Detroit Lions vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats
The detroit lions vs los angeles rams match player stats from the December 15, 2025 NFL meeting tell the story of a high-scoring game that ended with the Los Angeles Rams defeating the Detroit Lions 41-34. The Rams entered the contest with an 11-3 record and a strong 6-1 home mark, while Detroit came in at 8-6 and 3-4 on the road. Although Jared Goff delivered an excellent passing performance for Detroit and Amon-Ra St. Brown produced one of the best receiving lines of the game, Los Angeles created the difference through a more efficient rushing attack and another outstanding performance from Puka Nacua.
This was not a game where one statistical category explained everything. Detroit threw for 338 yards, scored three passing touchdowns, and committed no fumbles. Los Angeles, however, combined 368 passing yards with 159 rushing yards, giving the Rams a much more balanced offensive profile. Kyren Williams and Blake Corum consistently produced on the ground, while Nacua generated explosive plays through the air. The result was a game in which both offenses moved the football effectively, but Los Angeles finished with the stronger overall offensive balance.
The purpose of this breakdown is to go beyond simply listing numbers. The most useful way to understand these statistics is to connect individual performances with the larger flow of the game. That means looking at quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving volume, defensive activity, special teams, scoring by quarter, and the specific statistical details that help explain why the Rams came away with a seven-point victory.
Game Overview and Final Score
The matchup between the Detroit Lions and Los Angeles Rams finished:
| Team | Final Score | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 |
| Los Angeles Rams | 41 | 7 | 10 | 17 | 7 |
| Detroit Lions | 34 | 7 | 17 | 0 | 10 |
The final score shows a game that changed direction several times.
Both teams scored seven points in the opening quarter, producing an even start. Detroit then had the better second quarter, scoring 17 points compared with 10 for Los Angeles. At halftime, the Lions had built a 24-17 advantage.
The third quarter completely changed the momentum. Los Angeles scored 17 unanswered points while Detroit was held scoreless. That seven-point swing in the third period was arguably the most important stretch of the contest. Detroit responded with 10 points in the fourth quarter, but the Rams added seven more to protect their lead.
The scoring pattern highlights an important lesson when examining NFL player statistics. A team can produce strong individual numbers and still lose because of when those numbers are generated. Detroit’s offense was productive overall, but the third-quarter shutout created a deficit that proved difficult to overcome.
Detroit Lions vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats
The statistical comparison provides a clear picture of how closely matched the teams were in passing production and how much the Rams separated themselves with their running game.
| Category | Detroit Lions | Los Angeles Rams |
| Passing Yards | 338 | 368 |
| Rushing Yards | 70 | 159 |
| Total Listed Offensive Yards | 408 | 527 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 3 | 2 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 | 3 |
| Team Receptions | 25 | 24 |
| Team Targets | 38 | 38 |
| Team Passing Average | 13.5 | 15.3 |
| Turnovers Lost | 0 | 0 |
| Final Score | 34 | 41 |
The most striking difference is rushing production.
Detroit gained 70 rushing yards on 20 attempts, an average of 3.5 yards per carry. Los Angeles produced 159 rushing yards on 29 attempts, averaging 5.5 yards per carry. That gave the Rams an 89-yard advantage on the ground.
The passing numbers were much closer. Detroit recorded 338 passing yards, while Los Angeles finished with 368. Jared Goff actually threw for three touchdowns without an interception, compared with Matthew Stafford’s two touchdowns and one interception.
This is why the detroit lions vs los angeles rams match player stats should be analyzed as a complete offensive picture rather than focusing only on quarterback numbers. Goff’s individual passing line was excellent, but Stafford’s offense had the benefit of a significantly stronger rushing contribution.
Jared Goff’s Passing Performance
Jared Goff was one of Detroit’s strongest performers.
His passing statistics were:
| Statistic | Jared Goff |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 41 |
| Completion Rate | 61.0% |
| Passing Yards | 338 |
| Average | 8.2 |
| Touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 for 12 yards |
| QBR | 88.2 |
| Passer Rating | 111.6 |
Goff completed 25 of 41 attempts for 338 yards and three touchdowns without throwing an interception. His listed passer rating of 111.6 reflects how effectively he handled the passing game.
The 338-yard total is particularly important because Detroit did not receive much help from its rushing attack. When a team averages only 3.5 yards per carry, the quarterback often has to carry more of the offensive workload. Goff did exactly that.
