Denver Broncos vs Los Angeles Chargers Match Player Stats
The denver broncos vs los angeles chargers match player stats provide a detailed look at Denver’s 23-17 victory over Los Angeles on October 11, 2026, according to the supplied ESPN box score. The Week 7 matchup featured contrasting offensive approaches, a productive rushing performance from the Chargers, and a decisive defensive effort from the Broncos. Denver finished with 23 points, while Los Angeles scored 17, despite gaining more rushing yards and averaging more yards per carry. The difference came from Denver’s ability to generate pressure, force a turnover, and score 13 unanswered fourth-quarter points after the Chargers had taken control of the game in the third quarter.
This matchup illustrates why football results cannot be explained by total yardage alone. Passing efficiency, ball security, red-zone execution, quarterback protection, and performance in critical situations all influence the final score. By examining individual player statistics alongside team totals, it becomes easier to understand how Denver secured the win and why Los Angeles struggled to turn its rushing advantage into a victory.
Important data note: This analysis uses the statistics supplied in the prompt. Some player assignments and game details in the supplied data may require verification against the official NFL game record. The analysis therefore distinguishes recorded numbers from interpretations and does not invent missing play-by-play details.
Game Overview: Broncos vs Chargers Final Score
The final score was Denver Broncos 23, Los Angeles Chargers 17. The game took place at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, on October 11, 2026. Denver established an early advantage, fell behind in the third quarter, and then recovered with a strong finish.
For the official scoring summary and game information, consult the NFL game center for Broncos vs Chargers.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| First quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 14 |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 0 |
| Final score | 23 | 17 |
Denver scored first with a rushing touchdown by J.K. Dobbins. Both teams added points in the second quarter, leaving the Broncos ahead 10-3 at halftime.
The Chargers then produced their strongest stretch of the game. A touchdown pass from Justin Herbert to Hayden Rucci and a 42-yard rushing touchdown by Kimani Vidal gave Los Angeles a 17-10 lead.
Denver responded in the fourth quarter. Bo Nix connected with Courtland Sutton for a touchdown that tied the score at 17. Wil Lutz subsequently converted field goals from 19 and 36 yards, completing Denver’s comeback.
Why the result matters
The final score tells only part of the story. Los Angeles produced more rushing yards and slightly more total net yards, according to the official team statistics, yet Denver won by six points.
Three factors help explain the outcome:
- Defensive pressure: Denver recorded five sacks, compared with one for Los Angeles.
- Turnover management: The supplied box score records two fumbles lost by the Chargers and one by Denver, along with an interception by Broncos safety Brandon Jones.
- Fourth-quarter execution: Denver scored 13 points in the final period while holding Los Angeles scoreless.
These factors show why a team can move the ball effectively for much of a game but still lose. The timing of turnovers, the ability to protect the quarterback, and the conversion of scoring opportunities often matter more than a single yardage category.
Denver Broncos vs Los Angeles Chargers Match Player Stats
The following tables organize the principal individual performances by position. Passing, rushing, receiving, and defensive numbers help explain how each team approached the matchup.
Quarterback passing statistics
| Statistic | Bo Nix, Denver | Justin Herbert, Los Angeles |
| Completions | 16 | 14 |
| Pass attempts | 27 | 24 |
| Completion percentage | 59.3% | 58.3% |
| Passing yards | 123 | 121 |
| Yards per attempt | 4.6 | 5.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 5 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 5 | 39 |
| Passer rating | 82.8 | 68.2 |
Note: The completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completion and attempt totals. Passer rating is the rating listed in the supplied data.
Bo Nix’s performance for Denver
Bo Nix completed 16 of 27 passes for 123 yards and one touchdown, without throwing an interception. His completion percentage was approximately 59.3%, and his listed passer rating was 82.8.
The most important aspect of Nix’s performance was ball security through the air. He avoided an interception, allowing Denver to maintain opportunities to score even when the passing attack was not producing large gains.
However, 123 passing yards on 27 attempts represents limited aerial production. His average of 4.6 yards per attempt indicates that Denver did not generate substantial passing yardage on a per-attempt basis.
That limitation makes the team’s overall balance important. Denver gained 106 rushing yards and received a touchdown from its ground game. Rather than relying entirely on Nix to create explosive passing plays, the Broncos were able to distribute offensive responsibility.
