49ers vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats
The 49ers vs los angeles rams match player stats from September 11, 2026, tell the story of a convincing 27-7 victory for the San Francisco 49ers over the Los Angeles Rams. San Francisco combined efficient quarterback play from Brock Purdy, a productive rushing attack led by Christian McCaffrey, and three passing touchdowns to establish control of the contest. The Rams struggled to turn their offensive production into points, finishing with 168 passing yards, 122 rushing yards, and only one touchdown. Although Los Angeles recorded more total tackles and seven passes defended, San Francisco made better use of its scoring opportunities and maintained its advantage throughout the second half.
The final score provides a clear starting point, but the individual performances reveal more about how the game developed. Purdy completed 25 of 34 passes for 205 yards and three touchdowns, while Matthew Stafford completed 15 of 25 attempts for 155 yards without a passing touchdown. McCaffrey added 68 rushing yards on 10 carries, and the 49ers finished with 174 rushing yards as a team. For Los Angeles, Puka Nacua led the receiving group with 74 yards, but the Rams could not convert their passing and rushing production into a sustained scoring threat.
This breakdown examines the final score, quarterback efficiency, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, special teams, and the statistical differences that shaped the outcome. All player figures and team totals below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for this game.
49ers vs los angeles rams match player stats: Game Overview
The game finished with San Francisco ahead by 20 points. The 49ers scored in every quarter, while Los Angeles scored its only touchdown in the second quarter.
| Game Detail | San Francisco 49ers | Los Angeles Rams |
| Final score | 27 | 7 |
| First-quarter points | 3 | 0 |
| Second-quarter points | 7 | 7 |
| Third-quarter points | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth-quarter points | 10 | 0 |
| Passing yards | 205 | 168 |
| Rushing yards | 174 | 122 |
| Total passing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Team record after game | 1-0 | 0-1 |
San Francisco’s offensive production was balanced. The team generated yards through both the air and the ground, while its passing game supplied the decisive touchdowns. Los Angeles also moved the ball, but its offense produced only one touchdown and did not score after halftime.
The scoring pattern is particularly important. The Rams matched San Francisco’s second-quarter touchdown, making the score 10-7 at halftime based on the quarter totals provided. The 49ers then added seven points in the third quarter and 10 in the fourth, while the Rams were held scoreless in both periods.
That second-half separation was the defining feature of the game. San Francisco did not need to rely on a single explosive scoring play to build its advantage. Instead, it continued adding points while preventing Los Angeles from answering.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | 49ers | Rams |
| First | 3 | 0 |
| Second | 7 | 7 |
| Third | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth | 10 | 0 |
| Final | 27 | 7 |
The first quarter gave San Francisco an early lead through three points. Both teams scored a touchdown in the second quarter, but the 49ers remained ahead. Their third-quarter touchdown restored a two-score margin, and the 10-point fourth quarter made the final result more decisive.
The key takeaway is that Los Angeles was not shut out offensively for the entire game. The Rams found the end zone once, but they could not sustain that success across four quarters.
Brock Purdy vs Matthew Stafford: Quarterback Stats
Quarterback performance was one of the clearest differences in this matchup. Brock Purdy finished with three touchdown passes, while Matthew Stafford threw for 155 yards without a passing touchdown. Both quarterbacks threw one interception, so the distinction was not simply about avoiding mistakes. It was about turning completed passes into points.
| Passing Statistic | Brock Purdy, 49ers | Matthew Stafford, Rams |
| Completions | 25 | 15 |
| Pass attempts | 34 | 25 |
| Completion percentage | 73.5% | 60.0% |
| Passing yards | 205 | 155 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.0 | 6.2 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 0 | 0 |
| Passer rating | 105.6 | 61.2 |
| QBR | 88.8 | 46.0 |
Statistics are based on the supplied game data and the reported individual passing totals.
Brock Purdy’s performance
Purdy completed 25 of 34 passes, giving him a completion rate of approximately 73.5%. His 205 passing yards were not an exceptionally high total, but his three touchdown passes made the performance highly productive.
