Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats
The Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats from the August 16, 2025, NFL preseason game tell the story of a close contest decided by defensive execution and a scoreless fourth quarter from Atlanta. The Tennessee Titans defeated the Atlanta Falcons 23-20, overcoming a strong third-quarter response from their opponents to secure a three-point victory. Brandon Allen provided Tennessee with an effective passing performance, Jordan Mims led the team on the ground, and Gunnar Helm contributed a touchdown reception. For Atlanta, Easton Stick directed the passing attack, Nathan Carter produced the leading rushing performance, and Chris Blair delivered a major receiving contribution. The final score reflects a competitive preseason matchup in which turnovers, defensive pressure, and the timing of scoring opportunities played important roles.
The game took place on August 16, 2025, as part of the NFL preseason. Tennessee finished the contest with 195 passing yards and 118 rushing yards, while Atlanta recorded 174 passing yards and 115 rushing yards according to the supplied game statistics. Both teams scored through the air and on the ground, but Tennessee also benefited from a defensive touchdown that proved significant in a game decided by a narrow margin.
For readers examining individual performances, the most useful approach is to look beyond the final score. Quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, tackling, turnovers, and special teams all help explain how the game unfolded. This breakdown examines those categories and identifies what the numbers reveal about each team’s performance.
Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The preseason meeting between Tennessee and Atlanta featured changing momentum across four quarters. Tennessee established an early advantage, Atlanta responded with its strongest period in the third quarter, and the Titans finished the game with the only points scored in the fourth.
Final Score and Game Information
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons |
| Date | August 16, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Final score | Tennessee Titans 23, Atlanta Falcons 20 |
| Winning team | Tennessee Titans |
| Losing team | Atlanta Falcons |
| ESPN game ID | 401773017 |
| Tennessee record listed in the supplied data | 1-1 overall, 1-1 away |
| Atlanta record listed in the supplied data | 0-2 overall, 0-2 home |
The result gave Tennessee a three-point win in a game where neither offense maintained complete control throughout the contest. The Titans scored in each quarter, while Atlanta’s scoring was concentrated in the second and third quarters.
Because this was a preseason game, the statistics should be interpreted in the context of roster evaluation and preparation. Preseason games can feature multiple quarterbacks, running backs, and defensive units, with playing time distributed differently from a regular-season contest. Individual totals are therefore useful for understanding what happened on the field, but they do not automatically establish a player’s long-term role or future production.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
| Quarter | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| First quarter | 6 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 7 | 17 |
| Fourth quarter | 3 | 0 |
| Final score | 23 | 20 |
Tennessee’s opening six points gave the team an early advantage, and another seven points in the second quarter strengthened its position. Atlanta managed only a field goal before halftime but then produced a 17-point third quarter.
That third-quarter surge changed the contest. Atlanta scored more points in that period than Tennessee managed in any individual quarter, demonstrating how quickly a preseason game can shift when an offense finds opportunities and converts them into points.
The decisive difference came in the fourth quarter. Tennessee added three points, while Atlanta failed to score. In a three-point game, that final period became especially important because Atlanta had an opportunity to respond but did not add to its total.
Quarterback Statistics and Passing Performance
Quarterback statistics offer one of the clearest ways to compare the two offenses. Completion percentage, passing yards, touchdown passes, interceptions, and yards per attempt help explain how effectively each team moved the ball through the air.
However, passing totals should not be treated as a complete measure of quarterback quality. The number of attempts, pressure faced, quality of opportunities, and game situation also influence how a quarterback’s performance should be evaluated.
Brandon Allen’s Performance for Tennessee
Brandon Allen led Tennessee’s listed passing performances with the following numbers:
| Statistic | Brandon Allen |
| Completions | 11 |
| Attempts | 14 |
| Passing yards | 119 |
| Completion percentage | 78.6% |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
Allen completed 11 of his 14 passes, giving him a completion rate of approximately 78.6%. He accumulated 119 passing yards and threw one touchdown alongside one interception.
