Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
The Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats from August 22, 2026, provide a detailed look at how Detroit secured a 17-13 preseason victory over Washington. The Lions used a strong rushing attack, two rushing touchdowns, and a productive ground game to create the difference on the scoreboard. Washington moved the ball effectively through the air, but the Commanders could not turn their passing production into a touchdown. The game offered useful insights into quarterback accuracy, rushing efficiency, receiving contributions, defensive pressure, and special teams performance. Because this was a preseason contest, the numbers are particularly useful for evaluating individual performances and identifying areas that each team could improve rather than drawing firm conclusions about regular-season strength.
The matchup featured contrasting offensive approaches. Washington recorded 208 passing yards, compared with Detroit’s 110, while the Lions gained 169 rushing yards against Washington’s 35. Those figures explain much of the game’s outcome. Detroit generated more consistent production on the ground, while Washington relied more heavily on its passing game to move the football. Both teams had opportunities to improve their scoring output, but Detroit converted its rushing opportunities into two touchdowns and finished four points ahead.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, quarterback statistics, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, kicking, punting, and the most important lessons from the contest. It also explains how to interpret preseason statistics without confusing one exhibition performance with a player’s long-term NFL outlook.
Game Overview: Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats
The Lions and Commanders met in a preseason game on August 22, 2026. Detroit won 17-13, with both teams scoring seven points in the first quarter and neither finding the end zone in the second. The Lions added seven points in the third quarter, while Washington scored a field goal. Both teams scored three points in the fourth quarter.
Home team
Detroit Lions
Final record listed: 1-1
17
Away team
Washington Commanders
Final record listed: 1-1
13
Date: August 22, 2026 · Competition: NFL preseason
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Washington Commanders | Detroit Lions |
| First quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Third quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Final score | 13 | 17 |
The scoring pattern shows that Detroit’s advantage came from the third quarter. After a balanced opening period and a scoreless second quarter, the Lions scored a touchdown while Washington managed only a field goal. That four-point difference ultimately separated the teams.
Washington scored six points after halftime, but Detroit matched that second-half total while preserving its lead. In a close preseason game, this scoring pattern highlights the value of finishing drives with touchdowns instead of settling for field goals.
Complete Team Statistics
The team statistics reveal a clear difference between Detroit’s ground production and Washington’s passing output. Although the Commanders completed more passes and recorded more passing yards, Detroit produced substantially more rushing yardage and scored the only two rushing touchdowns listed in the offensive statistics.
| Statistical category | Washington | Detroit |
| Pass completions/attempts | 20/26 | 16/25 |
| Passing yards | 208 | 110 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks allowed | 2 | 5 |
| Rushing attempts | 17 | 35 |
| Rushing yards | 35 | 169 |
| Average yards per carry | 2.1 | 4.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Receptions | 20 | 16 |
| Receiving yards | 229 | 160 |
| Average yards per reception | 11.5 | 10.0 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 1 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 2/2 | 1/2 |
| Extra points made/attempted | 1/1 | 2/2 |
| Punts | 4 | 3 |
| Total sacks recorded | 5 | 2 |
Statistics are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data. Passing, receiving, and sack totals represent different statistical categories and should not be treated as interchangeable.
What the numbers tell us
Three findings stand out.
- Detroit controlled the rushing battle. The Lions gained 134 more rushing yards than Washington and averaged 2.7 more yards per carry.
- Washington was more productive through the air. The Commanders recorded 98 more passing yards and completed 76.9% of their attempts, compared with Detroit’s 64%.
- Detroit created more scoring opportunities on the ground. Its two rushing touchdowns supplied 12 of its 17 points before accounting for the extra points and field goal.
The contrast matters because passing yardage alone does not determine which team has the more effective offense. A team can move the ball between the 20-yard lines but struggle to score, while another team can produce fewer total passing yards and still win through efficient rushing and successful red-zone execution.
Quarterback Stats and Passing Performance
Quarterback statistics are among the most searched elements of an NFL box score. Fans want to know who completed the most passes, which quarterback gained the most yards, whether a starter played, and which passer made the biggest impact.
In this matchup, Washington’s listed quarterbacks combined for more passing production than Detroit’s quarterbacks. However, the Lions’ rushing game helped offset that difference.