Three details stand out:
- Completion efficiency: Purdy completed nearly three out of every four attempts, helping San Francisco sustain its passing attack.
- Red-zone production: He threw touchdown passes to Demarcus Robinson, Mike Evans, and Deebo Samuel Sr., according to the game’s scoring summary.
- Pocket protection: He was not sacked, allowing the 49ers to avoid losing passing yards through sacks.
Purdy also recorded 29 rushing yards on five attempts. Those carries gave San Francisco another way to gain yards when a passing opportunity was unavailable.
His interception remains an important qualification. A strong overall performance does not mean every decision was perfect. The more meaningful conclusion is that he produced three passing touchdowns despite the turnover.
Matthew Stafford’s performance
Stafford completed 15 of 25 passes for 155 yards, averaging 6.2 yards per attempt. His average was slightly higher than Purdy’s, but he did not throw a touchdown pass.
This distinction demonstrates why yards per attempt should not be evaluated in isolation. The metric describes average passing yardage per attempt, not whether those yards resulted in touchdowns or sustained scoring drives.
Stafford’s line shows three limitations:
- He completed 10 fewer passes than Purdy.
- He threw one interception and no passing touchdowns.
- The Rams finished with only seven points despite recording 168 team passing yards.
Stafford was also not sacked. Therefore, sack avoidance alone does not explain the difference in the quarterbacks’ results.
Stetson Bennett IV’s contribution
Bennett completed two of three passes for 13 yards, with no touchdown passes or interceptions. He added nine rushing yards on one attempt.
| Statistic | Stetson Bennett IV |
| Completions | 2 |
| Attempts | 3 |
| Passing yards | 13 |
| Completion percentage | 66.7% |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Rushing attempts | 1 |
| Rushing yards | 9 |
Bennett’s sample was too small to support a broad assessment of his passing ability. His numbers should be treated as a limited contribution within the game, rather than compared directly with the production of a quarterback who attempted 25 or 34 passes.
The Rams’ combined quarterback production was 168 passing yards, 17 completions on 28 attempts, and one interception. Neither quarterback recorded a passing touchdown.
Rushing Stats: Christian McCaffrey, Kaelon Black and Blake Corum
The ground game was another major part of the statistical comparison. San Francisco recorded 174 rushing yards on 30 carries, while Los Angeles gained 122 yards on 29 carries.
The 49ers averaged 5.8 yards per rush, compared with 4.2 for the Rams. That difference of 1.6 yards per attempt helped San Francisco gain more ground with a similar number of rushing plays.
San Francisco 49ers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | Longest Run | TD |
| Christian McCaffrey | 10 | 68 | 6.8 | 16 | 0 |
| Kaelon Black | 14 | 65 | 4.6 | 14 | 0 |
| Brock Purdy | 5 | 29 | 5.8 | 18 | 0 |
| Deebo Samuel Sr. | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 12 | 0 |
| Team total | 30 | 174 | 5.8 | 18 | 0 |
Christian McCaffrey’s all-around value
McCaffrey led San Francisco in rushing yards, finishing with 68 on 10 attempts. His average of 6.8 yards per carry was the highest among the 49ers’ primary rushers.
The number of carries matters when interpreting his performance. McCaffrey did not need 20 or more attempts to lead the team in rushing yards. He averaged almost seven yards whenever he carried the ball, making each opportunity productive.
He also contributed as a receiver, recording 20 receiving yards in the supplied statistics. That dual-role contribution makes his total offensive involvement more informative than his rushing line alone.
McCaffrey did not score a rushing touchdown, but his performance still helped San Francisco maintain a balanced offense. His production gave the 49ers a reliable option on the ground without requiring every scoring opportunity to come from a running play.
Kaelon Black provides important support
Black led the 49ers in rushing attempts with 14 and finished just three yards behind McCaffrey. His 65 yards at 4.6 yards per carry gave San Francisco a second productive rushing option.
The contrast between the two backs is useful:
- McCaffrey produced more yards per carry.
- Black handled more attempts.
- Together, they accounted for 133 rushing yards on 24 carries.
That combined total represented most of San Francisco’s team rushing production. Their workloads also show that the 49ers did not rely exclusively on one running back to move the ball.
