Tennessee Titans vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats
The tennessee titans vs las vegas raiders match player stats reveal how the Las Vegas Raiders secured a 20-10 victory over the Tennessee Titans on October 13, 2025. The game featured important contributions from Ashton Jeanty, Geno Smith, Tre Tucker, Michael Mayer, and the Raiders’ defensive unit. Although Tennessee produced 222 passing yards through Cam Ward, its offense struggled to maintain consistent protection, with Ward being sacked six times and losing two fumbles. Las Vegas used a more balanced offensive approach and an aggressive defensive performance to control important moments of the contest.
The final score was Las Vegas Raiders 20, Tennessee Titans 10. The result gave the Raiders their second victory of the season, improving their record to 2-4, while Tennessee dropped to 1-5. The biggest difference came from the defensive pressure created by Las Vegas. The Raiders recorded six sacks, forced turnovers, and limited Tennessee’s opportunities to build momentum.
This matchup provides several interesting statistical stories. Cam Ward completed 26 of 38 passes, while Geno Smith completed 17 of 23 attempts. Ashton Jeanty led the Raiders’ rushing attack with 75 yards and a touchdown. On the receiving side, Van Jefferson recorded 75 yards for Tennessee, while Tre Tucker finished with 70 yards for Las Vegas.
Beyond the final score, the individual performances explain why the Raiders emerged victorious. Examining quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive statistics, turnovers, and special teams provides a clearer understanding of the game.
Tennessee Titans vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The October 13 matchup was an important opportunity for both teams to improve their early-season records. Tennessee entered the contest looking for a second victory, while Las Vegas wanted to build consistency after a difficult start.
The Raiders eventually won by a 10-point margin. Their defensive performance was particularly important because Tennessee had more completions and finished with more passing attempts.
Final Game Information
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Tennessee Titans vs Las Vegas Raiders |
| Date | October 13, 2025 |
| Competition | National Football League |
| Week | Week designation requires confirmation |
| Final Score | Raiders 20, Titans 10 |
| Winning Team | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Losing Team | Tennessee Titans |
| Tennessee Record | 1-5 |
| Las Vegas Record | 2-4 |
| Tennessee Away Record | 1-3 |
| Las Vegas Home Record | 1-2 |
| Game Status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401772859 |
The supplied game information contains two different week references. The game context identifies Week 6, while separate scoreboard text indicates Week 8. Therefore, the date and final score are used here without presenting either week designation as independently confirmed.
The venue was not identified in the supplied information.
What Decided the Game?
Three major factors explain the result:
- Defensive pressure: Las Vegas recorded six sacks, compared with two for Tennessee. This significantly affected Cam Ward’s ability to operate comfortably.
- Turnover management: Ward lost two fumbles and threw an interception. Those mistakes created additional problems for the Titans.
- Rushing touchdowns: Ashton Jeanty scored a rushing touchdown, giving the Raiders an important scoring advantage.
The Raiders did not need an extraordinary passing performance to win. Their defense created difficult situations, and their running game helped establish control.
Quarterback Performance and Passing Statistics
Quarterback production is one of the most important parts of any NFL matchup analysis. The performances of Cam Ward and Geno Smith were different in several important ways.
Ward attempted more passes and completed more throws, but Smith was more efficient with his opportunities. The difference in sacks and turnovers also played a major role in determining which offense could sustain its drives.
Cam Ward’s Passing Performance for Tennessee
Cam Ward completed 26 of 38 passes for 222 yards and one touchdown. He averaged 5.8 yards per attempt and finished with a passer rating of 81.3.
His passing statistics show that Tennessee was able to move the ball through the air. However, the offense struggled to convert that activity into enough points.
| Passing Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 26 |
| Attempts | 38 |
| Completion Percentage | 68.4% |
| Passing Yards | 222 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 5.8 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 62 |
| QBR | 12.4 |
| Passer Rating | 81.3 |
| Fumbles | 2 |
| Fumbles Lost | 2 |
Ward’s 68.4% completion rate was a positive part of his performance. Completing more than two-thirds of his attempts indicates that he found ways to connect with his receivers despite the defensive pressure.
However, completion percentage alone does not explain quarterback effectiveness.
His average of 5.8 yards per attempt indicates that Tennessee struggled to consistently generate substantial gains through the passing game. The Raiders also prevented him from having enough time to develop plays downfield.
The six sacks were especially damaging.
Losing 62 yards on sacks means the Titans repeatedly found themselves in difficult situations. A quarterback can complete several passes and still have an inefficient overall performance when pressure results in lost yardage, turnovers, and disrupted drives.