Washington Commanders quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT |
| Athan Kaliakmanis | 11/14 | 162 | 0 | 0 |
| Sam Hartman | 9/11 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Jayden Daniels | 0/1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Athan Kaliakmanis leads Washington’s passing production
Athan Kaliakmanis delivered the strongest passing performance among the Washington quarterbacks listed. He completed 11 of 14 attempts for 162 yards without throwing a touchdown or an interception.
His completion rate was approximately 78.6%, an encouraging figure in a limited sample. More importantly, he averaged approximately 11.6 yards per attempt. That figure suggests that his passing production included meaningful downfield gains rather than relying exclusively on short completions.
There are three useful ways to evaluate this performance:
- Accuracy: Completing 11 of 14 passes indicates that Kaliakmanis connected on most of his attempts.
- Yardage efficiency: His 162 yards from 14 attempts indicate strong production per passing opportunity.
- Scoring conversion: Despite the yardage, he did not record a passing touchdown.
The third point is particularly important. Passing yards describe how far the offense advanced through the air, but touchdowns show whether that production resulted in points. A quarterback can post an impressive yardage total without completing a scoring pass.
Because this was a preseason appearance, his numbers should be considered a single-game performance indicator rather than proof of future regular-season success. A fuller evaluation would require details such as pressure faced, time to throw, depth of target, third-down performance, and the quality of the opposing coverage.
Sam Hartman provides additional passing production
Sam Hartman completed nine of 11 passes for 67 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His completion rate was approximately 81.8%.
That percentage was higher than Kaliakmanis’s, but completion percentage alone does not tell the whole story. Hartman’s average was approximately 6.1 yards per attempt, compared with Kaliakmanis’s 11.6.
This difference illustrates why quarterback analysis should combine accuracy with passing efficiency. A quarterback who completes many short passes can have a high completion percentage without generating as much yardage per attempt. Conversely, a quarterback who attempts more difficult throws may produce more yardage while completing a smaller proportion of passes.
Hartman’s numbers show efficient completion volume in a limited sample, but the supplied statistics do not provide enough information to determine how much of his production came from short passes, intermediate routes, or yards after the catch.
Jayden Daniels’ listed passing line
The supplied data lists Jayden Daniels at 0 completions on one attempt, with zero passing yards, touchdowns, and interceptions.
That is too small a sample to support meaningful conclusions about his overall performance. One unsuccessful attempt cannot establish a trend in accuracy, decision-making, or quarterback quality.
For readers reviewing a preseason box score, this distinction matters. A quarterback’s appearance in the statistical record does not necessarily mean he played enough snaps to generate a useful performance sample.
Detroit Lions quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT |
| Luke Altmyer | 9/13 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Joshua Dobbs | 7/12 | 74 | 0 | 1 |
Luke Altmyer’s accuracy and passing output
Luke Altmyer completed nine of 13 passes for 86 yards without a touchdown or interception. His completion rate was approximately 69.2%, and he averaged 6.6 yards per attempt.
His passing line suggests a relatively controlled performance in terms of turnovers. However, the total yardage indicates less explosive passing production than Kaliakmanis recorded for Washington.
Altmyer’s line should be evaluated alongside the Detroit rushing attack. A team does not need its quarterback to lead in passing yards when its running backs and other ball carriers are moving the chains effectively.
For analysts, the important questions are whether Altmyer maintained possession, converted third downs, handled pressure, and executed the intended offense. The supplied box score answers some basic statistical questions, but it does not include the play-by-play detail needed to establish all those points.
Joshua Dobbs contributes on the ground
Joshua Dobbs completed seven of 12 passes for 74 yards, threw one interception, and added a significant rushing contribution.
His passing completion rate was approximately 58.3%. He averaged 6.2 yards per passing attempt, but the interception represents a negative outcome that should be considered alongside his rushing success.
The most distinctive part of Dobbs’ performance was his running production: two carries for 53 yards and a touchdown. That included a longest run of 50 yards in Detroit’s team rushing statistics.
A single explosive run can transform a player’s statistical line. Dobbs averaged 26.5 yards per carry, a remarkable figure that is driven by the long gain rather than a large number of rushing attempts.
This is why rushing average must be read together with attempts and longest run. Dobbs’ numbers indicate that he supplied a major offensive play, but two carries are not enough to establish a sustainable rushing rate.