The completion percentage stands out because Allen completed more than three-quarters of his attempts. That is a useful indication of passing accuracy within the sample provided, although the relatively small number of attempts limits how much can be concluded from it.
His 119 yards also represent a substantial portion of Tennessee’s listed 195 team passing yards. Allen therefore accounted for a significant share of the team’s aerial production.
The interception is an important part of the evaluation. A quarterback can complete a high percentage of passes and still create a costly turnover. In preseason analysis, the objective is to consider both successful plays and mistakes rather than allowing one favorable statistic to dominate the assessment.
Allen’s touchdown pass contributed to Tennessee’s scoring, while his overall line showed a combination of efficient completion numbers and an error that coaches would want to examine.
Easton Stick’s Performance for Atlanta
Easton Stick led Atlanta’s passing statistics in the supplied data.
| Statistic | Easton Stick |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 32 |
| Passing yards | 173 |
| Completion percentage | 59.4% |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
Stick completed 19 of 32 attempts for 173 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. His completion percentage was approximately 59.4%.
Stick attempted 18 more passes than Allen and completed eight more. He also recorded 54 additional passing yards. Those totals indicate that Atlanta relied more heavily on its passing game in terms of volume.
The difference in attempts matters when comparing the quarterbacks. Allen’s listed performance was more efficient by completion percentage, while Stick accumulated more total passing yards. Neither measure alone tells the complete story because they describe different aspects of the passing game.
Stick’s interception also deserves attention. Atlanta produced 20 points despite the turnover, suggesting that the offense found ways to generate scoring opportunities during the contest. Nevertheless, turnovers can shorten possessions or give the opposition favorable field position, making ball security an important part of quarterback evaluation.
Comparing the Two Quarterbacks
| Passing Statistic | Brandon Allen, Tennessee | Easton Stick, Atlanta |
| Completions | 11 | 19 |
| Attempts | 14 | 32 |
| Passing yards | 119 | 173 |
| Completion percentage | 78.6% | 59.4% |
| Touchdown passes | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
The comparison shows two different statistical profiles. Allen completed a higher proportion of his attempts, while Stick produced more passing yards through a much larger workload.
Both quarterbacks threw one touchdown and one interception. That similarity makes their completion rates and passing volume useful points of comparison, but the numbers do not establish which quarterback performed better in every aspect of the game.
A fuller evaluation would also require information about pressure, time in the pocket, first-down conversions, third-down performance, and the quality of each passing opportunity. Those details are not included in the supplied data, so they should not be assumed.
Team Passing Efficiency
The team-level passing numbers add context to the individual performances.
| Team Passing Metric | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Passing yards | 195 | 174 |
| Completions | 17 | 21 |
| Attempts | 28 | 37 |
| Completion percentage | 60.7% | 56.8% |
| Average yards per attempt | 7.0 | 5.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 1 |
Tennessee recorded 21 more passing yards despite attempting nine fewer passes. The Titans also averaged 7.0 yards per attempt, compared with Atlanta’s 5.1.
Yards per attempt helps measure how much passing yardage an offense generates relative to its passing volume. Tennessee’s advantage in this category suggests that its passing plays generated more yardage per attempt on average.
Atlanta completed more passes overall, but a higher number of completions does not necessarily mean a more productive passing attack. The distance gained on those completions matters, as do incomplete passes, interceptions, and whether the offense converts important downs.
For this matchup, Tennessee’s higher completion percentage and yards per attempt point to stronger passing efficiency in the team totals provided. Atlanta’s larger passing workload, meanwhile, indicates that its offense attempted to generate production through the air more frequently.
Rushing Statistics: Jordan Mims and Nathan Carter
The ground game was another important part of the contest. Tennessee recorded 118 rushing yards on 32 attempts, while Atlanta accumulated 115 yards on 25 attempts.
Although the teams finished close in total rushing yards, they reached those totals through different workloads. Tennessee ran the ball more frequently, while Atlanta generated more yards per attempt.
