Tennessee Titans vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats
The Tennessee Titans vs Denver Broncos match player stats reveal how Denver secured a 20-12 victory over Tennessee on September 7, 2025. The Week 1 NFL regular-season matchup featured an impressive defensive performance from the Broncos, a promising rushing display from rookie RJ Harvey, and a difficult afternoon for Titans quarterback Cam Ward. Although Tennessee’s defense recorded two interceptions, Denver’s ability to pressure the quarterback and control the ground game proved decisive.
The Broncos entered the fourth quarter with a narrow 13-12 advantage before adding another touchdown to establish an eight-point winning margin. Their defense recorded six sacks, limited Tennessee to 112 passing yards, and consistently disrupted the Titans’ offensive rhythm. Meanwhile, Joey Slye kept Tennessee competitive by converting all four field-goal attempts.
This detailed game breakdown examines the final score, quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive statistics, special teams, and individual player performances. It also explains which numbers had the greatest influence on the result and what they tell us about both teams.
Tennessee Titans vs Denver Broncos Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The September 7 meeting was an important opening-week test for both franchises. Denver played at home, while Tennessee traveled to face a defense known for its ability to create pressure and challenge opposing quarterbacks.
The Broncos eventually won 20-12, starting their regular season with a victory. Tennessee, meanwhile, began its campaign with a disappointing road defeat despite several encouraging defensive contributions.
Match Information
| Match Detail | Information |
| Match | Denver Broncos vs Tennessee Titans |
| Sport | American Football |
| Competition | NFL Regular Season |
| Week | Week 1 |
| Date | September 7, 2025 |
| Venue Status | Denver Home Game |
| Final Score | Broncos 20-12 Titans |
| Winning Team | Denver Broncos |
| Losing Team | Tennessee Titans |
| Broncos Record | 1-0 |
| Titans Record | 0-1 |
| Game Status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401772832 |
Denver’s victory came through a combination of defensive pressure, productive rushing, and timely offensive execution. Tennessee had opportunities to change the momentum, particularly through its interceptions, but could not convert enough possessions into touchdowns.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score
The scoring pattern shows how closely contested the game remained before Denver created separation in the final period.
| Quarter | Tennessee Titans | Denver Broncos |
| First Quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Second Quarter | 6 | 7 |
| Third Quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Fourth Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Final Score | 12 | 20 |
Both teams scored three points in the opening quarter. Tennessee added six points in the second period, while Denver responded with seven.
The third quarter remained balanced, with each team adding another field goal. However, the Titans failed to score in the fourth quarter.
Denver’s final touchdown created the difference that Tennessee could not overcome.
How the Broncos Secured the 20-12 Victory
Denver’s victory was not built around overwhelming passing production. Instead, the Broncos used their running game and defensive pressure to control important moments.
Three factors stand out when examining the final statistics.
First, Denver controlled the ground game. The Broncos produced 151 rushing yards compared with Tennessee’s 71. That 80-yard difference gave Denver an advantage in offensive balance and helped it sustain possessions.
Second, the defensive front consistently pressured Cam Ward. Tennessee’s rookie quarterback was sacked six times and lost 50 yards on those plays. This significantly reduced the effectiveness of the Titans’ passing attack.
Third, Denver converted its offensive opportunities into touchdowns. The Broncos scored two touchdowns and two field goals, while Tennessee relied entirely on four successful field goals.
The difference between touchdowns and field goals ultimately decided the contest.
Quarterback Statistics: Cam Ward vs Bo Nix
Quarterback performance was one of the most important parts of this matchup. Both teams experienced difficulties throwing the football, but their individual circumstances were different.
Cam Ward struggled against Denver’s pass rush, while Bo Nix had to overcome two interceptions to help his team secure the victory.
Cam Ward’s Passing Performance
Tennessee Titans quarterback
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 12 |
| Attempts | 28 |
| Completion Percentage | 42.9% |
| Passing Yards | 112 |
| Yards per Attempt | 4.0 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 |
| Times Sacked | 6 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 50 |
| QBR | 10.3 |
| Passer Rating | 54.5 |
Ward completed 12 of his 28 passing attempts, finishing with 112 yards and no passing touchdowns.
