Pittsburgh Steelers vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
The pittsburgh steelers vs baltimore ravens match player stats from January 4, 2026, tell the story of a close AFC North battle that Pittsburgh won by just two points. The Steelers defeated the Ravens 26-24, overcoming a difficult opening half and producing a stronger finish when the game was on the line. Lamar Jackson delivered three passing touchdowns for Baltimore, while Aaron Rodgers led Pittsburgh with 294 passing yards and no interceptions. Individual performances from Zay Flowers, Derrick Henry, Jaylen Warren, and Kenny Gainwell also shaped the result.
This matchup offers a useful example of how NFL games can be decided by more than passing yards or touchdown totals. Baltimore produced explosive plays through the air and on the ground, but Pittsburgh found more ways to turn its opportunities into points. Special teams, defensive pressure, third-down situations, and scoring efficiency all help explain the final margin. Examining the box score in detail reveals how both teams performed, which players made the biggest contributions, and why the Steelers came away with the victory.
Pittsburgh Steelers vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The final score was Pittsburgh Steelers 26, Baltimore Ravens 24. Pittsburgh entered the contest with a 10-7 record, including a 6-3 home record, while Baltimore finished with an 8-9 record and a 5-3 away record, according to the supplied ESPN statistics.
Final Score
| Game Information | Pittsburgh Steelers | Baltimore Ravens |
| Final score | 26 | 24 |
| First quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 14 |
| Record shown in supplied data | 10-7 | 8-9 |
| Home or away record | 6-3 home | 5-3 away |
Pittsburgh’s victory came through a combination of second-half scoring and defensive disruption. Baltimore started more quickly, scoring seven points in the opening quarter and adding three in the second. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, managed only three points before halftime.
The momentum changed after the break. The Steelers scored 10 points in the third quarter while keeping Baltimore off the scoreboard. That period erased the Ravens’ early advantage and gave Pittsburgh a platform for the decisive fourth-quarter battle.
Baltimore responded with 14 points in the final quarter, demonstrating its ability to create scoring opportunities even under pressure. Pittsburgh scored another 13 points, however, and preserved its two-point lead.
What the Final Score Reveals
Three important themes emerge from the result:
- Pittsburgh improved after halftime. Its 23 second-half points compared with Baltimore’s 14 gave the Steelers the scoring advantage needed to win.
- Baltimore’s passing attack created explosive opportunities. Lamar Jackson threw three touchdown passes, with Zay Flowers accounting for two receiving touchdowns.
- Pittsburgh benefited from a mistake-free passing performance. Rodgers threw for 294 yards without an interception, while the Steelers recorded an interception on defense.
The game was not a simple case of one team dominating every statistical category. Baltimore had a productive rushing performance and dangerous receiving plays. Pittsburgh’s advantage came from combining sustained passing production with timely scoring and a key defensive takeaway.
Quarterback Statistics: Lamar Jackson vs Aaron Rodgers
Quarterback performance is central to understanding this game. Jackson produced the more efficient passing line by passer rating, while Rodgers completed more passes and accumulated more passing yards.
Quarterback Comparison
| Passing Statistic | Lamar Jackson, Ravens | Aaron Rodgers, Steelers |
| Completions/attempts | 11/18 | 31/47 |
| Completion percentage | 61.1% | 66.0% |
| Passing yards | 238 | 294 |
| Yards per attempt | 13.2 | 6.3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 3 | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 16 | 4 |
| Passer rating | 121.5 | 90.2 |
| ESPN QBR | 53.2 | 65.6 |
Source: Supplied ESPN box-score data. Completion percentages are calculated from completions and attempts.
Lamar Jackson’s Performance
Jackson completed 11 of 18 passes for 238 yards and three touchdowns. He averaged 13.2 yards per attempt and posted a passer rating of 121.5, an indication of how much damage Baltimore created when its passing plays connected.
His production was built around efficiency and explosive gains rather than a high volume of attempts. Jackson attempted fewer than half as many passes as Rodgers, yet he still generated three touchdown throws. His passing average suggests that Baltimore frequently gained substantial yardage on successful attempts.
The challenge was that the passing performance did not translate into a win. Jackson threw one interception and was sacked three times for a combined loss of 16 yards. Those plays matter because negative outcomes can disrupt a drive even when a quarterback is otherwise productive.
