Detroit Lions vs Bengals Match Player Stats
The detroit lions vs bengals match player stats from the August 13, 2026 NFL preseason game tell a much more detailed story than the final score alone. Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Detroit Lions 16-14, but the numbers show a competitive game in which Detroit produced more rushing yards while Cincinnati benefited from better passing efficiency, two interceptions, and reliable kicking.
For readers examining the Detroit Lions vs Bengals match player stats, the most useful approach is to look beyond the scoreboard. Cincinnati finished with 159 passing yards and 97 rushing yards, while Detroit recorded 145 passing yards and 129 rushing yards. Both teams scored one passing touchdown, but Detroit’s two interceptions proved costly. Cincinnati also converted all three of its field-goal attempts, giving Evan McPherson a perfect night and providing an important source of points in a low-scoring preseason contest.
The game was played on August 13, 2026, as part of the NFL preseason. Cincinnati finished 1-0, including a 1-0 home record, while Detroit moved to 0-1 and 0-1 on the road.
Detroit Lions vs Bengals Match Player Stats Overview
The final score was Cincinnati 16, Detroit 14. Cincinnati led after every quarter, although Detroit’s fourth-quarter push made the closing stages considerably closer.
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 3 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 16 |
| Detroit Lions | 0 | 6 | 0 | 8 | 14 |
The scoring pattern is important because it explains how Cincinnati protected a narrow advantage. The Bengals scored three points in the first quarter, seven in the second, three in the third, and three in the fourth. Detroit did not score until the second quarter, when it produced six points, and then added eight in the fourth.
Detroit’s fourth-quarter scoring was enough to create a two-point game, but Cincinnati had already built the cushion it needed.
From an offensive perspective, the statistical comparison was surprisingly balanced. Detroit gained more rushing yards, 129 to 97, while Cincinnati gained more passing yards, 159 to 145. Cincinnati also completed more passes, 21 of 36 compared with Detroit’s 17 of 30.
That combination gave Cincinnati an overall edge in offensive consistency even though Detroit’s running game was more productive.
Passing Performance and Quarterback Efficiency
Quarterback statistics are among the most important parts of any preseason evaluation because coaches are often using these games to assess depth, decision-making, and execution rather than simply chasing the final score.
Detroit completed 17 of 30 passes for 145 yards. The Lions produced one touchdown but threw two interceptions. The team was also sacked twice for a combined loss of 17 yards, and its reported passer rating was 55.1.
Cincinnati completed 21 of 36 passes for 159 yards. The Bengals also produced one touchdown, but they avoided interceptions. Their two sacks resulted in the same 17-yard loss suffered by Detroit, while Cincinnati posted a substantially better 80.3 passer rating.
The biggest difference was therefore not total passing yardage. It was efficiency and ball security.
Detroit Quarterbacks
Luke Altmyer was Detroit’s leading passer in the game. He completed 13 of 22 attempts for 130 yards, threw one touchdown, and was intercepted twice.
Joshua Dobbs completed four of eight attempts for 32 yards.
Altmyer’s line shows both positive and negative elements. Completing 13 of 22 passes represents a completion rate of roughly 59.1 percent, and 130 passing yards gave him the majority of Detroit’s aerial production. The touchdown also demonstrated his ability to finish a possession through the air.
However, the two interceptions were a major issue.
In a preseason game, turnovers can be particularly revealing because backup quarterbacks are competing for roster opportunities, playing time, or a stronger position on the depth chart. A quarterback can produce useful yardage and still leave coaches concerned if the ball is repeatedly put in dangerous positions.
Detroit’s combined quarterback numbers also show that the offense struggled to maintain consistent passing efficiency. The Lions averaged 5.4 yards per pass attempt at the team level.
Cincinnati Quarterbacks
Cincinnati used several quarterbacks during the contest.
