Washington Commanders vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats

Introduction

You want player-level clarity from a single, telling matchup I got you. I break down the numbers, explain who moved the needle, and point out the plays that actually mattered. I wrote this to sound like a conversation with a fellow fan, so expect plain talk, a little sarcasm, and a ton of focused stat work.

Game snapshot

The Washington Commanders beat the Arizona Cardinals 42-14 in the September 29, 2024 matchup. Washington piled up 449 total yards while Arizona managed 296 total yards. Washington converted 29 first downs compared with Arizona’s 17, and the Commanders dominated efficiency in key phases of the game.

Why this game matters

Why should you care about this one game? Because it highlighted contrasting offensive identities Washington balanced efficient passing and a physical run game while Arizona looked more one-dimensional after an opening drive. Washington forced Arizona into predictable scripts and punished those scripts repeatedly. That split taught us more about each team’s direction than the season record alone.

Quarterbacks who drove the offense?

Jayden Daniels completed 26 of 30 passes for 233 yards, added a rushing touchdown, and threw one interception. He showed surgical accuracy on intermediate throws and attacked open seams with excellent timing. He scrambled when pressure arrived and turned potential losses into positive plays that extended drives. Kyler Murray threw for 142 yards and one touchdown, but pressure and disguised coverages forced quicker decisions and stalled many drives.

Rushing who won the trench war?

Washington posted 216 rushing yards as a team, spearheaded by Brian Robinson Jr.’s 101 rushing yards and a touchdown. Robinson ran with volume and decisive contact north-south, and Jeremy McNichols added 68 yards and two rushing touchdowns in short-yardage and red-zone duty. Arizona got solid work from James Conner, who rushed for 104 yards and a touchdown, but the Cardinals failed to find a complementary passing threat to balance that success. The numbers show Washington’s run game not only produced yards but also sustained drives.

Receiving who made the catches count?

Washington spread targets efficiently and turned catches into first downs on critical downs. Terry McLaurin and role players snagged timely completions that kept chains moving and avoided negative plays. Arizona leaned on Marvin Harrison Jr. to spark plays early, and he scored on the opening drive, but the Cardinals lacked consistent separation afterward. Washington’s receivers converted short gains into field-flipping opportunities more often, and that difference multiplied on the scoreboard.

Defense and pressure how Washington disrupted Arizona

Washington recorded multiple sacks and pressure events, with Dorance Armstrong registering 1.5 sacks and several hurry plays. The Commanders created a pocket that collapsed sporadically yet enough to force quicker throws and limit downfield gains. Arizona lost a fumble and suffered stalled second-half drives as Washington punctured rhythm with well-timed blitzes and solid pattern-match coverage. Those defensive plays produced turnovers and short fields that Washington turned into points.

Special teams and field position

Washington’s kicker, Austin Seibert, remained perfect and converted two field goals that kept scoring momentum steady. The Commanders converted long drives into points more often, and return work generally gave Washington favorable starting field position. Arizona failed to flip the field consistently after the first quarter, and that positioning deficit compounded offensive struggles. Special teams therefore reinforced Washington’s advantage rather than deciding the game alone.

Advanced numbers efficiency and per-play production

Washington averaged 7.8 yards per pass attempt and 5.8 yards per carry, while Arizona posted 4.4 yards per pass attempt and 5.7 yards per carry. Washington produced 14 pass plays that gained first downs compared with Arizona’s 5, and that ability to mix explosive passing on top of a steady rushing attack created long drives. The Commanders also limited negative plays on early downs, which kept third-down distances manageable. Those per-play advantages translated directly into scoring efficiency and clock control.

Key player snapshots

• Jayden Daniels (WAS): 26/30, 233 yards, 1 rushing TD, 1 INT. He completed third-down throws and avoided forcing high-risk throws under pressure.

• Brian Robinson Jr. (WAS): 101 rushing yards, 1 rush TD. He moved the chains consistently and finished runs inside the box.

• Jeremy McNichols (WAS): 68 rushing yards, 2 rushing TDs. He dominated short-yardage sequences and converted in scoring territory.

• Kyler Murray (ARI): 142 passing yards, 1 TD. He started the game well but saw windows close as Washington disguised looks.

• James Conner (ARI): 104 rushing yards, 1 rush TD. He produced when given clear opportunities but lacked passing support.

• Dorance Armstrong (WAS): 1.5 sacks and multiple pressures that altered timing.

Situational analysis third downs and red zone

Washington converted a higher percentage of third downs and ran more methodical red-zone sequences than Arizona. The Commanders attacked matchup edges and kept plays in areas that favored completion plus yards after catch. Arizona converted fewer third downs and settled for shorter drives after the opening series, which limited scoring windows. That situational dominance turned into scoreboard separation rather than a sequence of lucky plays.

Play-calling and coaching fingerprints

Washington mixed inside zone runs with play-action and short dropback passes to keep Arizona guessing. The Commanders’ staff designed sequences that amplified the quarterback’s strengths in timing and accuracy. Arizona’s offensive calls emphasized backfield work and intermediate timing routes; defenses adjusted quickly and the Cardinals lacked a reliable mismatch to exploit consistently. Those coaching choices showed up as efficiency differences on the stat sheet.