Jackson’s 53.2 QBR also differed from his 121.5 passer rating. These measurements are not interchangeable. Passer rating uses a defined formula based on passing statistics, whereas ESPN’s QBR is a separate metric designed to assess a quarterback’s overall contribution in context.
The key takeaway is that Jackson delivered outstanding touchdown production, but Baltimore needed more consistency across its possessions to turn that efficiency into a victory.
Aaron Rodgers’ Performance
Rodgers completed 31 of 47 passes for 294 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. His 66.0% completion rate was higher than Jackson’s 61.1%, and he gained 56 more passing yards.
Rodgers’ performance was different in style. He relied on a larger number of completions to move the offense downfield. His 6.3 yards per attempt was considerably lower than Jackson’s 13.2, but the Steelers continued to generate passing volume throughout the contest.
The absence of an interception was particularly important. Pittsburgh could keep working through its passing game without giving Baltimore an interception to turn into an additional possession. Rodgers was sacked twice for only four yards of total loss, limiting the damage from Baltimore’s pass rush.
His 90.2 passer rating was lower than Jackson’s, yet his ESPN QBR of 65.6 was higher. This contrast reinforces an important analytical point: no single quarterback statistic fully captures a player’s performance.
Rodgers’ contribution was less explosive on a per-attempt basis, but his yardage total, completion volume, and ball security helped Pittsburgh sustain offensive pressure.
Which Quarterback Played Better?
The answer depends on the measure being considered.
- Touchdown efficiency: Jackson led with three passing touchdowns.
- Passing yardage: Rodgers led with 294 yards.
- Completion percentage: Rodgers led at approximately 66.0%.
- Yards per attempt: Jackson led at 13.2.
- Interception avoidance: Rodgers threw none.
- Passer rating: Jackson led at 121.5.
- ESPN QBR: Rodgers led at 65.6.
Jackson produced the more explosive passing performance, while Rodgers delivered greater passing volume and avoided turnovers. The final result shows that the quarterback with the higher passer rating does not necessarily win. Team scoring, defensive plays, and situational execution determine the outcome.
Rushing Statistics: Derrick Henry and Jaylen Warren Lead the Ground Game
The rushing comparison reveals a clear Baltimore advantage in total yardage. The Ravens recorded 137 team rushing yards on 27 attempts, while Pittsburgh gained 100 yards on 24 attempts.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Rushing Statistic | Baltimore Ravens | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Rushing attempts | 27 | 24 |
| Rushing yards | 137 | 100 |
| Average yards per attempt | 5.1 | 4.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Longest rush | 41 yards | 20 yards |
Baltimore gained 37 more rushing yards than Pittsburgh and averaged 0.9 more yards per attempt. However, the Steelers recorded two rushing touchdowns, while the supplied Ravens team statistics list none.
That difference illustrates why rushing efficiency and scoring efficiency must be considered separately. A team can gain more yards on the ground without scoring more rushing touchdowns.
Derrick Henry’s Rushing Performance
Derrick Henry led Baltimore with 20 carries for 126 yards, averaging 6.3 yards per attempt. His longest rush covered 41 yards.
Henry accounted for most of Baltimore’s listed rushing production. His 126 yards represented approximately 92% of the team’s 137 rushing yards in the supplied totals. That concentration shows how heavily the Ravens relied on their lead running back to create ground-game production.
His 6.3-yard average was especially notable because it indicates that his contribution extended beyond short gains. The 41-yard run gave Baltimore a major explosive play and helped establish a rushing threat that Pittsburgh had to respect.
Yet Henry did not score a rushing touchdown in the provided statistics. His production created yardage, but the Ravens’ inability to record a rushing score limited the direct scoring impact of that ground-game advantage.
This is an important distinction for evaluating running backs. Total rushing yards measure how much ground a player gains, while touchdowns reflect whether that production reaches the end zone. Henry excelled at gaining yards, but his rushing line alone cannot explain Baltimore’s final scoring total.
Jaylen Warren’s Rushing Performance
Jaylen Warren led Pittsburgh’s listed rushing group with 14 carries for 66 yards. He averaged 4.7 yards per attempt, and his longest run covered 15 yards.
