Los Angeles Rams vs Carolina Panthers Match Player Stats
The los angeles rams vs carolina panthers match player stats from the January 11, 2026, NFC Wild Card playoff game tell the story of a dramatic 34-31 victory for Los Angeles. The Rams survived a competitive postseason contest in which both teams scored 14 points in the fourth quarter. Matthew Stafford led the Rams’ passing attack, Puka Nacua delivered a standout receiving performance, and Carolina’s Chuba Hubbard found the end zone twice on the ground. Jalen Coker also produced an impressive receiving display for the Panthers, making the matchup much closer than the final score alone might suggest.
The three-point margin highlights how small differences in execution can shape an NFL playoff game. Los Angeles finished with three passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown, while Carolina recorded three rushing touchdowns and one passing touchdown according to the supplied statistics. Both quarterbacks threw an interception, and both defenses recorded takeaways. These figures provide a useful starting point for understanding the offensive production, individual performances, and key statistical contrasts behind the result.
Los Angeles Rams vs Carolina Panthers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The January 11 matchup brought the Los Angeles Rams and Carolina Panthers together in an NFC Wild Card playoff contest. The Rams entered the game with a reported 12-5 overall record, including a 5-4 away record. Carolina entered with an 8-9 overall record and a 5-3 home record.
Despite the difference in their regular-season records, Carolina remained competitive throughout the game. The Rams built their lead through a productive passing attack and consistent scoring, but the Panthers answered with a combination of rushing touchdowns and timely receiving plays.
NFC Wild Card Playoffs · January 11, 2026
Los Angeles Rams
34
Winning team · 12-5 record
Carolina Panthers
31
Final score · 8-9 record
Scoring by quarter
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Los Angeles Rams | 7 | 10 | 3 | 14 | 34 |
| Carolina Panthers | 0 | 14 | 3 | 14 | 31 |
The scoring pattern reveals three important phases:
- First quarter: Los Angeles scored seven points while Carolina was held scoreless.
- Second quarter: The Panthers responded with 14 points, while the Rams added 10.
- Third quarter: Both teams scored a field goal, keeping the contest within reach.
- Fourth quarter: Each team scored 14 points, producing an exciting finish and preserving the Rams’ three-point advantage.
The first quarter gave Los Angeles an early advantage, but Carolina’s second-quarter response prevented the Rams from controlling the game comfortably. The matching fourth-quarter totals also show why the final result should not be interpreted as a one-sided performance.
Statistical note: The figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN UK box-score data. Some entries contain conflicting passing-yard totals or inconsistencies between individual and team rows. Those discrepancies are identified where relevant rather than silently corrected.
Quarterback Stats: Matthew Stafford vs Bryce Young
Quarterback play was central to the matchup. Matthew Stafford produced three passing touchdowns for Los Angeles, while Bryce Young combined a passing touchdown with mobility that helped Carolina generate additional scoring opportunities.
The supplied box-score data includes two different passing-yard figures for each quarterback. The first passing row lists 304 yards for Stafford and 264 for Young, while a second row lists 295 and 250 yards, respectively. The passing statistics below preserve the reported figures and distinguish the conflicting totals.
Matthew Stafford’s passing performance
Matthew Stafford (#9)
Los Angeles Rams quarterback
24/42 completions
Stafford recorded three passing touchdowns and one interception. His listed passer rating was 93.8, while his QBR was 48.7.
| Passing statistic | Reported figure |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 42 |
| Completion rate | 57.1% |
| Passing yards, first row | 304 |
| Passing yards, second row | 295 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.2 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 for 9 yards |
| Passer rating | 93.8 |
| QBR | 48.7 |
Stafford’s three touchdown passes were a major part of the Rams’ offensive production. His 42 attempts also indicate that Los Angeles relied heavily on its passing game.
The 7.2 yards-per-attempt figure suggests that the passing attack generated meaningful yardage across its opportunities. However, the 24 completions on 42 attempts show that the offense did not convert every passing opportunity into a completion.
The interception is another important part of the evaluation. A productive passing line does not eliminate the cost of a turnover, especially in a playoff game decided by three points. Stafford’s performance should therefore be assessed through both his scoring output and the possession risk associated with his attempts.
