Indianapolis Colts vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
https://llythelabel.com/colts-vs-pittsburgh-steelers-match-player-stats/The indianapolis colts vs baltimore ravens match player stats from September 13, 2026, tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. Baltimore defeated Indianapolis 41-23 at Lucas Oil Stadium, opening the regular season with a powerful offensive performance that produced 506 total net yards. Lamar Jackson combined efficient passing with dangerous rushing, Derrick Henry scored three rushing touchdowns, and Zay Flowers created major problems before leaving with a hamstring injury. For Indianapolis, Jonathan Taylor remained the most productive offensive weapon, but the Colts struggled to keep pace after falling into an early deficit. The NFL’s official Week 1 record confirms the 41-23 result and Baltimore’s 1-0 start.
The game is especially useful for anyone researching individual player production because several statistical trends stand out. Baltimore’s passing game generated 324 yards, its rushing attack added 202 yards, and the Ravens scored 31 points before halftime. Indianapolis finished with 166 passing yards and 102 rushing yards. Those numbers show that the matchup was not decided by one isolated play. It was shaped by sustained offensive efficiency, explosive plays, turnovers, and Baltimore’s ability to control the game after building a large early advantage.
Game Overview and Final Score
Baltimore Ravens 41, Indianapolis Colts 23 was the final score on September 13, 2026.
Baltimore improved to 1-0, including a 1-0 road record, while Indianapolis opened the season 0-1 at home. The scoring pattern is important because it explains how the game developed.
| Quarter | Baltimore Ravens | Indianapolis Colts |
| Q1 | 14 | 6 |
| Q2 | 17 | 7 |
| Q3 | 0 | 3 |
| Q4 | 10 | 7 |
| Final | 41 | 23 |
Baltimore scored 31 points during the first half. Indianapolis managed 13.
That first-half difference created the central structure of the game. The Colts were not completely shut down offensively, but they were forced to chase the game. Baltimore could become more conservative later, rely more heavily on its running game, and manage the clock while still producing another 10 points in the fourth quarter.
NFL’s Week 1 analysis also noted that Baltimore’s offense had already produced 31 points before halftime, while the Ravens finished with more than 500 yards of total offense.
indianapolis colts vs baltimore ravens match player stats
When examining the indianapolis colts vs baltimore ravens match player stats, the first numbers to study are the quarterbacks and leading skill players. They show two very different offensive profiles.
| Category | Ravens | Colts |
| Final Score | 41 | 23 |
| Passing Yards | 324 | 166 |
| Rushing Yards | 202 | 102 |
| Passing TDs | 1 | 1 |
| Rushing TDs | 4 | 2 |
| Team Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Team Sacks | 2 | 2 |
| Total Net Offensive Yards | 506 | 268 |
Baltimore gained 238 more total yards than Indianapolis. The Ravens also produced exactly twice as many rushing yards and nearly twice as many passing yards.
The balance matters. Baltimore did not need to choose between running and passing. Jackson could attack through the air, while Henry provided a consistent downhill threat on the ground.
Indianapolis had a productive individual running performance from Taylor, but the overall offense did not generate enough passing production to match Baltimore.
Lamar Jackson’s Passing Performance
Lamar Jackson completed 17 of 25 passes for 324 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions.
His completion percentage was 68%. His 324 passing yards came at an average of 13 yards per attempt, which is a major indicator of how aggressively Baltimore attacked the Colts defense.
Jackson also recorded a passer rating of 124.2.
| Lamar Jackson | Stat |
| Completions | 17 |
| Attempts | 25 |
| Completion Rate | 68.0% |
| Passing Yards | 324 |
| Yards per Attempt | 13.0 |
| Passing TD | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Passer Rating | 124.2 |
| Rushing Attempts | 7 |
| Rushing Yards | 40 |
| Rushing TD | 1 |
Jackson’s performance was not limited to traditional quarterback statistics. He added 40 rushing yards and one rushing touchdown on seven carries.
