Tennessee Titans vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats
The tennessee titans vs arizona cardinals match player stats tell the story of one of the most dramatic fourth-quarter comebacks in the 2025 NFL season. On October 6, 2025, the Tennessee Titans defeated the Arizona Cardinals 22-21 after overcoming a 15-point halftime deficit. Arizona built a commanding early lead, but Tennessee responded with 16 unanswered points in the fourth quarter to secure the victory.
The game featured impressive individual performances from Calvin Ridley, Tony Pollard, Emari Demercado, and several defensive standouts. Ridley produced 131 receiving yards for Tennessee, while Demercado averaged 27 yards per carry for Arizona. Despite Arizona’s success on the ground and its strong first-half offense, Tennessee found a way to turn the contest around when the result appeared to be slipping away.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback statistics, rushing and receiving performances, defensive contributions, special teams, turnovers, and the key factors behind Tennessee’s comeback. The analysis uses the supplied ESPN UK box score data, with a distinction between reported statistics and conclusions that can reasonably be drawn from them.
Game: October 6, 2025 | Competition: NFL | Final score: Tennessee Titans 22, Arizona Cardinals 21
Tennessee Titans vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The final score alone does not explain how the game unfolded. Arizona controlled the opening half, while Tennessee struggled to turn offensive possessions into touchdowns. The second half developed differently, culminating in a decisive fourth-quarter surge from the visiting team.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Tennessee Titans vs. Arizona Cardinals |
| Date | October 6, 2025 |
| Final score | Titans 22, Cardinals 21 |
| Tennessee halftime score | 6 |
| Arizona halftime score | 21 |
| Tennessee fourth-quarter points | 16 |
| Arizona fourth-quarter points | 0 |
| Tennessee quarterback | Cam Ward |
| Arizona quarterbacks | Kyler Murray and Jacoby Brissett |
| Tennessee leading receiver | Calvin Ridley |
| Arizona leading rusher | Emari Demercado |
The supplied game data lists Tennessee with a 1-4 overall record and Arizona with a 2-3 record following the contest. The most important statistical takeaway is that Arizona produced three rushing touchdowns but failed to add to its score after halftime.
Tennessee, meanwhile, scored only six points in the first half and none in the third quarter before producing the points necessary to win in the final period.
Final Score by Quarter
| Quarter | Tennessee Titans | Arizona Cardinals |
| First | 3 | 14 |
| Second | 3 | 7 |
| Third | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth | 16 | 0 |
| Total | 22 | 21 |
Arizona scored 21 consecutive points across the first two quarters. Tennessee’s response began with a gradual accumulation of points before the fourth-quarter offense completed the comeback.
The score distribution also highlights the importance of game management. Arizona had opportunities to establish a larger advantage, but the Cardinals did not score in either of the final two quarters. Tennessee capitalized on that lack of second-half scoring to turn a difficult road game into a one-point victory.
For readers reviewing the official numbers, the ESPN UK box score is the primary reference for the recorded game statistics.
Quarterback Stats: Cam Ward vs Kyler Murray
Quarterback production is one of the most useful starting points when evaluating a close NFL game. However, passing totals must be considered alongside turnovers, rushing contributions, sacks, and the timing of important plays.
The supplied box score shows that Kyler Murray was more efficient as a passer during the game, while Cam Ward helped Tennessee remain competitive despite a difficult first half.
Passing Statistics Comparison
| Passing statistic | Cam Ward, Titans | Kyler Murray, Cardinals |
| Completions | 21 | 23 |
| Pass attempts | 39 | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 53.8% | 74.2% |
| Passing yards | 265 | 220 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.8 | 7.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 | 3 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 16 | 28 |
| Passer rating | 64.6 | 93.5 |
| QBR | 28.7 | 48.3 |
Note: Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied individual quarterback statistics. Passer ratings and QBR values are reproduced from the supplied data.
Cam Ward’s Performance
Cam Ward completed 21 of 39 passes for 265 yards, averaging 6.8 yards per attempt. He did not throw a touchdown pass and recorded one interception.
His passing total demonstrates that Tennessee could move the ball through the air, but yardage alone does not measure offensive effectiveness. The Titans needed to turn those opportunities into touchdowns, particularly during the opening three quarters.
Ward’s completion percentage of 53.8% indicates that a significant portion of his attempts did not result in completions. His 64.6 passer rating also reflects a challenging outing by conventional passing measures.
