Seahawks vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats
The seahawks vs los angeles rams match player stats provide a detailed look at the passing performances, receiving production, rushing efficiency, defensive contributions, and special teams decisions that shaped this NFC West rivalry matchup. The supplied game data lists the Seattle Seahawks defeating the Los Angeles Rams 31-27, with Sam Darnold and Matthew Stafford each throwing three touchdown passes and both offenses producing explosive plays through the air.
This analysis examines the reported statistics player by player, explains what the numbers reveal about offensive efficiency, and highlights the individual performances that stand out. It also identifies important inconsistencies in the supplied figures so readers can distinguish recorded statistics from calculations and avoid treating conflicting totals as verified facts.
Data note: The figures below are transcribed from the supplied ESPN box-score information. Some passing, receiving, and scoring totals do not reconcile mathematically. The article identifies those discrepancies rather than silently changing the numbers. Before publishing this game as an official NFC Championship result, confirm the event details and statistics against the ESPN box score.
Seahawks vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats: Game Overview
According to the supplied data, Seattle won 31-27 after a high-scoring contest in which both teams produced 27 or more points. The reported quarter-by-quarter scoring suggests that the Seahawks established an early lead, the Rams responded before halftime, and both teams scored 14 points in the third quarter.
However, the listed fourth-quarter scores are zero for both teams. That means the supplied scoring breakdown attributes all 58 points to the first three quarters, a detail worth checking against the official play-by-play record before publication.
Match summary
| Category | Los Angeles Rams | Seattle Seahawks |
| Final score | 27 | 31 |
| First-quarter points | 3 | 10 |
| Second-quarter points | 10 | 7 |
| Third-quarter points | 14 | 14 |
| Fourth-quarter points | 0 | 0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Leading passer | Matthew Stafford | Sam Darnold |
| Leading receiver | Puka Nacua | Jaxon Smith-Njigba |
| Leading listed rusher | Blake Corum | Kenneth Walker III |
The main story is the contrast between Seattle’s slightly more efficient early scoring and Los Angeles’s ability to produce substantial passing yardage. The Rams’ listed passing leader finished with 374 yards, while Seattle’s quarterback recorded 346 yards. Both quarterbacks reportedly threw three touchdown passes without an interception.
The official team game page also records the 31-27 result and confirms the scoring sequence described in the supplied data. One important correction is necessary for any detailed analysis: the supplied team totals do not always match the official player statistics, so individual numbers and team aggregates should not be mixed without checking the relevant category.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
First quarter: Seattle establishes an early advantage
Seattle scored 10 points in the opening quarter, while Los Angeles managed three. Kenneth Walker III opened the scoring with a two-yard rushing touchdown following a drive covering 81 yards in seven plays.
The Rams responded with a 44-yard field goal by Harrison Mevis. Seattle then added a 27-yard field goal through Jason Myers, ending the opening period with a 10-3 lead.
This sequence illustrates the value of converting long drives into points. Seattle’s opening touchdown provided an early advantage, and the subsequent field goal extended the lead even when the drive did not finish with another touchdown.
For Los Angeles, the opening field goal kept the game within one possession. However, the Rams needed a stronger scoring response to prevent Seattle from controlling the early tempo.
Second quarter: The Rams take the lead briefly
Los Angeles scored 10 points in the second quarter. Mevis converted a 50-yard field goal before Matthew Stafford connected with Kyren Williams for a nine-yard touchdown.
That touchdown put the Rams ahead 13-10, demonstrating how Stafford’s passing game could create scoring opportunities even when the running attack was not producing a touchdown.
Seattle answered before halftime. Darnold found Jaxon Smith-Njigba for a 14-yard touchdown, restoring the Seahawks’ lead at 17-13.
The late first-half score mattered for more than the four-point margin. It allowed Seattle to enter halftime ahead after the Rams had briefly moved in front. In a closely contested playoff game, answering an opponent’s scoring drive can help prevent the opposition from carrying momentum into the break.
Third quarter: Both offenses find the end zone repeatedly
The third quarter was the most productive scoring period in the supplied breakdown. Both teams recorded 14 points.
