49ers vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats
The 49ers vs tampa bay buccaneers match player stats from October 13, 2025, tell the story of a game in which the Tampa Bay Buccaneers defeated the San Francisco 49ers 30-19. Tampa Bay combined efficient passing from Baker Mayfield, two rushing touchdowns, and a defense that recorded six sacks and two interceptions. San Francisco moved the ball through the air, but its inability to score a passing touchdown and its struggles against Tampa Bay’s pass rush made the difference.
The game featured several notable individual performances. Mac Jones completed 27 of 39 passes for San Francisco, while Kendrick Bourne recorded 142 receiving yards. For Tampa Bay, Mayfield threw two touchdown passes without an interception, Rachaad White and Sean Tucker each scored on the ground, and the defensive unit consistently pressured the opposing quarterback.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback efficiency, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistical differences that shaped the result. All game-specific figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data. Where the source contains conflicting passing-yard totals, those discrepancies are identified rather than silently corrected.
49ers vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Buccaneers entered the contest with a 4-1 record? No. According to the supplied game data, Tampa Bay was 5-1 overall, while San Francisco was 4-2. The result moved the game’s narrative toward Tampa Bay’s ability to convert offensive opportunities and disrupt San Francisco’s passing game.
San Francisco 49ers News, Scores, Stats, Schedule | NFL.com
San Francisco 49ers
Away team · 4-2 before the game
19
3 · 13 · 3 · 0
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Home team · 5-1 before the game
30
7 · 13 · 7 · 3
Final score: Tampa Bay 30, San Francisco 19 · October 13, 2025
Match details at a glance
| Category | Details |
| Matchup | San Francisco 49ers vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| Date | October 13, 2025 |
| League | National Football League (NFL) |
| Week | Week 6, based on the supplied game date |
| Venue | Not independently confirmed in the supplied data |
| Final score | Buccaneers 30, 49ers 19 |
| Game status | Final |
| Game ID | 401772749 |
| San Francisco passing leader | Mac Jones |
| Tampa Bay passing leader | Baker Mayfield |
| San Francisco receiving leader | Kendrick Bourne |
| Tampa Bay rushing leaders | Rachaad White and Sean Tucker, with one touchdown each |
| Biggest defensive difference | Tampa Bay recorded six sacks and two interceptions |
The quarter-by-quarter scoring shows that Tampa Bay built its advantage early and maintained it through the second half.
| Quarter | 49ers | Buccaneers |
| First | 3 | 7 |
| Second | 13 | 13 |
| Third | 3 | 7 |
| Fourth | 0 | 3 |
| Total | 19 | 30 |
San Francisco scored 16 points in the first half and added only three after halftime. Tampa Bay, meanwhile, scored in every quarter. That consistency mattered because it prevented the 49ers from turning their passing production into a late comeback.
Quarterback Comparison: Mac Jones vs. Baker Mayfield
Quarterback efficiency was one of the defining differences in this matchup. Mac Jones accumulated more completions and attempts, but Baker Mayfield produced more scoring value from fewer throws.
Mac Jones: Passing volume without a passing touchdown
Jones completed 27 of 39 passes, giving him a completion rate of approximately 69.2%. He averaged 8.9 yards per attempt according to the supplied individual passing statistics. Despite moving the ball through the air, he finished without a touchdown pass and threw two interceptions.
| Mac Jones statistic | Result |
| Completions | 27 |
| Pass attempts | 39 |
| Completion percentage | 69.2% |
| Passing yards, reported individual figure | 347 |
| Passing yards, secondary team row | 296 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks | 6 |
| Sack yardage | 51 |
| Passer rating | 75.5 |
| ESPN QBR | 19.5 |
Jones’s completion percentage looks respectable, but completion rate alone does not explain quarterback performance. A quarterback can complete short passes consistently and still struggle to create enough scoring opportunities, especially when the defense wins important passing downs.
Three figures deserve particular attention.
First, Jones did not throw a touchdown. San Francisco scored 19 points, including 13 in the second quarter and four successful field goals across the game. The offense was able to create scoring opportunities, but it did not generate a passing touchdown.
Second, the two interceptions increased the cost of mistakes. Turnovers can end promising drives and give the opposing offense additional opportunities. Tampa Bay’s defense intercepted Jones twice, with Kindle Vildor and Jamel Dean each recording an interception in the supplied defensive statistics.