Nevertheless, the final result matters when assessing his contribution. Ward helped lead the late-game effort that put Tennessee in position to win. The performance was not statistically dominant from start to finish, but the comeback provided an important positive result for the rookie quarterback.
Three details stand out:
- Passing volume: Ward attempted eight more passes than Murray.
- Yardage advantage: He finished with 45 more passing yards despite completing fewer passes.
- Scoring efficiency: Neither quarterback recorded a passing touchdown, making rushing scores, turnovers, and special teams especially important.
Ward’s 265 passing yards should therefore be viewed as evidence of downfield production rather than proof of a consistently efficient passing performance.
Kyler Murray’s Performance
Murray completed 23 of 31 passes for 220 yards without throwing an interception or a touchdown pass. His 74.2% completion rate was considerably higher than Ward’s, and his 93.5 passer rating reflected the stronger passing efficiency.
Murray also contributed 25 rushing yards on four attempts and scored a rushing touchdown. His mobility gave Arizona another way to threaten the defense, particularly near the goal line.
The challenge for Arizona was not simply moving the football. The Cardinals had to maintain control of the game and protect their lead. Their inability to score after halftime meant that the early offensive advantage ultimately did not translate into a victory.
Murray’s performance illustrates an important distinction in football analysis: a quarterback can have the better individual passing statistics without being on the winning side. His passing numbers were more efficient, but Tennessee’s late scoring and Arizona’s turnover problems determined the outcome.
Jacoby Brissett’s Limited Passing Role
The supplied statistics list Jacoby Brissett with one pass attempt, no completions, no passing yards, no touchdowns, and no interceptions.
That is too small a sample for a meaningful evaluation of his passing ability. The available figures establish only that he recorded one attempt without a completion. They do not support broader conclusions about his performance as a quarterback.
Which Quarterback Had the Better Game?
The answer depends on the measure being used.
Murray had the stronger passing efficiency, completion percentage, passer rating, and turnover-free passing line. Ward accumulated more passing yards and ultimately helped his team win.
A balanced evaluation should consider four factors:
- Accuracy: Murray completed a substantially larger percentage of his attempts.
- Production: Ward recorded more passing yards.
- Ball security: Murray avoided an interception, while Ward threw one.
- Game outcome: Tennessee’s offense did enough late in the game to complete the comeback.
The evidence supports Murray as the more efficient passer in this matchup, while Ward receives credit for helping Tennessee finish with the victory.
Rushing Stats: Tony Pollard, Emari Demercado and Other Ball Carriers
The ground game was one of the most striking contrasts in this matchup. Arizona generated more than twice Tennessee’s rushing yardage, but the Titans were still able to win.
According to the supplied statistics, Arizona recorded 168 rushing yards on 29 carries, while Tennessee gained 78 yards on 24 carries. The Cardinals also recorded three rushing touchdowns compared with Tennessee’s one.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Rushing statistic | Tennessee Titans | Arizona Cardinals |
| Rushing attempts | 24 | 29 |
| Rushing yards | 78 | 168 |
| Average yards per carry | 3.3 | 5.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 3 |
| Longest run | 14 yards | 71 yards |
Arizona had the clear statistical advantage on the ground. Its average of 5.8 yards per carry was 2.5 yards higher than Tennessee’s 3.3.
The Cardinals’ rushing production helped them establish their early lead. Yet the overall numbers also reveal why rushing dominance does not automatically guarantee a win. Turnovers and the inability to sustain scoring can undermine an otherwise productive ground attack.
Tony Pollard’s Contribution for Tennessee
Tony Pollard’s rushing statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Carries | 14 |
| Rushing yards | 67 |
| Average | 4.8 yards per carry |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 14 yards |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving yards | 11 |
Pollard was Tennessee’s leading rusher, accounting for most of the team’s reported rushing yardage. His 67 yards on 14 attempts produced a respectable 4.8-yard average.
His most important contribution came in the fourth quarter, when he scored on a one-yard touchdown run. That score cut Arizona’s lead to 21-12. Tennessee missed the extra point, however, so the touchdown did not reduce the deficit to a single possession.
Pollard’s rushing touchdown was essential to the comeback, but his game also included a costly fumble. According to the game recap, that turnover helped Arizona extend its lead to 21-3.