Warren’s 66 yards represented a substantial portion of Pittsburgh’s ground-game output. Although he did not match Henry’s total yardage, his average remained productive enough to help the Steelers maintain balance between rushing and passing plays.
The supplied statistics list no rushing touchdowns for Warren. Pittsburgh’s two team rushing touchdowns were credited to Kenny Gainwell and Connor Heyward.
Warren also contributed as a receiver, catching five passes for 33 yards. That dual role gave Pittsburgh another way to involve him in the offense without requiring every touch to come through a traditional handoff.
Other Rushing Contributions
| Player | Team | Attempts | Rushing Yards | Touchdowns |
| Lamar Jackson | Ravens | 4 | 9 | 0 |
| Keaton Mitchell | Ravens | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Rasheen Ali | Ravens | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Rodgers | Steelers | 1 | 20 | 0 |
| Kenny Gainwell | Steelers | 5 | 10 | 1 |
| Connor Heyward | Steelers | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Jonnu Smith | Steelers | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Rodgers’ listed 20-yard rush stands out because it matched Pittsburgh’s longest recorded individual rushing gain. It also illustrates why quarterback rushing lines should not be ignored when reviewing a complete offensive performance.
Gainwell and Heyward, meanwhile, provided scoring contributions on the ground despite modest rushing yardage totals. Their touchdowns were more valuable to the scoreboard than their raw rushing numbers might initially suggest.
Receiving Statistics: Zay Flowers Delivers Baltimore’s Biggest Explosive Plays
Baltimore’s receiving production was led by Zay Flowers, who finished with four receptions for 138 yards and two touchdowns. His 34.5 yards per reception was the highest average among the listed leading receivers from either team.
Pittsburgh distributed its receiving production more broadly, with Kenny Gainwell leading the team in catches and receiving yards.
Leading Receivers Comparison
| Player | Team | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Zay Flowers | Ravens | 4 | 138 | 34.5 | 2 |
| Devontez Walker | Ravens | 2 | 46 | 23.0 | 1 |
| Isaiah Likely | Ravens | 2 | 32 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Kenny Gainwell | Steelers | 8 | 64 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Calvin Austin III | Steelers | 3 | 55 | 18.3 | 1 |
| Pat Freiermuth | Steelers | 3 | 51 | 17.0 | 0 |
| Adam Thielen | Steelers | 3 | 43 | 14.3 | 0 |
| Marquez Valdes-Scantling | Steelers | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 0 |
| Jaylen Warren | Steelers | 5 | 33 | 6.6 | 0 |
The averages and touchdown figures reflect the supplied player statistics.
Zay Flowers’ Game-Changing Performance
Flowers caught four passes for 138 yards and two touchdowns, including a longest reception of 64 yards. He also received six targets.
His production was remarkable because he generated more than one-third of Baltimore’s listed receiving yards with only four catches. The 34.5-yard average indicates that his impact came from explosive gains rather than a high reception count.
Flowers was particularly valuable as a deep-play threat. A receiver who can turn a small number of opportunities into substantial yardage forces opposing defenses to protect against explosive passes. That can create space for other receivers and influence how defensive backs position themselves before the snap.
His two touchdowns also gave Baltimore a direct scoring return from his big-play ability. Jackson’s passing line and Flowers’ receiving line fit together: Jackson supplied the touchdown throws, while Flowers turned his opportunities into some of the game’s most important offensive gains.
Nevertheless, Flowers’ individual success did not guarantee a Ravens victory. Football is a possession-based game, and explosive plays must be combined with defensive stops and successful scoring opportunities across the full contest.
Devontez Walker Adds a Second Explosive Option
Walker recorded two receptions for 46 yards and one touchdown on two targets. His average of 23.0 yards per reception shows how efficiently he used his limited opportunities.
Unlike a receiver who accumulates production through a large number of short catches, Walker generated a strong yardage total without needing many targets. His longest reception was 38 yards.
His touchdown also meant Baltimore had another receiver capable of finishing a passing play in the end zone. The combination of Flowers’ two touchdowns and Walker’s one accounted for the three touchdown receptions listed in the supplied data.
This distribution matters because an offense becomes harder to defend when multiple receivers can create explosive gains. However, the small number of receptions also means the data should be interpreted carefully rather than treated as proof of a sustained advantage on every passing down.