Third, six sacks created a substantial problem. Losing 51 yards on sacks reduced San Francisco’s offensive efficiency and forced Jones to operate under repeated pressure. Sacks also tend to put an offense behind schedule, making third downs and scoring situations harder to manage.
Jones’s performance therefore illustrates the difference between accumulating passing yards and producing an efficient, touchdown-generating offense.
Baker Mayfield: Efficiency and scoring production
Mayfield completed 17 of 23 passes, a completion rate of approximately 73.9%. His reported average was 11.1 yards per attempt, and he threw two touchdowns without an interception.
| Baker Mayfield statistic | Result |
| Completions | 17 |
| Pass attempts | 23 |
| Completion percentage | 73.9% |
| Passing yards, reported individual figure | 256 |
| Passing yards, secondary team row | 248 |
| Yards per attempt | 11.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yardage | 8 |
| Passer rating | 139.0 |
| ESPN QBR | 82.2 |
Mayfield attempted 16 fewer passes than Jones, yet Tampa Bay’s passing game produced two touchdown passes. He also avoided interceptions and was sacked only once.
His reported 11.1 yards per attempt suggests that Tampa Bay generated substantial yardage on its passing opportunities. That figure is especially meaningful alongside the touchdown and turnover numbers: Mayfield was not simply completing passes, but helping the offense turn its possessions into points.
The passer rating of 139.0 also reflects a highly productive passing performance under the NFL’s passer-rating formula. ESPN QBR is a separate measure, so its 82.2 figure should not be treated as the same scale as the passer rating.
Comparing the two quarterbacks
| Metric | Mac Jones | Baker Mayfield |
| Completion percentage | 69.2% | 73.9% |
| Yards per attempt | 8.9 | 11.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 6 | 1 |
| Passer rating | 75.5 | 139.0 |
| ESPN QBR | 19.5 | 82.2 |
The comparison highlights four important differences:
- Scoring: Mayfield threw two touchdowns; Jones threw none.
- Ball security: Mayfield recorded no interceptions, while Jones threw two.
- Protection: Jones took six sacks, compared with one for Mayfield.
- Passing efficiency: Mayfield’s reported yards per attempt and passer rating were higher.
Jones completed more passes because he attempted substantially more. That does not automatically make his performance more effective. Mayfield’s smaller passing workload was paired with more touchdown production and fewer costly mistakes.
The evidence supports a straightforward conclusion: Tampa Bay got more scoring value from its passing game, while San Francisco’s passing production did not translate into the same level of offensive efficiency.
Rushing Stats: Christian McCaffrey, Rachaad White and Sean Tucker
The rushing comparison provides another explanation for Tampa Bay’s victory. San Francisco relied heavily on Christian McCaffrey, while Tampa Bay spread its rushing production across multiple players and scored two rushing touchdowns.
Christian McCaffrey’s performance for San Francisco
McCaffrey recorded 17 carries for 54 rushing yards and one touchdown. He averaged 3.2 yards per carry, with a longest rush of 11 yards.
| Christian McCaffrey statistic | Result |
| Carries | 17 |
| Rushing yards | 54 |
| Yards per carry | 3.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest rush | 11 yards |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Receiving yards | 57 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
| Total receptions and carries | 24 |
McCaffrey’s contribution extended beyond the ground game. He caught seven passes for 57 yards, giving him 111 combined rushing and receiving yards from 24 carries and receptions.
That receiving contribution matters because running backs can provide an alternative when a defense pressures the quarterback. Short passes to a back can help an offense gain manageable yardage without requiring every play to develop downfield.
McCaffrey’s 54 rushing yards, however, came at an average of 3.2 yards per carry. That limited the consistent ground production available to San Francisco. His rushing touchdown was valuable, but the team needed more scoring production from the rest of its offense to overcome Tampa Bay’s lead.
Rachaad White’s contribution
White led Tampa Bay in rushing attempts among the listed players, recording 17 carries for 65 yards and one touchdown.
| Rachaad White statistic | Result |
| Carries | 17 |
| Rushing yards | 65 |
| Yards per carry | 3.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest rush | 10 yards |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving yards | 21 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
White averaged 3.8 yards per carry, higher than McCaffrey’s 3.2. He also added three receptions for 21 yards.
His contribution was not defined by a single explosive rush. Instead, his 17 carries provided Tampa Bay with a steady rushing workload and a touchdown. That combination helped the Buccaneers maintain a balanced offense.
