New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats
The New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats from October 19, 2025, tell the story of a 31-13 Patriots victory built on efficient quarterback play, a productive rushing attack, and timely defensive pressure. Although Tennessee made a promising start and led 10-3 after the first quarter, New England responded with 28 unanswered points to take control of the game and secure a convincing road win.
The Patriots finished with a 5-2 record according to the supplied game data, while the Titans fell to 1-6. Drake Maye delivered one of the most efficient performances of the afternoon, completing 21 of 23 passes for 222 individual passing yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. Rhamondre Stevenson added 88 rushing yards and a touchdown, while New England’s defense recorded five sacks and an interception.
For Tennessee, quarterback Cam Ward completed 25 of 34 passes for 255 individual passing yards and one touchdown. Chimere Dike provided a major receiving contribution, catching four passes for 70 yards and a score. However, Tennessee struggled to establish a consistent ground game, finishing with only 39 rushing yards.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, passing and rushing efficiency, receiving production, defensive statistics, and the key reasons the Patriots turned an early deficit into an 18-point victory. All player statistics below are based on the supplied box-score data. Where the provided team totals differ from individual player totals, those discrepancies are identified rather than silently corrected.
New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game was played on October 19, 2025, during the NFL regular season. New England traveled to face Tennessee and produced its strongest scoring output after the opening quarter.
| Game Detail | Result |
| Matchup | New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans |
| Date | October 19, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL regular season |
| Week | Week 7, according to the supplied game data |
| Final score | Patriots 31, Titans 13 |
| Venue designation | Tennessee home game |
| Patriots’ displayed record | 5-2 |
| Titans’ displayed record | 1-6 |
| Patriots’ away record | 4-0 |
| Titans’ home record | 0-3 |
| Patriots’ quarterback | Drake Maye |
| Titans’ quarterback | Cam Ward |
| Patriots’ total rushing yards | 175 |
| Titans’ total rushing yards | 39 |
| Patriots’ recorded sacks | 5 |
| Titans’ recorded sacks | 4 |
The most important difference was not simply the final score. New England combined passing efficiency with a much more productive rushing attack, allowing its offense to remain effective without taking unnecessary risks through the air.
Tennessee actually moved the ball through the passing game, recording 255 individual passing yards for Ward. Yet passing production alone was not enough to compensate for limited rushing output, a lost fumble, an interception, and the Patriots’ ability to create pressure.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | New England Patriots | Tennessee Titans |
| First quarter | 3 | 10 |
| Second quarter | 14 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 14 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Final score | 31 | 13 |
Tennessee’s opening 10-point quarter gave the home team early momentum. New England responded with 14 points in the second quarter, then added another 14 in the third.
The decisive stretch was the middle of the game. The Patriots outscored the Titans 28-3 across the second and third quarters, turning a seven-point first-quarter deficit into an 18-point final margin.
The fourth quarter ended without either team scoring. By then, New England had established enough separation to protect its advantage.
Drake Maye’s Passing Performance
Drake Maye was the central figure in New England’s offensive performance. His individual passing line showed accuracy, efficiency, and an ability to convert opportunities into touchdowns without giving the defense an interception.
| Statistic | Drake Maye |
| Completions | 21 |
| Pass attempts | 23 |
| Completion percentage | 91.3% |
| Individual passing yards | 222 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.7 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks recorded against him | 4 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 22 |
| ESPN QBR | 96.0 |
| Passer rating | 135.9 |
Maye completed more than nine out of every ten pass attempts. That level of accuracy helped New England sustain drives and reduced the number of opportunities for Tennessee’s defense to force a turnover.
His 9.7 yards per attempt also indicate that the passing performance was not based exclusively on short, low-risk completions. New England generated meaningful yardage while maintaining a high completion rate.
Why Maye’s accuracy mattered
Completion percentage is useful, but it becomes more meaningful when considered alongside touchdowns, interceptions, and yards per attempt.
Maye’s numbers combined three important strengths:
- Ball security: He threw no interceptions.