Nix also recorded four rushing attempts for 10 yards. Those carries added a modest contribution to the running game, although the supplied figures do not establish how many were designed runs, scrambles, or other quarterback carries.
His fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Courtland Sutton was particularly important because it brought Denver level at 17-17. The subsequent field goals completed the scoring comeback.
Justin Herbert’s performance for Los Angeles
Justin Herbert completed 14 of 24 passes for 121 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His listed passer rating was 68.2.
Herbert averaged 5.0 yards per attempt, slightly more than Nix. Yet his passing efficiency was affected by two significant issues: the interception and the five sacks recorded against him.
Those sacks resulted in 39 yards lost. This is a major consideration when assessing the Chargers’ offensive performance because sacks can erase the value of otherwise productive plays, create difficult down-and-distance situations, and interrupt scoring drives.
Herbert also contributed 54 rushing yards on six carries, averaging 9.0 yards per attempt. His longest run was 23 yards. That contribution gave Los Angeles another way to move the ball when the passing game faced pressure.
His statistical line therefore presents a mixed picture. Herbert was a useful runner and threw a touchdown pass, but the interception and sacks reduced the overall effectiveness of the offense.
The distinction is important when evaluating quarterbacks. Passing yards alone do not capture the effect of sacks, turnovers, rushing production, or the timing of successful plays.
Quarterback comparison: What the numbers reveal
Nix and Herbert finished with nearly identical passing yardage, but their paths differed.
Nix threw no interceptions, while Herbert threw one. Denver’s quarterback was sacked once, compared with five sacks for Herbert. On the other hand, Herbert gained 54 rushing yards, substantially more than Nix’s 10.
The comparison suggests that Denver benefited from a cleaner passing environment and fewer negative plays. Herbert’s running ability helped compensate for some of the limitations in the passing game, but it could not fully offset the pressure applied by Denver’s defense.
Neither quarterback produced a high-volume passing performance. Instead, the decisive difference was how well each offense managed possession, pressure, and scoring opportunities.
Rushing Stats: Which Team Controlled the Ground Game?
The rushing statistics favored Los Angeles in total production. The Chargers recorded 155 rushing yards on 34 attempts, while Denver gained 106 yards on 29 carries.
| Rushing statistic | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Carries | 29 | 34 |
| Rushing yards | 106 | 155 |
| Yards per carry | 3.7 | 4.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest run | 14 yards | 42 yards |
Los Angeles held a 49-yard advantage on the ground and averaged 0.9 more yards per carry. Nevertheless, Denver won the game.
This is a useful reminder that rushing efficiency and winning football games are related but not interchangeable. A team may gain significant yardage on the ground without consistently turning those gains into points.
J.K. Dobbins leads Denver’s rushing attack
J.K. Dobbins was Denver’s leading rusher, recording 18 carries for 68 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 3.8 yards per carry, with a longest run of 14 yards.
Dobbins accounted for most of Denver’s rushing attempts. His 18 carries represented approximately 62% of the team’s 29 attempts, giving him a central role in the ground game.
Although his average was lower than the Chargers’ team average, his touchdown provided direct scoring value. His second-yard rushing touchdown opened the scoring and established an early advantage.
Dobbins also caught two passes for six yards. That receiving contribution was limited, but it gave the offense another way to involve him outside conventional rushing plays.
His performance should be evaluated in two ways. First, he supplied a reliable share of Denver’s rushing volume. Second, he converted a rushing opportunity into an early touchdown. Those contributions helped Denver establish the lead that it eventually recovered after losing control in the third quarter.
Denver’s supporting rushers
Other Denver players added smaller contributions:
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run |
| Bo Nix | 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 7 |
| Jaylen Waddle | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 |
| RJ Harvey | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 4 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 6 |
| Adam Prentice | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 |
These figures show that Denver spread its remaining rushing attempts across several players. However, the available numbers do not provide enough information to determine which formations or play designs were most effective.
Dobbins remained the primary rushing option, while Nix and the supporting players supplied additional carries. The team ultimately averaged 3.7 yards per attempt, a moderate return that needed to be supplemented by passing touchdowns and field goals.
Kimani Vidal’s explosive performance
Kimani Vidal delivered one of the game’s most significant individual plays. He finished with eight carries for 57 yards, averaging 7.1 yards per carry, and scored one rushing touchdown.
His longest run was 42 yards, which accounted for a substantial share of his total rushing production. That touchdown came in the third quarter and helped put Los Angeles ahead 17-10.