Comparing the quarterbacks
Washington held the advantage in passing yardage and completion percentage at the team level. Detroit, meanwhile, gained substantially more from its running game.
The most useful conclusion is not that one quarterback group definitively outperformed the other in every respect. Instead, the figures show that Washington’s passers produced more yardage, while Detroit’s offense had a more productive rushing component.
The comparison also demonstrates why quarterback evaluation benefits from multiple measures:
- Completion percentage measures the share of attempts completed.
- Yards per attempt provides context about passing production.
- Touchdowns measure scoring output through the air.
- Interceptions record a major type of turnover.
- Sacks reveal another way an offense can lose yardage.
- Rushing production captures mobility and designed running contributions.
No single statistic provides a complete picture of quarterback performance.
Rushing Stats: How Detroit Established Its Advantage
Detroit’s rushing performance was the most important statistical difference in the game. The Lions recorded 169 yards on 35 carries, averaging 4.8 yards per attempt and scoring two rushing touchdowns.
Washington recorded 35 rushing yards on 17 carries, averaging 2.1 yards per attempt without a rushing touchdown.
The 134-yard difference created a clear contrast in offensive balance. Detroit had a productive alternative to passing, while Washington’s ground game generated comparatively little yardage.
Detroit Lions rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Touchdowns |
| Joshua Dobbs | 2 | 53 | 1 |
| Trayveon Williams | 10 | 36 | 1 |
| Jacob Saylors | 6 | 32 | 0 |
| Raheem Blackshear | 11 | 29 | 0 |
| Jabari Small | 3 | 16 | 0 |
| Luke Altmyer | 3 | 3 | 0 |
Joshua Dobbs delivers the most explosive run
Dobbs recorded 53 rushing yards on two carries and scored a touchdown. His longest run reached 50 yards, making him Detroit’s leading rusher by total yardage despite receiving far fewer carries than the other listed runners.
His performance demonstrates the value of explosive plays. One long run can generate a large share of a team’s offensive production and immediately improve field position.
However, the small number of attempts is an important limitation. Dobbs’ average of 26.5 yards per carry should not be interpreted as a likely rate over a full season. The result primarily reflects one exceptional gain and one additional carry.
For a deeper evaluation, the play’s blocking, defensive alignment, tackling angles, and down-and-distance situation would help explain how the gain occurred. Those details are not available in the supplied statistical summary.
Trayveon Williams provides scoring production
Trayveon Williams gained 36 yards on 10 carries and scored one rushing touchdown. His average was 3.6 yards per carry.
Although his average was much lower than Dobbs’, Williams received five times as many rushing attempts. That makes his workload a different kind of evidence about the offense.
Williams’ touchdown also mattered more to the scoreboard than yardage alone might suggest. Detroit converted its rushing production into points, helping establish the winning margin.
A balanced analysis should therefore consider both efficiency and volume. A runner who handles 10 carries can contribute to the offense’s rhythm and workload distribution even without producing the longest run of the game.
Jacob Saylors and Raheem Blackshear add depth
Jacob Saylors gained 32 yards on six carries, averaging approximately 5.3 yards per attempt. Raheem Blackshear gained 29 yards on 11 carries, averaging approximately 2.6 yards per attempt.
Saylors’ average was higher, while Blackshear handled more carries. These lines illustrate the difference between per-attempt efficiency and total workload.
Jabari Small added 16 yards on three attempts, while Luke Altmyer recorded three carries for three yards. Taken together, the listed figures show that Detroit distributed rushing attempts among several players rather than relying on one conventional ball carrier.
The supplied data does not establish each player’s exact role, the defensive personnel they faced, or the quality of blocking on individual plays. Those factors would be necessary to compare the runners beyond their basic statistical production.
Washington Commanders rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Touchdowns |
| Kaytron Allen | 10 | 30 | 0 |
| Sam Hartman | 1 | 6 | 0 |
| Craig Reynolds | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Robert Henry Jr. | 4 | -3 | 0 |
Kaytron Allen leads Washington on the ground
Kaytron Allen recorded 30 rushing yards on 10 carries, averaging 3.0 yards per attempt. He led the listed Washington runners in both carries and rushing yardage.
His workload suggests that he was a major contributor to the team’s ground production during the game. However, the overall rushing total shows that Washington struggled to generate consistent gains.
