Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The tennessee titans vs cleveland browns match player stats from October 25, 2026, tell the story of a close NFL contest decided by the difference between offensive production and scoring efficiency. According to the supplied ESPN box score, the Cleveland Browns defeated the Tennessee Titans 27-24 in Week 8, overcoming a 14-7 first-quarter deficit. Cleveland generated 308 passing yards through Deshaun Watson, while Tennessee recorded 181 passing yards with Cam Ward at quarterback. Both teams scored three rushing touchdowns, making the ground game a major part of the contest.
The final score shows how closely matched the teams were in one important area: finishing rushing opportunities. Tony Pollard scored three rushing touchdowns for Tennessee, while Quinshon Judkins scored twice and Watson added a rushing touchdown for Cleveland. Yet the Browns produced 127 more passing yards, giving their offense another way to move the ball when the running game alone could not create enough separation.
This breakdown examines the quarterback performances, leading rushers, receiving contributions, defensive numbers, turnovers, special teams, and team statistics that shaped the result. All player figures and game details below are based on the ESPN data supplied for this article. Where the available information does not establish a specific play sequence or individual defensive attribution, the analysis avoids presenting assumptions as confirmed facts.
Game Overview: Browns 27, Titans 24
The October 25 matchup featured two teams with very different records entering the reported result. Cleveland improved to 5-2 overall and 2-2 away, while Tennessee fell to 1-6 overall and 0-4 at home. The three-point margin meant the final outcome was close, even though the two offenses relied on different methods to produce their points.
Browns Logo Transparent #1464552 | Clipart Library
Cleveland Browns
Away team · Record: 5-2
27
Tennessee Titans
Home team · Record: 1-6
24
Game date
October 25, 2026
Competition
NFL, Week 8
Game status
Final
Margin
Cleveland by 3
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| First quarter | 7 | 14 |
| Second quarter | 10 | 0 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth quarter | 10 | 10 |
| Final score | 27 | 24 |
The scoring pattern is particularly revealing. Tennessee scored twice in the opening quarter to establish a seven-point advantage. Cleveland answered with 10 points in the second quarter while holding Tennessee scoreless, turning the early deficit into a three-point halftime lead.
Neither team scored in the third quarter. Both then added 10 points in the fourth, leaving Cleveland ahead by three when the game ended.
These quarter totals establish the broad scoring progression, but they do not identify the exact drive sequence, time remaining on each score, or the play that ultimately determined the result. Those details require the full play-by-play record.
Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats: Quarterback Comparison
The quarterback numbers provide one of the clearest explanations for the difference between the two offenses. Watson produced substantially more passing yardage, while Ward completed a smaller volume of passes for fewer yards per attempt.
| Passing statistic | Deshaun Watson, CLE | Cam Ward, TEN |
| Completions | 25 | 20 |
| Pass attempts | 36 | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 69.4% | 64.5% |
| Passing yards | 308 | 181 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.6 | 5.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 1 |
| Passing yards lost on sacks | 0 | 0 |
| ESPN QBR | 56.1 | 66.5 |
| Passer rating | 84.0 | 66.7 |
Source: Supplied ESPN box-score data. Completion percentages are calculated from completions divided by attempts.
Deshaun Watson’s passing performance
Watson completed 25 of 36 attempts for 308 yards. His 69.4% completion rate and 8.6 yards per attempt indicate that Cleveland gained meaningful yardage through the air, even though Watson did not throw a passing touchdown.
His average of 8.6 yards per attempt was 2.8 yards higher than Ward’s 5.8. Across 36 attempts, that difference reflects a substantial gap in passing efficiency and helped Cleveland generate 127 more passing yards.
Watson also threw one interception. That turnover matters because passing production alone does not tell the complete story of a quarterback’s performance. A useful evaluation considers yardage, scoring, turnovers, down-and-distance situations, and the result of each possession.
Watson’s contribution on the ground was also important. He carried the ball three times for 19 yards and scored a rushing touchdown on a nine-yard run in the fourth quarter. That score gave Cleveland a 24-17 lead.
His combined passing and rushing production was:
- 308 passing yards.
- 19 rushing yards.
- 327 total passing and rushing yards.
