Texans vs Colts Match Player Stats
The texans vs colts match player stats from NFL Week 3 tell the story of a tightly contested game decided by execution in the final minutes. The Indianapolis Colts defeated the Houston Texans 19-17 on September 27, 2026, at home, moving to 1-2 while Houston fell to 0-3. The final score was close, but the underlying numbers reveal several important differences in quarterback production, ball security, third-down style offense, defensive pressure, and kicking efficiency.
For readers searching for the complete statistical picture, this game is especially interesting because neither offense produced a dominant rushing performance. Instead, the contest was shaped by passing volume, turnovers, field position, defensive pressure, and the Colts’ ability to turn scoring opportunities into points.
Daniel Jones completed 24 of 36 passes for 235 yards, one touchdown, and one interception for Indianapolis. C.J. Stroud completed 16 of 27 attempts for 167 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions for Houston. The Colts also received a major contribution from kicker Spencer Shrader, who converted all four of his field-goal attempts, including a late 43-yard winner according to local reporting.
This article breaks down the game beyond the final score, using the supplied box-score data to explain which players produced, where each team gained ground, and why the statistical balance ultimately resulted in a two-point Indianapolis victory.
Texans vs Colts Match Player Stats
The clearest starting point is the overall statistical profile.
| Category | Houston Texans | Indianapolis Colts |
| Final Score | 17 | 19 |
| Passing | 167 yards | 235 yards |
| Passing TDs | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Rushing | 70 yards | 89 yards |
| Rushing Attempts | 21 | 31 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 0 |
| Leading Receiver | Xavier Hutchinson, 51 yards | Josh Downs, 77 yards |
| Team Receptions | 16 | 24 |
| Team Receiving Yards | 167 | 235 |
| Team Tackles | 81 | 59 |
| Sacks | 4 | 3 |
| Field Goals | 1/1 | 4/4 |
| Extra Points | 2/2 | 1/1 |
The first major takeaway is that Indianapolis generated more offensive volume through the air. The Colts recorded 235 passing yards compared with Houston’s 167, a 68-yard advantage.
Houston, however, was not completely outclassed. The Texans produced four sacks and limited Indianapolis to 89 rushing yards. Their defense also recorded seven quarterback hits, showing that pressure was an important part of their approach.
The difference came from how efficiently Indianapolis converted its opportunities into points. Four successful field goals gave Spencer Shrader 12 points before his extra point, making his kicking performance one of the defining statistical elements of the afternoon.
The official NFL schedule confirms the Week 3 result as Texans 17, Colts 19, with Houston dropping to 0-3 and Indianapolis moving to 1-2. NFL 2026 Texans and Colts schedules
Game Flow and Scoring Breakdown
The quarter-by-quarter scoring shows how different the game looked at different stages.
First Quarter
Houston was held scoreless in the opening quarter.
Indianapolis scored three points, giving the Colts an early 3-0 advantage. The opening period therefore favored Indianapolis even though the game remained within one possession.
Second Quarter
The second quarter produced the largest scoring swing of the first half.
Houston scored seven points, while Indianapolis added another 10. At halftime, the Colts had built a 13-7 lead.
That 13-7 score is important because Indianapolis entered the second half with enough margin to play a more controlled game. Houston, meanwhile, needed to find offensive consistency after producing only seven points through two quarters.
Third Quarter
Neither team scored in the third quarter.
A scoreless third period kept the game within reach for Houston. The Texans entered the fourth quarter trailing 13-7, meaning one touchdown could have completely changed the complexion of the contest.
Fourth Quarter
The final period delivered the most important offensive moments.
Houston scored 10 points in the fourth quarter, while Indianapolis scored six. Houston therefore outscored the Colts in the final quarter but still lost 19-17.
That detail illustrates why late scoring alone does not determine the outcome. Indianapolis had already created a six-point halftime cushion, and its fourth-quarter points were enough to preserve the victory.
The game ultimately came down to a two-point margin.
C.J. Stroud’s Passing Performance
C.J. Stroud finished with 16 completions on 27 attempts for 167 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions.
His completion rate was approximately 59.3 percent, calculated from 16 completions on 27 attempts. His passer rating was 89.6.
The absence of an interception is an important positive. Houston did not lose the game because Stroud repeatedly gave the ball away through the passing game. Instead, the offense struggled to generate enough consistent production.
Stroud was also sacked three times for a combined 14 yards. Those sacks reduced Houston’s efficiency and helped Indianapolis create negative plays.
The 167 passing yards are particularly notable when compared with Indianapolis. Daniel Jones produced 235 passing yards, giving the Colts a substantial 68-yard advantage.
What Stroud Did Well
There are several positives in Stroud’s statistical line:
- 16 completions on 27 attempts
- 167 passing yards
- One passing touchdown
- Zero interceptions
- 89.6 passer rating
The clean interception column matters. Against a close opponent, avoiding giveaways can keep a team in position to win.
Houston also had 25 total targets and 16 receptions, indicating that the passing attack was active even though its overall yardage remained limited.
Where Houston Needed More
The biggest issue was volume and efficiency.
Stroud averaged 6.2 yards per attempt based on 167 yards over 27 attempts. That figure was not enough to create sustained offensive separation.
The Texans also finished with only 70 rushing yards, meaning the offense had limited production from both major yardage sources.
When a team produces 167 passing yards and 70 rushing yards, it becomes difficult to maintain drives consistently unless the defense or special teams creates additional opportunities.
Daniel Jones’ Passing Performance
Daniel Jones delivered the larger statistical passing performance.
He completed 24 of 36 attempts for 235 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His passer rating was 82.5.
His completion percentage was 66.7 percent, giving Indianapolis a much higher completion rate than Houston.
Jones also faced pressure. He was sacked four times for 24 yards, one more sack than Stroud and 10 more sack yards.
That makes the passing comparison more nuanced than simply saying Indianapolis had the better quarterback numbers.
Jones produced more yards and completions, but Houston’s defense was able to generate four sacks and seven quarterback hits against the Colts.
Jones’ Strengths in the Box Score
The biggest strengths were volume and completion production.
Jones attempted nine more passes than Stroud and completed eight more.
| Passing Metric | C.J. Stroud | Daniel Jones |
| Completions | 16 | 24 |
| Attempts | 27 | 36 |
| Completion Rate | 59.3% | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 167 | 235 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks | 3 | 4 |
| Sack Yards | 14 | 24 |
| Passer Rating | 89.6 | 82.5 |
The table shows why passer rating alone does not tell the entire story.
Stroud had the higher rating and avoided an interception. Jones produced more passing yards and completions but also threw one interception and absorbed more sacks.
From a team perspective, Indianapolis gained substantially more passing yardage, and that helped offset its lower rushing efficiency.
Jonathan Taylor Leads the Colts Ground Game
Jonathan Taylor was Indianapolis’ primary rushing option.
He carried the ball 23 times for 68 yards, averaging 3.0 yards per attempt. His longest run was 11 yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown.
Taylor’s 23 carries represented a significant workload.
Although the average was modest, his volume helped Indianapolis maintain balance and prevent the offense from becoming entirely dependent on the passing game.
Taylor also contributed two receptions for four yards according to the supplied data, giving him a small receiving role in addition to his rushing workload.
Indianapolis Rushing Breakdown
The Colts finished with:
- 31 rushing attempts
- 89 rushing yards
- 2.9 yards per carry
- Zero rushing touchdowns
- 11-yard longest run
The 31 carries were important because they provided a different offensive rhythm from the 36 pass attempts.
Indianapolis did not dominate on the ground, but it continued to use the rushing game throughout the contest.
David Montgomery Leads Houston’s Rushing
David Montgomery led Houston’s rushing production with 11 carries for 33 yards.
He averaged 3.0 yards per carry and had a longest run of nine yards.
The Texans finished with 21 rushing attempts for 70 yards, an average of 3.3 yards per attempt. Houston scored one rushing touchdown.
Montgomery’s individual numbers were not explosive, but they represented nearly half of Houston’s rushing attempts.
The Texans’ total rushing production was also 19 yards lower than Indianapolis’ 89 yards.
Rushing Comparison
| Rushing Metric | Houston | Indianapolis |
| Attempts | 21 | 31 |
| Yards | 70 | 89 |
| Average | 3.3 | 2.9 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 0 |
| Long | 9 | 11 |
Interestingly, Houston had the higher yards-per-carry average but fewer total rushing yards.