A running back’s value also depends on when the yards and touchdowns occur. Although the supplied summary does not provide the down-and-distance details for each rushing attempt, White’s touchdown and the team’s final score demonstrate that Tampa Bay converted its opportunities into points.
Sean Tucker adds a second rushing touchdown
Tucker finished with six carries for 25 yards and a touchdown. He averaged 4.2 yards per carry, the highest average among Tampa Bay’s listed primary rushers.
| Sean Tucker statistic | Result |
| Carries | 6 |
| Rushing yards | 25 |
| Yards per carry | 4.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest rush | 9 yards |
| Kick returns | 5 |
| Kick-return yards | 127 |
Tucker’s rushing touchdown gave Tampa Bay another scoring option beyond White and Mayfield. Six carries may look modest beside White’s 17, but his touchdown shows why rushing efficiency and scoring opportunities need to be considered together.
Tucker also contributed 127 yards on five kick returns. Those return yards belong in the special-teams category rather than the rushing total, but they demonstrate his involvement in multiple phases of the game.
Baker Mayfield’s rushing contribution
Mayfield added three carries for 14 yards, averaging 4.7 yards per carry. His longest rush was 15 yards.
Quarterback rushing can affect how a defense allocates its attention. A quarterback who can gain yards with his legs gives the offense another way to respond when passing lanes close. The supplied statistics establish Mayfield’s rushing contribution, although they do not specify the exact plays or situations in which those yards were gained.
Team rushing comparison
| Team rushing statistic | 49ers | Buccaneers |
| Carries | 22 | 26 |
| Rushing yards | 67 | 104 |
| Yards per carry | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Longest rush | 11 yards | 15 yards |
Tampa Bay gained 37 more rushing yards, averaged one additional yard per carry, and scored one more rushing touchdown.
Those differences helped the Buccaneers control the ground game without needing Mayfield to attempt a large number of passes. San Francisco’s rushing attack was less productive overall, placing greater pressure on Jones and the passing offense to compensate.
Receiving Stats: Kendrick Bourne Leads the 49ers
The receiving statistics reveal an important contrast. San Francisco’s leading receiver produced a large yardage total, but Tampa Bay’s receivers converted their opportunities into two passing touchdowns.
Kendrick Bourne’s 142-yard performance
Bourne led San Francisco with five receptions for 142 yards on nine targets. He averaged 28.4 yards per catch, and his longest reception was 56 yards.
| Kendrick Bourne statistic | Result |
| Targets | 9 |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving yards | 142 |
| Yards per reception | 28.4 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 56 yards |
Bourne’s 28.4 yards per reception stands out because it indicates that his catches generated substantial yardage. His 56-yard longest reception also shows the potential for a single play to change field position quickly.
Yet Bourne did not record a touchdown. That distinction helps explain why San Francisco’s passing yardage did not produce the same scoreboard impact as Tampa Bay’s offense.
A receiver can have an outstanding yardage performance while the team still struggles to score. Total yards tell readers how much ground a receiver gained; touchdowns and drive outcomes show how effectively the offense converted that production into points.
Bourne’s performance was one of San Francisco’s clearest individual bright spots, but it was not enough to offset the interceptions, sacks, and absence of passing touchdowns.
Jake Tonges provides a reliable short-area option
Tonges recorded six receptions for 58 yards on seven targets. He averaged 9.7 yards per catch, with a longest reception of 16 yards.
His six catches gave Jones another option in the passing game. Compared with Bourne’s deep-yardage production, Tonges’s numbers reflect a higher volume of shorter receptions.
The two receiving profiles served different purposes. Bourne generated significant yardage on fewer catches, while Tonges provided more frequent completions. San Francisco still needed those contributions to combine with touchdown production to challenge Tampa Bay’s lead.
McCaffrey’s role as a receiver
McCaffrey caught seven passes for 57 yards on eight targets. His longest reception was 23 yards.
His seven receptions tied him closely to the passing offense as a receiving option. When a running back is involved in the passing game, the defense must account for that player beyond traditional rushing situations.
McCaffrey’s combined 111 yards from scrimmage were meaningful, but his receiving line contained no touchdowns. His production helped move the ball without providing the passing-score output San Francisco needed.
