Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats from August 22, 2026, show how Buffalo secured a convincing 31-7 preseason victory over Cleveland through efficient passing, productive rushing, explosive receiving plays, and timely defensive turnovers. The Bills scored in every quarter, while the Browns managed all seven of their points in the opening period. Buffalo’s quarterbacks combined for two touchdown passes without an interception, and the defense recorded two interceptions that helped control the contest. For readers examining individual performances, the box score offers a useful breakdown of passing efficiency, rushing production, receiving impact, defensive contributions, and special teams. Because this was a preseason game, the numbers are most useful for evaluating individual execution and depth rather than drawing firm conclusions about regular-season performance.
Game Overview: Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The preseason matchup took place on August 22, 2026, with Cleveland hosting Buffalo. The Bills finished with 31 points, while the Browns scored seven. Buffalo’s offense generated 368 yards from passing and rushing combined, compared with Cleveland’s 194 yards.
The biggest difference was not simply the final score. Buffalo averaged more yards per passing attempt, produced two rushing touchdowns, and avoided interceptions. Cleveland struggled to create consistent passing gains and threw two interceptions.
Buffalo Bills News, Scores, Stats, Schedule | NFL.com
Buffalo Bills
Away team
31
FINAL
Preseason
Cleveland Browns Logo transparent PNG – StickPNG
Cleveland Browns
Home team
7
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
| Buffalo Bills | 7 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 31 |
| Cleveland Browns | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
The score progression illustrates Buffalo’s ability to sustain its advantage. Both teams scored seven points in the first quarter, but Cleveland did not score again. Buffalo added 24 unanswered points across the final three quarters.
The supplied ESPN box-score data identifies the game as a preseason contest and lists the game ID as 401873294. This distinction matters because preseason games often feature players competing for roster spots, and playing time can differ significantly from regular-season usage.
Quick team statistics
| Statistical category | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Total passing yards | 230 | 110 |
| Total rushing yards | 138 | 84 |
| Combined passing and rushing yards | 368 | 194 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Team rushing attempts | 34 | 27 |
| Team passing attempts | 22 | 24 |
| Average yards per pass attempt | 10.9 | 4.6 |
| Average yards per rush | 4.1 | 3.1 |
Source: ESPN box-score statistics supplied for the August 22, 2026, preseason game.
These figures reveal three major differences. Buffalo gained 120 more passing yards, added 54 more rushing yards, and protected the football more effectively through the air. The combination gave the Bills a clear advantage in both offensive efficiency and possession security.
Buffalo Bills Passing Stats and Quarterback Performance
Buffalo’s passing game was one of the strongest features of the contest. The team completed 15 of 22 passes for 230 net passing yards, recorded two passing touchdowns, and did not throw an interception.
The numbers show a productive performance from both Kyle Allen and Shane Buechele. Each quarterback contributed a touchdown pass, but they reached their production in different ways.
Kyle Allen’s passing numbers
| Statistic | Kyle Allen |
| Completions | 10 |
| Attempts | 12 |
| Completion percentage | 83.3% |
| Passing yards | 128 |
| Yards per attempt | 10.7 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 for 9 yards |
| Passer rating | 138.9 |
Allen completed 83.3% of his passes and averaged 10.7 yards per attempt. That combination points to more than short, low-risk completions. Buffalo generated meaningful yardage while maintaining a high completion rate.
His touchdown pass to Mecole Hardman Jr. gave Buffalo a 14-7 lead late in the second quarter. The scoring drive was particularly important because it put the Bills ahead just before halftime and gave them momentum entering the second half.
Allen’s performance also demonstrated sound ball security. He did not throw an interception, which allowed Buffalo to keep control of its offensive possessions.
However, a single preseason appearance cannot establish how a quarterback would perform against a full-strength regular-season defense. The sample is small, and the quality of opposing coverage, pass rush, and personnel changes the meaning of every efficiency statistic.
Shane Buechele’s passing contribution
| Statistic | Shane Buechele |
| Completions | 5 |
| Attempts | 10 |
| Completion percentage | 50.0% |
| Passing yards | 111 |
| Yards per attempt | 11.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Passer rating | 123.3 |
Buechele completed fewer passes than Allen, but his average of 11.1 yards per attempt was slightly higher. His biggest contribution came when he connected with Ja’Mori Maclin for a 71-yard touchdown in the third quarter.