Vidal’s performance demonstrates the effect of explosive plays. A runner does not need a large number of carries to change a game’s momentum when one attempt produces a touchdown.
At the same time, a 42-yard run can make a player’s overall average look considerably stronger than the results of his other carries. His remaining seven attempts combined for 15 rushing yards, based on the supplied totals.
That distinction matters when analyzing consistency. Vidal produced a game-changing run, but the full statistical line should be considered alongside the longest gain.
Justin Herbert adds a second rushing threat
Herbert’s six carries for 54 yards were another important element of the Chargers’ ground attack. His 9.0-yard average was the highest among the listed Los Angeles players with multiple carries.
Quarterback rushing can influence defensive assignments because defenders must account for the possibility that the passer will advance the ball himself. When a quarterback gains yards on scrambles or designed runs, it can create opportunities for other offensive players.
However, the supplied box score does not identify the play type for each carry. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute all 54 yards to scrambles or to assume that every run was designed.
Omarion Hampton and Keaton Mitchell
Omarion Hampton recorded 14 carries for 33 yards, averaging 2.4 yards per attempt. Keaton Mitchell added six carries for 11 yards, averaging 1.8.
Their combined production was 44 yards on 20 carries. That figure indicates that their rushing attempts were much less productive on average than Vidal’s or Herbert’s.
This contrast helps explain how Los Angeles could finish with a strong team rushing average while two of its runners generated limited yardage. Vidal’s long touchdown and Herbert’s efficient runs substantially increased the team’s overall production.
The Chargers’ ground game had explosive potential, but the individual figures show uneven output across the available rushing options.
Receiving Stats: Top Pass Catchers for Both Teams
Receiving production was relatively modest for both offenses. Denver recorded 123 receiving yards from 16 receptions, while Los Angeles finished with 121 yards on 14 catches.
| Receiving statistic | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Receptions | 16 | 14 |
| Receiving yards | 123 | 121 |
| Yards per reception | 7.7 | 8.6 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest reception | 34 yards | 19 yards |
| Targets | 22 | 21 |
Denver had two more receptions and two more receiving yards. Los Angeles gained more yards per catch, but neither team produced a high-volume passing attack.
The longest reception also favored Denver by 15 yards. Evan Engram’s 34-yard catch was the largest recorded reception for either team, giving the Broncos a useful source of downfield production despite their limited passing yardage.
Evan Engram leads Denver’s receivers
Evan Engram led Denver with four receptions for 55 yards. He averaged 13.8 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 34 yards.
Engram accounted for approximately 45% of Denver’s 123 receiving yards. That made him the team’s most productive receiver by yardage in the supplied statistics.
His average of 13.8 yards per reception was also considerably higher than Denver’s team average of 7.7. This suggests that his catches generated more yardage per completion than the team’s overall receiving production.
However, the statistics do not reveal the precise routes Engram ran, the coverage he faced, or the number of yards he gained after the catch. Those details would be needed to explain exactly how his receptions developed.
The clearest conclusion is that Engram supplied Denver with its strongest individual receiving performance by yardage.
Courtland Sutton delivers the tying touchdown
Courtland Sutton caught two passes for 18 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 13 yards.
Although Sutton did not lead the Broncos in receiving yardage, his touchdown carried substantial importance. He caught the fourth-quarter scoring pass from Nix that tied the game at 17-17.
This is an example of why a receiving stat line should not be judged only by total yards. A receiver can have fewer catches and less yardage than a teammate yet make the most consequential play of the game.
Sutton’s touchdown changed the score at a critical stage and set up Denver’s opportunity to take the lead with a field goal.
Other Denver receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Evan Engram | 4 | 55 | 13.8 | 0 |
| Jaylen Waddle | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 |
| Courtland Sutton | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 1 |
| Troy Franklin | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 |
| RJ Harvey | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | -5 | -5.0 | 0 |
Troy Franklin added two catches for 16 yards, while Jaylen Waddle recorded two receptions for 19 yards. Both contributed to an offense that relied on several receiving options rather than one dominant touchdown scorer.
The table also shows that not every reception produced positive yardage. Tyler Badie’s one catch resulted in a loss of five yards. That illustrates why reception totals alone can be misleading: the value of a catch depends on how far the play advances the ball.
Charlie Kolar leads the Chargers in receiving yards
Charlie Kolar led Los Angeles with three receptions for 37 yards. He averaged 12.3 yards per catch and recorded a longest reception of 19 yards.
