Los Angeles Rams vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats
The los angeles rams vs philadelphia eagles match player stats from September 21, 2025, reveal how Philadelphia overcame an early deficit to secure a 33-26 victory at home. The Rams built a strong first-half lead through Matthew Stafford’s passing, Puka Nacua’s consistent production, and Kyren Williams’ effective rushing. However, Jalen Hurts and the Eagles offense responded with a decisive third-quarter surge before holding Los Angeles scoreless in the fourth quarter. The game offers a useful look at quarterback efficiency, receiving production, rushing balance, defensive pressure, and the importance of finishing drives in the NFL.
The final score tells only part of the story. Los Angeles scored 19 points in the first half, while Philadelphia scored just seven. The Eagles then scored 14 points in the third quarter and added 12 in the fourth to complete the comeback. Although the Rams produced 160 rushing yards and had a productive receiving performance from Nacua, Philadelphia found more ways to turn key possessions into points.
This breakdown examines the individual player performances, team statistics, scoring progression, and tactical factors that shaped the result. It also highlights an important data discrepancy in the supplied passing statistics so readers can distinguish between the reported figures and conclusions that can be drawn confidently.
Game Overview: Rams vs Eagles
The September 21 meeting featured two teams with different approaches to offensive production. Los Angeles combined its passing attack with a productive ground game, while Philadelphia relied on Hurts’ touchdown passing and contributions from several receivers.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Los Angeles Rams vs Philadelphia Eagles |
| Date | September 21, 2025 |
| Venue designation | Philadelphia home game |
| Final score | Eagles 33, Rams 26 |
| Rams points | 10, 9, 7, 0 |
| Eagles points | 7, 0, 14, 12 |
| Rams record after game | 2-1 |
| Eagles record after game | 3-0 |
| Game status | Final |
Philadelphia improved to 3-0 overall and 2-0 at home after the win. Los Angeles moved to 2-1 overall, with a 1-1 away record.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring is especially important. The Rams scored in each of the first three quarters but failed to add points in the fourth. Philadelphia’s offense, meanwhile, generated 26 points after halftime, including the 12 points that ultimately separated the teams from a possible late tie or Rams comeback.
The result demonstrates why an NFL game should be assessed through more than total yards or individual player statistics. A team can produce substantial offensive numbers yet lose if it fails to sustain its scoring late in the contest.
Los Angeles Rams vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats: Quarterback Comparison
Quarterback performance shaped the contest, but the difference between the two passers was not simply a matter of passing yards. Stafford produced two touchdown passes and kept Los Angeles ahead for much of the game. Hurts finished with three touchdown passes and made critical completions during Philadelphia’s comeback.
Matthew Stafford’s passing statistics
Matthew Stafford
Los Angeles Rams · Quarterback
196 passing yards
19 completions on 33 attempts
Touchdowns
2
Interceptions
1
Passer rating
82.4
Completion rate
57.6%
Yards per attempt
5.9
Sacks recorded
1
Stafford completed 19 of his 33 passes, giving him a completion rate of approximately 57.6%. His two touchdown passes helped the Rams establish control early, including a 44-yard scoring connection with Davante Adams.
That long completion demonstrated Los Angeles’ ability to punish Philadelphia when a receiver found space downfield. Adams averaged 18.7 yards per reception, and his 44-yard touchdown was the longest reception listed among the Rams’ receivers.
Stafford also connected with Kyren Williams for a 10-yard touchdown reception early in the third quarter. That play extended the Rams’ lead to 26-7 and appeared to put Philadelphia in a difficult position.
However, Stafford’s passing production did not translate into another scoring drive in the fourth quarter. Los Angeles had opportunities to regain control but could not turn its final possessions into the points needed to win.
His interception also mattered. Zack Baun intercepted Stafford on Philadelphia’s opening defensive series, giving the Eagles an early opportunity to establish a lead. Although the Rams recovered from that initial setback, the turnover was an important reminder that possession quality matters as much as passing volume.
Jalen Hurts’ passing statistics
Jalen Hurts
Philadelphia Eagles · Quarterback
226 passing yards
21 completions on 32 attempts
Touchdowns
3
Interceptions
0
Passer rating
117.4
Completion rate
65.6%
Yards per attempt
7.1
Sacks taken
4
Hurts completed 21 of 32 attempts and threw three touchdown passes without an interception. His reported passer rating of 117.4 reflected a more efficient passing performance than Stafford’s on the supplied individual quarterback statistics.