- Downfield efficiency: He averaged 9.7 yards per attempt.
- Red-zone execution: He threw two touchdown passes.
These numbers suggest that New England was able to balance safe decision-making with productive passing. The offense did not need a high volume of attempts to generate scoring opportunities.
Maye also contributed as a runner, finishing with eight carries for 62 yards. His rushing output gave Tennessee another dimension to defend and helped New England reach 175 team rushing yards.
Joshua Dobbs’ limited contribution
Joshua Dobbs also appeared in the passing statistics, completing his only pass attempt for 12 yards.
| Statistic | Joshua Dobbs |
| Completions | 1 |
| Attempts | 1 |
| Passing yards | 12 |
| Yards per attempt | 12.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Passer rating | 116.7 |
| ESPN QBR | 100.0 |
Dobbs’ one completion added a useful contribution, but the sample is too small to support broad conclusions about his passing performance. Maye handled the main quarterback workload and supplied the passing production that shaped the result.
Understanding the passing-yard discrepancy
The supplied data lists Maye with 222 individual passing yards, Dobbs with 12, and a Patriots team passing total of 212 yards. It also lists 234 total receiving yards.
These figures do not reconcile under standard NFL passing and receiving conventions. The individual player figures should therefore be preserved as supplied, but readers should verify the original official box score before using the team passing total in a statistical database or formal comparison.
This distinction matters because accurate sports analysis depends on separating recorded statistics from editorial interpretation. A discrepancy should be disclosed instead of presenting conflicting figures as if they were consistent.
Cam Ward’s Passing Stats for Tennessee
Cam Ward led Tennessee’s passing attack and finished with more individual passing yards than Maye. However, the final result demonstrates why passing yardage alone cannot explain a quarterback’s effectiveness or a team’s success.
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 73.5% |
| Individual passing yards | 255 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks recorded against him | 5 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 39 |
| ESPN QBR | 22.4 |
| Passer rating | 92.2 |
Ward completed 25 passes, giving Tennessee a reasonable foundation through the air. His 255 individual passing yards also show that the Titans were capable of gaining ground through their receiving options.
The problem was the difference between moving the ball and converting drives into points. Tennessee finished with 13 points, while New England scored 31. Ward’s interception, the lost fumble recorded by the Titans, and five sacks contributed to an offensive performance that struggled to match the Patriots’ overall efficiency.
Completion percentage versus scoring efficiency
Ward’s 73.5% completion rate was lower than Maye’s 91.3%, but the difference should not be interpreted in isolation.
Quarterback evaluation also requires attention to:
- Passing touchdowns relative to attempts.
- Interceptions and other turnovers.
- Yards gained on completed passes.
- Pressure allowed by the offensive line.
- Third-down and red-zone performance.
- Whether completed passes lead to first downs and scoring opportunities.
Ward threw one touchdown and one interception. Maye threw two touchdowns without an interception. Both quarterbacks produced passing yardage, but Maye’s combination of accuracy and ball security supported a much higher-scoring offense.
The impact of five sacks
Tennessee’s offensive line allowed five sacks for 39 yards of lost yardage, according to the supplied data. Those losses matter because sacks can turn manageable situations into difficult passing downs.
For example, a sack on first or second down may force an offense to attempt a longer pass on third down. That can reduce the number of realistic play options and make the quarterback more vulnerable to additional pressure.
Sacks do not tell the entire story of pass protection because coverage, quarterback decisions, and play design also affect the outcome. Nevertheless, five sacks represent a significant defensive achievement for New England.
Rushing Statistics: A Major Advantage for New England
The rushing comparison is one of the clearest explanations for the Patriots’ victory.
| Rushing Statistic | Patriots | Titans |
| Team carries | 36 | 12 |
| Team rushing yards | 175 | 39 |
| Yards per carry | 4.9 | 3.3 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Longest recorded team run | 19 yards | 8 yards |
New England attempted three times as many rushing plays as Tennessee, according to the supplied team totals. The Patriots gained 136 more rushing yards and averaged 1.6 more yards per carry.
