who throws for 212. However, the lower-yardage quarterback may have completed a higher percentage of passes, thrown the same number of touchdowns, and contributed through rushing.

Passing volume, efficiency, turnovers, and scoring must be considered together.

Efficiency Metrics Need Context

Yards per attempt and completion percentage offer useful information, but neither tells the entire story. A quarterback may complete many short passes, while another produces fewer completions with larger gains.

Passer rating and ESPN QBR also use different calculations. They should be presented as separate measurements, not combined into one score or treated as interchangeable.

Team Totals and Individual Totals Must Reconcile

The supplied game data contains discrepancies between some player-level and team-level passing and receiving totals. For example, the listed receiving yards for Arizona’s individual players add up to more than the stated team receiving total. The Indianapolis player receiving entries also do not add up to the stated team total.

This matters because readers may use box-score tables to compare player production, calculate fantasy football scores, or evaluate a team’s offensive distribution.

For reliable reporting:

1. Confirm the game date, final score, and team names.
2. Compare player-level entries with official team totals.
3. Recalculate basic measures such as completion percentage and yards per carry.
4. Identify discrepancies rather than silently changing figures.
5. Avoid drawing conclusions from categories that have not been reconciled.

The supplied statistics are useful for describing the game, but any publication intended as a definitive statistical record should verify the figures against the original box score.

For the primary game reference, consult the ESPN box score for the October 12, 2025, Colts vs Cardinals game. This is the single external reference used in this article.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the final score of the Arizona Cardinals vs Colts game?

The Indianapolis Colts defeated the Arizona Cardinals 31-27 on October 12, 2025. Indianapolis scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, while Arizona scored three in the final period.

2. How many passing yards did Jacoby Brissett record against the Colts?

Jacoby Brissett recorded 320 passing yards on 27 completions from 44 attempts. He threw two touchdown passes and one interception, according to the supplied game statistics.

3. How many rushing yards did Jonathan Taylor have against Arizona?

Jonathan Taylor rushed for 123 yards on 21 carries, averaging 5.9 yards per carry. He also scored one rushing touchdown and recorded a longest run of 30 yards.

4. How did Daniel Jones perform against the Cardinals?

Daniel Jones completed 22 of 30 passes for 212 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. He also rushed for 20 yards and one touchdown. His listed passer rating was 101.0.

5. Which players led their teams in receiving yards?

Zay Jones led Arizona with 79 receiving yards on five catches, while Tyler Warren led Indianapolis with 63 receiving yards on six catches. Trey McBride led the Cardinals’ listed receivers with eight receptions.

6. Why did the Colts win despite Arizona recording more passing yards?

Indianapolis won 31-27 despite Arizona’s 320 passing yards compared with the Colts’ 212. The Colts recorded 150 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, while Arizona produced 88 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown. Indianapolis also scored 14 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Arizona’s three. These figures describe the main statistical differences without establishing that any single factor alone determined the result.

Conclusion

The arizona cardinals vs colts match player stats reveal a competitive game decided by a strong fourth-quarter performance from Indianapolis. The Colts defeated Arizona 31-27 after scoring 14 points in the final period, overcoming the Cardinals’ 14-point third quarter.

Jacoby Brissett delivered 320 passing yards and two touchdown passes, while Daniel Jones completed 73.3% of his attempts and added a rushing touchdown to his two passing scores. Jonathan Taylor was Indianapolis’s leading offensive contributor on the ground, recording 123 rushing yards and one touchdown on 21 carries.

Arizona’s receiving production featured Zay Jones’s 79 yards and Trey McBride’s eight receptions, while Tyler Warren and Josh Downs each caught a touchdown pass for Indianapolis. Defensively, Mack Wilson Sr. and Mekhi Blackmon each recorded an interception, and the Colts registered more sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits in the supplied figures.

The broader statistical lesson is that passing yards alone do not determine the winner. Rushing efficiency, touchdown production, defensive pressure, and scoring distribution across four quarters all provide important context. The supplied player and team totals also contain some discrepancies, so individual statistics should be checked against the original box score before being treated as a definitive record.