Other San Francisco receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Kendrick Bourne | 5 | 142 | 28.4 | 0 |
| Jake Tonges | 6 | 58 | 9.7 | 0 |
| Christian McCaffrey | 7 | 57 | 8.1 | 0 |
| Demarcus Robinson | 2 | 44 | 22.0 | 0 |
| Marquez Valdes-Scantling | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Kyle Juszczyk | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 |
| Brian Robinson Jr. | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 |
| Jauan Jennings | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
Robinson averaged 22.0 yards per reception, with 44 yards on two catches. Valdes-Scantling averaged 11.0 yards on two receptions.
The important overall detail is that the supplied receiving statistics list no receiving touchdowns for the San Francisco players shown. That supports the broader conclusion that the 49ers gained passing yardage but did not finish with a passing score.
Tampa Bay receiving production
Tampa Bay recorded 17 receptions for 256 yards and two touchdowns on 23 targets, according to the supplied team receiving line.
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Kameron Johnson | 4 | 64 | 16.0 | 1 |
| Sterling Shepard | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 0 |
| Cade Otton | 5 | 51 | 10.2 | 0 |
| Tez Johnson | 1 | 45 | 45.0 | 1 |
| Emeka Egbuka | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Rachaad White | 3 | 21 | 7.0 | 0 |
Kameron Johnson led the listed Buccaneers receivers with 64 yards and a touchdown. Tez Johnson caught one pass for 45 yards and a touchdown, making that reception particularly valuable in the team’s scoring production.
Shepard averaged 25.5 yards on two catches, while Otton supplied five receptions for 51 yards. The distribution shows that Tampa Bay received contributions from several players rather than relying on a single receiver for all its production.
Why the receiving comparison matters
The 49ers recorded 27 receptions for 347 yards in the supplied team receiving line, while the Buccaneers recorded 17 receptions for 256 yards. San Francisco’s listed total was higher, but the final score favored Tampa Bay by 11 points.
This is a useful example of why raw receiving totals are not a complete measure of offensive success.
San Francisco’s receivers accumulated more catches and reported yards, yet they did not record a passing touchdown. Tampa Bay’s receiving group generated two touchdowns on fewer catches. Combined with the Buccaneers’ rushing touchdowns, that efficiency gave Tampa Bay more ways to score.
One qualification is important: the ESPN text supplied for this game contains conflicting passing-yard figures. The individual and team receiving totals have been retained as supplied rather than adjusted to force them into agreement.
Defensive Stats: How Tampa Bay Disrupted San Francisco
The defensive statistics provide one of the clearest explanations for the 30-19 result. Tampa Bay recorded six sacks, two interceptions, 10 quarterback hits, and five passes defended. San Francisco recorded one sack and no interceptions in the supplied team defensive totals.
The gap was not limited to one category. Tampa Bay generated more pressure, took the ball away twice, and repeatedly challenged Jones’s ability to complete drives.
Tampa Bay’s six sacks
The Buccaneers recorded six sacks for 51 yards of sack yardage against San Francisco’s quarterback, according to the supplied game data.
| Tampa Bay defender | Total tackles | Sacks | Other notable statistics |
| Yaya Diaby | 3 | 2 | 2 tackles for loss, 2 quarterback hits |
| Lavonte David | 6 | 1 | 1 tackle for loss, 1 quarterback hit |
| Jamel Dean | 4 | 1 | 1 tackle for loss, 1 pass defended, 1 quarterback hit |
| Vita Vea | 4 | 0.5 | 2 quarterback hits |
| Haason Reddick | 3 | 0.5 | 1 quarterback hit |
Diaby’s two sacks led the listed Buccaneers defenders. He also recorded two tackles for loss and two quarterback hits, showing that his contribution extended beyond the sack total.
David added a sack, a tackle for loss, and a quarterback hit. Dean contributed another sack alongside a pass defended. Vea and Reddick each received credit for half a sack in the supplied statistics.
The combined total of six sacks indicates that Tampa Bay consistently created problems for San Francisco’s passing offense.
Sacks can affect a game in several ways:
- They remove yards from an offensive drive.
- They can create longer third-down situations.
- They may force an offense to abandon its preferred play sequence.
- They increase the risk of turnovers when the quarterback is pressured.
- They can make it harder to sustain possession and reach the red zone.
The box score does not establish that every sack directly caused an interception or ended a scoring opportunity. However, the combination of six sacks and two interceptions demonstrates how difficult Tampa Bay made life for the opposing passing game.