Purdy and Samuel added 41 rushing yards between them. Those additional contributions helped San Francisco reach 174 rushing yards overall.
Los Angeles Rams rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | Longest Run | TD |
| Blake Corum | 10 | 54 | 5.4 | 13 | 0 |
| Kyren Williams | 11 | 41 | 3.7 | 8 | 1 |
| Ronnie Rivers | 5 | 19 | 3.8 | 7 | 0 |
| Stetson Bennett IV | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 | 0 |
| Matthew Stafford | 2 | -1 | -0.5 | Not reported | 0 |
| Team total | 29 | 122 | 4.2 | 13 | 1 |
Blake Corum’s efficiency
Corum led the Rams in rushing yardage, gaining 54 yards on 10 carries. His 5.4-yard average was a positive result, particularly compared with the team’s overall average of 4.2.
Corum’s numbers show that the Rams had a productive individual rushing performance even in a losing effort. His contribution was not enough to change the result, but it should not be overlooked when evaluating the offense.
Kyren Williams scores the Rams’ only touchdown
Williams carried the ball 11 times for 41 yards and one touchdown. His average of 3.7 yards per carry was lower than Corum’s, but he supplied the team’s only rushing score.
That distinction separates yardage production from scoring value. Corum gained more rushing yards, while Williams converted a rushing opportunity into the end zone.
Williams also contributed 24 receiving yards in the supplied data. His combined involvement in the running and passing games made him one of the Rams’ more active offensive players.
What the rushing comparison reveals
The Rams attempted almost as many runs as San Francisco, but the 49ers gained 52 more rushing yards.
| Rushing Comparison | 49ers | Rams |
| Attempts | 30 | 29 |
| Rushing yards | 174 | 122 |
| Yards per carry | 5.8 | 4.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Difference in rushing yards | +52 | -52 |
San Francisco’s advantage came from its overall rushing efficiency, not a significantly larger workload. Los Angeles did score on the ground, but the 49ers gained more yards through their collective running attack.
The broader lesson is that rushing success can support an offense in several ways. It can create manageable passing situations, help sustain drives, and make it harder for a defense to focus exclusively on the quarterback. The box score supports the conclusion that San Francisco was more productive per rushing attempt in this game, although it does not establish the precise defensive adjustments or play designs responsible for that difference.
Receiving Stats: Demarcus Robinson, Mike Evans and Puka Nacua
The receiving numbers show how San Francisco distributed its touchdown production and how Los Angeles relied on Puka Nacua for its leading yardage contribution.
Demarcus Robinson led the 49ers with 50 receiving yards, while Nacua led the Rams with 74. Nacua gained more yards individually, but the 49ers’ receivers accounted for all three of Purdy’s passing touchdowns.
San Francisco 49ers receiving stats
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Longest Reception | TD |
| Demarcus Robinson | 2 | 50 | 25.0 | 39 | 1 |
| Mike Evans | 6 | 49 | 8.2 | 13 | 1 |
| Deebo Samuel Sr. | 6 | 48 | 8.0 | 15 | 1 |
| Christian McCaffrey | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Luke Farrell | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 14 | 0 |
| George Kittle | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Kaelon Black | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 |
| Jake Brendel | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 | 0 |
Receiving totals and player-level figures should be checked against the official box score before publication if a different data export is being used, as some supplied player subtotals may not reconcile with the listed team totals.
Demarcus Robinson makes the most of his opportunities
Robinson recorded two receptions for 50 yards and a touchdown. His average of 25 yards per catch was the highest among the listed 49ers receivers.
His 39-yard reception was especially important because it accounted for much of his total yardage. Robinson’s numbers illustrate how a receiver can have a significant impact without needing a high number of catches.
He also caught one of Purdy’s three touchdown passes. His contribution therefore combined explosive yardage with direct scoring value.
Mike Evans contributes a touchdown
Evans finished with 49 receiving yards and a touchdown in the supplied player data. His yardage was only one behind Robinson’s, giving San Francisco another receiver capable of making a meaningful contribution.