His 8.2 yards per attempt also indicate that Detroit was not simply relying on short, conservative passes. The Lions generated meaningful yardage through the air, with Amon-Ra St. Brown and Jameson Williams providing major contributions.
Goff was also sacked only once for a 12-yard loss. That helped preserve Detroit’s passing efficiency, although the Rams’ defense still managed to generate eight quarterback hits.
From an analytical perspective, Goff’s performance is one of the clearest examples of a quarterback playing well statistically in a losing effort. Three touchdown passes, zero interceptions, and more than 300 yards normally provide a strong foundation for victory. The problem for Detroit was that the Rams found more ways to generate production across the entire offense.
Matthew Stafford’s Passing Performance
Matthew Stafford delivered 368 passing yards for Los Angeles.
| Statistic | Matthew Stafford |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 38 |
| Completion Rate | 63.2% |
| Passing Yards | 368 |
| Average | 9.7 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 2 for 8 yards |
| QBR | 73.9 |
| Passer Rating | 101.6 |
Stafford completed 24 of 38 attempts for 368 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception.
His 9.7 yards per attempt stands out. Los Angeles averaged more per passing attempt than Detroit, and the Rams’ receiving corps generated several explosive gains. Puka Nacua’s 181 receiving yards were the biggest reason for that efficiency.
Stafford did not have the same touchdown-to-interception ratio as Goff, but the overall offensive environment around him was different. The Rams were able to run the ball effectively, forcing Detroit’s defense to account for both the ground game and the passing attack.
That balance is central to understanding the detroit lions vs los angeles rams match player stats. Stafford did not need to win the game through passing alone. His 368 yards were part of an offense that also produced 159 rushing yards and three rushing touchdowns.
Puka Nacua Dominates the Receiving Numbers
Puka Nacua was the leading receiver for Los Angeles and one of the most productive players in the entire game.
His statistics were:
| Statistic | Puka Nacua |
| Receptions | 9 |
| Targets | 11 |
| Receiving Yards | 181 |
| Average | 20.1 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Long | 39 yards |
Nacua averaged 20.1 yards per reception and produced 181 yards on nine catches. That means he was not simply accumulating volume through short completions. He was consistently creating substantial gains.
His 11 targets represented a significant portion of Stafford’s 38 pass attempts. The quarterback repeatedly looked in his direction, and Nacua responded with a highly efficient performance.
Interestingly, Nacua did not score a receiving touchdown. His impact came primarily through field position and explosive yardage. Other Rams players converted scoring opportunities, allowing Nacua to influence the game without appearing in the touchdown column.
This is an important distinction when evaluating wide receivers. Touchdowns are valuable, but they do not fully measure a player’s contribution. A receiver who repeatedly produces 20-yard gains can dramatically change the structure of a defense even without scoring.
Nacua’s performance is therefore one of the strongest examples of how volume and efficiency can combine to influence a game.
Amon-Ra St. Brown Leads Detroit
Amon-Ra St. Brown was Detroit’s leading receiver and arguably the Lions’ most productive offensive player.
| Statistic | Amon-Ra St. Brown |
| Receptions | 13 |
| Targets | 18 |
| Receiving Yards | 164 |
| Average | 12.6 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Long | 52 yards |
St. Brown caught 13 passes on 18 targets for 164 yards and two touchdowns.
The 13 receptions were the highest individual reception total listed for either team. His 18 targets also show just how heavily Detroit relied on him.
The most impressive element of his performance was his combination of volume and scoring impact. He was not only the primary possession receiver. He also converted opportunities into touchdowns and produced a 52-yard long reception.
His workload tells us something about Detroit’s offensive strategy. With the running game struggling to produce consistently, the Lions leaned heavily on their top receiver. St. Brown responded by becoming a major part of nearly every important passing sequence.
The matchup between St. Brown and Nacua was especially interesting from a statistical standpoint. St. Brown had more receptions and more touchdowns, while Nacua produced more receiving yards and a higher average per catch.
That contrast illustrates two different styles of offensive impact. St. Brown provided high-volume production and scoring efficiency. Nacua generated explosive yardage and big-play value.
Jameson Williams Provides Explosive Production
Jameson Williams also delivered a major performance for Detroit.
| Statistic | Jameson Williams |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Targets | 10 |
| Receiving Yards | 134 |
| Average | 19.1 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long | 31 yards |
Williams caught seven passes for 134 yards and one touchdown.
His 19.1-yard average per reception shows that he was another important source of explosive offense. Together, Williams and St. Brown accounted for 298 receiving yards.
