Bengals vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats

The bengals vs cleveland browns match player stats from September 7, 2025, tell the story of a game that was far closer than the final 17-16 score suggests. Cincinnati defeated Cleveland at Huntington Bank Field, but the Browns produced substantially more offensive yardage and first downs. The difference came from turnovers, red-zone execution, and a few decisive special teams and defensive moments. The official NFL game summary confirms Cincinnati finished with only 141 net yards compared with Cleveland’s 327, yet the Bengals still secured the win.

This was not a conventional offensive victory for Cincinnati. Joe Burrow completed 14 of 23 passes for 113 yards and one touchdown, while Joe Flacco threw for 290 yards and a touchdown for Cleveland. Flacco also threw two interceptions, and those turnovers proved critical in a one-point game.

For readers looking beyond the final score, this matchup provides an excellent example of why NFL box scores need to be examined as a complete story rather than judged by passing yards alone. Cleveland moved the ball more consistently, controlled possession, and generated 22 first downs to Cincinnati’s 11. Cincinnati, however, protected its limited scoring opportunities better and made the most important defensive plays when the game was on the line.

Table of Contents

Bengals vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats at a Glance

The most important numbers from the game are:

Category	Cincinnati Bengals	Cleveland Browns
Final Score	17	16
Record After Game	1-0	0-1
Total Net Yards	141	327
Passing Yards	95 net	278 net
Rushing Yards	46	49
First Downs	11	22
Third Down	7/14	9/16
Fourth Down	0/0	2/3
Turnovers	0	2
Sacks Allowed	3	2
Time of Possession	24:11	35:49
Red Zone	2/3	2/3
Field Goals	1/1	1/2
Touchdowns	2	2

The central statistical lesson is simple: Cleveland won many volume categories, while Cincinnati won the high-leverage moments.

That distinction is what makes this game particularly interesting for anyone studying player performance.

How the Game Was Decided

The Bengals scored first and built a 14-0 lead before Cleveland established more offensive rhythm. Cincinnati’s first touchdown came on a five-yard Chase Brown rushing score. Later, Noah Fant caught a one-yard touchdown pass from Burrow.

Cleveland answered with a rushing touchdown from Raheim Sanders and a 45-yard field goal from Andre Szmyt before halftime. The Browns then took control of the scoreboard in the third quarter when Cedric Tillman caught a five-yard touchdown pass from Flacco.

However, Cleveland missed the extra point after that touchdown. That missed kick became increasingly important because Cincinnati later regained the lead with Evan McPherson’s 35-yard field goal.

The fourth quarter produced no points, but it was far from uneventful.

Cleveland had opportunities to take control. Cincinnati’s defense eventually created the turnovers it needed, and DJ Turner II’s late interception helped prevent Cleveland from completing its comeback. Cincinnati then used Ryan Rehkow’s punt to pin Cleveland near its own goal line, effectively closing the game. The Bengals’ official game summary identifies the two second-half takeaways and the late defensive stand as the decisive elements of the victory.

Joe Burrow Player Stats and Performance

Joe Burrow finished with:

14 completions
23 attempts
113 passing yards
1 touchdown
0 interceptions
4.9 yards per attempt
95 net passing yards
62.8 QBR
87.8 passer rating
3 sacks for 18 yards
2 rushing attempts
3 rushing yards

Those numbers are modest by Burrow’s normal standards, but they need to be interpreted within the context of the game.

Cincinnati’s passing offense did not consistently stretch the field. Burrow averaged only 4.9 yards per attempt, and Cleveland’s defense recorded three sacks. His 113 gross passing yards became only 95 net passing yards after sack yardage was removed.

Yet the most important statistic is that Burrow did not throw an interception.

In a game where Cleveland quarterback Joe Flacco threw two interceptions, that difference became extremely valuable.

Burrow also produced the game’s only Cincinnati passing touchdown, finding Noah Fant for a one-yard score. His role was therefore less about producing spectacular volume and more about avoiding the mistakes that could have allowed Cleveland to turn its yardage advantage into a comfortable lead.