His touchdown was one of the plays that extended the 49ers’ lead in the third quarter. That score mattered because it came after Los Angeles had been held scoreless in the period.
Evans’ production highlights the importance of spreading scoring responsibility across multiple targets. The 49ers did not depend on a single receiver to produce every passing touchdown.
Deebo Samuel Sr. delivers another scoring play
Samuel recorded 48 receiving yards and a touchdown in the supplied data. He also gained 12 rushing yards on one carry, adding another dimension to his contribution.
His receiving touchdown in the fourth quarter helped push San Francisco’s lead to 24-7 before the final field goal. That sequence left the Rams needing multiple scores to catch up.
Samuel’s combined rushing and receiving involvement shows why total offensive contribution can be more revealing than looking at one statistical category alone.
George Kittle and the supporting receivers
Kittle recorded two catches for 12 yards in the supplied data. Those numbers were modest compared with Robinson’s yardage, but receiving production should be evaluated in the context of a player’s role and the distribution of targets across the offense.
Farrell added 19 yards on two catches, while McCaffrey’s receiving work contributed another 20 yards. Black and Brendel also appeared in the receiving totals.
The 49ers’ passing offense spread its production across several players. Robinson led in yards, while the listed touchdown catches were shared by Robinson, Evans, and Samuel.
Los Angeles Rams receiving stats
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Longest Reception | TD |
| Puka Nacua | 5 | 74 | 14.8 | 41 | 0 |
| Davante Adams | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 13 | 0 |
| Kyren Williams | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 16 | 0 |
| Davis Allen | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 13 | 0 |
| Tyler Higbee | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Jordan Whittington | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 | 0 |
| Colby Parkinson | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 | 0 |
| Ronnie Rivers | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 | 0 |
Puka Nacua leads Los Angeles
Nacua recorded five receptions for 74 yards, averaging 14.8 yards per catch. His longest reception covered 41 yards, giving him the largest receiving total for either team.
His production is an important reminder that individual success does not always translate into a team victory. Nacua generated more receiving yards than any 49ers player, yet the Rams finished with only seven points.
The key distinction is that receiving yardage and touchdown production measure different things. Nacua moved the ball effectively, but he did not record a touchdown in the supplied statistics.
Davante Adams and the supporting cast
Adams recorded three catches for 26 yards. Williams added 24 receiving yards, while Allen, Higbee, Whittington, Parkinson, and Rivers contributed smaller totals.
The Rams did have several players involved in the passing game. The problem was not that every reception came from one player, but that the passing production did not produce a passing touchdown.
The team’s receiving line listed 168 yards and no touchdown receptions. Its only touchdown came on Williams’ rushing play. This is the most direct statistical explanation for the difference between the Rams’ passing yardage and their final score.
Why receiving touchdowns matter more than raw yardage alone
A receiver’s impact should be assessed using several figures together:
- Receptions: How often the player caught the ball.
- Receiving yards: How much ground the player gained through catches.
- Yards per reception: How productive each completed catch was on average.
- Touchdowns: Whether the player directly completed a scoring play.
- Longest reception: Whether the player produced a particularly large gain.
In this game, Nacua led in receiving yards, while Robinson had the highest receiving-yard total for San Francisco and recorded a touchdown. The contrast provides a useful example of why one leading statistic cannot explain the whole game.
Defensive Player Stats: Fred Warner, Nick Bosa and Quentin Lake
Defense played an important role in the final result, particularly because Los Angeles failed to score after the second quarter. The 49ers recorded 69 total tackles, while the Rams recorded 78. However, tackle totals alone do not determine which defense performed better.
San Francisco’s defense limited the Rams to seven points, while Los Angeles allowed 27. The Rams also recorded seven passes defended compared with four for San Francisco, showing that their defensive players remained active even as the team fell behind.
San Francisco 49ers defensive leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Tackles for Loss | Passes Defended |
| Fred Warner | 11 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Marques Sigle | 9 | 4 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Deommodore Lenoir | 6 | 3 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Dre Greenlaw | 6 | 1 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Nick Bosa | 4 | 3 | 0 | 2 | Not reported |
Fred Warner leads the 49ers in tackles
Warner finished with 11 total tackles, including five solo tackles, and one pass defended. He led San Francisco in total tackles.