That is an enormous share of Detroit’s 338 team passing yards.
The Lions therefore had two highly productive receivers, and Goff was able to take advantage of them. The challenge was that the passing success was not matched by equivalent rushing production.
From a game-planning perspective, Detroit’s passing attack was strong enough to score 34 points. The more difficult question is what might have happened if the Lions had been able to establish a more efficient ground game earlier.
Detroit’s Rushing Attack Struggles
The Detroit Lions finished with:
| Statistic | Team Total |
| Carries | 20 |
| Rushing Yards | 70 |
| Average | 3.5 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long | 10 yards |
Jahmyr Gibbs led Detroit with 13 carries for 38 yards.
David Montgomery added seven carries for 32 yards and scored one touchdown.
Neither player reached 40 rushing yards, and the team produced only one run of 10 yards as its longest gain.
This was the clearest statistical weakness in Detroit’s offensive performance.
The Lions were successful through the air, but the inability to consistently create positive rushing plays limited their offensive balance. The Rams could focus more defensive attention on the passing game without facing the same level of threat from the running attack.
Gibbs’ 2.9 yards per carry was below what Detroit needed in a game where every possession mattered. Montgomery was more efficient at 4.6 yards per carry, but his seven attempts limited his overall influence.
The result was an offense that had to rely heavily on Goff and the receiving corps.
Kyren Williams and Blake Corum Give Los Angeles Balance
The Rams’ rushing statistics were significantly stronger.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Kyren Williams | 15 | 78 | 5.2 | 2 | 19 |
| Blake Corum | 11 | 71 | 6.5 | 1 | 24 |
| Puka Nacua | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Matthew Stafford | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Team Total | 29 | 159 | 5.5 | 3 | 24 |
Kyren Williams led the Rams with 78 rushing yards and two touchdowns.
Blake Corum was even more efficient on a per-carry basis, producing 71 yards on 11 attempts for a 6.5-yard average. He also scored a rushing touchdown.
The combination of Williams and Corum gave Los Angeles a two-player rushing attack that Detroit struggled to contain.
This was arguably the most important statistical advantage in the game.
The Rams gained 159 rushing yards compared with Detroit’s 70. That difference of 89 yards created more opportunities to control the tempo and keep the Lions’ defense from focusing exclusively on Stafford.
Williams’ 5.2 yards per carry was strong, but Corum’s 6.5 average was particularly impressive. His 24-yard long run also demonstrated the ability to create explosive plays.
The Rams’ running game was not merely useful for gaining first downs. It was a source of scoring production, with three rushing touchdowns.
That is a major contrast with Detroit’s offense, which scored three passing touchdowns but only one rushing touchdown.
Puka Nacua’s Dual Contribution
Although Nacua’s receiving performance was his primary contribution, he also recorded two rushing attempts for eight yards.
His overall offensive involvement included:
- 9 receptions
- 181 receiving yards
- 11 receiving targets
- 2 rushing attempts
- 8 rushing yards
The two rushing attempts were not a major statistical component of the game, but they demonstrate how Los Angeles used its playmakers in multiple ways.
The Rams’ offensive production was distributed across several players rather than depending entirely on one statistical category.
Detroit Receiving Depth
Beyond St. Brown and Williams, Detroit’s receiving numbers were more limited.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TD | Targets |
| Amon-Ra St. Brown | 13 | 164 | 2 | 18 |
| Jameson Williams | 7 | 134 | 1 | 10 |
| Kalif Raymond | 1 | 20 | 0 | 1 |
| Jahmyr Gibbs | 4 | 20 | 0 | 7 |
| David Montgomery | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Isaac TeSlaa | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
The distribution shows how concentrated Detroit’s passing offense became.
St. Brown and Williams combined for 20 receptions and 298 yards. That represents the overwhelming majority of Detroit’s 338 receiving yards.
The two receivers were highly effective, but the concentration also suggests that Los Angeles had fewer players to account for in the passing game.
Gibbs contributed four receptions for 20 yards, adding a secondary role as a receiving option. Kalif Raymond recorded one catch for 20 yards.
Los Angeles Receiving Distribution
Los Angeles had a slightly different distribution.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TD | Targets |
| Puka Nacua | 9 | 181 | 0 | 11 |
| Colby Parkinson | 5 | 75 | 2 | 7 |
| Davante Adams | 4 | 71 | 0 | 9 |
| Davis Allen | 3 | 16 | 0 | 4 |
| Kyren Williams | 1 | 10 | 0 | 1 |
| Tutu Atwell | 1 | 9 | 0 | 2 |
| Terrance Ferguson | 1 | 6 | 0 | 2 |
The Rams had three significant receiving contributors in Nacua, Colby Parkinson, and Davante Adams.