The supplied figures do not establish the precise circumstances of every touchdown or turnover. A detailed play-by-play review would be needed to attribute individual plays to particular coverage schemes, protection failures, or defensive decisions.
Bryce Young’s passing performance
Bryce Young (#9)
Carolina Panthers quarterback
21/40 completions
Young recorded one passing touchdown and one interception. His listed passer rating was 71.2, and his QBR was 71.4.
| Passing statistic | Reported figure |
| Completions | 21 |
| Attempts | 40 |
| Completion rate | 52.5% |
| Passing yards, first row | 264 |
| Passing yards, second row | 250 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 2 for 14 yards |
| Passer rating | 71.2 |
| QBR | 71.4 |
Young completed 52.5% of his passes according to the supplied completion and attempt totals. His reported 6.6 yards per attempt was lower than Stafford’s 7.2, while Carolina recorded one fewer passing touchdown.
However, Young’s contribution cannot be judged by passing alone. His rushing line added 24 yards on three carries, including a 16-yard longest run. That mobility gave Carolina another way to advance the ball when conventional passing opportunities were limited.
The two sacks for 14 yards also matter when considering Carolina’s passing efficiency. Sacks can create unfavorable down-and-distance situations and reduce the value of an otherwise productive possession.
Stafford vs Young: Statistical comparison
| Category | Matthew Stafford | Bryce Young |
| Completions | 24 | 21 |
| Attempts | 42 | 40 |
| Completion rate | 57.1% | 52.5% |
| Listed passing yards, first row | 304 | 264 |
| Listed passing yards, second row | 295 | 250 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.2 | 6.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 2 |
| Passer rating | 93.8 | 71.2 |
Stafford’s clearest statistical advantage was passing touchdowns. Los Angeles recorded three through the air, compared with Carolina’s one. The Rams also had the higher reported completion rate and yards per attempt.
Young, meanwhile, contributed through rushing and helped Carolina remain competitive on the scoreboard. The difference between the quarterbacks’ statistical profiles illustrates how the same game can feature a more productive conventional passing performance on one side and a greater reliance on multiple scoring methods on the other.
One caution is necessary: QBR and passer rating are different measures. Stafford’s 93.8 passer rating and Young’s 71.2 passer rating should not be directly compared with their QBR figures as though all four numbers use the same scale or calculation.
Rushing Stats: Kyren Williams, Chuba Hubbard and Bryce Young
The ground game offered two different routes to offensive production. Los Angeles spread its rushing attempts across multiple players, while Carolina relied more heavily on its leading running back and quarterback mobility to score touchdowns.
The team rushing totals were 116 yards on 29 carries for the Rams and 83 yards on 22 carries for the Panthers. Those figures gave Los Angeles an advantage of 33 rushing yards.
Los Angeles Rams rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| Kyren Williams | 13 | 57 | 4.4 | 0 | 8 |
| Blake Corum | 11 | 45 | 4.1 | 0 | 8 |
| Puka Nacua | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 1 | 5 |
| Matthew Stafford | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Team total | 29 | 116 | 4.0 | 1 | 8 |
Individual figures and team totals are reproduced from the supplied box-score data.
Kyren Williams’ contribution
Kyren Williams led the Rams with 57 rushing yards on 13 carries. His average of 4.4 yards per attempt gave Los Angeles a steady source of ground production.
Williams also contributed in the passing game, recording two receptions for 18 yards and a touchdown according to the supplied receiving figures. That combination made him useful in more than one phase of the offense.
His rushing total was not the largest individual yardage figure in the game, but it helped the Rams maintain a balanced attack. When a defense must account for both a productive passing game and a running back who can contribute as a receiver, it has more responsibilities to manage on each snap.
Blake Corum adds depth to the ground attack
Blake Corum recorded 45 rushing yards on 11 carries, averaging 4.1 yards per attempt. His workload was close to Williams’ in terms of carries, giving the Rams another option in the backfield.
The difference between the two running backs’ yardage was 12 yards. Their combined 102 rushing yards accounted for most of the Rams’ 116-yard team total.
