Chargers vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats
The chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats from November 2, 2025, reveal how the Los Angeles Chargers overcame an early deficit to secure a 27-20 victory over the Tennessee Titans. Despite facing significant defensive pressure and allowing two first-quarter touchdowns, the Chargers responded with a balanced offensive performance, strong quarterback play from Justin Herbert, and timely defensive contributions. The Titans showed flashes of offensive potential, but their inability to produce consistent scoring opportunities ultimately proved costly.
Played during the 2025 NFL regular season, this matchup featured an interesting contrast between two different offensive approaches. Herbert finished with 250 passing yards and two passing touchdowns while also contributing 57 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown. On the opposite sideline, rookie quarterback Cam Ward recorded 145 passing yards without a touchdown or interception.
The final score did not tell the entire story. Tennessee generated six sacks, recorded an interception returned for a touchdown, and produced several important defensive stops. However, Los Angeles remained productive enough on offense to overcome those challenges and finish with 27 points.
This detailed game analysis examines quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive statistics, special teams, and the individual players who influenced the result. It also explains why the Chargers managed to win despite facing a defense that recorded more sacks and tackles.
Chargers vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The November 2 meeting between Los Angeles and Tennessee delivered an entertaining contest with an unexpected opening and a different outcome in the final three quarters.
Tennessee started strongly, scoring 14 points in the opening quarter while limiting Los Angeles to seven. The Chargers then responded with 13 points in the second quarter, while their defense prevented the Titans from maintaining their early scoring pace.
Neither team scored during the third quarter. Los Angeles eventually added seven points in the fourth, while Tennessee managed only a field goal.
The Chargers finished with a seven-point victory, improving their season record to 6-3. Tennessee dropped to 1-8.
Final Score and Team Records
| Game Information | Los Angeles Chargers | Tennessee Titans |
| Final Score | 27 | 20 |
| Season Record | 6-3 | 1-8 |
| Home/Away | Away | Home |
| Passing Yards | 250 | 145 |
| Rushing Yards | 131 | 88 |
| Total Offensive Yards | 381 | 233 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 | 0 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Total Sacks Recorded | 4 | 6 |
Game details:
- Date: November 2, 2025
- Competition: NFL Regular Season
- Stadium: Tennessee’s home venue
- Final Result: Los Angeles Chargers 27, Tennessee Titans 20
- Game ID: 401772764
The game information and player statistics are available through the official ESPN NFL box score.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
| Quarter | Chargers | Titans |
| First Quarter | 7 | 14 |
| Second Quarter | 13 | 3 |
| Third Quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth Quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Final | 27 | 20 |
The quarter-by-quarter numbers highlight the importance of the second quarter.
Tennessee entered the game with an impressive 14-7 advantage after the opening period. However, the Chargers scored 13 unanswered points in the second quarter according to the supplied scoring breakdown, changing the momentum before halftime.
The third quarter was a defensive battle. Neither offense managed to put points on the scoreboard, making the fourth quarter particularly important.
Los Angeles eventually created enough separation to protect its advantage and secure the victory.
Justin Herbert’s Passing Performance
Justin Herbert was the most productive quarterback in the matchup. His ability to create opportunities through the air helped Los Angeles overcome Tennessee’s defensive pressure.
Herbert completed 19 of 29 passes for 250 yards, averaging 8.6 yards per attempt. He threw two touchdown passes and one interception.
His final passer rating was 101.2, while his QBR was 56.7.
Justin Herbert’s Quarterback Statistics
| Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 19 |
| Pass Attempts | 29 |
| Completion Percentage | 65.5% |
| Passing Yards | 250 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 8.6 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 38 |
| Passer Rating | 101.2 |
| QBR | 56.7 |
Herbert’s 65.5% completion rate demonstrated solid passing accuracy. More importantly, his 8.6 yards per attempt showed that the Chargers were able to generate meaningful gains through the passing game.
His 250 passing yards were significantly higher than Ward’s 145 yards.
However, Herbert did not have a completely comfortable afternoon.