Ward’s QBR of 12.4 also reflects how difficult the overall outing was.
One positive aspect was his ability to complete 26 passes and produce 222 passing yards. However, the turnovers and sacks reduced the value of that production.
Geno Smith’s Passing Performance for Las Vegas
Geno Smith delivered a more efficient performance for the Raiders.
He completed 17 of 23 attempts for 174 yards and one touchdown. His completion percentage reached approximately 73.9%, and he averaged 7.6 yards per attempt.
| Passing Statistic | Geno Smith |
| Completions | 17 |
| Attempts | 23 |
| Completion Percentage | 73.9% |
| Passing Yards | 174 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 7.6 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 2 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 16 |
| QBR | 30.7 |
| Passer Rating | 91.6 |
Smith attempted 15 fewer passes than Ward but produced an efficient passing performance.
His 7.6 yards per attempt was 1.8 yards higher than Ward’s average. He also took only two sacks, losing 16 yards.
That difference in protection helped Las Vegas maintain better offensive situations.
Smith did throw an interception, so his performance was not completely mistake-free. Nevertheless, the Raiders avoided the same level of negative plays that affected Tennessee.
His passer rating of 91.6 was also higher than Ward’s 81.3.
Cam Ward vs Geno Smith: Direct Comparison
| Category | Cam Ward | Geno Smith |
| Completions | 26 | 17 |
| Attempts | 38 | 23 |
| Completion Percentage | 68.4% | 73.9% |
| Passing Yards | 222 | 174 |
| Yards Per Attempt | 5.8 | 7.6 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 1 |
| Sacks | 6 | 2 |
| Sack Yards | 62 | 16 |
| QBR | 12.4 | 30.7 |
| Passer Rating | 81.3 | 91.6 |
Ward led in total passing yards and completions. Smith led in completion percentage, yards per attempt, QBR, and passer rating.
The most revealing difference was the number of sacks.
Ward took six sacks, while Smith took only two. This gave the Raiders a considerable advantage in offensive stability.
The comparison demonstrates why passing yards should never be considered the only measurement of quarterback performance.
A quarterback’s effectiveness also depends on decision-making, protection, efficiency, turnovers, and the ability to keep drives moving.
Rushing Statistics: Ashton Jeanty Leads the Raiders
The rushing game played an important role in the Raiders’ victory.
Las Vegas recorded 68 team rushing yards on 32 attempts. Tennessee finished with 65 rushing yards on 15 attempts.
Although the difference in total rushing yards was relatively small, the Raiders had considerably more rushing attempts.
This helped them maintain a balanced offensive approach and avoid relying entirely on Geno Smith’s passing.
Ashton Jeanty’s Performance
Ashton Jeanty was the leading rusher for Las Vegas.
He recorded 23 rushing attempts for 75 yards and scored one touchdown. His average was 3.3 yards per carry, and his longest run covered 13 yards.
| Rushing Statistic | Ashton Jeanty |
| Carries | 23 |
| Rushing Yards | 75 |
| Yards Per Carry | 3.3 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Run | 13 yards |
Jeanty’s contribution was important because he gave the Raiders a reliable option on the ground.
His 23 attempts represented a significant portion of the team’s rushing workload. Even though his average was not particularly high, his ability to handle repeated carries helped Las Vegas maintain offensive balance.
His touchdown was even more valuable.
A rushing touchdown provides direct scoreboard production and rewards an offense for successfully completing a scoring opportunity.
Jeanty did not need explosive runs to influence the result. His workload and touchdown contribution made him one of the most important offensive players for Las Vegas.
Tony Pollard’s Performance for Tennessee
Tony Pollard led the Titans in rushing attempts and rushing yards.
He recorded 10 carries for 34 yards, averaging 3.4 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 17 yards.
| Rushing Statistic | Tony Pollard |
| Carries | 10 |
| Rushing Yards | 34 |
| Yards Per Carry | 3.4 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Run | 17 yards |
Pollard’s longest run demonstrated his ability to create a meaningful gain. However, his overall rushing production remained limited.
He finished with fewer than four yards per carry and did not score a touchdown.
His contribution as a receiver added another dimension to his performance, but Tennessee needed more consistent rushing production to make the offense less predictable.
Tyjae Spears Adds Rushing Support
Tyjae Spears provided an additional rushing option for Tennessee.
He recorded five carries for 31 yards, averaging 6.2 yards per attempt.
| Rushing Statistic | Tyjae Spears |
| Carries | 5 |
| Rushing Yards | 31 |
| Yards Per Carry | 6.2 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 |
Spears averaged more yards per carry than Pollard and Jeanty.
