Chargers vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats
The chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats from the November 2, 2025 meeting tell a more detailed story than the 27-20 final score alone. Los Angeles overcame a 14-7 first-quarter deficit, controlled the middle of the game, and finished with 343 total yards compared with Tennessee’s 206. The Chargers also produced 21 first downs, converted 7 of 13 third downs, and held the ball for 34:20. NFL official game center
The matchup took place at Nissan Stadium in Nashville during Week 9 of the 2025 NFL season. Los Angeles entered the game at 5-3 and improved to 6-3 with the victory, while Tennessee fell to 1-8. The final score was close enough to remain competitive into the fourth quarter, but the underlying numbers show that the Chargers generated more consistent offense and greater efficiency on important downs.
For anyone researching chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats, the most useful approach is not simply to identify who scored a touchdown. A proper statistical review should consider passing, rushing, receiving, turnovers, defensive pressure, returns, kicking, field position, and efficiency. Those numbers help explain how a team can win despite trailing after the opening quarter and why individual performances sometimes look different from the final score.
Chargers vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Chargers won 27-20, but Tennessee actually started faster.
The Titans scored 14 points in the first quarter while Los Angeles managed only seven. The second quarter changed the direction of the game. Los Angeles scored 13 points, while Tennessee added only three. Neither team scored in the third quarter, and the Chargers added seven points in the fourth while Tennessee managed three.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Los Angeles Chargers | Tennessee Titans |
| 1st | 7 | 14 |
| 2nd | 13 | 3 |
| 3rd | 0 | 0 |
| 4th | 7 | 3 |
| Final | 27 | 20 |
The scoring pattern is important because it shows that the Chargers did not win through a dominant opening. Instead, they recovered from the early deficit and gradually established control.
The total offensive production also favored Los Angeles:
| Category | Chargers | Titans |
| First downs | 21 | 10 |
| Total yards | 343 | 206 |
| Rushing yards | 131 | 88 |
| Net passing yards | 212 | 118 |
| Offensive plays | 65 | 44 |
| Average yards per play | 5.3 | 4.7 |
| Third down | 7/13 | 1/9 |
| Time of possession | 34:20 | 25:40 |
The third-down difference stands out immediately. Los Angeles converted 53.8% of its third downs, while Tennessee converted only 11.1%.
That helped explain why the Chargers ran 21 more offensive plays.
More plays created more opportunities for Justin Herbert, the running game, and the Chargers receiving group to contribute.
Justin Herbert’s Passing Performance
Justin Herbert finished with 19 completions on 29 attempts for 250 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, and one interception.
His completion rate was approximately 65.5%, while his average yards per attempt was 8.6 before accounting for sacks.
His listed passer rating was 101.2, and his QBR was 56.7.
Herbert passing line
| Statistic | Justin Herbert |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 29 |
| Completion rate | 65.5% |
| Passing yards | 250 |
| Average | 8.6 yards |
| Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 6 |
| Sack yards | 38 |
| Passer rating | 101.2 |
| QBR | 56.7 |
The most interesting part of Herbert’s performance is that the raw passing total does not tell the whole story.
He threw for 250 yards, but Tennessee’s defense also generated six sacks. Those sacks cost the Chargers 38 yards. As a result, Los Angeles finished with 212 net passing yards.
That distinction matters when analyzing chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats. A quarterback can post strong passing numbers while still facing substantial pressure. In this game, Herbert’s ability to continue producing explosive passing plays despite the pressure was an important part of the Chargers’ offensive output.
Herbert also contributed on the ground.
He rushed nine times for 57 yards and scored one rushing touchdown. His 6.3 yards per carry average was better than every Chargers running back listed in the supplied rushing statistics.
That means Herbert was not simply a pocket passer in this matchup. His rushing production added another dimension to the offense.
Cam Ward’s Passing Numbers
Tennessee quarterback Cam Ward completed 12 of 21 passes for 145 yards.
He did not throw a touchdown or interception.
His average was 6.9 yards per completion attempt, while his listed passer rating was 78.5. His QBR was 14.1.
Ward passing line
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 12 |
| Attempts | 21 |
| Completion rate | 57.1% |
| Passing yards | 145 |
| Average | 6.9 yards |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 4 |
| Sack yards | 27 |
| Passer rating | 78.5 |
| QBR | 14.1 |
Ward avoided an interception, which is a positive element of the turnover picture. However, Tennessee struggled to sustain drives through the air.
The Titans finished with only 10 first downs compared with 21 for Los Angeles. They also converted only one of nine third-down attempts.