Isaiah Likely and Mark Andrews
Isaiah Likely caught two passes for 32 yards, averaging 16.0 yards per reception. His longest reception was 26 yards. He offered another productive option in Baltimore’s passing attack, even though the supplied statistics did not credit him with a touchdown.
Mark Andrews recorded two receptions for 14 yards and no touchdowns. His contribution was more limited in yardage terms than Flowers’ or Likely’s.
These numbers demonstrate that receiving impact can vary considerably among players in the same offense. Flowers and Walker delivered the major explosive gains, while other targets contributed smaller portions of the total passing output.
Pittsburgh’s Receiving Distribution
Kenny Gainwell led the Steelers with eight receptions for 64 yards on nine targets. His 8.0 yards per reception was lower than the averages recorded by Flowers, Walker, and several other receivers, but he gave Rodgers a reliable short-to-intermediate passing option.
Gainwell’s value was not limited to receiving. He also recorded a rushing touchdown, according to the supplied player statistics. His combined rushing and receiving responsibilities made him an important part of Pittsburgh’s offensive workload.
Calvin Austin III caught three passes for 55 yards and a touchdown. He averaged 18.3 yards per reception, with a longest catch of 26 yards. Austin offered a more explosive receiving profile than Gainwell, even though he finished with fewer total yards.
Pat Freiermuth added three receptions for 51 yards, averaging 17.0 yards per catch. Adam Thielen recorded three catches for 43 yards, while Marquez Valdes-Scantling caught five passes for 34 yards.
Together, these contributions illustrate Pittsburgh’s distributed approach. Rodgers completed passes to multiple options, allowing the offense to accumulate yardage without depending on one receiver to produce nearly all its biggest plays.
Team Receiving Comparison
| Receiving Statistic | Baltimore Ravens | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Listed team receptions | 11 | 31 |
| Team receiving yards | 238 | 294 |
| Average yards per reception | 21.6 | 9.5 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Longest reception | 64 yards | 31 yards |
| Listed targets | 17 | 44 |
The figures show contrasting styles. Baltimore averaged more yards per reception and recorded three receiving touchdowns. Pittsburgh accumulated more receiving yards through a much larger number of catches.
The supplied totals should be treated with caution because some individual and team figures appear inconsistent. The broad pattern is still clear: Baltimore’s passing attack was more explosive per catch, while Pittsburgh generated greater overall passing volume.
Defensive Statistics: Pittsburgh Creates a Crucial Turnover
Defense played a major role in a contest decided by only two points. Pittsburgh recorded three sacks and one interception, while Baltimore recorded two sacks and no interceptions in the supplied defensive statistics.
Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Statistic | Baltimore Ravens | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Total tackles | 78 | 50 |
| Solo tackles | 43 | 32 |
| Sacks | 2 | 3 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 4 |
| Quarterback hurries | 3 | 5 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Pittsburgh’s Pass Rush
The Steelers recorded three sacks and five quarterback hurries. Those figures suggest that Pittsburgh generated pressure on Jackson at several points during the game.
Jackson’s three sacks resulted in 16 yards lost. Negative plays can make it harder for an offense to sustain a drive because the next play begins farther from a first down or scoring opportunity.
Sacks are not the only way to assess a pass rush, however. Quarterback hurries can disrupt timing even when the defender does not bring the quarterback down. A hurried throw may arrive earlier than intended or force the quarterback to abandon his first read.
Pittsburgh’s combination of sacks and hurries therefore provides a useful measure of defensive disruption. The figures do not, by themselves, prove that pressure caused every incomplete pass or scoring failure, but they show that the Steelers made Jackson work under pressure.
T.J. Watt’s Interception
The supplied data credits T.J. Watt with Pittsburgh’s interception. The play did not produce a defensive touchdown or return yardage, but securing possession was still valuable.
An interception ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defense’s offense another opportunity to score. In a game with a two-point final margin, a turnover can become especially important because every lost possession may affect the outcome.
The available figures do not establish the exact point value of the interception or how much it changed the game’s win probability. It is therefore more accurate to describe it as a key defensive contribution than to claim that it alone decided the game.
Baltimore’s Defensive Effort
Baltimore recorded two sacks, three tackles for loss, five passes defended, and three quarterback hurries. Those numbers show that the Ravens created some disruption even though Rodgers finished without an interception.
