Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats

Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats from the August 22, 2026 NFL preseason meeting tell a more interesting story than the 17-13 final score alone. Detroit won at Ford Field, but Washington produced stronger passing numbers, while the Lions created their biggest advantage on the ground. The game also offered useful clues about backup quarterback competition, offensive-line stability, defensive pressure, ball security, and which depth players made the strongest case for additional opportunities.

The Lions finished with 17 points to Washington’s 13 in a tightly contested preseason game. Washington led the passing production with 208 team passing yards compared with Detroit’s 110, but Detroit countered with 169 rushing yards against Washington’s 35. That 134-yard rushing advantage became one of the defining statistical differences of the night. The official NFL schedule confirms the Week 2 preseason result and both teams’ 1-1 records entering the next stage of the preseason.

This breakdown goes beyond simply listing the box score. It examines which players actually influenced the game, why certain numbers matter more than others, and what the performances could mean in the broader context of roster evaluation.

Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The matchup was played on August 22, 2026, as part of the NFL preseason. Detroit entered the game looking to build momentum after its opening preseason result, while Washington was evaluating players and combinations across the roster.

The final score was:

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Washington Commanders	7	0	3	3	13
Detroit Lions	7	0	7	3	17

The scoring pattern is important.

Both teams scored seven points in the opening quarter. Neither team scored in the second quarter. Detroit then created separation with a seven-point third quarter before both teams added three points in the fourth.

That means this was not a game decided by one dominant offensive quarter. Detroit’s advantage came from maintaining enough offensive efficiency and controlling the rushing battle while Washington struggled to turn its passing production into touchdowns.

The most important statistical difference

The biggest number in the box score is not the final score.

It is the rushing differential.

Detroit:

• 35 rushing attempts
• 169 rushing yards
• 4.8 yards per attempt
• 2 rushing touchdowns
• 50-yard longest run

Washington:

• 17 rushing attempts
• 35 rushing yards
• 2.1 yards per attempt
• 0 rushing touchdowns
• 11-yard longest run

Detroit therefore gained 134 more rushing yards despite Washington throwing for considerably more yardage.

That is a classic example of why a single offensive category cannot explain an NFL game.

Washington moved the ball through the air. Detroit generated explosive rushing plays and ultimately converted that ground production into points.

Quarterback Performance Breakdown

Quarterback statistics require additional context in preseason games because playing time, supporting casts, offensive schemes, and game situations can differ dramatically from regular-season football.

Still, the numbers provide useful evidence.

Athan Kaliakmanis leads Washington’s passing production

Athan Kaliakmanis delivered Washington’s most efficient passing performance.

His line:

• 11 completions
• 14 attempts
• 162 yards
• 11.6 yards per attempt
• 0 touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 0 sacks
• 114.9 passer rating

The efficiency stands out immediately.

Kaliakmanis completed 78.6 percent of his passes and averaged 11.6 yards per attempt. That combination suggests Washington was not simply relying on short completions to accumulate yardage.

He also avoided turnovers and sacks.

For a preseason quarterback trying to establish reliability, that is valuable.

The missing element was a touchdown. Washington’s passing game produced yardage, but that yardage did not translate into a passing score.

That distinction matters when evaluating offensive performance.

Sam Hartman provides a different picture

Sam Hartman finished:

• 9 completions
• 11 attempts
• 67 yards
• 6.1 yards per attempt
• 0 touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 1 sack for 11 yards
• 92.0 passer rating

Hartman was accurate, completing 81.8 percent of his attempts, but his average gain was much lower than Kaliakmanis’.

His performance was more conservative statistically.

The sack also mattered because Washington’s quarterback production cannot be evaluated entirely through completion percentage. Pressure changes the value of otherwise efficient passing.

Jayden Daniels’ appearance was extremely limited

Jayden Daniels recorded only:

• 0 completions
• 1 attempt
• 0 passing yards
• 0 touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 1 sack for 10 yards
• 39.6 passer rating

His participation should not be interpreted like a normal quarterback performance.

Daniels appeared briefly and was not given enough opportunities to establish a meaningful statistical sample. NFL.com’s Week 2 recap noted that Daniels took only three snaps, with one pass attempt, making the appearance more of a controlled return to live action than a genuine extended evaluation.

That is an important distinction for anyone searching these player stats.

A zero-yard passing line looks poor on paper, but the context makes it misleading to use it as an assessment of Daniels’ quarterback play.