That combination created a difficult defensive problem. Indianapolis had to account for Jackson as a passer while also respecting his ability to escape pressure and gain yards with his legs.
NFL’s official player log lists Jackson’s Week 1 performance at 17 completions on 25 attempts for 324 yards, one touchdown and no interceptions, along with 40 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown.
Why Jackson’s Efficiency Mattered
A quarterback throwing for 324 yards on only 25 attempts averages 13 yards per attempt. That is an unusually productive figure because it means Baltimore did not need an enormous number of short completions to accumulate yardage.
The Ravens also avoided throwing an interception.
That combination of volume, efficiency, and ball security gave Baltimore a strong offensive foundation.
Jackson’s rushing ability added another layer. When a defense commits extra players to stopping Henry, Jackson can attack space. When defenders stay disciplined against Jackson, Baltimore can continue using its powerful running game.
That is one reason quarterback rushing statistics should not be separated completely from passing statistics when evaluating Baltimore’s offensive performance.
Derrick Henry Dominates on the Ground
Derrick Henry delivered one of the most significant performances in the game.
He carried the ball 24 times for 144 yards and three touchdowns. He averaged exactly 6.0 yards per carry and recorded a long run of 32 yards.
Also he caught one pass for 19 yards.
| Derrick Henry | Stat |
| Carries | 24 |
| Rushing Yards | 144 |
| Yards per Carry | 6.0 |
| Longest Run | 32 yards |
| Rushing TDs | 3 |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving Yards | 19 |
| Receiving TDs | 0 |
Henry’s three rushing touchdowns were particularly important because they converted Baltimore’s offensive production into points.
The Ravens finished with 202 rushing yards as a team. Henry alone accounted for 144 of them, meaning he produced roughly 71% of Baltimore’s rushing yardage.
NFL’s official statistics also record Henry’s 24 carries, 144 yards and three touchdowns in the victory.
Henry’s Role Changed as the Game Developed
The game situation helped explain Henry’s workload.
Baltimore built a large lead early. Once the Ravens had control, continuing to run Henry allowed the offense to keep moving while limiting the number of high-risk passing situations.
This is an important distinction when studying box-score numbers. A running back’s production is not just about total carries. Game script can influence when those carries occur and what the defense is expecting.
Henry’s performance was particularly valuable because Baltimore could use him both as an early scoring weapon and as a clock-control option later.
Zay Flowers Produces 150 Receiving Yards
Zay Flowers was Baltimore’s leading receiver.
He caught five passes for 150 yards and one touchdown. His 30.0 yards per reception average demonstrates just how explosive his production was.
| Zay Flowers | Stat |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 150 |
| Average | 30.0 yards |
| Longest Reception | 54 yards |
| Receiving TD | 1 |
Flowers accounted for nearly half of Baltimore’s 324 passing yards despite making only five receptions.
That is a major concentration of offensive production.
His performance also demonstrates why reception totals alone can be misleading. Five catches might look modest in a conventional box score, but 150 yards on those five catches means the average reception created 30 yards.
NFL’s player statistics confirm Flowers finished the game with five receptions, 150 yards and one touchdown.
Flowers’ Injury Changed the Second Half
Flowers left the game with a hamstring injury and did not return after halftime. NFL reported the following day that Baltimore was evaluating its options because Flowers and rookie Ja’Kobi Lane were dealing with injuries.
This is important context when comparing Baltimore’s first-half and second-half offense.
The Ravens scored 31 points in the first half but only 10 in the second half. That difference does not mean the Colts suddenly solved everything defensively. Personnel availability and game situation both changed.
Flowers’ absence removed one of Baltimore’s most productive explosive-play options.
Mark Andrews Provides Reliable Tight End Production
Mark Andrews finished with four receptions for 49 yards.