Nacua led the yardage category by a wide margin. Parkinson, however, converted five catches into 75 yards and two touchdowns.
That is an important difference between yardage production and scoring production. Nacua was the most explosive receiver, while Parkinson was the more direct contributor to the Rams’ receiving touchdowns.
Adams also added 71 yards on four catches, averaging 17.8 yards per reception.
The Rams therefore had multiple players capable of creating meaningful gains.
Colby Parkinson’s Two Touchdowns
Colby Parkinson caught five passes for 75 yards and two touchdowns.
His statistics were:
- 5 receptions
- 7 targets
- 75 yards
- 15.0 yards per reception
- 2 touchdowns
- 26-yard long
Parkinson’s two touchdowns were especially valuable because Nacua, despite his 181-yard performance, did not score.
This is a good example of how offensive production can be divided between explosive plays and red-zone execution. Nacua helped move the offense down the field, while Parkinson converted scoring opportunities.
That combination contributed to Los Angeles scoring 41 points.
Defensive Leaders and Tackling
Detroit’s defensive tackle leader was Jack Campbell.
| Statistic | Jack Campbell |
| Total Tackles | 14 |
| Solo Tackles | 9 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Tackles for Loss | 0 |
| Pass Deflections | 0 |
| QB Hits | 0 |
Campbell recorded 14 tackles, including nine solo tackles.
His tackle total indicates that he was heavily involved throughout the game. However, the absence of sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits suggests that his production was primarily reactive rather than disruptive.
Detroit’s team defense recorded:
- 72 total tackles
- 38 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 1 tackle for loss
- 7 pass deflections
- 8 quarterback hits
The eight quarterback hits show that Detroit was able to pressure Stafford at times, but the defense did not consistently create negative plays.
Aidan Hutchinson’s Interception
Aidan Hutchinson recorded Detroit’s only interception.
The interception statistics listed were:
| Statistic | Aidan Hutchinson |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Return Yards | 58 |
| Interception TDs | 0 |
The 58-yard interception return was a major defensive play.
Detroit’s defense therefore did create a turnover opportunity and converted it into significant field position. However, the team ultimately lost the turnover battle only in the sense that Los Angeles had no interceptions but Stafford’s fumble was recovered by the Rams themselves.
The key point is that defensive takeaways did not completely offset the Rams’ offensive consistency.
Los Angeles Defensive Performance
Nate Landman led the Rams in tackles.
| Statistic | Nate Landman |
| Total Tackles | 10 |
| Solo Tackles | 6 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Tackles for Loss | 1 |
| Pass Deflections | 0 |
| QB Hits | 0 |
Landman finished with 10 tackles and one tackle for loss.
The Rams’ team defense recorded:
- 62 total tackles
- 32 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 3 tackles for loss
- 2 pass deflections
- 8 quarterback hits
The Rams did not produce an interception, but they still managed to keep Detroit from turning its passing production into a winning total.
That is partly because defensive success should not always be measured only by sacks and interceptions. Preventing consistent rushing production can be just as important.
Detroit’s 70 rushing yards meant that the Lions could not establish the same offensive balance as Los Angeles.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers were not the defining story of the game.
Detroit recorded no fumbles.
Los Angeles had one fumble credited to Matthew Stafford, but it was not lost. The Rams recovered it.
Detroit also recorded one interception through Aidan Hutchinson, while Los Angeles had no interceptions.
The listed turnover information shows that Los Angeles did not lose possession through its fumble, while Detroit avoided fumbles entirely.
This means the Rams’ victory was primarily built through offensive execution rather than a major turnover advantage.
That distinction matters when evaluating the sustainability of the result. The Rams did not simply win because Detroit repeatedly gave the ball away. They won by producing 527 listed yards of offense, including 159 rushing yards.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams also played a supporting role.
Detroit Kicking
Jake Bates finished:
- Field goals: 2 of 3
- Field-goal percentage: 66.7%
- Long field goal: 48 yards
- Extra points: 4 of 4
- Points: 10
Bates was perfect on extra points and converted two field goals, including a 48-yard attempt.
Los Angeles Kicking
Harrison Mevis recorded:
- Field goals: 2 of 2
- Field-goal percentage: 100%
- Long field goal: 44 yards
- Extra points: 5 of 5
- Points: 11
Mevis was perfect on both field goals and all five extra-point attempts.
