Tennessee Titans vs 49ers Match Player Stats

The Tennessee Titans vs 49ers Match Player Stats from the 2026 NFL preseason opener tell a more interesting story than the 19-13 final score alone. Tennessee defeated San Francisco at Levi’s Stadium, but the game featured very different offensive approaches. The Titans produced 167 rushing yards and scored their only touchdown on the ground, while the 49ers gained 238 passing yards but struggled to turn that production into touchdowns. Tennessee led 13-7 at halftime and maintained control through the second half, eventually winning 19-13.

The game was played on August 13, 2026, despite some listings that may show August 14 because of publication or time-zone differences. The official NFL schedule lists Tennessee’s preseason opener as a 19-13 victory over San Francisco on Thursday, August 13.

For readers searching for Tennessee Titans vs 49ers Match Player Stats, the key numbers are straightforward. Tennessee finished with 279 total yards, including 167 rushing yards, while San Francisco generated 322 total yards, including 238 through the air. The difference was efficiency in the areas that mattered most. Tennessee’s ground game created enough scoring opportunities to support four field goals and one rushing touchdown, while San Francisco’s passing volume produced yards without a passing touchdown.

Table of Contents

Tennessee Titans vs 49ers Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The final score was:

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Tennessee Titans	7	6	3	3	19
San Francisco 49ers	0	7	3	3	13

The scoring pattern is important because Tennessee established an early advantage and never gave it back.

The Titans scored seven points in the opening quarter, added six in the second, and then produced a field goal in each of the final two quarters. San Francisco answered with a touchdown in the second quarter and field goals in the third and fourth quarters, but the 49ers never produced another touchdown after halftime.

That created a game in which San Francisco remained within one possession for much of the contest but could not produce the explosive scoring sequence needed to overtake Tennessee.

The overall statistical profile looked like this:

Category	Tennessee	San Francisco
Final Score	19	13
Total Yards	279	322
Passing Yards	112	238
Rushing Yards	167	84
Passing Attempts	26	44
Completions	12	28
Rushing Attempts	31	28
Rushing Average	5.4	3.0
Touchdowns	1	1
Passing TDs	0	0
Rushing TDs	1	1
Interceptions	0	0
Fumbles-Lost	3-0	1-0

One of the clearest takeaways is the contrast between total yards and scoring.

San Francisco actually gained 43 more total yards than Tennessee. However, Tennessee controlled the rushing battle by 83 yards and averaged 5.4 yards per rushing attempt compared with San Francisco’s 3.0.

That is a useful reminder that raw yardage does not always explain a preseason result. Field position, rushing efficiency, scoring opportunities, and finishing drives can matter more than total offensive volume.

How Tennessee Won the Game

Tennessee’s offensive formula was relatively simple.

The Titans did not need a large passing performance. Instead, they ran the football effectively, protected the ball well enough to avoid losing a possession, and allowed their kicking game to produce points.

Tennessee recorded:

31 rushing attempts
167 rushing yards
5.4 yards per carry
One rushing touchdown
112 net passing yards
Zero interceptions
Zero lost fumbles
Four made field goals

The four field goals from Joey Slye were especially important. He converted attempts from 39, 55, 53, and 58 yards, giving Tennessee 12 points from field goals alone.

That meant Tennessee did not need a highly productive passing attack to reach 19 points.

The Titans also controlled the line of scrimmage on several important possessions. Their opening scoring drive covered 90 yards over 11 plays and ended with Tony Pollard’s five-yard rushing touchdown. That drive immediately established the physical identity Tennessee wanted from the game.

The second quarter was more competitive, but Tennessee still added two field goals before halftime to take a 13-7 lead.

After the break, the Titans did not need to chase points aggressively. Instead, they continued to use the run and relied on Slye’s leg to extend the advantage.

Cam Ward’s Passing Numbers

Cam Ward started at quarterback for Tennessee and finished with:

Statistic	Cam Ward
Completions	5
Attempts	12
Completion Rate	41.7%
Passing Yards	57
Touchdowns	0
Interceptions	0
Passer Rating	56.6

The numbers were not particularly productive, but they also need to be viewed within the context of a preseason opener.

Ward was involved in Tennessee’s opening possessions before giving way to the other quarterbacks. He completed five of 12 passes for 57 yards and did not throw an interception.

The most notable issue was efficiency. Tennessee’s passing game failed to consistently sustain the same level of production that its running game generated.

Ward also had difficulty connecting with Carnell Tate, who was targeted three times without recording a reception.