He did not lead the Ravens in receiving yardage, but his production helped keep the passing attack balanced.
| Ravens Receiver | Receptions | Yards | TDs |
| Zay Flowers | 5 | 150 | 1 |
| Mark Andrews | 4 | 49 | 0 |
| Chris Moore | 1 | 53 | 0 |
| Derrick Henry | 1 | 19 | 0 |
Chris Moore’s one reception went for 53 yards, showing that Baltimore’s passing attack was not dependent entirely on short-area production.
The Ravens finished with 17 receptions for 324 receiving yards and one touchdown.
That works out to 19.1 yards per team reception, another indication that Baltimore created explosive gains through the passing game.
Jonathan Taylor Leads the Colts
Jonathan Taylor was Indianapolis’ most productive offensive player.
He carried the ball 19 times for 98 yards and two touchdowns. He also caught three passes for 23 yards.
His combined production reached 121 yards from scrimmage.
| Jonathan Taylor | Stat |
| Carries | 19 |
| Rushing Yards | 98 |
| Rushing Average | 5.2 |
| Rushing TDs | 2 |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving Yards | 23 |
| Total Scrimmage Yards | 121 |
| Total TDs | 2 |
Taylor’s 5.2 yards per carry was strong considering the game circumstances.
NFL’s Week 1 analysis reported that Taylor finished with 121 yards on 22 total touches, averaging 5.2 yards per carry, and noted that five of his rushing attempts gained at least 10 yards according to Next Gen Stats.
The challenge for Indianapolis was that Taylor’s production was not enough to offset the difference in passing output.
Daniel Jones and the Colts Passing Game
Daniel Jones completed 19 of 31 passes for 166 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.
His completion rate was 61.3%.
| Daniel Jones | Stat |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 31 |
| Completion Rate | 61.3% |
| Passing Yards | 166 |
| Yards per Attempt | 5.4 |
| Passing TD | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
Jones’ 166 yards were 158 fewer than Jackson’s total.
The bigger issue was efficiency. Jones averaged approximately 5.4 yards per attempt, compared with Jackson’s 13.0.
That difference helped explain why Indianapolis could sustain some drives but struggled to match Baltimore’s scoring pace.
The Colts also needed to throw more as the deficit grew. That can create a difficult cycle: an offense becomes more predictable, the defense can attack passing situations more aggressively, and opportunities for explosive plays become harder to create.
Indianapolis Receiving Leaders
Alec Pierce led Indianapolis in receiving yards with four receptions for 61 yards.
Josh Downs caught two passes for 37 yards, while Keenan Allen recorded four receptions for 32 yards.
Tyler Warren caught three passes for 13 yards and a touchdown.
Jonathan Taylor added three catches for 23 yards.
| Colts Receiver | Receptions | Yards | TDs |
| Alec Pierce | 4 | 61 | 0 |
| Josh Downs | 2 | 37 | 0 |
| Keenan Allen | 4 | 32 | 0 |
| Jonathan Taylor | 3 | 23 | 0 |
| Tyler Warren | 3 | 13 | 1 |
Indianapolis finished with 19 receptions for 166 yards and one touchdown.
Unlike Baltimore, the Colts did not have a receiver reach 100 yards.
That absence of a major explosive receiving performance was significant because Indianapolis needed to generate large chunks of yardage to recover from the early deficit.
Defensive Player Stats
The defensive statistics provide another useful layer to the matchup.
Baltimore’s leading tackler was Roquan Smith, who finished with 11 total tackles, including five solo tackles. He also recorded the Ravens’ only interception.
Indianapolis was led by Akeem Davis-Gaither with eight total tackles and five solo tackles.
| Defensive Player | Team | Tackles | Solo | INT |
| Roquan Smith | Ravens | 11 | 5 | 1 |
| Akeem Davis-Gaither | Colts | 8 | 5 | 0 |
Baltimore’s defense recorded two sacks, six tackles for loss, five passes defended, and nine quarterback hits.
Indianapolis also recorded two sacks, along with four quarterback hits.
Roquan Smith’s Interception
Smith’s interception was especially valuable because it gave Baltimore a takeaway while the Ravens were building control of the game.