Seattle scored first when Darnold connected with Jake Bobo for a 17-yard touchdown. Los Angeles answered with a two-yard touchdown pass to Davante Adams.
Darnold then threw another touchdown, this time to Cooper Kupp for 13 yards. Stafford responded with a 34-yard touchdown pass to Puka Nacua.
After those exchanges, Seattle led 31-27. Neither team scored again according to the quarter summary.
The pattern reveals how quickly the game shifted between the two offenses. Seattle repeatedly found answers, but Los Angeles remained close enough to make the final result uncertain until the closing stages.
Fourth quarter: The defensive and situational details matter
The supplied scoring table lists no fourth-quarter points. That does not mean the final period lacked important plays.
A game can be decided by defensive pressure, field position, penalties, clock management, and the ability to sustain a final drive. In this matchup, the Rams reportedly received the ball with 25 seconds remaining and needed to travel 93 yards for a potential winning touchdown, without any timeouts.
That situation sharply limited Los Angeles’s options. Even a quarterback playing well throughout the game faces a difficult task when time is short, the field is long, and stopping the clock becomes a priority.
The final score alone cannot fully explain the outcome. The scoring sequence and the late-game situation provide a clearer picture of why Seattle advanced.
Quarterback Statistics: Matthew Stafford vs. Sam Darnold
The quarterback comparison is central to understanding the seahawks vs los angeles rams match player stats. Both players produced three passing touchdowns and avoided interceptions in the supplied data, but they reached their totals in different ways.
| Passing statistic | Matthew Stafford | Sam Darnold |
| Completions | 22 | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 35 | 36 |
| Completion percentage | 62.9% | 69.4% |
| Passing yards listed | 374 | 346 |
| Yards per attempt | 10.7 | 9.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded | 1 | 3 |
| Sack yards lost | 9 | 25 |
| Reported QBR | 82.8 | 82.8 |
| Reported passer rating | 127.6 | 127.8 |
Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completion and attempt figures. Other figures are reproduced from the supplied data and should be checked before publication.
Matthew Stafford’s passing performance
Stafford completed 22 of 35 attempts, producing a reported completion rate of 62.9%. His listed 374 passing yards and 10.7 yards per attempt indicate that the Rams generated significant value from their completed passes.
The strongest feature of Stafford’s reported performance was his ability to connect on explosive throws. Puka Nacua recorded 165 receiving yards, and Davante Adams added 89. Those two receivers accounted for a combined 254 receiving yards, creating a powerful foundation for Los Angeles’s passing production.
Stafford also threw three touchdown passes without an interception. Avoiding turnovers is especially important in playoff football because a single giveaway can change possession, field position, and the momentum of a close contest.
However, a quarterback’s passing yardage should not be treated as a complete measure of his performance. Passing totals do not show whether a drive ended in a touchdown, field goal, punt, or turnover. They also do not fully explain protection quality, the difficulty of individual throws, or how much yardage came after the catch.
Stafford’s figures therefore suggest a productive passing day, but the final result demonstrates that strong individual production does not automatically guarantee a victory.
Sam Darnold’s passing performance
Darnold completed 25 of 36 attempts, a reported completion rate of 69.4%. His listed 346 yards, three touchdowns, and zero interceptions indicate that Seattle’s passing attack was productive while limiting major passing mistakes.
His completion percentage was approximately 6.5 percentage points higher than Stafford’s. Stafford, meanwhile, had the higher listed yards-per-attempt figure. These differences suggest two useful dimensions of quarterback analysis: how frequently a quarterback completes passes and how much yardage the offense gains per attempt.
Darnold’s touchdown passes also came at important moments. He connected with Smith-Njigba before halftime, found Bobo early in the third quarter, and later threw a touchdown to Kupp.
The distribution shows that Seattle did not depend on one receiver for every scoring opportunity. Its passing game involved multiple targets, which can make an offense harder to defend because the defense must account for different players and routes.
Darnold was also listed with three sacks for 25 yards lost, compared with Stafford’s one sack for nine yards. That difference deserves attention because sacks can push an offense into longer passing situations and reduce the net value of otherwise successful drives.
