Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats tell the story of a dramatic NFL contest that featured explosive offensive plays, standout individual performances, and a thrilling finish. Tennessee escaped with a narrow 31 to 29 victory, but the final score only reveals part of what happened on the field. Looking deeper into the statistics provides a much clearer understanding of why the Titans won, how the Browns nearly completed a comeback, and which players had the greatest influence on the outcome.
Week 1 games often establish the direction of a team’s season, and this matchup demonstrated how individual performances can outweigh overall yardage. Tennessee relied on an outstanding rushing attack led by Tony Pollard, while Cleveland countered with an impressive passing performance from rookie quarterback Shedeur Sanders. By examining the numbers carefully, fans can understand the strategic decisions, momentum swings, and key moments that shaped one of the closest games of the week.
Whether you are an NFL fan, fantasy football manager, analyst, or someone researching player performances, this detailed breakdown explains every important statistic using official game data while also adding meaningful football analysis instead of simply repeating the box score.
Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
Match Overview
| Category | Details |
| Event | Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns |
| League | NFL |
| Date | December 7, 2025 |
| Week | Week 1 |
| Venue | Cleveland Browns Home Game |
| Final Score | Tennessee Titans 31, Cleveland Browns 29 |
The contest remained competitive from beginning to end. Tennessee built an early advantage through efficient rushing and timely passing, while Cleveland gradually found rhythm behind Shedeur Sanders’ impressive arm. Although the Browns generated considerably more passing yards, Tennessee’s dominance on the ground and ability to capitalize inside the red zone ultimately proved decisive.
Final Score Breakdown
Quarter by Quarter Results
| Quarter | Tennessee | Cleveland |
| First | 14 | 3 |
| Second | 0 | 14 |
| Third | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth | 10 | 12 |
| Final | 31 | 29 |
The scoring pattern shows how momentum shifted throughout the afternoon.
Tennessee exploded out of the gate by scoring two first quarter touchdowns, forcing Cleveland to play from behind almost immediately. The Browns responded with an outstanding second quarter, outscoring Tennessee 14 to 0 and briefly taking control of the game.
The third quarter belonged entirely to Tennessee as the Titans’ rushing attack consistently moved the chains while their defense limited Cleveland’s offense. During the fourth quarter, both offenses became aggressive, producing 22 combined points before Tennessee ultimately secured the two point victory.
How Tennessee Won the Game
Looking beyond total yardage reveals several reasons Tennessee finished with the victory.
Elite Running Game
The Titans rushed for:
- 35 rushing attempts
- 184 rushing yards
- 5.3 yards per carry
- 2 rushing touchdowns
Maintaining over five yards per carry allowed Tennessee to control possession, shorten the game, and reduce pressure on quarterback Cam Ward.
Winning the Turnover Battle
Although each team intercepted one pass, Cleveland lost a critical fumble while Tennessee protected the football throughout the game.
Ball security remains one of the strongest predictors of NFL success, and this game reinforced that principle.
Better Red Zone Efficiency
While Cleveland accumulated significantly more passing yards, Tennessee consistently converted drives into touchdowns instead of settling for field goals.
That efficiency made the difference in a game decided by only two points.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
| Category | Titans | Browns |
| Final Score | 31 | 29 |
| Passing Yards | 117 | 364 |
| Team Rushing Yards | 184 | 61 |
| Total Passing TD | 2 | 3 |
| Team Rushing TD | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Lost Fumbles | 0 | 1 |
| Team Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Total Tackles | 64 | 70 |
| QB Hits | 13 | 5 |
One interesting takeaway is how contrasting offensive philosophies produced similar scoring outputs.
Cleveland leaned heavily on its passing attack, while Tennessee relied on physical rushing football and efficient execution near the goal line.
Passing Statistics Analysis
Quarterback play always receives significant attention, and both starters produced memorable performances despite very different statistical profiles.