Indianapolis did not record an interception.
The turnover difference was therefore 1-0 in Baltimore’s favor through interceptions.
Baltimore also recovered a fumble by Jonathan Taylor. The Ravens’ Marlon Humphrey was credited with the recovery.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Ravens | Colts |
| Total Tackles | 58 | 71 |
| Solo Tackles | 33 | 43 |
| Sacks | 2 | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 6 | Not listed |
| QB Hits | 9 | 4 |
| Passes Defended | 5 | Not listed |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
The higher tackle total for Indianapolis should not automatically be interpreted as better defensive performance.
A team that allows more plays and spends more time defending can accumulate a large number of tackles simply because there are more opportunities.
Baltimore’s 58 total tackles came within a game where the Ravens controlled possession and field position for significant stretches.
The more revealing numbers are the 506 yards allowed by Indianapolis compared with the Ravens’ ability to limit the Colts to 268 total net yards.
Special Teams Player Stats
Special teams played a smaller role in the final outcome, but the individual numbers are still useful.
Baltimore Special Teams
Chris Moore returned four kickoffs for 121 yards.
LaJohntay Wester returned one kickoff for 30 yards and added three punt returns for 30 yards.
Kicker Tyler Loop converted both of his field-goal attempts and all five extra-point attempts.
| Ravens Special Teams | Stat |
| Tyler Loop FGs | 2/2 |
| Long FG | 57 yards |
| Extra Points | 5/5 |
| Points | 11 |
| Chris Moore Kick Returns | 4 |
| Chris Moore Return Yards | 121 |
| LaJohntay Wester Punt Returns | 3 |
| Wester Punt Return Yards | 30 |
Indianapolis Special Teams
Seth McGowan returned five kickoffs for 164 yards, while Ashton Dulin returned one for 33 yards.
Spencer Shrader made his only field-goal attempt from 58 yards and converted two of three extra-point attempts.
Rigoberto Sanchez punted five times for 263 yards, averaging 52.6 yards per punt with a long of 59 yards.
| Colts Special Teams | Stat |
| Spencer Shrader FGs | 1/1 |
| Long FG | 58 yards |
| Extra Points | 2/3 |
| Points | 5 |
| Seth McGowan Kick Returns | 5 |
| McGowan Return Yards | 164 |
| Rigoberto Sanchez Punts | 5 |
| Punt Yards | 263 |
| Punt Average | 52.6 |
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers were another meaningful difference.
Baltimore recorded one interception and lost one fumble.
Indianapolis did not throw an interception but lost one fumble.
| Turnover Category | Ravens | Colts |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 1 |
| Total Lost | 1 | 2 |
Lamar Jackson lost one fumble for Baltimore.
Jonathan Taylor lost one fumble for Indianapolis.
Marlon Humphrey recovered Taylor’s fumble for Baltimore, while DeForest Buckner recovered Baltimore’s other fumble.
The turnover margin therefore favored Baltimore by one possession.
That was not the only reason the Ravens won, but it added to the Colts’ difficulty.
Where Baltimore Created the Biggest Statistical Advantage
Three areas stand out when the numbers are viewed together.
1. Passing Efficiency
Baltimore produced 324 passing yards compared with Indianapolis’ 166.
The difference was 158 yards.
Jackson also averaged 13.0 yards per attempt, more than twice Jones’ approximately 5.4 yards per attempt.
2. Rushing Production
Baltimore rushed for 202 yards.
Indianapolis rushed for 102.
The 100-yard difference allowed Baltimore to remain dangerous even when the passing game became less aggressive after halftime.
3. Explosive Receiving
Flowers’ 150 yards on five receptions gave Baltimore an explosive element that Indianapolis did not replicate.
Chris Moore also added a 53-yard reception.
The Ravens therefore had multiple ways to produce large chunks of yardage.
Where Indianapolis Found Success
The Colts were not completely without positive statistical developments.