This distribution is important because it shows that Los Angeles did not depend entirely on one running back to move the ball. Sharing the workload can help an offense preserve flexibility, although the box-score figures alone cannot establish the coaching staff’s exact reasons for the distribution.
Puka Nacua scores on the ground
Nacua recorded three carries for 14 yards and a rushing touchdown. His longest run was five yards.
That touchdown was especially relevant to the scoring breakdown because the Rams finished with one rushing touchdown and three passing touchdowns. Nacua’s versatility contributed to the offense’s ability to score through different methods.
Carolina Panthers rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| Chuba Hubbard | 13 | 46 | 3.5 | 2 | 8 |
| Bryce Young | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 1 | 16 |
| Rico Dowdle | 5 | 9 | 1.8 | 0 | 8 |
| Trevor Etienne | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Team total | 22 | 83 | 3.8 | 3 | 16 |
Chuba Hubbard’s two-touchdown performance
Hubbard finished with 46 rushing yards on 13 carries, averaging 3.5 yards per attempt. His two rushing touchdowns were the standout feature of his performance.
His contribution shows why rushing efficiency and scoring production should be examined separately. Williams averaged more yards per carry, but Hubbard reached the end zone twice.
A running back can have a relatively modest yardage total and still make a major contribution when carries are converted into touchdowns. In this game, Hubbard’s scoring helped Carolina remain in contention despite the Rams’ passing advantage.
Hubbard also recorded two receptions for 13 yards, bringing his listed scrimmage production to 59 yards. The official Carolina team analysis also highlighted his 46 rushing yards, 13 receiving yards and two rushing touchdowns. Read the Carolina Panthers’ official game analysis.
Bryce Young’s rushing threat
Young carried the ball three times for 24 yards, averaging 8.0 yards per attempt, and scored one rushing touchdown.
His longest run was 16 yards. That was the longest individual rushing play listed among Carolina’s players in the supplied data.
Young’s rushing contribution added a separate challenge for the Rams’ defense. Defenders had to account not only for Hubbard’s carries but also for the possibility that Young could gain yards with his legs.
Carolina scored three rushing touchdowns in total, with Hubbard responsible for two and Young for one. That output was a major reason the Panthers stayed within three points of Los Angeles.
Rushing comparison: Which team had the advantage?
| Category | Rams | Panthers |
| Rushing attempts | 29 | 22 |
| Rushing yards | 116 | 83 |
| Average yards per carry | 4.0 | 3.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 3 |
| Difference in rushing yards | +33 | -33 |
Los Angeles led in total rushing yards, rushing attempts and average yards per carry. Carolina, however, scored two more rushing touchdowns.
That contrast captures an important feature of the contest. The Rams generated more ground yardage, but the Panthers made their rushing opportunities count on the scoreboard. Neither metric should be viewed in isolation when evaluating offensive performance.
Receiving Stats: Puka Nacua vs Jalen Coker
The receiving matchup featured two of the most productive players in the supplied statistics. Puka Nacua led Los Angeles with 111 receiving yards, while Jalen Coker led Carolina with 134.
Their performances helped each team sustain its passing attack, but the Rams received more touchdown production from their receiving group.
Los Angeles Rams receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average | TDs | Longest |
| Puka Nacua | 10 | 18 | 111 | 11.1 | 1 | 18 |
| Davante Adams | 5 | 13 | 72 | 14.4 | 0 | 23 |
| Tyler Higbee | 2 | 3 | 45 | 22.5 | 0 | 36 |
| Colby Parkinson | 2 | 3 | 34 | 17.0 | 1 | 19 |
| Kyren Williams | 2 | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 1 | 13 |
| Blake Corum | 2 | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 | 9 |
| Konata Mumpfield | 1 | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | 11 |
| Team total | 24 | 42 | 304 | 12.7 | 3 | 36 |
Puka Nacua leads the Rams
Nacua recorded 10 receptions on 18 targets for 111 yards and a receiving touchdown. His average was 11.1 yards per reception, and his longest catch was listed at 18 yards.