Tackles provide a measure of defensive involvement, but their meaning depends on the situation. A tackle after a short gain can be valuable because it limits the offense’s progress. A tackle after a large gain may prevent further damage but still leave the defense in a difficult position.
Warner’s total establishes him as the team’s leading tackler in this game. The available statistics do not, by themselves, show how many of those tackles occurred on third downs or how many prevented first downs.
Nick Bosa contributes in the backfield
Bosa recorded four total tackles, three solo tackles, two tackles for loss, and one quarterback hit in the supplied defensive data.
His tackles for loss are particularly useful when examining defensive impact. They indicate that he was involved in plays that stopped offensive players behind the line of scrimmage.
The supplied team statistics list no sacks for either side. Bosa’s pressure-related contribution therefore needs to be described accurately: he recorded tackles for loss and a quarterback hit, but no sack.
San Francisco’s interception contribution
Renardo Green recorded one interception, with no return yards or defensive touchdown listed.
An interception ends the opponent’s passing play and gives the defense a chance to return possession to its offense. Even when it produces no return yardage, it can influence field position and prevent the opposing quarterback from completing a drive.
Both teams recorded one interception in the supplied statistics, so the interception count alone does not explain the 20-point margin. The broader scoring and turnover figures are needed to understand the full difference.
Los Angeles Rams defensive leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Tackles for Loss | Passes Defended |
| Quentin Lake | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Kamren Kinchens | 9 | 3 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
| Nate Landman | 8 | 5 | Not reported | 1 | 1 |
| Kobie Turner | 7 | 2 | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Quentin Lake’s defensive activity
Lake led the Rams with 10 total tackles, seven solo tackles, and three passes defended. His three passes defended were notable because they show direct involvement in disrupting passing attempts.
However, defensive activity must be considered alongside the team’s result. The Rams defended several passes, but San Francisco still completed 25 passes for 205 yards and three touchdowns.
This does not mean Lake’s individual performance was ineffective. It means that his personal statistics and the defense’s overall result tell different parts of the story.
Comparing the two defenses
| Defensive Statistic | 49ers | Rams |
| Total tackles | 69 | 78 |
| Solo tackles | 33 | 36 |
| Sacks | 0 | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 | 1 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 7 |
| Quarterback hits | 8 | 2 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
The Rams had more tackles and passes defended, but San Francisco recorded more quarterback hits and tackles for loss. These categories capture different aspects of defense.
The 49ers’ eight quarterback hits compared with the Rams’ two suggest that San Francisco generated more recorded contact with the opposing quarterback. However, neither team recorded a sack, so the pressure did not translate into a sack in the official statistical line provided.
The decisive difference was the final scoring result. San Francisco’s defense held Los Angeles scoreless in the third and fourth quarters, while its offense continued to add points.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change an NFL game quickly, but their impact should be measured alongside scoring and field position.
The supplied statistics list one interception for each team. They also list two Rams fumbles, one of which was lost, while San Francisco had no fumbles lost.
| Turnover Statistic | 49ers | Rams |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Fumbles recorded | Not specified beyond recovery data | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Fumble recoveries credited to 49ers | 1 | Not applicable |
| Defensive interceptions recorded | 1 | 1 |
San Francisco’s Keion White recorded a fumble recovery. Los Angeles’ Tyler Higbee was credited with a fumble that was lost, while Jordan Whittington recorded a fumble that was not lost.
This information requires careful interpretation because a fumble is not automatically a turnover. A fumble becomes a change of possession only if the opposing team recovers it. The distinction between fumbles and fumbles lost is therefore essential when comparing team ball security.
The supplied data indicate that the Rams lost one fumble, while the 49ers did not lose one. Combined with the interceptions, the turnover figures suggest a modest possession-security advantage for San Francisco, rather than a game decided solely by turnovers.
The scoring margin also shows why turnovers are only one part of the analysis. Purdy threw an interception, but he also produced three touchdown passes. Stafford threw an interception without a passing touchdown. The overall outcome reflected both ball security and the ability to finish offensive possessions.