The most important difference was how Hurts performed during the comeback. He connected with Dallas Goedert for a 33-yard touchdown, found A.J. Brown for a nine-yard score, and delivered the decisive fourth-quarter touchdown pass to DeVonta Smith.
These plays demonstrated the value of spreading the ball among multiple targets. Philadelphia did not need one receiver to account for every important gain. Instead, Hurts used different options to attack the Rams’ defense as the game developed.
Hurts also faced pressure. The supplied statistics list four sacks for 24 yards. That pressure disrupted some passing opportunities, but it did not prevent him from leading scoring drives when the game was on the line.
His contribution extended beyond throwing. Hurts scored Philadelphia’s opening touchdown on a one-yard rushing play, giving him a rushing score in addition to his three passing touchdowns.
Quarterback comparison table
| Statistic | Matthew Stafford | Jalen Hurts |
| Completions | 19 | 21 |
| Attempts | 33 | 32 |
| Completion rate | 57.6% | 65.6% |
| Passing yards | 196 | 226 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.9 | 7.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Passer rating | 82.4 | 117.4 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 4 |
Note: The individual player rows supplied for this game list Hurts with 226 passing yards. The team passing summary lists Philadelphia with 202 net passing yards. These are different measures, and the discrepancy is explained in the data notes below.
The comparison points to three main differences:
- Passing efficiency: Hurts completed a larger share of his attempts and gained more yards per attempt.
- Turnover avoidance: Hurts threw no interceptions in the supplied player statistics, while Stafford threw one.
- Touchdown production: Hurts threw three touchdown passes, compared with Stafford’s two.
Stafford’s performance was productive enough to give Los Angeles a substantial lead. Hurts, however, delivered the more decisive finish.
Running Back Statistics: Kyren Williams vs Saquon Barkley
The rushing numbers reveal an interesting contrast. Los Angeles gained substantially more yardage on the ground, but Philadelphia found a way to score a rushing touchdown and use its running game during critical moments.
Kyren Williams’ rushing performance
Kyren Williams
Los Angeles Rams
94 rushing yards
- 20 carries
- 4.7 yards per carry
- Longest run: 13 yards
- Zero rushing touchdowns
Williams carried the ball 20 times for 94 yards, averaging 4.7 yards per attempt. His workload made him the foundation of Los Angeles’ ground attack.
His average was strong enough to help the Rams maintain balance between running and passing. When an offense can gain close to five yards per carry, it can create manageable situations on second and third downs and reduce the need to rely entirely on difficult passing plays.
Williams also contributed as a receiver, catching two passes for 18 yards and a touchdown. That receiving score came on a 10-yard pass from Stafford early in the third quarter.
The distinction between rushing and receiving touchdowns matters when interpreting his performance. Williams did not score on a carry, but his receiving touchdown was a key part of the Rams’ 26-point total.
Blake Corum provides a useful secondary option
Blake Corum carried the ball eight times for 53 yards, averaging 6.6 yards per carry. His longest run was 12 yards.
Corum’s average exceeded Williams’ by 1.9 yards per carry. That does not automatically mean Corum was the more valuable running back because Williams handled more attempts and had a different role in the offense. It does show that Los Angeles had another productive rushing option.
Together, Williams and Corum accounted for 147 rushing yards on 28 carries. That represented the vast majority of the Rams’ 160 team rushing yards.
The Rams’ ability to distribute carries helped them keep the ground game productive without relying on a single runner for every attempt.
Saquon Barkley’s rushing performance
Saquon Barkley
Philadelphia Eagles
46 rushing yards
- 18 carries
- 2.6 yards per carry
- Longest run: 12 yards
- Zero rushing touchdowns
Barkley recorded 46 rushing yards on 18 carries. His 2.6-yard average was considerably lower than Williams’ 4.7-yard average, indicating that the Eagles had less success generating consistent rushing yardage through their primary running back.
However, rushing averages alone do not capture every contribution. Barkley also caught four passes for nine yards and was involved in important late-game situations.
During Philadelphia’s decisive fourth-quarter drive, Barkley helped the offense sustain possession with a key third-down carry. The value of that play was not necessarily its yardage. Its importance came from keeping the drive alive when the Eagles needed to maintain control of the clock and reach the end zone.
Jalen Hurts adds a rushing threat
Hurts carried the ball nine times for 40 yards, averaging 4.4 yards per carry. His longest run was 18 yards, and he scored one rushing touchdown.