He led the Rams in receptions, receiving yards and targets. His workload shows that he was a central part of Stafford’s passing plan.
Nacua also scored a rushing touchdown, according to the supplied rushing statistics. His combined receiving and rushing contributions made him one of the most versatile offensive performers in the game.
There is an important distinction between volume and efficiency in his receiving line. Nacua’s 10 catches gave Los Angeles a reliable source of completed passes, but 18 targets also indicate that the offense repeatedly looked in his direction. The supplied data does not provide enough detail to determine how many targets resulted from defensive coverage, route design or quarterback progression.
Davante Adams provides another receiving option
Adams finished with five receptions for 72 yards on 13 targets. He averaged 14.4 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 23 yards.
Although he did not record a receiving touchdown in the supplied table, his yardage helped Los Angeles avoid relying on a single receiver.
Adams’ average was higher than Nacua’s, while Nacua recorded more catches and more total yards. These figures illustrate why receiver evaluations should consider several categories together rather than ranking players by one number.
Tyler Higbee and Colby Parkinson contribute
Higbee recorded two receptions for 45 yards, averaging 22.5 yards per catch. His longest reception was 36 yards, the longest listed for a Rams receiver.
Parkinson caught two passes for 34 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 19 yards.
Parkinson’s touchdown was especially important because it came late in the fourth quarter. The scoring record identifies his 19-yard touchdown reception from Stafford with 38 seconds remaining as the decisive score in the Rams’ 34-31 win. The supplied game recap data also describes Stafford leading a late drive after Carolina had moved ahead.
Williams contributed two catches for 18 yards and a touchdown, while Corum caught two passes for 13 yards. The combination of receivers, tight ends and running backs gave Stafford several different options.
Carolina Panthers receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average | TDs | Longest |
| Jalen Coker | 9 | 12 | 134 | 14.9 | 1 | 52 |
| Tetairoa McMillan | 5 | 7 | 81 | 16.2 | 0 | 22 |
| Tommy Tremble | 3 | 3 | 22 | 7.3 | 0 | 11 |
| Chuba Hubbard | 2 | 4 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 | 7 |
| Xavier Legette | 1 | 4 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| Rico Dowdle | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Team total | 21 | 37 | 264 | 12.6 | 1 | 52 |
The table includes the Panthers’ players with recorded receptions in the supplied data. Several additional players were listed with targets but no receptions.
Jalen Coker’s 134-yard performance
Coker recorded nine receptions on 12 targets for 134 yards and a touchdown. His average of 14.9 yards per reception was higher than Nacua’s 11.1, and his longest catch was 52 yards.
Coker’s 134 yards made him the leading receiver of the game by total receiving yardage. He also scored the Panthers’ late passing touchdown, which temporarily gave Carolina a 31-27 lead.
His performance shows that the Panthers’ passing offense could generate substantial gains even though Young’s passing yardage and touchdown totals were lower than Stafford’s. A receiver can produce an excellent statistical line without his team ultimately winning.
Tetairoa McMillan adds 81 yards
McMillan recorded five receptions on seven targets for 81 yards. He averaged 16.2 yards per catch and had a longest reception of 22 yards.
His production gave Carolina another meaningful receiving option alongside Coker. The two players combined for 215 receiving yards, accounting for a substantial portion of the Panthers’ reported 264 receiving yards.
Comparing the leading receivers
| Category | Puka Nacua | Jalen Coker |
| Receptions | 10 | 9 |
| Targets | 18 | 12 |
| Receiving yards | 111 | 134 |
| Yards per reception | 11.1 | 14.9 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest reception | 18 | 52 |
Coker led in total receiving yards, yards per reception and longest reception. Nacua led in catches and targets, and he also added a rushing touchdown.
The difference in longest reception is particularly notable. Coker’s 52-yard catch indicates that he generated a larger single-play gain than any Rams receiver in the supplied table. Nacua’s contribution, by contrast, came through a higher number of receptions and production in two phases of the offense.
Neither performance should be reduced to a simple winner-versus-loser comparison. Coker produced more receiving yards, but Nacua contributed to both the passing and rushing attack of the winning team.