That advantage affected the game in several ways. New England could use its running game to maintain possession, vary its offensive approach, and prevent Tennessee from focusing exclusively on the passing attack.
Tennessee, by contrast, had limited success producing consistent yardage on the ground. With only 39 rushing yards, the Titans relied much more heavily on Ward and the passing game to move the offense forward.
Rhamondre Stevenson leads the Patriots
Rhamondre Stevenson was New England’s leading listed rusher.
| Statistic | Rhamondre Stevenson |
| Carries | 18 |
| Rushing yards | 88 |
| Yards per carry | 4.9 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 16 yards |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving yards | 0 |
Stevenson carried the ball 18 times and averaged 4.9 yards per attempt. His 88 rushing yards represented just over half of the Patriots’ listed team rushing total.
His workload gave New England a dependable option for running plays while keeping the offense from becoming entirely dependent on Maye’s arm. Stevenson also scored a rushing touchdown, directly contributing to the scoreboard.
An important analytical point is that his value was not limited to the touchdown. Repeated productive carries can help an offense avoid predictable passing situations, create more manageable third downs, and maintain a balanced play-calling approach.
Stevenson’s contribution was particularly useful alongside Maye’s mobility. Tennessee had to account for both a conventional running back and a quarterback capable of gaining significant yardage on the ground.
Drake Maye adds 62 rushing yards
Maye’s rushing statistics were also notable.
| Statistic | Drake Maye |
| Carries | 8 |
| Rushing yards | 62 |
| Yards per carry | 7.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 19 yards |
Maye averaged 7.8 yards per carry, giving New England an additional way to move the chains. His 62 rushing yards were substantial for a quarterback whose primary responsibility was passing.
Quarterback rushing can create a difficult choice for a defense. If defenders concentrate on the running back, the quarterback may find open space. If they prioritize containing the quarterback, the running back may have more room to operate.
That potential conflict helps explain why a mobile quarterback can add value even without scoring a rushing touchdown.
Maye and Stevenson combined for 150 rushing yards on 26 carries. Their production accounted for most of New England’s listed rushing output and formed the foundation of a balanced offensive performance.
Other Patriots rushing contributors
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns |
| Terrell Jennings | 5 | 18 | 3.6 | 0 |
| TreVeyon Henderson | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Mack Hollins | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Joshua Dobbs | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 |
These smaller contributions helped round out New England’s running game. Jennings recorded 18 yards on five attempts, while Henderson and Hollins had limited opportunities.
Dobbs finished with negative two rushing yards. Because his workload was small, that figure should not be treated as a major indicator of the team’s overall rushing quality.
Why Tennessee’s rushing attack struggled
Tennessee’s listed rushing totals were much more modest.
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns |
| Tyjae Spears | 5 | 22 | 4.4 | 0 |
| Tony Pollard | 6 | 18 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
Spears averaged 4.4 yards per carry, but he received only five rushing attempts in the supplied statistics. Pollard carried six times for 18 yards, averaging 3.0 yards per attempt.
Neither player recorded a rushing touchdown.
The small number of attempts limits how confidently we can evaluate Tennessee’s entire rushing scheme. Even so, the team total of 39 yards shows that the Titans did not establish the same ground-game advantage as New England.
The broader lesson is that an offense needs a workable balance between passing and rushing. When the running game contributes little, the quarterback may face more obvious passing situations, giving the opposing defense greater freedom to attack.
Receiving Statistics: Which Players Made the Biggest Impact?
Receiving production offers another way to understand how the two offenses operated. New England spread its passing production across several players, while Tennessee relied on a group led by Dike and Pollard.
The supplied player-level receiving data is useful for identifying the leading targets and the players who created the most yardage on each catch.