That play turned Buffalo’s 17-7 lead into a 24-7 advantage and demonstrated the value of explosive passing plays. A single completion can change the scoreboard more quickly than a series of short gains.
Buechele also added a five-yard rushing touchdown in the fourth quarter. His combination of passing and running production made him an important contributor to the final score.
The 50% completion rate is worth noting, but it should not be interpreted in isolation. Ten attempts provide a limited sample, and one long touchdown pass has a large effect on yards per attempt.
Buffalo’s combined quarterback production
Allen and Buechele combined for:
- 15 completions on 22 attempts.
- 239 gross passing yards before the sack adjustment.
- Two passing touchdowns.
- Zero interceptions.
- One sack for nine yards.
- A team passer rating of 134.5.
The distinction between gross and net passing yards matters. Buffalo’s individual passing totals add up to 239 yards, while its net passing total was 230 after accounting for the nine yards lost on a sack.
This explains why different box-score sections may show slightly different passing-yard figures without contradicting each other.
Cleveland Browns Passing Stats and Quarterback Analysis
Cleveland’s passing game had a more difficult afternoon. The Browns completed 14 of 24 attempts for 110 net passing yards, one touchdown, and two interceptions.
Their team average was 4.6 yards per attempt, far below Buffalo’s 10.9. This difference helps explain why Cleveland struggled to sustain offensive momentum after its opening-quarter touchdown.
Shedeur Sanders leads Cleveland’s passing attack
| Statistic | Shedeur Sanders |
| Completions | 9 |
| Attempts | 11 |
| Completion percentage | 81.8% |
| Passing yards | 74 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.7 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 for 0 yards |
| Passer rating | 87.1 |
Sanders completed nine of 11 passes, giving him a completion rate of 81.8%. He also threw Cleveland’s only touchdown pass, connecting with Luke Floriea for an eight-yard score in the first quarter.
His completion percentage was impressive, but the relatively low passing-yard total tells a more complete story. Nine completions produced only 74 yards, meaning Cleveland gained less than eight yards per completion on average.
This illustrates an important principle when reading football statistics: completion percentage measures how often passes are caught, not how effectively an offense moves down the field.
Sanders also threw one interception. His overall performance therefore included both a successful touchdown drive and a costly mistake. The available figures support evaluating those two outcomes separately rather than treating his completion rate as proof of an entirely successful outing.
Deshaun Watson’s numbers
| Statistic | Deshaun Watson |
| Completions | 5 |
| Attempts | 12 |
| Completion percentage | 41.7% |
| Passing yards | 36 |
| Yards per attempt | 3.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Passer rating | 14.6 |
Watson completed five of 12 attempts and averaged only three yards per attempt. His passing line included one interception and no touchdown passes.
The low average indicates that Cleveland received limited yardage from the attempts recorded in his statistical line. His completion percentage also left the offense with fewer successful passing plays to build upon.
It is important not to use this single preseason performance as a complete measure of Watson’s ability. The numbers describe this game, not an entire career or a season-long evaluation.
Dillon Gabriel’s limited appearance
Gabriel recorded one pass attempt and no completions, passing yards, touchdowns, or interceptions. His passer rating was 39.6.
One attempt is far too small a sample for meaningful performance conclusions. His line should be included for completeness, but it does not support a broad judgment about his readiness or long-term potential.
Comparing the quarterbacks
| Measure | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Completions | 15 | 14 |
| Attempts | 22 | 24 |
| Net passing yards | 230 | 110 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 2 |
| Yards per attempt | 10.9 | 4.6 |
Buffalo attempted fewer passes but produced more than twice Cleveland’s net passing yardage. The contrast suggests that the Bills were much more effective at converting their passing opportunities into significant gains.
For readers evaluating quarterback performance, the most useful approach is to consider completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks together. No single statistic captures the full quality of a passing performance.
Buffalo Bills Rushing Stats: Ground Game Breakdown
Buffalo’s rushing attack provided a second source of offensive production. The Bills recorded 34 carries for 138 yards, averaging 4.1 yards per attempt and scoring two rushing touchdowns.