Kindle Vildor and Jamel Dean record interceptions
Tampa Bay’s two interceptions were credited to Kindle Vildor and Jamel Dean.
| Defender | Interceptions | Return yards | Defensive touchdowns |
| Kindle Vildor | 1 | 13 | 0 |
| Jamel Dean | 1 | 6 | 0 |
| Team total | 2 | 19 | 0 |
These interceptions matter because they represent possessions that San Francisco could not continue using for its own offense.
An interception does not automatically produce points. Its value depends on the field position that follows, the subsequent possession, and whether the defense can prevent a response. Nevertheless, two interceptions combined with six sacks represent a significant defensive contribution.
For the 49ers, the turnovers compounded the problem of failing to throw a touchdown. A team can sometimes recover from a turnover by producing explosive plays or scoring repeatedly, but San Francisco did not generate enough points to overcome Tampa Bay’s advantage.
Antoine Winfield Jr. leads Tampa Bay in tackles
Winfield recorded nine total tackles and five solo tackles, leading the listed Buccaneers defenders in total tackles.
Other notable defensive contributions included:
| Defender | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Additional production |
| Antoine Winfield Jr. | 9 | 5 | None listed |
| SirVocea Dennis | 7 | 6 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Jacob Parrish | 7 | 5 | 1 pass defended |
| Tykee Smith | 6 | 5 | 1 pass defended |
| Lavonte David | 6 | 4 | 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss, 1 quarterback hit |
| Chris Braswell | 5 | 2 | None listed |
| Jamel Dean | 4 | 3 | 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss, 1 pass defended, 1 quarterback hit |
| Vita Vea | 4 | 1 | 0.5 sacks, 2 quarterback hits |
| Yaya Diaby | 3 | 3 | 2 sacks, 2 tackles for loss, 2 quarterback hits |
Tackles measure involvement in stopping offensive plays, while sacks, interceptions, tackles for loss, and passes defended capture more specific defensive outcomes.
Winfield’s tackle total reflects consistent involvement. Diaby, David, and Dean added disruptive plays that directly challenged the passing attack. Taken together, these performances show that Tampa Bay’s defense had contributions across the front and the secondary.
San Francisco’s defensive leaders
San Francisco also recorded individual defensive performances worth noting, even though its team totals were lower in several major categories.
| Defender | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Additional production |
| Tatum Bethune | 10 | 5 | Team tackle leader |
| Upton Stout | 5 | 3 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Ji’Ayir Brown | 5 | 3 | None listed |
| Marques Sigle | 4 | 4 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Dee Winters | 4 | 3 | 1 pass defended |
| Mykel Williams | 3 | 2 | 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss, 1 quarterback hit |
Bethune recorded 10 tackles, the highest individual total among the listed 49ers defenders. Williams supplied San Francisco’s listed sack, along with a tackle for loss and a quarterback hit.
The defensive numbers show that San Francisco had players making tackles and generating some pressure. The problem was the overall level of disruption: the 49ers recorded one team sack compared with Tampa Bay’s six and did not record an interception.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | 49ers | Buccaneers |
| Total tackles | 58 | 76 |
| Solo tackles | 35 | 46 |
| Sacks | 1 | 6 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 1 | 10 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 2 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Tampa Bay recorded 18 more total tackles, 11 more solo tackles, five more quarterback hits than the 49ers’ total of one, and five more sacks. The Buccaneers also recorded two interceptions.
These figures describe a defense that affected both the quarterback and the passing lanes. Tampa Bay’s performance was not simply about making routine tackles. Its pass rush and interceptions disrupted the rhythm of San Francisco’s offense.
Special Teams Stats: Field Goals, Returns and Punting
Special teams helped shape field position and scoring opportunities throughout the game. San Francisco’s kicking performance was particularly productive, while Tampa Bay’s return game and punting statistics supplied additional value.
Eddy Pineiro’s perfect field-goal record
Pineiro converted all four of his field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 54 yards. He also converted his extra-point attempt and finished with 13 points.
| Eddy Pineiro statistic | Result |
| Field goals made | 4 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 54 yards |
| Extra points | 1 of 1 |
| Total points | 13 |
Pineiro’s performance was a major part of San Francisco’s scoring. Four successful field goals kept the 49ers on the scoreboard even when their offense failed to produce a passing touchdown.
However, field goals and touchdowns have different scoring values. Four field goals account for 12 points, while the additional extra point accounts for one. San Francisco’s kicking output was reliable, but the offense still needed more touchdowns to match Tampa Bay’s 30 points.