This combination makes Pollard’s performance particularly instructive. He delivered a crucial scoring play, yet his earlier ball-security mistake increased the difficulty of Tennessee’s task.
A complete assessment should account for both contributions instead of judging the running back solely by his yardage or touchdown total.
Emari Demercado’s Explosive Rushing Performance
Emari Demercado’s rushing statistics
| Statistic | Result |
| Carries | 3 |
| Rushing yards | 81 |
| Average | 27.0 yards per carry |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 71 yards |
Demercado produced the most explosive rushing performance among the listed players. He gained 81 yards on only three carries, averaging 27 yards per attempt.
His longest run covered 71 yards. That single play accounted for most of his total production and dramatically influenced his average.
However, the context is crucial. The official game recap describes Demercado fumbling just before he crossed the goal line on a long run. Tennessee’s defense affected the play, and the result was a touchback rather than an Arizona touchdown.
That sequence illustrates how an individual statistic can conceal the difference between productive yardage and successful execution. An 81-yard rushing total looks impressive, but the lost scoring opportunity was arguably more important to the final result.
Demercado’s numbers demonstrate Arizona’s ability to create explosive plays. They also show why protecting the football is as important as generating yardage.
Michael Carter’s Ground Production
| Statistic | Result |
| Carries | 18 |
| Rushing yards | 51 |
| Average | 2.8 yards per carry |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 7 yards |
Carter handled the largest rushing workload among Arizona’s listed players. His 18 carries helped the Cardinals maintain a consistent ground-game presence.
He scored Arizona’s opening touchdown on a one-yard run, giving the home team an early advantage. His workload was substantially higher than Demercado’s, although his average gain per carry was much lower.
The comparison highlights two different roles. Carter supplied volume and a short-yardage scoring contribution, while Demercado created explosive yardage on a small number of attempts.
Other Arizona Rushing Contributions
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| Kyler Murray | 4 | 25 | 6.3 | 1 | 12 yards |
| Bam Knight | 4 | 11 | 2.8 | 1 | 10 yards |
Murray’s rushing touchdown helped Arizona establish its early lead. His 12-yard scoring run demonstrated the value of quarterback mobility in the red zone.
Knight also contributed a rushing touchdown, according to the supplied individual statistics. However, the source uses different names for the same Arizona running back in different sections. The scoring summary identifies the second-quarter touchdown scorer as Zonovan Knight, while the rushing table calls him Bam Knight. These references should not be counted as separate players without checking the official roster and box score.
What the Rushing Numbers Reveal
Arizona’s 168 rushing yards and three rushing touchdowns show that its ground game was effective in generating both yardage and scores. Tennessee’s smaller rushing total did not prevent the Titans from winning because the game was decided by more than rushing efficiency.
The decisive factors included Arizona’s lost fumbles, Tennessee’s fourth-quarter scoring, and the Titans’ ability to capitalize on late opportunities.
The lesson is straightforward: explosive plays create advantages, but ball security and timely scoring determine whether those advantages produce wins.
Receiving Stats: Calvin Ridley vs Marvin Harrison Jr.
The receiving numbers reveal another interesting contrast. Tennessee’s Calvin Ridley produced the highest receiving-yardage total in the supplied data, while Arizona’s Marvin Harrison Jr. delivered an explosive performance of his own.
Leading Receivers Comparison
| Receiving statistic | Calvin Ridley | Marvin Harrison Jr. |
| Receptions | 5 | 4 |
| Targets | 10 | 5 |
| Receiving yards | 131 | 98 |
| Yards per reception | 26.2 | 24.5 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Longest reception | 47 yards | 43 yards |
Ridley finished with 33 more receiving yards than Harrison despite catching only one additional pass. His 26.2 yards per reception indicate that his production came primarily through significant gains rather than a large volume of short receptions.
Harrison was also productive, averaging 24.5 yards per reception. His four catches on five targets represent a strong reported completion rate on opportunities directed his way.
Neither player recorded a receiving touchdown in the supplied data. Their contributions therefore helped move the ball but did not directly produce a passing score.
Calvin Ridley’s Impact on Tennessee’s Passing Game
Ridley’s five receptions for 131 yards made him Tennessee’s leading receiver. He was targeted 10 times, giving him a substantial role in the passing offense.
His longest reception covered 47 yards, demonstrating his ability to create a major gain. For an offense that struggled to score early, those downfield contributions were important in keeping drives alive and creating opportunities.