The ground game helped balance the passing offense and gave Buffalo several ways to advance the ball. It also allowed the team to keep producing after establishing an early lead.
Ian Wheeler leads Buffalo in rushing yards
| Statistic | Ian Wheeler |
| Carries | 14 |
| Rushing yards | 56 |
| Yards per carry | 4.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 10 yards |
Wheeler led Buffalo in rushing attempts and rushing yards. His 14 carries accounted for a substantial share of the team’s 34 attempts.
A four-yard average is a useful baseline for evaluating a running back’s contribution, although it does not reveal every aspect of his performance. Blocking, down and distance, defensive alignment, and the ability to gain yards after contact also influence the value of each carry.
Wheeler’s workload and steady production made him the leading rusher by yardage in this matchup. He did not score a rushing touchdown, but his contribution helped Buffalo reach 138 team rushing yards.
Frank Gore Jr. provides an efficient option
| Statistic | Frank Gore Jr. |
| Carries | 9 |
| Rushing yards | 54 |
| Yards per carry | 6.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 18 yards |
Gore averaged six yards per carry, the highest average among Buffalo’s primary runners with multiple carries.
His longest run of 18 yards was also Buffalo’s longest recorded rush in the supplied statistics. That explosive gain helped raise his average and showed how a small number of successful plays can influence overall rushing efficiency.
Gore also contributed as a kick returner, recording one return for 22 yards. The box score lists one fumble, but he did not lose possession of the ball. That distinction matters because a fumble and a lost fumble are not the same statistic.
His performance was productive, although nine carries remain a limited sample for forecasting future workload or efficiency.
Ray Davis adds a touchdown
| Statistic | Ray Davis |
| Carries | 7 |
| Rushing yards | 21 |
| Yards per carry | 3.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 8 yards |
Davis averaged three yards per carry and scored a rushing touchdown from one yard out in the first quarter. That score gave Buffalo its opening seven points.
His touchdown demonstrates why rushing efficiency and scoring production should be evaluated separately. A short run near the goal line may produce little yardage but still be one of the most valuable plays on the scoreboard.
Davis also caught one pass for 10 yards, adding a small contribution to the receiving game.
Other Buffalo rushing contributions
Mecole Hardman Jr. recorded one rush for four yards. Buechele added three carries for three yards and a five-yard rushing touchdown.
Buechele’s total includes the touchdown run, which was particularly useful late in the game. It gave Buffalo its fourth touchdown and completed the scoring at 31-7.
Buffalo rushing summary
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| Ian Wheeler | 14 | 56 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Frank Gore Jr. | 9 | 54 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Ray Davis | 7 | 21 | 3.0 | 1 |
| Shane Buechele | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 1 |
| Mecole Hardman Jr. | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 34 | 138 | 4.1 | 2 |
The team’s total is more important than any individual line when assessing the complete ground game. Buffalo combined consistent carries from Wheeler with Gore’s more explosive gains and touchdowns from Davis and Buechele.
Cleveland Browns Rushing Stats and Running Back Production
Cleveland finished with 84 rushing yards on 27 attempts, averaging 3.1 yards per carry. The Browns did not score a rushing touchdown, leaving their offense more dependent on passing to produce points.
The rushing figures suggest that Cleveland had difficulty generating the same level of consistent ground production as Buffalo. Although several players recorded positive gains, the team’s overall average remained lower.
Raheim Sanders leads Cleveland’s rushing attack
| Statistic | Raheim Sanders |
| Carries | 12 |
| Rushing yards | 31 |
| Yards per carry | 2.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 8 yards |
Sanders led Cleveland in both rushing attempts and rushing yards. His 12 carries represented nearly half of the team’s 27 rushing attempts.
However, he averaged 2.6 yards per carry, below Cleveland’s already modest team average. His longest run was eight yards, and he did not record a rushing touchdown.
This performance illustrates the challenge of evaluating a running back without considering the broader offensive environment. Running production depends on blocking, defensive fronts, play selection, and the situation in which each carry occurs. The box score identifies the output but does not establish that the running back alone was responsible for the team’s difficulties.
Ahmani Marshall’s contribution
Marshall carried the ball eight times for 18 yards, averaging 2.3 yards per carry. His longest rush gained seven yards.