Cam Ward Performance
Cam Ward completed:
- 14 completions
- 28 attempts
- 117 passing yards
- 2 touchdowns
- 1 interception
- Quarterback rating of 70.1
Ward’s passing numbers appear modest at first glance, but context matters.
Because Tennessee’s rushing offense consistently generated positive gains, Ward rarely needed to force difficult throws. His primary responsibility was protecting drives, making efficient decisions, and capitalizing on scoring opportunities.
Despite throwing for only 117 yards, he finished with two touchdown passes that significantly contributed to Tennessee’s victory.
Shedeur Sanders Performance
Shedeur Sanders produced one of the strongest passing performances of the week.
His final statistics included:
- 23 completions
- 42 attempts
- 364 passing yards
- 3 touchdown passes
- 1 interception
- 97.7 quarterback rating
Sanders displayed confidence attacking all areas of the field while consistently stretching Tennessee’s secondary. His 364 passing yards represented one of the game’s most impressive individual achievements.
However, football remains a team sport, and despite his excellent production, Cleveland’s inability to establish a consistent running game placed enormous pressure on the rookie quarterback throughout the afternoon.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
| Statistic | Cam Ward | Shedeur Sanders |
| Completions | 14 | 23 |
| Attempts | 28 | 42 |
| Passing Yards | 117 | 364 |
| Passing TD | 2 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| QB Rating | 70.1 | 97.7 |
Pure passing numbers clearly favored Sanders.
Game management and offensive balance favored Ward.
That contrast perfectly illustrates why quarterback statistics alone cannot determine which team deserved to win.
Tennessee’s Dominant Running Attack
The Titans built their offensive identity around physical rushing football.
Their offensive line consistently opened running lanes, allowing the ground game to dictate tempo from the opening drive.
The clear star was Tony Pollard.
His performance included:
- 25 rushing attempts
- 161 rushing yards
- 6.4 yards per carry
- 2 rushing touchdowns
- Long run of 65 yards
Pollard repeatedly punished Cleveland’s defensive front by turning moderate gains into explosive plays. His ability to accelerate through the second level prevented Cleveland from committing extra defenders against Tennessee’s passing game.
Perhaps even more impressive than the total yardage was his consistency. Rather than relying on one long run, Pollard continuously produced positive plays that kept Tennessee ahead of schedule offensively.
His two rushing touchdowns ultimately proved decisive in a game decided by only two points.
Why Pollard Was the Offensive MVP
Several factors separated Pollard from every other offensive player on the field.
First, he generated explosive plays while maintaining efficiency throughout the game.
Second, his rushing success reduced pressure on Cam Ward.
Finally, his ability to control possession helped Tennessee’s defense remain rested during critical stretches of the second half.
His 161 rushing yards stand as one of the most influential individual performances of the contest.
Receiving Statistics Breakdown
While Tennessee leaned heavily on its rushing attack, both teams produced notable receiving performances that influenced the outcome. The passing game looked very different for each offense, but several receivers stepped up when their quarterbacks needed reliable targets.
Tennessee Receiving Leaders
The Titans finished with:
- 14 receptions
- 117 receiving yards
- 2 receiving touchdowns
The leading receiver was Chimere Dike, who recorded:
| Statistic | Value |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 24 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
At first glance, 24 receiving yards may not seem like a dominant performance. However, Tennessee’s offensive strategy focused on controlling the clock with the running game rather than generating explosive passing plays. Dike’s biggest contribution came in the red zone, where his touchdown reception helped convert an important scoring opportunity.
Throughout the game, Cam Ward spread the football among multiple targets instead of relying on one primary receiver. That balanced approach complemented Tennessee’s rushing attack and prevented Cleveland from focusing coverage on a single player.
Cleveland Receiving Leaders
Cleveland’s offense relied heavily on the passing game, resulting in significantly larger receiving numbers.