His rushing ability gave Philadelphia an additional option beyond its conventional running game. Defenses must account for the quarterback as a potential ball carrier, which can complicate assignments around the line of scrimmage.
Hurts’ nine carries also demonstrate why his impact cannot be assessed through passing statistics alone. His rushing score supplied Philadelphia with its opening touchdown and contributed to the pressure he placed on the Rams’ defensive structure.
Rushing comparison
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Rushing TDs |
| Kyren Williams | 20 | 94 | 4.7 | 0 |
| Blake Corum | 8 | 53 | 6.6 | 0 |
| Saquon Barkley | 18 | 46 | 2.6 | 0 |
| Jalen Hurts | 9 | 40 | 4.4 | 1 |
Los Angeles finished with 160 rushing yards on 31 carries, while Philadelphia produced 86 yards on 27 carries.
The Rams had the clear advantage in rushing yardage. Philadelphia nevertheless won because it converted key opportunities into touchdowns and produced a decisive defensive score at the end.
This is an important lesson when reading NFL player statistics: greater efficiency in one area does not guarantee a victory if another part of the game changes the result.
Receiving Statistics: Which Wide Receivers Made the Biggest Impact?
The receiving statistics show that both teams had players capable of producing explosive gains. Puka Nacua led Los Angeles in catches and receiving yards, while A.J. Brown delivered Philadelphia’s most productive receiving performance by yardage. DeVonta Smith and Dallas Goedert also scored touchdowns that helped change the game.
Puka Nacua’s performance for the Rams
Puka Nacua
Los Angeles Rams · Wide receiver
Receptions
11
Receiving yards
112
Targets
15
Yards per catch
10.2
Longest reception: 20 yards · Receiving touchdowns: 0
Nacua caught 11 passes for 112 yards on 15 targets. He was Stafford’s most frequently targeted receiver and provided a reliable option throughout the passing game.
His 11 receptions were especially important because they gave Los Angeles a way to move the ball without depending entirely on long completions. Repeated catches can keep an offense ahead of the chains, create opportunities after the catch, and help sustain drives.
Nacua averaged 10.2 yards per reception. Although that average was lower than Adams’ figure, his greater volume meant he finished with more than twice Adams’ receiving yardage.
The absence of a receiving touchdown should not overshadow his contribution. Nacua generated substantial yardage and helped the Rams establish their early advantage. His performance illustrates the difference between a receiver who creates consistent opportunities and one whose production is concentrated in a small number of explosive plays.
Davante Adams provides the explosive scoring threat
Adams finished with three receptions for 56 yards and one touchdown on eight targets. He averaged 18.7 yards per catch, and his longest reception was a 44-yard touchdown.
His contribution was less frequent than Nacua’s but more concentrated in high-impact plays. The touchdown gave the Rams the lead in the first quarter and demonstrated the danger of allowing Adams space downfield.
For a receiving unit, having both players serve different roles can be valuable. Nacua supplied repeated completions, while Adams produced a major scoring play. That combination helped Los Angeles score 19 first-half points.
Adams’ numbers also show why reception totals should not be treated as a complete measure of receiver value. Three catches can have a substantial effect when one of them results in a long touchdown.
Kyren Williams contributes in the passing game
Williams caught two passes for 18 yards and a touchdown. His longest reception was 10 yards.
That receiving touchdown was important because it extended the Rams’ lead to 26-7 shortly after halftime. It also highlighted Williams’ versatility as a runner who can contribute when the offense uses him as a receiving option.
A running back who catches passes can create difficult decisions for a defense. Linebackers must recognize whether the player is staying in the backfield to block, taking a handoff, or releasing into the passing game.
Other Rams receiving contributions
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Touchdowns | Targets |
| Puka Nacua | 11 | 112 | 0 | 15 |
| Davante Adams | 3 | 56 | 1 | 8 |
| Kyren Williams | 2 | 18 | 1 | 3 |
| Jordan Whittington | 2 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
| Davis Allen | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 |
| Tyler Higbee | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Tutu Atwell | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Nacua and Adams accounted for 168 of the Rams’ 196 receiving yards. This concentration shows that Los Angeles relied heavily on its leading wide receivers for passing production.
Whittington, Allen, Higbee, and Atwell had smaller statistical roles in the supplied figures. The available numbers alone do not establish why certain players received fewer opportunities, so their totals should not be used to draw conclusions about their overall ability.