Chase McLaughlin’s kicking statistics
McLaughlin made one of two field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 45 yards. He converted all three extra-point attempts and finished with six points.
| Chase McLaughlin statistic | Result |
| Field goals made | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 2 |
| Field-goal percentage | 50% |
| Longest field goal | 45 yards |
| Extra points | 3 of 3 |
| Total points | 6 |
McLaughlin missed one field-goal attempt according to the supplied data. Even so, Tampa Bay’s touchdowns provided enough scoring production to win by 11 points.
This is an important distinction when assessing special teams. Kicking efficiency matters, but it should be evaluated alongside the number of touchdown opportunities the offense creates.
Kick returns
Both teams recorded six kick returns, with San Francisco finishing slightly ahead in total return yards.
| Kick-return statistic | 49ers | Buccaneers |
| Returns | 6 | 6 |
| Return yards | 161 | 158 |
| Average per return | 26.8 | 26.3 |
| Longest return | 31 yards | 32 yards |
| Return touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
San Francisco’s Skyy Moore recorded four kick returns for 109 yards, averaging 27.3 yards per return. Brian Robinson Jr. added two returns for 52 yards.
For Tampa Bay, Tucker returned five kicks for 127 yards, while Kameron Johnson returned one for 31 yards.
Neither team returned a kickoff for a touchdown in the supplied statistics. Even without a return score, these plays influenced starting field position and gave the offenses opportunities to begin drives with useful yardage already gained.
Punting comparison
| Punting statistic | Thomas Morstead, SF | Riley Dixon, TB |
| Punts | 2 | 3 |
| Total punt yards | 89 | 166 |
| Average punt distance | 44.5 yards | 55.3 yards |
| Longest punt | 48 yards | 60 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 3 |
Dixon averaged 55.3 yards per punt, compared with Morstead’s 44.5. All three of Dixon’s punts were recorded inside the 20-yard line in the supplied data, while Morstead had one such punt.
Punting numbers need context. A high average can help a team gain field position, but the number of punts also reflects how often the offense fails to sustain a drive. The statistics alone do not establish the exact field-position impact of each punt, yet they show that Tampa Bay’s punting performance was productive when the offense had to give up possession.
Team Statistics and the Main Reasons Tampa Bay Won
The clearest way to understand the result is to bring the offensive, defensive, and special-teams statistics together.
1. Tampa Bay produced more touchdowns
The Buccaneers scored two passing touchdowns and two rushing touchdowns according to the supplied game data. San Francisco scored one rushing touchdown and no passing touchdowns in the listed player statistics.
Touchdowns create a larger scoring return than field goals. San Francisco’s four successful field goals demonstrated that its kicker consistently converted opportunities, but the lack of passing touchdowns limited its ability to keep pace.
2. The Buccaneers protected the ball better
Mayfield threw no interceptions, while Jones threw two. Turnovers are especially costly when a team is trying to overcome a deficit because each lost possession removes a chance to score.
Tampa Bay did not need to rely on an unusually high passing volume. It needed to make its passing attempts count, and Mayfield’s two touchdown passes without an interception fit that pattern.
3. Tampa Bay won the pass-rush battle
Six sacks compared with one created a substantial difference in quarterback pressure. Tampa Bay also recorded 10 quarterback hits, while San Francisco recorded one.
This pressure likely made it harder for Jones to maintain the rhythm of his passing offense. The supplied box score does not provide every pressure or play result, so it would be inaccurate to assign a specific interception directly to a particular sack. The team totals nevertheless show that Tampa Bay applied much more pressure.
4. Tampa Bay was more productive on the ground
The Buccaneers recorded 104 rushing yards on 26 attempts, averaging 4.0 yards per carry. San Francisco recorded 67 yards on 22 attempts, averaging 3.0.
Tampa Bay also scored two rushing touchdowns, compared with one for San Francisco. This allowed the Buccaneers to create scoring opportunities without depending entirely on the passing game.
5. San Francisco’s passing yardage did not tell the whole story
Bourne’s 142 receiving yards were a notable individual achievement. Jones also completed 27 passes, and the supplied team receiving line lists 347 yards.
However, the 49ers failed to score a passing touchdown and took six sacks. Their two interceptions also interrupted offensive possessions. The final score illustrates why total yardage must be considered alongside touchdowns, turnovers, and defensive pressure.
