Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats
The Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats from August 16, 2025, tell the story of a competitive NFL preseason game decided by three points. Tennessee defeated Atlanta 23-20, using a balanced offensive performance and a decisive defensive touchdown to secure the victory. Atlanta produced several explosive plays of its own, including a 43-yard rushing gain by Nathan Carter and a 52-yard reception by Chris Blair, but those contributions were not enough to overcome Tennessee’s scoring advantage.
The game provided a useful look at quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive takeaways, and special teams execution. Tennessee finished with 195 passing yards and 118 rushing yards, while Atlanta recorded 174 passing yards and 115 rushing yards. Both teams scored one offensive rushing touchdown and one passing touchdown, but Tennessee’s defense added an interception return for a touchdown that proved especially important.
Because this was a preseason matchup, the individual statistics need to be interpreted in context. Preseason games often feature several quarterbacks, rotating lineups, and players competing for roster positions. The numbers therefore reveal more than the final score: they also show which players created explosive plays, which offenses sustained possession, and how defensive pressure influenced the contest.
Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Titans and Falcons met on August 16, 2025, in an NFL preseason game. Tennessee finished with a 23-20 victory after building an early lead and responding to Atlanta’s third-quarter scoring surge.
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons |
| Sport | NFL football |
| Game type | Preseason |
| Date | August 16, 2025 |
| Final score | Tennessee Titans 23, Atlanta Falcons 20 |
| Winner | Tennessee Titans |
| Tennessee points by quarter | 6, 7, 7, 3 |
| Atlanta points by quarter | 0, 3, 17, 0 |
| Tennessee passing yards | 195 |
| Atlanta passing yards | 174 |
| Tennessee rushing yards | 118 |
| Atlanta rushing yards | 115 |
| Tennessee interceptions | 1, including a defensive touchdown |
| Atlanta interceptions | 1 |
The quarter-by-quarter scoring shows how the contest developed. Tennessee scored six points in the opening quarter and added seven in the second to lead 13-3 at halftime. The Titans extended their advantage with another seven points in the third quarter, while Atlanta scored 17 points during that period to bring the game back into contention.
Atlanta did not score in the fourth quarter, while Tennessee added three points. That final scoring contribution helped Tennessee preserve its three-point margin.
The key statistical distinction was not simply offensive yardage. Atlanta averaged more yards per rushing attempt, while Tennessee generated the game’s decisive defensive score. This illustrates why a box score should be evaluated through several categories rather than total yards alone.
First-Half Performance: Tennessee Built the Early Advantage
Tennessee controlled the scoreboard during the first half, scoring 13 points without allowing Atlanta to reach the end zone. The Falcons managed a field goal in the second quarter, but Tennessee maintained the advantage through the halftime break.
The Titans’ early lead provided a useful foundation for the remainder of the game. Their offense produced yardage through both passing and rushing plays, and the defense limited Atlanta’s scoring opportunities.
Atlanta’s first-half performance was not entirely unproductive. The Falcons eventually finished with 363 combined passing and rushing yards before accounting for sacks in the passing statistics. However, their overall yardage did not translate into the same early scoring output as Tennessee’s.
Three factors help explain the difference between production and points:
- Scoring efficiency: Gaining yards is valuable, but offenses must convert those gains into touchdowns or field goals.
- Turnover impact: An interception can erase an offensive possession and, in this game, create points for the opposing defense.
- Situational execution: Third-down conversions, red-zone decisions, and field position can influence the final score even when total yardage is similar.
These principles are particularly important when evaluating preseason statistics because different groups of players may be on the field at different times.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring sequence provides one of the clearest ways to understand the matchup.
| Quarter | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons | What Happened |
| First | 6 | 0 | Tennessee established the early lead |
| Second | 7 | 3 | The Titans extended their advantage |
| Third | 7 | 17 | Atlanta mounted its strongest scoring period |
| Fourth | 3 | 0 | Tennessee added points and held on |
| Final | 23 | 20 | Tennessee won by three points |
First quarter: Tennessee struck first
Tennessee scored six points in the opening quarter, while Atlanta failed to score. Although the quarter’s scoring total was modest, the early advantage gave the Titans room to manage the game as it progressed.