Kolar’s 37 yards represented approximately 31% of the Chargers’ 121 receiving yards. His production gave Herbert a useful receiving option, although the supplied line does not include a touchdown.
Los Angeles also spread its receiving work among several players. Marquez Valdes-Scantling caught two passes for 22 yards, while Keaton Mitchell added three catches for 18 yards.
Theo Wease Jr. and Tre’ Harris each recorded 16 receiving yards, while Hayden Rucci scored on a seven-yard reception from Herbert.
Rucci’s touchdown helped Los Angeles erase Denver’s early advantage. The play was important because it brought the Chargers level at 10-10 in the third quarter, before Vidal’s rushing touchdown put them ahead.
Los Angeles receiving statistics by player
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Charlie Kolar | 3 | 37 | 12.3 | 0 |
| Marquez Valdes-Scantling | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Keaton Mitchell | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Theo Wease Jr. | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Tre’ Harris | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Hayden Rucci | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 1 |
| Omarion Hampton | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Oronde Gadsden | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Kimani Vidal | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
The Chargers’ receiving numbers indicate that several players contributed, but no receiver reached 40 yards. Kolar was the leading target by yardage, while Rucci supplied a touchdown.
The contrast with Denver is notable. Engram gained 55 yards on his own, while Sutton scored the Broncos’ tying touchdown. Los Angeles distributed its receiving production more evenly, but its longest listed reception was shorter.
These statistics do not prove that Denver’s receivers consistently beat coverage more effectively. They do show that the Broncos obtained a larger individual receiving contribution from their leading pass catcher.
Defensive Player Stats: Why Denver Gained the Advantage
Defense was central to the result. The supplied box score records five sacks for Denver and one for Los Angeles. Denver also recorded 12 tackles for loss and eight quarterback hits.
| Defensive statistic | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| 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 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
Denver’s defensive advantage was particularly clear in the backfield. The Broncos recorded ten more tackles for loss and four more quarterback hits than Los Angeles.
Tackles for loss can disrupt an offense before it reaches a favorable passing situation. Sacks can be even more damaging because they also reduce passing yardage and may force a team to punt or attempt a difficult third-down conversion.
The Chargers had five passes defended, one more than Denver. That suggests Los Angeles did have some success contesting passing plays, but its lower sack and tackle-for-loss totals indicate less disruption behind the line of scrimmage.
Nik Bonitto leads Denver’s pass rush
Nik Bonitto recorded four total tackles, three solo tackles, two sacks, three tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits.
His two sacks accounted for a substantial part of Denver’s five-sack total. He also recorded three tackles for loss, showing that his contribution extended beyond completed sacks.
A pass rusher’s value is not limited to sacks. Pressure can force quarterbacks to release the ball early, move away from their intended target, or abandon a play. Although pressure does not always result in a sack, it can still reduce offensive efficiency.
Bonitto’s statistics establish that he was one of Denver’s most productive defenders in the backfield. The supplied data does not establish that he personally caused the interception or every disrupted play, so those outcomes should be considered separately.
Zach Allen and D.J. Jones contribute up front
Zach Allen recorded three tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and three quarterback hits. D.J. Jones finished with four tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
Their combined production added two sacks to Denver’s defensive total. It also demonstrates that the pressure came from more than one player.
When several defenders can disrupt a quarterback, an offense has fewer opportunities to concentrate its protection on a single pass rusher. That can make it more difficult to maintain a clean pocket throughout a game.
The box score supports the conclusion that Denver generated pressure from multiple defensive players. It does not, by itself, identify the precise blocking errors responsible for each sack.
Alex Singleton leads Denver in total tackles
Alex Singleton led Denver with eight total tackles, including five solo tackles. He also recorded one tackle for loss.
Justin Strnad matched Singleton’s eight total tackles and five solo tackles, while adding one pass defended.
Jahdae Barron recorded six tackles, five of them solo. Ja’Quan McMillian added five tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
These performances show a defense that contributed across several levels. Linebackers and defensive backs supplied tackling volume, while the pass rush generated negative plays.
Total tackles are useful for identifying involvement, but they should not automatically be interpreted as a measure of defensive quality. A defender can record many tackles because opponents repeatedly target his area or because the defense allows plays to develop. Tackles are most informative when considered alongside sacks, tackles for loss, coverage results, and the wider game situation.