- One rushing touchdown.
- One interception.
Watson therefore accounted for 327 yards through passing and rushing, excluding any other statistical categories. His passing touchdown total remained at zero, but his rushing score directly contributed to Cleveland’s 27-point total.
Cam Ward’s performance for Tennessee
Ward completed 20 of 31 passes for 181 yards, averaging 5.8 yards per attempt. He threw no passing touchdowns and recorded one interception.
His completion rate was 64.5%, which was below Watson’s 69.4%. The more significant difference was the yardage generated per attempt. Ward’s 5.8-yard average indicates that Tennessee gained less through each passing attempt than Cleveland did.
However, the final score should not be interpreted as evidence that Ward’s passing performance alone caused Tennessee to lose. The Titans scored three rushing touchdowns, tied the game late in the fourth quarter, and remained within one possession throughout the closing stages.
Ward’s rushing contribution was limited to two carries for five yards. Unlike Watson, he did not add a rushing touchdown.
His listed passing and rushing totals were:
- 181 passing yards.
- Five rushing yards.
- 186 combined passing and rushing yards.
- Zero passing touchdowns.
- One interception.
The gap between the quarterbacks in combined yardage was 141 yards. Cleveland’s stronger passing output was an important statistical advantage, even though both quarterbacks threw an interception.
Why QBR and passer rating tell different stories
Watson recorded an ESPN QBR of 56.1 and a passer rating of 84.0. Ward recorded a QBR of 66.5 and a passer rating of 66.7.
These figures should not be treated as interchangeable measures.
Passer rating uses a defined formula based on completion percentage, passing yards, passing touchdowns, and interceptions. ESPN QBR is a separate metric designed to evaluate quarterback contributions in the context of the game.
The results show why it is important to avoid selecting one number and treating it as a complete performance verdict. Watson had the higher passer rating and much greater passing production, while Ward had the higher reported QBR. Neither figure alone explains every aspect of the contest.
For readers comparing quarterback statistics, the most useful approach is to examine the underlying numbers alongside the scoring result. In this game, Watson’s passing volume and yardage stand out, while Ward’s team relied heavily on its running back to finish scoring opportunities.
Rushing Stats: Tony Pollard and Quinshon Judkins Lead Their Teams
The rushing comparison is one of the most interesting parts of the game because both teams scored three rushing touchdowns.
Tennessee’s Pollard produced the highest individual rushing total, while Cleveland benefited from contributions by Judkins, Dylan Sampson, KC Concepcion, and Watson.
| Rushing statistic | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Team rushing attempts | 29 | 30 |
| Team rushing yards | 183 | 141 |
| Yards per carry | 6.3 | 4.7 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Longest rush | 30 yards | 36 yards |
| Average per attempt advantage | +1.6 yards | Not applicable |
Cleveland gained 42 more rushing yards despite attempting one fewer run. Its 6.3 yards per carry compared with Tennessee’s 4.7, a difference of 1.6 yards per attempt.
That distinction illustrates how the number of attempts and the quality of those attempts can tell different stories. Tennessee used the ground game to score consistently, but Cleveland generated more total rushing yardage from nearly the same workload.
Tony Pollard’s three-touchdown performance
Pollard was Tennessee’s leading rusher and one of the game’s most productive offensive players.
| Tony Pollard statistic | Result |
| Carries | 25 |
| Rushing yards | 129 |
| Yards per carry | 5.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 |
| Longest run | 36 yards |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving yards | 26 |
| Total yards from rushing and receiving | 155 |
Pollard averaged 5.2 yards per carry on 25 attempts. His 129 rushing yards accounted for most of Tennessee’s 141 team rushing yards.
His three touchdowns were especially significant. He opened the scoring with a 36-yard touchdown run and later added a 10-yard touchdown run in the first quarter. Both scores helped Tennessee build its early 14-0 advantage.
Pollard then scored a one-yard rushing touchdown with 58 seconds remaining in the fourth quarter, according to the supplied scoring record. That play tied the game at 24-24.
The three scoring runs demonstrate Pollard’s value in different situations. The 36-yard run provided an explosive gain, the 10-yard run converted an opportunity into another touchdown, and the one-yard run finished a late drive near the goal line.