Special Teams Stats: Eddy Pineiro and Harrison Mevis
Special teams contributed to the final score through San Francisco’s field goals and the extra points following touchdowns.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Eddy Pineiro, 49ers | Harrison Mevis, Rams |
| Field goals made | 2 | 0 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 0 |
| Field-goal percentage | 66.7% | Not applicable |
| Longest field goal | 56 yards | Not applicable |
| Extra points made | 3 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 1 |
| Total points | 9 | 1 |
Pineiro made two field goals and all three extra points, finishing with nine points. His longest successful field goal covered 56 yards.
That 56-yard kick was particularly valuable because it added three points after the 49ers had already established a lead. Field goals do not carry the same value as touchdowns, but they can increase the pressure on an opponent that needs to score repeatedly to catch up.
Mevis converted the Rams’ only extra-point attempt. Since Los Angeles did not attempt a field goal in the supplied statistics, there is no field-goal percentage to compare meaningfully with Pineiro’s 66.7%.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Corliss Waitman, 49ers | Ethan Evans, Rams |
| Punts | 2 | 3 |
| Total punting yards | 94 | 145 |
| Average yards per punt | 47.0 | 48.3 |
| Longest punt | 51 yards | 54 yards |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 0 | 2 |
Evans averaged 48.3 yards per punt, slightly more than Waitman’s 47.0. He also placed two punts inside the 20-yard line, while the supplied data show no such punts for Waitman.
These figures suggest that Los Angeles had some success with punt placement. However, the number of punts is influenced by offensive performance, field position, and game circumstances. Three punts for one team and two for the other do not automatically establish which punter had the greater overall impact.
Return-game production
The 49ers’ Deebo Samuel Sr. recorded two kick returns for 74 yards, averaging 37.0 yards per return. His longest return was 45 yards.
For the Rams, Jordan Whittington recorded four kick returns for 94 yards, while Xavier Smith added one return for 25 yards. The Rams’ total was 119 yards on five kick returns, averaging 23.8 yards per return.
San Francisco also recorded 17 punt-return yards through Jacob Cowing, while Smith had 11 punt-return yards for Los Angeles.
The return statistics show that both teams generated some field-position value on special teams. San Francisco had the higher average kick-return yardage, while Los Angeles recorded more total kick-return yards because it had more returns.
Team Statistics: Why the 49ers Won 27-7
Individual performances explain who contributed, but team statistics help explain how the result developed.
The game totals show that San Francisco gained more overall yardage, sustained more successful offensive plays, and held the Rams scoreless after halftime.
| Team Statistic | 49ers | Rams |
| Total net yards | 379 | 290 |
| Passing yards | 205 | 168 |
| Rushing yards | 174 | 122 |
| First downs | 23 | 15 |
| Third-down conversions | 7 of 12 | 2 of 9 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 58.3% | 22.2% |
| Fourth-down conversions | 0 of 0 | 1 of 3 |
| Time of possession | 33:50 | 26:10 |
| Penalties | 2 | 4 |
| Penalty yards | 21 | 43 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
Team totals above follow the supplied game data and the corresponding published game summary. Some individual receiving subtotals in the supplied dataset differ from other box-score displays, so they should be verified against the official record before final publication.
Total yards: San Francisco creates more offense
The 49ers gained 379 total net yards, compared with 290 for the Rams. That is an advantage of 89 yards.
The difference came from both phases of the offense. San Francisco recorded 205 passing yards and 174 rushing yards, while Los Angeles recorded 168 passing yards and 122 rushing yards.
The 49ers therefore had an advantage in both categories. This is more significant than leading in only one phase because it shows that their production was not limited to a single offensive approach.
Total yards do not directly equal points, and a team can gain substantial yardage without scoring touchdowns. Nevertheless, the 89-yard advantage aligns with San Francisco’s ability to sustain more productive offensive sequences.
First downs and third-down conversions
San Francisco recorded 23 first downs, eight more than Los Angeles. First downs indicate that an offense repeatedly gained enough yardage to continue its possession.