Josh Johnson completed 10 of 19 attempts for 84 yards. Joe Flacco completed five of eight attempts for 51 yards and one touchdown. Joe Burrow completed five of six attempts for 39 yards, while Sean Clifford completed one of three attempts for two yards.
Flacco’s performance stands out because he generated Cincinnati’s passing touchdown while completing 62.5 percent of his attempts. Burrow was especially efficient on his limited workload, completing five of six throws.
Johnson handled the largest passing workload for Cincinnati, accounting for 84 yards. His 10 completions represented the biggest share of the Bengals’ passing production.
The quarterback rotation also needs to be interpreted in context. Preseason statistics do not necessarily indicate how a regular-season depth chart will function. Different quarterbacks can receive planned workloads, and the purpose of the game may be evaluation rather than maximizing offensive production.
Rushing Statistics Show Detroit’s Advantage
Detroit’s rushing attack was one of the clearest statistical positives for the Lions.
The team finished with 26 rushing attempts for 129 yards, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. Its longest run went for 27 yards, and the Lions did not score a rushing touchdown.
Cincinnati carried the ball 31 times for 97 yards, averaging 3.1 yards per carry. The Bengals also failed to record a rushing touchdown, and their longest run was only 13 yards.
The contrast is significant.
Detroit produced 32 more rushing yards on five fewer attempts. The Lions also averaged 1.9 more yards per carry. This suggests that Detroit was more explosive and efficient when moving the football on the ground.
Jacob Saylors Leads Detroit’s Ground Game
Jacob Saylors was Detroit’s leading rusher with eight carries for 55 yards.
That works out to an impressive 6.9 yards per carry. His production accounted for a substantial portion of Detroit’s 129 rushing yards.
Saylors’ performance is one of the most interesting individual statistical results from the game because his efficiency was considerably higher than Detroit’s overall average. His eight carries were not a huge workload, but he generated 55 yards and helped drive the team’s overall rushing efficiency.
For preseason analysis, this type of performance can be meaningful because reserve running backs are often evaluated on efficiency, vision, contact balance, pass protection, and special teams value. The box score primarily captures the first part of that evaluation, so the 55-yard total should be considered an important statistical indicator rather than a complete assessment of his performance.
Cincinnati’s Rushing Production
Kendall Milton led Cincinnati in rushing with nine attempts for 21 yards.
His average was approximately 2.3 yards per carry, which was below the Bengals’ overall team average of 3.1 yards per attempt.
Cincinnati’s inability to consistently create explosive runs was one of the reasons its offensive production remained relatively modest. The Bengals attempted 31 rushing plays, five more than Detroit, but still finished 32 yards behind the Lions.
That difference illustrates an important football principle: volume does not automatically produce efficiency.
Receiving Production and Target Distribution
Detroit recorded 17 receptions for 162 receiving yards, averaging 9.5 yards per reception. The Lions produced one receiving touchdown, had a longest reception of 24 yards, and received 30 total targets.
Cincinnati finished with 21 receptions for 176 yards, averaging 8.4 yards per reception. The Bengals also had one receiving touchdown, with a longest reception of 20 yards from 33 targets.
Cincinnati therefore produced more receptions, targets, and total receiving yards. Detroit, however, averaged more yards per reception.
That difference is useful when analyzing offensive style. Cincinnati’s passing game relied on a larger volume of completed throws, while Detroit’s completed passes generated slightly more yardage per reception.
Detroit Receiving Leaders
Jacob Saylors recorded three receptions for 28 yards.
Dominic Lovett also caught three passes for 28 yards.
Tarik Black produced one reception for 24 yards and scored one receiving touchdown. His 24-yard reception was Detroit’s longest listed completion among the receiving leaders and contributed directly to the team’s scoring production.
The fact that Saylors appeared among Detroit’s receiving leaders as well as its rushing leader is noteworthy. His contribution was not limited to running the football.
Cincinnati Receiving Leaders
Dohnte Meyers led Cincinnati with three receptions for 29 yards.