Jordan Mims Leads Tennessee’s Rushing Attack
Jordan Mims was Tennessee’s leading listed rusher.
| Statistic | Jordan Mims |
| Rushing attempts | 12 |
| Rushing yards | 50 |
| Average yards per carry | 4.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | Not specified in the supplied individual line |
Mims gained 50 yards on 12 carries, averaging approximately 4.2 yards per attempt. His workload made him the leading Tennessee ball carrier in the supplied statistics.
The average is useful because it places his total yardage in context. Fifty yards can result from a small number of long runs or a steady sequence of shorter gains. His average of approximately 4.2 yards per carry suggests that he generated a reasonable return across his attempts, but the supplied data does not include a full carry-by-carry breakdown.
Mims’ contribution should also be considered alongside Tennessee’s total of 32 rushing attempts. A team can use the ground game to maintain possession, reduce pressure on its quarterback, and create a more balanced offensive approach.
The available numbers establish Mims as the team’s leading listed rusher. They do not, by themselves, establish his future position on the depth chart or predict his regular-season workload.
Nathan Carter’s Productive Performance for Atlanta
Nathan Carter led Atlanta’s listed rushing performance.
| Statistic | Nathan Carter |
| Rushing attempts | 9 |
| Rushing yards | 63 |
| Average yards per carry | 7.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest rush | 43 yards |
Carter gained 63 yards on nine carries, averaging 7.0 yards per attempt. He also scored a rushing touchdown and recorded the longest listed run of the game, a 43-yard gain.
His average was higher than Mims’ average, and his total yardage came on three fewer carries. The 43-yard run was a major contributor to his total and shows why long plays can strongly influence rushing averages in a limited sample.
Carter’s touchdown also gave Atlanta a scoring contribution from the ground game. A rushing touchdown can be particularly valuable when an offense needs to finish a possession after moving the ball into scoring range.
For a complete evaluation, Carter’s longest run should be considered separately from his average production. A single long gain can raise a player’s average substantially, so the average does not mean that every carry generated seven yards.
Even with that qualification, his listed figures show that Carter was one of Atlanta’s most productive offensive players in the game.
Comparing the Running Backs
| Rushing Metric | Jordan Mims | Nathan Carter |
| Team | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Carries | 12 | 9 |
| Rushing yards | 50 | 63 |
| Average yards per carry | 4.2 | 7.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | Not specified in individual line | 1 |
| Longest rush | Not specified in individual line | 43 yards |
Carter led in rushing yards, average yards per carry, and the listed rushing touchdown. Mims handled more carries and contributed to Tennessee’s broader ground-game workload.
These statistics highlight an important distinction between volume and efficiency. More carries can indicate a greater workload, but fewer carries can still produce more yardage when the runner breaks a long gain or consistently finds space.
Team Rushing Comparison
| Team Rushing Metric | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Rushing attempts | 32 | 25 |
| Rushing yards | 118 | 115 |
| Average yards per carry | 3.7 | 4.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
Tennessee gained three more rushing yards overall despite running the ball seven more times. Atlanta’s higher average of 4.6 yards per carry indicates greater yardage production per attempt in the supplied team figures.
The difference in rushing volume may reflect the way the offenses approached the game, although the statistics alone do not reveal the exact play-calling decisions or personnel combinations used on each drive.
Both teams scored one rushing touchdown, so the ground game contributed directly to the scoring for each side. Tennessee’s larger number of attempts and Atlanta’s higher average illustrate why rushing totals should be evaluated alongside efficiency rather than in isolation.
Receiving Statistics and Key Offensive Contributors
Receiving statistics show which players turned passing opportunities into yardage and touchdowns. Receptions, receiving yards, and the longest catch help identify the players who produced the most visible contributions through the air.