His completion percentage was approximately 42.9%, which illustrates how difficult it was for Tennessee to establish a consistent passing rhythm.
The six sacks were especially damaging.
Denver’s defenders repeatedly reached Ward before he could develop plays downfield. Those sacks resulted in 50 lost yards, creating additional pressure on an offense that was already struggling to move the chains.
Ward did avoid throwing an interception, which was a positive element of his performance. However, avoiding turnovers was not enough to compensate for the limited passing production.
His 10.3 QBR and 54.5 passer rating reflected a difficult opening performance.
What the numbers tell us: Ward’s biggest problem was not simply the absence of touchdowns. Tennessee needed better protection, more successful early-down plays, and easier passing situations to help its quarterback operate effectively.
Bo Nix’s Passing Performance
Denver Broncos quarterback
| Statistic | Bo Nix |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 40 |
| Completion Percentage | 62.5% |
| Passing Yards | 176 |
| Yards per Attempt | 4.4 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 2 |
| Times Sacked | 1 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 10 |
| QBR | 15.6 |
| Passer Rating | 60.0 |
Nix completed 25 of his 40 attempts, producing 176 passing yards and one touchdown.
His completion percentage of 62.5% was considerably better than Ward’s. He also took only one sack, giving Denver a much more stable passing platform.
However, his two interceptions were important setbacks.
Tennessee’s defense managed to create opportunities by taking the football away from Denver. Those turnovers prevented Nix from having a completely comfortable performance.
Despite those mistakes, Denver maintained enough offensive balance to win.
The Broncos did not need their quarterback to produce an exceptional passing performance because their running backs and defense provided substantial support.
Quarterback Comparison
| Category | Cam Ward | Bo Nix |
| Completions | 12 | 25 |
| Attempts | 28 | 40 |
| Completion Rate | 42.9% | 62.5% |
| Passing Yards | 112 | 176 |
| Yards per Attempt | 4.0 | 4.4 |
| Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 2 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 | 1 |
| Passer Rating | 54.5 | 60.0 |
Nix finished with 64 more passing yards and six fewer sacks.
Ward protected the football from interceptions, but Denver’s pressure limited his ability to lead productive drives.
The comparison demonstrates why quarterback statistics should always be examined alongside offensive-line performance and rushing production.
Rushing Statistics: Denver Dominated on the Ground
The ground game was one of the clearest differences between the two teams.
Denver recorded 151 rushing yards on 30 attempts. Tennessee finished with 71 yards on 21 attempts.
The Broncos therefore produced 80 more rushing yards, giving them an important advantage in offensive efficiency.
Tennessee Titans Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest |
| Tony Pollard | 18 | 60 | 3.3 | 0 | 9 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 | 9 |
| Julius Chestnut | 2 | 2 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Team Total | 21 | 71 | 3.4 | 0 | 9 |
Tony Pollard’s Performance
Tony Pollard was Tennessee’s leading rusher.
He carried the football 18 times for 60 yards, averaging 3.3 yards per attempt.
Although Pollard handled most of the Titans’ rushing workload, he struggled to generate explosive runs. His longest attempt covered only nine yards.
His workload demonstrated Tennessee’s willingness to use the running game, but the results were not strong enough to consistently put the offense in favorable situations.
Pollard also contributed as a receiver, catching one pass for 29 yards.
That reception was particularly important because it provided a significant portion of his total receiving production.
Chimere Dike and Julius Chestnut
Chimere Dike recorded one rushing attempt for nine yards.
Although his workload was limited, he produced the same number of rushing yards as Pollard’s longest run.
Julius Chestnut added two carries for two yards.
Neither player received enough opportunities to become a major part of Tennessee’s offensive production.
Denver Broncos Rushing Leaders
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest |
| RJ Harvey | 6 | 70 | 11.7 | 0 | 50 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 16 | 63 | 3.9 | 1 | 19 |
| Bo Nix | 8 | 18 | 2.3 | 0 | 11 |
| Team Total | 30 | 151 | 5.0 | 1 | 50 |
RJ Harvey’s Breakout Rushing Contribution
RJ Harvey delivered one of the most exciting individual performances of the game.
He finished with 70 rushing yards on just six carries, averaging an impressive 11.7 yards per attempt.