Colbie Young recorded two receptions for 28 yards.
Jack Endries caught three passes for 25 yards and scored one receiving touchdown.
The Bengals had 33 targets compared with Detroit’s 30, showing that Cincinnati distributed its passing opportunities across a relatively broad set of players.
For a preseason game, target distribution can be more informative than simply identifying the player with the most receiving yards. Coaches are evaluating which players can consistently create separation, catch the ball, gain yards after the catch, and execute assignments within the offensive structure.
Turnovers Were a Major Difference
Turnovers provide one of the clearest explanations for Cincinnati’s victory.
Detroit threw two interceptions.
Cincinnati threw none.
Both teams recorded four fumbles and recovered four fumbles according to the supplied game statistics, while each team lost one fumble.
The turnover picture therefore gives Cincinnati a clear advantage through interceptions, even though both teams experienced some ball-security problems.
Cincinnati’s defensive interceptions came from Russ Yeast and Jordan Battle.
Russ Yeast recorded one interception and returned it 14 yards.
Jordan Battle recorded one interception and returned it one yard.
Detroit did not record an interception.
This is arguably the most important defensive statistic in the game. Cincinnati’s defense created two additional possession-changing plays through interceptions, while Detroit’s defense did not produce one.
In a game decided by only two points, those possessions mattered.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Detroit recorded 69 total tackles, including 42 solo tackles. The Lions also produced two sacks, five tackles for loss, five passes defended, and seven quarterback hits.
Cincinnati recorded 68 tackles, with 34 solo tackles. The Bengals also registered two sacks, three tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and four quarterback hits.
The defensive numbers show a remarkably close contest.
Both teams produced two sacks. Detroit had more tackles for loss and more quarterback hits, while Cincinnati recorded more passes defended.
The seven quarterback hits from Detroit indicate that the Lions were able to apply pressure even though they did not create an interception.
Cincinnati’s seven passes defended suggest effective coverage plays, particularly when combined with the two interceptions.
Cincinnati’s Interception Production
Russ Yeast and Jordan Battle were responsible for Cincinnati’s two interceptions.
Yeast’s 14-yard return made his turnover more productive from a field-position perspective, while Battle’s interception was returned one yard.
The value of an interception cannot be measured only by return yardage. The immediate benefit is the change of possession. In a close preseason game, eliminating an opposing scoring opportunity can be just as important as generating return yards.
Detroit’s Defensive Pressure
Detroit’s defense recorded two sacks and seven quarterback hits.
Those numbers suggest that the Lions were not completely outmatched defensively. In fact, the team generated more quarterback hits than Cincinnati.
Detroit also recorded five tackles for loss compared with Cincinnati’s three.
This creates an interesting contrast. Cincinnati won the turnover battle through interceptions, while Detroit showed strong pressure-related statistics. The final score demonstrates how a defense can generate disruption without necessarily producing the most valuable type of turnover.
Special Teams Played a Critical Role
Special teams were especially important because the game was decided by only two points.
Detroit kicker Jake Bates converted both of his field-goal attempts. He was perfect at 2-for-2 and made a long field goal of 52 yards. His field goals produced six points.
Cincinnati kicker Evan McPherson was also perfect. He converted all three field-goal attempts, including a long of 56 yards. He also made his only extra-point attempt.
McPherson finished with 10 points.
That four-point difference in kicking production was highly relevant because Cincinnati won 16-14.
Neither team scored a rushing touchdown, so field goals represented a substantial part of the scoring output.
Punting Comparison
Detroit punter Jack Fox recorded five punts for 237 yards, averaging 47.4 yards per punt. He had two punts placed inside the 20-yard line and recorded a long of 56 yards.
Cincinnati punter Ryan Rehkow also punted five times, producing 246 yards at an average of 49.2 yards per punt. He recorded one touchback, three punts inside the 20, and a long of 56 yards.