A three-yard average can help an offense in some situations, especially when it faces manageable down-and-distance conditions. But it becomes more difficult to sustain drives when repeated rushing attempts fail to create larger gains or set up favorable passing situations.
The available numbers do not reveal how often Allen faced short-yardage situations or whether penalties affected his opportunities.
Robert Henry Jr. and the challenge of negative yardage
Robert Henry Jr. recorded four carries for minus-three yards. Negative rushing yardage can result from tackles behind the line of scrimmage, failed exchanges, or other plays that produce a loss.
A four-carry sample is small, so the statistic should not be treated as a complete assessment of his ability. It does, however, contribute to the overall explanation for Washington’s low team rushing average.
Sam Hartman gained six yards on one carry, while Craig Reynolds added two yards on two attempts. Their combined contribution was modest compared with Detroit’s explosive rushing output.
Why the rushing difference mattered
Detroit averaged 4.8 yards per carry, while Washington averaged 2.1. That difference meant Detroit generated more yardage from each rushing opportunity.
The Lions also attempted 18 more rushes. Their 35 attempts compared with Washington’s 17 reflect both greater rushing volume and stronger production per attempt.
These figures help explain how Detroit won despite recording fewer passing yards. The Lions’ running game generated explosive yardage, produced touchdowns, and reduced their reliance on passing production to reach 17 points.
For Washington, improving the efficiency of the ground game would be a logical area to examine. But a box score alone cannot identify whether the main issue was blocking, play selection, defensive penetration, missed assignments, or individual execution.
Receiving Stats: Which Players Made the Biggest Contributions?
Receiving statistics provide another perspective on the matchup. They show which players caught passes, how much yardage they generated, and whether the offense produced a reliable passing threat.
Washington recorded 20 receptions for 229 receiving yards, while Detroit recorded 16 receptions for 160 receiving yards. Neither team’s supplied receiving statistics list a receiving touchdown.
These figures favor Washington in terms of receiving yardage and volume. However, receiving output must be considered alongside rushing production, turnovers, and scoring.
Washington Commanders receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards |
| Nick Nash | 2 | 62 |
| Jaden Bradley | 2 | 42 |
| Antonio Williams | 3 | 41 |
| Jacoby Jones | 3 | 37 |
Nick Nash produces Washington’s biggest receiving total
Nick Nash recorded 62 receiving yards on two catches, averaging 31 yards per reception.
That average was the highest among Washington’s listed receiving leaders. It suggests that his limited number of receptions produced substantial yardage, potentially through longer completions or gains after the catch.
However, two receptions do not provide enough evidence to judge consistency. A receiver’s impact depends on more than total yards. Route quality, separation, contested catches, third-down conversions, and ball security all contribute to a complete evaluation.
Nash’s numbers nevertheless stand out because he generated the largest receiving-yardage total among the listed Washington players.
Jaden Bradley adds another productive target
Jaden Bradley caught two passes for 42 yards, averaging 21 yards per reception.
His production complemented Nash’s yardage contribution. When multiple receivers produce meaningful gains, a passing offense can create more options for its quarterbacks and force opposing defenses to account for different threats.
The supplied data does not include targets for individual receivers, so it is not possible to calculate Bradley’s catch rate or determine how frequently he was involved in the passing plan.
Antonio Williams and Jacoby Jones contribute consistent volume
Antonio Williams recorded three receptions for 41 yards, while Jacoby Jones caught three passes for 37 yards.
Their reception totals were higher than those of Nash and Bradley, although their yardage totals were lower. This is a useful example of how reception volume and explosive production differ.
A receiver can contribute by repeatedly securing shorter passes that keep an offense moving. Another can generate more yards from fewer catches. Both types of contribution can be valuable, depending on the offense’s needs and the situation.
Washington’s four listed receiving leaders accounted for 182 of the team’s 229 receiving yards, based on the supplied figures. Their combined production highlights the importance of these targets in the team’s passing output.
Detroit Lions receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards |
| Jackson Meeks | 4 | 33 |
| Trayveon Williams | 1 | 24 |
| Tyler Conklin | 2 | 21 |
| Cedrick Wilson Jr. | 2 | 21 |
Jackson Meeks leads Detroit in receptions and yards
Jackson Meeks caught four passes for 33 yards, giving him the highest reception total and receiving-yardage total among Detroit’s listed leaders.
