Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats
The Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats from August 24, 2025, provide a detailed look at a competitive NFL preseason matchup that ended with Buffalo earning a 23-19 victory over Tampa Bay. The game featured efficient passing from Shane Buechele, productive receiving performances on both sides, important defensive stops, and a special teams battle that kept the final result close. For fans analyzing individual performances, the box score offers more than a final score: it reveals how passing efficiency, rushing production, red-zone execution, turnovers, and field position shaped the contest.
Played during the 2025 NFL preseason, this matchup gave both teams an opportunity to evaluate depth players and assess their readiness for regular-season competition. Buffalo built its advantage through the first three quarters, while Tampa Bay continued to compete and added six points in the fourth quarter. Although preseason statistics should not be treated as a direct prediction of regular-season success, they provide useful evidence about individual execution and the different ways teams can generate offense.
This article examines the key player statistics, team comparisons, scoring progression, defensive contributions, and special teams performances from the game. It also explains what the numbers reveal, where individual players made an impact, and why the final score alone does not tell the complete story.
Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Buffalo Bills defeated the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23-19 in their August 24, 2025, preseason meeting. Buffalo scored 23 points across the first three quarters and was held scoreless in the fourth. Tampa Bay produced 19 points, including six in the final quarter, but could not overcome the deficit.
Final Score
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Buffalo Bills | 7 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 23 |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 0 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 19 |
Buffalo entered the game with a 1-2 overall preseason record and a 1-1 away record. Tampa Bay entered with a 2-1 overall record and a 1-1 home record, according to the supplied game data.
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown highlights three important developments:
- Buffalo’s opening advantage: The Bills scored seven points in the first quarter while Tampa Bay was held scoreless.
- A productive second quarter: Both teams scored 10 points, allowing Buffalo to maintain its advantage.
- A close finish: Tampa Bay outscored Buffalo 6-0 in the fourth quarter, but the Bills’ earlier production proved sufficient.
The result was a four-point win, but the underlying statistics reveal a more nuanced contest. Buffalo recorded 278 passing yards compared with Tampa Bay’s 196, while the Buccaneers gained more yards on kick returns. Those differences illustrate how offensive efficiency and special teams can influence a preseason game in different ways.
Important Game Information
| Category | Details |
| Game | Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| Date | August 24, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Venue designation | Tampa Bay was the home team |
| Final score | Buffalo 23, Tampa Bay 19 |
| Buffalo passing leader | Shane Buechele |
| Buffalo rushing leader | Elijah Young |
| Buffalo receiving leader by yards | Kristian Wilkerson |
| Tampa Bay passing leaders | Connor Bazelak and Kyle Trask |
| Tampa Bay rushing leader | Josh Williams |
| Tampa Bay receiving leader | Tez Johnson |
| Primary statistical source | ESPN box score |
These details establish the context for the individual performances examined throughout the article.
Shane Buechele Leads Buffalo’s Passing Attack
Shane Buechele was Buffalo’s leading passer, completing 25 of 30 attempts for 278 yards and one touchdown without an interception. He averaged 9.3 yards per attempt and finished with a passer rating of 116.4.
| Passing Statistic | Shane Buechele |
| Completions | 25 |
| Attempts | 30 |
| Completion percentage | 83.3% |
| Passing yards | 278 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 8 |
| Passer rating | 116.4 |
Buechele’s completion percentage was particularly notable. Completing 25 of 30 passes means he connected on approximately five out of every six attempts. That level of accuracy, combined with 9.3 yards per attempt, indicates that his production was not limited to short, low-risk throws.
His 278 passing yards also exceeded Tampa Bay’s entire team passing total of 196 yards. The 82-yard difference represents one of the clearest statistical advantages Buffalo held in the matchup.
Why Buechele’s Efficiency Matters
Three elements stand out in his performance.
First, he combined accuracy with downfield production. A high completion percentage is useful, but its significance increases when the offense also gains substantial yardage. Buechele averaged 9.3 yards per attempt, giving Buffalo a productive passing performance.
Second, he protected the football from interceptions. Buechele threw no interceptions. Avoiding interceptions reduces the risk of giving an opponent possession in a favorable position, particularly when a game is decided by fewer than one touchdown.
Third, he contributed despite taking two sacks. Tampa Bay recorded two sacks as a team, and Buechele lost eight yards on those plays. His passing production remained strong despite that negative yardage.
The figures do not establish how many of his completions came against starting defenders or how many yards came after the catch. Those details would require a deeper play-by-play review. Nevertheless, the available box score supports a clear conclusion: Buechele delivered Buffalo’s most productive passing performance of the game.
Understanding the Limits of Preseason Passing Numbers
Preseason passing statistics need context. Quarterback rotations, opponent personnel, offensive play selection, and game situations can differ from those in regular-season games.