A scoreless opening period for Atlanta did not necessarily mean the Falcons could not move the ball. In football, a team can advance between the 20-yard lines without converting a drive into points. Penalties, failed third-down attempts, turnovers, and missed scoring opportunities can all prevent yardage from becoming points.
Second quarter: The Titans increased their lead
Tennessee added seven points in the second quarter, bringing its halftime total to 13. Atlanta managed three points, leaving the Falcons trailing 13-3 at the break.
The 10-point halftime margin put pressure on Atlanta to improve its scoring efficiency after halftime. For Tennessee, the priority became maintaining its advantage while continuing to evaluate its offensive and defensive personnel.
Third quarter: Atlanta changed the game’s momentum
The third quarter was the most productive scoring period for Atlanta. The Falcons scored 17 points, compared with seven from Tennessee.
This was the decisive swing in the game’s momentum. Atlanta demonstrated that its offense could generate a concentrated scoring run, while Tennessee had to respond to a much closer contest.
The Falcons’ rushing and receiving numbers help explain how they created opportunities. Nathan Carter averaged 7.0 yards per carry, and Chris Blair averaged 26.0 yards per reception. Those performances demonstrate the value of explosive plays, which can move an offense into scoring position quickly.
Fourth quarter: Tennessee protected its advantage
Tennessee scored three points in the fourth quarter, while Atlanta was held scoreless. The Titans finished with 23 points to Atlanta’s 20.
The final period illustrates the importance of defensive stops. Once Atlanta had reduced the margin, another scoring drive could have changed the result. Tennessee’s ability to prevent a fourth-quarter scoring response helped secure the victory.
Tennessee Titans Player Stats: Passing Performance
Tennessee used three quarterbacks during the game: Brandon Allen, Cam Ward, and Trevor Siemian. Their individual performances differed in completion rate, yardage, and passing efficiency.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing Yards | Yards per Attempt | TD | INT | Passer Rating |
| Brandon Allen | 11/14 | 119 | 8.5 | 1 | 1 | 96.1 |
| Cam Ward | 2/7 | 42 | 6.0 | 0 | 0 | 52.1 |
| Trevor Siemian | 4/7 | 34 | 4.9 | 0 | 0 | 69.9 |
| Team total | 17/28 | 195 | 7.0 | 1 | 1 | 78.7 |
Brandon Allen: The most productive passing line
Brandon Allen completed 11 of 14 passes for 119 yards and one touchdown. His completion rate was approximately 78.6%, and his average of 8.5 yards per attempt was the highest among Tennessee’s three quarterbacks.
Those figures suggest that Allen combined accuracy with productive gains through the air. A quarterback who completes a high percentage of attempts while maintaining a strong yards-per-attempt average can help an offense avoid repeated long-yardage situations.
However, Allen also threw one interception. That turnover matters because passing efficiency cannot be judged solely by completions and yards. An interception can end a promising drive, change field position, or give the opposing offense an opportunity to score.
His 96.1 passer rating was the highest among the Tennessee quarterbacks listed in the box score. The most balanced assessment is that Allen produced the team’s strongest passing line while also recording a costly mistake.
Cam Ward: A limited completion total with some yardage
Cam Ward completed two of seven attempts for 42 yards, averaging 6.0 yards per attempt. He did not throw a touchdown or interception and was not charged with a sack.
Ward’s completion rate was approximately 28.6%. That is a small sample, so it should not be treated as a definitive measure of his ability. Seven attempts provide limited evidence about how a quarterback would perform across a full game or against a wider range of defensive looks.
His 42 passing yards show that his completed passes still produced some meaningful yardage. A deeper evaluation would require additional context, including the routes being run, the pressure faced, the down and distance, and whether receivers had opportunities to make plays after the catch.
Trevor Siemian: Shorter gains in a small sample
Siemian completed four of seven passes for 34 yards, averaging 4.9 yards per attempt. He did not throw a touchdown or interception, but he was sacked once for no net sack yardage in the supplied statistics.
His completion rate was approximately 57.1%. Although that percentage was higher than Ward’s, Siemian’s lower yards-per-attempt figure indicates that his completions generated less average yardage.
The important distinction is that completion rate and passing efficiency measure different things. A quarterback can complete several short passes without generating enough yardage to sustain an offense consistently.
What Tennessee’s combined passing stats reveal
The Titans completed 17 of 28 passes for 195 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. Their team completion rate was approximately 60.7%.