His average was 8.25 yards per reception. Although that was below the averages of Washington’s leading receivers, his four catches indicate a larger share of the listed receiving volume.
Reception totals are especially useful when evaluating how a passing offense distributes the ball. However, without individual target counts, route information, and down-by-down results, it is not possible to determine whether Meeks was the most efficient target in the game.
Trayveon Williams contributes as a receiver and runner
Trayveon Williams recorded one reception for 24 yards in addition to his 36 rushing yards and rushing touchdown.
His combined listed production was 60 yards from scrimmage, excluding any unlisted contributions. That dual contribution is notable because it shows that his statistical impact was not limited to carries.
When a player contributes through both rushing and receiving, the offense can use him in more than one role. Such versatility may create matchup opportunities, although the box score alone does not show how Detroit deployed Williams on individual plays.
Tyler Conklin and Cedrick Wilson Jr. add receiving options
Tyler Conklin recorded two receptions for 21 yards, and Cedrick Wilson Jr. also caught two passes for 21 yards.
Their identical receiving totals show that Detroit spread some of its passing production across multiple targets. Still, the Lions’ overall passing output remained below Washington’s.
The supplied figures indicate that Detroit’s passing attack produced useful contributions from several players, but no listed receiver recorded a touchdown. The team’s scoring advantage came through rushing touchdowns rather than a passing score.
Receiving comparison and interpretation
Washington’s team receiving total was 69 yards higher than Detroit’s. The Commanders also recorded four more receptions.
That difference aligns with the passing-yardage advantage shown in the team statistics. Yet Washington did not turn that receiving production into a listed receiving touchdown.
This is a central lesson from the matchup: moving the ball and scoring points are related but different measures of offensive success. Receiving yards show production through the passing game, while the final score reflects the results of all offensive and special teams scoring opportunities.
Defensive Stats: Tackles, Sacks, Pressure, and Interceptions
Defense was another important part of the matchup. Washington recorded more sacks and tackles for loss, while Detroit’s defense faced an offense that produced significantly more rushing yardage than Washington managed.
The defensive figures provide useful information about disruption, but they should be interpreted in context. A high tackle total can reflect sustained defensive activity, while sacks and tackles for loss offer more direct evidence of plays that stopped the offense behind its expected point of attack.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive category | Washington | Detroit |
| Total tackles | 80 | 58 |
| Solo tackles | 38 | 33 |
| Sacks | 5 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 9 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 1 |
| Quarterback hits | 7 | 6 |
| Defensive touchdowns listed | 1 | 0 |
Washington’s defensive pressure
Washington recorded five sacks, nine tackles for loss, and seven quarterback hits. Those figures indicate that the Commanders generated notable disruption in the backfield.
Sacks can end passing plays, create substantial yardage losses, and push an offense into longer passing situations. Tackles for loss can have a similar effect on rushing plays, making it harder for an offense to stay ahead of the chains.
Washington’s five sacks compared with Detroit’s two represent a three-sack difference. That is a meaningful statistical distinction, particularly because Detroit’s passing production was limited.
However, the Lions still won. Their rushing output and two rushing touchdowns helped overcome the disadvantage in sacks recorded.
This is a useful reminder that defensive success in one category does not automatically translate into victory. Teams must also limit explosive plays, defend scoring opportunities, and prevent the opponent from building an effective offensive rhythm.
Detroit’s defensive performance
Detroit recorded 58 total tackles, 33 solo tackles, two sacks, six tackles for loss, one pass defended, and six quarterback hits.
The Lions generated fewer sacks and tackles for loss than Washington, but they held the Commanders to 13 points. That scoreline shows that Washington’s yardage production did not translate into a larger points total.
A defense’s effectiveness should be assessed by looking at multiple categories together. Sacks and tackles for loss indicate disruption, while points allowed provide a direct measure of the final scoring outcome. Turnovers, red-zone stops, third-down efficiency, and explosive plays allowed would provide further context.
The supplied statistics do not include enough information to calculate all of those measures.
Quan Martin records an interception
Quan Martin was credited with one interception for Washington, returning it six yards without a touchdown.