His longest run covered 50 yards.
That single run represented a major contribution to Denver’s offensive production and demonstrated his ability to generate explosive plays.
Harvey’s performance was particularly notable because he gained more rushing yards than any other player despite receiving fewer than half as many carries as J.K. Dobbins.
He did not score a rushing touchdown, but his explosive contribution helped Denver establish a productive ground attack.
J.K. Dobbins Provides Consistency
J.K. Dobbins carried the ball 16 times for 63 yards.
He averaged 3.9 yards per carry and recorded one rushing touchdown.
While Harvey supplied the explosive runs, Dobbins handled the heavier workload.
This combination gave Denver two different rushing threats.
Harvey could change field position with a single carry, while Dobbins provided a more consistent option for moving the offense forward.
Dobbins also caught two passes for five yards, adding a small receiving contribution.
Bo Nix’s Rushing Contribution
Nix added eight carries for 18 yards.
His longest run was 11 yards, and he averaged 2.3 yards per attempt.
Although his rushing production was modest, his mobility provided Denver with another option when passing plays broke down.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Statistic | Titans | Broncos |
| Total Carries | 21 | 30 |
| Rushing Yards | 71 | 151 |
| Yards Per Carry | 3.4 | 5.0 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Longest Run | 9 | 50 |
Denver averaged 1.6 more yards per rushing attempt.
That difference may appear small, but across 30 carries it represents a meaningful advantage in offensive production.
The Broncos also had the advantage of a 50-yard explosive run, something Tennessee never matched.
Receiving Statistics: Courtland Sutton Leads Denver
The passing game produced relatively modest yardage for both teams.
However, Denver distributed its receiving opportunities more effectively and found the end zone through Courtland Sutton.
Tennessee’s receiving unit struggled to create enough production to overcome its quarterback’s difficult afternoon.
Tennessee Titans Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Calvin Ridley | 4 | 8 | 27 | 6.8 | 0 |
| Tony Pollard | 1 | 1 | 29 | 29.0 | 0 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 3 | 4 | 19 | 6.3 | 0 |
| Gunnar Helm | 1 | 2 | 16 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Elic Ayomanor | 2 | 7 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 |
| Bryce Oliver | 1 | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Tyler Lockett | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Chimere Dike | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 12 | 25 | 112 | 9.3 | 0 |
Calvin Ridley’s Contribution
Calvin Ridley was Tennessee’s leading receiver by receptions.
He caught four passes on eight targets for 27 yards.
His longest reception was 13 yards.
Although he secured more catches than any other Titans receiver, the overall yardage remained limited.
Ridley was an important part of Tennessee’s passing plan, but the Broncos prevented him from producing the type of explosive performance that could have changed the game’s direction.
Tony Pollard’s Receiving Impact
Pollard caught one pass for 29 yards.
That reception made him Tennessee’s leading receiver in total receiving yards.
His 29-yard gain was particularly valuable because it provided an explosive contribution from a player primarily used in the rushing game.
Pollard’s combined production was:
- 60 rushing yards.
- 29 receiving yards.
- 89 total yards from scrimmage.
- 19 combined rushing and receiving touches.
He was arguably Tennessee’s most productive offensive player when rushing and receiving contributions are considered together.
Chig Okonkwo’s Role
Chig Okonkwo caught three passes for 19 yards on four targets.
His longest reception covered 14 yards.
He provided a reliable short-area option, but the offense struggled to create larger gains through the middle of the field.
Gunnar Helm and Elic Ayomanor
Gunnar Helm recorded one reception for 16 yards.
Elic Ayomanor caught two passes for 13 yards on seven targets.
Both players contributed to Tennessee’s passing attack, but neither produced a touchdown.
Denver Broncos Receiving Statistics
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Courtland Sutton | 6 | 9 | 61 | 10.2 | 1 |
| Troy Franklin | 4 | 6 | 44 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Evan Engram | 3 | 4 | 21 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Tyler Badie | 2 | 6 | 16 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 3 | 4 | 12 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Lucas Krull | 1 | 2 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Adam Trautman | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
| J.K. Dobbins | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Adam Prentice | 1 | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Trent Sherfield | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| RJ Harvey | 1 | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 25 | 37 | 176 | 7.0 | 1 |
Courtland Sutton Leads the Broncos
Courtland Sutton was Denver’s leading receiver.