The 7.0-yard average per attempt indicates reasonable production from the passing game, although the interception reduced the value of that performance.
For readers assessing the quarterback statistics, the most useful measures are:
- Completion percentage to understand accuracy.
- Yards per attempt to assess average passing production.
- Touchdowns and interceptions to evaluate scoring and turnover outcomes.
- Sacks to understand how often pass plays ended with the quarterback being brought down.
- Passer rating as a summary measure, rather than a complete description of performance.
No single metric explains the entire passing performance. Together, these numbers offer a clearer picture of Tennessee’s approach.
Atlanta Falcons Player Stats: Passing Performance
Atlanta also used two quarterbacks, Easton Stick and Emory Jones. Stick handled the larger share of the passing workload and recorded the Falcons’ only passing touchdown.
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Passing Yards | Yards per Attempt | TD | INT | Sacks | Passer Rating |
| Easton Stick | 19/32 | 173 | 5.4 | 1 | 1 | 2 for 15 yards | 71.5 |
| Emory Jones | 2/5 | 16 | 3.2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 48.8 |
| Team total | 21/37 | 174 | 5.1 | 1 | 1 | 2 for 15 yards | 68.4 |
Easton Stick: High passing volume
Easton Stick completed 19 of 32 attempts for 173 passing yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He averaged 5.4 yards per attempt and recorded a passer rating of 71.5.
Stick’s 59.4% completion rate was close to Tennessee’s team completion rate. However, his 5.4 yards per attempt was lower than Tennessee’s 7.0-yard average.
That difference is worth examining. Similar completion rates do not necessarily produce similar offensive results. A quarterback whose completions average fewer yards may need more plays to advance the ball, creating additional opportunities for penalties, sacks, and turnovers.
Stick was also sacked twice for a combined loss of 15 yards. Sacks can stall drives because they often create longer third-down situations and push the offense away from a manageable field-goal attempt.
His touchdown pass demonstrated scoring potential, but the interception and sacks were important counterpoints to his total passing volume.
Emory Jones: Limited opportunities
Jones completed two of five passes for 16 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His 3.2 yards per attempt reflected a small amount of production across those five attempts.
As with Ward and Siemian, this sample is too small to support broad conclusions about the quarterback’s overall quality. Preseason statistics should be interpreted alongside the role a player received, the quality of opposing coverage, and the game situations in which he entered.
Comparing the two passing offenses
The supplied team totals show Tennessee with 195 passing yards and Atlanta with 174. Tennessee also averaged 7.0 yards per attempt, compared with Atlanta’s 5.1.
Atlanta completed more passes, 21 compared with Tennessee’s 17, and attempted nine more passes. Nevertheless, Tennessee generated more listed passing yardage.
This is a useful example of why volume does not always equal efficiency. More attempts and completions can reflect a different offensive rhythm, but the average gain per attempt helps explain how effectively those attempts move the ball.
There is one data-quality detail worth preserving for readers: the supplied Atlanta team passing total is 174 yards, while the listed individual receiving lines add up to 189 yards. Those figures do not reconcile. The individual player statistics below are therefore presented as supplied, while the aggregate receiving discrepancy should be checked against the official box score before using the figures in further statistical calculations.
Rushing Statistics: Nathan Carter Delivered Atlanta’s Biggest Run
The ground game was an important part of both offenses. Tennessee recorded 118 rushing yards on 32 attempts, while Atlanta gained 115 yards on 25 attempts.
| Team | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Rushing TD | Longest Run |
| Tennessee Titans | 32 | 118 | 3.7 | 1 | 16 yards |
| Atlanta Falcons | 25 | 115 | 4.6 | 1 | 43 yards |
Tennessee gained three more rushing yards overall despite using seven additional carries. Atlanta’s higher average per attempt reflected its ability to produce larger gains on fewer opportunities.
Tennessee Titans rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | TD | Longest Run |
| Jordan Mims | 12 | 50 | 4.2 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Kalel Mullings | 8 | 25 | 3.1 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Jermar Jefferson | 4 | 18 | 4.5 | 1 | 16 yards |
| Julius Chestnut | 4 | 16 | 4.0 | 0 | 8 yards |
| Brandon Allen | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 0 | 8 yards |
| Elic Ayomanor | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 yards |
| Trevor Siemian | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | -1 yard |
Jordan Mims provided a steady workload
Jordan Mims led Tennessee in rushing attempts and rushing yards, finishing with 12 carries for 50 yards. His 4.2 yards per carry gave the Titans a consistent source of ground production.