That does not automatically make the performance a major concern. Preseason games are often used to evaluate timing, protection, route development, and decision-making rather than simply maximize production. Still, the passing statistics provide a clear area for Tennessee to monitor as the preseason continued.

Will Levis, Mitchell Trubisky and Hendon Hooker

Tennessee used four quarterbacks during the game.

Will Levis completed three of eight passes for 42 yards. Mitchell Trubisky went two for three for 23 yards, while Hendon Hooker completed two of three passes for 17 yards.

The combined Tennessee quarterback numbers were:

12 completions
26 attempts
112 passing yards
Zero touchdowns
Zero interceptions

The most important point is that the quarterback group avoided turnovers through the air.

Although the passing attack was not efficient, Tennessee did not give San Francisco an interception that could have changed field position or produced an immediate scoring opportunity.

The distribution of snaps also matters when evaluating individual quarterback statistics. A preseason opener is not the same environment as a regular-season game in which one quarterback may play almost every offensive snap.

That makes it risky to interpret a small sample as a definitive statement about a player’s long-term performance.

Tony Pollard’s Touchdown and Rushing Impact

Tony Pollard supplied Tennessee’s only offensive touchdown.

He carried the ball four times for 22 yards and scored on a five-yard touchdown run.

Pollard’s average was 5.5 yards per carry, and his touchdown capped Tennessee’s opening scoring drive.

While his overall rushing total was modest, his role was significant because Tennessee’s first-team offense established the tone early. The opening drive moved 90 yards and showed that the Titans could create offense without relying heavily on the passing game.

The broader rushing performance was even more notable.

Julius Chestnut Leads Tennessee in Rushing

Julius Chestnut was Tennessee’s leading rusher by yardage.

He finished with:

5 carries
47 yards
9.4 yards per carry
34-yard long run
0 touchdowns

The 34-yard run was the biggest individual rushing play listed in the game statistics.

Chestnut’s average of 9.4 yards per carry also illustrates how effectively Tennessee’s backs created chunk plays when opportunities opened.

Tyjae Spears added four carries for 35 yards, averaging 8.8 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 25 yards.

Nick Singleton contributed eight carries for 31 yards, while Mason Carter added two carries for 10 yards.

Will Levis also contributed 22 rushing yards on four attempts.

The combined production shows why Tennessee finished with 167 rushing yards despite gaining only 112 net passing yards.

Wan’Dale Robinson’s Receiving Contribution

Wan’Dale Robinson recorded two receptions for 19 yards on four targets.

His longest reception went for 12 yards.

Robinson’s production was not large in terms of total yardage, but his involvement illustrates one of the challenges Tennessee faced in the passing game. The Titans spread opportunities across several players rather than funneling the offense through one dominant receiver.

Other Tennessee receivers also contributed:

Calvin Ridley: 1 reception, 18 yards
Chimere Dike: 1 reception, 17 yards
David Martin-Robinson: 1 reception, 17 yards
Gunnar Helm: 1 reception, 16 yards
Xavier Restrepo: 2 receptions, 16 yards
Mason Carter: 1 reception, 13 yards
Bryce Oliver: 1 reception, 12 yards
Colton Jackson: 1 reception, 7 yards
Tyjae Spears: 1 reception, 4 yards

Tennessee therefore relied on distribution rather than a single high-volume receiver.

That is especially relevant in preseason football because coaching staffs are evaluating depth. A wide receiver who gets only a few targets can still provide useful information through route quality, separation, blocking, alignment versatility, and special-teams work.

Joey Slye Was a Major Part of Tennessee’s Scoring

Joey Slye deserves special attention when examining the final score.

He finished four for four on field-goal attempts and added one extra point.

His field goals came from:

39 yards
55 yards
53 yards
58 yards

That gave him 13 total points.

Three of his four field goals came from at least 50 yards, which is a substantial contribution in a game decided by six points.

The Titans therefore scored 19 points despite producing only one touchdown. Slye’s accuracy allowed Tennessee to convert drives that did not reach the end zone into meaningful points.

This is one of the clearest examples of why a box score should be read as a collection of connected events rather than isolated statistics.

Tennessee did not dominate the passing game. It did not dominate total yardage. But it combined rushing efficiency, turnover avoidance and reliable kicking to build a winning score.

San Francisco 49ers Passing Statistics

San Francisco generated significantly more passing production than Tennessee.

The team completed 28 of 44 passes for 238 yards.

There were no passing touchdowns and no interceptions.

The 49ers quarterback distribution was:

Quarterback	Completions	Attempts	Yards	TD	INT
Adrian Martinez	16	30	159	0	0
Kurtis Rourke	12	14	101	0	0
Total	28	44	260 gross	0	0

When evaluating the team passing total, the official net passing figure was 238 yards after sack yardage.