The five passes defended indicate that Baltimore’s defenders affected multiple passing attempts. Yet the defense did not record a takeaway in the supplied statistics, and Rodgers still accumulated 294 passing yards.
This contrast is central to the game. Baltimore could generate pressure and contest passes, but Pittsburgh maintained enough passing production to support its second-half scoring surge.
Why Defensive Statistics Need Context
The Ravens recorded 78 total tackles compared with Pittsburgh’s 50. That difference does not automatically mean Baltimore defended better. Tackle totals can increase when a defense spends more time on the field or when opponents complete more short passes.
Similarly, a higher sack count is useful but incomplete. Defensive performance also depends on down and distance, red-zone stops, turnovers, and whether the defense prevents touchdowns.
A fair assessment considers the full picture: Baltimore produced pressure and defended passes, while Pittsburgh recorded the additional interception and finished with the win.
Special Teams Statistics: Field Goals and Kicking Efficiency
Special teams deserve attention in close NFL games because field goals and extra points can determine the difference between winning and losing. Pittsburgh won by two points, making the supplied kicking statistics particularly relevant.
Kicker Comparison
| Statistic | Tyler Loop, Ravens | Chris Boswell, Steelers |
| Field goals made/attempted | 1/2 | 2/2 |
| Field goal percentage | 50.0% | 100.0% |
| Longest field goal | 40 yards | 57 yards |
| Extra points made/attempted | 3/3 | 2/3 |
| Total points | 6 | 8 |
Boswell made both of his field-goal attempts, including a longest field goal of 57 yards. Loop made one of two attempts, with his longest successful kick covering 40 yards.
Boswell’s perfect field-goal record was a clear advantage in the supplied figures. Loop’s missed field goal represents a lost scoring opportunity, although the precise effect on the final result depends on when the attempt occurred and the game’s situation at that moment.
Pittsburgh also recorded two successful extra points from three attempts, compared with Baltimore’s three from three. These figures show that neither team’s kicking performance was flawless across all categories.
The correct conclusion is not that Pittsburgh won solely because of kicking. Rather, the kicking data shows that Boswell converted both listed field-goal opportunities, while Baltimore failed to convert one of its two.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | Jordan Stout, Ravens | Corliss Waitman, Steelers |
| Punts | 4 | 3 |
| Total punt yards | 191 | 119 |
| Average punt | 47.8 yards | 39.7 yards |
| Longest punt | 54 yards | 53 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 1 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Stout averaged 47.8 yards per punt, compared with Waitman’s 39.7 yards. Baltimore also recorded three punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, while Pittsburgh recorded one.
These numbers favor Baltimore in raw punting distance and the listed inside-the-20 measure. Good punting can improve field position by forcing an opponent to begin a drive farther from the end zone.
However, punting statistics cannot be evaluated in isolation. A longer punt is not always better if it gives up a touchback or fails to create a favorable landing position. In this game, both punters recorded zero touchbacks, while Stout produced the stronger average and more punts inside the 20.
Kick Returns
Baltimore recorded five kick returns for 130 yards, averaging 26.0 yards per return. Pittsburgh recorded three returns for 91 yards, averaging 30.3 yards.
Keaton Mitchell led Baltimore with two returns for 60 yards and a longest return of 41 yards. Jaylen Warren led Pittsburgh with two returns for 59 yards, averaging 29.5 yards. Kenny Gainwell added a 32-yard return on one attempt.
Pittsburgh averaged more yards per kick return, while Baltimore accumulated more total return yards because it had more listed attempts. Neither team recorded a punt-return touchdown in the supplied statistics.
These numbers suggest that both teams had opportunities to improve field position through returns. The available data does not establish that return yardage alone directly produced any particular score.
Team Statistics and Offensive Efficiency
The overall team figures help explain why this game was close. Pittsburgh had more passing yards, while Baltimore had more rushing yards. The teams also differed in how they distributed their offensive production.
Offensive Production at a Glance
| Category | Baltimore Ravens | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Passing yards | 238 | 294 |
| Rushing yards | 137 | 100 |
| Total yards, calculated from listed passing and rushing yards | 375 | 394 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Listed team receiving touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Fumbles recorded | None | None |
Total yards are calculated by adding the supplied passing and rushing yardage figures. Because the source data contains some inconsistencies, these totals should be treated as a summary of the listed figures rather than an independently verified official team total.