He caught six passes for 61 yards on nine targets and scored one touchdown.
His longest reception covered 22 yards.
Sutton’s performance gave Nix a dependable target throughout the game.
His six receptions also represented the highest individual reception total among Denver’s listed receivers.
Most importantly, his touchdown provided the Broncos with a scoring opportunity that Tennessee could not match through its passing game.
Troy Franklin’s Contribution
Troy Franklin caught four passes for 44 yards on six targets.
He averaged 11 yards per reception, making him one of Denver’s more productive receiving options.
His longest catch covered 18 yards.
Franklin’s contribution helped Denver spread the ball beyond its primary receiving target.
Evan Engram’s Role
Evan Engram finished with three receptions for 21 yards on four targets.
His longest reception was ten yards.
Engram offered another passing option for Nix, particularly on shorter routes where Denver needed to keep the offense moving.
Marvin Mims Jr. and Other Receivers
Marvin Mims Jr. caught three passes for 12 yards.
Tyler Badie added two receptions for 16 yards, while J.K. Dobbins recorded two catches for five yards.
The remaining receiving contributions came from Lucas Krull, Adam Trautman, Adam Prentice, Trent Sherfield, and RJ Harvey.
The distribution demonstrates that Denver used multiple offensive players rather than depending exclusively on Sutton.
Receiving Comparison
| Statistic | Titans | Broncos |
| Receptions | 12 | 25 |
| Targets | 25 | 37 |
| Receiving Yards | 112 | 176 |
| Average Per Reception | 9.3 | 7.0 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 29 | 22 |
Denver recorded more receptions and receiving yards.
Tennessee had a higher average gain per reception, largely because of Pollard’s 29-yard catch.
However, Denver’s greater volume and touchdown production gave it the overall advantage.
Defensive Player Statistics: Denver’s Pass Rush Changes Everything
The defensive performance was arguably the biggest reason Denver won.
The Broncos recorded six sacks compared with Tennessee’s one.
This five-sack difference had a major effect on how the two offenses operated.
Denver’s defenders consistently challenged Ward, while Tennessee’s defense had to deal with a more balanced offensive attack.
Tennessee Titans Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Other Contributions |
| Jarvis Brownlee Jr. | 9 | 6 | 0 | 2 TFL, 1 PD |
| Cody Barton | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1 TFL |
| Cedric Gray | 8 | 5 | 0 | None listed |
| Roger McCreary | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 PD, 1 INT |
| Amani Hooker | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 PD |
| Sebastian Joseph-Day | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 fumble recovery |
| Jeffery Simmons | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 TFL, 4 QB hits |
| Darrell Baker Jr. | 4 | 3 | 0 | None listed |
| L’Jarius Sneed | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 PD |
| Quandre Diggs | 3 | 2 | 0 | None listed |
PD means passes defended. TFL means tackles for loss.
Jarvis Brownlee Jr.
Jarvis Brownlee Jr. recorded nine total tackles and six solo tackles.
He also registered two tackles for loss and one pass defended.
His performance demonstrated an active role in Tennessee’s defensive effort.
Although the Titans struggled to contain Denver’s running attack, Brownlee contributed consistently in tackling situations.
Cody Barton
Cody Barton also recorded nine tackles.
His five solo tackles made him one of Tennessee’s most active defensive players.
He added one tackle for loss.
His involvement showed that Tennessee’s defensive unit was working to limit Denver’s offensive progress, even though the overall result favored the Broncos.
Jeffery Simmons
Jeffery Simmons was Tennessee’s leading pass-rushing contributor.
He recorded:
- Four total tackles.
- Three solo tackles.
- One sack.
- One tackle for loss.
- Four quarterback hits.
His four quarterback hits were particularly important because they showed that Tennessee did generate pressure at certain moments.
However, the Titans could not match Denver’s overall sack production.
Roger McCreary’s Interception
Roger McCreary recorded one interception.
He also registered five total tackles and four solo tackles.
His interception was one of Tennessee’s most important defensive contributions.
Despite the turnover, the Titans could not generate enough offensive points to take control of the game.