From a quarterback evaluation perspective, this is an important distinction. A quarterback can have a lower statistical ceiling in a particular game and still contribute to winning football through ball security and situational decision-making.

Burrow’s Efficiency Needs Context

A 4.9 yards-per-attempt figure does not immediately suggest an efficient passing performance.

However, Cincinnati did not need Burrow to throw 35 or 40 times. The Bengals ran only 49 offensive plays compared with Cleveland’s 71. Cincinnati therefore operated with a very different offensive profile.

The Bengals scored touchdowns on two of their first three drives, according to the team’s official game summary.

That early efficiency helped Cincinnati establish a lead that ultimately proved difficult for Cleveland to overcome.

Joe Flacco Player Stats and Performance

Joe Flacco’s statistical line was dramatically larger:

31 completions
45 attempts
290 passing yards
6.4 yards per attempt
1 touchdown
2 interceptions
278 net passing yards
30.6 QBR
75.2 passer rating
2 sacks for 12 yards
2 rushing attempts
6 rushing yards

At first glance, Flacco appears to have been the more productive quarterback.

He completed 68.9 percent of his passes and threw for 177 more yards than Burrow. Cleveland also produced nearly three times as many net passing yards.

But the two interceptions were costly.

This is the clearest example from the game of why passing volume and winning efficiency are not always the same thing. Flacco’s 290 yards helped Cleveland dominate total offense, but his turnovers came at moments when Cincinnati needed defensive intervention.

The Browns also had more possessions and controlled the clock for 35:49. Despite all that volume, they finished with only 16 points.

That disconnect between offensive yardage and scoring is one of the most important analytical points in the entire matchup.

Chase Brown’s Rushing Performance

Chase Brown was Cincinnati’s leading rusher.

His line was:

21 carries
43 yards
2.0 yards per carry
8-yard long
1 rushing touchdown

Brown did not produce an explosive rushing performance. A 2.0-yard average indicates that Cleveland generally limited his effectiveness on the ground.

But his touchdown was extremely important.

Brown’s five-yard scoring run gave Cincinnati an early advantage and helped create the 14-0 halftime lead. The Bengals’ official game summary lists Brown’s touchdown as Cincinnati’s opening score.

This is another useful reminder that rushing value cannot always be measured through yards per carry alone. A short-yardage touchdown can be more valuable to a team than several successful runs that never reach the end zone.

Cleveland’s Rushing Attack

Cleveland finished with 49 rushing yards on 24 attempts, almost identical to Cincinnati’s 46 yards on 23 attempts.

The Browns’ primary rushing contributors were:

Player	Carries	Yards	Average	TD
Dylan Sampson	12	29	2.4	0
Jerome Ford	6	8	1.3	0
Joe Flacco	2	6	3.0	0
Raheim Sanders	3	3	1.0	1
Harold Fannin Jr.	1	3	3.0	0

No Cleveland runner generated substantial rushing production.

Dylan Sampson led the Browns with 29 yards, while Sanders scored the team’s rushing touchdown. The Browns therefore relied heavily on the passing game to generate offensive yardage.

That strategy worked in terms of moving the ball, but it did not produce enough points.

Tee Higgins and Cincinnati’s Receiving Production

Tee Higgins led Cincinnati in receiving yardage with:

3 receptions
33 yards
11.0 yards per reception

His 33 yards represented the highest receiving total on the Bengals.

Ja’Marr Chase recorded:

2 receptions
26 yards
13.0 yards per reception

Chase therefore produced a higher average per reception than Higgins, but Cincinnati’s passing attack was spread among several targets.

Noah Fant was particularly important because he caught the team’s only passing touchdown.

His line was:

4 receptions
26 yards
1 touchdown

The Bengals finished with 14 total receptions for 113 receiving yards and one receiving touchdown.

The relatively low team passing total makes the distribution interesting. Cincinnati did not have one receiver dominate the box score. Instead, several players contributed enough to support a compact passing attack.