Team totals included:
- 23 receptions
- 364 receiving yards
- 3 receiving touchdowns
The standout performer was Harold Fannin Jr.
| Statistic | Value |
| Receptions | 8 |
| Receiving Yards | 114 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Fannin consistently found open space in Tennessee’s defensive coverage and became Shedeur Sanders’ most dependable target. His ability to gain yards after the catch kept multiple drives alive and helped Cleveland erase an early deficit.
Although the Browns ultimately lost the game, Fannin’s performance demonstrated why dependable tight ends and possession receivers remain valuable in today’s NFL. His combination of reliable hands and route discipline created several key first downs during Cleveland’s second half comeback attempt.
Comparing the Receiving Units
| Category | Tennessee | Cleveland |
| Receptions | 14 | 23 |
| Receiving Yards | 117 | 364 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 2 | 3 |
| Leading Receiver | Chimere Dike | Harold Fannin Jr. |
The numbers highlight two completely different offensive identities.
Cleveland emphasized aggressive downfield passing and consistently challenged Tennessee’s secondary. Tennessee, on the other hand, viewed the passing game as a complement to its powerful rushing attack.
Neither strategy is inherently better. Success depends on execution, and in this matchup Tennessee executed its offensive plan more efficiently despite producing far fewer passing yards.
Rushing Statistics Analysis
The ground game ultimately separated the two teams.
Although Cleveland generated nearly three times as many passing yards, Tennessee completely controlled the rushing battle.
Tennessee Team Rushing
| Statistic | Value |
| Attempts | 35 |
| Yards | 184 |
| Average | 5.3 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
A rushing average above five yards per carry is typically considered excellent in the NFL. Tennessee consistently stayed ahead of the chains, allowing offensive coordinator and quarterback to avoid obvious passing situations.
The offensive line also deserves significant credit. Consistently creating running lanes against Cleveland’s defensive front enabled the Titans to control both tempo and field position.
Tony Pollard’s Outstanding Performance
Tony Pollard produced one of the most complete rushing performances of the season.
| Statistic | Value |
| Carries | 25 |
| Rushing Yards | 161 |
| Average | 6.4 |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Long Run | 65 |
Watching the numbers alone does not fully explain his impact.
Pollard repeatedly gained positive yardage on first down, reducing pressure on the offense throughout the game. His 65 yard run shifted momentum dramatically and demonstrated his ability to turn a routine rushing attempt into a game changing play.
Perhaps most importantly, Pollard consistently wore down Cleveland’s defense. By the fourth quarter, defenders were forced to commit additional players to stopping the run, creating more favorable passing situations for Cam Ward.
From my perspective, this was the defining individual performance of the game because it influenced nearly every offensive possession Tennessee had.
Cleveland Rushing Performance
The Browns struggled to establish any rhythm on the ground.
Team rushing totals were:
| Statistic | Value |
| Attempts | 20 |
| Yards | 61 |
| Average | 3.1 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
Without a consistent running attack, Cleveland became increasingly dependent on Shedeur Sanders’ arm.
While Sanders performed exceptionally well, asking a quarterback to carry nearly the entire offense often makes a team more predictable. Tennessee’s defense gradually adjusted by focusing on passing situations, limiting Cleveland’s ability to balance its play calling.
Shedeur Sanders as the Leading Rusher
Interestingly, Cleveland’s leading rusher was quarterback Shedeur Sanders.
| Statistic | Value |
| Carries | 3 |
| Rushing Yards | 29 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
His mobility created several important plays, including a rushing touchdown that energized Cleveland during its comeback effort.
However, relying on a quarterback as the leading rusher usually reflects a lack of production from the running backs rather than offensive balance. Tennessee successfully contained Cleveland’s traditional rushing attack throughout the afternoon.
Why the Running Game Decided the Outcome
One of the biggest lessons from this matchup is that total passing yards do not always determine the winner.
Cleveland finished with far more aerial production, yet Tennessee controlled the areas that often matter most in close NFL games.
Those advantages included:
- Winning first down with efficient rushing.