His production suggests that he was effective with his limited rushing opportunities. However, five attempts were not enough to make him the primary factor in Tennessee’s ground attack.
His ability to gain 31 yards on five carries provided a useful alternative to Pollard.
Las Vegas and Tennessee Team Rushing Comparison
| Team Statistic | Tennessee Titans | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Rushing Attempts | 15 | 32 |
| Rushing Yards | 65 | 68 |
| Average Per Carry | 4.3 | 2.1 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
The supplied Raiders team total indicates 68 rushing yards on 32 attempts, which produces approximately 2.1 yards per carry. Ashton Jeanty’s individual average was 3.3 yards per carry.
Tennessee actually averaged more rushing yards per attempt as a team. However, Las Vegas had significantly more rushing opportunities and recorded the only rushing touchdown.
This distinction is important.
The Raiders did not dominate the ground game through efficiency alone. Their greater rushing workload and ability to score on the ground helped them control the offensive rhythm.
Receiving Statistics: Van Jefferson and Tre Tucker Lead Their Teams
The receiving performances offered another interesting comparison.
Tennessee had more receiving activity in terms of total catches, while Las Vegas received important contributions from Tre Tucker and Michael Mayer.
The difference was not simply about the number of receptions. It was also about how each team distributed its passing production.
Van Jefferson Leads Tennessee’s Receivers
Van Jefferson was Tennessee’s leading receiver in total yardage.
He finished with four receptions for 75 yards, averaging 18.8 yards per catch. His longest reception was 23 yards.
| Receiving Statistic | Van Jefferson |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving Yards | 75 |
| Average Per Reception | 18.8 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 23 yards |
Jefferson’s average of 18.8 yards per reception was an important positive for Tennessee.
He provided a downfield option and generated more receiving yardage than any other Titans player.
However, his performance did not produce a receiving touchdown.
This is an important distinction when evaluating receiving statistics. A receiver can create substantial yardage without necessarily changing the scoreboard.
Jefferson’s production demonstrated his value as a passing target, but Tennessee needed additional contributions from its other receivers.
Chig Okonkwo’s Contribution
Chig Okonkwo recorded six receptions for 46 yards.
| Statistic | Chig Okonkwo |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Receiving Yards | 46 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
Okonkwo led Tennessee in receptions.
His six catches gave Ward a dependable short-to-intermediate passing option. Tight ends often help quarterbacks by providing targets across the middle of the field and creating opportunities when outside receivers are covered.
His contribution was particularly relevant in a game where Tennessee’s quarterback faced significant pressure.
Although he did not score, his reception total demonstrated his involvement in the passing offense.
Other Tennessee Receiving Performances
Several other players contributed to the Titans’ passing attack.
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards |
| Van Jefferson | 4 | 75 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 6 | 46 |
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 27 |
| Tyjae Spears | 4 | 19 |
| Calvin Ridley | 1 | 18 |
| Gunnar Helm | 2 | 15 |
| Tony Pollard | 2 | 13 |
| Chimere Dike | 2 | 8 |
| David Martin-Robinson | 1 | 1 |
| Tyler Lockett | 1 | 0 |
The distribution shows that Tennessee used several receiving options.
Okonkwo was the most frequent target among the listed players, while Jefferson generated the highest yardage.
Ayomanor also contributed with three catches for 27 yards.
Tyjae Spears added four receptions for 19 yards, showing that his role extended beyond rushing.
Pollard also contributed two catches, giving Tennessee another way to involve its running back in the passing game.
Calvin Ridley finished with one reception for 18 yards. His limited production was a notable part of the receiving distribution.
Tre Tucker Leads Las Vegas
Tre Tucker was the Raiders’ leading receiver.
He recorded five receptions for 70 yards, averaging 14.0 yards per catch. His longest reception covered 37 yards.
| Receiving Statistic | Tre Tucker |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 70 |
| Average Per Reception | 14.0 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 37 yards |
Tucker’s longest reception was the biggest individual receiving play listed for Las Vegas.
His 37-yard catch demonstrated his ability to generate significant yardage on an individual play.
He also provided a consistent target for Geno Smith, finishing with five receptions.
Although he did not score, his production helped the Raiders maintain their passing threat.
Michael Mayer’s Touchdown Contribution
Michael Mayer recorded five receptions for 50 yards and one touchdown.
| Receiving Statistic | Michael Mayer |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 50 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 1 |
Mayer’s touchdown was one of the most important receiving contributions in the game.