Tennessee recorded six sacks, forcing him to deal with repeated pressure. Losing 38 yards on those sacks also affected the Chargers’ offensive efficiency.
Despite those problems, Herbert continued to produce important plays.
Herbert’s Passing Touchdowns
Herbert connected with Quentin Johnston for a touchdown and also found Scott Matlock for a scoring reception.
These two plays demonstrated that the Chargers could create scoring opportunities through different personnel packages.
Johnston provided a conventional receiving touchdown, while Matlock’s scoring reception showed how an unexpected target can contribute near the goal line.
Herbert’s passing performance was particularly valuable because Tennessee’s defense managed to create several negative plays.
Herbert’s Contribution as a Runner
Herbert was not limited to throwing the football.
He also produced an impressive rushing performance:
| Rushing Statistic | Total |
| Carries | 9 |
| Rushing Yards | 57 |
| Average | 6.3 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Run | 29 yards |
His 57 rushing yards were a major contribution to the Chargers’ ground attack.
The 29-yard run demonstrated his ability to exploit available space when defensive coverage and pass pressure created opportunities outside the pocket.
Herbert’s rushing touchdown also gave Los Angeles another scoring dimension.
When a quarterback can produce yards with both his arm and legs, opposing defenses must account for more possibilities. Tennessee’s pass rush was effective, but Herbert’s mobility helped balance the offensive approach.
Cam Ward’s Passing Performance for Tennessee
Cam Ward faced a difficult challenge against a Chargers defense that recorded four sacks and five quarterback hits.
The Titans quarterback completed 12 of 21 passes for 145 yards. He averaged 6.9 yards per attempt and finished without a passing touchdown or interception.
His passer rating was 78.5, while his QBR was 14.1.
Cam Ward’s Passing Statistics
| Statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 12 |
| Pass Attempts | 21 |
| Completion Percentage | 57.1% |
| Passing Yards | 145 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 6.9 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 4 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 27 |
| Passer Rating | 78.5 |
| QBR | 14.1 |
Ward’s completion percentage was lower than Herbert’s, and the difference in passing production was significant.
The Chargers quarterback produced 105 more passing yards.
Ward avoided throwing an interception, which was a positive element of his performance. However, he did not generate a passing touchdown to help Tennessee maintain its early advantage.
Ward’s Rushing Contribution
Ward also contributed two rushing attempts.
| Statistic | Total |
| Carries | 2 |
| Rushing Yards | 6 |
| Average | 3.0 |
| Longest Run | 6 yards |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 |
His rushing production was limited compared with Herbert’s.
Although Ward demonstrated some mobility, his six rushing yards did not significantly change the overall offensive picture.
Why Ward Struggled to Match Herbert’s Production
The difference between the two quarterbacks was not simply about completion percentage.
Herbert created more explosive passing opportunities and contributed a rushing touchdown. Ward completed fewer passes and failed to register a touchdown.
Tennessee also struggled to sustain its offensive production after the opening quarter.
Ward’s four sacks were another important factor. The Chargers defense consistently created pressure, limiting the time available to develop passing plays.
For Tennessee to become more effective in similar matchups, protecting the quarterback and creating more consistent passing opportunities would be important priorities.
Rushing Statistics: Which Team Controlled the Ground Game?
The rushing comparison provides another explanation for the Chargers’ victory.
Los Angeles finished with 131 rushing yards on 30 attempts, averaging 4.4 yards per carry.
Tennessee recorded 88 rushing yards on 19 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.
Although the Titans had a slightly better average per carry, Los Angeles produced 43 additional rushing yards.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Statistic | Chargers | Titans |
| Total Carries | 30 | 19 |
| Rushing Yards | 131 | 88 |
| Yards Per Carry | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Longest Individual Run | 29 yards | 16 yards |
The difference in rushing attempts was important.
Los Angeles ran the football 11 more times than Tennessee. That additional volume helped the Chargers maintain a more balanced offensive approach.
The Chargers also received a rushing touchdown from Herbert, giving them a scoring advantage that Tennessee could not match.
Justin Herbert Leads the Chargers’ Rushing Attack
Herbert was the team’s leading rusher with 57 yards.
