Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats
The Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats from December 21, 2025, tell the story of a surprising 26-9 Tennessee victory that was built on a productive ground game, efficient quarterback play, and timely defensive pressure. The Titans controlled the contest after a scoreless first quarter, scoring nine points in the second quarter, seven in the third, and ten in the fourth. Kansas City managed three field goals but failed to score a touchdown.
The game offers a useful look at how rushing efficiency, passing production, red-zone execution, and defensive disruption can shape an NFL result. Tennessee finished with 164 rushing yards and two passing touchdowns from Cam Ward, while the Chiefs struggled to sustain their offense despite avoiding interceptions and recovering both of their team fumbles. Harrison Butker supplied all nine Kansas City points through field goals. The figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the December 21 matchup.
Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The final score was Tennessee Titans 26, Kansas City Chiefs 9. Although neither team scored in the opening quarter, Tennessee gradually established control and created a decisive scoring advantage in the second half.
Chiefs
Kansas City
9
6-9 record after game
Final
Dec 21, 2025
AT
Titans
Tennessee
26
3-12 record after game
Chiefs away record
1-6
Titans home record
1-7
Source: user-provided ESPN box-score data, Game ID 401772803.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Kansas City Chiefs | Tennessee Titans |
| First | 0 | 0 |
| Second | 6 | 9 |
| Third | 3 | 7 |
| Fourth | 0 | 10 |
| Final | 9 | 26 |
The score progression reveals the central difference between the teams. Kansas City scored in the second and third quarters but went scoreless in the fourth. Tennessee, by contrast, finished strongly with ten fourth-quarter points.
That final-quarter separation matters because a team protecting a lead can use the running game to consume clock, reduce the opponent’s possessions, and make comeback attempts more difficult. Tennessee’s rushing production gave it a practical way to manage the game while Kansas City needed points that its offense could not generate.
For the official game record, consult the ESPN NFL box score.
Team Statistics: Where Tennessee Gained the Advantage
A box score is most useful when individual performances are considered alongside the overall team totals. The supplied statistics show that Tennessee produced a stronger passing attack, ran the ball more often, gained considerably more rushing yardage, and generated more defensive pressure.
| Team statistic | Chiefs | Titans |
| Final score | 9 | 26 |
| Passing completions | 14 | 21 |
| Passing attempts | 24 | 28 |
| Passing yards, as listed in team totals | 82 | 212 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Rushing attempts | 15 | 40 |
| Rushing yards | 51 | 164 |
| Average yards per rush | 3.4 | 4.1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Receptions | 14 | 21 |
| Receiving yards, as listed in team totals | 126 | 228 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 2 | 4 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 0 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 5 |
Data note: The supplied team-passing figures contain an inconsistency for Kansas City. The listed individual quarterback passing yards total 126, and the receiving totals also list 126 yards, while the team-passing row reports 82 passing yards. Tennessee’s team-passing row lists 212 yards, but its individual quarterback entry lists 228 passing yards. These figures are retained as provided rather than silently treating the conflicting numbers as verified totals. The player-by-player sections below use the supplied individual statistics.
Three patterns stand out:
- Tennessee’s ground game was substantially more productive. The Titans ran 40 times for 164 yards, compared with 15 carries for 51 yards by Kansas City.
- The Titans converted passing opportunities into touchdowns. Cam Ward recorded two touchdown passes, while the Chiefs’ listed quarterbacks combined for none.
- Tennessee created more defensive disruption. Four sacks and seven tackles for loss helped restrict Kansas City’s ability to sustain drives.
The final score was not simply the result of one spectacular individual performance. It reflected a broader difference in how consistently each team advanced the ball and finished possessions.
Quarterback Performance: Cam Ward vs Chris Oladokun and Gardner Minshew II
Quarterback production was one of the clearest differences in this matchup. Tennessee received a productive performance from Cam Ward, while Kansas City used Chris Oladokun and Gardner Minshew II, whose combined passing output did not include a touchdown.
Cam Ward’s passing statistics
| Statistic | Cam Ward |
| Completions | 21 |
| Attempts | 28 |
| Completion percentage | 75.0% |
| Passing yards | 228 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yardage | 16 |
| Passer rating | 122.3 |
| QBR | 34.6 |
Ward completed three-quarters of his passes and averaged 8.1 yards per attempt. He also threw two touchdown passes without an interception, giving Tennessee an effective balance between moving the ball and finishing scoring opportunities.