Rehkow’s average was higher, while his three punts inside the 20 provided Cincinnati with useful field-position control.
Fox’s two inside-the-20 punts also contributed to Detroit’s field-position management.
Kick and Punt Returns
Detroit returned five kickoffs for 131 yards, averaging 26.2 yards per return. The Lions’ longest kickoff return was 28 yards.
Cincinnati returned two kickoffs for 73 yards, averaging 36.5 yards per return. The Bengals’ longest return went for 48 yards.
Cincinnati therefore had the stronger kickoff-return efficiency despite having fewer opportunities.
On punt returns, Detroit recorded three returns for 21 yards, averaging 7.0 yards per return. Cincinnati also had three punt returns but gained 18 yards, averaging 6.0 yards per return.
Detroit’s punt-return average was slightly better.
These special teams differences reinforce the importance of examining several categories rather than relying on one statistic. Cincinnati was more explosive on kickoff returns, while Detroit had the better punt-return average.
What the Overall Numbers Say
The detroit lions vs bengals match player stats reveal a game in which neither team completely dominated.
Detroit had clear advantages in several areas:
- 129 rushing yards compared with Cincinnati’s 97
- 5.0 yards per rushing attempt compared with 3.1
- 162 receiving yards compared with 176 for Cincinnati, while averaging more yards per reception
- Five tackles for loss compared with Cincinnati’s three
- Seven quarterback hits compared with Cincinnati’s four
- Two field goals converted at a 100 percent rate
Cincinnati had important advantages of its own:
- 159 passing yards compared with Detroit’s 145
- 21 completions compared with Detroit’s 17
- Zero interceptions thrown
- Two defensive interceptions
- 176 receiving yards compared with Detroit’s 162
- Three successful field goals
- 10 kicking points compared with Detroit’s six
The final score reflects those differences.
Detroit moved the ball effectively on the ground but had trouble protecting the football through the air. Cincinnati was less efficient running the ball but gained enough through the passing game and avoided the major mistake of throwing an interception.
Why the Two Interceptions Mattered So Much
It is tempting to focus on yardage when evaluating a football game, but turnovers often have greater immediate value.
Detroit’s two interceptions meant two possessions ended without the Lions receiving the opportunity to complete their offensive drives.
Cincinnati’s offense also avoided giving Detroit any interceptions.
In a 16-14 game, the margin is small enough that two turnovers can fundamentally alter the outcome.
This does not mean Detroit’s offense was ineffective in every respect. The Lions rushed for 129 yards and averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Their receiving unit also averaged 9.5 yards per reception.
The issue was that positive plays were offset by costly mistakes.
For Cincinnati, the opposite pattern appeared. The Bengals did not produce a dominant rushing attack, but their passing game avoided interceptions, their defense generated two interceptions, and their kicker converted every field-goal opportunity.
Comparing Offensive Efficiency
A useful way to interpret the statistics is to separate production from efficiency.
Detroit’s rushing attack was more efficient than Cincinnati’s.
Detroit averaged 5.0 yards per carry.
Cincinnati averaged 3.1.
Detroit’s passing attack, however, was less efficient at the team level. The Lions completed 17 of 30 attempts for 145 yards, while Cincinnati completed 21 of 36 for 159 yards.
Cincinnati threw more passes and completed more of them.
The Bengals’ 80.3 passer rating compared with Detroit’s 55.1 rating also demonstrates the difference in overall passing effectiveness.
The interesting point is that Cincinnati did not need dramatically more yardage to win. It needed fewer mistakes.
That is particularly relevant when analyzing close games.
Player Performances That Stand Out
Several individual performances deserve attention when reviewing the detroit lions vs bengals match player stats.
Luke Altmyer
Altmyer completed 13 of 22 passes for 130 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions.
His passing yardage represented the majority of Detroit’s aerial output, but the interceptions were the major negative.
Joshua Dobbs
Dobbs completed four of eight attempts for 32 yards.