His nine attempts produced an impressive 6.3 yards per carry, making him an important part of the ground game.
Jaret Patterson also contributed useful production.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Justin Herbert | 9 | 57 | 6.3 | 1 | 29 |
| Jaret Patterson | 9 | 44 | 4.9 | 0 | 9 |
| Kimani Vidal | 12 | 30 | 2.5 | 0 | 7 |
Patterson finished with 44 yards on nine carries.
His 4.9-yard average provided a productive option behind Herbert. He also helped the Chargers maintain their rushing volume.
Kimani Vidal handled the most carries among the Chargers’ listed running backs, recording 30 yards on 12 attempts.
His 2.5-yard average was less efficient than Patterson’s performance. Nevertheless, his workload contributed to the team’s overall rushing total.
Vidal also recorded one fumble, which the Chargers recovered.
That distinction matters because a fumble does not automatically result in a turnover. Los Angeles retained possession in this instance.
Tony Pollard Leads Tennessee’s Rushing Production
Tony Pollard was the leading Titans running back.
He recorded 56 rushing yards on 10 attempts, averaging 5.6 yards per carry.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Tony Pollard | 10 | 56 | 5.6 | 0 | 16 |
| Tyjae Spears | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 | 10 |
| Cam Ward | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | 6 |
Pollard’s performance was efficient, particularly considering his limited number of opportunities.
He averaged more yards per carry than every listed Chargers runner except Herbert.
Tyjae Spears added 26 yards on seven attempts. His 3.7-yard average was respectable, although he did not produce a rushing touchdown.
Tennessee’s challenge was converting individual rushing gains into sustained offensive drives.
The Titans averaged 4.6 yards per carry but finished with fewer rushing yards because they attempted the run less frequently.
Receiving Statistics: Chargers and Titans Pass Catchers
The receiving comparison shows another area where Los Angeles had a clear statistical advantage.
The Chargers recorded 19 receptions for 250 yards and two touchdowns.
Tennessee finished with 12 receptions for 145 yards without a receiving touchdown.
The 105-yard difference in receiving production was one of the most important statistical gaps in the game.
Chargers Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Oronde Gadsden | 5 | 5 | 68 | 13.6 | 0 | 34 |
| Ladd McConkey | 4 | 6 | 56 | 14.0 | 0 | 21 |
| Quentin Johnston | 4 | 6 | 53 | 13.3 | 1 | 23 |
| Keenan Allen | 2 | 5 | 41 | 20.5 | 0 | 31 |
| Tre’ Harris | 2 | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 15 |
| Tucker Fisk | 1 | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 |
| Scott Matlock | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 2 |
The Chargers distributed their passing production across several players.
This balanced approach made the offense less dependent on a single receiver.
Oronde Gadsden’s Team-Leading Performance
Oronde Gadsden was the Chargers’ leading receiver.
He finished with five receptions for 68 yards on five targets.
His 13.6 yards per reception showed that he provided more than short, low-risk catches.
Gadsden also recorded the longest reception among the Chargers’ listed receivers, a 34-yard gain.
His ability to produce meaningful yardage helped Herbert maintain offensive efficiency.
Gadsden’s five receptions also represented the highest reception total among the Chargers’ listed pass catchers.
Ladd McConkey’s Reliable Contribution
Ladd McConkey recorded four receptions for 56 yards on six targets.
His average of 14.0 yards per reception was slightly higher than Gadsden’s.
McConkey did not record a touchdown, but his production helped maintain the Chargers’ passing attack.
Four catches for 56 yards represented a productive performance, particularly in a game where Tennessee generated substantial pressure.
His contribution gave Herbert another reliable receiving option.
Quentin Johnston Delivers a Touchdown
Quentin Johnston finished with four receptions for 53 yards and one touchdown.
He received six targets and averaged 13.3 yards per reception.
His touchdown was an important part of the Chargers’ scoring production.
Johnston’s numbers demonstrated a useful combination of reception volume and scoring impact.