He also caught one pass for 11 yards, giving him a role in both the running and passing games.
His combined rushing and receiving production was modest, but the receiving contribution is relevant when assessing a player’s potential versatility. In a preseason game, coaches may evaluate how effectively a player handles different responsibilities rather than focusing exclusively on total yardage.
Davon Booth and Deshaun Watson
Booth recorded three carries for 16 yards, averaging 5.3 yards per carry. His longest run gained 12 yards, making him Cleveland’s most efficient runner among players with multiple carries in this statistical group.
Watson added two rushes for 13 yards, averaging 6.5 yards per carry. His longest run was 10 yards.
These numbers show that Cleveland had some successful individual rushing plays despite its lower team average. Booth and Watson produced more than five yards per carry, but their combined five attempts were not enough to change the overall rushing picture.
Isaiah Bond added one carry for four yards, while Sanders recorded two rushing yards on his single attempt.
Cleveland rushing summary
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| Raheim Sanders | 12 | 31 | 2.6 | 0 |
| Ahmani Marshall | 8 | 18 | 2.3 | 0 |
| Davon Booth | 3 | 16 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Deshaun Watson | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 |
| Isaiah Bond | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Shedeur Sanders | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Team total | 27 | 84 | 3.1 | 0 |
Buffalo’s 138 rushing yards exceeded Cleveland’s 84 by 54 yards. The Bills also scored twice on the ground, while the Browns failed to reach the end zone through rushing.
For a complete offensive evaluation, rushing attempts, average gain, touchdowns, and the distribution of carries should be examined together. This gives a clearer picture of how a team used its available runners.
Receiving Stats: Ja’Mori Maclin’s Explosive Performance
The receiving statistics provide one of the clearest explanations for Buffalo’s offensive advantage. The Bills recorded 239 gross receiving yards across 15 receptions, averaging approximately 15.9 yards per catch.
Cleveland recorded 110 receiving yards on 14 receptions, averaging approximately 7.9 yards per catch. The difference shows that Buffalo gained considerably more yardage from each completed reception.
Ja’Mori Maclin leads all receivers
| Statistic | Ja’Mori Maclin |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving yards | 108 |
| Yards per reception | 54.0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 71 yards |
| Targets | 3 |
Maclin produced 108 yards on just two catches, making him Buffalo’s leading receiver by yardage. His 71-yard touchdown reception from Buechele in the third quarter was the game’s most significant explosive passing play.
That single play increased Buffalo’s lead from 17-7 to 24-7. It also accounted for more than half of Maclin’s total receiving yards.
Maclin’s production highlights why total yardage and reception count should be considered together. A receiver can have a relatively small number of catches and still make a major impact through explosive gains.
At the same time, two receptions are not enough to establish consistent week-to-week production. The performance is a strong individual result for this game, but future reliability would require a larger sample.
Trent Sherfield provides consistent production
| Statistic | Trent Sherfield |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving yards | 54 |
| Yards per reception | 13.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 20 yards |
| Targets | 4 |
Sherfield led Buffalo in receptions with four catches on four targets. His 54 receiving yards provided a reliable contribution across multiple completions.
Unlike Maclin’s explosive two-catch performance, Sherfield’s production came through a higher number of successful receptions. Both types of contribution matter to an offense.
A receiver who regularly converts targets into catches can help sustain drives, while a receiver who creates large gains can change field position quickly. Buffalo benefited from both patterns.
Additional Buffalo receiving performances
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Ja’Mori Maclin | 2 | 108 | 54.0 | 1 |
| Trent Sherfield | 4 | 54 | 13.5 | 0 |
| Shane Zylstra | 3 | 29 | 9.7 | 0 |
| Ian Wheeler | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 |
| Mecole Hardman Jr. | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 1 |
| Ray Davis | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Jackson Hawes | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
Zylstra contributed three receptions for 29 yards, giving Buffalo another productive option. Wheeler added 21 receiving yards, showing that he contributed beyond his role in the rushing attack.
Hardman caught two passes for 15 yards and scored on a nine-yard reception from Allen late in the first half. Although his receiving total was modest, the touchdown was important because it put Buffalo ahead at halftime.