Nevertheless, the sack totals alone cannot establish which offensive line performed better overall. Pressure rates, time to throw, blitz frequency, and individual blocking assignments would be needed for a fuller evaluation.
Which quarterback had the better statistical performance?
The answer depends on the metric.
- Passing yardage: Stafford had the higher listed total at 374 yards.
- Completion percentage: Darnold led at approximately 69.4%.
- Yards per attempt: Stafford led with a listed 10.7.
- Passing touchdowns: Both recorded three.
- Interceptions: Neither threw one in the supplied figures.
- Passer rating: Darnold was listed slightly ahead at 127.8 versus 127.6.
Neither quarterback dominated every category. Stafford generated more listed passing yards per attempt, while Darnold completed a higher proportion of his passes and finished with the slightly higher listed passer rating.
Seattle’s victory should not be reduced to one quarterback statistic. The score reflects the combined effect of offensive execution, rushing contributions, defensive stops, special teams, and late-game circumstances.
Rushing Statistics and Ground Game Efficiency
The rushing comparison reveals a significant contrast between the two teams. The Rams’ listed rushing production was more efficient on a per-carry basis, while Seattle’s rushing attack supplied a key touchdown.
Los Angeles Rams rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Blake Corum | 9 | 55 | 6.1 | 19 | 0 |
| Kyren Williams | 10 | 39 | 3.9 | 11 | 0 |
| Matthew Stafford | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 13 | 0 |
| Puka Nacua | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 | 0 |
| Listed team total | 22 | 114 | 5.2 | 19 | 0 |
Blake Corum led the listed Rams rushing group with 55 yards on nine carries. His average of 6.1 yards per attempt suggests that his runs generated useful forward progress.
Corum’s 19-yard longest run also indicates that he contributed more than short gains. A successful rushing attack can help an offense stay out of obvious passing situations, reduce pressure on the quarterback, and create opportunities for play-action passes.
Kyren Williams recorded 39 rushing yards on 10 carries. His listed average of 3.9 yards per carry was lower than Corum’s, but his contribution extended beyond rushing. Williams also recorded two receptions for 22 yards and a receiving touchdown in the supplied data.
That combination matters because running backs can affect a defense in multiple ways. When a player contributes as both a runner and a receiver, the defense must prepare for more than one type of offensive action.
Stafford’s two rushing attempts produced 16 yards, including a longest run of 13 yards. Those gains added to his overall contribution, although his rushing volume was limited.
Seattle Seahawks rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Longest run | Rushing TDs |
| Kenneth Walker III | 19 | 62 | 3.3 | 11 | 1 |
| Sam Darnold | 3 | 9 | 3.0 | 14 | 0 |
| George Holani | 3 | 4 | 1.3 | 3 | 0 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Listed team total | 26 | 75 | 2.9 | 14 | 1 |
Kenneth Walker III was Seattle’s leading listed rusher, carrying 19 times for 62 yards and a touchdown. His average of 3.3 yards per carry was below the listed Rams team average, but his scoring contribution gave his rushing production direct value on the scoreboard.
Walker scored Seattle’s opening touchdown on a two-yard run. That play established an early lead and allowed the Seahawks to begin the game with points from their ground attack rather than relying exclusively on passing.
Walker also contributed as a receiver, recording four catches for 49 yards according to the supplied figures. His combined rushing and receiving production made him an important part of Seattle’s offensive workload.
Darnold added nine rushing yards on three attempts. Although the total was modest, quarterback movement can be useful when a defense commits to covering receivers or rushes aggressively. A quarterback’s ability to gain yards on the ground may also influence how defenders approach passing situations.
Why rushing efficiency does not tell the whole story
The Rams averaged a reported 5.2 yards per carry, compared with Seattle’s 2.9. That difference favors Los Angeles in the listed efficiency measure.
However, yards per carry do not show the entire value of a rushing offense. The timing of the runs, down and distance, red-zone performance, and ability to convert short-yardage situations all matter.