Gunnar Helm Leads Tennessee’s Receiving Production
Gunnar Helm was Tennessee’s leading listed receiver.
| Statistic | Gunnar Helm |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving yards | 48 |
| Average yards per reception | 12.0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
Helm caught four passes for 48 yards and one touchdown. His average of 12 yards per reception indicates that his catches produced meaningful yardage rather than relying entirely on very short completions.
The touchdown was an important part of his performance because it converted a receiving opportunity into points. In a game decided by three points, scoring contributions from individual receivers deserve attention even when the available statistics do not identify every detail of the scoring drive.
Helm’s four receptions also show that he was involved in the passing attack. However, the supplied data does not specify his total targets, so a catch rate cannot be calculated reliably.
His performance provides a clear example of how a receiver can contribute through both yardage and scoring. A receiving line should be evaluated using both elements rather than judging a player solely by the number of catches.
Chris Blair Delivers Atlanta’s Leading Receiving Performance
Chris Blair led Atlanta’s listed receiving statistics.
| Statistic | Chris Blair |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving yards | 78 |
| Average yards per reception | 26.0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 52 yards |
Blair recorded three receptions for 78 yards and one touchdown. His average of 26 yards per reception was substantially higher than Helm’s average, and his longest catch covered 52 yards.
Those numbers indicate that Blair produced significant yardage on a limited number of receptions. His longest reception alone represented a large share of his total, showing how one explosive play can shape a receiver’s statistical line.
Blair’s touchdown also gave Atlanta a direct scoring contribution through the passing game. His performance helped the Falcons generate offensive production during a contest in which they eventually finished three points behind Tennessee.
The limited reception total is worth keeping in perspective. Three catches do not establish how often Blair was targeted, how consistently he separated from coverage, or whether his opportunities came against a particular defensive unit. Those questions require additional play-by-play or target data.
What the supplied figures do establish is that Blair was Atlanta’s leading listed receiver by yardage and that his longest catch was the longest reception recorded in the game data.
Comparing the Leading Receivers
| Receiving Metric | Gunnar Helm | Chris Blair |
| Team | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Receptions | 4 | 3 |
| Receiving yards | 48 | 78 |
| Average yards per reception | 12.0 | 26.0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest reception | Not specified in individual line | 52 yards |
Helm caught one more pass, while Blair recorded 30 more receiving yards. Both players scored a receiving touchdown according to the supplied data.
The comparison illustrates two different forms of receiving production. Helm produced a higher reception total, while Blair generated more yardage from fewer catches. The distinction matters because teams need receivers who can contribute in different ways, including sustaining drives and creating explosive plays.
Longest Reception and Big-Play Potential
Elic Ayomanor recorded Tennessee’s longest listed reception, a 35-yard gain. Blair’s longest catch for Atlanta covered 52 yards.
| Team | Player | Longest Reception |
| Tennessee Titans | Elic Ayomanor | 35 yards |
| Atlanta Falcons | Chris Blair | 52 yards |
Atlanta’s longest listed reception exceeded Tennessee’s by 17 yards. Long receptions can quickly change field position and reduce the number of plays required to reach scoring territory.
However, one long catch does not establish which team consistently generated more explosive passing plays. That conclusion would require a complete breakdown of receptions by distance and additional information about the number of plays that gained 20 or more yards.
The figures do show that both teams had the ability to produce substantial gains through the air, with Blair recording the longest listed reception.
Defensive Player Stats and Turnover Impact
Defense played a significant role in the final outcome. Tennessee recorded a defensive touchdown, two sacks, six tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and five quarterback hits according to the supplied team statistics.
Atlanta recorded one sack, five tackles for loss, three passes defended, and three quarterback hits. Both teams intercepted a pass, but Tennessee converted its interception into a touchdown.
Tennessee’s Defensive Contributions
| Defensive Metric | Tennessee Titans |
| Total tackles | 68 |
| Solo tackles | 40 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 |
| Passes defended | 7 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 |
Cedric Gray led Tennessee in total tackles with seven. His tackle total made him the team’s leading listed defender in that category.