While Tucker led the team in receiving yards, Mayer provided the scoring production.
This highlights the difference between yardage leaders and scoring contributors.
A receiver who catches a touchdown can have a greater direct influence on the final score than a player who records more yards without reaching the end zone.
Mayer’s five receptions also made him one of Smith’s dependable passing options.
Other Las Vegas Receiving Performances
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Touchdowns |
| Tre Tucker | 5 | 70 | 0 |
| Michael Mayer | 5 | 50 | 1 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 4 | 39 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 2 | 11 | 0 |
| Ian Thomas | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Alex Cappa | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jack Bech | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Jakobi Meyers also contributed four receptions for 39 yards.
His production helped spread the passing workload across multiple players.
Jeanty’s two receptions for 11 yards demonstrated that the Raiders also used their running back in the passing game.
Receiving Comparison
| Team Statistic | Tennessee | Las Vegas |
| Team Receptions | 26 | 17 |
| Receiving Yards | 222 | 174 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
Tennessee finished with more receptions and receiving yards.
However, the Raiders scored the same number of receiving touchdowns despite producing fewer total passing yards.
This shows why total receiving production does not automatically determine the winner.
The effectiveness of individual plays, scoring opportunities, turnovers, and defensive performance all influence the final result.
Defensive Player Statistics: Las Vegas Creates the Difference
Defense was arguably the biggest reason Las Vegas won this matchup.
The Raiders recorded six sacks, compared with two for Tennessee. They also intercepted Cam Ward and recovered two fumbles according to the supplied defensive information.
Their pressure disrupted the Titans’ offensive rhythm and created difficult situations for the quarterback.
Maxx Crosby’s Impact on the Defensive Line
Maxx Crosby recorded three total tackles, two sacks, and two tackles for loss.
| Defensive Statistic | Maxx Crosby |
| Total Tackles | 3 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 2 |
Crosby’s two sacks were particularly important.
A sack can significantly change the situation of an offensive drive by creating lost yardage and increasing the distance needed for a first down.
His ability to pressure Ward contributed to the Raiders’ defensive advantage.
The Titans struggled to maintain a clean pocket, and Crosby’s performance was an important part of that problem.
Devin White Leads the Raiders’ Defense
Devin White recorded nine total tackles, including five solo tackles. He also registered one sack and intercepted Cam Ward.
| Defensive Statistic | Devin White |
| Total Tackles | 9 |
| Solo Tackles | 5 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Interception Return Yards | 0 |
White delivered one of the most complete defensive performances for Las Vegas.
His nine tackles showed consistent involvement in stopping Tennessee’s offense.
The interception was especially valuable because it prevented another Tennessee passing opportunity and gave the Raiders a defensive takeaway.
His contribution extended beyond tackling. He helped disrupt passing plays and contributed directly to the team’s turnover advantage.
Other Las Vegas Defensive Contributors
| Player | Total Tackles | Additional Statistics |
| Devin White | 9 | 1 sack, 1 interception |
| Jeremy Chinn | 6 | None listed |
| Kyu Blu Kelly | 5 | None listed |
| Eric Stokes | 5 | None listed |
| Maxx Crosby | 3 | 2 sacks, 2 tackles for loss |
Jeremy Chinn finished with six tackles.
Kyu Blu Kelly and Eric Stokes each recorded five tackles.
These contributions helped the Raiders maintain defensive pressure across different positions.
Cedric Gray Leads Tennessee’s Defense
Cedric Gray was Tennessee’s leading tackler.
He finished with 12 total tackles, including three solo tackles.
| Defensive Statistic | Cedric Gray |
| Total Tackles | 12 |
| Solo Tackles | 3 |
Gray’s 12 tackles represented the highest individual tackle total listed for either team.
His involvement demonstrates how frequently Tennessee’s defense had to respond to Las Vegas offensive plays.
Although his personal statistics were strong, the Titans were unable to prevent the Raiders from scoring 20 points.
Jeffery Simmons and Dre’Mont Jones Provide Pressure
Jeffery Simmons recorded six tackles, one sack, and two tackles for loss.
Dre’Mont Jones added five tackles and one sack.
| Player | Total Tackles | Sacks | Tackles for Loss |
| Jeffery Simmons | 6 | 1 | 2 |
| Dre’Mont Jones | 5 | 1 | Not specified |
Both players contributed to Tennessee’s defensive pass rush.
Their combined production helped the Titans record two sacks.
However, the Raiders’ six sacks created a much larger defensive advantage.
L’Jarius Sneed also recorded 10 tackles, making him another important contributor in the Tennessee defensive unit.