Luke Altmyer gives Detroit useful efficiency

Luke Altmyer completed:

• 9 of 13 passes
• 86 yards
• 6.6 yards per attempt
• 0 touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 4 sacks for 35 yards
• 87.3 passer rating

His completion percentage was solid at 69.2 percent.

The biggest concern was pressure.

Four sacks for 35 yards dramatically affected his passing production. The raw passing line therefore does not tell the entire story.

Altmyer showed enough accuracy and mobility to remain relevant in Detroit’s quarterback competition, but the protection issues surrounding him are equally important.

Joshua Dobbs had the most unusual stat line

Dobbs finished:

• 7 of 12 passing
• 74 yards
• 6.2 yards per attempt
• 0 passing touchdowns
• 1 interception
• 1 sack for 15 yards
• 41.7 passer rating

As a passer, this was clearly less efficient than Altmyer’s performance.

But Dobbs’ rushing numbers changed the picture dramatically.

He ran twice for 53 yards and scored one touchdown, with a 50-yard long run.

That means Dobbs generated 127 total offensive yards when his rushing and passing production are combined, before considering other factors.

The 50-yard run was the single biggest rushing play recorded by either team.

NFL.com’s game analysis also highlighted the contrast in Dobbs’ performance, noting both the early turnover issues and the explosive rushing play that helped Detroit.

Detroit’s Rushing Attack Controlled the Game

The most convincing part of the Detroit performance was the ground game.

The Lions produced 169 rushing yards on 35 attempts.

That is an average of 4.8 yards per carry.

Washington produced only 35 yards on 17 attempts.

The difference was enormous.

Joshua Dobbs: 53 rushing yards

Dobbs’ two carries generated 53 yards.

His 50-yard touchdown run alone accounted for almost one-third of Detroit’s entire rushing total.

This is why yards per carry should always be considered alongside volume.

Dobbs did not have a large rushing workload, but his one explosive run dramatically changed the statistical profile of the game.

Trayveon Williams provided steady production

Williams recorded:

• 10 carries
• 36 yards
• 3.6 yards per carry
• 1 touchdown
• 14-yard long

He also caught one pass for 24 yards.

That gives him 60 yards from scrimmage based on the supplied game data.

His contribution was particularly useful because it combined rushing volume with receiving value.

Jacob Saylors showed efficiency

Saylors carried six times for 32 yards.

His average was 5.3 yards per carry, and his longest run went for nine yards.

He did not score, but his efficiency was one of the stronger marks among Detroit’s running backs.

NFL.com’s player log also records Saylors with six carries for 32 yards in the game. 

Raheem Blackshear handled volume

Blackshear received the highest rushing workload for Detroit with 11 attempts.

He gained 29 yards, averaging 2.6 yards per carry.

That is below the team’s overall average.

His performance demonstrates why raw rushing volume should not automatically be confused with effectiveness.

Jabari Small adds another efficient contribution

Small ran three times for 16 yards.

His 5.3-yard average matched Saylors’ mark.

Although his workload was small, the efficiency was encouraging.

Washington’s Rushing Game Struggled

Washington’s ground game was one of the clearest weaknesses in the box score.

The Commanders produced only 35 rushing yards.

Kaytron Allen led the backfield

Allen had:

• 10 carries
• 30 yards
• 3.0 yards per carry
• 11-yard long

He accounted for the overwhelming majority of Washington’s rushing yardage.

However, 30 yards on 10 carries was not enough to create consistent rushing pressure.

Washington needed its passing attack to compensate, and to a significant degree it did.

The team lacked explosive rushing plays

Washington’s longest rush was only 11 yards.

Detroit’s longest was 50.

That 39-yard difference between the teams’ longest rushing plays illustrates the contrasting offensive profiles.

Detroit produced explosive ground plays.

Washington relied much more heavily on passing efficiency.

Receiving Leaders and Explosive Plays

The receiving statistics reveal another important difference.

Washington’s receivers collectively produced 229 receiving yards from 20 receptions.

Detroit’s receivers produced 160 receiving yards from 16 receptions.

Washington therefore gained 69 more receiving yards.

Yet Detroit still won.

That tells us Washington’s passing yardage advantage was not enough to overcome Detroit’s rushing dominance and scoring efficiency.

Nick Nash was Washington’s top receiver by yardage

Nash caught:

• 2 passes
• 62 yards
• 31.0 yards per reception
• 55-yard long
• 0 touchdowns

The 55-yard reception was one of the most explosive offensive plays of the game.

Only two receptions were needed for Nash to lead Washington in receiving yards.

His 31.0 yards per catch was easily the highest among Washington’s listed receivers with multiple catches.