Although he did not lead the team in receiving yards, his ability to finish a scoring opportunity made his contribution particularly valuable.
Keenan Allen Provides Downfield Production
Keenan Allen recorded two receptions for 41 yards.
His 20.5 yards per reception was the highest average among the Chargers’ listed receivers with multiple catches.
Allen’s longest reception covered 31 yards.
He was not the team’s leading receiver by volume, but his ability to generate substantial yardage on limited opportunities added another dimension to the passing attack.
Scott Matlock’s Unusual Scoring Contribution
Scott Matlock recorded one reception for two yards and a touchdown.
His receiving production was limited in terms of yardage, but the touchdown was extremely valuable.
A short reception can be just as important as a long gain when it results in points.
Matlock’s scoring contribution also demonstrated that the Chargers could use different personnel packages to create opportunities near the goal line.
Titans Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TDs | Long |
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 6 | 46 | 15.3 | 0 | 29 |
| Tyjae Spears | 3 | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 0 | 26 |
| Van Jefferson | 1 | 3 | 21 | 21.0 | 0 | 21 |
| Gunnar Helm | 1 | 4 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 | 15 |
| Tony Pollard | 1 | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 2 | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | 2 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 | 5 |
Elic Ayomanor Leads the Titans in Receiving Yards
Elic Ayomanor finished as Tennessee’s leading receiver.
He recorded three receptions for 46 yards on six targets.
His 15.3 yards per reception was an encouraging figure.
Ayomanor also recorded the Titans’ longest listed reception, covering 29 yards.
However, he did not score a receiving touchdown.
His production showed that Tennessee had the ability to generate downfield gains, but the offense struggled to turn those opportunities into consistent scoring.
Tyjae Spears Contributes as a Receiver
Tyjae Spears recorded three receptions for 36 yards.
His 12.0 yards per reception provided another useful receiving option for Ward.
Spears was productive in both rushing and receiving situations.
His combined contribution was:
- 26 rushing yards.
- 36 receiving yards.
- 62 total yards from scrimmage.
- Three receptions.
- Seven rushing attempts.
This versatility made Spears one of Tennessee’s more useful offensive contributors.
Van Jefferson and Gunnar Helm
Van Jefferson caught one pass for 21 yards.
His single reception produced a strong 21.0-yard average.
Gunnar Helm added one catch for 15 yards on four targets.
Both players contributed to Tennessee’s passing production, although neither recorded a touchdown.
The distribution of targets also suggests that Ward attempted to involve several different receiving options.
However, the overall passing output remained limited.
Defensive Player Statistics and Impact
Defense played an important role for both teams.
The Chargers produced four sacks and five quarterback hits, while Tennessee recorded six sacks and 11 quarterback hits.
Tennessee also forced an interception that Cody Barton returned for a touchdown.
At first glance, the Titans’ defensive numbers appear stronger.
However, defensive statistics must be evaluated alongside the final result and offensive production.
Los Angeles still scored 27 points and generated 381 offensive yards.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Statistic | Chargers | Titans |
| Total Tackles | 51 | 71 |
| Solo Tackles | 29 | 42 |
| Sacks | 4 | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 | 6 |
| Passes Defended | 3 | 4 |
| Quarterback Hits | 5 | 11 |
| Defensive Touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
Tennessee recorded more tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits.
The Titans’ defensive pressure was one of their strongest statistical achievements.
However, the Chargers were more productive offensively and eventually secured the victory.
Daiyan Henley Leads the Chargers Defense
Daiyan Henley led the Chargers with nine total tackles.
His individual defensive statistics included:
| Statistic | Total |
| Total Tackles | 9 |
| Solo Tackles | 4 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 1 |
| Passes Defended | 1 |
| Quarterback Hits | 1 |
Henley’s performance demonstrated his involvement in multiple defensive situations.
He contributed against the run, pressured the quarterback, and also defended a pass.
Recording nine tackles while adding a sack and a pass defended made him one of the Chargers’ most productive defensive players.
Derwin James Jr. Adds Eight Tackles
Derwin James Jr. recorded eight total tackles, including five solo tackles.