Tennessee and Las Vegas Team Defense Comparison
| Defensive Category | Tennessee Titans | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Total Tackles | 70 | 61 |
| Solo Tackles | 36 | 36 |
| Sacks | 2 | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 8 | 7 |
| Passes Defended | 4 | 2 |
| Quarterback Hits | 7 | 8 |
Tennessee recorded more total tackles, but Las Vegas produced four additional sacks.
The Raiders also recorded one more quarterback hit.
This suggests that the difference was not simply the number of defensive stops. It was the ability to create negative plays and disrupt the opposing quarterback.
The Raiders’ defensive performance directly affected Tennessee’s ability to sustain drives.
Turnovers and Their Influence on the Final Score
Turnovers can change the direction of an NFL game.
A team may move the ball effectively but struggle to win when it repeatedly gives possession away.
That was an important part of Tennessee’s defeat.
Cam Ward’s Two Lost Fumbles
Cam Ward recorded two fumbles, and both were lost.
This was a significant problem for the Titans.
A lost fumble ends an offensive possession and gives the opposing team an opportunity to take control of the football.
Unlike an incomplete pass, a lost fumble cannot simply be treated as an unsuccessful passing attempt.
It represents a change of possession.
Ward’s two lost fumbles added to the difficulty created by his interception and the six sacks.
These mistakes reduced Tennessee’s opportunities to build a scoring drive.
Devin White’s Interception
Devin White recorded one interception for Las Vegas.
He intercepted a pass from Ward and finished with zero interception return yards.
Although the return distance was limited, the interception still represented a valuable defensive play.
An interception can stop a promising offensive possession and immediately transfer possession to the defense.
White’s interception was an important part of the Raiders’ defensive performance.
Cody Barton’s Interception for Tennessee
Tennessee also recorded an interception.
Cody Barton intercepted a Las Vegas pass and returned it for one yard.
This was a positive defensive contribution for the Titans.
However, the interception did not provide enough of an advantage to overcome Tennessee’s offensive problems.
Turnover Summary
| Team | Player | Turnover |
| Tennessee | Cam Ward | 2 lost fumbles |
| Tennessee | Cody Barton | 1 interception |
| Las Vegas | Geno Smith | 1 interception |
| Las Vegas | Devin White | 1 interception |
The supplied information also lists two fumble recoveries for Las Vegas, credited to Thomas Booker IV and Tyree Wilson.
The player-level details indicate that the Raiders recovered two fumbles, but the exact recovery sequence and individual relationship to Ward’s lost fumbles are not fully established by the supplied table.
The broader statistical picture remains clear: Tennessee’s offensive mistakes were a major obstacle.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams contributed to the overall scoring and field-position battle.
Both teams had reliable kicking performances, while the Raiders also received useful contributions from their return game.
Matthew Wright’s Kicking Performance
Matthew Wright handled the kicking duties for Tennessee.
He converted his only field-goal attempt and his only extra-point attempt.
| Kicking Statistic | Matthew Wright |
| Field Goals | 1/1 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 46 yards |
| Extra Points | 1/1 |
| Total Points | 4 |
Wright converted a 46-yard field goal and added an extra point.
His perfect kicking record was a positive element of Tennessee’s performance.
However, the Titans needed additional scoring opportunities to challenge the Raiders.
Daniel Carlson’s Kicking Performance
Daniel Carlson was perfect for Las Vegas.
He converted two field goals and two extra points.
| Kicking Statistic | Daniel Carlson |
| Field Goals | 2/2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 50 yards |
| Extra Points | 2/2 |
| Total Points | 8 |
Carlson’s eight points were an important part of the Raiders’ scoring production.
His longest successful field goal covered 50 yards.
The ability to convert field-goal attempts helped Las Vegas capitalize on its scoring opportunities.
Punting Comparison
Johnny Hekker handled Tennessee’s punting responsibilities.
He recorded five punts for 220 yards, averaging 44.0 yards per punt.
AJ Cole handled the Raiders’ punting duties.
| Punting Statistic | Johnny Hekker | AJ Cole |
| Punts | 5 | 4 |
| Total Punt Yards | 220 | 167 |
| Average | 44.0 | 41.8 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Inside the 20 | 0 | 4 |
| Longest Punt | 53 yards | 47 yards |
Hekker recorded the higher average punt distance.
However, Cole placed all four of his punts inside the 20-yard line.
This is an important distinction.
Punting effectiveness is not determined only by distance. Placement can also make a difference by forcing the opposing offense to begin its possession farther from the end zone.