Buechele’s 116.4 passer rating and 83.3% completion rate are strong results for this appearance. They should be interpreted as evidence of effective execution in this game rather than proof of future performance against every type of defense.
For readers evaluating quarterback play, the most useful approach is to consider several measures together: completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and the circumstances in which the production occurred.
Tampa Bay Quarterback Stats: Connor Bazelak and Kyle Trask
Tampa Bay used Connor Bazelak and Kyle Trask at quarterback. Both recorded a touchdown pass and avoided interceptions, but their individual statistics differed in attempts, yardage, and passer rating.
| Passing Statistic | Connor Bazelak | Kyle Trask |
| Completions | 12 | 13 |
| Attempts | 19 | 17 |
| Completion percentage | 63.2% | 76.5% |
| Passing yards | 107 | 93 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.6 | 5.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Sack yards lost | 1 | 3 |
| Passer rating | 95.7 | 108.2 |
Bazelak threw for 107 yards, making him Tampa Bay’s leading passer by yardage. Trask completed 13 of 17 attempts, producing the higher completion percentage and passer rating.
Connor Bazelak’s Performance
Bazelak completed 12 of 19 passes for 107 yards and one touchdown. His 63.2% completion rate reflects a respectable level of accuracy, although his 5.6 yards per attempt was considerably below Buechele’s 9.3.
The difference in passing efficiency is important. Bazelak completed enough passes to move the offense, but Tampa Bay’s passing production did not match Buffalo’s overall yardage. His touchdown and zero interceptions were positive results, while the relatively modest yards per attempt show that the total output was less explosive.
Bazelak was sacked once for a loss of one yard. The limited sack yardage suggests that this particular negative play had little effect on his recorded passing-yard total.
Kyle Trask’s Performance
Trask completed 13 of 17 passes for 93 yards and one touchdown. His 76.5% completion percentage was higher than Bazelak’s, and his 108.2 passer rating was also the better individual rating.
However, Trask averaged 5.5 yards per attempt. His performance illustrates why completion percentage should not be evaluated in isolation. A quarterback can complete a large proportion of attempts without generating the same total yardage as a passer who gains more yards per completion.
Trask was sacked once for three yards. Like Bazelak, he avoided interceptions and contributed a touchdown pass.
Comparing Tampa Bay’s Quarterbacks
The two quarterbacks combined for 25 completions on 36 attempts, 200 receiving yards according to the team’s receiving statistics, and two touchdown passes. The official team passing summary lists 196 passing yards, reflecting the four yards lost on sacks.
Their combined passing line shows that Tampa Bay could complete passes and reach the end zone. Its principal statistical disadvantage was the lower passing-yard output compared with Buffalo.
The available data does not establish that one quarterback’s performance alone determined the result. A fair assessment must account for their separate appearances, the defensive personnel faced, and the plays available to each quarterback.
Buffalo Bills Rushing Stats and Ground Game Analysis
Buffalo finished with 31 rushing attempts for 105 yards and one rushing touchdown. The team averaged 3.4 yards per carry, with a longest run of 14 yards.
| Buffalo Rusher | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns | Longest Run |
| Elijah Young | 16 | 53 | 3.3 | 0 | 10 yards |
| Frank Gore Jr. | 10 | 32 | 3.2 | 1 | 14 yards |
| Shane Buechele | 5 | 20 | 4.0 | 0 | 12 yards |
| Team total | 31 | 105 | 3.4 | 1 | 14 yards |
Elijah Young Sets the Pace
Elijah Young led Buffalo in rushing with 16 carries for 53 yards. His 3.3 yards per carry indicates that he contributed through repeated attempts rather than a single exceptionally long run.
Young’s role in the rushing totals is significant because he accounted for more than half of Buffalo’s 31 team carries. His 53 yards represented approximately half of the team’s rushing yardage.
He also contributed as a receiver, catching three passes for 40 yards. That dual-purpose production gave him 93 yards from scrimmage across his listed rushing and receiving statistics.
This combination is useful when assessing a running back’s total contribution. Rushing numbers show how a player performs on handoffs and designed runs, while receiving statistics reveal another way the offense can use the same player.
Frank Gore Jr. Adds a Touchdown
Frank Gore Jr. recorded 10 carries for 32 yards and a rushing touchdown. His average was 3.2 yards per carry, and his longest run reached 14 yards.
Although Gore Jr. gained fewer total rushing yards than Young, his touchdown gave Buffalo a scoring contribution that cannot be measured by yardage alone.
Touchdowns are especially important when comparing players with different roles. One back might receive more carries between the 20-yard lines, while another handles attempts in short-yardage situations. The supplied statistics confirm Gore Jr.’s touchdown but do not identify the exact field position or play design.
Gore Jr. also caught two passes for 29 yards, bringing his combined rushing and receiving total to 61 yards.
Buechele’s Mobility Adds Another Dimension
Buechele carried the ball five times for 20 yards, averaging 4.0 yards per carry. His longest run was 12 yards.