Jonathan Taylor averaged 5.2 yards per carry and scored twice.
Alec Pierce led the team with 61 receiving yards.
The Colts also had two players reach four receptions: Pierce and Allen.
Indianapolis’ special teams produced solid kickoff return numbers, with McGowan recording 164 yards on five returns.
The problem was not the complete absence of individual production. The issue was the distribution and timing of that production.
Baltimore created more explosive plays earlier, scored more often, and established a lead that forced Indianapolis to operate under different game conditions.
What the Score Does Not Tell You
A 41-23 final score can sometimes make a game appear more one-sided than the underlying individual statistics.
That is partly true here, but the detailed numbers still support Baltimore’s control.
Indianapolis had a productive running back.
The Colts had several receivers contribute.
Jones completed 19 passes.
The defense recorded two sacks.
Yet Baltimore won the most important statistical battles.
The Ravens generated 506 total net yards against 268 for Indianapolis. They rushed for 202 yards against 102. They passed for 324 against 166. Also they scored 31 first-half points and finished with a 41-point total.
NFL’s Week 1 analysis described Baltimore’s offense as producing more than 500 yards and noted that the Ravens’ defense posted a 58.6% pressure rate when Trey Hendrickson was on the field.
That combination explains the result better than simply looking at the 18-point final margin.
A Closer Look at the First Half
The first half was the decisive portion of the game.
Baltimore scored 14 points in the opening quarter and 17 in the second.
Indianapolis scored six in the first and seven in the second.
The halftime score was therefore:
Baltimore 31, Indianapolis 13
That 18-point advantage gave Baltimore room to change its offensive priorities.
The Ravens could lean more heavily on Henry.
They could reduce unnecessary passing risk.
They could force Indianapolis to use more aggressive offensive strategies.
For the Colts, the opposite was true. The offense needed points quickly, which increased the importance of passing efficiency and explosive plays.
The Second-Half Adjustment
Baltimore did not score in the third quarter but added 10 points in the fourth.
Indianapolis scored three points in the third and seven in the fourth.
The third-quarter slowdown is important because it shows how different the game became after halftime.
Flowers was no longer available.
Baltimore already had a significant lead.
Henry became even more important as a game-management option.
The Ravens did not need to maintain the same level of first-half passing aggression to preserve their advantage.
This is one reason analysts should be careful about interpreting second-half statistics without considering game state.
What the Matchup Reveals About Both Offenses
Baltimore demonstrated a highly balanced attack.
Jackson provided quarterback mobility and efficient downfield passing.
Henry supplied power and scoring production.
Flowers created explosive receiving plays.
Andrews provided reliable intermediate production.
That combination made it difficult for Indianapolis to remove every major threat simultaneously.
The Colts showed a different profile.
Taylor was the centerpiece of the rushing attack.
Pierce led the receiving group.
Jones completed a high percentage of his passes, but the low yardage total limited the offense’s ability to produce fast scoring drives.
The difference was not simply quarterback versus quarterback or running back versus running back. It was how each team’s individual strengths connected to the overall offensive structure.
Important Player Takeaways
Lamar Jackson
Jackson’s 324 passing yards and 40 rushing yards made him one of the central figures in the game.
His 124.2 passer rating reflected efficient production without an interception.
Derrick Henry
Henry’s 144 rushing yards and three touchdowns provided Baltimore with a reliable scoring foundation.
His 6.0 yards per carry showed that his workload was not simply volume based.
Zay Flowers
Flowers was the game’s most explosive receiver, recording 150 yards and a touchdown on five catches.
His injury is an important piece of context for evaluating Baltimore’s second-half offensive output.
Jonathan Taylor
Taylor produced 121 yards from scrimmage and two rushing touchdowns.
He was Indianapolis’ clearest offensive success story.
Daniel Jones
Jones completed 19 passes but finished with only 166 yards.
The limited yardage output made it difficult for Indianapolis to keep pace with Baltimore’s explosive offense.