Denver Broncos Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Sacks | Other Contributions |
| Talanoa Hufanga | 11 | 7 | 0 | None listed |
| Riley Moss | 7 | 5 | 0 | 2 PD |
| Brandon Jones | 7 | 2 | 0 | None listed |
| Alex Singleton | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 PD |
| Justin Strnad | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 TFL, 2 QB hits |
| Nik Bonitto | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 TFL, 3 QB hits |
| Jonah Elliss | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 TFL, 1 QB hit |
| Jonathon Cooper | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 TFL, 1 QB hit |
| Ja’Quan McMillian | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 TFL, 1 QB hit |
Talanoa Hufanga Leads Denver in Tackles
Talanoa Hufanga recorded 11 total tackles and seven solo tackles.
He led the listed Denver defenders in total tackles.
His activity across the defensive unit helped Denver maintain control against Tennessee’s rushing and passing attempts.
Riley Moss and Alex Singleton
Riley Moss recorded seven tackles, including five solo tackles.
He also contributed two passes defended.
Alex Singleton added six total tackles and one pass defended.
Their performances helped limit Tennessee’s opportunities to generate consistent passing production.
Nik Bonitto’s Pass-Rushing Impact
Nik Bonitto recorded three tackles and one sack.
He also registered two tackles for loss and three quarterback hits.
His ability to pressure Ward contributed to the defensive performance that defined the game.
Bonitto was not alone, however. Denver received sack production from several defenders, making its pass rush difficult to manage.
Justin Strnad and Jonah Elliss
Justin Strnad recorded five tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits.
Jonah Elliss added three tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
Both players contributed to the pressure that prevented Tennessee from establishing a comfortable passing rhythm.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Titans | Broncos |
| Total Tackles | 75 | 62 |
| Solo Tackles | 46 | 36 |
| Sacks | 1 | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 | 7 |
| Passes Defended | 5 | 4 |
| Quarterback Hits | 5 | 14 |
| Defensive Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Denver recorded nine more quarterback hits and five more sacks.
Tennessee recorded more total tackles, but that number should not automatically be interpreted as a better defensive performance.
Teams can accumulate tackles because they spend more time defending or because opponents complete more plays.
The more meaningful indicators here are sacks, quarterback hits, tackles for loss, and the final scoring result.
Denver won those important defensive comparisons.
Turnovers and Interceptions: Tennessee Creates Opportunities
Turnovers played an interesting role in the game.
Denver committed two interceptions? No. The supplied statistics show that Denver threw two interceptions, while Tennessee recorded two defensive interceptions. These are the same turnovers viewed from opposite sides of the ball.
Bo Nix threw two interceptions, and Tennessee’s Xavier Woods and Roger McCreary each recorded one.
However, the Broncos also lost two fumbles, according to the supplied fumble statistics.
The Titans lost two fumbles as well.
Tennessee Titans Interceptions
| Player | Interceptions | Return Yards |
| Xavier Woods | 1 | 16 |
| Roger McCreary | 1 | 0 |
| Team Total | 2 | 16 |
Xavier Woods recorded an interception return of 16 yards.
Roger McCreary also intercepted a pass, giving Tennessee two interceptions in total.
These plays demonstrated that the Titans’ secondary could create problems for Denver’s passing offense.
Denver Broncos Interceptions
| Statistic | Result |
| Team Interceptions | 0 |
| Interception Return Yards | 0 |
| Defensive Touchdowns | 0 |
Denver did not record an interception.
However, the Broncos created pressure through their defensive front rather than relying on takeaways.
Fumble Statistics
| Team | Total Fumbles | Fumbles Lost |
| Tennessee Titans | 2 | 2 |
| Denver Broncos | 2 | 2 |
Both teams lost two fumbles according to the supplied data.
The turnover figures highlight an important point: winning the interception battle does not guarantee victory.
Tennessee secured two interceptions but still lost because Denver produced more rushing yards, generated greater pressure, and scored more touchdowns.
Special Teams Statistics: Joey Slye Keeps Tennessee Competitive
Special teams played a significant role in the final score.
Tennessee kicker Joey Slye converted all four of his field-goal attempts, accounting for all 12 Titans points.
Denver’s Wil Lutz also made every field-goal attempt and converted both extra points.