Quarterback rushing can help an offense gain yards when passing lanes close or when the quarterback finds space outside the pocket. However, the box score does not specify whether Buechele’s runs were designed carries, scrambles, or a combination of the two.
His 20 rushing yards added to his passing production and gave Buffalo another way to advance the ball.
What Buffalo’s Rushing Numbers Reveal
Buffalo’s ground game supplied 105 yards and a touchdown, but the 3.4-yard average suggests that its overall rushing efficiency was more modest than its passing efficiency.
That distinction matters. An offense does not need to dominate every statistical category to win. Buffalo’s stronger passing output helped offset its comparatively limited average per carry, while Gore Jr.’s touchdown provided an additional scoring route.
The rushing data therefore supports a balanced assessment: Buffalo used its backs and quarterback to generate ground yards, but its clearest statistical offensive advantage came through the passing game.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Rushing Stats
Tampa Bay recorded 17 carries for 45 yards, averaging 2.6 yards per carry. The Buccaneers did not record a rushing touchdown, and their longest run was 11 yards.
| Tampa Bay Rusher | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns | Longest Run |
| Josh Williams | 8 | 28 | 3.5 | 0 | 11 yards |
| Owen Wright | 4 | 10 | 2.5 | 0 | 8 yards |
| Kyle Trask | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 yards |
| Sean Tucker | 3 | 2 | 0.7 | 0 | 1 yard |
| Jase McClellan | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 yard |
| Team total | 17 | 45 | 2.6 | 0 | 11 yards |
Josh Williams Leads the Ground Game
Josh Williams led Tampa Bay with eight carries for 28 yards. He averaged 3.5 yards per carry and produced the team’s longest rushing gain, an 11-yard run.
Williams also caught one pass for three yards and returned three kickoffs for 108 yards. These contributions show that his role extended beyond conventional rushing attempts.
His kickoff returns are particularly notable because they produced a substantial amount of yardage in a separate phase of the game. Return yards should not be added to rushing yards when evaluating rushing efficiency, but they are relevant when measuring overall contributions to field position.
Other Tampa Bay Rushing Contributions
Owen Wright gained 10 yards on four carries, averaging 2.5 yards per attempt. Trask gained four yards on one carry, while Tucker recorded two rushing yards on three attempts. McClellan carried once for one yard.
These individual totals were modest, and Tampa Bay’s combined 45 rushing yards left the team 60 yards behind Buffalo in the category.
The Buccaneers also finished without a rushing touchdown. This does not explain the entire scoring difference, since passing touchdowns, field goals, and extra points all contributed to the final result. However, the absence of a rushing touchdown meant Tampa Bay did not receive the same scoring contribution from its ground game that Buffalo received from Gore Jr.
Buffalo’s Advantage on the Ground
The team comparison is straightforward:
- Buffalo: 105 rushing yards on 31 attempts.
- Tampa Bay: 45 rushing yards on 17 attempts.
- Difference: Buffalo gained 60 more rushing yards.
- Average per carry: Buffalo recorded 3.4 yards, while Tampa Bay averaged 2.6.
Buffalo’s higher carry count helped create its larger rushing total. Its average per carry was also better, although neither team’s rushing average alone establishes how well its offensive line performed on every play.
Together with the passing-yard advantage, the ground-game figures show that Buffalo gained more yardage through both primary offensive methods.
Buffalo Receiving Stats: Kristian Wilkerson and the Supporting Cast
Buffalo recorded 25 receptions for 278 yards and one receiving touchdown on 29 targets. The team averaged 11.1 yards per reception, with a longest reception of 30 yards.
Kristian Wilkerson led the Bills in receiving yards with 46, while several teammates added useful contributions across the field.
| Buffalo Receiver | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Touchdowns | Targets |
| Kristian Wilkerson | 5 | 46 | 9.2 | 0 | 5 |
| Elijah Young | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 0 | 3 |
| KJ Hamler | 3 | 33 | 11.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Keleki Latu | 1 | 29 | 29.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Frank Gore Jr. | 2 | 29 | 14.5 | 0 | 2 |
| Zach Davidson | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 0 | 2 |
| Tyrell Shavers | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Deon Cain | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 0 | 3 |
| Laviska Shenault Jr. | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jackson Hawes | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Elijah Moore | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | 4 |
| Matt Sokol | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 1 |
Kristian Wilkerson Leads by Yardage
Wilkerson caught five passes for 46 yards on five targets. His longest reception was 24 yards, and he averaged 9.2 yards per catch.
His five catches made him Buffalo’s most frequently productive receiver by reception count among the players listed, while his 46 yards placed him first in total receiving yardage.
A five-for-five line also means he caught every pass recorded as a target in the supplied statistics. That is a useful measure of reliability in this game, although it should not be taken as evidence that he will maintain the same rate in future appearances.