His contribution extended beyond rushing. Pollard caught three passes for 26 yards, bringing his combined rushing and receiving yardage to 155.
This distinction is important when evaluating running backs. Rushing totals show how well a player performs with the ball on the ground, but receiving production also matters because it can help an offense move the chains without relying exclusively on handoffs.
Quinshon Judkins powers Cleveland’s ground attack
Judkins led Cleveland with 96 rushing yards and two touchdowns. He carried the ball 17 times, averaging 5.6 yards per attempt, with a longest run of 30 yards.
| Quinshon Judkins statistic | Result |
| Carries | 17 |
| Rushing yards | 96 |
| Yards per carry | 5.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 |
| Longest run | 30 yards |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving yards | 8 |
Judkins scored Cleveland’s first touchdown on a five-yard run in the opening quarter. He later scored on a six-yard run in the second quarter, helping Cleveland erase Tennessee’s early lead.
His production combined useful rushing efficiency with direct scoring value. The 96 yards represented more than half of Cleveland’s 183 team rushing yards, while his two touchdowns accounted for two of the team’s three rushing scores.
Judkins also demonstrated that Cleveland did not need to depend on Watson for every scoring opportunity. The quarterback contributed through the air, but Judkins converted two rushing opportunities into touchdowns.
His longest run of 30 yards also gave Cleveland an explosive play that complemented its more conventional short-yardage rushing production.
Dylan Sampson adds depth to Cleveland’s backfield
Sampson rushed six times for 45 yards, averaging 7.5 yards per carry. His longest run covered 19 yards.
Although he did not score a rushing touchdown, his average exceeded the figures recorded by both Pollard and Judkins. His six carries produced an efficient secondary contribution behind Cleveland’s leading rusher.
Sampson also caught three passes for 32 yards. Combining his rushing and receiving totals gives him 77 yards from scrimmage.
That contribution matters because a productive second running option can keep an offense from becoming overly dependent on one player. It can also allow the primary back to share the workload across different situations.
Other rushing contributions
KC Concepcion added three carries for 23 yards, averaging 7.7 yards per carry, with an 18-yard longest run. He also led Cleveland’s receiving group, making his contribution to the offense particularly notable.
Watson’s three carries produced 19 yards and a touchdown. His rushing score was the only Cleveland touchdown in the fourth quarter before the game-winning field goal.
For Tennessee, Michael Carter recorded three carries for seven yards, while Ward added five yards on two attempts.
The main distinction is that Cleveland received rushing production from several players while maintaining a higher team average. Tennessee depended much more heavily on Pollard, who handled 25 of the team’s 30 rushing attempts.
That workload was effective in producing touchdowns, but it also made Pollard the central figure in Tennessee’s ground game.
Receiving Stats: KC Concepcion Leads Cleveland
Cleveland’s receiving production provided a major contrast with Tennessee’s passing output. Concepcion led all listed receivers with 129 yards, while Harold Fannin Jr. added 91 yards.
The Browns finished with 308 receiving yards across 25 receptions. Tennessee recorded 181 yards on 20 receptions.
| Cleveland receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch |
| KC Concepcion | 8 | 10 | 129 | 16.1 | 32 |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 6 | 9 | 91 | 15.2 | 36 |
| Dylan Sampson | 3 | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 22 |
| Denzel Boston | 3 | 3* | 27 | 9.0 | 15 |
| Jerry Jeudy | 4 | 8* | 21 | 5.3 | 8 |
| Quinshon Judkins | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 |
*The supplied player-level target counts for Denzel Boston and Jerry Jeudy conflict with the team total of 35 targets. Their reception and yardage figures are reproduced from the supplied data. Check the original box score before using those target figures in a detailed statistical comparison.
KC Concepcion’s 129-yard outing
Concepcion finished with eight receptions on 10 targets for 129 yards. His 16.1 yards per reception led Cleveland’s listed receiving group, and his longest catch went for 32 yards.
His performance offered Cleveland a productive option beyond short, possession-based passes. Averaging more than 16 yards per catch suggests that his completed receptions generated substantial yardage.
Concepcion also rushed three times for 23 yards. Adding his rushing and receiving totals gives him 152 yards from scrimmage.