Matchup context head-to-head history

All-time, the Commanders hold a sizable edge in this rivalry, with head-to-head tallies commonly cited near 79-47-2 in Washington’s favor across historical datasets. These teams rarely met in postseason play, so regular-season matchups carry the narrative weight. The long-term dominance provides context: Washington often found schematic ways to limit Arizona historically, and this game fit that pattern. That historical backdrop helps explain why Washington appeared comfortable controlling tempo and game script.

What the stats don’t show (but matter)

Numbers miss intangibles such as sideline communication, decision speed on blitz pickups, and the emotional lift after a key stop. Washington displayed sharper in-game adjustments and cleaner tempo control that statistics register indirectly through third-down success. Arizona showed effort and produced decent rush yardage, but the team lacked the complementary element that wins consistently. Those non-stat lines altered the game flow despite not appearing as a stat column.

Comparison to season norms

Washington exceeded its season averages in total offense for this game, and Arizona fell below expected efficiency marks. The Commanders’ 42 points represented one of their higher single-game outputs during the season window. Arizona’s scoring output landed short of what its offensive personnel usually produce when the unit clicks. Those gaps matter when projecting each team’s likely performance in future matchups.

Takeaways for fantasy and betting folks

Fantasy players should note Brian Robinson Jr.’s 100-yard effort and Jeremy McNichols’ two TDs; those results push both into viable short-term play for PPR and standard formats. Jayden Daniels’ completion efficiency and low-turnover performance raise his floor in formats that reward accuracy and low interception rates. Arizona’s receivers outside Marvin Harrison Jr. looked limited, so fantasy managers should avoid assuming volume-based upside there. For bettors, Washington’s efficiency and situational control present a template to explore in future spreads and totals markets.

Quick tactical moments that shifted the game

• Washington executed a 93-yard touchdown drive that swung momentum and drained the crowd energy.

• The Commanders forced a fumble on an Arizona possession that led to a short-field scoring sequence for Washington.

• Washington converted key third downs late in both halves to prevent Arizona from mounting comeback windows.
  Those micro-events stacked to make the scoreboard lopsided rather than produce the usual back-and-forth.

One-table stat summary

Deep dive Jayden Daniels mechanics and decision-making

Daniels displayed quick release and strong pocket awareness that kept plays alive. He read levels well and found soft spots between zones to hit receivers for medium gains. He also scrambled when a clean pocket collapsed and earned extra yards without forcing risky throws. That combination lowered turnover risk and extended multiple drives.

Offensive line and trenches won or lost?

The Commanders’ offensive line opened lanes consistently and sustained blocks long enough to invite linebackers to hesitate. Washington fed Robinson and McNichols behind clear leverage on the edge, producing consistent yardage after contact. Arizona’s defensive front showed moments of penetration, but it failed to convert pressure into sacks at regular intervals. The trenches decided the rhythm, and Washington won that battle overall.

Defensive scheme breakdown

Washington used disguise blitzes and pattern-match coverages that forced Murray into quick reads. The defense rotated coverages on clear downs, which helped them bracket Marvin Harrison Jr. more often after his early success. Washington’s linebackers cleaned up underneath routes and they avoided overcommitting to the run, a choice that let the team defend play-action effectively. Arizona’s defensive adjustments required more time than the game allowed.

Coaching grades (blunt)

I give Washington’s coaching an A- for play-calling, tempo control, and in-game adaptability. The Commanders kept the offense ahead of the chains and adjusted pressure concepts when Arizona tried to counter. I give Arizona’s coaching a C+; the team failed to move beyond a single reliable rushing plan and the passing game lacked enough design to help. Coaching matters more than people sometimes, and these staff decisions made the difference in this game.

What to watch next time these teams meet

Expect Washington to re-run similar run-pass balance plays and continue to test Arizona’s linebackers in space. Arizona must plan faster-release passing concepts and use quicker reads to beat disguises. Both teams might adjust blocking allocations and pre-snap motions to create clearer mismatches next time. Those small schematic flips could change the outcome if either staff nails the adjustments.

Final fantasy and roster notes

Fantasy NFL managers should value Robinson and McNichols after this game because the Commanders trust their backs in scoring situations. Daniels’ touchdown and completion efficiency boost his short-term fantasy floor in formats that reward accuracy and low turnover rates. Murray needs a bounce-back game to regain trust for season-long managers; if he faces a similar pressure front, fantasy owners should hedge. Arizona might pursue more receiver usage or schematic tweaks if the staff wants to unlock a deeper passing game.

Final reflections

I enjoy dissecting games this way because numbers show cause and effect more clearly than highlight clips alone. This matchup gave a clean set of data to analyze and extract actionable insights for coaching decisions, fantasy lineups, and betting posture. You can argue about a missed call or an unlucky bounce, but the box score and situational tape agreed on who dominated in execution. That agreement makes this one of those games where the stat sheet tells the story plainly.

Final verdict

I view this game as a clean statement from Washington rather than an accident. The Commanders executed at a higher level across situational football, and they turned opportunities into scoreable outcomes more reliably. Arizona earned credit for fight through James Conner’s rushing work, but the team lacked the offensive complement needed to stay competitive. Washington controlled the story from early on and closed it without drama.

Closing thought

Would you expect any different given the matchups? Probably not if you watched both teams for a few weeks. Washington simply showed more balance and fewer self-inflicted errors that day. Sit with the numbers a bit and you’ll see that this game served as a practical blueprint for what Washington wants to be this season.