That combination created a difficult environment for the offense. Even without throwing an interception, Tennessee could not consistently extend drives.
Ward’s 145 passing yards represented 70.4% of Tennessee’s gross passing production when measured against the team’s listed 206 total yards only after accounting for rushing and sacks differently. More importantly, Tennessee ended with just 118 net passing yards after the Chargers recorded four sacks for 27 yards.
Rushing Comparison
The Chargers rushed for 131 yards on 30 attempts, averaging 4.4 yards per carry.
The Titans rushed for 88 yards on 19 attempts, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.
Interestingly, Tennessee had the slightly higher rushing average, but Los Angeles produced 43 more rushing yards because it had 11 additional rushing attempts.
Chargers rushing leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TD |
| Justin Herbert | 9 | 57 | 6.3 | 1 |
| Jaret Patterson | 9 | 44 | 4.9 | 0 |
| Kimani Vidal | 12 | 30 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Team | 30 | 131 | 4.4 | 1 |
Justin Herbert led the Chargers in rushing yards.
That is a notable feature of this box score because the quarterback gained 57 yards, while Jaret Patterson recorded 44 and Kimani Vidal recorded 30.
Patterson averaged 4.9 yards per carry, which provided useful efficiency on his nine attempts.
Vidal had 12 rushing attempts, the most among Chargers players in the supplied data, but averaged 2.5 yards per carry.
Titans rushing leaders
| Player | Attempts | Yards | Average | TD |
| Tony Pollard | 10 | 56 | 5.6 | 0 |
| Tyjae Spears | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 |
| Cam Ward | 2 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Team | 19 | 88 | 4.6 | 0 |
Tony Pollard was Tennessee’s leading rusher with 56 yards on 10 carries.
His 5.6-yard average was efficient, but Tennessee did not receive enough total rushing volume to turn that efficiency into sustained offensive control.
Tyjae Spears added 26 yards on seven carries, while Ward contributed six yards on two rushing attempts.
Receiving Production for Los Angeles
The Chargers completed 19 passes, and the receiving distribution was relatively spread out.
Oronde Gadsden led the team with five receptions for 68 yards.
Ladd McConkey recorded four catches for 56 yards, while Quentin Johnston caught four passes for 53 yards and scored one receiving touchdown.
Chargers receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Oronde Gadsden | 5 | 68 | 13.6 | 0 |
| Ladd McConkey | 4 | 56 | 14.0 | 0 |
| Quentin Johnston | 4 | 53 | 13.3 | 1 |
| Keenan Allen | 2 | 41 | 20.5 | 0 |
| Tre’ Harris | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 |
| Tucker Fisk | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Scott Matlock | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 |
Gadsden’s five receptions made him Herbert’s most frequently targeted receiving option by completed passes in the supplied statistics.
McConkey averaged 14.0 yards per reception, while Allen produced 41 yards on only two catches.
Allen’s 20.5-yard average was the highest among Chargers players with multiple receptions.
Johnston’s contribution was particularly important because his four catches produced 53 yards and one touchdown.
Scott Matlock also recorded a touchdown on a two-yard reception, giving the Chargers another scoring contribution from a player outside their primary receiving group.
Tennessee Titans Receiving Production
Tennessee’s receiving production was more limited in volume.
Elic Ayomanor led the Titans with three catches for 46 yards.
Tyjae Spears also recorded three receptions, producing 36 yards.
Titans receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 46 | 15.3 | 0 |
| Tyjae Spears | 3 | 36 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Van Jefferson | 1 | 21 | 21.0 | 0 |
| Gunnar Helm | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 |
| Tony Pollard | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Chimere Dike | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
Ayomanor’s 46 yards led the Titans’ receiving group.
Spears provided a dual-threat contribution with 26 rushing yards and 36 receiving yards.
Van Jefferson had only one reception, but it covered 21 yards.
The Titans did not record a passing touchdown, which is one of the clearest differences between the two offenses.
Turnovers and Defensive Plays
Turnovers played an important role in the game.
The Chargers recorded one team fumble and did not lose it.
The Titans recorded two fumbles and also did not lose either one.
However, Tennessee’s defense produced an interception.
Cody Barton intercepted Herbert and returned it 24 yards for a touchdown.
That was a major defensive scoring play and helped keep Tennessee competitive.
Defensive team statistics
| Defensive category | Chargers | Titans |
| Total tackles | 51 | 71 |
| Solo tackles | 29 | 42 |
| Sacks | 4 | 6 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 3 | 4 |
| QB hits | 5 | 11 |
| Defensive TDs | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
The Titans generated more defensive pressure in several categories.