Team Offensive Statistics and Efficiency
Individual player statistics explain who produced the yards and touchdowns, but team-level numbers reveal how the two offenses operated.
The official NFL game-center statistics provide additional context for the final score, including total offensive yardage, first downs, third-down conversions, penalties and possession time. These numbers help explain how Los Angeles generated more total offense while Carolina remained close enough to threaten a late comeback.
| Team statistic | Los Angeles Rams | Carolina Panthers |
| Total offensive yards | 411 | 333 |
| Total offensive plays | 72 | 64 |
| Average yards per play | 5.7 | 5.2 |
| Net passing yards | 295 | 250 |
| Rushing yards | 116 | 83 |
| First downs | 21 | 21 |
| Third-down conversions | 3 of 13 | 5 of 12 |
| Fourth-down conversions | 1 of 2 | 0 of 3 |
| Time of possession | 31:46 | 28:14 |
| Penalties | 9 for 83 yards | 4 for 35 yards |
| Turnovers listed | 1 interception | 2, including a lost fumble |
These team statistics show that Los Angeles gained 78 more total yards than Carolina and ran eight more offensive plays. The Rams also held the ball for 3 minutes and 32 seconds longer.
However, the Panthers converted more third downs. Carolina succeeded on five of 12 attempts, compared with three of 13 for Los Angeles. That advantage helped Carolina sustain possessions even while finishing with fewer total yards.
Total yardage and offensive balance
The Rams’ 411 total yards came from 295 net passing yards and 116 rushing yards. Carolina produced 333 total yards, consisting of 250 net passing yards and 83 rushing yards.
Los Angeles therefore held a 78-yard advantage in total offense.
The gap was split between the passing and rushing games. The Rams generated 45 more net passing yards and 33 more rushing yards. Those differences contributed to the Rams’ ability to produce 34 points.
Still, yardage does not automatically translate into victory. Carolina scored 31 points despite having fewer total yards, demonstrating that the timing of scoring plays and the conversion of opportunities can matter as much as the overall volume of offense.
Third-down and fourth-down performance
Third-down efficiency favored Carolina. The Panthers converted 41.7% of their attempts, while the Rams converted 23.1%.
A third-down conversion extends an offensive possession and creates additional opportunities to score. Carolina’s advantage in this category helped offset Los Angeles’ higher yardage total.
Fourth-down performance moved in the opposite direction. Los Angeles converted one of two attempts, while Carolina failed on all three of its attempts. These results show how the teams differed when facing particularly important downs.
It would be misleading to attribute the result to fourth-down performance alone. The game included several touchdowns, field goals, turnovers and a late winning drive. A complete evaluation must consider how all those events interacted.
Red-zone efficiency
The supplied official team statistics list the Rams as converting four of five red-zone opportunities, an 80% rate. Carolina converted four of four, a 100% rate.
That means the Panthers were more efficient in the red zone according to the listed figures, despite losing the game.
This is a useful distinction for readers comparing team performance. Red-zone efficiency measures the outcome of a specific type of possession, not the overall strength of an offense. Los Angeles generated more total yards, while Carolina scored on every listed red-zone opportunity.
The two teams also differed in how they scored. The Rams had three passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown, while the Panthers had one passing touchdown and three rushing touchdowns. Both teams converted all four listed extra-point attempts.
Defensive Stats: Tackles, Sacks and Turnovers
Defense played an important role in a contest where neither team could consistently keep the other off the scoreboard. Both quarterbacks threw an interception, while Carolina also lost a fumble.
The supplied team defensive summary lists the Rams with two sacks and the Panthers with one. Los Angeles also recorded eight quarterback hits, compared with six for Carolina.
| Defensive statistic | Rams | Panthers |
| Total tackles | 58 | 68 |
| Solo tackles | 35 | 41 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 6 | 8 |
| Quarterback hits | 8 | 6 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The Rams’ two sacks and eight quarterback hits suggest that they generated more recorded pressure than Carolina. The Panthers, meanwhile, recorded more tackles and passes defended.
These figures reflect different defensive responsibilities. A high tackle total can result from spending more time defending against offensive plays, while passes defended measure opportunities to disrupt throws. Neither number alone establishes which defense performed better on every snap.