Seattle’s rushing attack produced a touchdown on the opening drive. That result has direct scoring value even though the Seahawks averaged fewer yards per carry.
The Rams’ rushing production helped support their passing offense, but the listed rushing leaders did not record a rushing touchdown. In a game decided by four points, scoring method and timing are just as important as aggregate efficiency.
Receiving Statistics: The Most Productive Pass Catchers
The receiving numbers offer some of the clearest evidence of how both offenses created explosive plays. Los Angeles leaned heavily on Puka Nacua and Davante Adams, while Seattle’s production was led by Jaxon Smith-Njigba and supported by several additional targets.
Los Angeles Rams receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch | Receiving TDs |
| Puka Nacua | 9 | 165 | 18.3 | 44 | 1 |
| Davante Adams | 4 | 89 | 22.3 | 35 | 1 |
| Colby Parkinson | 3 | 62 | 20.7 | 40 | 0 |
| Blake Corum | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 15 | 0 |
| Kyren Williams | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 13 | 1 |
| Tyler Higbee | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 12 | 0 |
Puka Nacua’s standout performance
Nacua’s nine receptions for 165 yards made him the leading listed receiver for Los Angeles. His average of 18.3 yards per reception shows that the Rams generated substantial yardage from his catches.
His longest reception was listed at 44 yards, highlighting his ability to create a large gain on a single play. Nacua also recorded a receiving touchdown, giving his performance both yardage and scoring value.
Fourteen targets were listed for Nacua. Compared with his nine receptions, that means he caught approximately 64.3% of the passes directed his way, based on the supplied figures.
Target volume helps explain a receiver’s role. A player who receives many targets is often a central part of the offensive plan, although the quality of those targets and the defensive coverage also affect the result.
Nacua’s production illustrates why a receiver’s performance should be evaluated through several measures: catches, yards, yards per reception, touchdowns, and targets. Together, these statistics offer a more complete view than any single number.
Davante Adams provides another scoring threat
Adams recorded four receptions for 89 yards and a touchdown. His listed average of 22.3 yards per reception was higher than Nacua’s, suggesting that his catches generated more yardage per reception on average.
Adams’s longest catch was 35 yards, and his touchdown came on a short pass according to the scoring sequence. This contrast is important: receivers can create value through long gains and through short receptions that finish a drive.
When two receivers produce at a high level, a defense faces difficult choices. Giving extra attention to one player may create opportunities for the other. Los Angeles’s listed receiving numbers suggest that Seattle had to account for more than one dangerous target.
Colby Parkinson’s contribution
Parkinson recorded three receptions for 62 yards, averaging 20.7 yards per catch. His longest reception was listed at 40 yards.
Although he did not record a touchdown in the supplied receiving table, his yardage helped extend Los Angeles’s offensive production. Tight ends can be especially useful when they create mismatches against linebackers or safeties, but the statistics alone do not reveal the exact coverage or route concepts involved.
Parkinson’s output is a reminder that supporting receivers can produce meaningful yardage even when the biggest headlines focus on a team’s primary wide receivers.
Seattle Seahawks receiving statistics
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch | Receiving TDs |
| Jaxon Smith-Njigba | 10 | 153 | 15.3 | 42 | 1 |
| Rashid Shaheed | 1 | 51 | 51.0 | 51 | 0 |
| Kenneth Walker III | 4 | 49 | 12.3 | 15 | 0 |
| Cooper Kupp | 4 | 36 | 9.0 | 13 | 1 |
| George Holani | 3 | 27 | 9.0 | 13 | 0 |
| Jake Bobo | 1 | 17 | 17.0 | 17 | 1 |
| AJ Barner | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 7 | 0 |
Jaxon Smith-Njigba leads Seattle
Smith-Njigba recorded 10 receptions for 153 yards and a touchdown in the supplied figures. His 42-yard longest reception shows that his contribution included explosive yardage as well as regular completions.
With 12 targets listed, he caught approximately 83.3% of the passes directed his way. That is a strong conversion rate within the supplied data, although target quality and coverage context would be needed to assess the difficulty of those catches.