Elijah Young Contributes in Two Phases
Young’s three receptions produced 40 yards, including a longest reception of 24 yards. Combined with his 53 rushing yards, this gave him 93 yards from scrimmage.
For readers comparing running backs, the distinction between rushing and receiving production is important. A player who can contribute in both areas may help an offense maintain flexibility in personnel and play selection.
Young’s receiving average of 13.3 yards per catch was higher than his 3.3 yards per rushing attempt. These figures describe different types of plays and should not be treated as directly interchangeable efficiency measures.
KJ Hamler and Keleki Latu Provide Additional Yardage
Hamler caught three passes for 33 yards, averaging 11.0 yards per reception. His longest catch went for 30 yards, making him the player responsible for Buffalo’s longest listed reception.
Latu recorded one catch for 29 yards. His average of 29.0 yards per reception reflects a single successful reception rather than a sustained pattern across multiple catches.
That distinction illustrates an important box-score principle: a high average based on one attempt can be meaningful for a specific play, but it provides less evidence about repeatable performance than a similar average across several receptions.
Tyrell Shavers Scores Buffalo’s Receiving Touchdown
Shavers caught two passes for 24 yards and scored one touchdown on three targets. His longest reception was 13 yards.
His touchdown was Buffalo’s listed receiving score. The scoring contribution mattered because it converted a passing play into points rather than yardage alone.
A receiver’s value is not measured only by the number of yards gained. Touchdowns, successful third-down catches, ball security, and the ability to execute a particular route all matter. The supplied statistics confirm Shavers’ touchdown but do not provide enough detail to assess every route or target.
Buffalo’s Receiving Depth
Buffalo’s receiving production was spread among multiple players. Gore Jr. added 29 receiving yards, Davidson gained 27, Cain recorded 21, and Shenault Jr. added 13. Hawes caught one pass for eight yards, while Moore caught three passes for eight yards.
Moore’s three receptions came on four targets, but the low yardage shows why catch totals need to be considered alongside yardage. A player can catch several short passes without generating many total yards.
Overall, Buffalo’s 278 receiving yards and 11.1 yards per reception show a productive passing attack with contributions from multiple targets.
Tampa Bay Receiving Stats: Tez Johnson Leads the Buccaneers
Tampa Bay finished with 25 receptions for 200 receiving yards and two receiving touchdowns on 36 targets. The team averaged 8.0 yards per reception, and its longest reception covered 30 yards.
Tez Johnson led the Buccaneers with eight catches for 58 yards and one touchdown. His reception total was the highest among the listed players on either team, making him one of the most frequently involved receivers in the game.
| Tampa Bay Receiver | Receptions | Receiving Yards | Yards per Reception | Touchdowns | Targets |
| Tez Johnson | 8 | 58 | 7.3 | 1 | 8 |
| Kameron Johnson | 2 | 34 | 17.0 | 0 | 5 |
| Devin Culp | 3 | 33 | 11.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Garrett Greene | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 1 | 3 |
| Ryan Miller | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 0 | 3 |
| Tanner Taula | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Trey Palmer | 1 | 13 | 13.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Owen Wright | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Josh Williams | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Sean Tucker | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Rakim Jarrett | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 3 |
Tez Johnson’s Eight-Reception Performance
Johnson caught all eight passes targeted to him, gaining 58 yards and scoring one touchdown. His average was 7.3 yards per reception, and his longest catch went for 16 yards.
His performance was built on consistent involvement rather than one exceptionally long reception. Eight catches gave the Tampa Bay passing game a dependable short-to-intermediate option in this particular appearance.
The difference between reception volume and receiving yardage is worth noting. Johnson led Tampa Bay in yards, but his 58-yard total was lower than Wilkerson’s 46 yards for Buffalo by only 12 yards, despite Johnson making three more catches. The comparison highlights how catch frequency and yards per catch work together to shape a receiver’s statistical output.
Kameron Johnson Adds Explosive Return and Receiving Ability
Kameron Johnson caught two passes for 34 yards, averaging 17.0 yards per reception. His longest reception was 30 yards, the longest listed catch for Tampa Bay.
His receiving production was complemented by one kickoff return for 57 yards and two punt returns for 27 yards. These contributions are recorded in separate statistical categories, but together they demonstrate his impact on multiple phases of the game.
The 57-yard kickoff return was Tampa Bay’s longest kickoff return. It was a substantial gain in field position, although the supplied data does not establish the exact points, if any, directly resulting from that return.
Devin Culp and Garrett Greene Contribute Touchdowns
Culp recorded three catches for 33 yards on four targets. He averaged 11.0 yards per reception, but his box-score line also lists one fumble lost.
That turnover is an important reminder that offensive production must be assessed alongside ball security. Receiving yards can help an offense advance, but losing possession may erase the advantage of a successful drive or place additional pressure on the defense.