Ridley’s production was particularly relevant during Tennessee’s late comeback. The Titans needed chunk plays to compensate for their earlier scoring difficulties, and his receiving yardage helped supply that element.
Still, receiving yardage should not be confused with total offensive efficiency. Ridley did not score a touchdown, and Tennessee’s passing game as a whole had no passing scores. His value came from moving the football and helping create situations in which other players could finish drives.
Marvin Harrison Jr.’s Arizona Performance
Harrison caught four passes for 98 yards on five targets. His longest reception was 43 yards, and his average of 24.5 yards per catch was close to Ridley’s figure.
The key difference was opportunity volume. Harrison had half as many targets as Ridley but still approached 100 receiving yards.
This suggests that Arizona could generate substantial passing gains without relying on a high number of completed receptions to its leading wide receiver. However, the supplied figures do not show a receiving touchdown for Harrison, and Arizona’s offense ultimately failed to score in the second half.
His individual production was strong, but it was not enough to preserve the lead.
Other Tennessee Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per reception | Targets |
| Chig Okonkwo | 4 | 48 | 12.0 | 5 |
| Gunnar Helm | 4 | 34 | 8.5 | 5 |
| Elic Ayomanor | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 4 |
| Chimere Dike | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 5 |
| Tony Pollard | 3 | 11 | 3.7 | 5 |
| Tyler Lockett | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 3 |
Okonkwo was Tennessee’s second-leading receiver by yardage, finishing with 48 yards on four catches. Helm added 34 yards on four receptions.
Their combined contribution gave Ward additional options beyond Ridley. The variety of receiving targets helped Tennessee distribute the ball rather than depend entirely on one player.
Dike also played an important role in the overall game, particularly on special teams. His receiving numbers were modest, but his return production provided a separate route to field position.
Other Arizona Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per reception | Targets |
| Trey McBride | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 7 |
| Michael Carter | 5 | 22 | 4.4 | 5 |
| Michael Wilson | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 4 |
| Bam Knight | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 1 |
| Greg Dortch | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 2 |
| Elijah Higgins | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 2 |
| Zay Jones | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 3 |
McBride led Arizona’s other listed receivers with five catches for 41 yards. Carter also recorded five receptions, adding a short-range passing option alongside his rushing workload.
These figures show that Arizona spread its passing production across several players. Harrison supplied the explosive gains, while McBride and Carter contributed more modest yardage through repeated receptions.
Why Receiving Efficiency Matters
Receiving statistics are most useful when interpreted in context. Catch totals show how often a player secured the ball, while yards per reception indicate how much ground each catch produced.
Targets add another layer by showing the number of opportunities directed toward a receiver. A player with high yardage and relatively few catches may be providing explosive plays, while another player may be contributing through shorter, repeatable gains.
In this game, Ridley and Harrison were the clear downfield threats. Their performances demonstrate that both teams could create passing opportunities, even though neither quarterback threw a touchdown pass.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Sacks and Interceptions
The defensive performances help explain why the game changed so dramatically. Tennessee needed to limit Arizona’s offense after halftime, while Arizona needed to stop the Titans from converting late possessions into points.
The supplied statistics identify Cedric Gray, Jeffery Simmons, and Sebastian Joseph-Day as important contributors for Tennessee. For Arizona, Budda Baker, Dadrion Taylor-Demerson, and Josh Sweat feature prominently in the defensive numbers.
Tennessee Titans Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Other contributions |
| Cedric Gray | 12 | 6 | 0 | 1 | Defensive tackle leader |
| Jalyn Armour-Davis | 9 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 pass defended |
| Jeffery Simmons | 8 | 6 | 1.5 | 1 | 2 quarterback hits |
| Sebastian Joseph-Day | 5 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 quarterback hit |
| Amani Hooker | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | Contributed in coverage and tackling |
The table reflects the supplied individual defensive statistics. The listed players are selected leaders, not the complete defensive roster.
Cedric Gray’s Tackling Production
Cedric Gray recorded 12 total tackles, including six solo tackles. He led Tennessee’s listed defenders in total tackles, making him a prominent contributor in limiting Arizona’s offensive plays.
Tackles alone do not establish how effective a defender was on every snap. However, Gray’s total shows that he was frequently involved in stopping plays and completing defensive possessions.