Jaden Bradley adds 42 yards

Bradley finished with two receptions for 42 yards.

His average was 21.0 yards per catch, with a 30-yard long.

That provided another significant downfield contribution.

Antonio Williams and Jacoby Jones provide volume

Antonio Williams caught three passes for 41 yards.

Jacoby Jones also caught three passes, finishing with 37 yards.

Their production was less explosive than Nash’s or Bradley’s, but the additional receptions helped sustain Washington’s passing attack.

Detroit’s Jackson Meeks led the Lions

Jackson Meeks caught four passes for 33 yards.

He led Detroit in receptions and receiving yards.

His longest reception was 11 yards.

NFL.com’s player log confirms his four-catch, 33-yard performance against Washington. 

His performance was therefore based more on consistency than explosiveness.

Trayveon Williams contributed in both phases

Williams caught one pass for 24 yards while also rushing for 36 yards and a touchdown.

His 60 total yards from scrimmage made him one of Detroit’s more productive offensive players despite a relatively modest receiving workload.

Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Defensive Breakdown

The defensive numbers are particularly interesting because Washington actually recorded more tackles and sacks.

Washington defense:

• 80 total tackles
• 38 solo tackles
• 5 sacks
• 9 tackles for loss
• 2 passes defended
• 7 quarterback hits
• 1 defensive touchdown

Detroit defense:

• 58 total tackles
• 33 solo tackles
• 2 sacks
• 6 tackles for loss
• 1 pass defended
• 6 quarterback hits
• 0 defensive touchdowns

At first glance, Washington’s defensive numbers appear stronger.

Five sacks compared with Detroit’s two is significant.

Seven quarterback hits compared with six also shows Washington was capable of generating pressure.

The defensive touchdown was another major Washington advantage.

Yet Detroit still won.

Why Washington’s defense did not translate into victory

The key issue is what happened after the pressure.

Detroit’s quarterbacks were under heavy pressure, particularly Altmyer, who was sacked four times.

Dobbs was also sacked once.

Despite that, Detroit’s rushing attack generated 169 yards.

That allowed the Lions to move the ball without needing a consistently productive passing game.

This is one of the most useful lessons from the game.

A defense can win individual plays and still lose the overall matchup if the opponent’s rushing attack repeatedly creates favorable situations.

Washington’s takeaway

Quan Martin recorded Washington’s only interception.

The defense also forced a fumble that became part of the team’s turnover production.

Detroit had one interception and one lost fumble, while Washington had one interception and one lost fumble according to the supplied statistics.

So the turnover margin did not provide Washington with enough separation.

Ball Security and Turnovers

Turnovers often determine close preseason games because backup players are operating with less margin for error.

Washington recorded:

• 2 team fumbles
• 1 lost fumble
• 1 interception
• 2 fumble recoveries

Detroit recorded:

• 1 team fumble
• 1 lost fumble
• 0 interceptions
• 1 fumble recovery

Both teams therefore lost one fumble.

Washington’s defense added an interception, giving the Commanders an advantage in takeaways.

But Detroit still scored enough points to win.

Joshua Dobbs’ turnover

Dobbs lost a fumble and threw an interception.

That is a significant concern in isolation.

His passer rating of 41.7 also reflects the negative impact of the interception.

However, his 53 rushing yards and touchdown demonstrate the unusual duality of his performance.

He created one of Detroit’s biggest offensive plays while also producing two costly mistakes.

That type of performance makes evaluation more complicated than simply labeling a quarterback’s night as good or bad.

Special Teams Performance

Special teams were relatively balanced.

Washington kicking

Drew Stevens:

• 2 field goals on 2 attempts
• 100 percent
• 32-yard long
• 1 extra point
• 7 points

That was a clean performance.

Detroit kicking

Jake Bates:

• 1 of 2 field goals
• 50 percent
• 37-yard long
• 2 extra points
• 5 points

Bates missed one field-goal attempt, which prevented a perfect kicking line.

Punting

Tress Way averaged 44.0 yards on four punts.

Jack Fox averaged 40.3 yards on three punts.

Fox placed all three punts inside the 20-yard line, while Way had two inside the 20.

The numbers suggest both teams received useful field-position contributions from their punters.

Return Game Comparison

Washington had four kick returns for 90 yards, averaging 22.5 yards per return.

Detroit also had four kick returns, producing 89 yards at 22.3 yards per return.

The difference was essentially negligible.

Washington’s Craig Reynolds led the team with 48 kick-return yards.