That figure highlights his versatility. He contributed as both a receiver and a ball carrier, giving Cleveland multiple ways to use his speed and create yardage.
Concepcion did not score a receiving touchdown, but receiving touchdowns are not the only measure of a receiver’s value. Catch volume, yardage, average gain, and involvement in the offense all help explain a player’s contribution.
Harold Fannin Jr. provides another major target
Fannin caught six passes for 91 yards on nine targets. His 15.2 yards per reception and 36-yard longest catch show that his contribution included meaningful gains rather than only short completions.
His six catches gave Watson another dependable source of receiving production. Together, Concepcion and Fannin accounted for 220 receiving yards, approximately 71.4% of Cleveland’s 308 receiving yards.
That concentration is a useful observation when assessing Cleveland’s passing offense. Two players generated the bulk of the team’s receiving yardage, while the remaining receivers and running backs supplied smaller contributions.
Fannin also recorded a fumble that was lost, according to the supplied data. That turnover is a reminder that productive yardage and ball security must be evaluated together.
Cleveland’s supporting receivers
Sampson recorded three receptions for 32 yards, providing an additional contribution from the backfield. Boston caught three passes for 27 yards, while Jeudy recorded four receptions for 21 yards.
Judkins added one catch for eight yards.
Jeudy’s four receptions produced fewer yards than the leading receivers, but the receiving line alone does not establish how many of his targets were contested, how he was covered, or whether any missed connections resulted from the quarterback, receiver, or defensive play.
Those questions require play-level information. The available statistics support a comparison of production, not a definitive explanation of every incomplete pass.
Tennessee Titans Receiving Stats
Tennessee’s receiving group produced fewer yards overall, but several players contributed to the passing game.
| Tennessee receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Longest catch |
| Carnell Tate | 5 | 7 | 69 | 13.8 | 18 |
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 7 | 44 | 14.7 | 26 |
| Tony Pollard | 3 | 3 | 26 | 8.7 | 16 |
| Gunnar Helm | 3 | 4 | 24 | 8.0 | 14 |
| Michael Carter | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 |
| Wan’Dale Robinson | 4 | 6 | 7 | 1.8 | 7 |
| Daniel Bellinger | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4.0 | 4 |
Carnell Tate leads the Titans in receiving yards
Tate recorded five receptions for 69 yards on seven targets. His 13.8 yards per catch made him Tennessee’s leading receiver by yardage.
Ayomanor followed with three receptions for 44 yards, averaging 14.7 yards per catch. His 26-yard longest reception was the largest listed gain among Tennessee’s receiving group.
Together, Tate and Ayomanor accounted for 113 receiving yards, about 62.4% of Tennessee’s 181 total receiving yards.
Their production shows that Tennessee had receivers capable of generating useful gains. However, the overall passing total remained well below Cleveland’s, which limited the amount of yardage the Titans produced through the air.
Pollard contributes as a receiver, too
Pollard’s three receptions for 26 yards complemented his 129 rushing yards. This combination made him Tennessee’s most productive player in total rushing and receiving yardage.
For a running back, receiving involvement can be valuable in several ways. It can create opportunities against defenders focused on stopping the run, offer the quarterback a shorter passing option, and help maintain possession when a deeper pass is unavailable.
The box score confirms Pollard’s receiving contribution, although it does not establish which specific routes or coverage assignments led to those receptions.
Reading Tennessee’s receiving distribution
Robinson caught four passes for seven yards. That total works out to 1.8 yards per reception, substantially lower than the averages recorded by Tate and Ayomanor.
This difference indicates that Robinson’s completed catches generated relatively little yardage in this game. It does not, by itself, prove that he played poorly or that the targets were incorrectly designed.
A receiver’s performance can depend on route depth, defensive positioning, the timing of the pass, and the distance required to reach the first-down marker. The available data establishes the production but not the full context behind each reception.
The broader takeaway is straightforward: Tennessee spread its completed passes among several players, but no receiver reached 70 yards. Cleveland had two receivers surpass 90 yards, helping its quarterback generate 127 more passing yards than Ward.