Patriots receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Touchdowns | Longest Reception |
| Stefon Diggs | 7 | 69 | 9.9 | 0 | 24 |
| Kayshon Boutte | 2 | 55 | 27.5 | 1 | 39 |
| Mack Hollins | 2 | 49 | 24.5 | 0 | 27 |
| Hunter Henry | 4 | 33 | 8.3 | 0 | 12 |
| DeMario Douglas | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 0 | 12 |
| Austin Hooper | 2 | 11 | 5.5 | 1 | 8 |
| Rhamondre Stevenson | 2 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Kyle Williams | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
The listed receiving data shows contributions from wide receivers, tight ends, and a running back. That distribution can make an offense more difficult to defend because the quarterback has several types of targets available.
The receiving table also contains a discrepancy: its listed player yardage adds up to 234 yards, while Maye and Dobbs’ individual passing totals add up to 234 yards as well, but the Patriots’ stated team passing total is 212 yards. The figures should be checked against the official box score before being used as reconciled team totals.
Stefon Diggs provides consistent production
Diggs led New England in receptions with seven catches for 69 yards. His average was 9.9 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 24 yards.
His seven catches made him the most frequently used receiver in the supplied statistics. A receiver who regularly converts targets into catches can help a quarterback maintain possession and keep the offense moving.
Diggs did not score a receiving touchdown in the supplied data, but touchdowns are not the only way to measure a receiver’s impact. First-down conversions, separation from defenders, and the ability to gain reliable yardage can all be valuable.
Kayshon Boutte supplies the explosive play
Boutte recorded two receptions for 55 yards and one touchdown. His 27.5 yards per reception was the highest average among the listed Patriots receivers with catches.
His longest reception went for 39 yards, making him a significant source of explosive passing production.
This is an important contrast with Diggs’ role. Diggs supplied more catches, while Boutte generated more yards per reception. The combination of reliable short-to-intermediate production and explosive plays can make an offense more versatile.
Boutte’s touchdown also meant that his contribution directly affected the score, not just the yardage total.
Mack Hollins adds another downfield option
Hollins caught two passes for 49 yards, averaging 24.5 yards per reception. His longest catch covered 27 yards.
Although his reception count was low, his average indicates that the recorded catches produced meaningful gains. Such contributions can punish defensive coverage that concentrates on the primary receiver or commits extra players to stopping the run.
Hunter Henry and Austin Hooper contribute at tight end
Henry finished with four receptions for 33 yards, while Hooper caught two passes for 11 yards and a touchdown.
Henry’s four catches made him another option for sustaining drives. Hooper’s touchdown provided a more direct scoring contribution despite his smaller yardage total.
Together, the two tight ends gave Maye additional targets beyond the wide receiver group. Their presence also made it possible for New England to use different personnel combinations without relying on the same receiver on every important passing down.
Titans receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Touchdowns | Longest Reception |
| Chimere Dike | 4 | 70 | 17.5 | 1 | 38 |
| Tony Pollard | 6 | 43 | 7.2 | 0 | 10 |
| Van Jefferson | 4 | 41 | 10.3 | 0 | 15 |
| Gunnar Helm | 4 | 36 | 9.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Elic Ayomanor | 2 | 29 | 14.5 | 0 | 20 |
| Tyler Lockett | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Tyjae Spears | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 0 | 11 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
The Titans’ receiving numbers show that Ward had several available targets. Dike led the group in receiving yards and scored Tennessee’s listed receiving touchdown.
Pollard recorded six catches, the most among the listed Titans receivers. That involvement gave Tennessee another way to use him even though his rushing production was limited.
Jefferson and Helm each caught four passes, while Ayomanor averaged 14.5 yards per reception on two catches. The numbers show contributions from multiple players, but Tennessee did not convert that distribution into enough points to keep pace with New England.
Chimere Dike’s all-purpose contribution
Dike was among Tennessee’s most productive players in the supplied statistics. His receiving line included four catches for 70 yards and one touchdown.
He also recorded three kickoff returns for 84 yards, averaging 28.0 yards per return, and one punt return for 15 yards.