Mims’ workload is significant when evaluating a preseason running back. A player receiving multiple carries has more opportunities to demonstrate ball security, patience behind blockers, vision, and the ability to gain yards after contact. The box score confirms his volume and yardage, although it does not provide enough detail to assess each of those individual skills.
Mims also caught two passes for 12 yards. That receiving contribution shows he was involved in both phases of the offense, rather than appearing only as a ball carrier.
Jermar Jefferson scored on the ground
Jefferson carried the ball four times for 18 yards and scored one rushing touchdown. His longest run was 16 yards, and he averaged 4.5 yards per carry.
His touchdown was an important part of Tennessee’s offensive production. Touchdowns provide more direct scoring value than yardage alone, so Jefferson’s line should be evaluated differently from a player who accumulated more yards without reaching the end zone.
The small number of carries is an important limitation, however. Four attempts provide a snapshot of one performance, not enough evidence to establish how consistently a player would produce over a larger workload.
Kalel Mullings and Julius Chestnut added depth
Mullings finished with eight carries for 25 yards, while Chestnut recorded four carries for 16 yards. Mullings averaged 3.1 yards per carry, and Chestnut averaged 4.0.
These numbers show how Tennessee distributed its rushing work among several players. For preseason evaluation, that distribution can help coaches observe multiple running backs in live-game conditions while managing workloads.
Atlanta Falcons rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Average | TD | Longest Run |
| Nathan Carter | 9 | 63 | 7.0 | 1 | 43 yards |
| Easton Stick | 2 | 14 | 7.0 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Dylan Drummond | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Emory Jones | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Jashaun Corbin | 6 | 7 | 1.2 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Nick Nash | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
| Elijah Dotson | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 0 | 2 yards |
Nathan Carter: Atlanta’s standout runner
Nathan Carter produced the most notable rushing performance for Atlanta, carrying nine times for 63 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 7.0 yards per carry, and his longest run covered 43 yards.
Carter’s longest gain was a major example of explosive rushing production. A 43-yard run can change field position in one play and reduce the number of additional plays required to reach scoring territory.
His average of 7.0 yards per carry was well above Atlanta’s team average of 4.6. That difference suggests his individual contribution was more explosive than the team’s overall ground production.
Carter also caught two passes for nine yards. While his receiving numbers were modest, they indicate that his participation extended beyond rushing attempts.
The broader lesson from Carter’s performance is that explosive plays can compensate for a relatively low number of opportunities. However, evaluating a running back requires more than looking at his longest run. Consistency, ball security, pass protection, and production on short-yardage plays are also important.
Atlanta’s rushing comparison
Atlanta’s ground attack averaged 4.6 yards per carry, compared with Tennessee’s 3.7. Yet Tennessee gained slightly more total rushing yardage because it ran the ball more often.
This distinction matters when comparing team performance:
- Total rushing yards measure overall ground production.
- Yards per carry indicate the average gain on each attempt.
- Longest run highlights the biggest individual rushing play.
- Rushing touchdowns measure direct scoring contributions.
Looking at all four figures provides a better evaluation than ranking teams by rushing yardage alone.
Receiving Statistics: Gunnar Helm and Chris Blair Lead the Way
The receiving performances featured two notable contributors: Tennessee’s Gunnar Helm and Atlanta’s Chris Blair.
Helm caught a touchdown pass, while Blair produced Atlanta’s largest receiving gain and led the Falcons’ listed receivers in total receiving yards.
Tennessee Titans receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Average per Catch | TD | Longest Reception |
| Gunnar Helm | 4 | 48 | 12.0 | 1 | 25 yards |
| Elic Ayomanor | 2 | 47 | 23.5 | 0 | 35 yards |
| James Proche II | 3 | 35 | 11.7 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Xavier Restrepo | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 13 yards |
| Jordan Mims | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 | 11 yards |
| Josh Whyle | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | 11 yards |
| Mason Kinsey | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | 10 yards |
| Bryce Oliver | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Julius Chestnut | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 | 7 yards |
Gunnar Helm: A touchdown-producing target
Helm recorded four receptions for 48 yards and one touchdown. His average was 12.0 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 25 yards.