Defensive Player and Team Stats
The defensive numbers show that both teams recorded an interception, one sack, and a fumble recovery. Cleveland, however, recorded more tackles for loss and passes defended.
| Defensive statistic | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Total tackles | 67 | 80 |
| Solo tackles | 40 | 36 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 7 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 | 6 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
Cleveland’s defense creates disruption
Cleveland recorded seven tackles for loss compared with Tennessee’s two. A tackle for loss occurs when a defender stops a ball carrier behind the line of scrimmage, excluding qualifying sack situations under the relevant statistical rules.
The five-tackle difference suggests that Cleveland was more effective at producing negative plays in the backfield. These plays can put an offense behind schedule, making it harder to reach a first down or sustain a drive.
Cleveland also recorded five passes defended, while Tennessee recorded two. Passes defended measure plays in which a defender breaks up or otherwise disrupts a pass without necessarily intercepting it.
The Browns’ four quarterback hits were fewer than Tennessee’s six. That is an important distinction: Cleveland’s greater number of tackles for loss and passes defended does not mean it led every defensive category.
Both teams recorded one sack, and neither defense scored a touchdown.
Tennessee records more total tackles
Tennessee finished with 80 total tackles, 13 more than Cleveland’s 67. However, total tackles are influenced by the number of defensive opportunities a team faces and the way tackles are recorded.
A higher tackle count does not automatically indicate a more effective defense. It can reflect a larger number of completed plays by the opposing offense, more defensive snaps, or differences in how plays develop.
Tennessee’s 80 tackles included 36 solo tackles, compared with Cleveland’s 40 solo tackles. This shows that the Titans had the higher overall tackle count but the Browns had four more solo tackles.
A more complete defensive evaluation would combine tackle totals with opponent yards, first downs allowed, third-down stops, turnovers, pressure, and scoring prevention.
Individual defensive highlights
The supplied statistics identify Denzel Ward as Cleveland’s interception leader, with one interception and zero return yards. Cor’Dale Flott recorded Tennessee’s interception, returning it for 14 yards without a touchdown.
Ward’s interception was highlighted in the official Browns recap as a play that helped shift momentum. The defensive figures also show that Cleveland recorded one sack and seven tackles for loss.
The available defensive table does not reliably attach every individual tackle, sack, or quarterback hit to a named player. Therefore, it would be misleading to assign those team totals to specific defenders without checking the original player-level box score.
For a player-stat article, this distinction matters. Team defensive statistics can be reported with confidence from the supplied figures, while individual defensive rankings should be supported by verified player-level data.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers were another important part of the matchup. Each team threw one interception and lost one fumble, according to the supplied statistics.
| Turnover category | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 1 |
| Team fumbles | 1 | 1 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 1 |
| Fumbles recovered by opponent | 1 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Cleveland’s interception and fumble
Watson threw one interception, while Harold Fannin Jr. was listed with one fumble lost. The Browns therefore had two recorded offensive turnovers across the interception and fumble categories.
Those mistakes did not prevent Cleveland from scoring 27 points, but they are relevant when assessing how efficiently the offense converted its opportunities.
An offense can generate considerable yardage and still expose itself to risk when it gives the ball away. Turnovers end possessions and can provide the opposing team with a chance to score without having to gain the ball through a long offensive drive.
The available figures do not establish the exact field position or immediate scoring consequence of each turnover. Any claim that a specific mistake directly produced a particular Tennessee score would require confirmation from the play-by-play record.
Tennessee’s turnovers
Ward threw one interception, and Carnell Tate was listed with one lost fumble. Like Cleveland, Tennessee recorded two offensive turnovers in the supplied data.
The Titans nevertheless scored three rushing touchdowns and tied the game at 24 in the fourth quarter. Their offensive production was sufficient to keep the contest close, but the turnovers remain a relevant part of the overall statistical picture.
Both teams finished with one interception and one lost fumble, so the raw turnover count does not reveal a difference in total giveaways.
This is an important point when comparing close games. A team does not necessarily win the turnover battle simply because its defense records an interception. The team’s own giveaways must also be included in the calculation.
Special Teams Stats: Kickers, Punters, and Returners
Special teams contributed to the final score and field position. Cleveland’s Andre Szmyt made two field goals and all three extra-point attempts, while Tennessee’s Joey Slye converted one field goal and all three extra points.