Davis and Hawes also recorded receptions. These contributions helped spread the workload across several offensive players instead of relying on one receiver for every successful play.
Why Buffalo’s receiving efficiency mattered
Buffalo averaged nearly twice as many yards per reception as Cleveland. Maclin’s long touchdown substantially influenced that figure, but Sherfield’s production and contributions from other receivers also helped.
The difference in receiving efficiency was especially important because the Bills did not need a large number of pass attempts to generate substantial yardage. They completed 15 passes compared with Cleveland’s 14, yet Buffalo gained 120 more net passing yards.
This is a useful lesson for readers comparing receiving statistics. Receptions measure volume, receiving yards measure output, and yards per reception provide context about how much ground a receiver gains on each catch. Targets add another layer by showing how often a player was involved in the passing plan.
Cleveland Browns Receiving Stats and Top Pass Catchers
Cleveland’s receiving group had a smaller overall impact on the scoreboard. The Browns completed 14 receptions for 110 yards and one touchdown.
Luke Floriea led the team in receiving yards and caught its only receiving touchdown. Other players contributed individual gains, but Cleveland did not produce the same level of explosive passing as Buffalo.
Luke Floriea leads Cleveland
| Statistic | Luke Floriea |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving yards | 31 |
| Yards per reception | 15.5 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 23 yards |
| Targets | 4 |
Floriea finished with 31 yards and a touchdown on two receptions. His eight-yard touchdown catch from Sanders tied the game at 7-7 in the first quarter.
His 23-yard longest reception indicates that he was capable of producing a meaningful gain beyond the goal-line score. However, two catches provide only a limited view of his broader receiving ability.
Malachi Corley and other contributors
Corley caught two passes for 27 yards, averaging 13.5 yards per reception. His longest reception gained 20 yards.
Blake Whiteheart recorded one reception for 16 yards, while Carsen Ryan caught one pass for 13 yards. Ahmani Marshall added 11 receiving yards, and Isaiah Bond caught one pass for eight yards.
Gage Larvadain caught two passes for five yards. Raheim Sanders recorded one reception for one yard, while Davon Booth caught two passes for minus-seven yards.
Booth’s negative receiving total is important to interpret correctly. It means his receptions resulted in a net loss of seven receiving yards. It does not mean that he failed to catch the ball.
Cleveland receiving summary
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Luke Floriea | 2 | 31 | 15.5 | 1 |
| Malachi Corley | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 0 |
| Blake Whiteheart | 1 | 16 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Carsen Ryan | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 |
| Ahmani Marshall | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Isaiah Bond | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Gage Larvadain | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Ben Patterson | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Raheim Sanders | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Davon Booth | 2 | -7 | -3.5 | 0 |
The individual numbers show that Cleveland had some productive catches, especially from Floriea, Corley, and Whiteheart. The larger issue was converting those individual gains into sustained offensive production.
Cleveland’s 7.9 yards per reception was considerably lower than Buffalo’s 15.9. This does not mean every Browns receiver performed poorly. Instead, it describes the overall difference between the two passing attacks during this particular game.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Sacks, and Interceptions
The defensive numbers reveal another major difference between the teams. Buffalo recorded two interceptions and allowed no additional scoring after Cleveland’s first-quarter touchdown. Cleveland’s defense registered plenty of tackles, but it struggled to prevent Buffalo from creating explosive plays and scoring in three additional quarters.
Damar Hamlin’s defensive contribution
Hamlin led Buffalo’s listed defensive performers with five total tackles, two solo tackles, and one pass defended. He also recorded an interception return of eight yards, according to the supplied defensive statistics.
An interception can have an impact beyond the individual player’s stat line. It ends the opposing team’s possession, prevents a potential scoring opportunity, and gives the offense another chance to take control of the game.
Hamlin’s performance was part of a wider defensive effort rather than an isolated achievement. Buffalo’s defense recorded two interceptions, seven passes defended, five tackles for loss, and five quarterback hits.
Te’Cory Couch adds another interception
Couch recorded Buffalo’s second interception. His return was listed at zero yards, but the play still counted as a turnover.
The two interceptions were especially important because Cleveland finished with no interceptions recorded against its own defense in the supplied team statistics, while its offense threw two. Buffalo therefore won the interception comparison by two.