They had six sacks compared with four for Los Angeles, 11 quarterback hits compared with five, and six tackles for loss compared with four.
Yet those defensive numbers did not translate into a win.
This is a useful reminder that defensive dominance in isolated categories does not automatically determine the final result. Tennessee’s defense pressured Herbert frequently, but Los Angeles produced enough offense and third-down success to overcome that pressure.
The Chargers also avoided losing a fumble, while Tennessee’s defensive touchdown supplied one of its two touchdowns.
The Third-Down Battle
Third-down efficiency is one of the clearest statistical explanations for the final result.
Los Angeles converted seven of 13 third downs.
Tennessee converted only one of nine.
That creates a difference of six successful third-down conversions.
In percentage terms:
- Chargers: 53.8%
- Titans: 11.1%
Third downs often determine whether an offense stays on the field or gives possession back to the opponent.
The Chargers’ ability to convert seven third downs helped them sustain drives and reach 65 offensive plays.
Tennessee ran only 44 offensive plays.
That 21-play difference is substantial.
It also helps explain the time-of-possession advantage:
- Chargers: 34:20
- Titans: 25:40
Los Angeles held the ball for 8:40 longer.
Red-Zone Efficiency
The Chargers also had a major advantage inside the red zone.
Los Angeles went 3-for-4 in red-zone opportunities, a 75% success rate.
Tennessee went 0-for-2.
Red-zone numbers
| Team | Red-zone trips | Scores | Efficiency |
| Chargers | 4 | 3 | 75% |
| Titans | 2 | 0 | 0% |
The Chargers also went 2-for-2 in goal-to-go situations.
Tennessee went 0-for-1.
This is one of the most important differences between the two offenses.
Tennessee could move the ball at certain points, but when it reached scoring territory, it failed to convert either red-zone opportunity into a touchdown.
Los Angeles was far more efficient when opportunities became valuable.
Special Teams and Return Statistics
Special teams also produced several notable performances.
The Chargers used KeAndre Lambert-Smith and Derius Davis on kickoff returns.
Lambert-Smith returned two kicks for 49 yards, averaging 24.5 yards per return, with a long of 30.
Davis returned one kickoff for 23 yards.
As a team, Los Angeles recorded 72 kickoff return yards.
Chargers return statistics
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| KeAndre Lambert-Smith | 2 | 49 | 24.5 | 30 |
| Derius Davis | 1 | 23 | 23.0 | 23 |
Derius Davis also returned two punts for nine yards.
Tennessee’s Chimere Dike had a much larger return impact.
He recorded four kickoff returns for 117 yards, averaging 29.3 yards per return.
On punt returns, Dike had three returns for 98 yards, averaging 32.7 yards per return.
Most notably, his longest punt return was 67 yards and resulted in a touchdown.
Titans return statistics
| Player | Type | Returns | Yards | Average | Long | TD |
| Chimere Dike | Kick returns | 4 | 117 | 29.3 | 31 | 0 |
| Chimere Dike | Punt returns | 3 | 98 | 32.7 | 67 | 1 |
Dike’s special-teams production was one of Tennessee’s strongest individual statistical contributions.
It also demonstrates why return statistics should be included when studying chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats. A player’s impact can come from more than offensive snaps.
Kicking Performance
Both kickers were perfect on field-goal attempts.
Cameron Dicker converted both of his field-goal attempts for Los Angeles.
His longest field goal was 52 yards.
He also made all three extra-point attempts and finished with nine points.
Joey Slye converted both field-goal attempts for Tennessee.
His longest was 49 yards.
He also made both extra points and finished with eight points.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Cameron Dicker | Joey Slye |
| Field goals | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest FG | 52 | 49 |
| Extra points | 3/3 | 2/2 |
| Total points | 9 | 8 |
Neither kicker missed a field goal.
That means the difference in kicking efficiency came mainly from opportunity volume rather than accuracy.
Punting Comparison
JK Scott punted four times for the Chargers.
He produced 209 total punt yards, averaging 52.3 yards per punt, with a long of 60.
Johnny Hekker punted five times for Tennessee.
He produced 187 total yards and averaged 37.4 yards per punt.
Hekker recorded two punts inside the 20.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | JK Scott | Johnny Hekker |
| Punts | 4 | 5 |
| Total yards | 209 | 187 |
| Average | 52.3 | 37.4 |
| Long | 60 | 41 |
| Inside 20 | 0 | 2 |
The raw punting average favored Scott significantly, while Hekker had more punts inside the 20.