His contribution was important in limiting Tennessee’s offensive opportunities.
James is capable of contributing in different defensive roles, and his tackle production reflected his involvement throughout the game.
He did not record a sack, but his overall defensive activity remained valuable.
Denzel Perryman’s Defensive Contribution
Denzel Perryman finished with seven tackles.
He recorded five solo tackles and one pass defended.
His performance helped the Chargers maintain defensive pressure and limit the Titans’ offensive production.
Although his statistics did not include a sack, his contribution was part of a collective defensive effort.
Odafe Oweh Produces Two Sacks
Odafe Oweh was particularly effective as a pass rusher.
He finished with:
- Three total tackles.
- Two solo tackles.
- Two sacks.
- Two tackles for loss.
- Two quarterback hits.
His two sacks were an important part of the Chargers’ defensive production.
The ability to pressure Ward without relying entirely on coverage plays helped Los Angeles disrupt Tennessee’s passing rhythm.
Cedric Gray Leads the Titans Defense
Cedric Gray delivered the highest individual tackle total of the game.
He recorded 16 tackles, including 11 solo tackles.
His defensive statistics also included one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
| Statistic | Total |
| Total Tackles | 16 |
| Solo Tackles | 11 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 1 |
| Quarterback Hits | 1 |
Sixteen tackles represented an outstanding individual workload.
Gray was consistently involved in stopping Chargers offensive plays.
His performance was one of the strongest individual defensive efforts in the matchup.
Jihad Ward’s Pass-Rushing Performance
Jihad Ward recorded four tackles, two solo tackles, and 2.5 sacks.
He also contributed two tackles for loss and four quarterback hits.
His ability to pressure Herbert was particularly important.
Tennessee’s six total sacks demonstrated how frequently the Chargers quarterback faced pressure.
Ward was one of the main reasons the Titans remained competitive despite losing the game.
Dre’Mont Jones Adds Defensive Pressure
Dre’Mont Jones finished with four total tackles and 1.5 sacks.
He also recorded one tackle for loss and four quarterback hits.
His contribution helped Tennessee produce 11 quarterback hits.
The combination of Jones and Jihad Ward created significant challenges for the Chargers offensive line.
However, their pressure did not completely prevent Herbert from producing 250 passing yards and three total offensive touchdowns.
Cody Barton Records a Defensive Touchdown
Cody Barton produced one of the most important defensive plays of the contest.
He recorded an interception, returned it for 24 yards, and scored a defensive touchdown.
The interception was particularly valuable because it provided Tennessee with points without requiring its offense to complete a scoring drive.
Barton also finished with six total tackles, including two solo tackles, according to the supplied defensive statistics.
His performance demonstrated how turnovers can change the direction of an NFL game.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers are often among the most important factors in close NFL contests.
The Chargers and Titans both recorded fumbles, but neither team lost a fumble according to the supplied box score.
Herbert threw one interception, while Ward did not throw any.
Team Turnover Statistics
| Statistic | Chargers | Titans |
| Interceptions Thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Total Fumbles | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles Lost | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles Recovered | 1 | 2 |
| Defensive Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
The Chargers’ interception was returned by Cody Barton for a touchdown.
That play was a major positive for Tennessee.
However, the Titans did not lose possession through a fumble.
Kimani Vidal recorded one fumble for Los Angeles, but the Chargers recovered it.
Tennessee’s two fumbles were also recovered without a lost possession.
Why the Interception Mattered
Herbert’s interception was particularly costly because Barton converted it into a touchdown.
An ordinary interception stops an offensive possession and gives the defense the football.
A pick-six adds another consequence: the defense immediately scores.
That type of play can create momentum and keep a team competitive even when its offense is struggling.
The Chargers still managed to win because they produced enough points through their other offensive opportunities.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams played an important role in the matchup, particularly through kicking and punt returns.
Both kickers were perfect on their field-goal attempts and extra points.
Cameron Dicker produced nine points for Los Angeles, while Joey Slye scored eight points for Tennessee.