Tennessee’s seven passes defended are also noteworthy. Passes defended indicate plays in which defenders disrupted or prevented a completion without necessarily recording an interception. This type of contribution can force an offense to continue working through difficult passing situations.
The two sacks and five quarterback hits provide additional evidence of defensive pressure. Sacks can end drives or push an offense into less favorable down-and-distance situations, while quarterback hits show pressure that may occur even when a pass is completed or released before a sack.
Tackles for loss are another useful measure because they show that defenders stopped offensive plays behind the line of scrimmage. Tennessee recorded six, one more than Atlanta.
The most consequential defensive statistic was the touchdown on an interception return. A defensive touchdown adds points without requiring the offense to complete a scoring drive, making it particularly valuable in a close contest.
Atlanta’s Defensive Contributions
| Defensive Metric | Atlanta Falcons |
| Total tackles | 62 |
| Solo tackles | 41 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 |
| Passes defended | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 |
Lamar Jackson led Atlanta’s listed defensive players with eight total tackles. That was one more tackle than Tennessee’s leading individual defender, Cedric Gray.
Atlanta also recorded an interception, demonstrating that its defense created a turnover opportunity. Natrone Brooks returned the interception for 33 yards but did not score a defensive touchdown.
The Falcons’ five tackles for loss and three quarterback hits show that the defense generated disruption. However, Atlanta finished with fewer sacks, fewer passes defended, and no defensive touchdown in the supplied statistics.
Those differences do not mean that every Tennessee defender outperformed every Atlanta defender. Team-level totals summarize collective production and cannot explain every assignment, missed opportunity, or individual matchup.
Interception Returns: Kendell Brooks and Natrone Brooks
The interception returns were among the most consequential individual plays recorded in the game data.
| Statistic | Kendell Brooks | Natrone Brooks |
| Team | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Interception return yards | 53 | 33 |
| Defensive touchdown | 1 | 0 |
Kendell Brooks returned an interception 53 yards for Tennessee and scored a defensive touchdown. Natrone Brooks returned an interception 33 yards for Atlanta without reaching the end zone.
The difference between the two returns was 20 yards, but the scoring outcome was even more important than the yardage difference. Tennessee received a touchdown from its interception return, while Atlanta’s return did not directly add points.
Defensive touchdowns can dramatically influence a game because they combine a change of possession with immediate scoring. They also affect how the opposing offense must approach the remainder of the contest.
The supplied summary does not identify the exact quarter of each return, so the returns should not be assigned to a specific scoring period without a verified play-by-play record.
How Defensive Pressure Influenced the Matchup
Tennessee’s defensive line and coverage unit produced more sacks, quarterback hits, tackles for loss, and passes defended than Atlanta’s defense in the supplied totals.
Those figures suggest that the Titans created more recorded disruption. Defensive pressure can limit an offense’s ability to develop plays, while passes defended can interrupt timing between a quarterback and receiver.
Still, defensive statistics need context. A quarterback hit does not necessarily mean a pass was incomplete, and a tackle for loss can occur on a run or a short pass. The numbers also do not reveal how often pressure led directly to a turnover.
The clearest outcome-based difference was Tennessee’s defensive touchdown. In a game decided by three points, a score generated by the defense was a meaningful part of the result.
Special Teams Statistics and Kicking Performance
Special teams contributed to the scoring and field-position battle. Tennessee kicker Joey Slye converted one field goal, while Atlanta kicker Younghoe Koo made two. The teams also recorded different extra-point totals.
Field Goals and Extra Points
| Special Teams Metric | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Kicker | Joey Slye | Younghoe Koo |
| Field goals made | 1 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 2 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 23 yards | 42 yards |
| Extra points made | 2 | 2 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 2 |
Slye converted his only listed field-goal attempt, a 23-yard kick. Koo made both of his attempts, including a longest field goal of 42 yards.