Garrett Greene caught three passes for 18 yards and scored a touchdown. His average was six yards per reception. Although his total yardage was lower than that of several teammates, the touchdown gave Tampa Bay another scoring contribution.
A Different Receiving Profile From Buffalo
Buffalo averaged 11.1 yards per reception, compared with Tampa Bay’s 8.0. The Bills gained 278 receiving yards, while the Buccaneers recorded 200 in their receiving statistics.
The 78-yard difference in receiving totals reflects Buffalo’s stronger production through the air. Tampa Bay, however, recorded two receiving touchdowns compared with Buffalo’s one.
This is an important distinction. Yardage measures progress, while touchdowns measure the conversion of offensive opportunities into scores. A team can lead in one category without leading in every other category.
The passing-yard totals and receiving-yard totals also differ slightly for Tampa Bay because the passing summary accounts for sack losses. That is why the team’s passing total is 196 yards while its receiving total is 200 yards.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Sacks, and Pressure
Defense played a meaningful role in keeping the game competitive. Buffalo recorded 59 total tackles, two sacks, three tackles for loss, three passes defended, and five quarterback hits. Tampa Bay registered 66 total tackles, two sacks, five tackles for loss, one pass defended, and three quarterback hits.
| Defensive Statistic | Buffalo Bills | Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| Total tackles | 59 | 66 |
| Solo tackles | 41 | 51 |
| Sacks | 2 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 3 | 1 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 3 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
Buffalo’s Defensive Contributions
Joe Andreessen led Buffalo’s listed defenders with six total tackles, including five solo tackles.
A high solo-tackle count indicates that a defender made a substantial number of stops without another defender being credited with an assist. However, tackle totals do not show the full quality of each play. The down, distance, yardage allowed, and result of the possession are also important.
Buffalo’s defensive line and front-seven players combined for two sacks. Deone Walker recorded half a sack, Edefuan Ulofoshio recorded one sack, and AJ Epenesa recorded half a sack.
The Bills also registered five quarterback hits, two more than Tampa Bay. Quarterback hits can disrupt timing even when they do not result in sacks, although the box score alone cannot establish how much each hit affected a specific throw.
Buffalo recorded three passes defended and no interceptions. The defense therefore created some disruption in the passing game without recording a takeaway through an interception.
Tampa Bay’s Defensive Contributions
Tre Avery led Tampa Bay with seven total tackles and six solo tackles. His tackle total was the highest among the listed defensive standouts for either team.
The Buccaneers also recorded two sacks. Jose Ramirez accounted for one, while Elijah Roberts recorded the other. Their combined pressure contributed to a defensive effort that included five tackles for loss.
Tampa Bay’s five tackles for loss exceeded Buffalo’s three. This statistic measures defensive plays that stop an offensive player behind the line of scrimmage, excluding sacks when those are reported separately in the box score’s category structure.
Despite that advantage, Tampa Bay allowed more passing yards and rushing yards than Buffalo gained in the opposite direction. The defensive numbers show that recording negative plays is only one part of the challenge. Preventing sustained offensive production requires limiting successful plays as well.
Why Tackles and Sacks Need Context
Tackles, sacks, and quarterback hits are useful indicators of defensive activity, but they are not complete measures of defensive performance.
For example:
- A tackle after a short gain may be more valuable than a tackle after a long completion.
- A sack can end a promising drive, but pressure that forces an inaccurate throw can also matter.
- A pass defended may prevent a completion without producing an interception.
- A tackle for loss can create a difficult third-down situation for the offense.
In this game, both teams recorded two sacks and neither recorded an interception. Buffalo had more quarterback hits and passes defended, while Tampa Bay recorded more tackles and tackles for loss. These figures suggest different strengths within otherwise similar headline sack totals.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change the direction of a close game. In this matchup, neither team recorded an interception, but the fumble statistics reveal a difference in ball security.
Buffalo recorded one fumble, which was not lost. Tampa Bay recorded one fumble by Devin Culp, and that fumble was lost.
| Team | Fumbles | Fumbles Lost | Reported Recoveries |
| Buffalo Bills | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Tampa Bay Buccaneers | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Buffalo’s supplied statistics list Shane Buechele with one fumble and one recovery, while Jimmy Ciarlo is listed with zero fumbles and one recovery. Tampa Bay’s Culp recorded a fumble that was lost.
The Bills’ team recovery total should be interpreted according to the source’s statistical categories rather than automatically assumed to mean two opponent fumbles were recovered. Individual fumble and recovery records can reflect how the scoring system credits players and team totals.
The clearest team-level distinction is that Buffalo did not lose a fumble, while Tampa Bay lost one. In a game decided by four points, preserving possession is relevant, although the available summary does not establish how many points that particular turnover cost.
Both teams avoided interceptions, so the game did not feature an interception-driven shift in possession. Instead, the recorded fumble loss was the clearest turnover difference in the supplied data.