Smith-Njigba’s touchdown came in the second quarter, helping Seattle regain the lead after Los Angeles had moved ahead. The timing of that score increased its importance beyond the raw yardage total.
His performance also shows the value of a receiver who can contribute repeatedly throughout a game. Ten receptions can help sustain drives, while a long catch can change field position in a single play.
Rashid Shaheed’s explosive reception
Shaheed recorded one reception for 51 yards, according to the supplied figures. His listed average of 51.0 yards per reception reflects that single catch.
A 51-yard reception can have an immediate effect on field position and scoring potential. It can turn a drive that begins far from the end zone into a realistic scoring opportunity without requiring many separate completions.
However, one reception is a small sample. It would be misleading to conclude that Shaheed was the most consistent receiver based only on his average yards per catch. Smith-Njigba’s larger volume of receptions provides stronger evidence of a sustained role in the passing offense.
Cooper Kupp and Jake Bobo add touchdown production
Kupp recorded four catches for 36 yards and a touchdown. His listed yardage was lower than Smith-Njigba’s, but the touchdown came at a key point in the third quarter.
Bobo had one catch for 17 yards, which was also a touchdown. His production is an example of how a receiver can make a decisive contribution without a large number of touches.
The difference between volume and scoring impact is important in football analysis. A player with a high yardage total may move the offense down the field, while a player with fewer touches may finish the drive.
Comparing the two receiving groups
Nacua’s 165 yards were the highest individual receiving total in the supplied data. Smith-Njigba followed with 153 yards.
The two leading receivers were separated by 12 yards, and both recorded a touchdown. Their performances were central to their teams’ passing production.
Los Angeles also received strong listed yardage contributions from Adams and Parkinson. Seattle’s receiving group featured production from Shaheed, Walker, Kupp, Holani, Bobo, and Barner.
The broader lesson is that receiving statistics should be read as a group. A leading receiver may command defensive attention, but the contributions of secondary targets can determine whether an offense sustains drives and converts opportunities into points.
Defensive Player Stats and Team Performance
Offensive production explains much of the scoring, but defensive statistics help reveal how teams attempted to limit their opponents. The supplied figures show the Rams recording more total tackles and sacks, while Seattle registered more passes defended and fewer quarterback hits allowed only as a team defensive statistic, not as an offensive measure.
Defensive team comparison
| Defensive statistic | Los Angeles Rams | Seattle Seahawks |
| Total tackles | 65 | 60 |
| Solo tackles | 38 | 36 |
| Sacks | 3 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 8 | 1 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 7 |
| Quarterback hits | 7 | 3 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | 0 | 0 |
The Rams’ listed three sacks and eight tackles for loss indicate that their defenders disrupted plays behind the line of scrimmage. Seattle’s seven passes defended suggest that its secondary also made efforts to contest passing opportunities.
These categories measure different things. A sack ends a passing play behind the line of scrimmage, while a pass defended records a defensive play that disrupts or breaks up a pass. Neither statistic alone captures every form of pressure or coverage success.
The supplied team totals should also be verified before publication. In particular, tackle and tackle-for-loss figures can vary by statistical source or recording conventions. They are best treated as reported values until matched against the official box score.
Rams defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles |
| Omar Speights | 11 | 7 |
| Quentin Lake | 7 | 3 |
| Nate Landman | 6 | 4 |
| Roger McCreary | 6 | 3 |
Omar Speights led the listed Rams defenders with 11 total tackles, including seven solo tackles. His total indicates frequent involvement in defensive plays.
Quentin Lake followed with seven tackles, while Landman and McCreary recorded six each. These figures show which players were most frequently credited with stopping or assisting against Seattle’s offense.
High tackle totals do not automatically indicate outstanding defensive performance. A defender may accumulate tackles because opponents repeatedly target an area of the field, because the defense allows completions before making stops, or because the player is consistently positioned near the ball. To understand the quality of the performance, tackle totals should be considered alongside missed tackles, coverage results, yards allowed, and the down on which each stop occurred.