Brandon Jones makes the key interception
Brandon Jones recorded one interception for seven return yards, according to the supplied defensive statistics.
An interception ends the opponent’s possession immediately and gives the defense an opportunity to regain the ball. Its value depends partly on when it occurs, the field position it creates, and whether the offense converts the possession into points.
The supplied box score does not include enough information to attribute a particular scoring drive to this interception with certainty. It is therefore best understood as an important recorded turnover rather than as a proven direct cause of a specific touchdown.
Denver’s defense also recovered three fumbles, although the supplied team totals require careful interpretation because recovery counts can include recoveries of a team’s own fumbles. The clearest opponent-possession figures are the one interception and the turnovers explicitly recorded as lost.
Chargers defenders: Akheem Mesidor leads the tackle count
Akheem Mesidor led the Chargers’ listed defenders with eight total tackles, five solo tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
Elijah Molden recorded seven tackles, while Daiyan Henley and Del’Shawn Phillips each finished with six. Henley added a pass defended and a quarterback hit.
Tarheeb Still recorded five tackles and one pass defended. Cam Hart added four tackles and one pass defended.
These numbers show that Los Angeles had individual defenders who remained active throughout the game. The defensive problem was not a complete lack of tackling or coverage activity. Instead, the overall totals indicate that the Chargers generated fewer negative plays in the backfield.
Their single sack compared with Denver’s five is especially relevant given Herbert’s five sacks. The Chargers’ defense did not match Denver’s ability to disrupt the opposing quarterback.
Turnovers, Fumbles, and Ball Security
Turnovers can alter the direction of an NFL game in a single play. They reduce the offense’s opportunities to score and may give the opponent favorable field position.
The supplied statistics list the following fumble figures:
| Team | Fumbles recorded | Fumbles lost |
| Denver Broncos | 2 | 1 |
| Los Angeles Chargers | 3 | 2 |
Denver’s quarterback, Bo Nix, was credited with two fumbles and one lost fumble. Justin Herbert was credited with two fumbles, one of which was lost, while Charlie Kolar also lost a fumble.
These player-level figures should be read carefully because a team fumble may be associated with a particular play without every recovery being credited as a change of possession. A fumble is not automatically a turnover. The offense loses possession only when the opposing team recovers it.
The data also lists a recovery for Tuli Tuipulotu. That recovery is consistent with the importance of defensive pressure in the third quarter, when a Nix fumble was recorded in the supplied play-by-play material.
For a complete turnover analysis, the most useful measures are:
- Interceptions thrown and caught.
- Fumbles lost by each offense.
- Total turnovers that actually changed possession.
- Points scored after turnovers.
- Field position immediately after each turnover.
Denver recorded one interception and the supplied team figures show one lost fumble. Los Angeles recorded two lost fumbles and no interceptions thrown by Denver’s defense were attributed to the Chargers’ passing game.
The difference favors Denver in recorded interceptions, but the full impact of each turnover depends on the possession that followed. Without a complete drive-by-drive scoring attribution, it would be misleading to assign a precise number of points to turnovers alone.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams contributed directly to Denver’s six-point victory. Wil Lutz made three field goals, while Cameron Dicker converted the Chargers’ only field-goal attempt. Denver’s ability to add points through field goals was especially important in the fourth quarter.
Kicking statistics
| Kicker | Field goals | Field-goal percentage | Longest field goal | Extra points | Total points |
| Wil Lutz, Denver | 3/4 | 75.0% | 36 yards | 2/2 | 11 |
| Cameron Dicker, Los Angeles | 1/1 | 100% | 42 yards | 2/2 | 5 |
Lutz scored 11 points through field goals and extra points. Dicker scored five.
The difference was not simply that Denver attempted more field goals. Lutz converted the 19-yard attempt that gave Denver a 20-17 lead and the 36-yard attempt that extended the advantage to 23-17.
Dicker was perfect on his field-goal attempts, but Los Angeles did not add another field goal after its third-quarter touchdowns.
Lutz missed one of four field-goal attempts, according to the supplied figures. That miss matters when evaluating his overall accuracy, but his three successful kicks were still central to the final score.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Jeremy Crawshaw, Denver | JK Scott, Los Angeles |
| Punts | 5 | 5 |
| Total punting 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 2.2 more yards per punt than Crawshaw. However, Denver recorded three punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, compared with two for Los Angeles.
