TEAM | W | L | T | PCT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
TEAM | W | L | T | PCT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Sam Darnold | #14 |
![]() Jalen Milroe | #6 |
![]() Drew Lock | #2 |
![]() Kenneth Walker | #9 |
![]() Zach Charbonnet | #26 |
![]() Damien Martinez | #22 |
![]() Kenny McIntosh | #25 |
![]() George Holani | #36 |
![]() Brady Russell | #38 |
![]() Jacardia Wright | #31 |
TEAM | W | L | T | PCT | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T1 | ![]() Los Angeles Rams | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0.588 |
T1 | ![]() Seattle Seahawks | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0.588 |
3 | ![]() Arizona Cardinals | 8 | 9 | 0 | 0.471 |
4 | ![]() San Francisco 49ers | 6 | 11 | 0 | 0.353 |
Smith-Njigba's second pro season went much better than his first, featuring a 47 percent increase in targets and 80 percent increase in yardage. The 20th overall pick from the 2023 NFL Draft made huge strides in every key efficiency metric from Year 1 to Year 2, and he did it while taking on far more volume in an offense that deprioritized 32-year-old Tyler Lockett. Even DK Metcalf seemingly dropped to Option B status by the end of the year, averaging 7.2 targets per game compared to Smith-Njigba's 8.1. There's perhaps room for further volume growth now that Metcalf and Lockett are gone, replaced by Cooper Kupp and Marquez Valdez-Scantling. The problem for JSN is that Kupp seemingly overlaps with his skillset more than Metcalf did -- and then there's concern about the quality of Seattle's offense with Sam Darnold replacing Geno Smith at quarterback. Darnold played well for Minnesota last year, but that was with much better blocking and playcalling than Smith had in Seattle. It was surprising to see the Seahawks swap QBs while waiting for the draft to seriously address their porous O-line, although there is hope for improvement in 2025 with better injury luck and a better scheme under new coordinator Klint Kubiak. For all the progress Smith-Njigba made last year, he had an awful lot of cheap PPR points on plays that didn't help Seattle score -- while catching just 15 passes from a perimeter alignment -- which raises questions about scheme-dependency moving forward.
Receiving | Rushing | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Week | Opp | Result | REC | TGT | YDS | AVG | TD | LNG | CAR | YDS | AVG | TD | LNG | |
18 | vs | ![]() LAR | W30-25 | 4 | 5 | 9 | 2.3 | 0 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
17 | vs | ![]() CHI | W6-3 | 3 | 6 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
16 | @ | ![]() MIN | L24-27 | 8 | 12 | 95 | 11.9 | 1 | 25 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 |
15 | @ | ![]() GB | L13-30 | 10 | 12 | 83 | 8.3 | 0 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
14 | vs | ![]() ARI | W30-18 | 5 | 5 | 82 | 16.4 | 1 | 24 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
13 | vs | ![]() NYJ | W26-21 | 4 | 4 | 74 | 18.5 | 0 | 25 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 |
12 | @ | ![]() ARI | W16-6 | 6 | 7 | 77 | 12.8 | 1 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
11 | vs | ![]() SF | W20-17 | 10 | 11 | 110 | 11.0 | 0 | 20 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
9 | @ | ![]() LAR | L20-26 | 7 | 13 | 180 | 25.7 | 2 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
8 | @ | ![]() BUF | L10-31 | 6 | 7 | 69 | 11.5 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
7 | vs | ![]() ATL | W34-14 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 3.0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
6 | @ | ![]() SF | L24-36 | 5 | 9 | 53 | 10.6 | 0 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
5 | @ | ![]() NYG | L20-29 | 4 | 7 | 31 | 7.8 | 1 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
4 | vs | ![]() DET | L29-42 | 8 | 12 | 51 | 6.4 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
3 | @ | ![]() MIA | W24-3 | 3 | 3 | 39 | 13.0 | 0 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
2 | vs | ![]() NE | W23-20 | 12 | 16 | 117 | 9.8 | 0 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
1 | @ | ![]() DEN | W26-20 | 2 | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |