Chargers vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats
The chargers vs denver broncos match player stats provide a detailed look at how Denver secured a 23-17 victory over the Los Angeles Chargers on October 12, 2026, in the supplied Week 6 box-score data. The game featured contrasting offensive approaches, a strong defensive performance from Denver, and a fourth-quarter scoring surge that proved decisive. While the Chargers produced more rushing yards and gained momentum in the third quarter, Denver made better use of key scoring opportunities and recorded five sacks. Examining the passing numbers, rushing production, receiving contributions, turnovers, defensive plays, and special teams statistics helps explain the result beyond the final score.
Data note: This analysis uses the ESPN box-score information supplied with the request. The figures below are presented as supplied rather than independently verified. Some details, including the game date, player listings, and team records, should be checked against the official box score before publication.
Game Overview: Denver Broncos vs Los Angeles Chargers
The supplied result lists Denver as the away team and Los Angeles as the home team. Denver won by six points, finishing with 23 points against the Chargers’ 17.
Denver Broncos
Away team
23
Quarter scores: 7, 3, 0, 13
Los Angeles Chargers
Home team
17
Quarter scores: 0, 3, 14, 0
Reported game date
October 12, 2026
Reported competition
NFL Week 6
Denver passing leader
Bo Nix
Chargers passing leader
Justin Herbert
The quarter-by-quarter scoring reveals the central story. Denver scored seven points in the opening quarter and added a field goal in the second. Los Angeles answered with 14 points in the third quarter, but Denver responded with 13 points in the fourth while holding the Chargers scoreless.
That sequence suggests Denver’s defense and late-game execution were central to the reported outcome. The Chargers showed they could generate scoring momentum, but they did not turn that third-quarter surge into a winning finish.
chargers vs denver broncos match player stats: Key Numbers
The main team statistics reveal a matchup in which the Chargers had an advantage in rushing production, while Denver recorded more sacks and benefited from a turnover in the passing game.
| Statistical category | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Final score | 23 | 17 |
| Passing completions | 16 | 14 |
| Passing attempts | 27 | 24 |
| Passing yards | 123 | 121 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Rushing attempts | 29 | 34 |
| Rushing yards | 106 | 155 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Receiving yards | 123 | 121 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 5 | 1 |
| Total tackles | 71 | 67 |
| Field goals made | 3 of 4 | 1 of 1 |
| Total turnovers lost | 1 | 2 |
The table reproduces the supplied figures. Passing yards and receiving yards are separate statistical views of the same passing production, not additional yards to add together.
The most important contrast is the relationship between rushing output and defensive pressure. Los Angeles gained 49 more rushing yards, but Denver recorded four more sacks and one more interception. The Broncos also made three field goals, compared with one for the Chargers.
These numbers show why a team can lose despite producing more yards in a particular area. Football outcomes depend on where drives end, whether possessions are preserved, and how often offensive opportunities become points.
Denver Broncos Player Stats and Individual Performances
Denver’s performance was built on a combination of controlled rushing, efficient scoring opportunities, and pressure from its defensive front. Bo Nix did not post a large passing total, but he protected the ball through the air and helped the offense maintain a balanced approach.
Bo Nix passing stats
| Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 16 |
| Attempts | 27 |
| Completion percentage | 59.3% |
| Passing yards | 123 |
| Yards per attempt | 4.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 1 |
| Sack yardage | 5 |
| QBR | 27.9 |
| Passer rating | 82.8 |
Nix completed 16 of 27 passes, giving him a completion percentage of approximately 59.3%. His 123 passing yards were modest, and the average of 4.6 yards per attempt indicates that Denver’s passing production did not rely on frequent long gains.
The most important positive figure was zero interceptions. Nix avoided throwing a pass that was intercepted, allowing Denver to preserve its passing possessions in that category. However, his two reported fumbles, one of which was lost, show that ball security was not perfect overall.
His performance is best understood as a limited but serviceable passing contribution within a winning team effort. The 27.9 QBR also indicates that his overall quarterback performance was not especially strong by that measure, even though Denver won the game.
A useful distinction for readers is that winning the game and delivering an outstanding individual quarterback performance are not the same thing. Quarterbacks operate within an entire offensive structure, and a defense can compensate for modest passing production.
J.K. Dobbins rushing stats
J.K. Dobbins was Denver’s leading rusher according to the supplied figures.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Rushing attempts | 18 |
| Rushing yards | 68 |
| Average per carry | 3.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 14 yards |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving yards | 6 |
Dobbins carried the ball 18 times, accounting for a substantial share of Denver’s 29 rushing attempts. His 68 yards represented approximately 64.2% of the team’s 106 rushing yards.
The 3.8-yard average was not explosive, but the touchdown was significant. A rushing touchdown can be more valuable to the final score than a series of short gains that do not finish a drive.
His workload also suggests that Denver continued to use the running game rather than relying exclusively on Nix. Repeated carries can help an offense manage the clock, influence defensive formations, and reduce the number of obvious passing situations.
However, the available statistics do not reveal the exact down, distance, or field position of every carry. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that Dobbins controlled the game or repeatedly converted critical third downs without play-by-play evidence.
Other Denver rushing contributors
The Broncos received additional production from several players.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest |
| Bo Nix | 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 0 | 7 |
| Jaylen Waddle | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 |
| RJ Harvey | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 0 | 4 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Adam Prentice | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 |
Waddle’s nine yards on one carry produced the highest average among the listed Denver runners. However, a single attempt is too small a sample to establish a player’s typical rushing effectiveness.
Nix’s 10 rushing yards added another dimension to his offensive contribution. Even limited quarterback rushing can force defenders to account for the possibility of a scramble, although these figures alone cannot show how much that threat influenced the Chargers’ defensive decisions.
Harvey contributed seven yards on three attempts. Badie, Prentice, and Mims supplied smaller contributions that helped complete the team’s rushing total.
Taken together, Denver’s rushing production was distributed across multiple players, but Dobbins was clearly the central ball carrier.
Denver receiving stats
Denver recorded 123 receiving yards from 16 receptions on 22 targets, according to the supplied team totals.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD | Longest reception |
| Evan Engram | 4 | 55 | 13.8 | 0 | 34 |
| Jaylen Waddle | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 | 10 |
| Courtland Sutton | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 1 | 13 |
| Troy Franklin | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 | 12 |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | 5 |
| RJ Harvey | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 0 | -5 |
Receiving totals and player rows are reproduced from the supplied data.
Evan Engram leads Denver in receiving
Engram led the Broncos with four catches for 55 yards. His longest reception was 34 yards, and his average was 13.8 yards per catch.
Those figures made Engram Denver’s leading receiver by yardage. He accounted for approximately 44.7% of the team’s 123 receiving yards, a substantial share of its passing output.
The 34-yard reception stands out because it was much longer than the team’s 7.7-yard average per reception. One significant gain can change field position quickly and reduce the number of plays needed to reach scoring range.
Engram did not record a touchdown in the supplied statistics. His contribution was primarily in moving the ball rather than finishing the scoring play himself.
Courtland Sutton supplies a touchdown
Sutton caught two passes for 18 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 13 yards.
Although Sutton did not lead the team in catches or yardage, the touchdown made his contribution especially important to the scoring outcome. Touchdowns are high-value events, and a receiver can make a decisive contribution without accumulating a large volume of yards.
The figures also illustrate why receiving analysis should consider more than the number of catches. Yardage, touchdowns, first-down conversions, and the situation in which a reception occurs all influence its value.
Troy Franklin and the supporting receivers
Franklin recorded two catches for 16 yards. Waddle added two catches for 19 yards, while Humphrey had one reception for eight yards.
Dobbins and Mims each recorded two receptions for six yards. These shorter gains provided additional passing options, although the supplied data does not identify whether the catches came on screens, checkdowns, or other routes.
Badie’s single reception resulted in a loss of five yards. Negative receiving plays can undermine a drive by increasing the distance needed on the next down. Still, one negative play does not establish a broader problem with a player.
Los Angeles Chargers Player Stats and Individual Performances
The Chargers’ statistical profile was different from Denver’s. Los Angeles generated more rushing yards, had multiple players contribute on the ground, and scored 14 points in the third quarter. However, the team finished without any fourth-quarter points in the supplied scoring breakdown.
Its individual statistics show several productive performances, particularly from Kimani Vidal and Justin Herbert as runners. The main challenge was translating that production into a winning overall result.
Justin Herbert passing stats
| Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 14 |
| Attempts | 24 |
| Completion percentage | 58.3% |
| Passing yards | 121 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 5 |
| Sack yardage | 39 |
| QBR | 26.4 |
| Passer rating | 68.2 |
Herbert completed 14 of 24 passes, a completion rate of approximately 58.3%. He recorded 121 passing yards and one passing touchdown, but he also threw one interception and was sacked five times.
The five sacks are one of the most important figures in the supplied matchup data. The Chargers lost 39 yards on those sacks, creating a considerable cost to their passing possessions.
Sacks are more than a measure of defensive pressure. They can push an offense into longer passing situations, move a team out of field-goal range, disrupt timing, and increase the likelihood of a punt. A sack can also produce a fumble, although the available statistics do not establish that every sack resulted in a turnover threat.
Herbert’s reported 68.2 passer rating was lower than Nix’s 82.8 rating. His 26.4 QBR was also slightly below Nix’s 27.9.
The distinction between the two quarterbacks is not simply that Herbert threw for fewer yards. He recorded an interception and absorbed more sacks, while Nix avoided interceptions and was sacked once. Those differences are relevant when evaluating how each offense managed possession risk.
It is important not to attribute all five sacks solely to Herbert. Sack totals can reflect the quarterback’s decisions, offensive-line protection, receiver separation, defensive scheme, and the time available before a pass is released. The box score establishes the number of sacks, not the responsibility for each one.
Kimani Vidal rushing stats
Kimani Vidal led the Chargers in rushing yardage with 57 yards on eight carries.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Rushing attempts | 8 |
| Rushing yards | 57 |
| Average per carry | 7.1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 42 yards |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving yards | -1 |
Vidal’s 42-yard longest run was the most notable individual rushing play listed for either team. His average of 7.1 yards per carry was also substantially higher than Denver’s team average of 3.7 yards per carry.
He scored one rushing touchdown, giving the Chargers a productive option beyond Herbert’s passing game. Vidal also returned three kickoffs for 75 yards, with a longest return of 29 yards, according to the supplied data.
His rushing and return statistics should be assessed separately. Rushing production measures what a player gains on offensive carries, while kick returns measure field position after the opposing team kicks off.
The eight carries are a relatively small sample. Vidal’s 7.1-yard average reflects his performance in this game as reported, not a guarantee that he would maintain the same efficiency over a larger workload.
Nevertheless, his numbers show that Los Angeles had a player capable of producing a major gain on the ground.
Justin Herbert’s rushing contribution
Herbert added six carries for 54 yards, averaging 9.0 yards per carry. His longest run was 23 yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown.
Those 54 yards represented a meaningful contribution to the Chargers’ ground attack. Combined with Vidal’s 57 yards, the two players produced 111 rushing yards, or approximately 71.6% of the team’s 155-yard total.
A quarterback’s rushing production can be valuable because it creates another way to advance the ball when passing options are unavailable. It may also punish defenses that focus too heavily on containing conventional running backs.
However, quarterback rushing yardage must be interpreted alongside sacks. The supplied box score lists 54 rushing yards for Herbert and 39 yards lost on sacks. Those are distinct statistical categories, and the reported team rushing total should not be recalculated by simply subtracting sack yardage from the published figure.
The combination of productive runs and significant sack losses illustrates the uneven nature of the Chargers’ offensive performance.
Omarion Hampton and the Chargers’ rushing rotation
Hampton recorded 14 carries for 33 yards, an average of 2.4 yards per carry. His longest run was 11 yards, and he did not score a rushing touchdown.
Keaton Mitchell added six carries for 11 yards, averaging 1.8 yards per attempt. His longest run was nine yards.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD | Longest |
| Kimani Vidal | 8 | 57 | 7.1 | 1 | 42 |
| Justin Herbert | 6 | 54 | 9.0 | 0 | 23 |
| Omarion Hampton | 14 | 33 | 2.4 | 0 | 11 |
| Keaton Mitchell | 6 | 11 | 1.8 | 0 | 9 |
Hampton had the largest workload among the listed Chargers rushers. Yet his average was considerably lower than Vidal’s.
This contrast highlights an important analytical point: a player with more carries does not necessarily produce more efficient rushing results. Workload and efficiency answer different questions. Carries indicate opportunity, while yards per carry describe average output.
Mitchell also contributed 18 receiving yards on three catches, as well as 61 kickoff-return yards on three returns. These additional roles demonstrate that his contribution extended beyond conventional rushing attempts.
The Chargers’ 155 team rushing yards were a strength in the supplied statistics, but the distribution of those yards suggests that Vidal and Herbert provided the most explosive individual production.
Chargers receiving stats
Los Angeles recorded 14 receptions for 121 yards on 21 targets. The team averaged 8.6 yards per reception and recorded one receiving touchdown.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD | Longest reception |
| Charlie Kolar | 3 | 37 | 12.3 | 0 | 19 |
| Marquez Valdes-Scantling | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Keaton Mitchell | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 0 | 9 |
| Theo Wease Jr. | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 0 | 16 |
| Tre’ Harris | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 | 14 |
| Hayden Rucci | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 1 | 7 |
| Omarion Hampton | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Oronde Gadsden | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kimani Vidal | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | -1 |
Charlie Kolar leads the receiving group
Kolar led Los Angeles with three receptions for 37 yards. His 12.3 yards per catch made him an effective contributor in the supplied receiving totals.
His longest reception was 19 yards, and he did not record a receiving touchdown. Kolar’s output represented approximately 30.6% of the Chargers’ 121 receiving yards.
A receiver’s value is not determined by yardage alone. Catching the ball reliably, finding space between defenders, and converting opportunities into first downs can all matter. The supplied box score provides the catches and yards, but it does not provide enough play-by-play context to evaluate every route or conversion.
Marquez Valdes-Scantling and Theo Wease Jr.
Valdes-Scantling caught two passes for 22 yards, averaging 11.0 yards per reception. Wease recorded one reception for 16 yards, averaging 16.0 yards per catch.
Wease’s average was the highest among the listed Chargers receivers with a positive receiving total. But he had only one catch, so his average should not be compared directly with a player who recorded several receptions without considering sample size.
Valdes-Scantling’s two catches offered a slightly larger sample, while his 22 yards made him the second-leading receiver by yardage in the supplied table.
Hayden Rucci records a touchdown
Rucci caught one pass for seven yards and one touchdown. His scoring reception was the only receiving touchdown listed for the Chargers.
The touchdown mattered because it converted a receiving opportunity into points. Yet the short yardage total illustrates why touchdowns and total yardage measure different aspects of a player’s contribution.
Harris recorded two catches for 16 yards, and Mitchell added three receptions for 18 yards. Hampton had one catch for six yards, while Vidal recorded a reception for a loss of one yard.
These supporting contributions helped produce the Chargers’ overall passing total, even though the team did not score in the fourth quarter according to the supplied breakdown.
Defensive Player Stats: The Difference-Making Side of the Game
The offensive numbers explain how both teams moved the ball, but the defensive statistics help explain why Denver emerged with the reported victory.
Denver recorded five sacks, 12 tackles for loss, four passes defended, and eight quarterback hits. Los Angeles recorded one sack, two tackles for loss, five passes defended, and four quarterback hits.
The Broncos’ advantage in sacks and tackles for loss is particularly notable because those plays can disrupt offensive rhythm before a pass or run has a chance to develop.
Denver Broncos defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Passes defended | QB hits |
| Alex Singleton | 8 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Justin Strnad | 8 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Jahdae Barron | 6 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja’Quan McMillian | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Que Robinson | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Nik Bonitto | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
QB hits means quarterback hits. The table reflects the individual figures supplied for this matchup.
Nik Bonitto’s two-sack performance
Bonitto recorded four tackles, two sacks, three tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits. His two sacks accounted for a substantial portion of Denver’s five-sack team total.
Sacks can have an impact beyond the yards lost on the play. They may force an offense into third-and-long situations, reduce the likelihood of a successful drive, and place greater pressure on the quarterback to produce a difficult completion on the next snap.
Bonitto’s three tackles for loss also indicate that his defensive contribution extended beyond sacks. Tackles for loss occur when a defender stops a ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage, excluding sacks from the usual non-sack tackle-for-loss category in many statistical presentations.
These figures make Bonitto one of Denver’s most productive defenders in the supplied data. They do not, however, establish that he single-handedly decided the game. Defensive performance is a collective effort involving coverage, pass-rush coordination, run fits, and tackling.
Alex Singleton and Justin Strnad lead in tackles
Singleton and Strnad each recorded eight total tackles and five solo tackles.
Their shared tackle lead suggests that both were heavily involved in defensive plays. Singleton also recorded a tackle for loss, while Strnad added a tackle for loss and one pass defended.
Total tackles measure involvement in stopping an offensive player, but they do not automatically indicate that a defender had a better game than someone with fewer tackles. A player might record fewer tackles because opponents avoid his coverage area, because teammates finish plays, or because he contributes through pressure and disruption.
For a more complete evaluation, tackles should be read alongside sacks, passes defended, interceptions, forced fumbles, and the circumstances of each play.
Ja’Quan McMillian adds pressure
McMillian recorded five tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
His numbers added another source of pressure to Denver’s defensive effort. Having multiple defenders capable of reaching the quarterback can make protection assignments more difficult for an offense.
When pressure comes from different positions or angles, the offensive line must respond to more than one potential threat. The supplied statistics do not establish the precise defensive scheme used on each sack, but they do show that Denver received production from more than one defender.
Los Angeles Chargers defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Passes defended | QB hits |
| Akheem Mesidor | 8 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Elijah Molden | 7 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daiyan Henley | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Del’Shawn Phillips | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Tarheeb Still | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Mesidor led the listed Chargers defenders with eight tackles and recorded the team’s only listed sack among these individual leaders. He also had one tackle for loss and one quarterback hit.
Molden recorded seven tackles, while Henley and Phillips each finished with six. Henley added a pass defended and a quarterback hit.
Still recorded five tackles and one pass defended. Passes defended can be important even when a defender does not intercept the ball because breaking up a completion can prevent a substantial gain or stop an offensive possession from continuing.
The Chargers’ five passes defended compared with Denver’s four show that Los Angeles also disrupted passing plays. The difference was that Denver generated more sacks and tackles for loss, which indicates a stronger result in those categories.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Denver | Los Angeles |
| Total tackles | 71 | 67 |
| Solo tackles | 47 | 34 |
| Sacks | 5 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 12 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 8 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Denver’s advantage in sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits is the clearest defensive distinction in the supplied numbers.
The 12 tackles for loss are particularly striking compared with Los Angeles’ two. They suggest that Denver’s defense frequently made plays that stopped the offense before it could gain positive yardage or complete a developing play.
The Chargers did record one more pass defended, but that advantage did not offset Denver’s larger totals in the other disruption categories.
Defensive touchdowns were listed at zero for both teams, so neither defense added a touchdown directly to the scoreboard in the supplied data.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change a football game quickly because they end an offensive possession and may give the opponent a shorter route to scoring range.
The supplied figures list one interception by Denver and none by Los Angeles. They also list two fumbles lost by the Chargers and one by Denver.
| Turnover statistic | Denver | Los Angeles |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 2 |
| Reported lost turnovers combined | 2 | 3 |
Denver’s interception came from Brandon Jones, who recorded one interception for seven return yards and no touchdown.
The Broncos therefore had the advantage in the supplied turnover figures, with two reported turnovers lost compared with three for the Chargers. That difference can be important in a six-point game.
However, turnover totals alone do not reveal exactly how much each turnover affected the final score. To establish whether a particular turnover directly led to points, an analyst would need the sequence of plays and the ensuing possession.
Bo Nix’s fumbles
The supplied data credits Nix with two fumbles, one lost. That detail is important because his zero interceptions do not mean that he was entirely free from ball-security issues.
An interception occurs when the opposing team catches a forward pass. A fumble occurs when a player loses possession of the ball during a play, potentially allowing either team to recover it.
Both events can end a possession, but they arise in different circumstances and require separate analysis.
Justin Herbert’s fumbles and interception
Herbert was credited with two fumbles, one lost, as well as one interception thrown. The Chargers’ team fumble figures list three fumbles and two lost.
These numbers reinforce the importance of protecting possession. An offense may generate rushing yards and complete passes, but losing the ball can erase the value of earlier progress.
The supplied fumble tables also include recoveries credited to individual players. Recovery figures should not be confused with forced fumbles, and the combined recovery totals can be presented differently from the simple count of turnovers lost. For that reason, the most reliable comparison here is the reported number of interceptions and fumbles lost rather than attempting to reconstruct every possession from the summary alone.
Special Teams Player Stats
Special teams can affect a game without producing a touchdown. Field goals convert drives into points, kick returns influence starting field position, and punts can force opponents to travel a longer distance.
Denver’s kicking output was particularly relevant in a game decided by six points.
Wil Lutz and Cameron Dicker kicking stats
| Statistic | Wil Lutz, Denver | Cameron Dicker, Los Angeles |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 | 1 |
| Field-goal accuracy | 75.0% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 36 yards | 42 yards |
| Extra points made | 2 | 2 |
| Extra points attempted | 2 | 2 |
| Total points | 11 | 5 |
Lutz made three of four field-goal attempts and both extra points. Dicker made his only field-goal attempt and both extra points.
Lutz’s 11 points were more than twice Dicker’s five, although the total does not mean that the kicker alone accounted for the difference in the result. The offense must first create scoring opportunities, and the defense must help determine how many possessions the opponent receives.
The contrast in field goals is still useful. Denver converted three field-goal opportunities, while Los Angeles converted one. In a close game, the ability to turn drives into three points rather than finishing with no points can be a major factor.
Dicker had a perfect field-goal record in the supplied data, but his sample consisted of one attempt. Lutz’s 75% rate came from four attempts. These percentages describe the reported game, not the kickers’ overall season performance.
Denver and Los Angeles punting stats
| Statistic | Jeremy Crawshaw, Denver | JK Scott, Los Angeles |
| Punts | 5 | 5 |
| Total punt yards | 228 | 239 |
| Average punt | 45.6 yards | 47.8 yards |
| Longest punt | 58 yards | 56 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 2 |
Scott averaged 47.8 yards per punt, compared with Crawshaw’s 45.6. Crawshaw, however, recorded three punts inside the 20-yard line, one more than Scott.
A punt’s value is not measured only by its distance. Field position, hang time, the return team’s ability to advance the ball, and whether the kick lands inside the 20 all matter.
The supplied figures show that both punters had five attempts. Denver had the advantage in punts inside the 20, while Los Angeles had the higher average and greater total punting yardage.
Kick-return production
Denver recorded three kick returns for 67 yards, averaging 22.3 yards per return. Los Angeles recorded six returns for 136 yards, averaging 22.7 yards per return.
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Sean Fresch | Denver | 3 | 67 | 22.3 | 26 |
| Kimani Vidal | Los Angeles | 3 | 75 | 25.0 | 29 |
| Keaton Mitchell | Los Angeles | 3 | 61 | 20.3 | 22 |
Vidal averaged 25 yards per kick return, the highest average among the listed returners. Mitchell added 61 yards on three returns.
Denver’s listed return production came from Fresch, who averaged 22.3 yards. Neither team recorded a kick-return touchdown in the supplied statistics.
Los Angeles gained more total return yards, partly because it had twice as many kick returns. Total return yardage should therefore be read alongside the number of opportunities. A team with more returns can accumulate more yards without necessarily being more efficient per return.
Punt returns
Marvin Mims Jr. returned two punts for Denver, gaining 35 yards at an average of 17.5 yards per return. His longest return was 26 yards.
Derius Davis recorded one punt return for the Chargers, gaining one yard.
Denver’s return average was considerably higher in this category. However, the opportunity counts were different, with two returns for the Broncos and one for Los Angeles.
The return statistics suggest that Denver received more production from its punt-return opportunities in the supplied box score. They do not independently establish how much field position contributed to the final score without the starting positions of the following drives.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring pattern is one of the most informative parts of the supplied game data.
| Quarter | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| First | 7 | 0 |
| Second | 3 | 3 |
| Third | 0 | 14 |
| Fourth | 13 | 0 |
| Final | 23 | 17 |
First quarter: Denver establishes an early lead
Denver scored seven points while holding the Chargers scoreless. An opening-quarter touchdown can influence how both teams approach the remainder of a game, especially when the trailing team begins to prioritize scoring opportunities.
The supplied score confirms Denver’s early advantage, although it does not identify the exact plays that produced the touchdown. Those details should not be invented without a verified play-by-play record.
Second quarter: The teams exchange field goals
Both teams scored three points in the second quarter. Denver therefore carried a 10-3 advantage into halftime based on the supplied quarter totals.
The equal scoring output in this period suggests that neither side gained an additional advantage on the scoreboard during the quarter. Denver nevertheless retained its seven-point lead.
Third quarter: The Chargers produce a comeback
Los Angeles scored 14 points while Denver failed to score. That changed the scoreboard from a seven-point Denver lead at halftime to a seven-point Chargers lead entering the fourth quarter.
This was the Chargers’ strongest quarter by points. It demonstrated their ability to produce a concentrated scoring surge.