An interception can have a major effect on a game because it ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defense an opportunity to change field position. Even a short return can matter if it prevents a scoring drive or creates a favorable situation for the offense.
Martin’s interception was the only individual interception listed in the supplied defensive statistics. Detroit’s defensive interception total was zero.
The supplied figures do not establish the exact down, field position, or subsequent result of the possession, so it would be inappropriate to assign a specific scoring impact to the play without checking the play-by-play record.
Defensive interpretation
Washington’s pressure numbers stand out, but Detroit’s final result shows why the full game must be considered rather than a single defensive category.
For Washington, the challenge was balancing pressure with the need to contain Detroit’s running game. For Detroit, the defensive task was limiting Washington’s ability to convert passing production into touchdowns.
These are reasonable analytical questions raised by the numbers, not proof of a specific tactical failure. Film and play-by-play data would be needed to establish exactly how the defenses performed on individual assignments.
Special Teams Stats: Field Goals, Punting, and Returns
Special teams can make a meaningful difference in a close game. Field goals determine whether drives produce points, while punting and returns influence starting field position.
Detroit won by four points, so the kicking statistics deserve particular attention.
Kicking comparison
| Kicker | Field goals | Longest field goal | Extra points | Total points |
| Drew Stevens, Washington | 2/2 | 32 yards | 1/1 | 7 |
| Jake Bates, Detroit | 1/2 | 37 yards | 2/2 | 5 |
Drew Stevens converted both field-goal attempts and his extra-point attempt, giving him seven points. Jake Bates made one of two field goals and converted both extra points, finishing with five points.
Bates attempted the longer successful field goal, at 37 yards, but missed one of his two attempts. Stevens’ perfect field-goal record was the more efficient performance in this game.
These numbers show how scoring can come from different parts of an offense. Detroit’s rushing touchdowns generated its extra-point attempts, while Washington’s kicking contributed a substantial portion of its final total.
Punting statistics
| Punter | Punts | Total yards | Average | Longest punt | Inside the 20 |
| Tress Way, Washington | 4 | 176 | 44.0 | 52 yards | 2 |
| Jack Fox, Detroit | 3 | 121 | 40.3 | 46 yards | 3 |
Tress Way averaged 44 yards per punt, compared with Jack Fox’s 40.3. Way also recorded the longer punt at 52 yards.
Fox, however, placed all three of his listed punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line. Way recorded two such punts from four attempts.
Punting average measures distance, but it does not fully capture effectiveness. Direction, hang time, return opportunities, and placement can affect how much advantage a punt creates. The inside-the-20 statistic offers an additional measure of field-position control.
Kick returns
| Team | Returns | Total yards | Average | Longest return |
| Washington | 4 | 90 | 22.5 | 25 yards |
| Detroit | 4 | 89 | 22.3 | 27 yards |
The kick-return numbers were almost identical. Washington gained one more total yard, while Detroit recorded the longest individual return.
Washington’s listed returners included Craig Reynolds with 48 yards on two returns and Robert Henry Jr. with 42 yards on two returns. Detroit’s return totals included Tom Kennedy with 40 yards, Raheem Blackshear with 27 yards, and Greg Dortch with 22 yards.
Punt returns
Washington’s Luke McCaffrey recorded one punt return for two yards.
Detroit’s Greg Dortch recorded one return for 16 yards, while Tom Kennedy gained 12 yards on one return. Detroit finished with two punt returns for 28 yards, averaging 14 yards per return.
The listed return production favored Detroit in this category, although the sample was very small. A few returns are not enough to establish a long-term advantage in return efficiency.
Why special teams matter in a four-point game
Neither team recorded a kick-return touchdown in the supplied statistics. Both teams generated useful return yardage, but the kicking comparison shows a clearer difference: Washington converted all its listed field-goal attempts, while Detroit missed one.
Despite that difference, Detroit won because its offense scored two rushing touchdowns. Special teams contributed to the overall result, but the ground game supplied the key scoring advantage.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change the direction of a football game, especially when the final margin is only four points. The supplied statistics list one lost fumble for each team and one interception thrown by Detroit.
Fumble statistics
| Team | Fumbles | Fumbles lost |
| Washington Commanders | 2 | 1 |
| Detroit Lions | 1 | 1 |
Both teams lost one fumble, meaning neither side finished with an advantage in the listed fumble-loss category.