Cleveland’s Receiving Leaders

Cleveland’s receiving numbers were considerably stronger.

Player	Receptions	Yards	Average	TD
Jerry Jeudy	5	66	13.2	0
Dylan Sampson	8	64	8.0	0
Harold Fannin Jr.	7	63	9.0	0
Cedric Tillman	5	52	10.4	1
David Njoku	3	37	12.3	0
Jamari Thrash	1	6	6.0	0
Isaiah Bond	1	5	5.0	0
Jerome Ford	1	-3	-3.0	0

Jerry Jeudy led Cleveland in receiving yards with 66.

Dylan Sampson was also highly involved in the passing game, catching eight passes for 64 yards. That gave him a notable dual-role contribution because he also led the Browns in rushing attempts and rushing yards.

Harold Fannin Jr. added seven receptions for 63 yards, showing how broadly Cleveland distributed the ball.

Cedric Tillman was the only Browns receiver to score a touchdown. His five-yard touchdown reception gave Cleveland the lead in the third quarter, but the failed extra point meant the Browns’ advantage was only 16-17 after Cincinnati’s field goal.

Why Cleveland’s 290 Passing Yards Did Not Produce a Win

This is arguably the most important lesson from the Bengals vs Cleveland Browns match player stats.

Cleveland had:

290 gross passing yards
278 net passing yards
327 total net yards
22 first downs
35:49 time of possession
71 offensive plays

Cincinnati had:

113 gross passing yards
95 net passing yards
141 total net yards
11 first downs
24:11 time of possession
49 offensive plays

On paper, Cleveland controlled the game.

The Browns ran 22 more offensive plays and gained 186 more total yards. They also converted 9 of 16 third downs compared with Cincinnati’s 7 of 14.

Yet Cleveland scored one fewer point.

The answer is turnover efficiency and scoring execution.

Cincinnati committed no turnovers. Cleveland committed two interceptions.

Cleveland also went 1-for-2 on field goals, while Cincinnati went 1-for-1. The Browns missed an extra point as well.

In a one-point game, those seemingly small mistakes became decisive.

The Turnover Battle Was the Real Difference

Cincinnati’s defense recorded two interceptions.

DJ Turner II recorded one interception for seven return yards.

Jordan Battle recorded the other interception for two return yards.

Cleveland had no interceptions and neither team lost a fumble.

That produced a clean 2-0 turnover advantage for Cincinnati.

Turnovers are especially important in games where the offensive margins are tight. Cleveland gained enough yardage to create numerous opportunities, but giving the ball away twice prevented that production from translating fully into points.

The Bengals’ defense also recorded five quarterback hits and two sacks.

Cleveland’s defense produced three sacks and seven quarterback hits, so the defensive battle was not one-sided in terms of pressure. Cincinnati simply generated the more valuable plays at the right times.

Cincinnati’s Defensive Performance

Cincinnati’s defensive totals included:

86 tackles
44 solo tackles
2 sacks
4 tackles for loss
6 passes defended
5 quarterback hits
2 interceptions

The 86 total tackles reflect the amount of work the defense faced. Cleveland possessed the ball for nearly 36 minutes and ran 71 offensive plays.

That makes Cincinnati’s ability to prevent Cleveland from turning possession into points even more significant.

The defense did not dominate statistically in every category. Instead, it made its biggest contribution through takeaways and late-game execution.

The official Bengals summary specifically notes that Cincinnati’s defense recorded two second-half takeaways and held Cleveland scoreless on its final six possessions.

Cleveland’s Defensive Performance

Cleveland’s defense recorded:

57 tackles
35 solo tackles
3 sacks
8 tackles for loss
5 passes defended
7 quarterback hits
0 interceptions

The Browns were effective at limiting Cincinnati’s offense.

Holding the Bengals to 141 net yards is an impressive defensive result, particularly against an offense led by Burrow.

Cleveland also produced more sacks, more tackles for loss, and more quarterback hits than Cincinnati.

But defensive success was undermined by the offense’s inability to capitalize on field position and possessions.