Pittsburgh’s Passing Advantage
Pittsburgh gained 294 passing yards, 56 more than Baltimore. That passing advantage helped offset the Ravens’ superior rushing production.
Rodgers completed 31 passes, giving Pittsburgh a large volume of successful completions. The Steelers’ listed 44 targets also suggest that the offense repeatedly used the passing game to move the ball.
The key limitation was that this volume produced only one passing touchdown in the supplied statistics. Pittsburgh compensated with two rushing touchdowns and two successful field goals.
This distribution shows how a team can win without leading in every major offensive category. Pittsburgh gained fewer rushing yards, but it converted its offensive opportunities into a combination of passing production, rushing scores, and field goals.
Baltimore’s Rushing Advantage
Baltimore’s 137 rushing yards and 5.1 yards per carry compared favorably with Pittsburgh’s 100 yards and 4.2 average.
Henry was the central figure, accounting for 126 yards on 20 carries. The Ravens’ ground game created useful yardage and gave the offense another way to move the ball beyond Jackson’s passing production.
However, the supplied team rushing line lists zero rushing touchdowns. That meant Baltimore’s ground production did not directly add a rushing score to its final total, despite the team’s strong yardage average.
This does not mean the rushing attack was ineffective. It means its success in moving the ball did not fully translate into scoring through rushing plays.
Why Total Yardage Does Not Decide Games
Pittsburgh’s calculated 394 yards exceeded Baltimore’s 375 by 19 yards. That is a relatively small difference and fits the close final score.
But total yardage does not tell the entire story. It does not directly account for the value of a turnover, the timing of a touchdown, missed field goals, or the distance of a scoring drive.
A team might accumulate yards between the 20-yard lines without finishing drives. Another team might gain fewer yards but score more efficiently when it reaches scoring range.
For this matchup, the most useful interpretation is that Pittsburgh combined a modest yardage advantage with a stronger second-half scoring performance. Baltimore generated explosive plays, but its overall production was not enough to preserve the lead.
Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis
The scoring pattern is one of the clearest ways to understand how the result developed.
First Quarter: Baltimore Takes the Lead
Baltimore scored seven points in the opening quarter, while Pittsburgh did not score.
The Ravens established the early advantage and put the Steelers in a position where they needed to respond. An opening-quarter lead can influence play selection because the trailing team may need to become more aggressive as time passes.
However, the opening score did not guarantee Baltimore would control the entire game. Pittsburgh still had three quarters to adjust its approach.
Second Quarter: Pittsburgh Gets on the Board
Both teams scored three points in the second quarter. Baltimore entered halftime with a 10-3 lead.
The quarter was relatively even on the scoreboard, but Pittsburgh had not yet found the scoring pace required to take control. The Steelers needed a stronger second-half response to overcome the seven-point deficit.
Third Quarter: Pittsburgh Changes the Momentum
Pittsburgh scored 10 points in the third quarter, while Baltimore failed to score.
This was the pivotal scoring period. The Steelers moved from trailing at halftime to leading after the third quarter, while the Ravens lost their early scoring rhythm.
A scoreless quarter does not necessarily mean an offense performed poorly on every possession, but it does show that Baltimore did not convert its opportunities into points during that period. Pittsburgh, in contrast, found the end zone or scoring range often enough to take control of the scoreboard.
Fourth Quarter: A High-Scoring Finish
Baltimore scored 14 points in the final quarter, while Pittsburgh added 13. The Ravens mounted a strong late response, but Pittsburgh scored just enough to finish ahead.
The fourth-quarter figures show why the result remained uncertain until late in the game. Baltimore did not stop competing after its scoreless third quarter, and its passing attack continued to produce touchdowns.
Pittsburgh’s ability to match that scoring response proved decisive. A two-point victory is a narrow margin, and the final quarter demonstrated that both offenses could generate points when the game demanded it.
The Turning Point in Context
The third quarter stands out because Pittsburgh scored 10 unanswered points during that period. It changed the score from a seven-point Baltimore halftime lead to a Pittsburgh advantage heading into the final quarter.