Nathaniel Watson leads Cleveland in tackles
Watson recorded 10 total tackles and two solo tackles, leading the listed Browns defenders in total tackles.
His tackle count reflects frequent involvement in defensive plays. However, high tackle totals do not automatically indicate that a defender dominated a game. Tackles can occur after short gains, long gains, or plays that have already advanced the opposing offense into a favorable position.
To evaluate defensive impact more fully, tackles should be read alongside sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, forced turnovers, and the context of each play.
Defensive team comparison
| Defensive statistic | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Total tackles | 69 | 71 |
| Solo tackles | 29 | 29 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 | 2 |
| Passes defended | 7 | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
The tackle totals were similar, but Buffalo had the advantage in several impact categories. The Bills recorded more tackles for loss, more passes defended, more quarterback hits, and both interceptions.
These statistics suggest that Buffalo was more effective at disrupting Cleveland’s offensive rhythm. The Browns’ defenders made plenty of tackles, yet the unit did not generate a turnover or prevent Buffalo from scoring 31 points.
What the defensive numbers do and do not show
A box score is useful for identifying measurable contributions, but it does not capture every assignment or coverage responsibility. For example, a defender may influence a quarterback’s decision without recording a tackle or pass defended.
Likewise, a sack total alone cannot show how consistently a defense pressured the quarterback. The five quarterback hits recorded by Buffalo provide additional evidence of disruption, but film review would be needed to evaluate the quality and timing of that pressure.
The most reliable conclusion is that Buffalo’s defense made more game-changing plays in the recorded categories. It is not possible to attribute the entire result to any one defender based solely on the available numbers.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams played a supporting role in the final score. Buffalo converted its field-goal attempt and all four extra points, while Cleveland converted its single extra point.
The kicking figures also show that Buffalo was able to add points when a touchdown was not available.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Buffalo Bills | Cleveland Browns |
| Kicker | Tyler Bass | Andre Szmyt |
| Field goals made | 1 | 0 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 0 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | Not applicable |
| Longest field goal | 52 yards | None |
| Extra points made | 4 | 1 |
| Extra points attempted | 4 | 1 |
| Total kicking points | 7 | 1 |
Bass made a 52-yard field goal in the third quarter, extending Buffalo’s lead to 17-7. That kick was the only successful field goal recorded in the game.
Szmyt converted Cleveland’s extra point following Floriea’s touchdown. Because Cleveland did not attempt a field goal, a field-goal percentage of zero should not be interpreted as a missed kick. There was no attempt to miss.
Punting performance
Buffalo punted four times for 188 yards, averaging 47.0 yards per punt. Two punts landed inside the opponent’s 20-yard line.
Cleveland punted five times for 240 yards, averaging 48.0 yards per punt. One punt landed inside the 20.
| Punting statistic | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Punts | 4 | 5 |
| Total punting yards | 188 | 240 |
| Average yards per punt | 47.0 | 48.0 |
| Longest punt | 59 yards | 55 yards |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 1 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Cleveland averaged one yard more per punt, but Buffalo placed two punts inside the 20 compared with Cleveland’s one. Average distance and placement measure different aspects of punting, so both are useful when evaluating performance.
Return game
Buffalo returned two kickoffs for 52 yards, averaging 26.0 yards per return. Cleveland returned five kickoffs for 152 yards, averaging 30.4 yards per return.
The Browns therefore gained more kickoff-return yardage and had the higher average. That advantage did not translate into a closer final score, illustrating why special teams must be assessed alongside offense and defense.
Buffalo also recorded two punt returns for 29 yards. Cleveland had three punt returns for 21 yards.
The return statistics provide a fuller account of field-position opportunities, although they do not independently establish how much each return changed the expected scoring outcome.
Team Efficiency: Why Buffalo Won by 24 Points
The final score was 31-7, a margin of 24 points. Several team-level statistics help explain the result more clearly than the score alone.
First downs and total yardage
Buffalo recorded 20 first downs, compared with Cleveland’s 12. The Bills also produced 368 combined net passing and rushing yards, while the Browns recorded 194.
That is a difference of 174 yards in combined offensive production.