His role was smaller, but his statistics contributed to Detroit’s overall quarterback totals.
Jacob Saylors
Saylors produced 55 rushing yards on eight attempts and added three receptions for 28 yards.
His combined rushing and receiving contribution made him one of Detroit’s more productive individual offensive players.
Tarik Black
Black recorded one reception for 24 yards and a touchdown.
His reception was the longest among Detroit’s listed receiving leaders and directly contributed to the scoring column.
Josh Johnson
Johnson led Cincinnati in passing attempts and completions among the Bengals’ listed quarterbacks, finishing 10-for-19 for 84 yards.
His workload made him an important part of Cincinnati’s passing production.
Joe Flacco
Flacco completed five of eight passes for 51 yards and a touchdown.
His touchdown helped Cincinnati maintain its offensive advantage.
Joe Burrow
Burrow completed five of six attempts for 39 yards.
Although his passing workload was limited, the completion rate was excellent.
Kendall Milton
Milton led Cincinnati’s rushing attempts with nine and gained 21 yards.
The production was modest, but he received the largest rushing workload among the listed Bengals players.
Jack Endries
Endries caught three passes for 25 yards and scored a touchdown.
His touchdown was one of Cincinnati’s most important receiving contributions.
Russ Yeast and Jordan Battle
Both defensive backs recorded interceptions.
Yeast returned his interception 14 yards, while Battle returned his one yard.
Their turnovers were among the defining moments of the game.
Jake Bates and Evan McPherson
Both kickers were perfect on field-goal attempts.
Bates went 2-for-2 with a 52-yard long.
McPherson went 3-for-3 with a 56-yard long and also converted his extra point.
McPherson’s three successful field goals helped Cincinnati secure the two-point victory.
Understanding the Preseason Context
Preseason statistics should be interpreted differently from regular-season statistics.
The purpose of a preseason game often includes evaluating players who are competing for roster positions, testing different combinations, assessing young players, and determining which backups can execute within the team’s system.
Because of this, raw statistics do not always tell the entire story.
A player who receives only a small number of snaps may have limited opportunities to accumulate yards. A quarterback may be asked to run a conservative offense. A veteran may play only a short stretch. A running back may have a limited workload because coaches are protecting him for later evaluation.
The August 13 contest therefore provides useful evidence, but it should not be treated as a definitive prediction of regular-season performance.
This is especially important when interpreting the quarterback statistics.
Burrow’s 5-for-6 performance, for example, shows excellent completion efficiency, but the sample is small. Altmyer’s 130 passing yards represent a larger workload, but his two interceptions provide an important counterpoint.
Good analysis requires considering both volume and context.
The Most Important Statistical Takeaways
The game can be reduced to several major findings.
First, Detroit ran the ball better.
The Lions gained 129 rushing yards on 26 attempts, averaging 5.0 yards per carry. Cincinnati managed 97 yards on 31 attempts.
Second, Cincinnati passed the ball more effectively.
The Bengals completed 21 of 36 attempts for 159 yards and posted an 80.3 passer rating.
Third, turnovers favored Cincinnati.
Detroit threw two interceptions, while Cincinnati threw none.
Fourth, both defenses generated pressure.
Each team recorded two sacks, but Detroit registered seven quarterback hits compared with Cincinnati’s four.
Fifth, Cincinnati had the stronger kicking performance.
McPherson converted three field goals and an extra point, while Bates converted two field goals.
Sixth, Detroit’s fourth-quarter comeback attempt fell short.
The Lions scored eight points in the fourth quarter but could not overcome Cincinnati’s earlier advantage.
A Statistical View of the 16-14 Final Score
The final result is a useful example of why football games cannot be explained by total yardage alone.
Detroit had the better rushing numbers.
Cincinnati had the better passing numbers.
Detroit created more tackles for loss and quarterback hits.
Cincinnati created the interceptions.
Both teams kicked accurately.