This is why analyzing one unit in isolation can be misleading. Cleveland’s defense performed well enough to win the game, but the team’s overall performance did not.

Special Teams Had a Major Influence

Special teams often receive less attention than quarterback and receiver statistics, but this game shows why that can be a mistake.

Evan McPherson

McPherson finished:

1-for-1 on field goals
35-yard long
2-for-2 on extra points
5 total points

His 35-yard field goal in the third quarter restored Cincinnati’s lead.

Andre Szmyt

Szmyt finished:

1-for-2 on field goals
45-yard long
1-for-2 on extra points
4 total points

The missed extra point after Tillman’s touchdown was particularly costly.

Later, Szmyt missed a potential 36-yard go-ahead field goal in the fourth quarter. The official Bengals game summary identifies that miss as a major late-game turning point.

Punting

Ryan Rehkow punted six times for Cincinnati for 316 yards, averaging 52.7 yards per punt.

His longest punt traveled 62 yards.

Most importantly, one of his late punts was downed at Cleveland’s one-yard line. That play helped Cincinnati protect its narrow lead.

Cleveland punter Corey Bojorquez punted twice for 97 yards, averaging 48.5 yards.

The difference in punt volume reflects how frequently Cincinnati’s offense stalled. Yet Rehkow’s ability to create favorable field position became valuable in the final stages.

Return Game Comparison

Charlie Jones handled Cincinnati’s kick returns and punt return work.

His kick return statistics:

3 returns
70 yards
23.3-yard average
29-yard long

His punt return statistics:

1 return
23 yards
23-yard long

Cleveland’s DeAndre Carter recorded:

4 kick returns
105 yards
26.3-yard average
29-yard long
3 punt returns
41 yards
13.7-yard average

Carter therefore generated more total return yardage than Jones.

Again, however, the Browns’ advantage in a statistical category did not automatically produce a win.

First Downs and Possession Tell a Different Story

Cleveland finished with 22 first downs.

Cincinnati had only 11.

That is a massive difference.

The Browns also possessed the ball for 35:49 compared with Cincinnati’s 24:11.

Normally, these numbers point toward a team controlling the game.

And Cleveland did control many parts of it.

But the scoreboard is determined by points rather than possession time or yardage totals.

Cleveland’s problem was not an inability to sustain drives. It was failing to convert enough of those drives into successful scoring outcomes.

The Browns went 2-for-3 in the red zone, the same percentage as Cincinnati.

However, Cincinnati’s two red-zone scores came without turnovers, while Cleveland’s overall offensive efficiency was damaged by the two interceptions and missed kicks.

Third Down and Fourth Down Efficiency

Third-down performance was another area where Cleveland had an advantage.

Cincinnati converted:

7 of 14 third downs, or 50.0 percent.

Cleveland converted:

9 of 16 third downs, or 56.3 percent.

The Browns also attempted three fourth downs and converted two.

Cincinnati did not attempt a fourth down.

These numbers demonstrate that Cleveland consistently kept drives alive.

The problem was what happened after those conversions.

The Browns generated 327 net yards but scored only 16 points. That works out to roughly 20.4 net yards per point.

Cincinnati generated only 141 net yards while scoring 17 points, or about 8.3 net yards per point.

This is not a conventional efficiency metric, but it illustrates the unusual nature of the game. Cincinnati extracted much more scoring value from a much smaller amount of offense.

Red-Zone Performance

Both teams finished 2-for-3 in the red zone.

That means neither offense was perfect inside scoring territory.

Cincinnati’s two successful red-zone possessions resulted in touchdowns.

Cleveland also scored two touchdowns on its three red-zone trips, but its missed extra point became important.

The red-zone statistics therefore look almost identical, yet the kicking outcomes created a meaningful difference.

This is an excellent example of why red-zone percentage should not be treated as the entire scoring story.

A team can have the same red-zone touchdown rate as its opponent and still lose because of missed extra points, field goals, turnovers, or late-game execution.

What the Box Score Says About the Bengals

The Bengals’ profile from this matchup was unusual.