Detroit’s Raheem Blackshear averaged 27.0 yards on his lone kick return.

Detroit’s punt return game was more productive.

Greg Dortch returned one punt for 16 yards, while Tom Kennedy added a 12-yard return.

Washington had only one punt return for two yards by Luke McCaffrey.

That gave Detroit a clear advantage in punt-return production.

What the Numbers Say About the Quarterback Competition

The quarterback statistics are among the most interesting parts of the game.

Detroit’s competition featured Dobbs and Altmyer.

Altmyer had the better passing efficiency.

Dobbs had the better rushing production.

The decision therefore cannot be made simply by comparing completion percentages.

Altmyer’s strengths

Altmyer showed:

• Better passer rating
• No interceptions
• Better completion efficiency than Dobbs
• 86 passing yards
• Mobility within the offensive structure

His biggest problem was pressure and sacks.

Dobbs’ strengths

Dobbs showed:

• 74 passing yards
• 53 rushing yards
• One rushing touchdown
• A 50-yard explosive run
• Experience in NFL game situations

His weaknesses were:

• One interception
• One lost fumble
• Four fewer completions than Altmyer despite only one fewer attempt
• 41.7 passer rating

NFL.com’s assessment after the game described the backup quarterback battle as unresolved, with Dobbs’ experience and mobility competing against Altmyer’s development and performance. 

That is probably the most reasonable conclusion from the available data.

What the Game Says About Washington’s Offense

Washington’s offensive performance was much more effective through the air than on the ground.

The Commanders averaged:

• 8.8 yards per passing attempt
• 2.1 yards per rushing attempt

That is an enormous difference.

The offense was capable of producing explosive passing plays.

Nick Nash’s 55-yard reception and Jaden Bradley’s 30-yard catch demonstrate that.

But the rushing attack could not provide the same level of efficiency.

That creates an important tactical question.

If Washington’s passing game is productive but the running game remains inefficient, defenses can become more aggressive in obvious passing situations.

A balanced offense is not required to win games, but an offense that cannot establish any rushing threat may become easier to predict.

What the Game Says About Detroit’s Offense

Detroit’s offensive profile was almost the reverse.

Passing:

• 110 yards
• 6.4 yards per attempt
• 0 touchdowns
• 1 interception

Rushing:

• 169 yards
• 4.8 yards per carry
• 2 touchdowns
• 50-yard long

The Lions won because they found a way to generate offense even when the passing game was inconsistent.

That is particularly relevant for preseason evaluation.

The objective is not always to create a polished regular-season offensive performance. Coaches are also evaluating which players can produce when the game becomes uncomfortable.

Detroit’s rushing production provided that answer.

The Offensive Line Factor

The sack totals deserve special attention.

Detroit’s quarterbacks were sacked five times for 50 yards.

Washington’s quarterbacks were sacked twice for 21 yards.

That is a substantial difference.

Detroit therefore cannot simply look at the 17-point victory and conclude that the offense performed cleanly.

The protection was a concern.

NFL.com’s postgame analysis specifically identified the Lions’ offensive line and backup quarterback situation as areas requiring further evaluation.

For Detroit, the most useful lesson may be that the rushing attack provided a safety valve when pass protection became inconsistent.

The Most Important Individual Performances

Several players deserve recognition based on the supplied statistical record.

Joshua Dobbs

Dobbs produced the game’s biggest rushing play with a 50-yard touchdown run.

His overall passing performance was poor, but his rushing contribution was significant.

Luke Altmyer

Altmyer was more efficient as a passer than Dobbs and avoided turnovers.

The four sacks, however, limited the overall value of his passing production.

Athan Kaliakmanis

Kaliakmanis produced the strongest passing line of the game.

His 162 yards, 11.6 yards per attempt, zero interceptions, and zero sacks make him one of Washington’s most noteworthy performers.

Nick Nash

Nash averaged 31 yards per reception and produced a 55-yard catch.

He was Washington’s most explosive receiving threat by the supplied numbers.

Trayveon Williams

Williams contributed both as a runner and receiver.

His 36 rushing yards, rushing touchdown, and 24 receiving yards made him one of Detroit’s most complete offensive contributors.

Jacob Saylors

Saylors averaged 5.3 yards per carry and provided efficient depth running.

His six carries were limited, but the production was strong.

Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats: Biggest Takeaways

The numbers reveal five major conclusions.

1. Detroit won the ground battle decisively

The Lions gained 169 rushing yards.

Washington gained 35.

That 134-yard difference was the foundation of Detroit’s victory.

2. Washington had the better passing output

The Commanders generated 208 passing yards.