Both teams recorded two sacks.
Both teams lost one fumble.
The overall statistical profile was therefore relatively close, but the most valuable individual events favored Cincinnati.
That distinction matters.
A team can win the rushing battle and still lose the game. A team can generate more quarterback pressure and still lose. A team can have productive individual performances and still finish on the wrong side of a two-point result.
Cincinnati’s combination of passing efficiency, turnover creation, and perfect field-goal kicking was enough to overcome Detroit’s stronger rushing performance.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
Readers comparing NFL box scores should avoid judging players from one number.
For quarterbacks, look at:
- Completion percentage
- Passing yards
- Touchdowns
- Interceptions
- Sacks
- Passer rating
- Workload
For running backs, consider:
- Carries
- Rushing yards
- Yards per carry
- Longest run
- Touchdowns
- Receiving contribution
For receivers, examine:
- Targets
- Receptions
- Receiving yards
- Yards per reception
- Longest reception
- Touchdowns
For defensive players, the most useful categories include:
- Tackles
- Solo tackles
- Sacks
- Tackles for loss
- Passes defended
- Quarterback hits
- Interceptions
For special teams, field goals, extra points, punting, and return efficiency can all influence the outcome.
Using several categories together produces a much more reliable evaluation than focusing on one highlight statistic.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Detroit Lions and Bengals?
The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Detroit Lions 16-14 in the August 13, 2026 NFL preseason game.
Who was Detroit’s leading rusher?
Jacob Saylors led Detroit with eight rushing attempts for 55 yards, averaging 6.9 yards per carry.
Who led Cincinnati in rushing?
Kendall Milton led Cincinnati with nine rushing attempts for 21 yards.
How did the quarterbacks perform?
Detroit’s Luke Altmyer completed 13 of 22 passes for 130 yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions. Cincinnati used several quarterbacks, with Josh Johnson leading the team with 84 passing yards and Joe Flacco throwing one touchdown.
Which team won the turnover battle?
Cincinnati had the more favorable interception margin. The Bengals intercepted Detroit quarterbacks twice, while Cincinnati threw no interceptions. Both teams lost one fumble.
Who were the leading kickers?
Detroit’s Jake Bates converted both field-goal attempts, including a 52-yard kick. Cincinnati’s Evan McPherson converted all three field-goal attempts, with a long of 56 yards, and also made his extra point.
Conclusion
The detroit lions vs bengals match player stats provide a detailed picture of a tightly contested preseason game that Cincinnati won 16-14.
Detroit’s strongest statistical area was its rushing attack. The Lions produced 129 rushing yards on 26 attempts and averaged 5.0 yards per carry. Jacob Saylors led the way with 55 rushing yards and also contributed 28 receiving yards.
Cincinnati countered with a more productive passing attack. The Bengals completed 21 of 36 passes for 159 yards, compared with Detroit’s 17 completions for 145 yards. Most importantly, Cincinnati avoided interceptions while Detroit threw two.
The defensive numbers were competitive, with both teams recording two sacks. Detroit generated more tackles for loss and quarterback hits, but Cincinnati’s Russ Yeast and Jordan Battle produced the game’s two interceptions.
Special teams also played a decisive role. Jake Bates was perfect on two field goals for Detroit, while Evan McPherson made all three of his field-goal attempts and his extra point for Cincinnati.
Ultimately, the detroit lions vs bengals match player stats show that Cincinnati’s victory was built less on overwhelming offensive production and more on avoiding major mistakes, creating turnovers, and converting scoring opportunities. Detroit demonstrated promising rushing efficiency and defensive pressure, but the two interceptions and Cincinnati’s reliable kicking proved especially important in a game decided by only two points.
For anyone studying this matchup, the most valuable lesson is to read the complete statistical profile rather than relying only on the final score. The box score shows that both teams had areas of strength, but Cincinnati executed more effectively in the situations that had the greatest impact on the result.