First downs matter because they help indicate whether an offense is sustaining possessions. More successful first-down conversions generally give a team additional opportunities to advance into scoring range.
However, first downs and yardage should not be treated as direct measures of scoring efficiency. A team can gain many yards without scoring if it struggles in the red zone or commits costly penalties. Buffalo avoided that problem more effectively in this matchup.
Third-down and fourth-down performance
| Situation | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Third-down conversions | 5 of 11 | 3 of 11 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 45.5% | 27.3% |
| Fourth-down conversions | 1 of 1 | 1 of 2 |
Buffalo converted two more third downs than Cleveland, despite both teams having 11 attempts.
The difference matters because third-down success can keep a drive alive and reduce the number of times an offense must punt. Buffalo’s 45.5% conversion rate was considerably higher than Cleveland’s 27.3%.
The fourth-down comparison also favored Buffalo. The Bills converted their only attempt, while the Browns converted one of two. These numbers show a small but meaningful advantage in keeping drives alive.
Red-zone performance
Buffalo converted all three of its recorded red-zone opportunities into touchdowns, while Cleveland scored a touchdown on one of two red-zone opportunities.
| Red-zone statistic | Buffalo | Cleveland |
| Opportunities | 3 | 2 |
| Touchdowns | 3 | 1 |
| Touchdown conversion rate | 100% | 50% |
Buffalo’s perfect red-zone touchdown rate was a major factor in its offensive success. The Bills did not settle for field goals on their three recorded red-zone trips.
Cleveland converted one opportunity into a touchdown but failed to score on its other recorded trip. With fewer opportunities overall, the Browns had less room for error.
Red-zone percentages can fluctuate sharply in a single game, particularly in the preseason. The figures should be understood as a description of this contest, not proof that either team will maintain the same rate throughout a season.
Possession time and penalties
Buffalo possessed the ball for 31 minutes and 16 seconds, compared with Cleveland’s 28 minutes and 44 seconds.
The Bills also committed six penalties for 40 yards, while Cleveland had nine penalties for 73 yards.
Cleveland’s additional penalties cost the team 33 more penalty yards than Buffalo. Penalties can erase successful plays, create longer down-and-distance situations, and make it harder for an offense to maintain momentum.
The possession-time difference was modest, but Buffalo combined its slight advantage in time with better yardage, stronger third-down conversion, and more efficient scoring.
Key Scoring Plays That Shaped the Game
The scoring sequence explains how Buffalo turned a tied game into a comfortable win.
First quarter: Both teams find the end zone
Ray Davis opened the scoring with a one-yard rushing touchdown, giving Buffalo a 7-0 lead.
Cleveland responded with Sanders’ eight-yard touchdown pass to Floriea. The successful extra point tied the game at 7-7.
At this stage, the contest was level, and both offenses had demonstrated that they could complete a scoring drive.
Second quarter: Buffalo moves ahead
Allen connected with Hardman for a nine-yard touchdown late in the second quarter. Bass converted the extra point, giving Buffalo a 14-7 halftime lead.
The timing was important. Buffalo entered the break with a seven-point advantage and then continued to build on it after halftime.
Third quarter: The decisive separation
Bass made a 52-yard field goal to increase the lead to 17-7.
Buechele then connected with Maclin for a 71-yard touchdown, pushing Buffalo ahead 24-7. That play was the most explosive scoring action in the game and created a three-score gap.
Fourth quarter: Buffalo completes the win
Buechele added a five-yard rushing touchdown, and Bass made the extra point. Buffalo’s lead reached 31-7, which remained the final score.
The scoring sequence shows that the Bills did not depend on one type of play. They scored through rushing, short passing, a long touchdown reception, and a long field goal.
For a game-specific account of the result and its context, the official Buffalo Bills game recap provides additional reporting.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The most useful way to interpret this game is to separate individual production from team-level execution.
What Buffalo did well
- Passing efficiency: Buffalo averaged 10.9 yards per attempt and threw two touchdown passes without an interception.
- Explosive receiving: Maclin gained 108 yards on two catches, including a 71-yard touchdown.
- Balanced rushing: The Bills recorded 138 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns.
- Defensive disruption: Buffalo recorded two interceptions, five quarterback hits, and five tackles for loss.