- Controlling possession through sustained drives.
- Keeping the defense fresh by extending offensive series.
- Converting rushing opportunities into touchdowns.
- Limiting offensive mistakes despite a conservative passing approach.
Football analytics continue to show that explosive passing is valuable, but complementary football remains equally important. Tennessee demonstrated that an effective rushing attack can reduce risk while still producing enough scoring opportunities to win.
Offensive Efficiency Comparison
| Category | Tennessee Titans | Cleveland Browns |
| Passing Yards | 117 | 364 |
| Rushing Yards | 184 | 61 |
| Total Offensive Balance | Strong | Pass Heavy |
| Offensive Identity | Run First | Pass First |
| Leading Offensive Player | Tony Pollard | Shedeur Sanders |
This comparison explains why the final score remained close despite the large difference in passing production.
Cleveland generated explosive plays through the air, while Tennessee consistently controlled the pace of the game through physical rushing football and efficient scoring drives.
The statistics reinforce an important football principle: balance often wins close games.
Defensive Player Statistics Analysis
While much of the attention naturally goes to quarterbacks and skill position players, the defensive performances in this matchup played an equally important role. Several momentum changing plays came from defenders who forced pressure, disrupted passing lanes, and limited explosive rushing opportunities.
The final score was separated by only two points, making every sack, tackle, quarterback hit, and takeaway meaningful.
Tennessee Titans Defensive Performance
Tennessee’s defense delivered several timely plays despite facing a quarterback who threw for 364 passing yards.
Team Defensive Statistics
| Statistic | Tennessee |
| Total Tackles | 64 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 |
| Pass Deflections | 9 |
| Quarterback Hits | 13 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
Although Cleveland accumulated impressive passing numbers, Tennessee consistently pressured Shedeur Sanders throughout the afternoon. The defense forced him to make quick decisions and prevented several deep passing opportunities from developing.
One of the most encouraging aspects of Tennessee’s performance was its ability to create pressure without sacrificing coverage. Nine pass deflections demonstrate that defensive backs remained active throughout the game instead of allowing uncontested receptions.
Cedric Gray Led the Defense
Linebacker Cedric Gray finished as Tennessee’s leading tackler.
| Statistic | Value |
| Total Tackles | 10 |
Gray was involved in nearly every level of the defense.
He filled running lanes effectively, made several open field tackles, and prevented Cleveland from generating consistent production after the catch. His awareness and positioning reduced the impact of short passing plays that could have become much larger gains.
Jeffery Simmons Controlled the Line of Scrimmage
Defensive tackle Jeffery Simmons continued to demonstrate why he remains one of Tennessee’s most important defensive players.
| Statistic | Value |
| Sacks | 1.5 |
Simmons’ production extended beyond the sack total.
Throughout the game he collapsed the pocket, disrupted running lanes, and forced Cleveland’s offensive line to dedicate extra blockers to slowing him down. Even on plays that did not result in sacks, his presence affected the timing of Cleveland’s offense.
Xavier Woods Produced a Momentum Changing Turnover
Safety Xavier Woods recorded Tennessee’s only interception.
| Statistic | Value |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Return Yards | 35 |
The interception shifted momentum during a competitive stretch of the game and prevented Cleveland from building on an offensive drive.
Turnovers remain one of the most valuable defensive statistics because they not only stop the opponent but also provide additional opportunities for the offense. Woods’ play reflected excellent anticipation and awareness in coverage.
Cleveland Browns Defensive Performance
Although Cleveland fell short on the scoreboard, its defense still produced several positive moments.
Team Defensive Statistics
| Statistic | Cleveland |
| Total Tackles | 70 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 7 |
| Pass Deflections | 5 |
| Quarterback Hits | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
The Browns actually recorded more total tackles and tackles for loss than Tennessee. That statistic reflects how frequently they defended rushing plays, especially with Tony Pollard carrying the football 25 times.