These figures show his involvement in both the offensive passing game and special teams. A player who contributes in multiple phases can create opportunities even when his team struggles to establish a consistent rushing attack.
Dike’s 38-yard longest reception was also the longest listed catch among Tennessee’s receivers. His touchdown gave the Titans an important scoring contribution, although it was not enough to overcome New England’s second- and third-quarter surge.
Defensive Player Stats: How New England Took Control
The defensive numbers reveal why the Patriots were able to turn their early deficit into a comfortable win. New England recorded five sacks, intercepted Ward once, and forced a lost fumble according to the supplied game data.
Tennessee also generated pressure, recording four sacks. However, its defense did not record an interception or defensive touchdown in the supplied statistics.
| Defensive Category | Patriots | Titans |
| Total tackles | 53 | 77 |
| Solo tackles | 36 | 42 |
| Sacks | 5 | 4 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 0 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | 1 | 0 |
Tennessee’s higher tackle total does not necessarily mean its defense performed better. Teams that spend more time defending can accumulate more tackles simply because they face more plays.
The Patriots’ five sacks and interception were more directly connected to disrupting Tennessee’s offensive possessions. New England also recorded a defensive touchdown in the supplied data, an especially valuable contribution because it added scoring beyond the offense’s regular production.
K’Lavon Chaisson delivers a major defensive performance
Chaisson recorded three total tackles, two sacks, two tackles for loss, two quarterback hits, and one defensive touchdown in the supplied defensive statistics.
His two sacks tied him for the highest individual sack total listed for either team. More importantly, his pressure came alongside New England’s other defensive contributions rather than as an isolated achievement.
Sacks can affect both field position and play selection. They may push an offense out of scoring range, increase the distance needed on third down, and force the quarterback to release the ball under pressure on subsequent plays.
Chaisson’s defensive touchdown added another dimension to his performance. Defensive scoring can be particularly damaging because it changes the scoreboard without requiring the offense to sustain a drive.
Milton Williams adds interior pressure
Milton Williams recorded five total tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
Interior defensive pressure can be especially difficult for quarterbacks to handle because it can collapse the pocket from the middle. When that happens, a quarterback may have less room to step into a throw or move away from an outside pass rusher.
Williams’ numbers show that New England’s pressure came from more than one player. A defense that threatens the quarterback through several players is harder to counter than one that relies on a single pass rusher.
Harold Landry III contributes another sack
Landry recorded three total tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
His contribution helped New England reach five team sacks. With Chaisson and Williams also recording sacks, the Patriots demonstrated a distributed pass rush rather than depending on one player to create every disruptive play.
This matters when evaluating defensive performance because multiple sources of pressure can make protection adjustments more difficult for an opposing offense.
Marte Mapu leads the Patriots in tackles
Mapu recorded eight total tackles, including six solo tackles, along with one pass defended.
His tackle total was the highest among the listed Patriots defenders. While tackles do not automatically indicate a dominant performance, they help identify which players were consistently involved in stopping Tennessee’s plays.
Mapu’s pass defended also shows that his contribution was not limited to tackling after a completion. Defenders who can contribute against both the run and pass provide valuable flexibility.
Cedric Gray leads Tennessee’s tackle count
Gray finished with 10 total tackles and seven solo tackles, leading the listed Titans defenders in both categories.
Quandre Diggs added seven total tackles, while Roger McCreary and Amani Hooker recorded six apiece. T’Vondre Sweat also finished with six tackles and one sack.
These numbers indicate that Tennessee had several defenders involved in stopping New England’s offense. However, the overall defensive result was less favorable because the Patriots still produced 31 points and 175 rushing yards.
The key distinction is between individual defensive activity and team-level effectiveness. High tackle totals may reflect active defenders, but points allowed, yardage surrendered, pressure, turnovers, and the ability to stop scoring drives provide a broader picture.
Turnovers and Field Position
Turnovers are often decisive in NFL games because they end possessions without allowing the offense to finish the drive on its own terms. They can also give the opposing team better field position or create an immediate scoring opportunity.