Both kickers finished with a 100% field-goal conversion rate in the supplied data. Koo attempted and made one more field goal than Slye, while also recording the longer successful kick.
The extra-point figures require a separate look. Tennessee converted two of three attempts, whereas Atlanta made both of its attempts. The missed Tennessee extra point is part of the supplied statistical record, but the available information does not establish the exact circumstances behind the miss.
In a three-point game, every scoring detail attracts attention. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that one specific kick determined the result without examining the full scoring sequence and the timing of each attempt.
Kick Returns and Punt Returns
| Return Statistic | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Kick return yards | 63 | 52 |
| Punt return yards | 16 | 28 |
Tennessee recorded 63 kick return yards, compared with Atlanta’s 52. The Titans therefore gained 11 more yards on kick returns in the supplied totals.
Atlanta recorded 28 punt return yards, while Tennessee recorded 16. That gave the Falcons a 12-yard advantage in punt return production.
Return yards can help an offense begin a possession in a more favorable field position. However, totals alone do not establish the average starting position for each drive or show whether a return directly led to points.
A more detailed special teams evaluation would examine average return distance, the number of returns, touchbacks, penalties, and the starting field position after each return. Those additional details are not available in the supplied summary.
Punting Performance
| Punting Statistic | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Punter | Johnny Hekker | Bradley Pinion |
| Total punting yards | 286 | 291 |
| Average punt | 47.7 yards | 48.5 yards |
| Longest punt | 53 yards | 55 yards |
Bradley Pinion recorded 291 total punting yards and averaged 48.5 yards per punt for Atlanta. Johnny Hekker recorded 286 total punting yards and averaged 47.7 yards per punt for Tennessee.
The difference in average distance was 0.8 yards per punt in Atlanta’s favor. Pinion’s longest punt also exceeded Hekker’s by two yards.
Punting performance is not measured by distance alone. Direction, hang time, return coverage, and whether the punt pins the opponent close to its own end zone also matter. The supplied figures do not provide enough information to assess those factors.
The numbers therefore support a straightforward conclusion: Atlanta held a small advantage in the listed punting distance figures, while Tennessee recorded more kick return yardage.
Team Statistics Comparison
The team totals provide a wider view of how the two offenses and defenses performed.
| Team Statistic | Tennessee Titans | Atlanta Falcons |
| Final score | 23 | 20 |
| Passing yards | 195 | 174 |
| Rushing yards | 118 | 115 |
| Passing completions | 17 | 21 |
| Passing attempts | 28 | 37 |
| Completion percentage | 60.7% | 56.8% |
| Yards per passing attempt | 7.0 | 5.1 |
| Rushing attempts | 32 | 25 |
| Yards per rushing attempt | 3.7 | 4.6 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 6 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 7 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 3 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 1 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Field goals made | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 0 |
Tennessee finished with the higher passing-yard total and slightly more rushing yards. Atlanta completed more passes and attempted more passes, but Tennessee produced more yards per passing attempt.
On the ground, Atlanta averaged more yards per attempt, while Tennessee used a greater number of rushing attempts. The difference between their total rushing yardage was only three yards.
The defensive figures favor Tennessee in several recorded categories, including sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits. The defensive touchdown was another major distinction between the teams.
Atlanta’s two successful field goals compared with Tennessee’s one show that the Falcons also generated scoring through their kicking game. However, the final score depended on the combined results of offense, defense, and special teams rather than any one category in isolation.
One statistical detail should be handled carefully: the supplied game summary lists receiving-yard totals of 195 for Tennessee and 189 for Atlanta, while the passing-yard totals are 195 and 174, respectively. Because receiving yards and passing yards can be presented differently in some summaries, those figures should be checked against the official box score before being used in a formal statistical database. The analysis above uses the supplied passing totals for the passing comparison and the supplied individual receiving lines for player analysis.
Why Tennessee Won the Game
Tennessee’s 23-20 victory can be understood through several measurable differences. The Titans generated more passing yards, averaged more yards per passing attempt, recorded more defensive disruption in several categories, and scored a defensive touchdown.