The Rams’ three listed sacks also suggest that their front seven generated some pressure. However, Seattle still produced 31 points, meaning the defensive effort did not prevent the Seahawks from scoring enough to win.
Seahawks defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles |
| Ernest Jones IV | 8 | 6 |
| Devon Witherspoon | 6 | 6 |
| Drake Thomas | 6 | 1 |
| Nick Emmanwori | 5 | 4 |
Ernest Jones IV led Seattle’s listed defenders with eight total tackles, six of them solo. His figures indicate a significant role in the defensive effort.
Devon Witherspoon recorded six tackles, all listed as solo. Drake Thomas also had six total tackles, while Nick Emmanwori recorded five.
Seattle’s defense faced a demanding passing attack. Stafford was credited with 374 passing yards and three touchdown passes in the supplied figures, while Nacua and Adams combined for 254 receiving yards.
That production suggests Los Angeles found ways to move the ball despite Seattle’s eventual victory. A team can win while allowing substantial passing yardage if it produces timely stops, protects its lead, and makes the opponent’s final scoring opportunity difficult.
What the defensive comparison reveals
Three observations stand out:
- The Rams generated more listed backfield disruption. Their three sacks and eight tackles for loss exceeded Seattle’s supplied totals.
- Seattle recorded more passes defended. The Seahawks’ seven defended passes suggest that their defenders disrupted more passing attempts in this statistical category.
- Neither defense recorded an interception or defensive touchdown. Based on the supplied data, the result was not driven by a defensive interception returned for a score.
The absence of interceptions is especially relevant when comparing the quarterbacks. Both Stafford and Darnold were listed with zero interceptions, so the game cannot be explained as a simple case of one quarterback giving away possessions through interceptions.
Instead, the supplied scoring record points toward offensive execution and situational football as the central factors.
Fumbles, Turnovers, and Ball Security
Turnovers are among the most important factors in a close NFL game because they can end an offensive possession immediately and provide the opposing team with a scoring opportunity.
The supplied figures list four Rams fumbles, with one lost, compared with two Seahawks fumbles and none lost.
| Ball-security statistic | Rams | Seahawks |
| Total fumbles listed | 4 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles recovered | 2 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
These figures suggest an advantage for Seattle in ball security, although the fumble accounting should be checked before treating every figure as an official team total.
The Rams’ listed fumbles involved Xavier Smith, Matthew Stafford, and Colby Parkinson. Xavier Smith was credited with two fumbles, including one lost, while Stafford and Parkinson were each listed with one fumble that was not lost.
Seattle’s supplied figures list one fumble for Darnold and one for AJ Barner, with neither lost. Dareke Young was listed as recovering a fumble.
A fumble is not automatically a turnover. If the original team recovers the ball, the offense may retain possession. A lost fumble, by contrast, changes possession and can give the opponent an important field-position advantage.
For analysts, the distinction between total fumbles and fumbles lost is essential. A player may make a mistake without the opposing team gaining the ball, and the consequences depend on who recovers it.
Ball security is not the only explanation for Seattle’s victory, but the supplied figures suggest that the Seahawks avoided losing a fumble while the Rams lost one. In a four-point game, avoiding a possession-changing mistake can matter.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams often receive less attention than quarterbacks and wide receivers, but kicking, punting, and return production can shape the field position available to both offenses.
Kicking comparison
| Kicking statistic | Harrison Mevis, Rams | Jason Myers, Seahawks |
| Field goals made | 2 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 2 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal listed | 50 yards | 27 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 4 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 4 |
| Total points listed | 9 | 7 |
Both kickers were listed as perfect on their field-goal attempts and extra points. Mevis supplied two field goals, including a 50-yard kick, while Myers converted one field goal from 27 yards.
The supplied point totals are consistent with those listed attempts: Mevis scored nine points from two field goals and three extra points, while Myers scored seven from one field goal and four extra points.
Kicking accuracy matters because missed attempts can leave an offense without points after a drive reaches scoring range. In a close game, a reliable kicker allows a team to take points when a touchdown is not available.