A.J. Brown leads Philadelphia’s receiving attack
A.J. Brown
Philadelphia Eagles · Wide receiver
Receptions
6
Receiving yards
109
Targets
10
Yards per catch
18.2
Longest reception: 38 yards · Receiving touchdowns: 1
Brown finished with six receptions for 109 yards and a touchdown. His 18.2 yards per catch was substantially higher than Nacua’s average, reflecting the more explosive nature of his production.
Brown’s impact was particularly clear during the Eagles’ comeback. His 38-yard reception helped Philadelphia attack downfield, and he later caught a nine-yard touchdown. During the late fourth-quarter drive, he also converted two important third-and-10 situations.
Those conversions are important because third-and-long plays can force an offense into predictable passing situations. Gaining enough yardage to move the chains allows a team to continue its drive, consume time, and increase the chance of scoring.
Brown’s statistics therefore tell two stories. His overall yardage shows that he was Philadelphia’s leading receiver, while his key late-game catches demonstrate how timing and situational execution can matter as much as total production.
DeVonta Smith’s eight catches and decisive touchdown
Smith recorded eight receptions for 60 yards and one touchdown on nine targets. He averaged 7.5 yards per catch, with a longest reception of 16 yards.
Although Brown gained more receiving yards, Smith made one of the most consequential catches of the contest. His four-yard touchdown reception with 1:48 remaining gave Philadelphia a 27-26 lead.
The touchdown was not a long play, but its significance was enormous. It came on fourth-and-goal and capped a long drive that helped Philadelphia take control of the game.
Smith’s eight receptions also gave Hurts a dependable short-to-intermediate option. A receiver does not need a high yards-per-catch average to contribute to a winning passing attack. Reliable catches on key downs can keep a drive alive and create opportunities for other players.
Dallas Goedert’s touchdown changes the momentum
Goedert caught one pass for 33 yards and a touchdown on two targets. His single reception was the Eagles’ longest scoring play among the listed touchdown catches, matching his 33-yard gain.
The touchdown helped begin Philadelphia’s comeback in the third quarter. After the Rams extended their lead to 26-7, Goedert’s score reduced the deficit and gave the Eagles an important response.
His statistics demonstrate the impact a tight end can have when a defense is focused on wide receivers. A single well-timed reception can create a major change in field position and scoring probability.
Other Eagles receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Touchdowns | Targets |
| A.J. Brown | 6 | 109 | 1 | 10 |
| DeVonta Smith | 8 | 60 | 1 | 9 |
| Dallas Goedert | 1 | 33 | 1 | 2 |
| Saquon Barkley | 4 | 9 | 0 | 5 |
| John Metchie III | 1 | 8 | 0 | 1 |
| Jahan Dotson | 1 | 7 | 0 | 3 |
Philadelphia’s listed receiving production was distributed among three main scoring targets. Brown produced the most yardage, Smith recorded the most catches, and Goedert generated a touchdown on his only reception.
That distribution made the passing game less dependent on one statistical category. Brown supplied explosive gains, Smith contributed frequent completions, and Goedert provided a major scoring play.
Receiving comparison: Rams vs Eagles
| Statistic | Rams | Eagles |
| Team receptions | 19 | 21 |
| Team receiving yards | 196 | 226 |
| Average yards per reception | 10.3 | 10.8 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 | 3 |
| Longest reception | 44 yards | 38 yards |
| Team targets | 33 | 30 |
Philadelphia recorded more receptions and receiving touchdowns, while the Rams had the longer individual reception. These figures suggest that the Eagles combined a slightly higher average gain with more scoring production through the air.
The receiving statistics also reveal a difference in how the teams reached the end zone. Los Angeles scored through Adams and Williams, while Philadelphia received touchdown contributions from Brown, Smith, and Goedert.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Sacks, and Turnovers
Defense became the defining factor in the closing stages. The Rams generated more sacks and more tackles for loss, but Philadelphia created the most decisive plays at the end of the contest.
A complete analysis of defensive production must consider more than tackles. Sacks can disrupt passing plays, tackles for loss can put an offense behind schedule, and turnovers or blocked kicks can change possession or produce points directly.
Rams defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Additional statistics |
| Kam Curl | 9 | 6 | Leading listed Rams tackler |
| Jared Verse | 6 | 4 | 1 sack, 2 tackles for loss, 1 hurry |
| Byron Young | 6 | 4 | 1 sack, 3 tackles for loss, 1 hurry |
Kam Curl led the Rams’ listed defensive players with nine tackles. His total reflects repeated involvement in stopping Philadelphia’s offense.