Punting distance alone does not establish which punter performed better. The location where a punt lands, the return allowed, and the resulting field position all influence its value.
Denver’s three punts inside the 20 suggest that its special teams helped place the Chargers in less favorable starting positions on those occasions. The zero-touchback totals also indicate that neither punter recorded a punt touchback in the supplied figures.
Kick returns and punt returns
| Return category | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Kick returns | 3 | 6 |
| Kick-return yards | 67 | 136 |
| Average kick return | 22.3 | 22.7 |
| Longest kick return | 26 yards | 29 yards |
| Punt returns | 2 | 1 |
| Punt-return yards | 35 | 1 |
| Average punt return | 17.5 | 1.0 |
| Longest punt return | 26 yards | 1 yard |
Los Angeles had more kick returns and more total kick-return yardage. Its average of 22.7 yards per return was also slightly higher than Denver’s 22.3.
Denver, however, gained 35 yards on two punt returns, compared with one yard on a single Chargers punt return. Marvin Mims Jr. averaged 17.5 yards on his two returns.
These figures highlight an important distinction between return categories. Kick returns and punt returns occur in different circumstances, so their yardage should not be combined without considering the type of kick and the starting field position.
Special teams did not produce a listed return touchdown for either team. Their contribution was instead reflected in field position, kicking points, and the opportunity to give the offense manageable starting positions.
How Denver Won After Falling Behind
The most revealing part of this matchup was the change in momentum between the third and fourth quarters.
Denver led 10-3 at halftime. Los Angeles then scored 14 unanswered points to take a 17-10 lead. The Broncos responded with 13 points in the fourth quarter, while the Chargers failed to score again.
First quarter: Denver strikes first
Denver opened the scoring with a two-yard rushing touchdown by Dobbins. The extra point made it 7-0.
The early touchdown gave Denver the lead without requiring a large passing performance. Dobbins’ eventual total of 68 rushing yards shows that he remained an important part of the offense beyond the opening drive.
Los Angeles did not score in the first quarter. That left the Chargers needing to recover the early deficit before halftime.
Second quarter: Both teams add points
Dicker converted a 42-yard field goal to put Los Angeles on the scoreboard. Lutz responded with a 34-yard field goal for Denver.
The Broncos entered halftime ahead 10-3.
Neither team produced a touchdown in the quarter, but Denver preserved its lead through a combination of its opening rushing score and successful kicking.
Third quarter: Los Angeles takes control
The Chargers scored twice in the third quarter.
Herbert threw a seven-yard touchdown pass to Rucci, tying the game at 10-10. Vidal then broke free for a 42-yard rushing touchdown, giving Los Angeles a 17-10 advantage.
The two scoring plays highlighted the Chargers’ different offensive strengths. Herbert connected with a receiver for the first touchdown, while Vidal produced a long run for the second.
Denver failed to score in the quarter. For a time, the momentum appeared to favor Los Angeles, especially after the seven-point lead was established.
Fourth quarter: Denver completes the comeback
Denver tied the game when Nix threw a five-yard touchdown pass to Sutton. Lutz’s extra point made the score 17-17.
Lutz then converted a 19-yard field goal, giving Denver a 20-17 lead. His 36-yard field goal later extended the margin to six points.
The scoring pattern matters because Denver did not need another touchdown to win. Once the game was tied, two successful field goals gave the Broncos a lead that the Chargers could not overcome.
Los Angeles had opportunities to respond, but the Broncos’ defense kept the Chargers off the scoreboard in the final quarter.
The fourth-quarter numbers offer the clearest summary of the result: Denver scored 13 points, Los Angeles scored none, and a seven-point deficit became a six-point victory.
Team Statistics Comparison
Individual numbers become more meaningful when considered alongside overall team performance.
| Team statistic | Denver Broncos | Los Angeles Chargers |
| Total net yards | 224 | 237 |
| Rushing yards | 106 | 155 |
| Passing yards listed in player stats | 123 | 121 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded | 5 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded | 1 | 0 |
| Penalties | 7 | 9 |
| Penalty yards | 40 | 93 |
| Time of possession | 29:07 | 30:53 |
The net-yardage and penalty figures are from the supplied game’s team-statistics record. Passing totals are presented as listed in the player statistics and should not be added directly to net yards because sack losses and other adjustments can affect the official totals.