The one-point difference in kicking points was not enough to explain the final result, but perfect execution helped the Rams maximize their scoring opportunities.
Kick Return Comparison
Los Angeles had the stronger kick-return numbers.
Jordan Whittington recorded four returns for 102 yards, averaging 25.5 yards per return.
Ronnie Rivers added two returns for 60 yards, averaging 30 yards per return.
The Rams finished with:
- 6 kick returns
- 162 yards
- 27.0-yard average
- 32-yard long return
Detroit had one listed kick return from Tom Kennedy for 13 yards.
The difference in return yardage provided Los Angeles with better starting field position opportunities.
Although kick returns do not always appear prominently in a box-score summary, field position can influence the entire offensive sequence that follows.
Punt Return Statistics
Detroit recorded two punt returns.
Kalif Raymond had one return for 15 yards, while Tom Kennedy returned one punt for eight yards.
Detroit’s team total was:
- 2 returns
- 23 yards
- 11.5-yard average
- 15-yard long
Los Angeles had one listed punt return by Xavier Smith for zero yards.
The punt return numbers therefore favored Detroit slightly, but the difference was not large enough to overcome Los Angeles’ advantages elsewhere.
Punting Comparison
Detroit punter Jack Fox recorded:
- 3 punts
- 150 total yards
- 50.0-yard average
- 1 touchback
- 1 inside the 20
- 62-yard long
Los Angeles punter Ethan Evans recorded:
- 3 punts
- 149 total yards
- 49.7-yard average
- 1 touchback
- 0 inside the 20
- 52-yard long
The punting numbers were nearly identical in total yardage.
Fox had a slightly higher average and a longer individual punt, while Evans had almost the same overall output.
This is another example of a category that did not determine the game. The biggest differences were found in rushing production, explosive receiving efficiency, and scoring by quarter.
What the Statistics Say About the Game
When all of the numbers are considered together, several conclusions become clear.
1. Detroit Won the Passing Touchdown Battle
Goff threw three touchdown passes compared with Stafford’s two.
That shows Detroit’s passing attack was highly productive in the red zone.
2. Los Angeles Won the Rushing Battle
The Rams gained 159 rushing yards compared with Detroit’s 70.
This was one of the biggest statistical differences in the game.
3. Both Teams Had Elite Receiving Performances
St. Brown produced 164 yards and two touchdowns.
Nacua produced 181 yards.
Both receivers were central to their teams’ offensive success.
4. The Rams Had More Offensive Balance
Los Angeles combined 368 passing yards with 159 rushing yards.
Detroit combined 338 passing yards with only 70 rushing yards.
That balance allowed the Rams to remain productive even when one part of the offense was not dominating.
5. The Third Quarter Was Critical
Detroit scored zero points in the third quarter.
Los Angeles scored 17.
That was the biggest scoring swing of the game and helped the Rams turn a 24-17 halftime deficit into a 34-24 lead entering the fourth quarter.
6. Turnovers Did Not Decide the Contest
Detroit had no fumbles, while Stafford’s fumble was recovered by Los Angeles.
Detroit recorded an interception, but the Rams did not throw one according to the supplied defensive statistics.
The game was therefore more about execution than repeated giveaways.
Why the Rams Won
The simplest explanation is that Los Angeles created more total offensive balance.
Detroit’s offense was highly effective through the air. Goff, St. Brown, and Williams produced excellent numbers. Yet the Lions’ rushing attack averaged only 3.5 yards per carry.
Los Angeles had no such limitation.
The Rams averaged 5.5 yards per rushing attempt and scored three rushing touchdowns. That allowed Stafford to operate within a more balanced offense.
The Rams also benefited from Nacua’s 181 receiving yards. His 20.1-yard average created explosive gains that helped compensate for the fact that he did not score a touchdown.
Another important factor was the third quarter. After Detroit led 24-17 at halftime, Los Angeles scored 17 points while holding the Lions scoreless.
That was the turning point.
The final 41-34 score reflects a game where Detroit’s offense remained capable of producing points, but the Rams built enough separation during the third quarter to survive Detroit’s fourth-quarter response.
Why Detroit Lost Despite Strong Passing Numbers
Detroit’s defeat demonstrates why quarterback statistics must be placed into context.
Goff had:
- 338 passing yards
- 3 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 111.6 passer rating
St. Brown had 164 receiving yards and two touchdowns.
Williams added 134 receiving yards and another touchdown.