Kicking comparison
| Kicking statistic | Andre Szmyt, CLE | Joey Slye, TEN |
| Field goals made | 2 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 3 | 1 |
| Field goal accuracy | 66.7% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 32 yards | 29 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Total points | 9 | 6 |
Szmyt’s two successful field goals produced six points, while his three extra points added another three. His nine total points included the decisive 32-yard field goal at the end of the fourth quarter.
Slye made his only field goal attempt, a 29-yard kick, and converted all three extra points for six total points.
Although Slye had the higher field goal percentage, Szmyt attempted more field goals and scored three more points. This is why percentages should be interpreted alongside the number and difficulty of attempts.
The Browns’ victory was ultimately secured by Szmyt’s late field goal, making his performance a central part of the result.
Punting statistics
| Punting statistic | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Punts | 3 | 3 |
| Total punting yards | 144 | 136 |
| Average punt | 48.0 yards | 45.3 yards |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Longest punt | 59 yards | 50 yards |
Corey Bojorquez averaged 48.0 yards on three punts for Cleveland. Tennessee’s team punting average was 45.3 yards on three punts.
Cleveland had the longer punt at 59 yards, while Tennessee placed two punts inside the 20-yard line. Those figures represent different elements of punting performance: distance measures how far the ball travels, while a punt inside the 20 can help pin the opposing offense closer to its own end zone.
A higher average punt is not automatically better in every situation. The placement of the kick, the return opportunity, and the field position before the punt all affect its practical value.
The supplied data also lists Joey Slye with one punt for 42 yards in addition to Tommy Townsend’s two punts for 94 yards. Together, those three punts account for Tennessee’s team total of 136 yards.
Kick returns and punt returns
| Return statistic | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Kick returns | 5 | 2 |
| Kick return yards | 117 | 61 |
| Average kick return | 23.4 yards | 30.5 yards |
| Longest kick return | 29 yards | 37 yards |
| Kick return touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Punt returns | 0 | 1 |
| Punt return yards | 0 | 14 |
Jaleel McLaughlin led Cleveland’s kick-return group with five returns for 117 yards, averaging 23.4 yards per return. Tennessee’s Chimere Dike had two kick returns for 61 yards, an average of 30.5 yards.
Tennessee’s return average was higher, but Cleveland gained 56 more total kick-return yards because it recorded three additional returns.
Dike also returned one punt for 14 yards. Cleveland had no punt returns listed.
Neither team scored a return touchdown, so the return game did not add a direct touchdown to either team’s total. Its potential value came through field position and the ability to start offensive possessions with a useful amount of space already gained.
How Cleveland Won the Game
The final score was decided by three points, but the statistical comparison identifies several advantages that helped Cleveland finish ahead.
1. Cleveland generated more passing yards
The Browns recorded 308 passing yards compared with Tennessee’s 181. That 127-yard difference was the largest gap in the main offensive categories.
Watson averaged 8.6 yards per attempt, while Ward averaged 5.8. Cleveland therefore gained more through its passing game, even though neither quarterback threw a touchdown pass.
This advantage gave Cleveland a more productive passing attack without requiring the team to score through the air.
2. Cleveland was more productive per rushing attempt
The Browns rushed for 183 yards on 29 attempts. Tennessee gained 141 yards on 30 attempts.
Both teams scored three rushing touchdowns, but Cleveland averaged 6.3 yards per carry compared with Tennessee’s 4.7.
The numbers show that Cleveland combined a more productive passing game with a higher average rushing gain. Tennessee was still effective at finishing rushing opportunities, especially through Pollard, but it generated less overall yardage.
3. The Browns recovered from a difficult start
Tennessee scored two rushing touchdowns in the first quarter to take a 14-0 lead. Cleveland responded with a touchdown of its own before the quarter ended.
The Browns then scored 10 points in the second quarter while keeping Tennessee scoreless. That changed the game from a seven-point deficit after the opening quarter to a three-point Cleveland lead at halftime.
The quarter-by-quarter figures show a clear adjustment in the scoring pattern. They do not, on their own, establish which specific coaching decision or tactical adjustment caused the change.