His combination of reception volume and scoring production made him one of Tennessee’s most notable receiving contributors. Four catches also gave him more opportunities to demonstrate consistency than players who recorded only one reception.
A touchdown reception is especially important in a close game because it converts a passing play into direct points. Helm’s 48 receiving yards also helped Tennessee generate passing production without relying on a single long catch.
Elic Ayomanor: Big gains on limited catches
Ayomanor caught two passes for 47 yards, averaging 23.5 yards per reception. His longest reception was 35 yards.
His average was the highest among Tennessee’s listed receivers with multiple catches. That figure highlights the value of his opportunities, although two receptions are too few to establish a stable long-term average.
Ayomanor’s performance illustrates the difference between volume and explosiveness. Helm led the listed Titans receivers in receptions and total receiving yards by a narrow margin, while Ayomanor generated nearly the same yardage on half as many catches.
James Proche II contributed across receiving and returns
Proche caught three passes for 35 yards and also recorded one punt return for 11 yards. His listed receiving average was 11.7 yards per catch.
Contributions on both offense and special teams can be relevant when assessing a preseason roster. Players who perform multiple roles may offer flexibility, although the box score alone cannot establish how coaches will ultimately evaluate that versatility.
Atlanta Falcons receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Average per Catch | TD | Longest Reception |
| Chris Blair | 3 | 78 | 26.0 | 1 | 52 yards |
| Dylan Drummond | 4 | 22 | 5.5 | 0 | 11 yards |
| Quincy Skinner Jr. | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 0 | 10 yards |
| Nick Nash | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 0 | 10 yards |
| David Sills V | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 | 7 yards |
| Jesse Matthews | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
| DJ Chark | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 | 11 yards |
| Feleipe Franks | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 yards |
| Nathan Carter | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | 5 yards |
| Elijah Dotson | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 yards |
Chris Blair: The biggest receiving threat
Blair caught three passes for 78 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 26.0 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 52 yards.
His performance was one of the clearest examples of explosive passing production in the game. Blair’s 78 receiving yards represented a substantial individual contribution, and the 52-yard reception demonstrated how quickly a single play can move an offense downfield.
His average per reception was also considerably higher than that of the other listed Atlanta receivers. This does not mean every target was equally productive, but it demonstrates how much yardage Blair generated from his three catches.
Dylan Drummond: More receptions, shorter gains
Drummond caught four passes for 22 yards, averaging 5.5 yards per reception. He recorded more catches than Blair but gained considerably fewer total yards.
This comparison demonstrates why reception totals need context. A player can be involved in more completed passes without producing as much yardage. Short receptions can still be valuable, particularly when they convert third downs or keep a drive alive, but the box score does not establish whether those specific situations occurred.
What the receiving numbers tell us
The receiving statistics show two different forms of contribution. Helm combined regular involvement with a touchdown for Tennessee, while Blair produced a smaller number of catches with a much higher average gain for Atlanta.
Ayomanor also generated an explosive receiving average, making Tennessee’s passing production more varied than a single receiver’s totals might suggest.
When evaluating receiving performance, readers should consider:
- Receptions, which measure completed catches.
- Receiving yards, which measure total production.
- Yards per reception, which show average gain.
- Longest reception, which identifies the biggest play.
- Touchdowns, which measure direct scoring impact.
These measures help distinguish steady involvement from high-impact plays.
Defensive Player Stats: Tennessee’s Interception Return Changed the Game
Defense was one of the most important parts of the final result. Tennessee recorded an interception return for a touchdown, while Atlanta also intercepted a pass but did not score on the return.
| Defensive Category | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Total tackles | 68 | 62 |
| Solo tackles | 40 | 41 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 7 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 3 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Interception return yards | 53 | 33 |
Tennessee recorded more total tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits. Atlanta recorded one more solo tackle, while both teams intercepted one pass.
These statistics suggest that Tennessee created more recorded disruption in several defensive categories. However, defensive performance cannot be judged from these totals alone. The quality of each tackle, the down and distance, and the impact of a play on a scoring drive all influence its value.
Kendell Brooks: A 53-yard interception return touchdown
Kendell Brooks recorded an interception and returned it 53 yards for a touchdown. This was the most consequential individual defensive play listed in the supplied statistics.