Special Teams: Kicking, Kick Returns, and Punting
Special teams added another layer to the contest. Buffalo’s Tyler Bass converted three of four field-goal attempts, while Tampa Bay’s Chase McLaughlin made both of his field goals. Return yardage favored the Buccaneers, who gained more kickoff-return yards.
Kicking Statistics
| Kicker | Field Goals | FG Percentage | Longest Field Goal | Extra Points | Total Points |
| Tyler Bass, Buffalo | 3 of 4 | 75.0% | 39 yards | 2 of 2 | 11 |
| Chase McLaughlin, Tampa Bay | 2 of 2 | 100% | 50 yards | 1 of 1 | 7 |
Bass scored 11 points through field goals and extra points. McLaughlin scored seven.
Bass made three field goals, but his missed attempt represents an opportunity that did not produce points. McLaughlin converted both of his attempts, including a longest field goal of 50 yards.
Field-goal percentage is useful for assessing kicking accuracy in a specific game, but the number of attempts matters. A perfect two-for-two performance is a positive result, although it does not establish that a kicker would maintain a 100% rate over a larger sample.
Kickoff Return Statistics
| Team and Returner | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest Return |
| Brandon Codrington, Buffalo | 3 | 83 | 27.7 | 33 yards |
| Laviska Shenault Jr., Buffalo | 2 | 75 | 37.5 | 38 yards |
| Buffalo team total | 5 | 158 | 31.6 | 38 yards |
| Josh Williams, Tampa Bay | 3 | 108 | 36.0 | 42 yards |
| Kameron Johnson, Tampa Bay | 1 | 57 | 57.0 | 57 yards |
| Owen Wright, Tampa Bay | 1 | 25 | 25.0 | 25 yards |
| Tampa Bay team total | 5 | 190 | 38.0 | 57 yards |
Tampa Bay gained 190 kickoff-return yards compared with Buffalo’s 158, a difference of 32 yards. Both teams returned five kickoffs, so the Buccaneers’ advantage came from gaining more yardage per return.
Kameron Johnson’s 57-yard return was the longest of the game. Williams also had a productive return performance, recording 108 yards across three returns.
Buffalo’s Shenault Jr. averaged 37.5 yards per kickoff return, while Codrington averaged 27.7. Both contributed to a team average above 31 yards per return.
These figures show that Tampa Bay created more favorable field-position opportunities through kickoff returns. They do not, by themselves, show how many points the returns directly produced.
Punt Return Statistics
| Team | Returner | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Buffalo | Brandon Codrington | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 3 yards |
| Tampa Bay | Kameron Johnson | 2 | 27 | 13.5 | 22 yards |
Tampa Bay also led in punt-return yardage. Kameron Johnson gained 27 yards on two returns, while Codrington returned one punt for three yards.
Return averages should be evaluated with caution when the number of attempts is small. Two returns provide useful information about this game, but not a large enough sample to establish a player’s typical long-term return performance.
Punting Statistics
| Punter | Punts | Total Yards | Average | Longest Punt | Inside the 20 | Touchbacks |
| Zach Davidson, Buffalo | 2 | 104 | 52.0 | 62 yards | 1 | 0 |
| Riley Dixon, Tampa Bay | 3 | 137 | 45.7 | 49 yards | 0 | 2 |
Davidson averaged 52.0 yards per punt, while Dixon averaged 45.7. Davidson also recorded the longest punt of the game at 62 yards.
However, raw distance is not the only measure of punting effectiveness. A punt that travels far but results in a touchback may produce a different field-position outcome from a shorter punt that pins the opponent deep in its own territory.
Davidson placed one punt inside the 20-yard line and recorded no touchbacks. Dixon recorded two touchbacks and no punts inside the 20 according to the supplied data.
These statistics suggest Buffalo had the better results in the listed punt-placement categories, while Tampa Bay gained more yardage through returns.
Team Statistics Comparison: Buffalo vs Tampa Bay
The team statistics help explain why Buffalo won despite Tampa Bay’s contributions in receiving touchdowns and return yardage.
| Team Statistic | Buffalo Bills | Tampa Bay Buccaneers |
| Final score | 23 | 19 |
| Passing yards | 278 | 196 |
| Rushing yards | 105 | 45 |
| Receiving yards | 278 | 200 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Total passing completions | 25 | 25 |
| Passing attempts | 30 | 36 |
| Passing interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 2 | 2 |
| Kickoff-return yards | 158 | 190 |
| Punt-return yards | 3 | 27 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 | 1 |
Note: Receiving yards and passing yards can differ because passing-yard totals account for sack losses. Buffalo’s receiving total was 278 yards, while Tampa Bay’s was 200 yards.
1. Buffalo Had the Stronger Passing Output
Buffalo recorded 82 more passing yards than Tampa Bay. Buechele’s 278 yards represented the largest individual passing total in the game.