Washington recorded two fumbles and one lost fumble. Detroit recorded one fumble, which was also lost. These numbers indicate that each team had a ball-security issue during the contest.
A fumble does not always result in a turnover. The defense may recover it, or the offense may regain possession. That distinction is important because the number of fumbles and the number of lost fumbles measure different outcomes.
Detroit’s passing interception
Joshua Dobbs threw one interception according to the supplied passing statistics. That turnover was a negative element in an otherwise notable performance that included a rushing touchdown and 53 rushing yards.
An interception can erase the benefits of several successful plays by ending a possession. Its impact depends on where it occurs and what the opponent does with the resulting possession.
The supplied summary does not provide enough detail to determine whether this interception directly led to points for Washington. It should therefore be treated as a recorded turnover rather than assigned a specific scoring consequence.
What ball security reveals
Both teams lost one fumble, and Detroit also threw an interception. These figures show why offensive production must be evaluated alongside possession management.
Detroit still won, demonstrating that a team can overcome a turnover disadvantage when it generates sufficient scoring production elsewhere. For both teams, reducing avoidable turnovers remains a logical area of focus, although one preseason game cannot establish a persistent problem.
Three Key Lessons From the Game
The statistical comparison offers several lessons for readers who want more than a simple final score.
1. Passing yards do not automatically translate into points
Washington recorded 208 passing yards, substantially more than Detroit’s 110. Yet the Commanders scored 13 points, while Detroit finished with 17.
The difference was not passing yardage alone. Detroit gained 169 rushing yards and scored two rushing touchdowns. Washington’s rushing game generated only 35 yards and no rushing touchdowns.
The broader lesson is that offensive balance and scoring efficiency matter. A team can produce impressive passing numbers without finishing enough possessions with touchdowns.
2. Explosive plays can outweigh a small statistical sample
Dobbs gained 53 yards and scored on just two carries. His 50-yard longest run was a major part of Detroit’s rushing production.
This illustrates the outsized influence that one explosive play can have on a box score. It also shows why averages need context. A 26.5-yard rushing average across two attempts is not directly comparable with a runner’s average across 10 or 15 carries.
When analyzing a game, readers should consider total yardage, workload, longest gain, and touchdowns together rather than relying on a single number.
3. Defensive disruption does not guarantee a win
Washington recorded five sacks and nine tackles for loss, exceeding Detroit’s totals in both categories. Nevertheless, the Commanders lost by four points.
Pressure can disrupt an offense, but it is only one part of defensive performance. Teams must also prevent long gains, limit scoring opportunities, and respond to the opponent’s overall offensive approach.
Detroit’s ability to run effectively was a major counterweight to Washington’s defensive disruption.
How to Read Preseason Player Statistics Correctly
Preseason box scores are useful, but they require a slightly different approach from regular-season statistics. Coaches use exhibition games to evaluate players, test combinations, and assess execution in live situations.
The statistics can reveal what happened during a particular appearance. They cannot, on their own, establish who will become a starter, earn a roster spot, or produce consistently once the regular season begins.
Separate individual performance from team performance
A quarterback may record a strong completion percentage while the offense struggles to score. A running back may post an excellent average on a small number of carries. A defender may record multiple sacks while the team still loses.
These outcomes are not contradictory. They reflect the fact that individual statistics and team results measure different things.
For this game, Kaliakmanis’ passing yardage, Dobbs’ explosive rushing performance, and Washington’s sack total each tell part of the story. None should be used alone to rank every player involved.
Consider the size of the sample
Statistics become more informative when players receive enough opportunities to show repeatable performance.
For example:
- Dobbs’ two carries show explosive potential in this game, but provide little evidence about consistency.
- Daniels’ single passing attempt is too limited for a meaningful assessment of his passing ability.
- A receiver with two catches may have produced an impressive average, but the number of targets and route opportunities would help explain the result.
- A defender’s sack total becomes more informative when paired with snap counts, pressure rate, and the quality of opposing protection.
Small samples are not useless. They simply require careful interpretation.