Adrian Martinez handled the larger workload and completed 16 of 30 attempts for 159 yards.

Kurtis Rourke was especially efficient, completing 12 of 14 passes for 101 yards during his appearance.

Rourke’s 85.7 percent completion rate was one of the most efficient individual passing performances of the game.

His performance was particularly notable because this was his first professional game action after missing the previous season while recovering from a knee injury.

Kurtis Rourke and De’Zhaun Stribling Connected Well

Kurtis Rourke’s connection with De’Zhaun Stribling was one of San Francisco’s clearest offensive positives.

Stribling caught seven passes for 63 yards on eight targets.

His longest reception covered 32 yards.

The seven receptions tied him for a significant role within the San Francisco passing attack, and the 32-yard play provided the kind of explosive gain that can change field position quickly.

Rourke completed 12 passes overall, with Stribling accounting for seven of them.

That means Stribling caught more than half of Rourke’s completions during the quarterback’s appearance.

The performance also showed how San Francisco could create production through timing and route execution even without its primary offensive stars on the field.

Stribling’s seven catches were the most receptions by a 49ers player in the game, while his 63 receiving yards led the team.

Jordan Watkins Also Produced

Jordan Watkins finished with six receptions for 59 yards on 10 targets.

His longest reception covered 20 yards.

Watkins and Stribling combined for:

13 receptions
122 yards
18 targets

That represents a substantial share of San Francisco’s passing production.

The combination of Stribling and Watkins gave the 49ers two reliable receiving outlets, particularly during the portions of the game in which the quarterbacks were operating with rhythm.

San Francisco also received 35 receiving yards from Khalil Herbert, who caught two passes.

Trenton Irwin added two receptions for 25 yards, while Malik Turner recorded two catches for 23 yards.

The passing production was therefore spread across several players, but Stribling was the clearest individual standout.

Sincere McCormick Led San Francisco in Rushing

Sincere McCormick led all 49ers rushers with:

10 carries
38 yards
3.8 yards per carry
7-yard long
0 touchdowns

His 10 carries were the highest rushing workload on either team.

However, the overall San Francisco rushing attack struggled to match Tennessee’s efficiency.

The 49ers finished with 84 rushing yards on 28 attempts, an average of exactly 3.0 yards per carry.

That difference was one of the most important statistical contrasts in the game.

Tennessee averaged 5.4 yards per rushing attempt.

San Francisco averaged 3.0.

The difference was 2.4 yards per attempt.

Across 28 San Francisco rushing attempts, that gap represents roughly 67 yards of theoretical rushing production compared with Tennessee’s efficiency rate.

That is not a direct measure of expected scoring because each play has different circumstances, but it illustrates how much more efficiently Tennessee moved the ball on the ground.

Patrick Taylor Jr. Scored San Francisco’s Touchdown

Patrick Taylor Jr. scored the 49ers’ only touchdown.

He finished with five rushing attempts for minus-five yards overall, but one of those carries was a one-yard touchdown run.

That is an unusual box-score line because the touchdown was significant while his total rushing yardage was negative.

It happened because the touchdown came on a short goal-line run, while other rushing attempts resulted in losses.

This is another example of why rushing yards alone do not tell the entire story of a player’s contribution.

Taylor also caught two passes for 13 yards.

His touchdown was the only San Francisco offensive touchdown of the game.

The 49ers Had More Total Yardage but Less Scoring

One of the most interesting aspects of the box score is that San Francisco gained 322 total yards compared with Tennessee’s 279.

Yet the 49ers lost by six points.

The difference can be explained by several factors.

1. Tennessee’s Rushing Efficiency

Tennessee averaged 5.4 yards per rushing attempt.

San Francisco averaged 3.0.

The Titans therefore produced more consistent rushing gains.

2. Tennessee’s Field-Goal Production

Joey Slye converted four field goals, including three from beyond 50 yards.

Those kicks accounted for 12 points.

3. San Francisco’s Lack of Passing Touchdowns

The 49ers completed 28 passes for 238 net passing yards but did not throw a touchdown.

Passing volume created yardage, but not enough touchdowns.

4. Red-Zone Execution

Tennessee finished one for one in the red zone.

San Francisco finished one for two.

That difference mattered because each team had only one offensive touchdown.

5. Turnover Avoidance

Neither team threw an interception, and neither team lost a fumble.

Tennessee had three fumbles but recovered all three.

San Francisco had one fumble and recovered it.

The turnover column therefore did not give either side a major advantage.