4. Cleveland produced more defensive disruption in the backfield
The Browns recorded seven tackles for loss, compared with two for Tennessee. They also recorded five passes defended, compared with two.
These numbers indicate that Cleveland disrupted more plays behind the line of scrimmage and recorded more pass breakups.
Tennessee still produced six quarterback hits, two more than Cleveland, and both teams finished with one sack. The defensive comparison was therefore not one-sided across every category.
5. Szmyt finished the scoring with a field goal
Tennessee tied the game at 24 with a one-yard Pollard touchdown run late in the fourth quarter. Cleveland then regained the lead with Szmyt’s 32-yard field goal at the end of the game.
This sequence provides the clearest explanation of the final three-point margin. The Browns converted their final scoring opportunity into three points, while Tennessee’s last recorded touchdown had brought the game level.
For the exact sequence and timing of the final possession, the original game record is available through the ESPN box score.
What the Numbers Reveal About Both Teams
The player statistics provide several useful lessons for anyone evaluating the performance of these offenses and defenses.
Cleveland: A balanced attack with a clear passing advantage
Cleveland did not depend on a single offensive method. The team gained 308 passing yards and 183 rushing yards, combining for 491 yards of total offense according to the supplied team totals.
Concepcion and Fannin led the receiving group, while Judkins supplied 96 rushing yards and two touchdowns. Watson added a rushing touchdown of his own.
That distribution made Cleveland’s production less dependent on any one type of play. The offense could gain yardage through the air and still score repeatedly on the ground.
The main limitation was ball security. Watson threw an interception, and the Browns also lost a fumble. The team overcame those mistakes, but they remain areas worth examining in any full offensive evaluation.
Tennessee: A powerful rushing performance but less passing production
Tennessee gained 141 rushing yards, and Pollard was responsible for 129 of them. His three rushing touchdowns were central to the Titans’ scoring output.
However, the passing offense produced 181 yards, and Ward did not throw a touchdown. The receiving group had contributions from Tate, Ayomanor, and Pollard, but no listed receiver exceeded 69 yards.
The Titans were capable of producing scoring drives, yet their overall yardage remained below Cleveland’s. They also recorded two offensive turnovers.
The numbers suggest that Tennessee’s rushing attack was its most productive route to points in this matchup, while its passing game produced less yardage than Cleveland’s.
Why total yards should not be confused with game control
Cleveland’s 491 total yards compared with Tennessee’s 322, a difference of 169 yards. That is a substantial statistical advantage, but total yards alone do not explain every part of the outcome.
Scoring depends on more than yardage. Teams must finish drives, protect the ball, convert important downs, and avoid giving away scoring opportunities.
Tennessee scored three rushing touchdowns and tied the game late despite producing fewer total yards. Cleveland won because it combined its yardage advantage with enough scoring production to finish three points ahead.
A complete review would also examine first downs, third-down efficiency, fourth-down attempts, penalties, time of possession, and starting field position. Those measures help explain how efficiently teams used their possessions rather than simply how far they moved the ball.
Key Team Statistics at a Glance
The following comparison summarizes the most important offensive and possession figures from the supplied game data.
| Team statistic | Cleveland Browns | Tennessee Titans |
| Total net yards | 491 | 322 |
| Passing yards | 308 | 181 |
| Rushing yards | 183 | 141 |
| Total offensive plays | 66 | 62 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| First downs | 26 | 18 |
| Third-down conversions | 5 of 11 | 5 of 13 |
| Fourth-down conversions | 0 of 0 | 1 of 2 |
| Time of possession | 31:14 | 28:46 |
| Penalties | 8 | 5 |
| Penalty yards | 48 | 35 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
The additional team figures show that Cleveland recorded 26 first downs compared with Tennessee’s 18. The Browns also converted five of 11 third-down attempts, while the Titans converted five of 13.
Both teams converted five third downs, but Cleveland needed fewer attempts to reach that total. The fourth-down figures also differed: Tennessee converted one of two attempts, while Cleveland did not attempt a fourth-down conversion.
Cleveland held possession for 31 minutes and 14 seconds, compared with Tennessee’s 28 minutes and 46 seconds. That difference of 2 minutes and 28 seconds gave the Browns a modest advantage in possession time.