These numbers should be interpreted alongside return production and field position rather than in isolation.
What the Box Score Says About the Game
The final score was 27-20, but the statistical profile was not evenly balanced.
Los Angeles finished with:
- 343 total yards
- 131 rushing yards
- 212 net passing yards
- 21 first downs
- 65 offensive plays
- 7-of-13 third-down conversions
- 3-of-4 red-zone touchdowns
- 34:20 possession
Tennessee finished with:
- 206 total yards
- 88 rushing yards
- 118 net passing yards
- 10 first downs
- 44 offensive plays
- 1-of-9 third-down conversions
- 0-for-2 red-zone touchdowns
- 25:40 possession
The numbers point toward a game in which Los Angeles created more sustained offensive possessions.
Tennessee’s defense did produce pressure and a defensive touchdown, which prevented the score from becoming one-sided.
However, the Chargers were more productive across the major offensive efficiency categories.
Why Justin Herbert’s Rushing Matters
When looking at quarterback statistics, rushing production can sometimes be overlooked.
Herbert’s 57 rushing yards were significant.
He averaged 6.3 yards per carry and scored a rushing touchdown.
His rushing production represented a substantial part of the Chargers’ 131 rushing yards.
That matters because the Titans were able to pressure him with six sacks. If the quarterback can compensate with rushing production, the defense has another variable to account for.
Herbert’s total contribution therefore went beyond his 250 passing yards.
His combined passing and rushing production was 307 yards, before considering the effect of sacks on net passing totals.
That makes his overall statistical contribution one of the defining features of the matchup.
Why Tennessee Stayed Competitive
Despite the statistical disadvantages, Tennessee remained within one score.
There were several reasons.
First, the Titans started quickly and scored 14 points in the first quarter.
Second, their defense recorded six sacks and 11 quarterback hits.
Third, Cody Barton’s interception return produced a defensive touchdown.
Fourth, Chimere Dike delivered a 67-yard punt-return touchdown.
Fifth, Tony Pollard averaged 5.6 yards per rushing attempt.
These contributions gave Tennessee multiple ways to score without relying exclusively on passing offense.
That is important context when reading the final score.
The Titans did not need to dominate offensive statistics to remain competitive because their defense and special teams produced points.
The Chargers’ Offensive Balance
Los Angeles did not rely on one receiver or one running back.
Herbert passed for 250 yards.
The Chargers rushed for 131.
Gadsden led the team with 68 receiving yards.
McConkey added 56.
Johnston contributed 53 and a touchdown.
Allen added 41 yards on two receptions.
Patterson averaged 4.9 yards per carry.
Herbert added 57 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown.
This distribution made the Chargers’ offense difficult to summarize through a single player statistic.
The team generated production through several areas, which helped compensate for the six sacks allowed.
The Importance of Offensive Volume
One of the strongest statistical differences was offensive volume.
The Chargers ran 65 plays.
The Titans ran 44.
That difference of 21 plays is not simply a measure of offensive aggression. It is also a result of sustaining drives.
Los Angeles converted 53.8% of its third downs.
Tennessee converted 11.1%.
When an offense repeatedly converts third downs, it gains more opportunities to run plays, generate first downs, and create scoring chances.
The Chargers finished with 21 first downs.
Tennessee finished with 10.
This is perhaps the clearest statistical explanation for why Los Angeles finished with 343 yards while Tennessee finished with 206.
Chargers vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Key Individual Takeaways
Several players stand out when the full box score is considered.
Justin Herbert
Herbert produced 250 passing yards, two passing touchdowns, one interception, and 57 rushing yards with one rushing touchdown.
His 307 combined passing and rushing yards made him central to the Chargers’ offensive production.
Quentin Johnston
Johnston caught four passes for 53 yards and a touchdown.
His receiving touchdown was one of Los Angeles’ three offensive touchdowns.
Oronde Gadsden
Gadsden led the Chargers with five receptions and 68 receiving yards.
His 13.6 yards per reception showed that his catches were not limited to short gains.
Jaret Patterson
Patterson rushed nine times for 44 yards, averaging 4.9 yards per carry.
His efficiency was strong within the Chargers’ rushing rotation.
Tony Pollard
Pollard led Tennessee in rushing with 56 yards on 10 attempts.
He averaged 5.6 yards per carry.
Elic Ayomanor
Ayomanor led the Titans in receiving yardage with 46 yards on three receptions.
Chimere Dike
Dike had a major special-teams role.
He returned four kickoffs for 117 yards and three punts for 98 yards, including a 67-yard punt-return touchdown.