Defensive Statistics Tell Another Part of the Story

Tennessee’s defense recorded 88 total tackles, including 43 solo tackles.

The Titans also recorded:

2 sacks
7 tackles for loss
1 pass defended
5 quarterback hits

San Francisco’s defense also created pressure and produced multiple negative plays, but Tennessee’s ability to restrict the 49ers’ rushing attack was especially important.

San Francisco gained only 84 rushing yards.

That meant the Titans forced the 49ers to rely heavily on the passing game.

The 49ers attempted 44 passes compared with 28 rushing attempts.

That imbalance is significant in a preseason setting because it can indicate how the game developed rather than necessarily represent a planned offensive identity.

Still, once Tennessee established a lead, San Francisco had more reason to use the passing game to attempt to close the gap.

Third-Down Efficiency Was Another Important Difference

The Titans converted four of 12 third downs.

San Francisco converted nine of 19.

At first glance, the 49ers’ 47.4 percent conversion rate appears stronger.

Yet that efficiency did not translate into enough points.

This is a useful example of why individual efficiency categories should be interpreted together.

San Francisco converted more third downs, gained more total yards, completed more passes and held the ball for longer.

Tennessee still won.

The Titans were able to offset San Francisco’s volume advantages with rushing efficiency and scoring efficiency.

That is especially important for readers studying game statistics rather than simply checking the final score.

Time of Possession Favored San Francisco

San Francisco held the ball for 32:48.

Tennessee had possession for 27:12.

The 49ers therefore held a time-of-possession advantage of 5:36.

Again, that did not lead to a win.

This happened because possession time does not automatically equal scoring efficiency.

A team can control the ball and still struggle to finish drives. San Francisco’s 238 net passing yards and 322 total yards demonstrate that the offense moved the ball reasonably well in stretches.

The missing ingredient was touchdown production.

Tennessee’s Offensive Identity Was Clearer

One of the strongest observations from the game is that Tennessee’s offense had a clearer path to points.

The Titans rushed for 167 yards, scored one rushing touchdown and added four field goals.

San Francisco generated 238 net passing yards but scored only one rushing touchdown and two field goals.

Tennessee therefore relied on multiple methods of scoring.

San Francisco relied more heavily on moving the football through the air.

Neither strategy is inherently better in isolation. The important point is that Tennessee’s approach was more closely connected to the scoring distribution of this particular game.

What the Quarter-by-Quarter Numbers Reveal

First Quarter

Tennessee took a 7-0 lead.

Tony Pollard finished the opening scoring drive with a five-yard touchdown run.

The Titans’ opening drive covered 90 yards across 11 plays.

San Francisco did not score in the opening quarter.

Second Quarter

San Francisco responded with Patrick Taylor Jr.’s one-yard rushing touchdown.

Tennessee answered with two field goals, including a 55-yard kick late in the first half.

At halftime, Tennessee led 13-7.

Third Quarter

San Francisco opened the second half with a 52-yard field goal.

Tennessee responded with a 53-yard field goal.

The score moved to 16-10.

Fourth Quarter

Tennessee added another field goal, this time from 58 yards.

San Francisco responded with a 41-yard field goal.

The final score settled at 19-13.

The scoring sequence shows that Tennessee never allowed San Francisco to erase the lead completely.

What the Matchup Says About the Preseason Context

Preseason statistics need to be handled carefully.

The purpose of these games is not simply to produce the same type of statistical environment seen in a regular-season contest.

Coaches use preseason games to evaluate:

Young players
Roster depth
Position battles
Offensive combinations
Defensive assignments
Special teams
Conditioning
Protection
Communication
Situational football

The 49ers also approached the game differently from Tennessee in terms of personnel usage.

San Francisco rested many of its top-line players after the team had worked in a joint practice with Tennessee earlier in the week. Tennessee, meanwhile, used several starters early in the contest.

That context helps explain why raw team statistics should not be treated as a direct measure of the two rosters.

A preseason game can tell us what happened on the field without necessarily telling us how the same teams would perform with their regular-season rotations.

Key Player Numbers at a Glance

Tennessee Titans

Cam Ward

5-of-12 passing
57 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions
56.6 passer rating

Will Levis

3-of-8 passing
42 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions

Mitchell Trubisky

2-of-3 passing
23 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions

Hendon Hooker

2-of-3 passing
17 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions

Julius Chestnut

5 carries
47 yards
9.4 yards per carry
34-yard long

Tyjae Spears

4 carries
35 yards
8.8 yards per carry
25-yard long

Tony Pollard

4 carries
22 yards
1 rushing touchdown

Wan’Dale Robinson

2 receptions
19 yards
4 targets

Joey Slye

4-of-4 field goals
Long of 58 yards
1-of-1 extra points
13 total points

San Francisco 49ers

Adrian Martinez

16-of-30 passing
159 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions

Kurtis Rourke

12-of-14 passing
101 yards
0 touchdowns
0 interceptions
96.7 passer rating

Sincere McCormick

10 carries
38 yards
3.8 yards per carry

Patrick Taylor Jr.