That distinction matters. The Colts ran the ball more often, while Houston was slightly more efficient on a per-attempt basis.
The difference in total rushing volume favored Indianapolis by 10 attempts.
Josh Downs Was Indianapolis’ Leading Receiver
Josh Downs produced the strongest receiving line for the Colts.
He caught five passes for 77 yards on 11 targets, averaging 15.4 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 24 yards.
Downs’ 77 receiving yards accounted for a substantial portion of Indianapolis’ 235 passing yards.
His 11 targets also show that Jones repeatedly looked in his direction.
Colts Receiving Numbers
Indianapolis finished with:
- 24 receptions
- 235 receiving yards
- 9.8 yards per reception
- One receiving touchdown
- 26-yard longest reception
- 35 total targets
The 24 completions and 24 receptions listed in the supplied data align with Jones’ 24 completions.
This was a relatively broad passing workload compared with Houston’s 16 receptions.
Xavier Hutchinson Leads Houston Receivers
Xavier Hutchinson was Houston’s leading receiver by yardage.
He recorded three receptions for 51 yards on six targets. His average was 17.0 yards per catch, and his longest reception covered 28 yards.
The numbers show an interesting contrast with Downs.
Hutchinson had fewer catches and fewer targets but averaged more yards per reception.
| Receiving Metric | Xavier Hutchinson | Josh Downs |
| Receptions | 3 | 5 |
| Targets | 6 | 11 |
| Yards | 51 | 77 |
| Average | 17.0 | 15.4 |
| Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Long | 28 | 24 |
This is a useful example of why receiving yardage should be viewed alongside targets and receptions.
Hutchinson generated strong efficiency when targeted, while Downs received more opportunities and accumulated more total production.
Team Receiving Comparison
The broader receiving statistics reinforce the difference between the two passing attacks.
Houston recorded 16 receptions for 167 yards, while Indianapolis recorded 24 receptions for 235 yards.
The Colts therefore had:
- Eight more receptions
- 68 more receiving yards
- 10 more targets
- The same number of receiving touchdowns
Houston averaged 10.4 yards per reception, compared with Indianapolis at 9.8.
Again, this means Houston was slightly more productive per reception, but Indianapolis generated much greater volume.
That combination of volume and consistency helped the Colts move the ball through the air.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Defense played a major role in keeping this game close.
Houston recorded 81 total tackles, 42 solo tackles, four sacks, six tackles for loss, four passes defended, and seven quarterback hits.
Indianapolis recorded 59 total tackles, 31 solo tackles, three sacks, two tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and seven quarterback hits.
The raw tackle totals favor Houston, but tackles alone do not necessarily indicate defensive superiority.
Houston’s Defensive Pressure
Houston generated:
- Four sacks
- Six tackles for loss
- Seven quarterback hits
- Four passes defended
- One interception
The Texans’ four sacks were especially important because Jones attempted 36 passes.
Houston was able to pressure the Colts quarterback repeatedly, yet Indianapolis still generated 235 passing yards.
Indianapolis Defensive Production
The Colts recorded:
- Three sacks
- Two tackles for loss
- Seven quarterback hits
- Seven passes defended
- No interceptions
Indianapolis had one fewer sack than Houston but matched the Texans with seven quarterback hits.
The Colts also defended seven passes compared with four by Houston.
The difference in defensive production therefore came through several categories rather than one overwhelming statistic.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers were one of the most revealing parts of the game.
Houston recorded one fumble but did not lose it.
Indianapolis recorded three fumbles and lost two.
That means the Colts actually had the worse fumble-loss profile.
Daniel Jones’ interception added another turnover to Indianapolis’ side of the ledger.
Despite those mistakes, Indianapolis still won.
This is important because it shows that the game was not a straightforward case of the winning team simply protecting the football better.
Houston avoided interceptions and did not lose its fumble, but its offense still produced only 17 points.
Indianapolis gave Houston multiple opportunities through turnovers but compensated with greater passing production and superior kicking.
The Importance of Special Teams
Special teams were arguably one of the most decisive statistical areas.
Spencer Shrader converted four of four field-goal attempts for Indianapolis.
His longest field goal was 58 yards.
Houston’s Ka’imi Fairbairn converted one of one field goals, with a long of 24 yards.