However, despite creating seven tackles for loss, Cleveland struggled to consistently stop Tennessee on early downs. Pollard repeatedly recovered from negative plays with explosive gains later in drives.
Carson Schwesinger Led All Tacklers
Carson Schwesinger finished with the highest tackle total in the game.
| Statistic | Value |
| Total Tackles | 13 |
His workload demonstrated excellent effort throughout the afternoon.
Schwesinger repeatedly tracked ball carriers from sideline to sideline and prevented several longer gains. Without his consistent tackling, Tennessee’s rushing total could have been significantly higher.
Myles Garrett Continued to Impact Games
One of the NFL’s premier defensive players, Myles Garrett, recorded Cleveland’s only sack.
| Statistic | Value |
| Sacks | 1 |
Although Garrett finished with one official sack, his influence extended well beyond the box score.
Tennessee frequently adjusted its protection schemes to account for Garrett’s pass rushing ability. Double teams, additional blockers, and quicker passing concepts were all used to reduce his opportunities.
That level of respect speaks to his reputation as one of football’s elite edge defenders.
Devin Bush Created Cleveland’s Biggest Defensive Play
Linebacker Devin Bush intercepted Cam Ward and returned the ball 44 yards.
| Statistic | Value |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Return Yards | 44 |
The interception provided Cleveland with valuable field position and helped keep the game within reach.
Defensive takeaways often determine momentum, and Bush’s return represented one of Cleveland’s most impactful defensive moments.
Defensive Comparison
| Category | Tennessee | Cleveland |
| Total Tackles | 64 | 70 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 | 7 |
| Quarterback Hits | 13 | 5 |
| Pass Deflections | 9 | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The comparison shows that both defenses contributed meaningful plays.
Cleveland accumulated more tackles because Tennessee maintained possession with its rushing attack. Tennessee, meanwhile, generated more quarterback pressure and disrupted Cleveland’s passing rhythm more consistently.
That pressure proved especially valuable during key situations late in the game.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams rarely dominate headlines, but hidden yardage often determines field position and ultimately influences close contests.
This matchup included several noteworthy performances.
Tennessee Special Teams
Joey Slye
| Statistic | Value |
| Field Goals | 1 of 1 |
| Longest Field Goal | 41 Yards |
| Extra Points | 4 of 4 |
| Total Points | 7 |
Slye delivered a flawless kicking performance.
Every scoring opportunity was converted, ensuring Tennessee maximized its offensive production.
Johnny Hekker
| Statistic | Value |
| Punts | 8 |
| Total Yards | 383 |
| Average | 47.9 |
| Long | 54 |
Hekker consistently flipped field position with accurate and powerful punts.
His average of nearly 48 yards per punt helped Tennessee force Cleveland to begin several drives deep in its own territory.
Chimere Dike
Kick Return
- 1 Return
- 41 Yards
Punt Return
- 1 Return
- Minus 2 Yards
Dike contributed in multiple phases of the game, demonstrating his versatility beyond the receiving position.
Cleveland Special Teams
Andre Szmyt
| Statistic | Value |
| Field Goals | 1 of 1 |
| Longest Field Goal | 38 Yards |
| Extra Points | 2 of 2 |
| Total Points | 5 |
Szmyt converted every kick he attempted and provided dependable production for Cleveland’s special teams unit.
Corey Bojorquez
| Statistic | Value |
| Punts | 6 |
| Total Yards | 222 |
| Average | 37.0 |
| Long | 42 |
Compared to Tennessee, Cleveland received less production from its punting game, giving the Titans a slight field position advantage throughout the afternoon.
Return Specialists
Jerome Ford
- 5 Kick Returns
- 113 Return Yards
- Long Return of 32 Yards
Gage Larvadain
- 4 Punt Returns
- 16 Return Yards
Ford consistently gave Cleveland favorable starting field position and helped reduce the impact of Tennessee’s kick coverage.
Key Performers of the Game
Several players separated themselves through outstanding production and game changing contributions.