Both teams completed 25 passes, but Buffalo did so on 30 attempts, compared with Tampa Bay’s 36. This means Buffalo needed fewer attempts to produce the same number of completions.
The completion percentages also favored Buffalo. Buechele completed 83.3% of his passes, while Tampa Bay’s quarterbacks combined for approximately 69.4%.
These figures show that Buffalo produced more passing yardage with fewer attempts. They do not establish that every Buffalo pass was more effective, but they indicate a clear statistical advantage in this matchup.
2. Buffalo Controlled More of the Ground Production
Buffalo gained 105 rushing yards, while Tampa Bay recorded 45. The Bills averaged 3.4 yards per carry, compared with the Buccaneers’ 2.6.
The 60-yard rushing advantage gave Buffalo another source of offensive production beyond the passing game. Gore Jr.’s rushing touchdown also provided a scoring contribution Tampa Bay did not match on the ground.
3. Tampa Bay Generated More Return Yardage
Tampa Bay gained 190 kickoff-return yards and 27 punt-return yards. Buffalo recorded 158 kickoff-return yards and three punt-return yards.
The Buccaneers therefore produced more return yardage in both categories. Their kickoff-return average was 38.0 yards, compared with Buffalo’s 31.6.
This was a meaningful advantage for Tampa Bay, even though it did not translate into a victory. Return statistics must be considered alongside offensive efficiency, scoring opportunities, and turnovers to understand their effect on the result.
4. The Teams Found Different Ways to Score
Buffalo’s scoring included a rushing touchdown, a receiving touchdown, and three field goals. Tampa Bay recorded two receiving touchdowns and two field goals.
The scoring profiles reveal that the Bills distributed their points across multiple types of scoring plays. Tampa Bay’s two receiving touchdowns helped keep the game close, but its lack of a rushing touchdown meant it did not match Buffalo’s ground-game scoring.
The final margin was four points, so each missed scoring opportunity mattered. Still, the available statistics do not justify assigning the outcome to a single missed kick, turnover, or defensive play without examining the complete play-by-play record.
Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis
The scoring progression offers a useful way to understand how the game developed.
First Quarter: Buffalo Takes the Lead
Buffalo scored seven points in the opening quarter, while Tampa Bay failed to score.
An early touchdown gives a team an immediate advantage and can influence subsequent play selection. A trailing team may become more willing to throw the ball, while a leading team can sometimes emphasize ball control.
However, the quarter score alone does not show the exact sequence of possessions or prove that either team changed its strategy. It establishes only that Buffalo finished the first quarter ahead, 7-0.
Second Quarter: Both Offenses Respond
The Bills added 10 points in the second quarter, and the Buccaneers also scored 10.
Buffalo’s scoring kept its lead intact, but Tampa Bay’s response prevented the game from becoming one-sided. By halftime, Buffalo had scored 17 points and Tampa Bay had scored 10.
The second-quarter numbers show that Tampa Bay could produce points against Buffalo’s defense. They also show that the Bills maintained their offensive advantage.
Third Quarter: Buffalo Extends Its Lead
Buffalo scored six points in the third quarter, compared with Tampa Bay’s three. The Bills extended their advantage to 23-13 entering the final quarter.
The six-point total indicates that Buffalo added points without matching the seven-point value of a touchdown and extra point. The supplied summary does not identify the exact sequence of scoring plays, so it would be inappropriate to assign a specific play or drive outcome without further verification.
Fourth Quarter: Tampa Bay Makes a Late Push
Tampa Bay scored six points in the fourth quarter, while Buffalo was held scoreless.
The Buccaneers finished strongly enough to narrow the margin, but Buffalo’s earlier scoring proved decisive. The final 23-19 score reflects a game in which the home team remained competitive until the end.
The fourth-quarter result is also a reminder that final-quarter scoring does not automatically indicate which team controlled the entire game. Buffalo had built its advantage before the final period, and Tampa Bay’s late points were not enough to reverse the result.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Each Team
The numbers support several observations about the two preseason performances.
Buffalo: Efficient Passing and a Useful Rushing Contribution
Buffalo’s clearest strength was its passing production. Buechele completed 25 of 30 passes, generated 278 yards, and threw one touchdown without an interception.
The rushing game added 105 yards and one touchdown. Young led the team in rushing yardage, while Gore Jr. contributed the ground score. Several receivers also gained meaningful yardage, giving the offense multiple sources of production.
The Bills did not dominate every category. Their kickoff-return total was lower than Tampa Bay’s, and Bass missed one field-goal attempt. Nevertheless, the combination of passing yards, rushing production, and ball security supported the winning result.
Tampa Bay: Receiving Touchdowns and Strong Return Yardage
Tampa Bay’s offense generated two receiving touchdowns, with Johnson and Greene each scoring once. Bazelak and Trask both threw touchdown passes without interceptions.