Verse and Young each recorded a sack and contributed to the Rams’ ability to pressure Hurts. Young’s three tackles for loss were particularly notable in the supplied statistics, indicating that he was involved in multiple plays that stopped the Eagles behind the line of scrimmage.
The Rams finished with four team sacks, seven tackles for loss, six passes defended, and four quarterback hurries.
Those numbers suggest that Los Angeles created meaningful defensive disruption. However, the defense could not turn that pressure into a victory because Philadelphia eventually sustained drives and scored in the fourth quarter.
Eagles defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Additional statistics |
| Cooper DeJean | 9 | 5 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Zack Baun | 7 | 3 | 2 passes defended; 1 interception in the game |
| Jordan Davis | Not specified in supplied player summary | Not specified | Blocked a decisive field goal and returned it for a touchdown |
DeJean led the listed Eagles defenders with nine tackles. Baun contributed in coverage and intercepted Stafford on the Rams’ opening drive.
The supplied defensive summary lists Baun’s interception separately from his individual defensive table. That distinction is worth preserving because the table does not list an interception in his individual row, while the game account confirms the turnover.
The Eagles recorded one sack, two tackles for loss, four passes defended, and seven quarterback hurries in the supplied summary. Their sack total was lower than the Rams’, but their defensive performance included two blocked field goals, one of which became the decisive play of the game.
Jordan Davis delivers the defining defensive play
The most important defensive event was not a sack or a routine tackle. Jordan Davis blocked Joshua Karty’s potential game-tying field goal as time expired and returned the ball 61 yards for a touchdown.
The play converted a narrow Philadelphia lead into a seven-point victory. It also meant the final score did not reflect a conventional offensive touchdown drive at the end.
Philadelphia had already blocked another Karty field-goal attempt earlier in the fourth quarter. Those special-teams plays were central to the result because they prevented Los Angeles from adding points and gave the Eagles opportunities to retain control.
This distinction is essential when interpreting the los angeles rams vs philadelphia eagles match player stats. Offensive statistics explain how the game developed, but the decisive result depended on a defensive play involving the kicking game.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Rams | Eagles |
| Total tackles | 66 | 74 |
| Solo tackles | 38 | 42 |
| Sacks | 4 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 7 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 6 | 4 |
| Quarterback hurries | 4 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 0 listed for team | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 listed | 1 |
The Rams were more productive in sacks and tackles for loss, while the Eagles recorded more tackles and quarterback hurries. Philadelphia’s defensive touchdown proved to be the decisive difference in the final score.
The lesson is not that sacks are unimportant. Rather, defensive value depends on when a play occurs and what it accomplishes. A blocked kick at the end of a game can have a larger immediate effect on the scoreboard than several earlier tackles.
Special Teams Statistics: Field Goals, Returns, and Punting
Special teams played a larger role in this matchup than the final score might initially suggest. The Rams’ kicker scored 14 points, but two blocked field goals prevented Los Angeles from making the most of its late opportunities.
Joshua Karty’s kicking performance
Karty converted four of six field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 51 yards. He also made both extra-point attempts, finishing with 14 total points according to the supplied statistics.
| Kicking statistic | Joshua Karty |
| Field goals made | 4 |
| Field goals attempted | 6 |
| Field-goal percentage | 66.7% |
| Longest successful field goal | 51 yards |
| Extra points made | 2 of 2 |
| Total points | 14 |
Karty’s successful kicks helped Los Angeles build its first-half advantage. He converted field goals of 51, 28, 33, and 46 yards.
The two unsuccessful attempts became much more significant than a simple missed-kick count suggests. Jalen Carter blocked one attempt in the fourth quarter, and Davis blocked the final attempt, returning it for a touchdown.
The final blocked kick came when Los Angeles was trying to produce a tying score. Instead of giving the Rams an opportunity to level the game, the play ended with Philadelphia adding another touchdown.
This was a game in which special-teams execution directly affected the result. Karty’s four successful field goals were valuable, but the blocked attempts prevented Los Angeles from converting late opportunities into points.
Jake Elliott’s kicking statistics
Elliott made all three of his extra-point attempts and finished with three points. Philadelphia did not attempt a field goal according to the supplied kicking statistics.
His role was different from Karty’s because the Eagles scored five touchdowns, including the defensive touchdown by Davis. Elliott’s extra points supported the offensive scoring, although Philadelphia missed its two-point conversion attempt following Smith’s late touchdown.