The figures reinforce the broader pattern: Cleveland generated more yardage, recorded more first downs, and sustained a slightly greater share of the game’s possession. Tennessee remained competitive through its rushing touchdowns, but Cleveland ultimately converted its offensive production into the winning score.
Tennessee Titans vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats: Important Data Notes
A useful statistical article should distinguish between confirmed box-score figures and conclusions that require additional evidence.
The tennessee titans vs cleveland browns match player stats presented here are based on the supplied ESPN data, supplemented by the reported scoring sequence and team totals.
Several points deserve attention when using the numbers:
- Passing and receiving totals: Cleveland’s 308 passing yards match its 308 receiving yards in the supplied team statistics. Tennessee’s corresponding totals are both 181 yards.
- Rushing totals: Cleveland recorded 183 rushing yards on 29 carries, while Tennessee recorded 141 yards on 30 carries.
- Turnovers: Both teams are listed with one interception thrown and one lost fumble.
- Defensive figures: Team totals are available, but not every individual defensive statistic can be reliably attributed to a named player from the supplied extraction.
- Receiving targets: Some Cleveland player-level target counts do not reconcile with the team total. These figures should be checked against the original player-level box score before being reused in advanced analysis.
There is also a difference between a statistic and its interpretation. For example, Cleveland’s 169-yard advantage in total offense is a confirmed numerical comparison. Saying that a particular coaching adjustment caused that advantage would require additional evidence from the game film, play-by-play record, or reliable postgame reporting.
Maintaining that distinction helps readers understand the match without overstating what the numbers prove.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Browns vs Titans game on October 25, 2026?
The Cleveland Browns defeated the Tennessee Titans 27-24. Cleveland overcame an early 14-7 first-quarter scoring disadvantage and secured the win with a late field goal.
2. How many passing yards did Deshaun Watson record against Tennessee?
Watson completed 25 of 36 passes for 308 yards, averaging 8.6 yards per attempt. He threw no passing touchdowns and recorded one interception, while also rushing for 19 yards and a touchdown.
3. How many touchdowns did Tony Pollard score?
Pollard scored three rushing touchdowns and finished with 129 rushing yards on 25 carries. He averaged 5.2 yards per carry and added three receptions for 26 receiving yards.
4. Who led Cleveland in receiving yards?
KC Concepcion led the Browns with 129 receiving yards on eight receptions and 10 targets. Harold Fannin Jr. ranked second with 91 yards on six receptions.
5. How many rushing touchdowns did each team score?
Both teams scored three rushing touchdowns. Pollard scored all three of Tennessee’s rushing touchdowns, while Quinshon Judkins scored twice for Cleveland and Deshaun Watson added the Browns’ third rushing touchdown.
6. Which team had more total offensive yards?
Cleveland recorded 491 total net yards, while Tennessee recorded 322. The Browns gained 308 passing yards and 183 rushing yards, compared with Tennessee’s 181 passing yards and 141 rushing yards.
Conclusion
The tennessee titans vs cleveland browns match player stats reveal how Cleveland turned a difficult opening quarter into a 27-24 victory. The Browns finished with 491 total net yards, including 308 passing yards and 183 rushing yards. Tennessee recorded 322 total net yards and relied heavily on Tony Pollard, who rushed for 129 yards and three touchdowns.
Deshaun Watson completed 25 passes for 308 yards and added a rushing touchdown, while Quinshon Judkins contributed 96 rushing yards and two scores. KC Concepcion led Cleveland’s receivers with 129 yards, and Harold Fannin Jr. added another 91. For Tennessee, Pollard’s scoring performance and the contributions of Carnell Tate and Elic Ayomanor kept the offense competitive.
The defensive comparison showed Cleveland producing more tackles for loss and passes defended, while Tennessee recorded more total tackles and quarterback hits. Both teams committed an interception and lost a fumble, making ball security a shared concern.
Ultimately, the difference came from Cleveland’s greater offensive yardage and its ability to finish the final possession with a successful field goal. The result demonstrates why rushing touchdowns, passing efficiency, defensive disruption, turnovers, and special teams must be considered together when evaluating an NFL game.