The Buccaneers also gained more kickoff-return and punt-return yardage. Those results show that Tampa Bay created some opportunities outside its conventional offensive production.
Its limitations were more apparent in the rushing game and total passing yardage. The team gained only 45 rushing yards and finished with 196 passing yards after sack losses. Culp’s lost fumble was another negative result.
These statistics describe the outcome of one preseason game. They should not be used alone to determine future roster decisions or forecast regular-season performance.
How to Evaluate NFL Player Statistics Correctly
For readers who want to understand a box score beyond the headline numbers, a consistent evaluation method can make the statistics much more useful.
Step 1: Start With the Final Score and Scoring Progression
Check the final result, then compare the points scored in each quarter. This establishes whether a team built an early lead, responded to a deficit, or made a late comeback attempt.
In this game, Buffalo built its lead during the first three quarters, while Tampa Bay scored more points in the fourth.
Step 2: Compare Efficiency, Not Just Volume
A quarterback with more passing yards may have attempted many more passes. A running back with more rushing yards may also have received more carries.
Useful measures include:
- Completion percentage for passing accuracy.
- Yards per attempt for passing production.
- Yards per carry for rushing efficiency.
- Yards per reception for receiving production.
- Touchdown totals for scoring contributions.
Buechele’s 9.3 yards per attempt and 83.3% completion rate provide a stronger picture of his performance than passing yards alone.
Step 3: Separate Individual Statistics From Team Totals
Individual and team totals answer different questions. Young’s 53 rushing yards explain his contribution, while Buffalo’s 105 rushing yards show the team’s total production.
Similarly, Tez Johnson’s 58 receiving yards identify Tampa Bay’s leading receiver, while the team’s 200 receiving yards describe the combined output of its listed receivers.
Do not add passing yards to receiving yards as if they were independent offensive gains. Receiving yards generally account for the yards gained through completed passes, so doing so would double-count much of the same production.
Step 4: Consider Turnovers and Special Teams
A team can gain more yards and still lose if it fails to turn possessions into points or gives away the ball.
In this matchup, Buffalo avoided a lost fumble and recorded more passing and rushing yardage. Tampa Bay gained more return yards but lost one fumble.
Kickoff returns, punt returns, field goals, and punting placement can all influence starting field position and scoring opportunities.
Step 5: Account for the Preseason Setting
Preseason games are useful for evaluating player execution, but they are not identical to regular-season contests. Playing time, lineup combinations, opponent personnel, and game plans may differ.
A single game can identify strong performances and areas for further review. It cannot, by itself, establish a player’s long-term ability or determine a team’s eventual regular-season standing.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers game on August 24, 2025?
The Buffalo Bills defeated the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 23-19 in their NFL preseason game on August 24, 2025.
2. Who was Buffalo’s leading passer in the game?
Shane Buechele led Buffalo with 278 passing yards, completing 25 of 30 attempts for one touchdown and no interceptions.
3. Who led Tampa Bay in passing yards?
Connor Bazelak led Tampa Bay with 107 passing yards on 12 completions from 19 attempts. Kyle Trask added 93 passing yards and one touchdown.
4. Who were the leading receivers for both teams?
Kristian Wilkerson led Buffalo with 46 receiving yards on five catches. Tez Johnson led Tampa Bay with 58 yards on eight receptions and scored one touchdown.
5. Which team had more rushing yards?
Buffalo recorded 105 rushing yards on 31 carries, while Tampa Bay gained 45 yards on 17 carries. Buffalo also recorded the game’s only rushing touchdown, scored by Frank Gore Jr.
6. Where can readers find the official player box score?
Readers can review the detailed statistics on the ESPN NFL box score, which covers the August 24, 2025, preseason matchup.
Conclusion
The Buffalo Bills vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers Match Player Stats show how Buffalo earned a 23-19 preseason victory through stronger passing production, a more productive rushing attack, and better ball security. Shane Buechele’s 278 passing yards and efficient completion rate led the Bills’ offense, while Elijah Young and Frank Gore Jr. supplied additional ground production.
Tampa Bay had its own standout performances. Tez Johnson led the Buccaneers in receiving yards, both of the team’s quarterbacks threw touchdown passes without interceptions, and the return game generated more yardage than Buffalo’s. Those strengths helped keep the contest competitive, even though the Buccaneers finished with fewer passing and rushing yards.
The defensive statistics were relatively balanced in sacks, with both teams recording two. Buffalo produced more quarterback hits and passes defended, while Tampa Bay recorded more tackles and tackles for loss. Special teams also contributed to the overall picture, particularly through Tampa Bay’s longer kickoff returns and Buffalo’s three made field goals.
Ultimately, the score reflects more than a single player’s performance. The game illustrates the value of combining passing efficiency, rushing production, touchdown conversion, defensive pressure, and possession management. Because this was a preseason contest, the figures are best used to understand the performances recorded on that day rather than to make definitive predictions about the regular season.