His performance is particularly relevant in a game where Arizona generated 168 rushing yards. Tennessee’s defenders needed to make repeated stops, and Gray’s tackle total reflects that workload.
Jeffery Simmons and the Pass Rush
Simmons recorded eight tackles, 1.5 sacks, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits in the supplied data.
His pressure production was important because Arizona’s offense had been effective early in the contest. Generating pressure can disrupt passing rhythm, force quicker decisions, and reduce the time available for receivers to get open.
Simmons’ two quarterback hits also show that his contribution extended beyond the sacks credited to him. Pressure does not always result in a sack, but it can still affect the outcome of a play.
Sebastian Joseph-Day added one sack, two tackles for loss, and one quarterback hit. Together, these performances helped Tennessee generate defensive pressure during a game in which the team needed to regain control.
Arizona Cardinals Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Other contributions |
| Budda Baker | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | Arizona’s listed tackle leader |
| Mack Wilson Sr. | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | Tackle for loss |
| Dadrion Taylor-Demerson | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 interception, 2 passes defended |
| Josh Sweat | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 pass defended, 2 quarterback hits |
Josh Sweat’s Pressure on Cam Ward
Josh Sweat recorded two sacks and two tackles for loss, making him one of Arizona’s most productive pass rushers according to the supplied numbers.
His two sacks mattered because Tennessee was trying to establish a more consistent passing rhythm. Sacks can end promising drives, push an offense into longer passing situations, and reduce the likelihood of converting third downs.
Despite Sweat’s production, Tennessee ultimately completed the comeback. That does not make his individual performance ineffective. Rather, it demonstrates that strong defensive statistics from one player do not guarantee that a team will win.
Dadrion Taylor-Demerson’s Interception
Taylor-Demerson recorded an interception and two passes defended. His interception was a significant defensive event because it gave Arizona a chance to disrupt Tennessee’s offensive momentum.
However, the supplied game recap also describes a subsequent sequence in which an Arizona player fumbled after the interception and Tyler Lockett recovered the ball in the end zone for a Tennessee touchdown.
The exact sequence is important. An interception can initially look like a decisive defensive success, but the play is not finished until possession is secured and the return or subsequent action ends. In this case, the fumble recovery turned a defensive opportunity into a score for Tennessee.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive statistic | Tennessee Titans | Arizona Cardinals |
| Total tackles | 72 | 58 |
| Solo tackles | 43 | 36 |
| Sacks | 3 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 4 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 8 |
| Quarterback hits | 6 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Tennessee recorded more tackles, sacks, and quarterback hits in the supplied data. Arizona recorded more passes defended.
These numbers describe different aspects of defensive play. Tackles reflect involvement in stopping ball carriers, sacks measure successful takedowns of the passer behind the line of scrimmage, and passes defended show attempts to disrupt throws.
No single category captures the full performance of a defense. The most important outcome in this game was that Tennessee prevented Arizona from adding to its score after halftime.
Turnovers and Ball Security: The Hidden Story of the Comeback
Turnovers were central to the final result. Arizona lost three fumbles according to the supplied team statistics, while Tennessee lost one.
| Turnover statistic | Tennessee Titans | Arizona Cardinals |
| Fumbles recorded | 1 | 3 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 3 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 1 |
The turnover figures require careful interpretation because the supplied individual and team rows are not entirely consistent. The broader game recap confirms the significance of Pollard’s fumble and the Arizona fumble that led to Lockett’s touchdown.
Tennessee’s Costly Early Fumble
Pollard’s fumble helped Arizona extend its advantage to 21-3 in the second quarter. That sequence put Tennessee in a difficult position before halftime.
A turnover is especially damaging when it gives the opponent the ball in favorable field position. Instead of forcing Arizona to travel the full length of the field, Tennessee’s mistake created an opportunity for the Cardinals to add to their lead.
The Titans therefore had to recover from both a scoring deficit and an earlier error of their own.
Arizona’s Lost Fumbles
Arizona’s ball-security problems became even more important as the game progressed.
Demercado’s long run ended with a fumble before he crossed the goal line. Rather than producing a touchdown, the play ended in a touchback. The lost scoring opportunity deprived Arizona of points that could have made Tennessee’s comeback much more difficult.
Later, the fumble following Taylor-Demerson’s interception created the unusual sequence that allowed Lockett to score a touchdown after recovering the ball in the end zone.