Tennessee Titans
| Player | Performance |
| Tony Pollard | 161 rushing yards and 2 touchdowns |
| Cam Ward | 2 passing touchdowns |
| Jeffery Simmons | 1.5 sacks |
| Cedric Gray | 10 tackles |
| Xavier Woods | 1 interception |
Cleveland Browns
| Player | Performance |
| Shedeur Sanders | 364 passing yards and 3 touchdowns |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 114 receiving yards and 1 touchdown |
| Carson Schwesinger | 13 tackles |
| Myles Garrett | 1 sack |
| Devin Bush | 1 interception |
What the Statistics Reveal
The numbers from this game tell a story that goes beyond the final score.
Cleveland produced the more explosive passing offense, but Tennessee controlled the areas that frequently decide close NFL games.
Those advantages included:
- A dominant rushing attack.
- Better ball security.
- More effective quarterback pressure.
- Superior field position through punting.
- Consistent red zone execution.
As someone who regularly studies NFL box scores, I find this matchup to be an excellent reminder that total offensive yards rarely tell the complete story. Efficiency, situational execution, and complementary football often outweigh flashy statistics.
The Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats clearly demonstrate that while Cleveland excelled through the air, Tennessee’s balanced approach and ability to capitalize on key moments ultimately secured a hard fought 31 to 29 victory.
FAQs
What was the final score of the Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns game?
The Tennessee Titans defeated the Cleveland Browns 31 to 29. Tennessee built an early lead, Cleveland fought back with an impressive passing performance, but the Titans held on to secure a two point victory.
Who was the best player in the Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns match?
Tony Pollard was arguably the most impactful player for Tennessee after rushing for 161 yards on 25 carries and scoring two touchdowns. For Cleveland, Shedeur Sanders delivered an outstanding performance with 364 passing yards and three touchdown passes despite the loss.
Who led the game in passing yards?
Shedeur Sanders led all quarterbacks with 364 passing yards, completing 23 of 42 passes while throwing three touchdowns and one interception. Cam Ward finished with 117 passing yards and two touchdown passes for Tennessee.
Which player had the most rushing yards?
Tony Pollard led all rushers with 161 yards on 25 carries, averaging 6.4 yards per attempt and scoring two rushing touchdowns. His performance was one of the biggest reasons Tennessee won the game.
Who recorded the most receiving yards?
Harold Fannin Jr. led all receivers with eight receptions for 114 yards and one touchdown. He consistently moved the chains and served as Shedeur Sanders’ primary target throughout the contest.
What defensive players made the biggest impact?
Jeffery Simmons led Tennessee’s pass rush with 1.5 sacks, while Cedric Gray finished with 10 tackles. Xavier Woods intercepted a pass for the Titans. On Cleveland’s side, Carson Schwesinger recorded a game high 13 tackles, Myles Garrett added one sack, and Devin Bush intercepted Cam Ward.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats reveal far more than the final score. Although Cleveland dominated the passing game behind Shedeur Sanders’ 364 yard, three touchdown performance, Tennessee executed a more balanced offensive strategy that ultimately proved successful.
Tony Pollard’s outstanding 161 rushing yards and two touchdowns gave the Titans complete control of the ground game, allowing Cam Ward to manage the offense efficiently without forcing difficult throws. Defensively, Tennessee generated timely pressure through Jeffery Simmons, received consistent tackling from Cedric Gray, and benefited from Xavier Woods’ interception at a crucial stage of the game.
Cleveland demonstrated plenty of offensive potential, especially through Sanders and Harold Fannin Jr., but the lack of a productive rushing attack and a costly lost fumble limited its ability to capitalize on an otherwise impressive passing performance.
Looking at the complete statistical picture rather than individual highlights provides the clearest explanation of why Tennessee secured a narrow 31 to 29 victory. The game showcased how rushing efficiency, situational defense, ball security, and disciplined execution can outweigh advantages in total passing yards.