Cody Barton
Barton produced Tennessee’s defensive touchdown through a 24-yard interception return.
These individual performances demonstrate why a complete statistical article should look beyond the quarterback box score.
What the Numbers Reveal About Defensive Pressure
The defensive numbers create an interesting contrast.
Tennessee recorded more sacks:
6 versus 4.
The Titans also had more quarterback hits:
11 versus 5.
Yet the Chargers still produced 343 total yards.
This indicates that pressure alone did not prevent Los Angeles from creating offensive success.
On the other side, the Chargers’ four sacks contributed to Tennessee finishing with only 118 net passing yards.
The difference between gross passing yards and net passing yards is especially important here.
Tennessee recorded 145 gross passing yards but lost 27 yards through sacks.
Los Angeles recorded 250 gross passing yards but lost 38 through sacks.
That left the Chargers with 212 net passing yards and Tennessee with 118.
A Closer Look at Efficiency
Efficiency is often more revealing than volume.
Consider the following:
Third down: Los Angeles converted 53.8%, Tennessee converted 11.1%.
Red zone: Los Angeles scored touchdowns on 75% of its trips, Tennessee scored on 0%.
Rushing: Tennessee averaged 4.6 yards per carry, compared with 4.4 for Los Angeles.
Passing: Herbert averaged 8.6 yards per attempt, while Ward averaged 6.9.
The rushing averages were relatively close.
The biggest differences came through passing efficiency, third-down conversion, red-zone execution, and offensive volume.
That combination gave Los Angeles more opportunities to score.
A Practical Way to Read NFL Player Stats
For readers who regularly search for individual game statistics, a useful method is to examine the box score in this order:
- Start with the final score.
- Check total yards.
- Compare first downs.
- Examine third-down efficiency.
- Review passing statistics.
- Review rushing volume and efficiency.
- Look at receiving distribution.
- Check sacks and quarterback pressure.
- Review turnovers.
- Finish with special teams and kicking.
This method prevents one impressive individual statistic from dominating the analysis.
For example, Tennessee’s defense recorded six sacks, which looks excellent on its own. But Los Angeles still ran 65 plays and gained 343 yards.
Likewise, Chimere Dike’s punt-return touchdown was a major play, but Tennessee’s offense still finished with only 206 total yards.
The complete statistical picture is therefore more useful than any isolated number.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Chargers vs Titans game on November 2, 2025?
The Los Angeles Chargers defeated the Tennessee Titans 27-20 in Week 9 of the 2025 NFL season.
How many passing yards did Justin Herbert have?
Justin Herbert completed 19 of 29 passes for 250 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception.
How many rushing yards did Justin Herbert have?
Herbert rushed nine times for 57 yards and one touchdown, averaging 6.3 yards per carry.
Who led the Titans in rushing?
Tony Pollard led Tennessee with 56 rushing yards on 10 attempts, averaging 5.6 yards per carry.
Who led the Chargers in receiving?
Oronde Gadsden led the Chargers with five receptions for 68 yards.
Who scored Tennessee’s defensive touchdown?
Cody Barton returned an interception 24 yards for a touchdown.
Conclusion
The chargers vs tennessee titans match player stats show that the 27-20 result was built on sustained offensive execution rather than a single statistical category.
Los Angeles produced 343 total yards, 21 first downs, 131 rushing yards, and 212 net passing yards. The Chargers also converted seven of 13 third downs and scored touchdowns on three of four red-zone opportunities.
Justin Herbert was central to that production, throwing for 250 yards and two touchdowns while adding 57 rushing yards and a rushing touchdown. Oronde Gadsden led the receiving group with 68 yards, while Quentin Johnston added a receiving touchdown. Jaret Patterson contributed 44 rushing yards, and the Chargers received additional production from Ladd McConkey and Keenan Allen.
Tennessee had several standout statistical performances of its own. Tony Pollard averaged 5.6 yards per carry, Elic Ayomanor led the team in receiving yards, Cody Barton returned an interception for a touchdown, and Chimere Dike produced a 67-yard punt-return touchdown.
The Titans also generated six sacks and 11 quarterback hits, demonstrating that their defense created significant pressure.
Ultimately, the statistical difference came from sustained possession and offensive efficiency. Los Angeles ran 65 offensive plays to Tennessee’s 44, converted third downs at a much higher rate, generated more first downs, and converted its red-zone opportunities more effectively.
For readers examining individual performances, this game provides a useful example of why NFL box scores should be read as a complete statistical system. Passing numbers, rushing production, receiving efficiency, defensive pressure, turnovers, field position, and special teams all contributed to the final result.