Kicking Statistics
| Statistic | Cameron Dicker | Joey Slye |
| Field Goals Made | 2 | 2 |
| Field Goal Attempts | 2 | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 52 yards | 49 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 3 | 2 |
| Extra Point Attempts | 3 | 2 |
| Total Points | 9 | 8 |
Dicker’s longest field goal covered 52 yards.
His ability to convert from that distance helped Los Angeles maintain its scoring advantage.
Slye also performed reliably, converting both field-goal attempts and both extra points.
Neither kicker missed an attempt.
Kick Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| KeAndre Lambert-Smith | Chargers | 2 | 49 | 24.5 | 30 |
| Derius Davis | Chargers | 1 | 23 | 23.0 | 23 |
| Chimere Dike | Titans | 4 | 117 | 29.3 | 31 |
Chimere Dike was particularly productive on kick returns.
He recorded 117 yards on four returns, averaging 29.3 yards per attempt.
His return production gave Tennessee useful field-position opportunities.
KeAndre Lambert-Smith recorded 49 yards on two returns, while Derius Davis added 23 yards on one attempt.
Punt Return Statistics
The punt return numbers were particularly interesting.
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Derius Davis | Chargers | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 6 |
| Chimere Dike | Titans | 3 | 98 | 32.7 | 67 |
Dike averaged 32.7 yards per punt return.
His longest return covered 67 yards, and he recorded a punt return touchdown.
That was a major special teams contribution for Tennessee.
It also explains why the Titans remained competitive despite producing only 233 total offensive yards.
Dike’s ability to create field position and score through the return game gave Tennessee an important alternative source of points.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | JK Scott | Johnny Hekker |
| Team | Chargers | Titans |
| Total Punts | 4 | 5 |
| Punt Yards | 209 | 187 |
| Average | 52.3 | 37.4 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Inside 20 | 0 | 2 |
| Longest Punt | 60 | 41 |
JK Scott averaged 52.3 yards per punt, significantly higher than Hekker’s 37.4-yard average.
Scott also recorded the longest punt of the game at 60 yards.
Hekker, however, placed two punts inside the 20-yard line.
These numbers highlight two different approaches to the punting game: distance and directional field-position control.
How the Chargers Won Despite Tennessee’s Defensive Pressure
One of the most interesting aspects of the contest was Tennessee’s ability to pressure Herbert.
The Titans recorded six sacks and 11 quarterback hits.
Those numbers were higher than the Chargers’ corresponding totals.
Despite this, Los Angeles won by seven points.
There were several reasons behind that result.
1. More Productive Passing Offense
Herbert threw for 250 yards, while Ward recorded 145.
The difference of 105 passing yards gave the Chargers a substantial advantage.
Los Angeles also recorded two passing touchdowns.
Tennessee did not produce a passing touchdown.
This difference was important because passing production can help an offense recover from difficult down-and-distance situations.
2. Greater Rushing Volume
The Chargers attempted 30 rushing plays compared with Tennessee’s 19.
Although the Titans averaged slightly more yards per carry, Los Angeles gained more total rushing yards.
The additional rushing attempts helped balance the offense.
It also gave Herbert opportunities to use his mobility.
3. Better Overall Offensive Production
The Chargers finished with 381 offensive yards.
Tennessee produced 233.
That created a 148-yard difference in total offensive production.
The Chargers were more effective at producing yards through both passing and rushing.
4. Three Total Offensive Touchdowns
Herbert accounted for three offensive touchdowns.
Two came through passing plays, while the other came from a rushing attempt.
Tennessee did not record a passing or rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics.
Its scoring depended heavily on its defense and special teams.
5. Reliable Kicking
Dicker converted both field goals and all three extra points.
His nine points were a valuable contribution.
In a seven-point game, reliable kicking becomes especially important.
The Chargers did not waste their listed field-goal opportunities.
Why the Titans Lost Despite Strong Defensive Statistics
Tennessee produced several impressive defensive numbers.
The Titans had more tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, and quarterback hits.
They also recorded an interception returned for a touchdown.
However, these statistics did not translate into a victory.
Limited Passing Production
Ward completed 12 of 21 passes for 145 yards.