The conversion failure left the Eagles ahead by just one point at 27-26. That narrow margin made the subsequent blocked field goal even more consequential.
Kick-return performance
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Blake Corum | Rams | 5 | 115 | 23.0 |
| John Metchie III | Eagles | 3 | 31 | 10.3 |
| Tank Bigsby | Eagles | 2 | 24 | 12.0 |
Corum led the game in kick-return yardage, gaining 115 yards on five returns. His average of 23 yards per return gave Los Angeles a useful source of field position.
Philadelphia’s two listed returners combined for 55 yards on five returns, averaging 11 yards per return as a team.
Although return yardage does not always translate into scoring, it affects the distance an offense must cover. Better starting field position can reduce the number of successful plays needed to reach scoring range.
Punt returns and punting
Xavier Smith returned four punts for 53 yards, averaging 13.3 yards per return. His longest return was 20 yards. Philadelphia recorded no punt returns in the supplied statistics.
| Punting statistic | Ethan Evans, Rams | Braden Mann, Eagles |
| Punts | 1 | 4 |
| Total punt yards | 36 | 222 |
| Average | 36.0 yards | 55.5 yards |
| Longest punt | 36 yards | 64 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 0 |
Mann averaged 55.5 yards across four punts, while Evans punted once for 36 yards. The difference in volume reflects the teams’ different possession patterns and field-position situations.
These numbers should not be read as a direct measure of punter quality without considering hang time, return opportunities, net distance, and the position from which each punt was made. The supplied statistics establish the recorded output, but they do not provide enough information to evaluate every element of punting performance.
Team Statistics: Rams vs Eagles
The overall team figures reveal why Los Angeles could gain more yardage and still lose the game. The Rams produced more total net yards, more rushing yards, and more first downs. Philadelphia was more effective in several critical scoring situations and finished with the game’s decisive defensive touchdown.
| Team statistic | Rams | Eagles |
| Final score | 26 | 33 |
| Total net yards | 356 | 288 |
| Rushing yards | 160 | 86 |
| Net passing yards | 196 | 202 |
| First downs | 22 | 19 |
| Third-down conversions | 3 of 10 | 5 of 14 |
| Fourth-down conversions | 0 of 1 | 4 of 5 |
| Penalties | 4 for 41 yards | 5 for 50 yards |
| Time of possession | 29:25 | 30:35 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 4 | 1 |
Total yardage favored Los Angeles
The Rams finished with 356 total net yards, compared with Philadelphia’s 288. Los Angeles also gained 160 rushing yards, nearly twice the Eagles’ 86.
These numbers indicate that the Rams generated more overall offensive yardage. Their running game was productive, and their passing attack generated two touchdowns.
However, yardage does not measure the value of every possession equally. A drive that gains substantial yardage but ends without a touchdown may produce fewer points than a shorter drive that finishes in the end zone.
That distinction was especially important in this game because Los Angeles relied on field goals during the first half and could not score in the fourth quarter.
Red-zone efficiency tells a different story
The supplied official gamebook records the Rams at one successful red-zone conversion on four opportunities, while the Eagles converted all three of their red-zone opportunities.
| Red-zone statistic | Rams | Eagles |
| Successful conversions | 1 | 3 |
| Opportunities | 4 | 3 |
| Conversion rate | 25% | 100% |
The figures help explain why Philadelphia scored more touchdowns despite producing fewer total yards.
Los Angeles repeatedly reached scoring territory but had to settle for field goals on several drives. Philadelphia, by contrast, scored touchdowns on its three recorded red-zone opportunities.
Red-zone efficiency is not the only measure of offensive quality, and these figures describe just one game. Nevertheless, they show why the Rams’ yardage advantage did not translate into a win.
Third-down and fourth-down decisions
The Rams converted three of ten third downs, while Philadelphia converted five of fourteen. The Eagles’ third-down percentage was lower despite the higher conversion count because they attempted more third downs.
Fourth down was more revealing. Los Angeles converted none of its single attempt, while Philadelphia converted four of five.
Those fourth-down conversions helped the Eagles sustain drives when an ordinary punt or field-goal attempt might have ended possession. The decision to keep the offense on the field carried risk, but the conversions contributed to Philadelphia’s comeback.
One especially important sequence came on the late drive that produced Smith’s touchdown. Philadelphia maintained possession, converted key situations, and used much of the remaining clock before taking the lead.
Turnovers and possession
The supplied game summary lists one Rams interception and one Eagles lost fumble. The Rams recovered the Eagles’ fumble, while Philadelphia recorded the interception.