Cole’s ability to place punts inside the 20 was a positive contribution for Las Vegas.
Kick and Punt Returns
Return production also influenced field-position opportunities.
| Team | Returner | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Tennessee | Chimere Dike | 3 | 66 | 22.0 | 28 |
| Las Vegas | Dylan Laube | 2 | 57 | 28.5 | 29 |
Dike recorded 66 kick-return yards for Tennessee.
Laube averaged 28.5 yards per return, compared with Dike’s 22.0.
The Raiders also had Alex Bachman returning punts.
He recorded three punt returns for 47 yards, averaging 15.7 yards per return. His longest punt return was 25 yards.
Tennessee recorded no punt returns in the supplied statistics.
How the Raiders Won: Five Important Factors
The 20-10 result was not determined by one player alone. Several individual and team performances combined to produce the Raiders’ victory.
1. Las Vegas Generated Consistent Quarterback Pressure
The biggest defensive difference was the sack total.
Las Vegas recorded six sacks, while Tennessee recorded two.
This four-sack advantage affected the entire offensive structure of the game.
Ward lost 62 yards through sacks, while Smith lost only 16.
That difference made it harder for Tennessee to sustain possessions and reach favorable scoring situations.
2. Ashton Jeanty Provided a Rushing Touchdown
Jeanty recorded 75 rushing yards on 23 attempts.
His rushing touchdown was an important scoring contribution.
Although his average was 3.3 yards per carry, his workload allowed Las Vegas to maintain a ground-based offensive approach.
The Raiders did not need to rely exclusively on Smith’s passing.
3. Michael Mayer Converted a Receiving Opportunity
Mayer finished with five receptions for 50 yards and a touchdown.
His touchdown gave the Raiders an additional scoring threat beyond their rushing attack.
The combination of Jeanty’s rushing touchdown and Mayer’s receiving touchdown provided balance.
4. Devin White Made an Important Defensive Play
White recorded nine tackles, one sack, and one interception.
His performance was important because it combined different types of defensive production.
He contributed to stopping running and passing plays while also creating a turnover.
5. Tennessee Could Not Avoid Costly Mistakes
Ward threw one interception and lost two fumbles.
He also took six sacks.
These negative plays made it difficult for Tennessee to establish offensive consistency.
Even though the Titans recorded 222 passing yards, their ability to convert those yards into points remained limited.
Why Tennessee Lost Despite More Passing Yards
One of the most interesting parts of this matchup is that Tennessee recorded more passing yards than Las Vegas but still lost by 10 points.
The Titans finished with 222 passing yards, compared with 174 for the Raiders.
On the surface, this might suggest that Tennessee had the more productive passing offense.
However, total yardage does not explain the complete picture.
Several additional factors must be considered.
Passing Efficiency
Smith averaged 7.6 yards per attempt, while Ward averaged 5.8.
This means the Raiders gained more passing yardage per attempt.
Smith also completed 73.9% of his passes, compared with Ward’s 68.4%.
The difference suggests that Las Vegas generated more efficient production from fewer opportunities.
Protection Problems
Ward took six sacks.
Smith took only two.
This difference had a major effect on offensive efficiency.
Sacks create negative yardage and can force teams into difficult third-down situations.
They can also disrupt the timing of passing plays and make quarterbacks less comfortable.
Turnovers
Ward’s two lost fumbles and one interception created additional problems.
Smith also threw an interception, but the supplied statistics show fewer negative plays caused by sacks and fumbles on his side.
Scoring Production
Las Vegas scored 20 points.
Tennessee scored only 10.
The Raiders received a rushing touchdown from Jeanty and a receiving touchdown from Mayer, along with successful field goals and extra points.
Tennessee’s passing and receiving production did not translate into the same scoring output.
This is why the game should be evaluated through a combination of efficiency, ball security, defensive pressure, and scoring rather than passing yards alone.
Individual Players Who Made the Biggest Impact
Several players deserve attention when evaluating the overall performance.
Best Offensive Player for Las Vegas: Ashton Jeanty
Jeanty’s 75 rushing yards and one touchdown made him an important offensive contributor.
His 23 carries showed that the Raiders trusted him with a significant workload.
His touchdown also helped create separation on the scoreboard.
Best Receiving Performance: Van Jefferson
Van Jefferson led all listed receivers in receiving yards with 75.
His four catches produced an impressive 18.8 yards per reception.
Although he did not score, his production gave Tennessee an important downfield option.
Most Important Defensive Contributor: Devin White
White’s nine tackles, one sack, and interception made him one of the most influential defensive players.
He contributed in multiple areas and helped prevent Tennessee from maintaining offensive momentum.