The supplied statistics list one interception by New England’s Marcus Jones and one lost fumble by Tennessee’s Cam Ward.
| Turnover Statistic | Patriots | Titans |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
| Fumbles recovered | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
Marcus Jones records an interception
Jones recorded one interception and returned it for 32 yards, according to the supplied data.
An interception can influence a game in two ways. First, it ends the opponent’s possession. Second, the return can improve field position for the team that makes the interception.
The 32 return yards made Jones’ contribution more significant than an interception returned for no gain. However, the supplied figures do not establish the exact starting position of the subsequent possession, so a precise field-position advantage cannot be calculated from this information alone.
Ward’s lost fumble creates another setback
The Titans’ statistics list one fumble by Ward, with the ball lost and no recovery credited to Tennessee.
A lost fumble is especially damaging when an offense is trying to respond to a growing deficit. It removes the chance to finish the current drive and gives the opposing team an opportunity to take over.
Ward’s interception and lost fumble should be considered alongside the five sacks he absorbed. Together, these events indicate that Tennessee struggled to protect possessions against New England’s defense.
Why turnovers matter beyond the box score
A turnover does not always result in points, and its impact depends on the situation. An interception near the opponent’s goal line, for example, can have a different effect from one made deep in the defending team’s territory.
The broader value lies in lost scoring opportunities, changed field position, and the pressure placed on an offense that must recover from a mistake.
For this game, the available statistics support the conclusion that New England won the turnover comparison. They do not, by themselves, establish the exact number of points directly caused by each turnover.
Special Teams Player Stats
Special teams contribute through kicking, punting, and returns. Although these plays receive less attention than quarterback statistics, they influence field position and can help determine how much work an offense must do to score.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Andy Borregales, Patriots | Joey Slye, Titans |
| Field goals made | 1 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 2 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 36 yards | 50 yards |
| Extra points made | 4 | 1 |
| Total kicking points | 7 | 7 |
Both kickers were perfect on their listed field-goal attempts. Slye made two field goals, including a longest attempt of 50 yards, while Borregales converted one field goal and four extra points.
Each kicker recorded seven total points in the supplied statistics. Their contributions were different in shape, but neither missed a listed kick.
The larger scoring difference came from New England’s ability to convert its offensive opportunities into touchdowns. Extra points follow touchdowns, so a team that scores more touchdowns can build a lead even when the opposing kicker is also successful.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Bryce Baringer, Patriots | Johnny Hekker, Titans |
| Punts | 4 | 3 |
| Total punting yards | 150 | 122 |
| Average yards per punt | 37.5 | 40.7 |
| Longest punt | 51 yards | 53 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Hekker averaged 40.7 yards per punt, compared with Baringer’s 37.5 yards. Tennessee also recorded two punts inside the 20-yard line, while New England recorded one.
A punt inside the opponent’s 20-yard line can help a defense by forcing the next offense to start deeper in its own territory. Net punting distance and the resulting field position would be needed for a fuller evaluation, however.
The punting figures alone do not indicate that Tennessee controlled the game. They show that the Titans had some useful special-teams production despite losing the overall contest.
Kick returns
| Statistic | Patriots | Titans |
| Kick returns | 2 | 3 |
| Kick-return yards | 40 | 84 |
| Average per return | 20.0 | 28.0 |
| Longest return | 24 yards | 31 yards |
| Return touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Dike led the listed kickoff-return production for Tennessee with 84 yards on three returns. Efton Chism III recorded 40 yards on two returns for New England.
Tennessee averaged eight more yards per kickoff return than New England. That advantage could help improve starting field position, although return averages should be interpreted alongside kickoff locations and the resulting starting positions.
Dike also recorded Tennessee’s only listed punt return, gaining 15 yards. The supplied data shows no Patriots punt returns.
Five Key Reasons the Patriots Won
The score alone explains who won, but the underlying statistics help explain how the game developed. Five factors stand out.