Kicking Statistics
| Statistic | Joey Slye | Wil Lutz |
| Field Goals Made | 4 | 2 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 4 | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 50 yards | 39 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 0 | 2 |
| Total Points | 12 | 8 |
Joey Slye’s Perfect Field-Goal Performance
Slye converted four field goals from four attempts.
His longest successful kick covered 50 yards.
He was responsible for all of Tennessee’s scoring, which demonstrates how important his performance was in keeping the game competitive.
Without his perfect field-goal record, the final score could have been considerably more one-sided.
However, Tennessee’s inability to convert its offensive possessions into touchdowns remained a major problem.
Wil Lutz’s Contribution
Wil Lutz converted two field goals and two extra points.
He finished with eight kicking points.
His contribution was smaller than Slye’s in total points, but Denver’s touchdown production meant that the Broncos did not need as many field goals.
Punting Statistics
| Statistic | Johnny Hekker | Jeremy Crawshaw |
| Punts | 8 | 3 |
| Total Punt Yards | 395 | 144 |
| Average Distance | 49.4 | 48.0 |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Inside 20 | 2 | 3 |
| Longest Punt | 65 yards | 53 yards |
Johnny Hekker punted eight times for 395 yards.
His average punt distance was 49.4 yards, and his longest punt traveled 65 yards.
Jeremy Crawshaw recorded three punts for 144 yards, averaging 48 yards.
An interesting detail is that Crawshaw placed all three of his punts inside the 20-yard line.
Hekker had the higher average distance, but Crawshaw’s inside-the-20 performance showed useful field-position control.
Kick Return Statistics
| Statistic | Chimere Dike | Marvin Mims Jr. |
| Returns | 4 | 3 |
| Return Yards | 144 | 82 |
| Average | 36.0 | 27.3 |
| Longest Return | 71 | 31 |
| Return Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Chimere Dike was particularly effective as a kick returner.
He produced 144 yards on four returns, averaging 36 yards per return.
His longest return covered 71 yards.
That explosive return ability gave Tennessee opportunities to begin offensive possessions with favorable field position.
Marvin Mims Jr. recorded 82 kick-return yards on three attempts.
He averaged 27.3 yards per return, with a longest return of 31 yards.
Punt Return Statistics
| Statistic | Chimere Dike | Marvin Mims Jr. |
| Punt Returns | 1 | 4 |
| Return Yards | 12 | 47 |
| Average | 12.0 | 11.8 |
| Longest Return | 12 | 18 |
| Return Touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Dike recorded one punt return for 12 yards.
Mims handled four punt returns for 47 yards.
Both players contributed to their teams’ field-position efforts.
Five Major Statistical Factors That Decided the Game
The final result becomes easier to understand when the most important statistical differences are examined together.
1. Denver’s Six Sacks Limited Tennessee’s Passing Game
The most significant defensive statistic was Denver’s six sacks.
Tennessee’s offensive line struggled to protect Ward.
The resulting pressure affected the quarterback’s timing and reduced the number of opportunities available for successful downfield passes.
Ward finished with only 112 passing yards.
Denver’s defense did not need to intercept him because it could disrupt the offense through consistent pressure.
2. RJ Harvey Produced the Game’s Biggest Rushing Play
Harvey’s 50-yard run was an important offensive moment.
He finished with 70 rushing yards on six carries.
His average of 11.7 yards per carry gave Denver an explosive dimension that Tennessee did not have.
Pollard was productive for the Titans, but his 60 rushing yards came on 18 carries.
The difference in efficiency was substantial.
3. Tennessee Failed to Score a Touchdown
The Titans scored 12 points through four successful field goals.
That perfect kicking performance kept the score respectable, but it also highlighted the offense’s inability to finish drives.
Denver scored two touchdowns.
When one team repeatedly settles for three points and the other scores seven, the difference becomes difficult to overcome.
4. Courtland Sutton Delivered a Touchdown
Sutton led Denver with 61 receiving yards and one touchdown.
His performance helped provide a passing-game scoring threat.
Tennessee’s leading receiver by yardage was Pollard, with 29 yards.
That difference shows how limited the Titans’ passing production was.