His performance is particularly notable when viewed in context. The Titans did not need him to attempt an unusually high number of passes. He completed 21 of 28 attempts, while the team’s strong rushing production reduced the pressure to rely exclusively on the passing game.
Ward’s 122.3 passer rating supports the conclusion that he was efficient by the conventional passer-rating measure. His QBR of 34.6, however, provides a reminder that different quarterback metrics measure performance differently. These figures should not be treated as interchangeable.
Two sacks for 16 yards also show that Tennessee’s passing offense was not entirely free from pressure. The important distinction is that the Titans still produced two passing touchdowns and sustained an effective offensive balance.
Chris Oladokun’s passing statistics
| Statistic | Chris Oladokun |
| Completions | 11 |
| Attempts | 16 |
| Completion percentage | 68.8% |
| Passing yards | 111 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 4 |
| Sack yardage | 44 |
| Passer rating | 88.3 |
| QBR | 22.5 |
Oladokun completed 11 of 16 attempts for 111 yards. His completion percentage was respectable, but the passing line lacked a touchdown and included four sacks for a loss of 44 yards.
Sack yardage is important when assessing the effectiveness of a passing offense. A quarterback’s completions and passing yards do not fully capture how much ground a team loses when its quarterback is brought down behind the line of scrimmage.
The four sacks also point to a broader challenge for Kansas City. Even when the quarterback avoids interceptions, the offense can struggle if it cannot consistently protect the passer, create separation, or generate explosive plays.
Oladokun’s statistics should therefore be evaluated through both efficiency and impact. His 6.9 yards per attempt indicates that he gained some useful yardage on his passing attempts, but the absence of a touchdown and the cost of the sacks limited the overall result.
Gardner Minshew II’s passing statistics
| Statistic | Gardner Minshew II |
| Completions | 3 |
| Attempts | 8 |
| Completion percentage | 37.5% |
| Passing yards | 15 |
| Yards per attempt | 1.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 0 |
| Passer rating | 45.8 |
| QBR | 7.7 |
Minshew completed three of eight passes for 15 yards. His 1.9 yards per attempt reflects a particularly limited passing contribution in the supplied statistics.
He did not throw an interception or take a sack, but avoiding negative plays was not enough to create meaningful offensive progress. Kansas City needed more than safe possessions. It needed sustained drives and touchdowns to close the scoring gap.
Minshew also contributed eight rushing yards on one attempt, but that was not enough to materially change the offensive picture.
Comparing the three quarterbacks
The most useful comparison involves completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, and sacks rather than completion percentage alone.
| Category | Cam Ward | Chris Oladokun | Gardner Minshew II |
| Completion rate | 75.0% | 68.8% | 37.5% |
| Passing yards | 228 | 111 | 15 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.1 | 6.9 | 1.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 2 | 4 | 0 |
Ward led in passing yardage, completion rate, yards per attempt, and touchdown production among the three quarterbacks. Oladokun’s numbers were more productive than Minshew’s in this particular passing line, although Oladokun was also charged with four sacks.
The overall lesson is that completion percentage alone cannot explain quarterback performance. A quarterback can complete a high percentage of short passes yet struggle to produce points. Another can generate more yardage per attempt and convert scoring opportunities into touchdowns.
In this game, Ward’s combination of efficient passing and touchdown production gave Tennessee a decisive advantage.
Rushing Statistics: Tony Pollard Leads Tennessee’s Ground Attack
Tennessee’s rushing offense was one of the most important elements of the victory. The Titans recorded 164 rushing yards on 40 carries, while Kansas City finished with 51 yards on 15 attempts.
That is a difference of 113 rushing yards. Tennessee also averaged 4.1 yards per carry, compared with Kansas City’s 3.4.
Tennessee Titans rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| Tony Pollard | 21 | 102 | 4.9 | 0 | 15 |
| Tyjae Spears | 13 | 52 | 4.0 | 1 | 15 |
| Cam Ward | 4 | 9 | 2.3 | 0 | 11 |
| Julius Chestnut | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 | 1 |
| Kalel Mullings | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team total | 40 | 164 | 4.1 | 1 | 15 |
Tony Pollard: The leading rusher
Pollard finished with 102 rushing yards on 21 carries, averaging 4.9 yards per attempt. He was Tennessee’s leading rusher and the only player in the game to exceed 100 rushing yards.