Cobie Durant records an interception
Cobie Durant was listed as the Rams’ interception leader, with one interception and 11 return yards. His takeaway gave Los Angeles an opportunity to disrupt Carolina’s offensive rhythm.
Interceptions can be especially important in close playoff games because they end an opposing possession and may create a scoring opportunity for the team making the play.
However, an interception does not always lead directly to points. The supplied summary does not establish the precise subsequent field position or scoring result associated with every takeaway, so it is better to assess Durant’s contribution as a defensive turnover rather than assume it directly produced a touchdown.
Mike Jackson intercepts Stafford
Mike Jackson was listed with one interception for Carolina and no return yards. His takeaway prevented the Rams from completing that passing possession as planned.
The interception also demonstrates that Carolina’s defense had moments of success against Stafford, even though the Rams quarterback finished with three passing touchdowns.
The game therefore was not simply a case of one defense dominating and the other failing. Both teams generated turnovers, and both allowed substantial offensive production.
Sacks and quarterback pressure
The team summary records two Rams sacks and one Panthers sack. It also lists eight quarterback hits for Los Angeles and six for Carolina.
Pressure can influence passing accuracy, timing and decision-making. Even when a quarterback completes a pass, pressure may force an earlier throw or change the intended route progression.
However, pressure statistics do not provide a complete picture of defensive performance. A full evaluation would also consider the timing of the pressure, coverage assignments, missed tackles and the results of individual downs.
The lost fumble
The supplied data identifies a lost fumble by Carolina’s Trevor Etienne. This is an important distinction from an interception because it represents a separate type of turnover.
The Panthers’ turnover summary lists one lost fumble, while the Rams’ summary records no lost fumbles. Combined with the interceptions thrown by both quarterbacks, this gave Carolina two listed turnovers compared with one for Los Angeles.
In a three-point game, a lost possession can become a meaningful part of the overall analysis. Nevertheless, the final result cannot be attributed to one turnover without examining the field position, time remaining and scoring opportunities surrounding it.
Special Teams: Kicking, Punting and Returns
Special teams often receive less attention than quarterbacks and receivers, but they contribute directly to field position and scoring. This game featured successful field-goal attempts from both kickers, a difference in punting volume and useful kickoff returns.
Kicking statistics
| Statistic | Harrison Mevis, Rams | Ryan Fitzgerald, Panthers |
| Field goals made | 2 of 2 | 1 of 1 |
| Field-goal accuracy | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 46 yards | 46 yards |
| Extra points | 4 of 4 | 4 of 4 |
| Total kicking points | 10 | 7 |
Mevis scored 10 points through two field goals and four extra points. Fitzgerald scored seven through one field goal and four extra points.
Both kickers made every listed attempt. Mevis’ additional field goal accounts for the three-point difference in their kicking totals, although the full scoring difference also reflects each team’s touchdowns and the methods used to reach the end zone.
Punting comparison
| Punting statistic | Rams | Panthers |
| Team punts | 5 | 3 |
| Total punting yards | 182 | 163 |
| Average yards per punt | 36.4 | 54.3 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 3 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Longest punt | 52 yards | 58 yards |
Carolina averaged 54.3 yards per punt, substantially more than the Rams’ team average of 36.4 yards. Both teams recorded three punts inside the 20 and no listed punting touchbacks.
The difference in average distance should be interpreted with care. Punting distance is not the same as net field-position value. Return yards, hang time, placement and the resulting starting position all influence how effective a punt is.
The supplied Rams punting rows also distinguish the listed punter’s figures from the team totals. For that reason, the team averages above use the team-level values rather than treating the individual punter’s line as the complete team record.
Kickoff returns
| Returner or team | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Ronnie Rivers, Rams | 3 | 73 | 24.3 | 29 |
| Trevor Etienne, Panthers | 3 | 63 | 21.0 | 24 |
| Xavier Legette, Panthers | 2 | 44 | 22.0 | 28 |
| Panthers team total | 5 | 107 | 21.4 | 28 |
Rivers averaged 24.3 yards per kickoff return, while Carolina’s return group combined for 107 yards on five attempts.