Most Productive Quarterback: Geno Smith
Smith finished with a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt, a better QBR, and a higher passer rating.
Although he threw one interception, his overall efficiency was better than Ward’s.
Most Active Tennessee Defender: Cedric Gray
Gray recorded 12 tackles, the highest individual tackle total in the supplied statistics.
His performance showed how involved he was in Tennessee’s defensive efforts.
Important Statistical Trends From the Matchup
The numbers reveal several patterns that are useful when evaluating the performance of both teams.
Tennessee Had More Passing Volume
The Titans recorded:
- 38 passing attempts.
- 26 completions.
- 222 passing yards.
- One passing touchdown.
These figures show that Tennessee relied heavily on its passing game.
However, the production was not efficient enough to overcome the defensive pressure.
Las Vegas Used a More Balanced Offensive Approach
The Raiders recorded 32 rushing attempts compared with Tennessee’s 15.
Their running game helped reduce the pressure on Geno Smith to handle every offensive possession through the air.
This balance was particularly important because Smith also threw an interception.
Defensive Pressure Was a Deciding Factor
The Raiders recorded six sacks and eight quarterback hits.
Tennessee recorded two sacks and seven quarterback hits.
The Raiders’ ability to create more sacks was one of the clearest statistical advantages.
Both Teams Had Successful Kicking Performances
Wright and Carlson both converted every listed field-goal and extra-point attempt.
Carlson scored eight points, while Wright scored four.
The difference came from the number of scoring opportunities each team converted.
Tennessee’s Receiving Production Was Spread Across More Players
The Titans recorded 26 team receptions.
Their passing offense involved several players, including Jefferson, Okonkwo, Ayomanor, Spears, and Pollard.
Las Vegas had 17 team receptions, with Tucker, Mayer, and Meyers accounting for much of the receiving production.
This difference reflects two distinct approaches to distributing passing opportunities.
What the Statistics Tell Us About Both Teams
The matchup provides useful insight into the strengths and weaknesses displayed by both teams.
Tennessee Titans: Positive Signs and Areas of Concern
Tennessee showed some encouraging offensive production.
Cam Ward completed 26 passes, and Van Jefferson produced 75 receiving yards.
Chig Okonkwo also contributed six receptions, while Tyjae Spears averaged 6.2 yards per carry.
These performances suggest that the Titans had individual players capable of creating positive plays.
However, the team struggled in several important areas.
The offensive line allowed six sacks, and the quarterback lost two fumbles.
The rushing attack also produced only 65 team yards.
For Tennessee, the key statistical lessons were:
- Protecting the quarterback must be a priority.
- Turnovers need to be reduced.
- The rushing game needs a more consistent workload.
- Receiving yardage must translate into scoring opportunities.
- The offense needs to avoid negative plays on important downs.
Las Vegas Raiders: Defensive Strength and Offensive Balance
Las Vegas demonstrated how an effective defensive performance can support a balanced offense.
The Raiders did not produce overwhelming passing yardage, but Smith was efficient with his attempts.
Jeanty handled 23 rushing attempts and scored a touchdown.
Mayer contributed another touchdown through the passing game.
Defensively, Crosby and White were particularly important.
Their performances helped create pressure and disrupt Tennessee’s offensive rhythm.
The Raiders’ strongest statistical areas included:
- Six total sacks.
- Eight quarterback hits.
- One interception by Devin White.
- A rushing touchdown from Jeanty.
- A receiving touchdown from Mayer.
- Efficient passing production from Smith.
The main area for further improvement was rushing efficiency. The Raiders recorded 68 team rushing yards on 32 attempts, so their ground production was not particularly explosive.
Nevertheless, the combination of workload, scoring, and defensive performance was enough to secure the victory.
Complete Match Statistics Summary
The following tables bring together the most important individual performances from both teams.