His workload was significant. Pollard accounted for more than half of the Titans’ rushing attempts, making him a central part of their offensive approach.
His longest run was 15 yards, which indicates that his production came without a reported run longer than that figure. The value of his performance was therefore not limited to a single long gain. His repeated carries contributed to Tennessee’s overall rushing total and helped the offense maintain a balanced attack.
Pollard did not score a rushing touchdown in the supplied data, but that does not diminish his importance. Running backs can influence a game by creating manageable down-and-distance situations, keeping the offense on schedule, and allowing the team to control possession.
Tyjae Spears: A productive runner and receiver
Spears rushed 13 times for 52 yards, averaging 4.0 yards per carry. He also scored Tennessee’s listed rushing touchdown.
His contribution extended beyond the ground game. Spears recorded five receptions for 53 yards, giving him 105 combined rushing and receiving yards.
That dual-threat production made him a valuable option in different offensive situations. When a running back can contribute as both a ball carrier and a receiver, the offense has more ways to move the ball without depending on one type of play.
Spears’ rushing touchdown also gave his performance a direct scoring impact. Pollard supplied the larger rushing total, while Spears combined useful rushing production with a touchdown and significant receiving yardage.
Kansas City Chiefs rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| Isiah Pacheco | 8 | 34 | 4.3 | 0 | 6 |
| Gardner Minshew II | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 | 8 |
| Chris Oladokun | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 | 5 |
| Kareem Hunt | 3 | 2 | 0.7 | 0 | 2 |
| Xavier Worthy | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team total | 15 | 51 | 3.4 | 0 | 8 |
Isiah Pacheco’s contribution
Pacheco led Kansas City in rushing with 34 yards on eight carries. His average of 4.3 yards per carry was higher than the Chiefs’ team average of 3.4, but his longest run was only six yards.
The relatively small number of attempts limited his total contribution. Eight carries also meant Kansas City did not generate the same volume of ground production that Tennessee achieved through Pollard, Spears, and the other Titans runners.
Pacheco contributed in the passing game as well, catching six passes for 41 yards. His combined rushing and receiving total was 75 yards.
This distinction matters when examining a running back’s role. A player may have modest rushing totals but still contribute through receiving opportunities. Pacheco was Kansas City’s leading rusher and tied for the team’s highest receiving yardage, yet he did not record a touchdown in either category.
Why the rushing difference mattered
The Chiefs’ 15 rushing attempts compared with Tennessee’s 40 attempts show how differently the offenses operated.
Tennessee’s running game offered three advantages:
- It produced more total yardage.
- It helped the Titans maintain a balanced offensive attack.
- It gave Tennessee a way to manage possessions while protecting its lead.
Kansas City averaged a respectable 4.3 yards per carry through Pacheco, but its total rushing output was too limited to match Tennessee’s overall ground production.
The numbers do not establish every reason for the difference in rushing volume. Scoreboard position, play selection, down-and-distance situations, and game strategy can all affect rushing attempts. Still, the statistical gap is clear: Tennessee gained more than three times as many rushing yards as Kansas City.
Receiving Statistics: Who Made the Biggest Impact?
Receiving production also favored Tennessee. The supplied team totals list 228 receiving yards for the Titans and 126 for the Chiefs. The individual entries identify Elic Ayomanor as Tennessee’s leading receiver by yardage, while Xavier Worthy and Isiah Pacheco shared the top spot for Kansas City.
Kansas City Chiefs receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Touchdowns | Longest reception |
| Xavier Worthy | 2 | 41 | 20.5 | 0 | 28 |
| Isiah Pacheco | 6 | 41 | 6.8 | 0 | 31 |
| Hollywood Brown | 3 | 22 | 7.3 | 0 | 18 |
| JuJu Smith-Schuster | 1 | 12 | 12.0 | 0 | 12 |
| Travis Kelce | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Brashard Smith | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 | 4 |
| Team total as supplied | 14 | 126 | 9.0 | 0 | 31 |
Xavier Worthy: Explosive gains without a touchdown
Worthy caught two passes for 41 yards, averaging 20.5 yards per reception. His longest catch went for 28 yards.