1. More Efficient Passing Production
Tennessee averaged 7.0 yards per passing attempt, compared with Atlanta’s 5.1. The Titans also posted a team completion percentage of 60.7%, ahead of Atlanta’s 56.8%.
Atlanta attempted more passes and completed more of them in total, but the Titans gained more passing yards with fewer attempts. That distinction helps explain why completion totals alone do not provide a complete comparison of offensive performance.
2. A Defensive Score
Kendell Brooks’ 53-yard interception return for a touchdown was one of the game’s defining statistical events. It gave Tennessee points directly from a defensive play rather than requiring the offense to advance the ball through a series of plays.
Atlanta also intercepted a pass, but Natrone Brooks’ 33-yard return did not produce a defensive touchdown. That difference illustrates how two similar categories of defensive success can have different scoreboard effects.
3. Pressure on the Quarterback
Tennessee recorded two sacks and five quarterback hits, compared with Atlanta’s one sack and three quarterback hits. The Titans also recorded six tackles for loss and seven passes defended.
These totals suggest that Tennessee generated more recorded pressure and disruption. While the figures do not reveal the result of every pressured play, they show that the defense made several measurable contributions beyond the interception return.
4. The Fourth-Quarter Difference
Atlanta scored 17 points in the third quarter, bringing the game into a competitive position after a quiet first half. Yet the Falcons did not score in the fourth quarter, while Tennessee added three points.
The final period was especially important because the margin was only three points. Tennessee managed to add to its total, and Atlanta did not respond on the scoreboard.
5. Contributions Across Multiple Units
Tennessee’s victory was not the product of passing production alone. The Titans gained 118 rushing yards, recorded a field goal, generated a defensive touchdown, and received contributions from players including Allen, Mims, Helm, Gray, and Kendell Brooks.
Atlanta also had strong individual performances. Carter gained 63 rushing yards and scored a rushing touchdown, Blair produced 78 receiving yards and a touchdown, and Koo converted two field goals.
The final outcome reflects the combined impact of these performances. Tennessee finished with three more points, but the statistical comparison shows that Atlanta had several productive players and a significant third-quarter scoring surge.
What the Player Stats Mean for Preseason Evaluation
Preseason statistics are useful when they are treated as evidence of what happened in a specific game rather than as a complete prediction of future performance.
Quarterback Evaluation
Allen’s 11 completions on 14 attempts produced a higher completion percentage than Stick’s 19 completions on 32 attempts. Stick, however, accumulated more passing yards because he attempted significantly more passes.
For a meaningful quarterback evaluation, coaches and analysts would also consider decision-making, pressure response, accuracy by field area, third-down conversions, and the circumstances surrounding interceptions. Those details can help distinguish a productive passing performance from one that benefited mainly from a small sample or favorable conditions.
Running Back Evaluation
Carter’s 63 rushing yards and 7.0-yard average showed a productive outing, while Mims recorded 50 yards on 12 attempts. Carter’s 43-yard longest run also had a major effect on his total.
A complete running back assessment would examine missed tackles forced, yards after contact, short-yardage success, pass protection, and receiving contributions. The supplied game statistics do not include those measures, so they should not be inferred from rushing totals alone.
Receiver Evaluation
Blair’s 78 yards and 26.0-yard average per catch highlighted his big-play production. Helm’s four receptions and touchdown reflected a different type of contribution, while Ayomanor’s 35-yard longest reception showed that Tennessee also generated a substantial passing gain through another target.
To assess receiver performance more deeply, analysts would want targets, route participation, separation, drops, and contested-catch results. Without those details, the strongest supported conclusions come from receptions, yardage, touchdowns, and longest catches.
Defensive Evaluation
Tennessee’s interception return touchdown and higher totals for sacks, quarterback hits, tackles for loss, and passes defended provide clear evidence of defensive production in this game.