Yet a strong quarter does not guarantee a win. Football games are decided by the full 60 minutes, and the final quarter provided the opposite pattern.
Fourth quarter: Denver responds with 13 points
Denver scored 13 points in the final quarter and held Los Angeles scoreless. That was enough to turn the reported seven-point deficit into a six-point victory.
The fourth-quarter scoring difference was 13 points. This is the clearest statistical explanation for the reported comeback.
It would be tempting to attribute the entire finish to a particular coaching decision or play, but the quarter-by-quarter summary does not contain enough detail to support such a claim. What it does establish is that Denver finished the game with the stronger scoring output.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Each Team
The most useful way to interpret the matchup is to consider the relationship between different statistical categories instead of treating each number as an isolated achievement.
Denver’s defensive disruption offset its modest passing output
Denver finished with 123 passing yards and 106 rushing yards. Those figures do not suggest a high-volume offensive performance, but the team still reached 23 points.
Its five sacks, 12 tackles for loss, and one defensive interception indicate that the defense created substantial disruption. Three made field goals also provided scoring contributions beyond the reported touchdown production.
The broader lesson is that a team does not need to dominate passing yardage to win. It can succeed through defensive stops, field-goal conversion, and a timely scoring drive.
Los Angeles demonstrated rushing potential
The Chargers gained 155 rushing yards on 34 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry. Vidal and Herbert both produced more than 50 rushing yards.
This was a clear statistical advantage over Denver’s 106 rushing yards. It suggests that Los Angeles had productive running options in the reported game.
However, the Chargers also faced five sacks and recorded one interception thrown. Their greater rushing output did not prevent Denver from producing more points.
The important distinction is between accumulating yardage and converting possessions into points. A rushing game can produce positive gains while the offense still struggles to sustain drives or protect the football.
Turnovers made the comparison more complicated
Denver threw no interceptions, while Los Angeles threw one. The supplied figures also list one Denver fumble lost and two Chargers fumbles lost.
Those differences favor Denver in possession security, although the full consequences of the turnovers would require the play-by-play record.
For analysts, this is a useful reminder that turnovers should be assessed alongside yardage. An offense might produce an impressive statistical total but lose value through possessions that end prematurely.
Special teams contributed to the scoring margin
Denver’s three made field goals and two extra points produced 11 kicking points. The Chargers’ one made field goal and two extra points produced five.
The difference between the kickers’ reported point totals was six points, equal to the final margin. That is a numerical comparison, not proof that kicking alone caused the result. The circumstances that created those attempts, along with touchdowns and defensive stops, also shaped the game.
The fourth quarter was the decisive scoring period
Denver’s 13-point fourth quarter came after a scoreless third quarter. The Chargers, meanwhile, failed to add to their 17-point total in the final period.
This swing is central to the reported result. It explains why the Chargers’ 14-point third quarter did not translate into a victory.
For readers evaluating close games, quarter-level scoring is often more informative than the final score alone because it shows when a team built, lost, or recovered its advantage.
How to Read NFL Box Scores More Accurately
A box score is a useful starting point for understanding a football game, but its numbers require context. Readers who understand the main statistical categories can separate individual achievements from team performance.
Passing yards versus passing efficiency
Passing yards measure the total yards credited to a quarterback’s completed passes. Completion percentage measures how often attempts result in completions, while yards per attempt provides an average of passing yardage across attempts.
In this matchup, Nix recorded 123 passing yards and Herbert recorded 121. The difference was only two yards. Yet their reported interception and sack totals were very different.
That is why passing yardage should not be used as the only measure of quarterback performance.
Rushing attempts versus rushing efficiency
Carries measure how often a player runs the ball, while yards per carry measure the average gain on those attempts.
Hampton had 14 carries for 33 yards, while Vidal gained 57 yards on eight carries. Hampton received more opportunities, but Vidal produced more yards at a higher average.
The difference helps readers identify which players generated more output per attempt. However, the number of carries, defensive formations, and down-and-distance situations can affect the meaning of those averages.
Tackles versus defensive impact
Tackles are important, but a player with eight tackles has not necessarily performed better than a defender with four tackles and two sacks.
Sacks, tackles for loss, interceptions, passes defended, and forced fumbles describe different kinds of defensive contribution. Reading these categories together provides a more complete picture of how a defense affected the opposing offense.