That average was the highest among the listed Kansas City receivers with more than one catch. It suggests that his receptions generated useful chunks of yardage, even though he finished without a receiving touchdown.
Worthy also had one rushing attempt for no gain. Taken together, his listed production shows that Kansas City used him in more than one way, but his involvement did not result in a touchdown on this occasion.
A receiver’s value should not be judged by touchdowns alone. Downfield receptions can move an offense closer to scoring range, and a player can create opportunities even when someone else finishes the drive. However, in a game where Kansas City scored only nine points, the lack of receiving touchdowns across the listed players was a major limitation.
Isiah Pacheco: Reliable involvement in the passing game
Pacheco caught six passes for 41 yards on seven targets. His 85.7% catch rate on those targets reflects frequent involvement and a high number of completed opportunities.
His average of 6.8 yards per reception was lower than Worthy’s, but Pacheco caught four more passes. That contrast illustrates two different types of receiving contribution: Worthy generated more yardage per catch, while Pacheco provided a greater number of completed receptions.
Pacheco’s 31-yard longest reception was also the longest listed reception for Kansas City. His receiving role helped supplement the limited ground production, making him one of the team’s more involved offensive players.
Tennessee Titans receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Touchdowns | Longest reception |
| Elic Ayomanor | 3 | 58 | 19.3 | 0 | 25 |
| Tyjae Spears | 5 | 53 | 10.6 | 0 | 34 |
| Chig Okonkwo | 6 | 44 | 7.3 | 1 | 15 |
| Chimere Dike | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 1 | 30 |
| Van Jefferson | 2 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 | 15 |
| Gunnar Helm | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | 7 |
| Team total as supplied | 21 | 228 | 10.9 | 2 | 34 |
Elic Ayomanor: Tennessee’s leading receiver
Ayomanor caught three passes for 58 yards, averaging 19.3 yards per reception. He led the listed Tennessee receivers in total receiving yardage.
His 58 yards came on three catches, indicating that Tennessee gained meaningful yardage without needing a large number of receptions from its leading receiver. His longest catch was 25 yards.
Ayomanor did not record a touchdown in the supplied data, but his yardage helped Tennessee advance the ball. His role complemented Ward’s efficient passing performance and the Titans’ productive rushing attack.
Chig Okonkwo: A touchdown-producing target
Okonkwo caught six passes for 44 yards and one touchdown on eight targets. His six receptions tied Pacheco’s reception count for Kansas City’s highest among the listed players and were the most among Tennessee’s listed receivers.
His average of 7.3 yards per catch was not the highest on the team, but he supplied a direct scoring contribution. The touchdown is particularly important because Kansas City did not record any passing touchdowns in the supplied statistics.
Okonkwo’s performance illustrates why reception totals and yardage should be considered alongside scoring. A receiver who catches multiple passes and converts one into a touchdown can affect the final score more directly than a player whose yardage comes without a scoring play.
Chimere Dike: Receiving and return contributions
Dike recorded three receptions for 40 yards and one touchdown. His longest reception was 30 yards, and his average was 13.3 yards per catch.
He also handled Tennessee’s listed kick and punt returns. Dike returned five kickoffs for 122 yards, averaging 24.4 yards per return, and three punts for 23 yards.
These special-teams contributions added another dimension to his performance. Return yardage can influence starting field position, potentially shortening the distance an offense needs to travel to score. It should be analyzed separately from receiving yards, however, because the two categories measure different phases of play.
Receiving comparison and offensive balance
The supplied individual statistics show Tennessee spreading its passing production across several targets. Ayomanor led in yardage, Spears supplied both rushing and receiving production, and Okonkwo and Dike each recorded a receiving touchdown.
Kansas City’s leading receivers Worthy and Pacheco each finished with 41 receiving yards, but neither scored. Kelce recorded one reception for six yards in the supplied data, while Hollywood Brown caught three passes for 22 yards.
These numbers describe the performances in this particular game. They should not be treated as a measure of either team’s entire season or as a prediction of how these players would perform in a different matchup.