Atlanta’s defense also recorded an interception and five tackles for loss. These results show that the Falcons created negative plays and a turnover, even though Tennessee had more recorded disruption in the supplied summary.
Defensive evaluation should also account for coverage responsibilities, missed tackles, pressure rate, and how often opponents converted third downs. Those details are necessary for a more complete assessment than raw tackle totals can provide.
Avoiding Overinterpretation
One preseason game cannot establish a player’s complete ability, durability, or future role. Playing time can be affected by coaching decisions, rotation patterns, and roster experiments. Some players may face different levels of opposition or enter the game in different situations.
The most responsible use of these numbers is to identify specific performances and areas worth further examination. The statistics show what the players produced on August 16, 2025, but they do not independently prove what will happen in later games.
Where to Verify the Official Game Record
For readers who want to check the final score, team totals, and individual performances, the ESPN box score for Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons, Game ID 401773017 is the relevant game record.
An official box score is useful because it allows readers to compare player lines with the team totals and review the scoring summary. If a statistic is being used for reporting, database entry, or further analysis, it is good practice to verify the exact figure and its definition before publishing it.
The distinction is particularly important when comparing passing yards, receiving yards, return yards, and total offensive production. These categories describe different types of yardage and should not be treated as interchangeable.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons game on August 16, 2025?
The Tennessee Titans defeated the Atlanta Falcons 23-20 in their NFL preseason matchup on August 16, 2025. Tennessee scored in all four quarters, while Atlanta’s 17-point third quarter was followed by a scoreless fourth.
2. How many passing yards did Brandon Allen record?
Brandon Allen completed 11 of 14 passes for 119 yards, one touchdown, and one interception in the supplied player statistics. His completion percentage was approximately 78.6%.
3. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Nathan Carter was Atlanta’s leading listed rusher, gaining 63 yards on nine carries and scoring one rushing touchdown. Tennessee’s leading listed rusher was Jordan Mims, who gained 50 yards on 12 carries.
4. Who recorded the most receiving yards?
Chris Blair led the listed receiving performances with 78 yards on three receptions for Atlanta. He also recorded a touchdown and the longest listed reception, which covered 52 yards.
5. Which team recorded a defensive touchdown?
Tennessee recorded a defensive touchdown when Kendell Brooks returned an interception 53 yards. Atlanta also recorded an interception, returned 33 yards by Natrone Brooks, but did not score on that return.
6. Why did Tennessee win by only three points?
Tennessee finished with 23 points to Atlanta’s 20. The Titans recorded a defensive touchdown and added three points in the fourth quarter, while Atlanta scored no points in the final period after its 17-point third quarter. These events help explain the narrow final margin.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans vs Atlanta Falcons matchup on August 16, 2025, finished with a 23-20 victory for Tennessee after a competitive preseason contest. The Titans recorded 195 passing yards and 118 rushing yards in the supplied team statistics, while Atlanta recorded 174 passing yards and 115 rushing yards.
Brandon Allen completed 11 of 14 passes for 119 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. Easton Stick threw for 173 yards with one touchdown and one interception. On the ground, Nathan Carter produced 63 yards and a touchdown, while Jordan Mims led Tennessee with 50 rushing yards. Chris Blair led Atlanta’s listed receivers with 78 yards and a touchdown, and Gunnar Helm recorded 48 receiving yards and a touchdown for Tennessee.
Defensively, Tennessee’s two sacks, six tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and interception-return touchdown were important statistical differences. Special teams also contributed, with Joey Slye converting one field goal for Tennessee and Younghoe Koo making two for Atlanta.
The most revealing part of the contest was the change in momentum. Tennessee built an early lead, Atlanta responded with 17 points in the third quarter, and the Titans secured the three-point result by adding a fourth-quarter field goal while keeping the Falcons off the scoreboard. Taken together, the player and team statistics provide a detailed account of how Tennessee earned the preseason win and how Atlanta’s individual performances contributed to a closely contested game.