This balance is important because both teams had a turnover that affected the game. Baun’s interception gave Philadelphia an early opportunity, and the Rams later recovered Hurts’ fumble to set up Williams’ receiving touchdown.
The final result cannot be explained simply by saying one team protected the ball and the other did not. Both teams experienced a turnover, but Philadelphia’s defense and special teams created the decisive late-game result.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring progression provides the clearest explanation of the momentum shift.
| Quarter | Rams | Eagles | Game situation |
| First | 10 | 7 | Rams take the lead |
| Second | 9 | 0 | Rams extend the advantage |
| Third | 7 | 14 | Rams lead 26-21 |
| Fourth | 0 | 12 | Eagles complete the comeback |
| Final | 26 | 33 | Philadelphia wins |
First quarter: Both teams find scoring opportunities
Philadelphia opened the scoring with Hurts’ one-yard rushing touchdown. The Rams answered with a 51-yard field goal and then took a 10-7 lead through Stafford’s 44-yard touchdown pass to Adams.
The opening quarter established two important patterns: Philadelphia could use Hurts as a rushing threat, while Los Angeles could generate explosive passing plays.
Second quarter: Los Angeles builds a 19-7 lead
The Rams added three field goals in the second quarter, extending their advantage to 19-7. Their offense generated enough field position to score, but not every drive ended in a touchdown.
Philadelphia failed to score in the quarter. At halftime, the Eagles had work to do on both sides of the ball, while Los Angeles appeared to be controlling the contest.
Third quarter: The Rams reach a 19-point lead
Williams caught a 10-yard touchdown pass from Stafford to extend the Rams’ lead to 26-7.
Philadelphia responded with touchdowns from Goedert and Brown, cutting the deficit to 26-21 by the end of the quarter.
The shift was significant. Los Angeles had added another touchdown, but the Eagles’ offense began converting opportunities into points. Philadelphia was no longer relying only on its defense to remain competitive.
Fourth quarter: Philadelphia takes control
The Eagles stopped the Rams from extending their lead and blocked another Karty field-goal attempt. Hurts then led a long drive that ended with Smith’s four-yard touchdown catch.
The Eagles took a 27-26 lead after the extra-point attempt failed on the subsequent two-point try. Los Angeles still had a chance to respond, but its final field-goal attempt was blocked by Davis.
Davis returned the blocked kick 61 yards for a touchdown, producing the final 33-26 score.
The ending was unusual because Philadelphia’s final touchdown came from a defensive return rather than an offensive possession. It turned a one-point lead into a seven-point victory and prevented the Rams from forcing a tie.
For the full play-by-play sequence, the official Eagles game recap provides the scoring chronology and descriptions of the decisive plays.
Why the Eagles Won Despite Fewer Total Yards
Philadelphia’s victory was not based on dominating every statistical category. Instead, the Eagles combined quarterback execution, receiving touchdowns, fourth-down conversions, and high-impact defensive plays.
Four factors stand out.
1. The Eagles converted scoring opportunities into touchdowns
The Rams’ 160 rushing yards and 356 total net yards gave them a strong statistical foundation. However, Los Angeles finished with one recorded red-zone touchdown on four opportunities.
Philadelphia recorded three touchdowns on three red-zone opportunities. That difference meant the Eagles extracted more points from their opportunities near the end zone.
2. Hurts delivered touchdowns to multiple receivers
Brown, Smith, and Goedert all caught touchdown passes. Their contributions forced Los Angeles to defend different parts of the field rather than concentrating exclusively on one receiver.
Hurts also scored on the ground, giving the Eagles an additional scoring threat.
3. Philadelphia made important fourth-down conversions
The Eagles converted four of five fourth-down attempts. Those plays helped extend drives and maintain possession during the comeback.
Fourth-down success can be especially valuable when a team is behind because ending a drive without scoring may leave too little time for another possession. Philadelphia’s successful conversions helped keep its comeback alive.
4. The defense and special teams delivered when the margin was narrow
Philadelphia’s defensive front disrupted the Rams’ late scoring attempt, and Davis converted the final blocked field goal into a touchdown.
The blocked kick was the game’s defining moment because it changed both the result and the margin. Without the return touchdown, Philadelphia would still have held a narrow lead, but Los Angeles would have had a different final score to overcome.
What the Rams Could Have Done Differently
The Rams produced enough offensive yardage to win, but several areas limited their ability to finish the game.