The final period then became a test of whether Pittsburgh could protect that advantage. Both teams scored heavily, but the Steelers finished with the higher overall total.
Without a complete verified play-by-play review, it would be misleading to identify a single snap as the definitive turning point. The quarter-by-quarter scoring pattern, however, clearly identifies Pittsburgh’s third-quarter response as a major factor in the outcome.
Key Factors Behind Pittsburgh’s Victory
Several aspects of the supplied box score help explain the Steelers’ win.
1. Pittsburgh’s Second-Half Scoring
The Steelers scored 23 points after halftime, compared with Baltimore’s 14. That nine-point difference was the most obvious scoreboard advantage across the two halves.
Pittsburgh’s third-quarter performance gave it the lead, and its fourth-quarter scoring helped preserve it.
2. Rodgers Protected the Football
Rodgers threw no interceptions in 47 attempts. That was important against a Baltimore offense capable of producing quick scoring drives.
Although Rodgers’ passer rating was lower than Jackson’s, his ball security helped Pittsburgh avoid giving away a possession through an interception.
3. Baltimore Relied on Explosive Plays
Flowers gained 138 receiving yards on four catches, and Henry rushed for 126 yards. Both players generated substantial production.
However, Baltimore’s explosive gains did not prevent Pittsburgh from scoring more points. This is a reminder that individual success must be supported by complete team execution.
4. Pittsburgh Converted Rushing Opportunities Into Touchdowns
The supplied Steelers statistics credit Gainwell and Heyward with rushing touchdowns. Those scores complemented Rodgers’ passing production and helped Pittsburgh reach 26 points.
Baltimore gained more rushing yards, but its listed team rushing total showed no rushing touchdowns. The difference in scoring outcomes was more important than the difference in rushing yardage.
5. The Steelers Recorded the Only Interception
Pittsburgh’s defense recorded one interception, credited to Watt in the supplied data. Baltimore recorded none.
A turnover can change possession and create an additional opportunity for the offense. While the data does not prove the interception alone decided the game, it was a meaningful difference in a contest decided by two points.
6. Field-Goal Accuracy Favored Pittsburgh
Boswell converted both listed field-goal attempts, while Loop converted one of two. Pittsburgh also finished with eight points credited to its kicker, compared with six for Baltimore’s kicker.
Those figures gave Pittsburgh an advantage in field-goal production, although Baltimore was more accurate on extra points. Taken together, the special teams numbers contributed to the overall scoring picture rather than providing a complete explanation by themselves.
What the Player Statistics Mean for Future Matchups
A box score is most useful when it helps readers understand what might matter in a future game. It cannot guarantee that the same results will occur again, but it can identify performance patterns worth monitoring.
For Pittsburgh
The Steelers can take several lessons from the listed performance:
- Maintain passing balance. Rodgers’ 294 yards show that the offense could generate substantial production through the air.
- Protect possession. Avoiding interceptions helped Pittsburgh keep its offense on the field.
- Continue converting rushing chances. The listed rushing touchdowns from Gainwell and Heyward gave the team another scoring route.
- Create pressure. Three sacks and five quarterback hurries show the value of disrupting the opposing passer.
- Finish scoring opportunities. Pittsburgh’s third-quarter response demonstrates why turning drives into points is more important than accumulating yardage alone.
The main question for future games is whether Pittsburgh can sustain this level of scoring balance against different defensive schemes. One game provides evidence of what happened, not a guarantee of what will happen next.
For Baltimore
Baltimore’s statistics point to different areas of focus:
- Preserve explosive passing production. Jackson’s three touchdowns and Flowers’ 138 receiving yards were major strengths.
- Build on Henry’s rushing output. His 126 yards provided a productive foundation for the offense.
- Limit negative plays. The three sacks and one interception listed against Jackson reduced the value of otherwise efficient passing.
- Convert drives into points. Baltimore needs to make its yardage advantages count on the scoreboard.
- Improve consistency across quarters. The scoreless third quarter created a difficult situation that required a major fourth-quarter response.
The Ravens demonstrated that they could produce explosive offense, but the final result emphasizes the importance of consistency throughout all four quarters.
How Analysts Should Use These Numbers
For readers comparing games or assessing team form, the most useful approach is to examine several measures together:
- Compare passing efficiency, not just passing yards.