The scoring difference from field goals alone was significant.
Indianapolis received 12 points from four successful field goals, while Houston received three points from its lone field goal.
That is a nine-point advantage in field-goal production.
Shrader also converted his only extra-point attempt, finishing with 13 total points.
His late field goal was particularly important because it provided the final scoring margin. Local reporting noted that he made a 43-yard field goal with 16 seconds remaining.
Punting and Field Position
Houston punted five times for 261 yards.
That produced a 52.2-yard average, with a longest punt of 67 yards and one punt placed inside the 20-yard line.
Indianapolis punted only once for 58 yards.
The difference suggests Indianapolis sustained more drives without needing to punt repeatedly.
Houston’s strong punting numbers helped with field position, but frequent punts also indicate that drives were not consistently reaching scoring range.
Kick Returns and Punt Returns
Houston recorded five kick returns for 135 yards, averaging 27.0 yards per return. The longest return was 30 yards.
Indianapolis had one kick return for 32 yards.
On punt returns, Houston had one return for 11 yards.
Indianapolis recorded two punt returns for 25 yards, averaging 12.5 yards per return.
Neither team scored a return touchdown.
These numbers show that Houston had more kick-return opportunities, while Indianapolis produced slightly more punt-return volume.
Why the Final Score Was So Close
The final 19-17 score is best understood as a combination of contrasting strengths.
Houston had some defensive advantages:
- Four sacks compared with three.
- Six tackles for loss compared with two.
- Zero interceptions thrown.
- A slightly higher rushing average.
- Stronger punt volume and distance.
Indianapolis had important offensive and special-teams advantages:
- 235 passing yards compared with 167.
- 24 completions compared with 16.
- 89 rushing yards compared with 70.
- Four field goals compared with one.
- 24 receptions compared with 16.
The game therefore did not hinge on one statistical category.
It was a battle between Houston’s defensive pressure and Indianapolis’ passing volume and kicking efficiency.
What the Passing Numbers Really Tell Us
One of the most useful lessons from the texans vs colts match player stats is that quarterback evaluation requires context.
Stroud had a better passer rating.
He also had no interceptions.
Jones had more passing yards and completions but threw one interception and was sacked four times.
If the question is simply which quarterback had the cleaner individual efficiency profile, the rating and turnover numbers provide one answer.
If the question is which quarterback’s passing production generated more total yardage for his team, Jones had the advantage.
That distinction is important for readers analyzing box scores rather than relying only on the final score.
What the Rushing Numbers Really Tell Us
The rushing comparison was also more complicated than the raw totals suggest.
Indianapolis had 31 carries for 89 yards.
Houston had 21 carries for 70 yards.
The Colts had 10 more rushing attempts and 19 more rushing yards.
However, Houston averaged 3.3 yards per carry compared with Indianapolis at 2.9.
That means Indianapolis gained more total ground largely through greater rushing volume rather than superior efficiency.
Jonathan Taylor’s 23 carries were central to that approach.
Montgomery’s 11 carries represented a much smaller workload.
What the Receiving Numbers Really Tell Us
The receiving statistics reveal the biggest difference in offensive distribution.
Indianapolis had 35 targets and 24 receptions.
Houston had 25 targets and 16 receptions.
The Colts therefore created 10 more passing opportunities and completed eight more passes.
Their average reception was slightly shorter, but their overall volume was significantly higher.
Josh Downs’ 77 receiving yards were especially important because he combined efficiency with 11 targets.
Hutchinson’s 51 yards on three receptions showed strong per-catch production, but Houston needed more total receiving output to keep pace with Indianapolis’ passing game.
The Role of Field Goals in a Two-Point Game
In a 19-17 contest, every scoring opportunity deserves extra attention.
Indianapolis made all four field-goal attempts.
Houston made its only field-goal attempt.
That perfect 4-for-4 performance gave the Colts 12 field-goal points.
The nine-point difference in field-goal production was larger than the final two-point margin.
This does not mean the game was decided by kicking alone. It means the Colts were able to convert scoring opportunities that Houston did not match.
The final margin was two points, but the path to that margin included several smaller advantages.
A Practical Way to Read This Box Score
Readers often look at a box score and immediately search for the player with the most yards.
A better approach is to examine the game in layers.
Step 1: Start With the Score
Indianapolis won 19-17.