Look beyond the basic box score
A box score provides an accessible overview, but several additional statistics can make an evaluation more complete.
| Metric | What it helps explain |
| Yards per attempt | Passing production relative to attempts |
| Completion percentage | The share of pass attempts completed |
| Yards per carry | Rushing efficiency across attempts |
| Third-down conversion rate | Ability to sustain drives in key situations |
| Red-zone touchdown rate | Ability to convert scoring opportunities |
| Pressure rate | How often a defense disrupts the quarterback |
| Target share | How frequently a receiver is involved in the passing game |
| Turnover rate | How often possession is lost relative to opportunities |
Not all these measures are available in the supplied statistics. Their absence is a reason to avoid making stronger claims than the evidence supports.
For readers comparing performances across multiple preseason games, consistency is generally more informative than one exceptional result. Repeated efficiency, sound decision-making, and effective execution across different opponents provide a stronger basis for evaluation.
Official Box Score and Statistical Verification
For the official game record, consult the ESPN Lions vs Commanders box score. It is the most relevant reference for checking the listed player statistics, team totals, and scoring summary.
There are a few reasons to verify detailed numbers when using a box score for analysis or publication:
- Passing and receiving totals can differ in presentation. Passing yards, receiving yards, and team net passing yards may be calculated or displayed differently. Sacks and other plays can affect net passing totals.
- Player participation matters. A player’s appearance in a statistical summary does not necessarily mean he played a large number of snaps.
- Preseason statistics require context. A performance against a particular group of opponents cannot automatically be generalized to every future matchup.
- Defensive scoring should be checked against the scoring summary. The supplied defensive table lists one Washington defensive touchdown, but the provided quarter-by-quarter scoring and offensive summaries do not identify the play responsible for it. That figure should be verified against the official play-by-play before being used to describe a specific scoring event.
These checks help keep a statistical article accurate. They also prevent a minor inconsistency in a source summary from turning into an unsupported statement about how the game unfolded.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders preseason game on August 22, 2026?
The Detroit Lions won 17-13. Detroit scored seven points in the first quarter, seven in the third, and three in the fourth. Washington scored seven in the first quarter and three points in each of the final two quarters.
2. Which team had more passing yards?
The Washington Commanders recorded 208 passing yards, compared with 110 for the Detroit Lions. Washington’s listed quarterbacks generated more passing yardage, but Detroit’s rushing attack helped secure the victory.
3. Who was Washington’s leading passer?
Athan Kaliakmanis led Washington’s listed quarterbacks with 162 passing yards on 11 completions from 14 attempts. He recorded no passing touchdowns or interceptions in the supplied statistics.
4. Who led Detroit in rushing yards?
Joshua Dobbs led Detroit with 53 rushing yards on two carries and one touchdown. His longest run was 50 yards, making him the team’s most explosive listed runner in this game.
5. How many touchdowns did the Lions score?
Detroit scored two rushing touchdowns and converted both extra-point attempts. The team also made one field goal, finishing with 17 points. The supplied passing and receiving statistics list no Lions passing or receiving touchdowns.
6. Why did Detroit win despite having fewer passing yards?
Detroit compensated for its lower passing total by gaining 169 rushing yards and scoring two rushing touchdowns. Washington gained only 35 rushing yards and did not record a rushing touchdown. The Lions’ stronger ground production helped offset Washington’s passing advantage.
Conclusion
The Detroit Lions’ 17-13 preseason victory over the Washington Commanders on August 22, 2026, was defined by the contrast between Washington’s passing production and Detroit’s rushing efficiency. Washington gained 208 passing yards and recorded five sacks defensively, but Detroit’s 169 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns proved decisive.
Athan Kaliakmanis led Washington’s listed quarterbacks with 162 passing yards, while Joshua Dobbs delivered Detroit’s most explosive rushing performance with 53 yards and a touchdown on two carries. Trayveon Williams added another rushing touchdown, helping Detroit build the scoring advantage it needed to win.
The defensive statistics also revealed an interesting contrast. Washington generated more sacks and tackles for loss, yet the Lions finished with the higher score. Meanwhile, both teams lost a fumble, and Detroit recorded one passing interception, highlighting the importance of ball security even in a winning performance.
Ultimately, this matchup demonstrates why a complete statistical analysis must go beyond passing yards or individual highlights. Rushing efficiency, touchdown production, turnovers, defensive pressure, and special teams all contribute to the final outcome. Because the game was a preseason contest, its numbers are best understood as a snapshot of individual and team performance rather than a definitive prediction of regular-season results.