Defensive Player Stats: Sacks, Tackles, and Pressure
The defensive numbers help explain why Kansas City struggled to turn its possessions into touchdowns. Tennessee recorded four sacks and seven tackles for loss, compared with two sacks and three tackles for loss by the Chiefs.
| Defensive statistic | Chiefs defense | Titans defense |
| Total tackles | 93 | 46 |
| Solo tackles | 41 | 30 |
| Sacks | 2 | 4 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 0 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 5 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | 0 | 0 |
Tennessee’s pass rush disrupted Kansas City
The Titans’ four sacks were twice the Chiefs’ two sacks. Tennessee also recorded seven tackles for loss, more than twice Kansas City’s three.
Sacks can change an offensive possession in several ways. They cost yardage, can create longer third-down situations, and may force a team to abandon its preferred play-calling approach. When sacks occur alongside tackles for loss, the cumulative effect can make it harder to maintain consistent forward progress.
Oladokun was charged with four sacks for 44 yards in the supplied individual statistics. Those losses are a significant part of the quarterback evaluation because his passing line alone does not reveal how much ground Kansas City lost during the game.
The Titans also defended five passes, while Kansas City recorded none in the supplied team totals. Passes defended do not always lead to interceptions, but they can prevent completions and interrupt the timing of an offensive drive.
Kansas City’s defense recorded pressure but could not match the result
The Chiefs recorded five quarterback hits, matching Tennessee’s total. They also made two sacks.
Those figures show that Kansas City did generate some pressure. The difference is that its defensive production did not translate into enough stops to overcome the offensive shortfall.
Tennessee finished with two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Even though the Chiefs recorded no interceptions, they were unable to prevent the Titans from scoring 26 points.
The defensive totals should be interpreted carefully. Total tackles alone do not measure defensive quality because a defense can record many tackles while allowing substantial yardage. Likewise, the number of quarterback hits does not fully capture pressure rate, coverage performance, or the timing of a disruption.
The more useful conclusion comes from combining the figures: Tennessee created more sacks and tackles for loss, defended more passes, and limited Kansas City to three field goals.
Special Teams Statistics: Field Goals, Punting, and Returns
Special teams were especially important for Kansas City because Harrison Butker accounted for every Chiefs point. Tennessee received a smaller contribution from Joey Slye’s field goal and extra points, with the majority of its scoring coming through offensive touchdowns.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Harrison Butker, Chiefs | Joey Slye, Titans |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 75.0% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 54 yards | 27 yards |
| Extra points made | 0 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 0 | 3 |
| Total points | 9 | 6 |
Butker converted three of four field-goal attempts, including a longest successful kick of 54 yards. His nine points represented the entirety of Kansas City’s scoring output.
That production kept the Chiefs on the scoreboard, but field goals were insufficient against a Tennessee team that scored three touchdowns. The difference between a field goal and a touchdown is four points, which makes touchdown conversion particularly important when an offense is struggling to produce scoring opportunities.
Slye made his only field-goal attempt and converted all three extra points. His six points came from one field goal and three successful point-after attempts. The extra points followed Tennessee’s touchdown scoring, so they were part of the Titans’ wider offensive success rather than a substitute for it.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Matt Araiza, Chiefs | Johnny Hekker, Titans |
| Punts | 5 | 3 |
| Total punting yards | 219 | 143 |
| Average punt | 43.8 yards | 47.7 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 2 |
| Longest punt | 54 yards | 53 yards |
Araiza averaged 43.8 yards across five punts, while Hekker averaged 47.7 yards across three. Tennessee also placed two punts inside the 20-yard line, compared with one for Kansas City.
The number of punts provides additional context about offensive performance. Kansas City’s five punts indicate that it had several possessions end without a scoring result or a sustained drive. However, punts alone cannot establish how every possession ended, and they should not be interpreted without considering field position and the game situation.
Hekker’s higher average and two punts inside the 20 suggest that Tennessee’s punting unit contributed to field-position management. The Titans were able to combine that special-teams contribution with a more productive offense.
Kick returns and punt returns
| Return category | Chiefs | Titans |
| Kick returns | 4 | 5 |
| Kick-return yards | 95 | 122 |
| Average kick return | 23.8 | 24.4 |
| Longest kick return | 26 | 31 |
| Punt returns | 2 | 3 |
| Punt-return yards | 31 | 23 |
| Average punt return | 15.5 | 7.7 |
| Longest punt return | 31 | 20 |
Nikko Remigio returned four kickoffs for 95 yards for Kansas City and two punts for 31 yards. His longest punt return was 31 yards.