Punting performance
| Punting statistic | Ethan Evans, Rams | Michael Dickson, Seahawks |
| Punts | 2 | 5 |
| Total punt yards | 84 | 226 |
| Average punt distance | 42.0 yards | 45.2 yards |
| Longest punt | 43 yards | 56 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 5 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Dickson recorded five punts, averaging 45.2 yards, with all five listed as landing inside the 20-yard line. Evans recorded two punts for an average of 42.0 yards, with one inside the 20.
Punting average is useful, but it does not fully measure punting effectiveness. A punt that travels a long distance can still be less valuable if it produces a touchback or allows a favorable return. Pinning an opponent deep in its own territory can force a longer drive and increase the pressure on its offense.
The listed inside-the-20 figures suggest that Dickson’s punts helped Seattle influence field position. That contribution is particularly relevant in a game where the Rams were trying to create a late scoring opportunity.
Kick and punt returns
The Rams’ listed kick-return total was six returns for 145 yards, an average of 24.2 yards per return. Jordan Whittington recorded five returns for 116 yards, while Ronnie Rivers added one return for 29 yards.
Seattle recorded one kick return for 21 yards by Rashid Shaheed. The Rams also recorded two punt returns by Xavier Smith for zero yards, while no Seattle punt returns were listed.
Return averages provide useful context, but return opportunities vary depending on kick distance, hang time, coverage, and whether the receiving team chooses to bring the ball out. The raw totals therefore should not be interpreted as a complete ranking of return-unit quality.
The broader lesson is that special teams can influence the location from which an offense begins a possession. Even without scoring a return touchdown, a return unit can create an advantage by improving field position.
Key Statistical Takeaways From the Game
The most useful interpretation of the numbers comes from combining individual production with the final result.
1. Both quarterbacks delivered touchdown production
Stafford and Darnold were each credited with three touchdown passes and no interceptions. That similarity makes the quarterback comparison more nuanced than a simple winner-versus-loser assessment.
Stafford had the higher listed passing-yard total, while Darnold had the higher completion percentage and a slightly higher passer rating. Seattle’s victory cannot be explained by passing touchdowns alone because both quarterbacks recorded three.
2. The leading receivers made major contributions
Nacua’s 165 receiving yards and Smith-Njigba’s 153 receiving yards were the highest individual totals listed for their respective teams.
Both players also recorded a touchdown. Their performances demonstrate how leading receivers can drive offensive production through repeated catches and explosive gains.
3. Seattle received a key rushing touchdown
Walker’s opening two-yard touchdown gave Seattle an early lead. While the Rams had the higher listed rushing average, Seattle converted a rushing opportunity into seven points.
That difference illustrates why efficiency and scoring production must be evaluated separately. A team can average more yards per carry without producing more rushing touchdowns.
4. The game featured strong passing production on both sides
The supplied figures credit Stafford with 374 passing yards and Darnold with 346. Both quarterbacks also had three touchdown passes.
Those totals suggest that neither team relied entirely on its ground game. Both offenses found productive passing opportunities, and the receiving leaders accounted for much of the yardage.
5. Ball security may have favored Seattle
The supplied data lists one lost Rams fumble and no lost Seahawks fumbles. If verified, that difference would be an important part of the turnover analysis.
However, it is important not to overstate the point. A turnover advantage does not automatically explain every scoring sequence, and the listed fumble totals should be checked against the official record.
6. Defensive pressure did not eliminate the passing threat
The Rams were listed with three sacks, while Seattle recorded one. Despite that pressure, both quarterbacks produced three passing touchdowns.
This demonstrates why sack totals alone cannot explain a defense’s performance. Pressure can disrupt plays, but an offense may still generate big gains through quick passes, protection adjustments, and successful routes.
7. Seattle’s early scoring created a valuable foundation
The Seahawks scored 10 points in the first quarter and 17 in the first half. Their early lead gave them a scoring advantage before the high-output third quarter.
Although the Rams briefly moved ahead in the second quarter, Seattle answered with a touchdown before halftime. That response helped restore the Seahawks’ lead and established the four-point margin that remained at the end.