Detroit generated 110.

Washington also had better team passing efficiency based on yards per attempt.

3. Explosive rushing plays separated the teams

Detroit’s longest run was 50 yards.

Washington’s longest was 11.

That difference is difficult to overcome.

4. Washington generated more defensive pressure

Five sacks versus two gave Washington a significant advantage in quarterback pressure.

But the pressure did not result in enough scoring separation.

5. Neither team played a perfect offensive game

Detroit turned the ball over twice through Dobbs.

Washington also lost one fumble and threw no interceptions as a team.

The game was therefore shaped by defensive pressure, rushing efficiency, and field-position factors as much as traditional passing statistics.

How to Read Preseason Player Stats Correctly

Preseason statistics should never be treated exactly like regular-season statistics.

A player might receive only a handful of opportunities.

A quarterback might play against backups.

A starting player might be removed quickly.

A coaching staff may intentionally restrict a player’s responsibilities.

That is especially relevant to Jayden Daniels.

His one pass attempt does not provide enough evidence to evaluate his overall quarterback ability.

Likewise, Dobbs’ 53 rushing yards should not automatically make him the better quarterback.

The correct approach is to identify patterns rather than overreact to one number.

Useful preseason questions include:

• Did the player create explosive plays?
• Did the player avoid repeated mistakes?
• Did the player execute the intended role?
• Did the player perform efficiently with limited opportunities?
• Did the player create problems for the coaching staff in a positive way?
• Did the player expose a weakness that opponents could exploit?

Those questions produce more meaningful conclusions than simply ranking players by yards.

Statistical Snapshot

Category	Washington	Detroit
Final score	13	17
Passing yards	208	110
Rushing yards	35	169
Passing attempts	26	25
Completions	20	16
Rushing attempts	17	35
Rushing average	2.1	4.8
Passing touchdowns	0	0
Rushing touchdowns	0	2
Interceptions thrown	0	1
Sacks allowed	2	5
Sacks made	5	2
Tackles	80	58
Field goals	2/2	1/2

The table makes the central story clear.

Washington was more productive through the air and generated more defensive pressure.

Detroit was far more effective on the ground and converted that advantage into four more points.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders preseason game?

The Detroit Lions defeated the Washington Commanders 17-13 on August 22, 2026, in an NFL preseason Week 2 matchup.

Who was the leading passer in the game?

Athan Kaliakmanis led all passers with 162 yards on 11 completions from 14 attempts. He finished without a touchdown or interception.

Who led Detroit in rushing?

Joshua Dobbs led Detroit in rushing yardage with 53 yards on two carries. His longest run was a 50-yard touchdown.

Who had the most receiving yards for Washington?

Nick Nash led Washington with 62 receiving yards on two catches. His longest reception went for 55 yards.

How many rushing yards did Detroit have?

Detroit finished with 169 rushing yards on 35 attempts, averaging 4.8 yards per carry.

Did Jayden Daniels play?

Yes. Daniels made a very brief appearance and recorded one pass attempt. His limited workload means his statistical line should not be treated as a normal quarterback evaluation.

Conclusion

The Detroit Lions vs Washington Commanders Match Player Stats from August 22, 2026, show a game in which the two teams succeeded in very different ways.

Washington’s passing offense was the stronger aerial unit. Athan Kaliakmanis produced 162 yards with strong efficiency, Nick Nash created a 55-yard explosive reception, and the Commanders’ defense generated five sacks and an interception.

Detroit’s advantage came from the ground.

The Lions rushed for 169 yards compared with Washington’s 35. Joshua Dobbs supplied the game’s most explosive run with a 50-yard touchdown, while Trayveon Williams, Jacob Saylors, and other backs provided additional production. That rushing advantage helped Detroit overcome a weaker passing performance and five sacks allowed.

The quarterback comparison is especially nuanced. Altmyer was more efficient than Dobbs as a passer, while Dobbs produced considerably more with his legs. Washington’s Kaliakmanis had the strongest individual passing line, but the team could not turn its aerial advantage into enough points.

The defensive statistics also show why the final score should not be interpreted as a straightforward reflection of overall statistical dominance. Washington generated more sacks, more tackles, and a defensive touchdown, yet Detroit’s rushing attack created the difference that mattered most.

For anyone studying these player statistics, the biggest lesson is simple: the most useful analysis comes from connecting the numbers rather than viewing each category separately. Passing yards explain part of the game. Rushing efficiency, explosive plays, turnovers, pressure, and scoring efficiency explain the rest.