That establishes the outcome but does not explain it.
Step 2: Compare Passing Volume
Indianapolis produced 235 passing yards to Houston’s 167.
That immediately identifies a major offensive difference.
Step 3: Compare Rushing Volume
The Colts ran 31 times for 89 yards.
The Texans ran 21 times for 70 yards.
The Colts had greater rushing volume and total production.
Step 4: Examine Turnovers
Houston avoided an interception and did not lose its fumble.
Indianapolis threw one interception and lost two fumbles.
This category actually favored Houston.
Step 5: Examine Pressure
Houston had four sacks.
Indianapolis had three.
Both teams recorded seven quarterback hits.
Houston therefore created significant pressure despite losing.
Step 6: Check Special Teams
This is where the statistical picture changes.
Indianapolis made four field goals.
Houston made one.
Shrader’s perfect kicking performance became especially important in a two-point game.
Key Takeaways From Texans vs Colts Match Player Stats
The texans vs colts match player stats provide several useful conclusions.
Indianapolis Won Through Passing Volume
The Colts generated 235 passing yards and 24 completions.
That was substantially more passing production than Houston managed.
Houston’s Defense Created Pressure
Four sacks and seven quarterback hits kept the Texans competitive.
The defensive unit created enough disruption to prevent Indianapolis from pulling away.
Jonathan Taylor Provided Heavy Rushing Volume
Taylor’s 23 carries accounted for most of Indianapolis’ rushing workload.
His 68 yards were not explosive, but his usage helped maintain offensive balance.
Josh Downs Was a Key Receiving Target
Downs led Indianapolis with 77 receiving yards and 11 targets.
His production was an important part of the Colts’ passing advantage.
Xavier Hutchinson Produced Efficiently
Hutchinson averaged 17.0 yards per reception and led Houston with 51 receiving yards.
His three catches generated meaningful yardage despite limited volume.
Spencer Shrader Was Perfect
Shrader converted all four field-goal attempts and finished with 13 points.
His performance was especially important because the final score was decided by two points.
Houston Remained Competitive Despite Losing
The Texans were not dominated across every category.
They had more sacks, a higher rushing average, no interceptions thrown, and fewer fumbles lost.
Their inability to turn those advantages into enough offensive points ultimately left them short.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Texans and Colts?
The Indianapolis Colts defeated the Houston Texans 19-17 in Week 3 on September 27, 2026.
Who was the leading passer in the Texans vs Colts game?
Daniel Jones led Indianapolis with 24 completions on 36 attempts for 235 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. C.J. Stroud passed for 167 yards and one touchdown for Houston.
Who led the Texans in rushing?
David Montgomery led Houston with 11 carries for 33 yards and a 3.0-yard average.
Who led the Colts in rushing?
Jonathan Taylor led Indianapolis with 23 carries for 68 yards, averaging 3.0 yards per carry.
Who was the leading receiver?
Josh Downs led Indianapolis with five receptions for 77 yards. Xavier Hutchinson led Houston with three receptions for 51 yards.
How many field goals did the Colts make?
Spencer Shrader made all four of his field-goal attempts, including a 58-yard long according to the supplied statistical data.
Conclusion
The texans vs colts match player stats show a game that was much more competitive than the two-point final margin might suggest.
Houston received strong defensive pressure, including four sacks and seven quarterback hits. C.J. Stroud avoided interceptions and finished with an 89.6 passer rating. Xavier Hutchinson produced 51 receiving yards on only three catches, while the Texans averaged 3.3 yards per rushing attempt.
Indianapolis countered with greater offensive volume. Daniel Jones completed 24 passes for 235 yards, Josh Downs produced 77 receiving yards, and Jonathan Taylor handled 23 rushing attempts. The Colts also converted four field goals without a miss.
The most important statistical difference was scoring efficiency. Indianapolis converted its field-goal opportunities at a perfect rate, while Houston managed only one successful field goal. In a game decided by two points, those individual scoring possessions mattered greatly.
The final statistical picture is therefore not simply about one star player. It reflects a combination of passing volume, rushing workload, defensive pressure, turnovers, receiving opportunities, and special-teams execution. That is what makes this Week 3 matchup useful for anyone studying NFL box scores and trying to understand how individual performances translate into a final result.