These returns helped establish field position before the offense began its work. However, return yardage should not be confused with offensive scrimmage yardage, since the two categories measure different parts of the game.
Punt returns
The Rams’ Xavier Smith recorded one punt return for minus-two yards. Carolina’s Trevor Etienne recorded one punt return for zero yards.
Neither team generated a significant positive gain through the listed punt-return plays. The kickoff returns therefore provided the more substantial return-yardage contribution in the supplied statistics.
How the Rams Won a Three-Point Playoff Game
The most useful way to understand the result is to connect the statistics to the scoring sequence. Los Angeles built an early lead, Carolina recovered, and the fourth quarter featured repeated changes in control.
The Rams established an early advantage
Los Angeles opened the scoring with a touchdown pass from Stafford to Nacua. The Rams then added another touchdown on a Nacua rushing play in the second quarter.
Carolina had fallen behind 14-0 before beginning its comeback. That early deficit placed pressure on the Panthers to score consistently for the remainder of the game.
Carolina responded through rushing touchdowns
Hubbard scored on a short rushing play, and Young later added a 16-yard rushing touchdown. Those scores brought Carolina back into the contest.
Young’s rushing touchdown was particularly significant because it gave the Panthers a scoring method beyond conventional passing. Hubbard’s two rushing touchdowns also helped Carolina maintain its offensive momentum.
The Rams and Panthers entered halftime with Los Angeles ahead 17-14. That score reflected Carolina’s ability to recover from the opening deficit without completely overturning the Rams’ advantage.
The third quarter remained close
Each team scored a field goal in the third quarter. Los Angeles moved ahead 20-17, but the Panthers remained within one score.
The limited scoring in this period created the conditions for a dramatic final quarter. Neither side established a decisive advantage before the last 15 minutes.
Carolina moved ahead in the fourth quarter
Hubbard scored his second rushing touchdown to put Carolina ahead 24-20. The Rams answered with a touchdown reception by Williams, restoring their lead at 27-24.
Coker then caught a touchdown pass from Young, putting Carolina ahead 31-27 with 2:39 remaining.
At that point, the Panthers had turned an early deficit into a four-point lead. The Rams needed a touchdown rather than a field goal to regain the advantage.
Stafford’s final drive decided the game
Los Angeles answered with a late scoring drive. Stafford completed a 19-yard touchdown pass to Parkinson with 38 seconds remaining, and Mevis converted the extra point to establish the final 34-31 score.
The closing sequence demonstrates why late-game execution matters in playoff football. Carolina had scored to take the lead, but the Rams responded with the touchdown needed to win.
A final-drive analysis should consider completion rate, time management, field position and the quality of the scoring opportunity. The supplied game recap reports that Stafford completed six of seven passes during the 71-yard drive. That sequence helped Los Angeles finish the game with the lead.
The decisive factor was not simply that Stafford threw three touchdowns. It was that one of those touchdowns came at the moment when the Rams needed to answer Carolina’s late score.
Key Takeaways From the Player Statistics
The statistical evidence points to several conclusions about how the Rams secured the victory and why Carolina remained competitive.
1. Stafford produced more passing touchdowns
Stafford threw three touchdown passes compared with Young’s one. Although both quarterbacks threw an interception, Stafford’s passing production gave Los Angeles an important advantage in the scoring game.
2. Coker led all receivers in yardage
Coker recorded 134 receiving yards, compared with Nacua’s 111. His 52-yard longest reception also exceeded the longest reception recorded by any Rams receiver in the supplied table.
3. Hubbard was Carolina’s leading rushing scorer
Hubbard produced 46 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns. Young added another rushing touchdown, giving Carolina three rushing scores in total.
4. Los Angeles generated more total offense
The Rams finished with 411 total yards, while the Panthers recorded 333. Los Angeles also gained more rushing yards and net passing yards.
5. Carolina was more efficient on third downs
The Panthers converted five of 12 third-down attempts, compared with three of 13 for the Rams. This helped Carolina maintain drives despite producing fewer total yards.