1. New England produced a much stronger rushing attack
The Patriots gained 175 rushing yards on 36 carries, compared with Tennessee’s 39 yards on 12 carries.
This was a major statistical advantage. New England had more options for maintaining drives, changing the pace of the game, and preventing the Titans from focusing entirely on the passing attack.
Stevenson and Maye combined for 150 rushing yards, giving the Patriots two distinct sources of ground production.
2. Maye combined accuracy with touchdown production
Maye completed 21 of 23 attempts, threw two touchdowns, and avoided an interception.
That combination helped New England convert its passing opportunities into scoring. Although Tennessee’s Ward recorded more individual passing yards, Maye’s efficiency was a major advantage for the Patriots.
3. The Patriots applied consistent quarterback pressure
New England recorded five sacks and five quarterback hits in the supplied team statistics.
Chaisson, Williams, and Landry all recorded at least one sack. This spread of production suggests that Tennessee had to handle pressure from several defensive players.
The five sacks also cost the Titans 39 yards, making it harder for the offense to maintain favorable down-and-distance situations.
4. Tennessee lost possession through an interception and a fumble
Jones recorded an interception for New England, while Ward was credited with a lost fumble.
These mistakes reduced Tennessee’s opportunities to sustain drives. The Patriots, meanwhile, were listed with no interceptions thrown and no fumbles lost.
Avoiding turnovers does not guarantee a win, but it gives an offense more chances to score and prevents the defense from having to repeatedly compensate for lost possessions.
5. New England controlled the middle quarters
The Patriots outscored Tennessee 14-3 in the second quarter and 14-0 in the third.
That 28-3 run reversed the early momentum. Once New England took the lead, Tennessee was forced to respond without the benefit of a productive rushing game.
The scoreless fourth quarter preserved the existing margin. The decisive work had already been done in the two quarters before it.
What the Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
A useful box-score analysis separates what the numbers prove from what they merely suggest. The Patriots’ victory provides several practical lessons for evaluating NFL performances.
What New England did well
The Patriots showed a combination of offensive balance and defensive disruption.
Their 175 rushing yards supported Maye’s efficient passing performance. Meanwhile, the defense recorded five sacks, an interception, and a defensive touchdown in the supplied data.
New England also avoided the turnovers listed for Tennessee. Taken together, these figures support the conclusion that the Patriots performed better in the areas that most directly affected the final result.
What Tennessee can learn from the performance
The Titans did produce 255 individual passing yards through Ward and 70 receiving yards through Dike. Those numbers indicate that Tennessee had productive individual performances despite the defeat.
The larger concerns were the lack of rushing production, the five sacks allowed, and the two recorded turnovers.
Potential areas for review include:
- Improving protection against multiple pass rushers.
- Creating more consistent rushing opportunities.
- Limiting turnovers on passing and scrambling plays.
- Converting successful completions into sustained scoring drives.
- Maintaining offensive balance when trailing.
These are analytical areas suggested by the game statistics, not confirmed statements about what the coaching staff planned to change afterward.
Why total yards do not always predict the winner
The Patriots’ listed team passing total is inconsistent with their individual passing statistics, so a fully reliable comparison of total offensive yards cannot be calculated from the supplied figures.
Even without that comparison, the rushing, turnover, and scoring data reveal a clear pattern. Tennessee recorded more individual passing yards through Ward, but New England scored more than twice as many points.
That difference illustrates why football analysis should consider efficiency, possession outcomes, and touchdowns rather than relying on one headline statistic.
How to Read NFL Player Statistics Correctly
Readers looking up a box score often want to know which player performed best, why a team won, and which statistics matter most. A structured approach can make those comparisons more useful.
Start with the game result
Record the final score, quarter-by-quarter points, and team records shown in the box score. These establish the context for individual performances.
In this matchup, New England’s 31-13 win and 28-3 advantage across the second and third quarters explain the broad direction of the game.
Compare quarterbacks using several measures
Do not evaluate quarterbacks only by passing yards. Review completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and rushing production.