Quarterbacks
| Player | Team | CMP/ATT | Yards | TD | INT |
| Cam Ward | Tennessee | 26/38 | 222 | 1 | 1 |
| Geno Smith | Las Vegas | 17/23 | 174 | 1 | 1 |
Leading Rushers
| Player | Team | Attempts | Yards | Average | TD |
| Tony Pollard | Tennessee | 10 | 34 | 3.4 | 0 |
| Tyjae Spears | Tennessee | 5 | 31 | 6.2 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | Las Vegas | 23 | 75 | 3.3 | 1 |
| Geno Smith | Las Vegas | 4 | -3 | -0.8 | 0 |
| Raheem Mostert | Las Vegas | 5 | -4 | -0.8 | 0 |
Leading Receivers
| Player | Team | Receptions | Yards | TD |
| Van Jefferson | Tennessee | 4 | 75 | 0 |
| Chig Okonkwo | Tennessee | 6 | 46 | 0 |
| Elic Ayomanor | Tennessee | 3 | 27 | 0 |
| Tyjae Spears | Tennessee | 4 | 19 | 0 |
| Tre Tucker | Las Vegas | 5 | 70 | 0 |
| Michael Mayer | Las Vegas | 5 | 50 | 1 |
| Jakobi Meyers | Las Vegas | 4 | 39 | 0 |
Defensive Leaders
| Player | Team | Tackles | Sacks | Interceptions |
| Cedric Gray | Tennessee | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| L’Jarius Sneed | Tennessee | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeffery Simmons | Tennessee | 6 | 1 | 0 |
| Dre’Mont Jones | Tennessee | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Devin White | Las Vegas | 9 | 1 | 1 |
| Jeremy Chinn | Las Vegas | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Kyu Blu Kelly | Las Vegas | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Eric Stokes | Las Vegas | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Maxx Crosby | Las Vegas | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Unlisted defensive statistics are not represented as zero unless the supplied data explicitly establishes that value.
Data Accuracy and Statistical Notes
Accurate reporting is important when publishing NFL statistical analysis.
The supplied information contains a discrepancy involving Cam Ward’s passing yardage.
His individual player row lists 222 passing yards, and the Tennessee receiving total also shows 222 yards. However, a separate team line lists 160 passing yards.
This article uses 222 passing yards because that figure agrees with the quarterback’s individual statistics and the listed receiving total.
The supplied data also contains conflicting Week 6 and Week 8 references. The October 13, 2025 date and 20-10 final score are retained, but the week designation is not treated as confirmed.
For readers who want to inspect the original statistical record, the ESPN NFL box score provides the reference for this matchup.
These distinctions matter because individual player totals, team totals, and scoreboard information should agree before being used in detailed statistical reporting.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Tennessee Titans vs Las Vegas Raiders game?
The Las Vegas Raiders defeated the Tennessee Titans 20-10 on October 13, 2025. The victory improved Las Vegas to 2-4, while Tennessee fell to 1-5.
2. How many passing yards did Cam Ward record against the Raiders?
Cam Ward completed 26 of 38 passes for 222 yards and one touchdown. He also threw one interception and lost two fumbles. He was sacked six times for 62 yards.
3. How many rushing yards did Ashton Jeanty have against Tennessee?
Ashton Jeanty recorded 75 rushing yards on 23 attempts, averaging 3.3 yards per carry. He also scored one rushing touchdown, making him an important offensive contributor for Las Vegas.
4. Who was the leading receiver for the Tennessee Titans?
Van Jefferson led Tennessee with 75 receiving yards on four receptions. He averaged 18.8 yards per catch, and his longest reception covered 23 yards.
5. How many sacks did the Las Vegas Raiders record?
The Raiders recorded six sacks against Tennessee. Maxx Crosby contributed two sacks, while Devin White added one. Their defensive pressure was a major factor in the victory.
6. Who recorded the most tackles in the game?
Cedric Gray of the Tennessee Titans led the supplied individual tackle statistics with 12 total tackles. L’Jarius Sneed followed with 10 tackles, while Devin White led Las Vegas with nine.
Conclusion
The Tennessee Titans and Las Vegas Raiders matchup demonstrated how defensive pressure, quarterback efficiency, and ball security can determine an NFL result.
Las Vegas earned a 20-10 victory by combining an effective defensive performance with balanced offensive contributions. Geno Smith completed 17 of 23 passes for 174 yards and one touchdown, while Ashton Jeanty led the rushing attack with 75 yards and a touchdown.
Michael Mayer added five receptions for 50 yards and a receiving touchdown. On defense, Devin White recorded nine tackles, one sack, and an interception, while Maxx Crosby contributed two sacks.
Tennessee had some productive individual performances. Cam Ward completed 26 passes for 222 yards, Van Jefferson led the receivers with 75 yards, and Cedric Gray recorded 12 tackles. However, six sacks, two lost fumbles, and an interception made it difficult for the Titans to maintain offensive consistency.
Ultimately, the most important difference was the Raiders’ ability to create negative plays and capitalize on scoring opportunities. Tennessee produced more passing yards and receptions, but Las Vegas was more efficient in several key areas and finished with the stronger overall performance.
The final statistical picture explains why the Raiders secured the victory and why individual yardage totals alone cannot determine the outcome of an NFL game.