- Review rushing average and touchdowns separately.
- Check whether turnovers favored one team.
- Look at scoring by quarter to identify changes in momentum.
- Review kicking accuracy and field-position statistics.
- Confirm whether individual totals match official team totals before drawing detailed conclusions.
This method reduces the risk of judging a game from a single headline statistic. It also helps separate what the box score directly establishes from what an analyst can reasonably infer.
Data Accuracy and Statistical Limitations
The supplied ESPN transcription includes a note that some team-total rows are duplicated and some individual statistics appear inconsistent with the team totals. Those limitations matter when interpreting the numbers.
For example, the supplied Pittsburgh team receiving total lists 294 yards, which matches Rodgers’ passing yardage, while the individual receiving figures listed in the table do not necessarily reconcile with that total. Similar issues can arise when a copied box score combines team passing, receiving, and rushing categories or repeats totals.
The distinction between passing yards and receiving yards is especially important. A quarterback’s passing total normally corresponds to the team’s receiving yardage total, subject to the official scoring rules and any relevant adjustments. A copied data table that includes repeated rows or mismatched player entries should not be treated as a perfectly reconciled statistical database.
There is also a difference between an official box-score fact and an analytical conclusion. The score, listed completions, rushing yards, and touchdown totals are reported figures from the supplied source. Statements about momentum, efficiency, or why a team won are interpretations based on those figures.
Readers seeking to verify a specific play or reconcile conflicting statistics should consult the original ESPN NFL box score. The official game record is the appropriate place to check individual scoring plays, player participation, and any corrected statistical entries.
The analysis above preserves the supplied figures and avoids silently changing conflicting totals. That approach is important for trustworthy sports reporting: a detailed explanation should clarify uncertainty rather than hide it behind confident wording.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Pittsburgh Steelers vs Baltimore Ravens game on January 4, 2026?
The Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Baltimore Ravens 26-24. Pittsburgh scored 10 points in the third quarter and 13 in the fourth to finish ahead after trailing at halftime.
2. How many passing yards did Aaron Rodgers have against the Ravens?
Aaron Rodgers threw for 294 yards, completing 31 of 47 passes. He recorded one passing touchdown and no interceptions in the supplied ESPN statistics.
3. How did Lamar Jackson perform against Pittsburgh?
Lamar Jackson completed 11 of 18 passes for 238 yards and three touchdowns. He threw one interception, took three sacks for 16 yards, and recorded a passer rating of 121.5.
4. Which Ravens player had the most receiving yards?
Zay Flowers led Baltimore with 138 receiving yards on four receptions. He averaged 34.5 yards per catch and recorded two receiving touchdowns.
5. How many rushing yards did Derrick Henry record?
Derrick Henry rushed 20 times for 126 yards, averaging 6.3 yards per carry. His longest run covered 41 yards, and the supplied statistics list no rushing touchdowns for him.
6. Why did Pittsburgh win despite Baltimore’s explosive offensive performances?
Pittsburgh benefited from stronger second-half scoring, Rodgers’ interception-free passing performance, two listed rushing touchdowns, and the only interception recorded in the supplied defensive statistics. Baltimore generated significant passing and rushing yardage, but Pittsburgh finished with the higher score.
Conclusion
The January 4, 2026, contest between Pittsburgh and Baltimore finished with a 26-24 Steelers victory, reflecting a game in which both offenses produced important moments but Pittsburgh scored more consistently after halftime. Rodgers passed for 294 yards without an interception, while Jackson threw three touchdowns and posted a higher passer rating. Flowers delivered Baltimore’s leading receiving performance with 138 yards and two touchdowns, and Henry added 126 rushing yards.
Pittsburgh’s second-half scoring, two listed rushing touchdowns, and defensive interception helped offset Baltimore’s stronger rushing totals and more explosive passing average. Special teams also contributed to the statistical contrast, with Boswell converting both listed field-goal attempts.
The wider lesson from this matchup is that football statistics work best when read together. Passing yards, rushing efficiency, touchdowns, turnovers, kicking results, and quarter-by-quarter scoring each reveal a different part of the game. No single number fully explains a close result, but the combined evidence shows how Pittsburgh turned a difficult start into a narrow win.