For this game, Maye’s 91.3% completion rate and two touchdown passes contrasted with Ward’s 73.5% completion rate, one touchdown, and one interception.
Examine rushing and receiving separately
Rushing totals reveal how effectively teams moved the ball on the ground. Receiving statistics show which targets produced catches, yards, and touchdowns.
Stevenson’s 88 rushing yards and Boutte’s 55 receiving yards on two catches illustrate different forms of offensive value.
Review defensive pressure and turnovers
Sacks, quarterback hits, interceptions, forced fumbles, and recoveries help explain how defenses disrupted the opposing offense.
New England’s five sacks and recorded interception were central defensive statistics in this game. Tennessee’s four sacks show that its defense also created pressure, even though the final score favored the Patriots.
Check for inconsistent figures before publishing
This is particularly important for sports websites and statistics databases. The supplied Patriots team passing total does not match the sum of the individual passing figures, and the player-level receiving total differs from the stated team passing total.
Before publishing a definitive statistical comparison, verify the official box score and confirm that individual totals, team totals, and any adjusted yardage figures use the same definitions.
This step helps avoid repeating errors and makes sports coverage more trustworthy.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans game?
The New England Patriots defeated the Tennessee Titans 31-13 on October 19, 2025. Tennessee led 10-3 after the first quarter, but New England outscored the Titans 28-3 in the second and third quarters.
2. How many passing yards did Drake Maye record against the Titans?
Drake Maye recorded 222 individual passing yards, completing 21 of 23 attempts for two touchdowns and no interceptions, according to the supplied statistics. His completion percentage was 91.3%, and his passer rating was 135.9.
3. Who was the leading rusher in the Patriots vs Titans matchup?
Rhamondre Stevenson was New England’s leading listed rusher, finishing with 88 yards on 18 carries and one rushing touchdown. Drake Maye added 62 rushing yards on eight attempts.
4. Which Titans player had the most receiving yards?
Chimere Dike led Tennessee’s listed receivers with 70 yards on four receptions. He also recorded one receiving touchdown, three kickoff returns for 84 yards, and a 15-yard punt return.
5. How many sacks did the Patriots record against Tennessee?
The Patriots recorded five sacks for 39 yards of lost yardage against Tennessee’s quarterback, according to the supplied box-score data. K’Lavon Chaisson recorded two sacks, while Milton Williams and Harold Landry III recorded one each.
6. Why did the Patriots defeat the Titans?
New England benefited from a productive rushing attack, efficient quarterback play, defensive pressure, and a favorable turnover comparison. The Patriots gained 175 rushing yards, recorded five sacks, and intercepted Ward once. Their 28-3 advantage across the second and third quarters proved decisive.
Conclusion
The New England Patriots vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats show how an NFL game can change dramatically after an encouraging start from the home team. Tennessee scored 10 points in the opening quarter, but New England responded with a powerful middle-game performance to secure a 31-13 victory.
Drake Maye led the Patriots with 222 individual passing yards, two touchdown passes, and no interceptions. Rhamondre Stevenson added 88 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Maye’s 62 rushing yards gave the offense another productive option. Kayshon Boutte and Mack Hollins supplied explosive receiving plays, and Stefon Diggs led the Patriots in receptions.
For Tennessee, Cam Ward threw for 255 individual passing yards and one touchdown, while Chimere Dike led the listed receivers with 70 yards and a score. Cedric Gray led the Titans in tackles, but Tennessee’s 39 rushing yards, five sacks allowed, interception, and lost fumble contributed to a difficult afternoon.
The most decisive factors were New England’s rushing advantage, its efficient scoring, and its ability to disrupt Tennessee’s passing game. The Patriots turned a seven-point first-quarter deficit into an 18-point victory without allowing either team to score in the fourth quarter.
For readers studying player performances, the biggest lesson is to consider the full statistical picture. Passing yards, rushing efficiency, receiving production, defensive pressure, turnovers, and quarter-by-quarter scoring work together to explain a game’s outcome.