QBR versus passer rating
QBR and passer rating are different quarterback evaluation measures. They use different calculations and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Nix’s supplied QBR was 27.9, compared with Herbert’s 26.4. Their passer ratings were 82.8 and 68.2, respectively.
These figures support a comparison of the two reported performances, but they do not replace the need to consider sacks, turnovers, rushing, and the final result.
For readers who want to examine the original statistical categories, the ESPN NFL box-score section provides a starting point for checking official game statistics. For this specific matchup, the supplied game identifier and its corresponding box score should be verified before treating the reported figures as independently confirmed.
Data Quality and Statistical Limitations
Accurate sports reporting requires more than copying numbers into a table. The figures should be internally consistent, and unusual results should be checked before publication.
Several details in the supplied data deserve attention.
First, the game is listed as October 12, 2026, with a final score and Week 6 statistics. Because the date is in the future relative to many historical NFL records, the game details should be verified against the official schedule and box score before the article is published as a confirmed historical recap.
Second, the supplied Denver rushing table lists 29 team carries for 106 yards. The listed individual rushing attempts total 30, and their yards total 106. This means the individual carry count does not reconcile with the stated team total.
Third, the supplied Los Angeles rushing table lists 34 team carries, but the four listed individual rushing totals add up to 34 carries only if each category is interpreted exactly as provided. Individual and team totals should still be checked against the original box score to confirm that no player rows are missing or duplicated.
Fourth, the receiving tables contain team totals that should be checked against the individual player entries. A published article should not silently change official figures to make the arithmetic appear consistent.
Finally, fumble and recovery statistics can be difficult to interpret when team totals include recoveries by either side or when a summary displays separate categories in an unusual way. The safest approach is to preserve the source’s labels and verify turnovers lost using the official box score.
These checks matter because a detailed statistical article is only useful when its underlying numbers can be trusted. Clear attribution and honest treatment of uncertainty are stronger than presenting unverified details with false confidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the reported Chargers vs Denver Broncos game?
According to the supplied box-score data, the Denver Broncos defeated the Los Angeles Chargers 23-17 on October 12, 2026. The game details should be independently verified before being treated as a confirmed historical result.
2. How many passing yards did Bo Nix record?
Bo Nix recorded 123 passing yards on 16 completions from 27 attempts, with one passing touchdown and no interceptions, according to the supplied statistics.
3. How many passing yards did Justin Herbert record?
Justin Herbert recorded 121 passing yards on 14 completions from 24 attempts. The supplied data also credits him with one passing touchdown, one interception, and five sacks taken.
4. Which player led the game in rushing yards?
Kimani Vidal led the listed players with 57 rushing yards for Los Angeles, while J.K. Dobbins led Denver with 68 rushing yards. Herbert also contributed 54 rushing yards for the Chargers.
5. Which team recorded more sacks?
Denver recorded five sacks, compared with one for Los Angeles. The Broncos also had 12 tackles for loss and eight quarterback hits in the supplied defensive statistics.
6. Why did Denver win despite having fewer rushing yards?
The supplied figures show that Denver recorded more sacks, benefited from one interception, and lost fewer fumbles. It also made three field goals and scored 13 points in the fourth quarter while holding Los Angeles scoreless. These factors help explain the reported result, although the exact impact of each possession requires verified play-by-play data.
Conclusion
The supplied chargers vs denver broncos match player stats describe a game in which Denver’s defensive pressure, kicking production, and fourth-quarter scoring outweighed Los Angeles’ advantage in rushing yards.
Bo Nix finished with 123 passing yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. J.K. Dobbins led Denver in rushing with 68 yards and a touchdown, while Evan Engram paced the receiving group with 55 yards. On defense, Nik Bonitto recorded two sacks, and the Broncos finished with five sacks as a team.
For the Chargers, Herbert contributed 121 passing yards and 54 rushing yards, while Vidal led the team with 57 rushing yards and a 42-yard longest run. Kolar led the receiving group with 37 yards, and Mesidor recorded the team’s listed defensive-leading tackle total alongside a sack.
The reported final score of 23-17 highlights the difference between producing yards and converting opportunities into points. Los Angeles gained more rushing yards, but Denver generated more defensive pressure, made more field goals, and scored more effectively in the fourth quarter.
These numbers offer a useful framework for understanding the matchup, but the reported date, final result, and internal statistical discrepancies should be checked against the original official record before publication. Accurate player statistics are most valuable when the figures, context, and limitations are all presented clearly.