The third-down figures are even more revealing. The 49ers converted seven of 12 attempts, while the Rams converted only two of nine.
A third-down conversion rate of 58.3% gave San Francisco more opportunities to keep drives alive. Los Angeles’ 22.2% rate meant that it frequently failed to gain the yardage needed to extend a possession on third down.
These numbers help explain the possession difference. San Francisco held the ball for 33 minutes and 50 seconds, compared with 26 minutes and 10 seconds for the Rams.
Longer possession does not automatically guarantee victory, but in this game it accompanied more first downs, more total yards, and a larger scoring output.
Penalties and lost yardage
The Rams were penalized four times for 43 yards, while San Francisco was penalized twice for 21 yards.
Penalty yardage can place an offense in a less favorable situation or extend an opponent’s drive. The Rams’ additional penalties were a negative statistical factor, although the box score alone cannot establish exactly how much each penalty changed the game’s outcome.
The difference was two penalties and 22 penalty yards. That was not the only reason Los Angeles lost, but it was another area in which the 49ers finished with the better team total.
Red-zone efficiency and scoring opportunities
Red-zone performance is useful when assessing how effectively an offense turns field position into points. However, the exact red-zone totals should be confirmed from a consistent official statistical source before making detailed claims about the number of trips and touchdowns.
The scoring summary provides a clearer direct picture of the outcome: San Francisco threw three touchdown passes and made two field goals, while Los Angeles scored one rushing touchdown and one extra point.
That contrast captures the central difference. The 49ers found multiple ways to finish scoring possessions, while the Rams failed to produce any points after their second-quarter touchdown.
What the Match Reveals About Both Teams
The statistical evidence supports several conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses displayed in this matchup. These are observations from one game, not proof that the same patterns will continue throughout the season.
1. San Francisco combined passing and rushing production
The 49ers gained 205 passing yards and 174 rushing yards. Their offense was productive in both areas, and Purdy’s three touchdown passes gave the team a decisive scoring advantage.
The combination matters because a defense must account for both the running game and the passing game. The statistics show that San Francisco gained yards through multiple offensive contributors rather than relying exclusively on one player.
2. The Rams produced yards but struggled to score
Los Angeles recorded 290 total net yards, including 168 passing yards and 122 rushing yards. Those totals indicate that the offense generated yardage, even though it finished with only seven points.
The difference between yardage and scoring is important. A successful offensive play may move the ball without producing a touchdown. The Rams’ inability to score after halftime was a more decisive issue than their raw yardage totals alone.
3. San Francisco’s third-down advantage helped sustain possessions
The 49ers converted seven of 12 third-down attempts, while the Rams converted two of nine. This difference accompanied San Francisco’s advantage in first downs and time of possession.
Third-down efficiency is useful because it measures whether an offense can continue a drive after failing to reach the first-down marker on earlier plays. The 49ers were more successful in these situations, which helped them maintain offensive opportunities.
4. Individual leaders had different kinds of impact
The leading players did not all contribute in the same way:
- Purdy supplied the passing touchdowns.
- McCaffrey led San Francisco in rushing yards.
- Robinson led the 49ers in receiving yards in the supplied individual data.
- Nacua led the Rams in receiving yards.
- Warner led San Francisco in total tackles.
- Lake led the Rams in total tackles and passes defended.
- Pineiro supplied nine points through field goals and extra points.
These differences matter when interpreting player statistics. The most productive player in one category is not necessarily the player with the greatest influence on the final score.
5. Defensive statistics need context
The Rams recorded more tackles and passes defended than the 49ers. Yet San Francisco allowed fewer points and recorded more quarterback hits.
This is why defensive analysis should consider several metrics together. Tackles, passes defended, quarterback hits, tackles for loss, turnovers, and points allowed describe different parts of defensive performance.
A higher tackle total does not automatically mean a defense controlled the game. It may also reflect the number of plays the opposing offense ran or the situations in which defenders made their stops.
How to Read NFL Player Statistics Correctly
For readers comparing box scores, fantasy football performances, or team results, a few basic principles help avoid misleading conclusions.
Passing statistics
Start with completions, attempts, passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. Then consider completion percentage, yards per attempt, and passer rating.