For Tennessee, Chimere Dike returned five kickoffs for 122 yards and three punts for 23 yards. His average kickoff return was 24.4 yards.
Kansas City had the higher average punt return, while Tennessee produced more total kickoff-return yards. These statistics suggest that both teams obtained some field-position value through returns, but neither team recorded a return touchdown in the supplied data.
Special teams did not decide the game on their own. The more important difference was that Tennessee converted its offensive possessions into touchdowns, while Kansas City depended entirely on field goals.
Scoring Breakdown: How Tennessee Reached 26 Points
The final score becomes easier to understand when the scoring contributions are separated by type.
| Scoring category | Chiefs | Titans |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Field goals | 3 | 1 |
| Extra points | 0 | 3 |
| Total points | 9 | 26 |
The supplied data identifies two Tennessee passing touchdowns, one rushing touchdown, one made field goal, and three successful extra points. Kansas City recorded three made field goals and no touchdowns.
Tennessee’s passing touchdowns
Cam Ward threw two touchdown passes. Chig Okonkwo and Chimere Dike each recorded one receiving touchdown in the supplied statistics.
These scoring plays gave Tennessee an advantage that could not be matched by field goals alone. The Titans were able to complete drives with touchdowns, increasing the value of their passing production.
The distribution also shows that Tennessee did not rely on a single receiver for all its touchdown production. Okonkwo and Dike each provided a scoring contribution, while Ayomanor led the listed receivers in total yardage.
Tyjae Spears’ rushing touchdown
Spears recorded Tennessee’s listed rushing touchdown. His combination of 52 rushing yards and 53 receiving yards made him a significant contributor in both phases of the offense.
A rushing touchdown is often the result of the offense maintaining enough progress to reach scoring range and then finishing the possession. The supplied statistics do not provide enough detail to assign the touchdown to a specific tactical adjustment, but the play added directly to Tennessee’s scoring advantage.
Butker’s field goals were not enough
Kansas City’s three made field goals produced nine points. Butker’s longest successful kick was 54 yards, demonstrating that the Chiefs were able to score from distance.
The problem was not that Kansas City failed to score at all. It was that it did not score touchdowns. Three field goals can provide a foundation for a competitive game, but against an opponent that records three touchdowns, the difference becomes difficult to overcome.
This scoring pattern is one of the most important insights in the Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats. The Titans’ touchdown production, rather than a single statistical category, created the decisive scoring margin.
Key Statistical Takeaways From the Game
Several conclusions emerge when the quarterback, rushing, receiving, defensive, and special-teams numbers are considered together.
1. Tennessee’s rushing advantage was substantial
The Titans gained 164 rushing yards on 40 attempts, compared with 51 yards on 15 carries for Kansas City.
The difference of 113 yards gave Tennessee a much stronger ground-game foundation. Pollard surpassed 100 rushing yards, while Spears supplied both a rushing touchdown and 105 combined rushing and receiving yards.
2. Ward converted passing opportunities into points
Ward completed 21 of 28 passes for 228 yards, according to his individual statistics, with two touchdown passes and no interceptions.
His 75% completion rate and 8.1 yards per attempt indicate an efficient passing performance. More importantly, both touchdown passes directly contributed to Tennessee’s ability to create separation on the scoreboard.
3. Kansas City’s passing game lacked touchdown production
Oladokun and Minshew combined for 126 passing yards according to their individual entries, with no passing touchdowns and no interceptions. Oladokun took four sacks, while Minshew’s limited passing output restricted his contribution.
The absence of interceptions was a positive detail, but ball security alone could not compensate for a lack of scoring.
4. The Titans generated more defensive disruption
Tennessee recorded four sacks and seven tackles for loss. Those figures exceeded Kansas City’s two sacks and three tackles for loss.
The Titans also defended five passes. Although both teams recorded five quarterback hits, Tennessee produced more of the defensive events that directly interrupted offensive progress.
5. Kansas City relied on its kicker
Butker scored all nine Kansas City points. His three field goals included a long of 54 yards, but the Chiefs did not record a touchdown.
That made the offense less productive in terms of points per scoring opportunity. Tennessee’s three touchdowns, supported by its extra-point conversions, gave the home team a much stronger scoring profile.
6. The fourth quarter widened the gap
Kansas City scored no points in the final quarter, while Tennessee added ten.