5. Denver Had the Better Overall Offensive Balance
Denver recorded:
- 176 passing yards.
- 151 rushing yards.
- 327 combined passing and rushing yards.
Tennessee recorded:
- 112 passing yards.
- 71 rushing yards.
- 183 combined passing and rushing yards.
Denver therefore produced 144 more combined passing and rushing yards.
This difference helps explain why the Broncos controlled the game despite throwing two interceptions.
These combined figures use the supplied passing and rushing statistics. They are not a substitute for official total offensive yardage, which can account for sacks and other adjustments.
Complete Team Statistical Comparison
The following table brings together the most important offensive and defensive numbers.
| Statistic | Tennessee Titans | Denver Broncos |
| Final Score | 12 | 20 |
| Passing Yards | 112 | 176 |
| Rushing Yards | 71 | 151 |
| Combined Passing and Rushing Yards | 183 | 327 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Total Touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions Recorded | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks Recorded | 1 | 6 |
| Total Tackles | 75 | 62 |
| Fumbles Lost | 2 | 2 |
| Field Goals Made | 4 | 2 |
| Kick Return Yards | 144 | 82 |
| Punt Return Yards | 12 | 47 |
Denver’s biggest advantages came in rushing yards, passing yards, sacks, and touchdowns.
Tennessee performed well in several individual defensive categories and special-teams situations, but those contributions were not enough to overcome its offensive limitations.
Individual Players Who Made the Biggest Impact
Several players deserve special attention because their performances directly influenced the game’s outcome.
RJ Harvey: Denver’s Explosive Rushing Threat
Harvey’s 70 rushing yards on six carries made him one of the most efficient offensive players.
His 50-yard run was particularly important.
He provided the type of explosive play that can change field position and force an opposing defense to adjust.
J.K. Dobbins: Denver’s Touchdown Contributor
Dobbins handled 16 carries for 63 yards and scored one rushing touchdown.
His consistent workload complemented Harvey’s explosive running style.
Courtland Sutton: The Leading Receiver
Sutton finished with six receptions for 61 yards and one touchdown.
He gave Denver a dependable receiving target and helped the offense produce a passing touchdown.
Cam Ward: A Difficult First Game
Ward completed 12 of 28 attempts for 112 yards.
Although he did not throw an interception, six sacks significantly affected his performance.
The statistics show how much protection and offensive support matter for a young quarterback.
Tony Pollard: Tennessee’s Most Productive Offensive Player
Pollard produced 60 rushing yards and 29 receiving yards.
His 89 combined yards from scrimmage made him Tennessee’s most productive offensive player by that measure.
Joey Slye: Perfect Kicking Accuracy
Slye converted all four field goals.
His 12 points accounted for the entire Titans scoring total.
Without his performance, the final margin would likely have been larger.
Jeffery Simmons: Tennessee’s Defensive Leader Up Front
Simmons recorded one sack and four quarterback hits.
He was one of the few Titans defenders who consistently disrupted the opposing quarterback.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The statistics provide several useful lessons about the performance of both teams.
Denver’s Defense Can Influence Games Without Interceptions
The Broncos did not record an interception, but their six sacks and 14 quarterback hits demonstrate how pressure can disrupt an opposing offense.
Defensive success is not limited to takeaways.
Pressure, tackles for loss, and forcing difficult passing situations can be equally important.
Tennessee Needs Better Offensive Protection
Ward’s six sacks were a major concern.
A quarterback cannot consistently execute an offensive game plan when defenders reach him before his receivers have time to develop their routes.
Better pass protection would give Tennessee more opportunities to establish its passing game.
Denver’s Rushing Attack Offered Multiple Threats
Harvey and Dobbins provided different strengths.
Harvey delivered explosive yardage, while Dobbins handled more carries and scored a touchdown.
That combination helped Denver remain productive even when its passing game experienced difficulties.
Tennessee’s Special Teams Were a Positive
Dike’s kick returns and Slye’s field-goal accuracy were encouraging elements of Tennessee’s performance.
Both players provided valuable contributions.
However, special teams cannot consistently compensate for an offense that fails to score touchdowns.
How to Read NFL Match Player Statistics Correctly
Understanding a box score requires more than identifying which player recorded the highest number of yards.