A quarterback who throws for 300 yards is not automatically more effective than one who throws for 200 yards. Touchdowns, turnovers, and the circumstances of each performance also matter.
Rushing statistics
Compare carries, rushing yards, yards per carry, and rushing touchdowns. Workload is important because a player gaining 60 yards on 10 carries has a different statistical profile from a player gaining the same yards on 20 carries.
However, yards per carry is an average, not a full account of every run. It does not reveal whether a player consistently gained positive yardage or produced one unusually long run.
Receiving statistics
Receptions, targets, yards, touchdowns, and yards per catch provide a useful starting point. Targets add context because they show how often a player was given an opportunity to catch a pass.
A receiver with fewer catches can still have a major impact if those catches produce large gains or touchdowns. Robinson’s two catches for 50 yards illustrate this distinction.
Defensive statistics
Tackles and sacks are useful, but they do not capture every defensive responsibility. Passes defended, interceptions, quarterback hits, and tackles for loss provide additional context.
A player may influence a play without recording a tackle or sack. Therefore, box-score statistics are best used as evidence of recorded production rather than a complete measure of defensive quality.
Why official box scores matter
Before publishing an NFL statistical article, check that individual figures agree with team totals and that player names, dates, and scoring summaries are consistent.
This is particularly important for receiving statistics, where a mismatch between player receptions and team completions can make an otherwise useful analysis inaccurate. If two statistical feeds disagree, the official game box score should be the primary reference.
For the original game record, consult the official San Francisco 49ers box score. It provides the scoring breakdown, team statistics, and player-level passing, rushing, and receiving figures.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the 49ers vs Rams game on September 11, 2026?
The San Francisco 49ers defeated the Los Angeles Rams 27-7. San Francisco scored in all four quarters, while Los Angeles scored its only touchdown in the second quarter.
2. How many passing yards did Brock Purdy record against the Rams?
Brock Purdy completed 25 of 34 passes for 205 yards, three touchdowns, and one interception. He finished with a reported passer rating of 105.6.
3. How many passing yards did Matthew Stafford record?
Matthew Stafford completed 15 of 25 passes for 155 yards, with no passing touchdowns and one interception. The Rams’ other listed quarterback, Stetson Bennett IV, added 13 passing yards.
4. Who led the game in rushing yards?
Christian McCaffrey led San Francisco with 68 rushing yards on 10 carries. Blake Corum led the Rams with 54 rushing yards on 10 carries.
5. Who was the leading receiver for the 49ers and Rams?
Demarcus Robinson led the 49ers with 50 receiving yards in the supplied individual statistics. Puka Nacua led the Rams with 74 yards on five receptions.
6. Which defensive players recorded the most tackles?
Fred Warner led San Francisco with 11 total tackles. Quentin Lake led Los Angeles with 10 total tackles and also recorded three passes defended.
Conclusion
The 49ers vs los angeles rams match player stats reveal why San Francisco earned its 27-7 victory. Brock Purdy’s three touchdown passes, Christian McCaffrey’s efficient rushing performance, and the contributions of San Francisco’s receiving group helped the 49ers build and maintain their lead.
Los Angeles had some encouraging individual performances. Puka Nacua led the Rams in receiving yards, Blake Corum led their rushing attack, and Quentin Lake recorded 10 tackles. Nevertheless, the Rams struggled to convert their offensive yardage into points and failed to score in the second half.
The team statistics reinforce the result. San Francisco gained 379 total net yards, compared with 290 for Los Angeles, and converted seven of 12 third downs against the Rams’ two of nine. The 49ers also held the ball longer and recorded fewer penalty yards.
The most important lesson from this game is that winning football requires more than individual statistical achievements. Passing efficiency, rushing production, third-down execution, ball security, and the ability to finish scoring opportunities all contribute to the final result. In this matchup, San Francisco performed better across several of those categories and finished with a comfortable 20-point victory.
For readers examining the box score, the individual player numbers explain who contributed, while the team statistics show how those performances combined to shape the outcome. Both perspectives are necessary for a complete understanding of the game.