6. The Rams finished with the decisive touchdown
The most important scoring sequence came late in the fourth quarter. After Carolina took a 31-27 lead, Stafford connected with Parkinson for the winning touchdown with 38 seconds remaining.
7. Both teams had strengths and weaknesses
Los Angeles produced more total offense and more passing touchdowns, but Carolina was more successful on third downs and recorded three rushing touchdowns. The final score reflected the Rams’ ability to turn their offensive opportunities into just enough points to win.
How to Read NFL Box-Score Statistics Correctly
Readers comparing player performances can get more value from a box score by considering how the statistics relate to one another.
Passing yards versus net passing yards: Gross passing yards describe yardage gained through completed passes, while net passing yards account for sack losses under the relevant statistical convention. The supplied game data lists 304 gross passing yards and 295 net passing yards for the Rams, and 264 gross passing yards and 250 net passing yards for the Panthers.
Receptions versus targets: A target is a pass directed toward a receiver, while a reception is a completed catch. Nacua’s 10 receptions on 18 targets and Coker’s nine receptions on 12 targets illustrate different workloads and levels of target conversion.
Rushing efficiency versus rushing touchdowns: Williams averaged 4.4 yards per carry, while Hubbard averaged 3.5. Hubbard nevertheless recorded two rushing touchdowns, demonstrating that efficiency and scoring output measure different aspects of performance.
Individual statistics versus team totals: Individual rushing and receiving numbers should be reconciled with the team totals. If the rows do not match, readers should check whether the source uses different categories, omits a player or contains a data-entry inconsistency.
Quarterback rating versus QBR: Passer rating and QBR are different metrics. They should not be treated as interchangeable, and a complete quarterback assessment should include touchdowns, interceptions, yards per attempt, sacks and the game situation.
These distinctions are particularly useful when comparing performances across multiple NFL games. They prevent a single impressive number from overshadowing the rest of the statistical picture.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Los Angeles Rams vs Carolina Panthers game?
The Los Angeles Rams defeated the Carolina Panthers 34-31 in the NFC Wild Card playoffs. The game took place on January 10, 2026, local time, with some supplied listings displaying January 11.
2. How many passing yards did Matthew Stafford record?
Stafford recorded 304 gross passing yards and 295 net passing yards in the official game statistics. He completed 24 of 42 passes, threw three touchdowns and recorded one interception.
3. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Jalen Coker led all receivers with 134 yards on nine receptions. Puka Nacua led the Rams with 111 yards on 10 receptions and also scored a rushing touchdown.
4. How many touchdowns did Chuba Hubbard score?
Hubbard scored two rushing touchdowns for Carolina. He finished with 46 rushing yards on 13 carries and added 13 receiving yards on two receptions.
5. How did the Rams win the game?
The Rams won with a late touchdown pass from Stafford to Colby Parkinson. The 19-yard scoring play came with 38 seconds remaining and gave Los Angeles its final 34-31 lead.
6. Which team had more total offensive yards?
The Rams had 411 total offensive yards, while the Panthers had 333. Los Angeles gained more net passing yards and rushing yards, although Carolina converted a higher percentage of its third-down attempts.
Conclusion
The los angeles rams vs carolina panthers match player stats reveal a closely contested playoff game decided by late execution. Stafford’s three passing touchdowns, Nacua’s 111 receiving yards, and Parkinson’s decisive fourth-quarter score helped Los Angeles secure a 34-31 victory.
Carolina delivered several strong individual performances of its own. Coker led all receivers with 134 yards, Hubbard scored twice on the ground, and Young contributed a rushing touchdown in addition to his passing production.
The team statistics add further context. Los Angeles gained more total yards, recorded more rushing yardage and held the ball longer. Carolina converted more third downs and scored three rushing touchdowns, keeping the contest competitive until the final minute.
Taken together, the figures show why evaluating an NFL game requires more than looking at the final score. Passing production, rushing efficiency, receiving yardage, turnovers, situational conversions and late-game decisions all contribute to the outcome. The Rams ultimately made the final scoring opportunity count, while the Panthers’ performances demonstrated that they could challenge a more productive passing offense throughout a tightly contested postseason game.