- Scoring consistency: The Bills scored in every quarter and added 24 points after the opening quarter.
These categories reinforce one another. Effective passing helped Buffalo create explosive gains, while the rushing attack gave the offense another way to move the ball. Defensive takeaways and stronger third-down performance further limited Cleveland’s ability to recover.
What Cleveland can learn from the numbers
- Passing yardage: The Browns produced only 110 net passing yards.
- Turnovers: Two interceptions gave Buffalo additional possession opportunities.
- Rushing efficiency: Cleveland averaged 3.1 yards per carry and did not score a rushing touchdown.
- Third-down execution: The Browns converted three of 11 attempts.
- Penalty discipline: Cleveland committed nine penalties for 73 yards.
These results point to areas that would warrant closer examination, particularly passing efficiency, turnover prevention, and drive sustainability.
Still, a preseason box score cannot establish exactly why each problem occurred. Film analysis, player assignments, the opposing defensive scheme, and coaching decisions would be needed to explain the underlying causes with greater confidence.
Why preseason context matters
Preseason games differ from regular-season contests in several important ways. Teams may limit the playing time of established starters, test young players in unfamiliar roles, and use substitutions more frequently.
That means individual statistics can reflect opportunity as much as ability. A player who receives more snaps may accumulate more yards, while another player may have fewer opportunities to demonstrate his skills.
For that reason, the most responsible interpretation focuses on what the statistics directly establish. Buffalo performed more efficiently in this game, but one preseason result is not enough to predict future regular-season records or guarantee that an individual player will maintain the same production.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns game?
The Buffalo Bills defeated the Cleveland Browns 31-7 in their preseason matchup on August 22, 2026. Buffalo scored seven points in the first quarter, seven in the second, 10 in the third, and seven in the fourth. Cleveland scored its only touchdown in the opening quarter.
2. Who was Buffalo’s leading passer?
Kyle Allen led Buffalo with 128 passing yards, completing 10 of 12 attempts. He threw one touchdown pass, did not throw an interception, and recorded a passer rating of 138.9.
3. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Ja’Mori Maclin led all listed receivers with 108 receiving yards on two catches. He averaged 54 yards per reception and scored on a 71-yard touchdown catch from Shane Buechele.
4. How many interceptions did the Bills record?
Buffalo recorded two interceptions, one by Damar Hamlin and another by Te’Cory Couch. Cleveland did not record an interception in the supplied defensive statistics.
5. How many rushing yards did each team record?
Buffalo gained 138 rushing yards on 34 attempts, averaging 4.1 yards per carry. Cleveland gained 84 yards on 27 attempts, averaging 3.1 yards per carry. Buffalo also scored two rushing touchdowns, while Cleveland recorded none.
6. Why is this game considered a preseason matchup?
The August 22, 2026, contest was an NFL preseason game. Preseason games allow teams to evaluate players, test combinations, and prepare for the regular season. Individual statistics remain useful, but playing time, opponent personnel, and substitution patterns should be considered before making broader judgments about player ability.
Conclusion
The Buffalo Bills delivered a convincing 31-7 victory over the Cleveland Browns on August 22, 2026. The statistical difference extended beyond the scoreboard, with Buffalo producing 368 combined net passing and rushing yards compared with Cleveland’s 194.
The Bills’ passing attack stood out through Kyle Allen’s efficient performance, Shane Buechele’s touchdown contributions, and Ja’Mori Maclin’s 108 receiving yards. Buffalo also gained 138 rushing yards, scored twice on the ground, and protected the ball through the air.
Cleveland showed some individual promise through Shedeur Sanders’ touchdown pass, Luke Floriea’s receiving production, and Nathaniel Watson’s 10 tackles. However, the Browns struggled to sustain offensive drives, averaged only 4.6 yards per passing attempt, and threw two interceptions.
The central lesson from this matchup is that football performance cannot be measured by one statistic alone. Passing efficiency, rushing production, turnovers, third-down conversions, red-zone execution, and defensive disruption all contributed to the result.
The Buffalo Bills vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats provide a detailed record of those contributions. Because the game was played during the preseason, the numbers are best used to understand this specific contest and identify individual performances worth examining further, rather than making definitive predictions about the regular season.