He did not throw a touchdown.
The offense needed more consistent passing production to support its defense.
No Offensive Touchdowns
The Titans did not record a passing or rushing touchdown.
That made it difficult to maintain pressure on Los Angeles.
A team can generate field goals and special teams points, but touchdowns generally provide a more efficient route to building a competitive score.
Lower Total Offensive Yardage
Tennessee produced 233 total offensive yards.
The Chargers gained 381.
The 148-yard difference shows how much more productive Los Angeles was throughout the game.
Defensive Effort Could Not Cover Every Offensive Limitation
Cedric Gray, Jihad Ward, Dre’Mont Jones, and Cody Barton all made important defensive contributions.
However, defensive players cannot consistently compensate for a lack of offensive production.
Tennessee’s defense gave the team opportunities to remain competitive, but the offense could not generate enough points to complete the comeback.
Most Important Individual Performances
Several players stood out because of their statistical contributions and influence on the final result.
| Player | Team | Key Performance |
| Justin Herbert | Chargers | 250 passing yards, 2 passing TDs, 57 rushing yards, 1 rushing TD |
| Oronde Gadsden | Chargers | 5 receptions, 68 receiving yards |
| Quentin Johnston | Chargers | 53 receiving yards, 1 touchdown |
| Daiyan Henley | Chargers | 9 tackles, 1 sack |
| Odafe Oweh | Chargers | 2 sacks |
| Tony Pollard | Titans | 56 rushing yards |
| Elic Ayomanor | Titans | 46 receiving yards |
| Cedric Gray | Titans | 16 tackles, 1 sack |
| Jihad Ward | Titans | 2.5 sacks |
| Cody Barton | Titans | 1 interception, 1 defensive touchdown |
| Chimere Dike | Titans | 98 punt return yards, 1 touchdown |
Offensive Player of the Game: Justin Herbert
Herbert was the strongest overall offensive performer.
His 250 passing yards and three total offensive touchdowns made him the most influential offensive player.
He also provided 57 rushing yards, showing that his impact extended beyond the passing game.
Defensive Standout: Cedric Gray
Gray’s 16 tackles were the highest individual tackle total in the matchup.
His additional sack and tackle for loss made his performance even more impressive.
Pass-Rushing Standout: Jihad Ward
Ward recorded 2.5 sacks and four quarterback hits.
His pressure was one of the main reasons Tennessee was able to challenge the Chargers throughout the game.
Special Teams Standout: Chimere Dike
Dike delivered an outstanding punt return performance.
His 98 punt return yards, 67-yard longest return, and touchdown gave Tennessee an important scoring contribution.
Statistical Comparison: What the Numbers Reveal
Looking beyond the final score provides a better understanding of the matchup.
The following comparison highlights the most important differences between the teams.
| Category | Chargers | Titans | Advantage |
| Final Score | 27 | 20 | Chargers |
| Passing Yards | 250 | 145 | Chargers |
| Rushing Yards | 131 | 88 | Chargers |
| Offensive Yards | 381 | 233 | Chargers |
| Receptions | 19 | 12 | Chargers |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 0 | Chargers |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 0 | Chargers |
| Sacks | 4 | 6 | Titans |
| QB Hits | 5 | 11 | Titans |
| Total Tackles | 51 | 71 | Titans |
| Field Goals Made | 2 | 2 | Even |
| Kick Return Yards | 72 | 117 | Titans |
| Punt Return Yards | 9 | 98 | Titans |
The table reveals an important pattern.
The Titans were better in several defensive and return categories, but the Chargers dominated offensive yardage.
This difference explains why Tennessee’s defensive pressure and special teams production were not enough to secure a win.
Los Angeles produced more passing yards, more rushing yards, more receptions, and more offensive touchdowns.
The Chargers also made better use of their offensive opportunities.
Three Major Lessons From the Matchup
1. Quarterback Versatility Can Change a Game
Herbert’s rushing production was an important part of the Chargers’ offensive success.
His 57 yards on the ground forced Tennessee to account for another possible threat.