Improve red-zone execution. Four red-zone opportunities yielded only one recorded touchdown. Turning even one additional field-goal opportunity into a touchdown would have changed the scoring margin.
Protect the late-game lead. Los Angeles had a 26-21 advantage entering the fourth quarter. The offense needed either another scoring drive or a sustained possession that reduced Philadelphia’s opportunities to respond.
Avoid relying on field goals in decisive situations. Karty made four field goals, but the two blocked attempts proved costly. Better protection against Philadelphia’s rush could have preserved the Rams’ chance to extend the lead or tie the game.
Finish drives after gaining yardage. The Rams’ advantage in total yards and rushing production showed that the offense could move the ball. The next step was converting that production into touchdowns, especially in high-pressure situations.
These observations do not mean the Rams played poorly in every area. Their rushing game was productive, Nacua delivered a strong receiving performance, and the defense recorded four sacks. The problem was the gap between overall production and late-game scoring.
Important Data Notes for Accurate Player Statistics
When publishing sports analysis, consistency between individual statistics and team totals is essential. The supplied figures contain a few discrepancies that should be understood before the article is used as a statistical reference.
Jalen Hurts’ passing-yard discrepancy
Hurts’ individual passing row lists 226 passing yards, while the team passing row lists 202 net passing yards. These figures describe different measures.
- 226 passing yards: The individual quarterback’s gross passing yardage.
- 202 net passing yards: The team’s passing yardage after accounting for sack yardage lost.
Philadelphia was charged with 24 sack yards. Subtracting those 24 yards from 226 gives 202 net passing yards, so both figures can be correct when labeled properly.
The defensive touchdown
The supplied team statistics identify one Eagles defensive touchdown but do not name the player in the defensive summary. The game account identifies Jordan Davis as the player who blocked the final field goal and returned it 61 yards for a touchdown.
This play should be included when describing the final score because it explains why Philadelphia won by seven points rather than one.
Interceptions and fumbles
The supplied defensive table does not list an interception for Baun in his individual row, but the game record identifies his interception of Stafford. Similarly, the Rams recovered Hurts’ fumble, while the Eagles recorded the opening-drive interception.
For a published statistical article, player-level and team-level records should be checked against the official box score whenever a table appears inconsistent.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Los Angeles Rams vs Philadelphia Eagles game on September 21, 2025?
The Philadelphia Eagles defeated the Los Angeles Rams 33-26. Philadelphia overcame a 19-point second-half deficit and scored the game’s final 26 points.
2. How many passing yards did Jalen Hurts record against the Rams?
Hurts recorded 226 passing yards, three passing touchdowns, and no interceptions in the individual player statistics. The team passing total was 202 net yards after accounting for sack yardage.
3. How many passing yards did Matthew Stafford record?
Stafford threw for 196 yards, completing 19 of 33 attempts. He recorded two touchdown passes and one interception.
4. Who led the Rams in rushing and receiving?
Kyren Williams led Los Angeles in rushing with 94 yards on 20 carries. Puka Nacua led the Rams in receiving with 11 catches for 112 yards.
5. Who was Philadelphia’s leading receiver?
A.J. Brown led the Eagles with 109 receiving yards on six catches. He also scored one touchdown and recorded a 38-yard longest reception.
6. How did the Eagles secure the final victory?
Jordan Davis blocked Joshua Karty’s potential game-tying field goal as time expired and returned it 61 yards for a touchdown. The play sealed Philadelphia’s 33-26 win.
Conclusion
The los angeles rams vs philadelphia eagles match player stats show how a game can be decided by execution in critical moments rather than total yardage alone. Los Angeles finished with 356 total net yards and 160 rushing yards, while Philadelphia recorded 288 total net yards and 86 rushing yards. Yet the Eagles converted important scoring opportunities, received three touchdown passes from Hurts, and delivered the decisive play on special teams.
Stafford threw for 196 yards and two touchdowns, with Nacua leading the Rams’ receiving attack at 112 yards. Hurts recorded 226 passing yards and three touchdown passes, while Brown gained 109 receiving yards. Williams contributed 94 rushing yards, and Barkley helped Philadelphia sustain important possessions despite a lower rushing average.
The final quarter provided the clearest explanation for the result. Philadelphia scored 12 points, Los Angeles scored none, and Davis’ blocked-field-goal return turned a narrow Eagles lead into the final seven-point margin. The game remains a useful example of how passing efficiency, red-zone performance, fourth-down conversions, and special-teams execution can outweigh an advantage in total offensive yardage.