An interception ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defending team an opportunity to take control of the ball. When the defender returns it for a touchdown, the play creates points immediately rather than requiring the offense to move downfield.
That distinction is especially important in a game decided by three points. Tennessee’s defensive touchdown added a direct scoring contribution that ordinary yardage statistics cannot fully capture.
Brooks’ return also demonstrates why defensive statistics deserve the same attention as quarterback and receiver numbers. A defensive player can influence the outcome through a single turnover even without accumulating a large number of tackles.
Natrone Brooks: Atlanta’s interception
Natrone Brooks recorded Atlanta’s interception and returned it 33 yards without scoring a touchdown.
The return gave Atlanta an opportunity to improve its field position. Interceptions are valuable because they prevent the opposing offense from continuing its drive and give the defense’s team possession of the ball.
However, not all interceptions have the same scoreboard impact. Tennessee converted its interception into a defensive touchdown, while Atlanta’s listed interception return did not produce a return score.
That difference is an important part of understanding the game’s outcome. Both defenses created a takeaway, but Tennessee gained the more direct scoring benefit from its interception.
Tennessee generated more pressure
Tennessee recorded two sacks and five quarterback hits, compared with Atlanta’s one sack and three quarterback hits.
Pressure can influence passing performance in several ways. It may force a quarterback to release the ball earlier than intended, disrupt a planned route combination, reduce time for a receiver to get open, or produce a sack.
The Titans also recorded six tackles for loss, one more than Atlanta’s five. Tackles for loss can disrupt rushing plays and create longer distances to gain on subsequent downs.
The statistics support the conclusion that Tennessee registered more disruption in several categories. They do not, by themselves, prove that every pressure directly caused a missed pass or a stalled drive. That level of analysis would require individual play-by-play information.
Special Teams Statistics: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams provided another useful comparison between the two teams. Both punters recorded six punts, while the kickers produced different combinations of field goals and extra points.
Kicking statistics
| Player | Field Goals | FG Percentage | Longest Field Goal | Extra Points | Points |
| Joey Slye, Tennessee | 1/1 | 100% | 23 yards | 2/3 | 5 |
| Younghoe Koo, Atlanta | 2/2 | 100% | 42 yards | 2/2 | 8 |
Younghoe Koo converted both of his field-goal attempts, including a longest field goal of 42 yards. Joey Slye also converted his only field-goal attempt, a 23-yarder.
Both kickers recorded a 100% field-goal percentage, but their totals came from different numbers of attempts. A percentage based on one successful attempt should not be interpreted as equivalent evidence to a percentage based on two attempts.
Koo recorded eight points from his listed kicking statistics, while Slye recorded five. The supplied figures show that Atlanta obtained more points from its kicker even though Tennessee won the game.
This illustrates an important distinction: a special-teams unit can perform well in one category without determining the overall result. Offensive touchdowns, defensive scoring, turnovers, and field position all contribute to the final outcome.
Punting comparison
| Punter | Punts | Total Yards | Average | Inside the 20 | Longest Punt |
| Johnny Hekker, Tennessee | 6 | 286 | 47.7 | 1 | 53 yards |
| Bradley Pinion, Atlanta | 6 | 291 | 48.5 | 3 | 55 yards |
Pinion averaged 48.5 yards per punt, slightly above Hekker’s 47.7. Atlanta also placed three punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, compared with one for Tennessee.
Punting distance is only one measure of performance. A long punt that travels into the end zone for a touchback may not be as strategically useful as a shorter punt that pins the opponent close to its own goal line.
The supplied statistics list zero touchbacks for both punters. Atlanta’s three punts inside the 20 therefore indicate that its punting unit recorded more of these particular field-position outcomes.
Kick returns
| Team and Player | Returns | Return Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| Chimere Dike, Tennessee | 2 | 43 | 21.5 | 22 yards |
| TJ Sheffield, Tennessee | 1 | 20 | 20.0 | 20 yards |
| Tennessee team total | 3 | 63 | 21.0 | 22 yards |
| Natrone Brooks, Atlanta | 2 | 52 | 26.0 | 29 yards |
Atlanta averaged 26.0 yards per kick return, compared with Tennessee’s team average of 21.0. Natrone Brooks handled both listed Atlanta kick returns and averaged 26 yards per attempt.