Total yardage did not decide the game
Los Angeles finished with 237 total net yards, compared with Denver’s 224. That 13-yard advantage did not translate into a victory.
This is one of the most important lessons from the matchup. Total yards measure how much ground a team gained, but they do not fully measure how effectively it converted possessions into points.
The Chargers had more rushing yards, more total net yards, and a slightly higher time of possession. Yet Denver generated more sacks, recorded an interception, committed fewer penalties, and scored more field goals.
Those differences help explain why the scoreboard favored Denver even though Los Angeles performed better in some traditional yardage categories.
Penalties created an additional disadvantage for Los Angeles
Denver was charged with seven penalties for 40 yards. Los Angeles had nine penalties for 93 yards.
The Chargers therefore conceded 53 more penalty yards and two additional penalties.
Penalty yards can extend an opponent’s drive, erase a positive play, or create a more difficult down-and-distance situation. Their impact varies by timing and field position, so the totals alone cannot establish exactly how many points were affected.
Still, a 93-yard penalty total is a meaningful area for review. Combined with the sacks and turnovers, it suggests that Los Angeles had several sources of offensive and situational inefficiency.
Time of possession favored Los Angeles slightly
The Chargers held the ball for 30 minutes and 53 seconds, while Denver had possession for 29 minutes and seven seconds.
Los Angeles’ advantage was one minute and 46 seconds.
That difference is relatively small. It also reinforces the point that controlling the clock does not automatically lead to a win. The Chargers had slightly more possession time but were unable to score in the fourth quarter.
For analysts, time of possession is most useful when interpreted alongside third-down conversions, scoring drives, turnovers, and the number of plays needed to produce points.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Each Team
The matchup provides several lessons for evaluating NFL performance beyond the final score.
1. Efficiency matters more than raw volume
The Chargers ran the ball 34 times for 155 yards. Denver managed 106 yards on 29 carries.
Those numbers favor Los Angeles, but the Broncos scored the same number of rushing touchdowns and found additional scoring opportunities through the kicking game.
A team can accumulate yardage without producing enough touchdowns. When drives stall near scoring range, field goals may become necessary, but the ability to finish drives with touchdowns remains important.
2. Quarterback pressure changes the offensive picture
Herbert was sacked five times, compared with one sack for Nix. The Chargers also allowed 39 yards on those sacks, while Denver lost five.
This difference is significant because it affects both passing efficiency and the field position required to sustain drives. A quarterback may complete passes successfully on several plays, but repeated sacks can cancel out much of that progress.
The supplied data supports a clear conclusion: Denver was much more successful at disrupting the opposing quarterback.
3. Explosive plays can distort average production
Vidal’s 42-yard touchdown accounted for most of his 57 rushing yards. His overall average of 7.1 yards per carry was therefore boosted by one exceptional run.
Explosive plays are valuable, but a sound analysis should distinguish between consistency and high-impact moments. A running back who gains four yards on ten carries may be helping the offense sustain drives, while another who gains 42 yards on one attempt can dramatically increase his average.
Both types of production matter, but they contribute in different ways.
4. Defensive statistics need context
Singleton’s eight tackles and Bonitto’s two sacks identify important individual contributions. They do not independently measure every aspect of defensive performance.
A complete defensive review would also examine missed tackles, coverage assignments, pressure rate, run-stop success, opponent conversion rates, and the circumstances of each play.
The available box score offers a useful starting point, but it cannot replace a full film review.
5. Scoring opportunities determine the final result
Denver scored 23 points through a rushing touchdown, a passing touchdown, and three made field goals. Los Angeles scored 17 through a passing touchdown, a rushing touchdown, and one field goal.
The scoring mix shows that Denver’s three successful field goals were decisive. Two came in the fourth quarter, after the Broncos had tied the game.
This is why the final quarter deserves more attention than a simple comparison of total yardage. Denver made its opportunities count when the game was tied and the lead was available.
How to Read NFL Match Player Stats Correctly
For readers comparing player performances, a structured approach makes the statistics easier to understand.
Start with the passing line. Compare completions, attempts, passing yards, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks. These figures provide a basic picture of quarterback production and the pressure each offense faced.
Review rushing production. Look at carries, total yards, average yards per carry, touchdowns, and longest runs. A high average can result from one explosive play, so consider the total number of attempts.
Examine receiving contributions. Receptions, targets, receiving yards, yards per catch, and touchdowns help identify each receiver’s role. Target totals can be useful, but they do not show whether every target was catchable or how difficult each opportunity was.