Roquan Smith
Smith led Baltimore with 11 tackles and added an interception.
His production helped anchor a defense that also generated pressure and forced a turnover.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
When researching a game like this, it is easy to focus on the largest numbers.
That approach can miss important context.
For example, Henry’s three touchdowns are obvious. But his 6.0 yards per carry shows that his production came with consistent efficiency.
Flowers’ 150 receiving yards are impressive, but the five-reception total shows that his impact was concentrated in explosive plays.
Taylor’s 98 rushing yards may look less impressive than Henry’s 144, but Taylor also added 23 receiving yards, bringing his total scrimmage production to 121 yards.
Similarly, Indianapolis’ 71 total tackles compared with Baltimore’s 58 does not mean the Colts defense performed better. The number of defensive opportunities was affected by Baltimore’s offensive control.
The best statistical analysis therefore combines volume, efficiency, scoring, turnovers, and game context.
Why These Numbers Matter for Future Matchups
The Week 1 statistics establish several areas worth monitoring during the rest of the season.
For Baltimore, the biggest question is how the passing game performs if Flowers is unavailable. His five catches for 150 yards accounted for a huge portion of Jackson’s passing production.
For Indianapolis, the key question is whether the passing attack can generate more explosive yardage around Taylor.
The Colts clearly have a capable running back. The challenge is creating enough balance that opponents cannot concentrate their defensive attention on the running game or force the quarterback into low-efficiency passing situations.
The defensive side also matters.
Baltimore produced nine quarterback hits and two sacks while limiting Indianapolis to 268 total net yards.
Indianapolis recorded two sacks but still allowed 506 total net yards.
That contrast suggests that pressure alone does not tell the complete defensive story. A defense must combine pressure with coverage, run defense, tackling, and the ability to prevent explosive plays.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of the Colts vs Ravens game?
The Baltimore Ravens defeated the Indianapolis Colts 41-23 on September 13, 2026.
Who led the Ravens in passing?
Lamar Jackson led Baltimore with 17 completions on 25 attempts for 324 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions.
Who was Baltimore’s leading rusher?
Derrick Henry led the Ravens with 24 carries for 144 yards and three rushing touchdowns.
Who led the Colts in rushing?
Jonathan Taylor led Indianapolis with 19 carries for 98 yards and two rushing touchdowns. He also added 23 receiving yards.
Who led the game in receiving yards?
Zay Flowers led all receivers with five catches for 150 yards and one touchdown.
How many total yards did each team have?
Baltimore produced 506 total net yards, while Indianapolis finished with 268.
Conclusion
The indianapolis colts vs baltimore ravens match player stats show that Baltimore’s 41-23 victory was built on several connected advantages rather than one isolated performance.
Lamar Jackson passed for 324 yards and added 40 rushing yards. Derrick Henry rushed for 144 yards and three touchdowns. Zay Flowers produced 150 receiving yards before leaving with a hamstring injury. Mark Andrews added four receptions for 49 yards, while Baltimore’s offense finished with 202 rushing yards and 324 passing yards.
Indianapolis had strong individual production from Jonathan Taylor, who finished with 121 yards from scrimmage and two touchdowns. Alec Pierce led the Colts in receiving yards with 61, but the passing game produced only 166 yards overall.
Defensively, Roquan Smith led Baltimore with 11 tackles and an interception. The Ravens also produced two sacks, nine quarterback hits, and a total of 506 offensive yards.
The biggest statistical takeaway is the difference in offensive efficiency. Baltimore combined explosive passing with an effective rushing attack, while Indianapolis struggled to generate enough passing yardage to overcome the early deficit.
For readers studying the indianapolis colts vs baltimore ravens match player stats, the most useful approach is to look beyond individual totals and connect those numbers to game situation. The 31-13 halftime score, Baltimore’s 506 total yards, the 202-102 rushing advantage, and the turnover difference together provide the clearest explanation of how the Ravens controlled the matchup.