Those events show why turnovers should not be evaluated by quantity alone. Their timing, location, and consequences can be more important than the raw number.
Special Teams Stats: Joey Slye and Chimere Dike
Special teams made a direct contribution to the final score. Tennessee’s kicker Joey Slye converted three field goals, and returner Chimere Dike produced a major kickoff return that helped the Titans gain valuable field position.
Kicking Statistics
| Statistic | Joey Slye, Tennessee | Chad Ryland, Arizona |
| Field goals made | 3 | 0 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 0 |
| Field goal percentage | 100% | Not applicable |
| Longest field goal | 51 yards | Not applicable |
| Extra points made | 1 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 2 | 3 |
| Total kicking points | 10 | 3 |
Slye’s three field goals accounted for nine points, while his successful extra point added another. The supplied statistics list him with 10 total points.
His most important kick came at the end of the game. Slye converted a 29-yard field goal as time expired, completing Tennessee’s comeback and securing the 22-21 win.
The earlier 44-yard and 51-yard field goals also mattered because they provided points during a period when Tennessee struggled to score touchdowns.
The missed extra point following Pollard’s touchdown initially left Tennessee nine points behind at 21-12. That made the subsequent touchdown and final field goal even more important.
Ryland converted all three of Arizona’s extra points. The supplied data records no field goal attempts for him, so a field goal percentage should not be calculated from the malformed kicking row.
Chimere Dike’s Return Production
| Return statistic | Result |
| Kick returns | 4 |
| Kick return yards | 136 |
| Average per kick return | 34.0 yards |
| Longest kick return | 65 yards |
| Punt returns | 3 |
| Punt return yards | 33 |
| Average per punt return | 11.0 yards |
| Longest punt return | 17 yards |
Dike’s 65-yard kickoff return was a major field-position play. It helped Tennessee create an opportunity for another field goal during the first half.
His overall average of 34.0 yards per kickoff return was particularly strong. Return yardage does not always appear alongside quarterback and receiver statistics, but it can change where an offense begins its next possession.
Dike also returned three punts for 33 yards, giving Tennessee another source of field-position gains.
Punting Comparison
| Punting statistic | Johnny Hekker, Tennessee | Blake Gillikin, Arizona |
| Punts | 5 | 7 |
| Total punt yards | 271 | 367 |
| Average punt distance | 54.2 yards | 52.4 yards |
| Longest punt | 64 yards | 63 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 3 | 2 |
Arizona punted seven times, compared with five punts by Tennessee. Hekker had the higher average and more punts inside the 20-yard line despite recording fewer punts overall.
The figures also reflect the different offensive circumstances. Arizona had the advantage for much of the game but failed to score after the second quarter, while Tennessee’s late scoring drives reduced its need to punt.
How Tennessee Completed the 22-21 Comeback
The most important aspect of the game was not any single passing or rushing total. It was the sequence of events that allowed Tennessee to overcome a substantial deficit.
First Quarter: Arizona Takes Control
Arizona opened the scoring with a one-yard touchdown run by Michael Carter. Tennessee answered with a 44-yard field goal from Slye, but Murray then scored on a 12-yard rushing touchdown.
The Cardinals finished the first quarter with a 14-3 lead. Their offense was able to score through the ground game, while Tennessee settled for a field goal rather than a touchdown.
Second Quarter: The Lead Reaches 21-3
Arizona extended its lead to 21-3 with a short touchdown run by Zonovan Knight, identified as Bam Knight in the supplied rushing table.
Tennessee responded with a 51-yard field goal from Slye, making the halftime score 21-6.
The Titans had produced points, but they had not yet found the end zone. Arizona’s advantage appeared substantial, particularly because the Cardinals had already recorded three rushing touchdowns.
Third Quarter: Neither Team Scores
The third quarter ended without points for either side.
This scoreless period preserved Arizona’s 15-point lead, but it also meant that the Cardinals did not extend their advantage. Tennessee entered the fourth quarter needing multiple scoring plays to take the lead.
Fourth Quarter: Tennessee Changes the Game
Pollard scored on a one-yard rushing attempt to cut the score to 21-12. Slye missed the extra point, leaving Tennessee nine points behind.
The next major swing came when Lockett recovered a fumble in the end zone for a touchdown. Slye converted the extra point, bringing Tennessee within two points at 21-19.