Quarterbacks who can extend plays and produce rushing yards create additional challenges for opposing defenses.
Herbert demonstrated that versatility in this contest.
2. Defensive Pressure Must Lead to Offensive Opportunities
Tennessee recorded six sacks and 11 quarterback hits.
Those are strong defensive numbers.
However, the Titans could not consistently turn those defensive achievements into offensive scoring.
The interception touchdown helped, but the offense needed more production from Ward and the rushing attack.
3. Special Teams Can Keep a Team Competitive
Chimere Dike’s punt return touchdown was a major contribution.
His performance gave Tennessee an additional scoring route.
Special teams production can be particularly valuable when an offense is struggling.
However, a team still needs consistent offensive production to complement those plays.
What This Result Meant for Both Teams
The victory improved the Chargers to 6-3 and gave them another positive result during the regular season.
Their ability to win despite allowing six sacks demonstrated that their offense could overcome difficult circumstances.
Herbert’s passing and rushing production was especially important.
For Tennessee, the defeat moved the team to 1-8.
The Titans showed that their defense could pressure an experienced quarterback and create turnovers.
However, the offensive statistics highlighted several areas requiring improvement.
Ward needed more consistent protection and additional production from the passing attack.
Pollard and Spears provided useful rushing contributions, but the team finished with only 88 rushing yards.
The game also showed the value of Dike’s special teams ability.
His punt return production created opportunities that Tennessee’s offense did not consistently generate.
Overall, the Chargers demonstrated greater offensive balance, while the Titans showed defensive potential that was not fully supported by their offense.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chargers vs Tennessee Titans game on November 2, 2025?
The Los Angeles Chargers defeated the Tennessee Titans 27-20. The Chargers overcame an early deficit and produced a stronger offensive performance to secure the victory.
2. How many passing yards did Justin Herbert record against the Titans?
Justin Herbert completed 19 of 29 passes for 250 yards. He threw two touchdown passes and one interception while also recording 57 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown.
3. How many passing yards did Cam Ward have against the Chargers?
Cam Ward completed 12 of 21 passes for 145 yards. He did not throw a touchdown or interception and finished with a 78.5 passer rating.
4. Who was the leading receiver in the Chargers vs Titans matchup?
Oronde Gadsden was the Chargers’ leading receiver with five receptions for 68 yards. Elic Ayomanor led Tennessee with three receptions for 46 yards.
5. Which Titans defender recorded an interception touchdown?
Cody Barton recorded an interception and returned it 24 yards for a defensive touchdown. His play was one of Tennessee’s most important scoring contributions.
6. How many sacks did the Titans record against Justin Herbert?
The Tennessee Titans recorded six sacks for a combined loss of 38 yards against Herbert. Jihad Ward recorded 2.5 sacks, while Dre’Mont Jones contributed 1.5 sacks.
Conclusion
The November 2, 2025, matchup between the Los Angeles Chargers and Tennessee Titans demonstrated how offensive balance and quarterback versatility can determine an NFL result.
The Chargers secured a 27-20 victory because they generated more passing yards, produced a stronger rushing performance, and converted their offensive opportunities into touchdowns.
Justin Herbert was the standout performer, finishing with 250 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, 57 rushing yards, and one rushing touchdown. Oronde Gadsden led the Chargers in receiving, while Quentin Johnston and Scott Matlock contributed receiving touchdowns.
Tennessee also had several outstanding individual performances. Cedric Gray recorded 16 tackles, Jihad Ward produced 2.5 sacks, Cody Barton returned an interception for a touchdown, and Chimere Dike delivered an important punt return score.
The Titans’ defensive pressure was impressive, but their offense struggled to match the Chargers’ production. Cam Ward finished with 145 passing yards and no touchdowns, while Tennessee managed only 88 rushing yards.
Ultimately, the game showed the importance of combining defensive pressure with consistent offensive execution. The Chargers achieved that balance more effectively and earned a seven-point victory.
The chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats provide a clear picture of how Herbert’s versatility, Los Angeles’ offensive production, and Tennessee’s inability to sustain scoring drives shaped the final result.