That difference turned a game with an existing lead into a more comfortable final margin for the Titans. A team trailing by multiple scores needs to create points quickly, and Kansas City’s inability to score in the fourth quarter prevented it from mounting a meaningful statistical comeback.
What These Player Statistics Mean for Game Analysis
Player statistics are most valuable when they explain how the result happened, rather than simply listing the largest numbers.
For this matchup, a useful analysis starts with the scoreboard and then connects the result to the underlying categories.
Passing efficiency: Ward’s 228 individual passing yards and two touchdowns show how Tennessee generated scoring through the air. His lack of interceptions also meant the supplied statistics record no passing turnovers for the Titans.
Rushing volume: Tennessee’s 40 rushing attempts gave the offense a reliable way to gain yardage without placing every possession on Ward’s arm. Pollard’s 102 rushing yards and Spears’ touchdown were central to that effort.
Receiving distribution: Tennessee’s receiving production came from several players. Ayomanor led in yardage, while Okonkwo and Dike recorded receiving touchdowns. That distribution made the passing game productive in more than one way.
Defensive pressure: Four sacks and seven tackles for loss gave Tennessee a statistical advantage in plays that disrupted offensive progress. Those events are particularly relevant when assessing why Kansas City could not establish a more consistent passing rhythm.
Scoring efficiency: The Chiefs recorded nine points entirely through field goals. Tennessee scored 26, including three touchdowns. The scoring difference reflects the value of finishing drives rather than merely gaining some yardage.
A careful reader should also distinguish official team totals from individual entries when a supplied dataset contains conflicting figures. In this case, the quarterback and receiver entries do not reconcile with both teams’ listed passing totals. For detailed statistical work, that discrepancy should be checked against the official box score before using the team passing figures in a separate report, spreadsheet, or season comparison.
The reliable conclusions that do not depend on those conflicting yardage totals remain clear: Tennessee won 26-9, produced significantly more rushing yardage, recorded three touchdowns, and generated more sacks and tackles for loss.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans game on December 21, 2025?
The Tennessee Titans defeated the Kansas City Chiefs 26-9. Tennessee scored 9 points in the second quarter, 7 in the third, and 10 in the fourth, while Kansas City finished with three field goals.
2. Who was the leading passer in the game?
Cam Ward was the leading passer according to the supplied individual player statistics. He completed 21 of 28 passes for 228 yards and two touchdowns without an interception.
3. Who led the game in rushing yards?
Tony Pollard led all listed rushers with 102 yards on 21 carries for Tennessee. He averaged 4.9 yards per carry and recorded a longest run of 15 yards.
4. Who were the leading receivers for the Chiefs and Titans?
Elic Ayomanor led Tennessee with 58 receiving yards on three catches. For Kansas City, Xavier Worthy and Isiah Pacheco tied for the team lead with 41 receiving yards each.
5. How many touchdowns did each team score?
Tennessee scored three touchdowns: two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Kansas City did not score a touchdown and earned all nine of its points through three field goals.
6. How many sacks did the Titans record against Kansas City?
Tennessee recorded four sacks and seven tackles for loss in the supplied defensive statistics. Kansas City recorded two sacks and three tackles for loss.
Conclusion
The Kansas City Chiefs vs Tennessee Titans Match Player Stats show how Tennessee secured a 26-9 victory through a balanced offensive performance and effective defensive pressure. Tony Pollard led the rushing attack with 102 yards, Cam Ward threw two touchdown passes, and Tyjae Spears contributed a rushing touchdown. Elic Ayomanor led Tennessee’s receivers in yardage, while Chig Okonkwo and Chimere Dike each recorded a receiving touchdown.
Kansas City had some productive individual performances, including Isiah Pacheco’s 34 rushing yards and 41 receiving yards, along with Xavier Worthy’s 41 receiving yards. Harrison Butker also converted three field goals. However, the Chiefs did not score a touchdown, and Tennessee’s advantage in rushing production and defensive disruption helped establish the final margin.
The central statistical lesson is that yardage, efficiency, and scoring must be evaluated together. Tennessee combined its ground game with productive quarterback play and converted opportunities into touchdowns. Kansas City avoided interceptions but struggled to turn its offensive production into points.
These figures provide a detailed account of the matchup while highlighting the importance of checking conflicting box-score totals before using them for further statistical comparisons.