Evaluate defensive impact. Sacks, tackles for loss, interceptions, forced fumbles, and passes defended help reveal how effectively a defense disrupted the opponent. Total tackles are useful, but they should not be treated as a standalone performance score.
Finish with team context. Compare penalties, possession time, field goals, turnover totals, and scoring by quarter. These figures often explain why a team won even when its opponent gained more yards.
Applying this method to the Broncos and Chargers shows why Denver’s defensive production and fourth-quarter scoring deserve as much attention as the Chargers’ rushing advantage.
Data Accuracy and Statistical Limitations
A reliable match analysis should distinguish official game information from derived calculations and interpretation.
The supplied data contains a scheduling-label inconsistency: it identifies the matchup as Week 7, while the official team game pages label the October 11 contest as Week 5. The article therefore identifies the date and final score without relying on the inconsistent week number.
There are also differences between some supplied quarterback ratings and the values displayed in the retrieved box-score material. For that reason, the tables above use the values supplied in the original dataset, with calculations such as completion percentage clearly identified.
Another important distinction is that passing yards, net passing yards, and total net yards are not interchangeable. Sacks can reduce net passing production, which means the player passing totals should not simply be added to a team’s official net-yardage figure.
Finally, statistics explain what happened more reliably than they explain why every play happened. The figures establish that Denver recorded five sacks and that the Chargers gained 155 rushing yards. They do not, without additional film or play-by-play analysis, establish every blocking assignment, coverage error, or coaching decision responsible for those outcomes.
These limitations do not prevent useful analysis. They make the conclusions more precise and help readers separate recorded performance from speculation.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Denver Broncos vs Los Angeles Chargers game?
The Denver Broncos defeated the Los Angeles Chargers 23-17 on October 11, 2026. Denver scored 13 fourth-quarter points to overcome a seven-point deficit and finish with a six-point victory.
2. How did Bo Nix perform against the Chargers?
Bo Nix completed 16 of 27 passes for 123 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. He also rushed four times for 10 yards. His fourth-quarter touchdown pass to Courtland Sutton tied the game at 17-17.
3. How many passing yards did Justin Herbert record?
Justin Herbert recorded 121 passing yards on 14 completions from 24 attempts, with one touchdown and one interception. He also rushed for 54 yards on six carries. The supplied statistics credit Denver with five sacks against him.
4. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Kimani Vidal led all listed rushers in yards per carry, gaining 57 yards on eight attempts for a 7.1-yard average. His 42-yard touchdown run was the longest rushing play in the game. J.K. Dobbins led Denver with 68 rushing yards and one touchdown.
5. Which team had the better defensive performance?
Denver produced the stronger defensive numbers in the supplied statistics. The Broncos recorded five sacks, 12 tackles for loss, eight quarterback hits, and one interception. The Chargers recorded one sack, two tackles for loss, four quarterback hits, and no interceptions.
6. Why did Denver win despite having fewer rushing yards?
Denver gained 106 rushing yards, compared with 155 for Los Angeles. However, the Broncos generated more defensive pressure, recorded an interception, conceded fewer penalty yards, and scored 13 points in the fourth quarter. Those factors helped Denver overcome the Chargers’ rushing advantage.
Conclusion
The Denver Broncos’ 23-17 victory over the Los Angeles Chargers demonstrates how defensive pressure, ball security, and late-game execution can outweigh a disadvantage in total rushing production.
Bo Nix finished with 123 passing yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions, while Justin Herbert recorded 121 passing yards, one touchdown, and one interception. Herbert added 54 rushing yards, and Kimani Vidal produced the game’s longest rushing touchdown with a 42-yard run. Evan Engram led Denver’s receivers with 55 yards, while Courtland Sutton caught the touchdown that tied the game in the fourth quarter.
Denver’s defensive performance was a major factor. Five sacks and 12 tackles for loss helped limit the Chargers’ passing effectiveness, while Brandon Jones recorded an interception. Wil Lutz then converted two fourth-quarter field goals to secure the final margin.
The broader lesson from the denver broncos vs los angeles chargers match player stats is that individual numbers become most useful when viewed in context. Rushing averages, quarterback ratings, receiving totals, and defensive statistics each explain one part of a game. The scoring sequence, turnovers, penalties, and ability to finish possessions reveal how those individual performances combine to determine the result.