Important Data Checks Before Publishing
The supplied statistics are useful for analysis, but a few checks are necessary to maintain accuracy.
First, the stated Rams passing total is 374 yards, while the supplied Rams team passing total is 365 yards. The listed player total and team total therefore disagree. The official team box score lists Stafford’s passing line as 22 completions on 35 attempts for 374 yards.
Second, the supplied Seahawks passing line lists Darnold at 346 yards, while the team passing total is listed as 321 yards. The official team box score lists Darnold’s individual passing line as 25 completions on 36 attempts for 346 yards.
Third, the Rams’ listed receiving figures sum to more than the stated team receiving total in the supplied text. The same problem appears in Seattle’s receiving data. Receiving yardage and passing yardage also need to be interpreted carefully because official box scores may report gross passing yards, net passing yards, sack losses, and receiving totals in different categories.
Fourth, the supplied text lists the match date as January 26, 2026. The official game pages identify the NFC Championship as Sunday, January 25, 2026, in Seattle. The date difference likely reflects the time zone or publication timestamp rather than the local game date.
Finally, the scoring breakdown lists the entire 31-27 result as occurring in the first three quarters, with no fourth-quarter points. The official scoring sequence confirms that this was the recorded scoring pattern. However, the late-game context remains important because the Rams had a final opportunity to drive for a winning touchdown.
For a reliable published article, use the official player lines and clearly label each category. Do not combine conflicting totals into one table without explaining the difference.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Seahawks vs. Rams game?
The Seattle Seahawks defeated the Los Angeles Rams 31-27 in the NFC Championship Game played on January 25, 2026, at Lumen Field in Seattle.
2. How many passing yards did Matthew Stafford record?
Matthew Stafford completed 22 of 35 passes for 374 yards and three touchdowns, with no interceptions, according to the official game statistics.
3. How did Sam Darnold perform against the Rams?
Sam Darnold completed 25 of 36 passes for 346 yards and three touchdowns without an interception. He also contributed nine rushing yards on three attempts in the supplied player statistics.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Puka Nacua led all listed receivers with nine receptions for 165 yards and one touchdown. Seattle’s Jaxon Smith-Njigba followed with 10 receptions for 153 yards and one touchdown.
5. Which running back had the most rushing yards?
Blake Corum led the listed Rams rushers with 55 yards on nine carries. Kenneth Walker III led Seattle with 62 yards on 19 carries and scored a rushing touchdown.
6. Why did the Seahawks win despite allowing more passing yards?
The passing-yard totals alone do not explain the result. Seattle scored first, responded to the Rams’ second-quarter lead with a touchdown, and maintained a four-point advantage after both teams scored 14 points in the third quarter. Offensive execution, scoring timing, defensive stops, and late-game circumstances all contributed to the final result.
Conclusion
The seahawks vs los angeles rams match player stats describe a closely contested NFC Championship in which Seattle defeated Los Angeles 31-27. Both quarterbacks delivered three touchdown passes without an interception, while the leading receivers produced substantial yardage. Matthew Stafford finished with a listed 374 passing yards, Sam Darnold recorded 346, Puka Nacua led the receiving statistics with 165 yards, and Jaxon Smith-Njigba added 153 for Seattle.
The rushing comparison offers another useful perspective. Blake Corum averaged a listed 6.1 yards per carry, while Kenneth Walker III scored Seattle’s opening rushing touchdown. On defense, the Rams recorded more listed sacks, while Seattle registered more passes defended. The supplied figures also suggest a ball-security advantage for the Seahawks, although the turnover totals should be verified before drawing firm conclusions.
The most important lesson is that individual statistics must be read in context. Passing yards, completion percentage, rushing efficiency, receiving production, tackles, sacks, and special teams performance each describe a different part of the game. No single metric fully explains the result.
For accurate football analysis, the final score should be considered alongside the scoring sequence, individual player contributions, and verified team totals. Checking the official box score before publication is particularly important here because several figures in the supplied dataset do not reconcile. With those distinctions made clear, readers can better understand not only who produced the biggest numbers, but also how those performances related to Seattle’s four-point victory.