5 carries
-5 yards
1 rushing touchdown

De’Zhaun Stribling

7 receptions
63 yards
8 targets
32-yard long

Jordan Watkins

6 receptions
59 yards
10 targets
20-yard long

Khalil Herbert

2 receptions
35 yards

Eddy Pineiro

2-of-3 field goals
Long of 52 yards
1-of-1 extra points
7 total points

Important Statistical Lessons From the Game

The game offers several useful lessons for anyone analyzing NFL preseason box scores.

First, total yardage does not automatically determine the winner.

San Francisco had 322 total yards to Tennessee’s 279 but lost 19-13.

Second, rushing efficiency can be more important than rushing volume.

Tennessee averaged 5.4 yards per attempt compared with San Francisco’s 3.0.

Third, field goals can have an outsized impact in low-scoring games.

Tennessee’s four made field goals produced 12 points, almost two-thirds of the Titans’ final total.

Fourth, passing yards without passing touchdowns can create a misleading impression.

San Francisco gained 238 net passing yards but did not throw a touchdown.

Fifth, preseason statistics must be interpreted alongside player usage.

A quarterback who plays three drives and another who plays the second half are not necessarily being evaluated under identical conditions.

Why These Player Stats Matter Beyond the Final Score

For fans, box scores are useful because they provide an immediate snapshot.

For analysts, the deeper value comes from connecting individual performances to team tendencies.

In this game, the Tennessee numbers show a team that could generate explosive rushing plays and convert long field-goal attempts.

The San Francisco numbers show an offense that could produce passing volume, particularly through Rourke and Stribling, but struggled to create enough rushing efficiency or passing touchdowns to turn yardage into points.

That distinction matters.

A simple list of player statistics tells you what each player accumulated.

A deeper analysis asks how those numbers interacted.

Chestnut’s 47 rushing yards were part of a 167-yard team rushing performance.

Stribling’s 63 receiving yards were part of a 238-yard net passing performance.

Slye’s 13 points were responsible for most of Tennessee’s scoring.

Rourke’s 101 passing yards represented a large portion of San Francisco’s passing production despite his limited workload.

Those relationships are more informative than isolated totals.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score between the Titans and 49ers?

The Tennessee Titans defeated the San Francisco 49ers 19-13 in the 2026 preseason opener.

When did the Titans play the 49ers in the 2026 preseason?

The game was played on August 13, 2026, at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California.

Who scored the Titans’ touchdown?

Tony Pollard scored Tennessee’s only offensive touchdown on a five-yard rushing play.

Who was the leading rusher for Tennessee?

Julius Chestnut led the Titans with 47 rushing yards on five carries, including a 34-yard run.

Who led the 49ers in receiving?

De’Zhaun Stribling led San Francisco with seven receptions for 63 yards on eight targets.

How did the 49ers gain more total yards but still lose?

San Francisco gained 322 total yards compared with Tennessee’s 279, but the Titans were more efficient on the ground and converted four field goals. San Francisco produced only one touchdown and two field goals.

Conclusion

The Tennessee Titans vs 49ers Match Player Stats from the 2026 preseason opener show a game shaped by contrasting offensive methods.

Tennessee finished with 279 total yards but ran for 167 yards at 5.4 yards per attempt. San Francisco produced 322 total yards and 238 net passing yards, but managed only 84 rushing yards at 3.0 yards per attempt.

Tony Pollard provided Tennessee’s touchdown, Julius Chestnut delivered the team’s biggest rushing performance, and Joey Slye converted all four of his field-goal attempts. On the San Francisco side, Kurtis Rourke completed 12 of 14 passes for 101 yards, while De’Zhaun Stribling caught seven passes for 63 yards.

The final score therefore does not tell the whole story. San Francisco moved the ball effectively through the air and converted more third downs, while Tennessee created more efficient rushing production and received major contributions from its kicking game.

For readers studying player performance, the most useful takeaway is to look beyond total yards. Completion efficiency, rushing average, touchdown distribution, field-goal production, workload, and game context all help explain why the Titans finished with a 19-13 preseason victory.