Several statistics should be examined together to understand the actual performance.
Passing Efficiency
Passing yards show how much production a quarterback generated through the air.
However, completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks provide additional context.
For example, Nix threw for more yards than Ward, but his two interceptions show that his performance was not mistake-free.
Rushing Efficiency
Rushing yards per attempt help explain how effectively a player used his carries.
Harvey averaged 11.7 yards per carry, compared with Pollard’s 3.3.
That difference indicates that Harvey generated more yardage from each rushing opportunity.
However, carry volume also matters. Dobbins’ 16 carries show why he remained important even though his average was lower.
Receiving Production
Receptions, targets, receiving yards, and touchdowns should be considered together.
A player with six catches for 61 yards may have a different role from someone with one catch for 29 yards.
The first player provides more consistent involvement, while the second may create value through a single explosive play.
Defensive Production
Tackles are useful for understanding involvement, but they do not tell the entire story.
Sacks, tackles for loss, quarterback hits, interceptions, and passes defended provide a clearer picture of how defenders affected offensive plays.
Denver’s six sacks were more important to the result than simply comparing the teams’ total tackle counts.
Special Teams
Kicking, punting, and returning statistics often receive less attention than passing and rushing numbers.
However, this game showed their importance.
Slye’s four field goals kept Tennessee within reach, while Dike’s 71-yard kick return created an opportunity for a favorable starting position.
Data Accuracy and Statistical Context
The figures in this article are based on the ESPN game information supplied for the September 7, 2025 matchup.
A few details require careful interpretation.
First, team passing and rushing totals should not be confused with official net offensive yardage. Sack losses and other adjustments can produce differences between combined player statistics and team totals.
Second, the supplied defensive player figures contain some apparent inconsistencies with team-level totals. The displayed values have been preserved rather than silently corrected.
Third, the two interceptions credited to Tennessee correspond to the two interceptions thrown by Denver. They should not be counted as separate additional turnovers.
These distinctions matter because accurate sports reporting depends on presenting the available numbers clearly rather than making unsupported corrections.
For official game information, readers can consult the ESPN box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Tennessee Titans vs Denver Broncos game on September 7, 2025?
The Denver Broncos defeated the Tennessee Titans 20-12 in their September 7, 2025 NFL regular-season matchup. Denver improved to 1-0, while Tennessee started its season at 0-1.
2. How many passing yards did Cam Ward record against Denver?
Cam Ward completed 12 of 28 passes for 112 yards. He recorded no passing touchdowns or interceptions and was sacked six times for 50 yards.
3. How many passing yards did Bo Nix record against Tennessee?
Bo Nix completed 25 of 40 attempts for 176 passing yards and one touchdown. He also threw two interceptions and was sacked once.
4. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
RJ Harvey led all players with 70 rushing yards on six carries. He averaged 11.7 yards per attempt and recorded the game’s longest run of 50 yards.
5. Who was the leading receiver for the Broncos?
Courtland Sutton led Denver with six receptions for 61 yards and one receiving touchdown. His longest reception was 22 yards.
6. How many sacks did the Denver Broncos record?
Denver recorded six sacks against Tennessee. The Broncos also registered 14 quarterback hits, while the Titans recorded one sack and five quarterback hits.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans vs Denver Broncos matchup demonstrated how defensive pressure, rushing efficiency, and touchdown production can determine an NFL result. Denver secured a 20-12 victory by combining a strong defensive performance with an effective ground game.
RJ Harvey led the rushing attack with 70 yards, J.K. Dobbins added 63 yards and a touchdown, and Courtland Sutton led the receiving unit with 61 yards and one score. Bo Nix finished with 176 passing yards despite throwing two interceptions.
For Tennessee, Tony Pollard delivered 89 combined rushing and receiving yards, Joey Slye converted all four field-goal attempts, and the defense recorded two interceptions. However, Cam Ward’s difficult afternoon, six sacks allowed, and the absence of offensive touchdowns prevented the Titans from completing a comeback.
Ultimately, Denver’s 151 rushing yards, six sacks, and two touchdowns proved more valuable than Tennessee’s defensive takeaways and perfect field-goal accuracy. The numbers make one thing clear: the Broncos won because they controlled the most important areas of the game.