After a late defensive stop, Ward and the offense created the opportunity for the winning field goal. Slye converted from 29 yards as time expired, giving Tennessee the 22-21 victory.
The scoring sequence is an example of how a comeback can depend on several different units. The offense scored, the defense created another opportunity, special teams converted the necessary kicks, and Tennessee benefited from a crucial turnover.
Although Tennessee scored 16 points in the fourth quarter, the official game recap describes the team as scoring its final 19 points without an Arizona response. The distinction matters because the comeback began before the fourth-quarter scoring burst, after Arizona’s final points in the second quarter.
Key Takeaways From the Tennessee Titans vs Arizona Cardinals Match Player Stats
The individual statistics and game sequence reveal several important lessons about the matchup.
- Tennessee won despite trailing 21-6 at halftime. The Titans scored 16 points in the fourth quarter and completed the comeback with a field goal as time expired.
- Calvin Ridley led the receiving production. His five receptions for 131 yards gave Tennessee a major downfield threat.
- Tony Pollard supplied Tennessee’s rushing touchdown. His 67 rushing yards helped support the late offensive push.
- Emari Demercado was Arizona’s most explosive listed runner. He recorded 81 yards on three carries, including a 71-yard run that ended in a costly fumble.
- Kyler Murray was the more efficient passer. He completed 23 of 31 attempts for 220 yards without an interception, but Arizona could not maintain its early scoring pace.
- Joey Slye delivered the decisive points. His three field goals helped Tennessee stay in the contest, and his final kick secured the victory.
- Turnovers changed the outcome. Arizona’s fumbles created opportunities that Tennessee ultimately used to complete its comeback.
One important statistical distinction deserves emphasis: Arizona finished with more rushing yards and more rushing touchdowns, while Tennessee won the game. The result demonstrates why total yardage, individual efficiency, and the final score must be evaluated together rather than treated as interchangeable measures of performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Tennessee Titans vs Arizona Cardinals game?
The Tennessee Titans defeated the Arizona Cardinals 22-21 on October 6, 2025, according to the supplied ESPN UK game data. Tennessee overcame a 21-6 halftime deficit to win with a field goal as time expired.
2. How many passing yards did Cam Ward record against the Cardinals?
Cam Ward recorded 265 passing yards, completing 21 of 39 attempts. He averaged 6.8 yards per attempt and finished with no passing touchdowns and one interception in the supplied statistics.
3. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Calvin Ridley led the listed receivers with five receptions for 131 yards. Marvin Harrison Jr. led Arizona’s receivers with four catches for 98 yards.
4. Who led the game in rushing yards?
Emari Demercado led the listed individual rushers with 81 yards on three carries, including a 71-yard run. Tony Pollard led Tennessee with 67 rushing yards and one touchdown.
5. How did the Titans win after trailing by 15 points?
Tennessee scored a rushing touchdown through Pollard, recovered a fumble in the end zone for another touchdown through Tyler Lockett, and then converted a 29-yard field goal through Joey Slye as time expired. Arizona failed to score after the second quarter.
6. Which defensive players stood out in the matchup?
Cedric Gray led Tennessee’s listed defenders with 12 tackles. Jeffery Simmons recorded 1.5 sacks, while Arizona’s Josh Sweat recorded two sacks and Dadrion Taylor-Demerson intercepted a pass.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans vs Arizona Cardinals match player stats describe a game in which Arizona produced stronger early offensive numbers but Tennessee finished more effectively when the result was on the line. Arizona’s 168 rushing yards, three rushing touchdowns, and Murray’s efficient passing helped establish a 21-6 halftime advantage. Tennessee responded through Ridley’s receiving production, Pollard’s rushing touchdown, a fumble recovery touchdown by Lockett, and Slye’s decisive field goal.
The individual performances also show why football analysis requires more than comparing passing yards or rushing averages. Demercado’s explosive run, Pollard’s combination of production and a costly fumble, and Arizona’s late turnovers all influenced the outcome. Tennessee’s defensive pressure and special teams contributions were equally important to the final result.
For an accurate interpretation of this matchup, readers should consider the final score alongside the timing of touchdowns, the impact of turnovers, and each player’s role in the decisive sequences. The supplied statistics provide a useful overview, although some extracted individual and team totals are inconsistent and should be checked against the official box score when exact statistical reconciliation is required.