Those numbers are strong enough to win many NFL games.
However, Detroit’s ground game produced only 70 yards.
The Lions also scored zero points in the third quarter, which allowed Los Angeles to take control after halftime.
The statistical lesson is clear: explosive passing production can keep a team competitive, but it does not always compensate for a major disadvantage in rushing efficiency and game flow.
Most Important Individual Performances
Best Quarterback Performance: Jared Goff
Goff’s three touchdowns and zero interceptions make his performance statistically impressive.
Best Overall Offensive Performance: Puka Nacua
Nacua’s 181 receiving yards at 20.1 yards per catch gave the Rams a constant explosive threat.
Best Detroit Receiver: Amon-Ra St. Brown
St. Brown’s 13 receptions, 164 yards, and two touchdowns made him Detroit’s most productive pass catcher.
Best Rushing Performance: Kyren Williams
Williams produced 78 yards and two touchdowns on 15 carries.
Best Efficiency Among Key Rushers: Blake Corum
Corum averaged 6.5 yards per carry and added 71 yards and one touchdown.
Defensive Tackle Leader: Jack Campbell
Campbell recorded 14 tackles, the highest listed tackle total in the game.
Most Notable Defensive Turnover: Aidan Hutchinson
Hutchinson’s interception produced a 58-yard return.
Detroit Lions vs Los Angeles Rams Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The detroit lions vs los angeles rams match player stats reveal a game defined by contrasting offensive strengths.
Detroit was more dependent on its passing game. Goff threw for 338 yards and three touchdowns, while St. Brown and Williams combined for nearly 300 receiving yards.
Los Angeles was more balanced. Stafford threw for 368 yards, while Williams and Corum combined for 149 rushing yards and three touchdowns.
The Rams also produced more total offensive yardage, with 159 rushing yards providing a major advantage over Detroit’s 70.
The receiver comparison was fascinating. St. Brown caught more passes and scored more touchdowns, while Nacua gained more yards and averaged more per catch. Both were outstanding, but they influenced the game in different ways.
The third quarter ultimately became the deciding phase. Los Angeles scored 17 points while Detroit scored none, creating a lead that the Lions could not completely erase.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Detroit Lions and Los Angeles Rams?
The Los Angeles Rams defeated the Detroit Lions 41-34 on December 15, 2025.
Who was the leading passer in the game?
Matthew Stafford led the game in passing yards with 368. Jared Goff threw for 338 yards and had three touchdown passes without an interception.
Who led the game in receiving yards?
Puka Nacua led all receivers with 181 yards on nine receptions. Amon-Ra St. Brown led Detroit with 164 receiving yards and two touchdowns.
Who was the leading rusher?
Kyren Williams led the Rams with 78 rushing yards and two touchdowns. Jahmyr Gibbs led Detroit with 38 rushing yards.
Which team had the better rushing performance?
The Los Angeles Rams had the stronger rushing attack. They gained 159 yards on 29 carries, averaging 5.5 yards per carry. Detroit gained 70 yards on 20 carries.
What was the key turning point in the game?
The third quarter was the most important turning point. Los Angeles scored 17 points while Detroit was held scoreless, turning a 24-17 halftime deficit into a 34-24 advantage entering the fourth quarter.
Conclusion
The detroit lions vs los angeles rams match player stats from the 41-34 Rams victory show two offenses that were both capable of producing big numbers but achieved that production in different ways.
Jared Goff played an efficient and productive passing game, throwing three touchdowns without an interception. Amon-Ra St. Brown and Jameson Williams gave Detroit a powerful receiving combination, while St. Brown’s 13 catches and two touchdowns stood out as one of the game’s best individual performances.
Los Angeles, however, created greater balance. Matthew Stafford passed for 368 yards, Puka Nacua delivered 181 receiving yards, and the Rams’ rushing attack produced 159 yards and three touchdowns. Kyren Williams and Blake Corum were especially effective, giving Los Angeles a consistent ground threat that Detroit could not match.
The third quarter ultimately provided the clearest explanation for the final result. After trailing 24-17 at halftime, the Rams scored 17 unanswered points in the third period. Detroit fought back with 10 fourth-quarter points, but the deficit created during that crucial stretch proved too large.
Overall, the statistics suggest that Los Angeles won not because Detroit’s passing game failed, but because the Rams combined strong passing production with a much more efficient rushing attack. The contrast between Detroit’s 338 passing yards and 70 rushing yards and Los Angeles’ 368 passing yards and 159 rushing yards captures the central story of the matchup.