Tennessee distributed its three kick returns between Dike and Sheffield. Dike recorded 43 return yards, while Sheffield added 20.
A strong return can give an offense better starting field position, reducing the distance required to reach scoring range. However, the supplied numbers do not establish the exact starting field position of every drive, so they should not be used to calculate unverified scoring advantages.
Punt returns
| Team and Player | Returns | Return Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| James Proche II, Tennessee | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 11 yards |
| Jha’Quan Jackson, Tennessee | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 yards |
| Tennessee team total | 2 | 16 | 8.0 | 11 yards |
| Dylan Drummond, Atlanta | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 14 yards |
| Dee Alford, Atlanta | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 9 yards |
| Atlanta team total | 4 | 28 | 7.0 | 14 yards |
Atlanta recorded more punt-return attempts and more total punt-return yards. Tennessee, however, had the higher average per return, at 8.0 yards compared with Atlanta’s 7.0.
Neither team recorded a punt-return touchdown in the supplied statistics. The returns should therefore be evaluated mainly as field-position contributions rather than direct scoring plays.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers are central to understanding close football games because they can change possession, field position, and scoring opportunities in a single play.
The supplied statistics record one interception for each team. Tennessee’s interception resulted in a 53-yard defensive touchdown, while Atlanta’s interception return covered 33 yards without a touchdown.
The fumble figures also differ:
| Category | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Player listed | TJ Sheffield | Teagan Quitoriano |
| Fumbles | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 0 |
| Fumbles recovered | 0 | 1 |
Tennessee’s figures list one fumble by Sheffield that was lost. Atlanta’s figures list no fumbles and one fumble recovery credited to Quitoriano. A defensive or special-teams recovery can occur without the recovering player having committed a fumble, so these categories should not be treated as identical.
The figures supplied do not explain the precise sequence of the recovery. For a publication-ready statistical record, the fumble entry should be checked against the official play-by-play if the article needs to explain exactly how possession changed.
The key takeaway is that turnovers are not simply a count of mistakes. Their consequences matter. Tennessee’s interception return directly produced a touchdown, making it a particularly valuable defensive contribution in a three-point game.
Team Statistics Comparison
The following table brings together the main offensive and defensive totals.
| Statistical Category | Tennessee | Atlanta |
| Final score | 23 | 20 |
| Passing yards, as supplied | 195 | 174 |
| Rushing yards | 118 | 115 |
| Rushing attempts | 32 | 25 |
| Yards per carry | 3.7 | 4.6 |
| Pass completions | 17 | 21 |
| Pass attempts | 28 | 37 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Passing interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Defensive interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 5 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Total tackles | 68 | 62 |
| Punts | 6 | 6 |
Which team produced more yardage?
Using the supplied passing and rushing totals, Tennessee recorded 313 combined passing and rushing yards, while Atlanta recorded 289. Tennessee therefore had 24 more combined yards according to those figures.
These totals are useful for comparing broad offensive production, but they should not be confused with official total offense if the underlying passing totals or sack adjustments are calculated differently.
The supplied Atlanta receiving statistics also contain an inconsistency with its listed team passing total. For accuracy, the 174-yard passing figure has been retained as provided, and the receiving totals have not been used to recalculate the team comparison.
Why did Tennessee win despite Atlanta’s explosive plays?
Atlanta’s running game averaged more yards per carry, and Chris Blair produced a 52-yard reception. Nathan Carter also recorded a 43-yard rush and a rushing touchdown.
Those were meaningful contributions, but they were only part of the game. Tennessee produced a defensive touchdown, recorded more sacks, and finished with a 23-20 lead.
The distinction between explosive plays and overall game results is important. A long gain creates an opportunity, but a team still needs to convert possessions into points and prevent its opponent from doing the same.
What do the numbers suggest about offensive balance?
Tennessee had a slightly higher rushing-yard total and a higher listed passing-yard total. Atlanta attempted more passes and averaged more yards per rushing attempt.
Neither team dominated every statistical category. Instead, the comparison shows different patterns of production: Tennessee used more rushing attempts, while Atlanta generated greater average output on each rush and created several long gains.
This is a more useful interpretation than claiming one offense was superior in every respect. A close final score and mixed statistical advantages call for a balanced assessment.