Overall statistical comparison
| Category | San Francisco | Tampa Bay | Advantage |
| Final points | 19 | 30 | Tampa Bay |
| Team rushing yards | 67 | 104 | Tampa Bay |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 2 | Tampa Bay |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 2 | Tampa Bay |
| Quarterback interceptions thrown | 2 | 0 | Tampa Bay |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 1 | 6 | Tampa Bay |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 2 | Tampa Bay |
| Field goals made | 4 | 1 | San Francisco |
The statistical pattern is consistent. San Francisco had a productive receiving performance and a perfect field-goal record, but Tampa Bay had more touchdown production, a more effective rushing attack, fewer quarterback mistakes, and a much more disruptive defense.
Important Data Note: Conflicting Passing-Yard Figures
Readers looking up the 49ers vs tampa bay buccaneers match player stats should be aware of a discrepancy in the supplied ESPN data.
The individual passing line lists Jones with 347 passing yards, while a secondary team row lists 296. For Mayfield, the corresponding figures are 256 and 248. The team receiving lines list 347 yards for San Francisco and 256 for Tampa Bay.
These figures have been preserved as provided rather than silently reconciled. Because the source text contains inconsistent totals, the analysis should not claim that every passing-yard figure is independently verified.
The following conclusions remain supported by the supplied figures:
- Tampa Bay won 30-19.
- Mayfield threw two touchdown passes and no interceptions.
- Jones threw no touchdown passes and two interceptions.
- Tampa Bay recorded six sacks and two interceptions.
- San Francisco’s listed receiving leaders included Bourne with 142 yards.
- Tampa Bay scored two rushing touchdowns.
For readers who want to inspect the original box score, the ESPN game statistics provide the source page for the October 13, 2025, matchup.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the 49ers vs. Buccaneers game on October 13, 2025?
The Tampa Bay Buccaneers defeated the San Francisco 49ers 30-19. Tampa Bay scored in all four quarters, while San Francisco was held scoreless in the fourth quarter.
2. How did Baker Mayfield perform against the 49ers?
Mayfield completed 17 of 23 passes, threw two touchdown passes, and recorded no interceptions. His listed passer rating was 139.0, and his ESPN QBR was 82.2.
3. How many passing yards did Mac Jones record?
The supplied individual passing statistics list Jones with 347 yards, while a secondary team row lists 296 yards. The source contains inconsistent passing-yard totals, so the discrepancy should be noted when citing his performance.
4. Who led the 49ers in receiving yards?
Kendrick Bourne led San Francisco with five receptions for 142 yards. He averaged 28.4 yards per catch, with a longest reception of 56 yards, but did not record a receiving touchdown.
5. Which team had more sacks and interceptions?
Tampa Bay recorded six sacks and two interceptions. San Francisco recorded one sack and no interceptions in the supplied team defensive statistics.
6. What do the 49ers vs tampa bay buccaneers match player stats reveal about the result?
The statistics show that Tampa Bay combined efficient quarterback play, two passing touchdowns, two rushing touchdowns, and a disruptive defense. San Francisco gained receiving yards and made all four field goals, but two interceptions, six sacks allowed, and no passing touchdowns limited its scoring potential.
Conclusion
The 49ers vs tampa bay buccaneers match player stats show how Tampa Bay secured a 30-19 victory through a combination of offensive efficiency and defensive pressure. Baker Mayfield completed 17 of 23 passes for two touchdowns without an interception, while Rachaad White and Sean Tucker each scored a rushing touchdown. The Buccaneers also recorded six sacks, two interceptions, and 10 quarterback hits.
San Francisco had several positive individual performances. Mac Jones completed 27 passes, Kendrick Bourne gained 142 receiving yards, Christian McCaffrey contributed 111 combined rushing and receiving yards, and Eddy Pineiro converted all four field-goal attempts. Those contributions kept the 49ers competitive, but they did not overcome the team’s lack of passing touchdowns and its difficulties against Tampa Bay’s defense.
The most important statistical distinction was the difference between moving the ball and converting possessions into points. Tampa Bay generated four touchdowns across its passing and rushing attacks, protected the football more effectively, and created repeated pressure on the opposing quarterback. San Francisco’s receiving production was substantial, but turnovers and sacks reduced its ability to turn that production into a winning score.
The supplied box-score data contains conflicting passing-yard totals, so those figures should be checked against the original record before being reused in statistical databases or comparative analyses. The final score and the key touchdown, sack, and interception figures provide a clear picture of why Tampa Bay won.