How to Read Preseason Match Player Statistics Correctly
Preseason statistics can be valuable, but they need a different interpretation from regular-season numbers. Teams use preseason games to evaluate players, test offensive and defensive combinations, and assess depth across different positions.
1. Consider the number of opportunities
A player who receives 30 carries has a different statistical workload from one who receives four. Total production and average efficiency should be considered together.
For example, Mims led Tennessee with 50 rushing yards on 12 carries, while Jefferson scored a rushing touchdown on four attempts. Both contributed, but their roles and opportunities were different.
2. Separate individual performance from team performance
Blair’s 78 receiving yards were an impressive individual contribution, but his numbers should not be confused with Atlanta’s entire passing output. Similarly, Carter’s 63 rushing yards accounted for a significant portion of the Falcons’ ground production.
Individual statistics explain specific contributions. Team statistics explain how those contributions fit into the overall offensive performance.
3. Account for turnovers and defensive scoring
A defensive touchdown can influence the result more directly than a large number of yards gained. Tennessee’s interception return touchdown is the clearest example from this game.
When comparing two teams, review interceptions, fumbles lost, sacks, and defensive touchdowns alongside offensive production.
4. Avoid making long-term predictions from one game
One preseason performance does not establish a player’s future role or regular-season success. A small number of passes or carries may be influenced by defensive matchups, play design, or the situation in which the player entered the game.
The best approach is to use this game as one piece of evidence and compare it with additional performances when evaluating longer-term trends.
5. Check the source before publishing exact totals
Statistical accuracy is especially important for sports articles. Team totals should reconcile with individual performances wherever the categories are additive.
In this matchup, the supplied Atlanta passing and receiving totals do not fully reconcile. The figures are presented transparently rather than silently adjusting them. Anyone using the data for a detailed statistical database should verify that discrepancy against the official box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons preseason game?
The Tennessee Titans defeated the Atlanta Falcons 23-20 on August 16, 2025. Tennessee built an early lead, and Atlanta’s 17-point third quarter brought the game closer before the Titans held on in the fourth.
2. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Nathan Carter led the listed rushing performances with 63 yards on nine carries for Atlanta. He averaged 7.0 yards per carry, recorded a longest run of 43 yards, and scored one rushing touchdown.
3. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Chris Blair led the listed receiving performances with 78 yards on three receptions for Atlanta. He averaged 26.0 yards per catch, recorded a 52-yard reception, and scored one receiving touchdown.
4. How did the Titans quarterbacks perform?
Brandon Allen completed 11 of 14 passes for 119 yards and one touchdown, with one interception. Cam Ward completed two of seven passes for 42 yards, while Trevor Siemian completed four of seven for 34 yards.
5. What was the most important defensive play?
Kendell Brooks returned an interception 53 yards for a Tennessee touchdown. The play was particularly significant because it generated direct points and helped distinguish the Titans’ defensive contribution from Atlanta’s interception, which produced a 33-yard return without a touchdown.
6. Why are preseason player statistics useful?
Preseason statistics help readers understand individual workloads, passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, turnovers, and defensive activity. However, they should be interpreted cautiously because playing time and competition for roster positions can differ from regular-season conditions.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats show a close preseason contest in which Tennessee defeated Atlanta 23-20 on August 16, 2025. The Titans combined 195 listed passing yards with 118 rushing yards, while Atlanta recorded 174 listed passing yards and 115 rushing yards.
Brandon Allen led Tennessee’s passing effort with 119 yards and a touchdown. Jordan Mims led the Titans in rushing yards, Gunnar Helm contributed a receiving touchdown, and Jermar Jefferson scored on the ground. For Atlanta, Easton Stick handled most of the passing work, Nathan Carter led the rushing attack, and Chris Blair supplied the most productive receiving performance.
Defensively, Kendell Brooks’ 53-yard interception return touchdown was a defining contribution. Tennessee also recorded two sacks and more passes defended than Atlanta. The Falcons responded with explosive offensive plays, including Carter’s 43-yard run and Blair’s 52-yard reception, but finished three points short.
The game demonstrates why player statistics are most useful when read together. Passing efficiency, rushing averages, receiving production, turnovers, and defensive scoring each provide a different part of the story. Examining those categories together offers a more complete understanding of the result than the final score alone.