They won despite:

141 total net yards
11 first downs
46 rushing yards
95 net passing yards
24:11 possession time
3 sacks allowed

That tells us Cincinnati’s victory was not built on offensive dominance.

Instead, it was built around avoiding catastrophic mistakes and making a small number of high-value plays.

Burrow avoided interceptions.

Chase Brown scored on the ground.

Noah Fant caught a touchdown.

McPherson converted his field-goal opportunity.

The defense intercepted Flacco twice.

Rehkow created critical field position late.

That combination was enough.

What the Box Score Says About the Browns

Cleveland’s performance is more difficult to summarize because it contained both impressive and damaging elements.

The Browns:

gained 327 net yards
recorded 22 first downs
possessed the ball for 35:49
completed 31 passes
converted 9 third downs
generated 278 net passing yards

Those are strong offensive volume numbers.

But the Browns also:

threw two interceptions
missed an extra point
missed one of two field goals
scored only 16 points
failed to score in the fourth quarter

The game therefore represents a classic case of production without enough finishing efficiency.

Cleveland moved the ball.

Cincinnati finished the game better.

Player Performance Rankings

When evaluating the most influential individual performances, the ranking should not simply follow yardage totals.

1. DJ Turner II

Turner’s late interception was one of the most important plays of the game.

The takeaway came when Cleveland was attempting to complete a comeback. Its value therefore went beyond the seven return yards.

2. Chase Brown

Brown’s 21 carries produced only 43 yards, but his rushing touchdown established Cincinnati’s early advantage.

He also contributed two receptions for eight yards.

3. Joe Flacco

Flacco’s 290 passing yards and 31 completions demonstrate substantial offensive production.

However, his two interceptions are difficult to overlook in a one-point loss.

4. Jerry Jeudy

Jeudy led Cleveland with 66 receiving yards and produced five receptions.

His 13.2 yards per reception represented one of Cleveland’s better big-play receiving profiles.

5. Noah Fant

Fant caught four passes for 26 yards and Cincinnati’s only passing touchdown.

His touchdown had significant value because the Bengals’ offense generated so few total yards.

6. Evan McPherson

McPherson made his only field-goal attempt and both extra points.

His third-quarter field goal directly restored Cincinnati’s lead.

7. Dylan Sampson

Sampson contributed as both a runner and receiver.

He rushed 12 times for 29 yards and caught eight passes for 64 yards.

His 93 combined yards from scrimmage made him one of Cleveland’s more productive offensive contributors.

Why the Final Score Can Be Misleading

A 17-16 result can make the game appear evenly matched statistically.

It was not.

Cleveland dominated several volume categories.

The Browns had 186 more total net yards, 11 more first downs, 22 more offensive plays, and more than 11 additional minutes of possession.

Yet Cincinnati still won.

That does not mean yardage is unimportant. It means football outcomes are determined by how effectively teams turn opportunities into points.

The Bengals were more successful in the areas that directly affected the final margin.

They avoided turnovers.
They converted their field-goal opportunity.
They made the defensive plays that ended Cleveland possessions.
They also finished the game without allowing a fourth-quarter score.
The Browns had the statistical foundation for a victory but failed to convert enough of it into points.

A Practical Way to Analyze NFL Player Stats

If you are reviewing a box score for fantasy football, betting research, historical analysis, or general football study, avoid looking only at the leading yardage totals.

A better process is:

Step 1: Start With the Score

Identify the final score and how the points were distributed across quarters.

This tells you whether the game was controlled early, late, or throughout.

Step 2: Compare Total Offense

Look at total net yards, offensive plays, and first downs.

This reveals which team controlled volume.

Step 3: Check Turnovers

Turnovers often explain why the team with fewer yards wins.

In this game, the turnover difference was 2-0 in Cincinnati’s favor.

Step 4: Review Red-Zone Results

A team can move the ball successfully but repeatedly settle for field goals or fail to score.

Red-zone results help identify that problem.

Step 5: Check Kicking

Extra points and field goals matter enormously in close games.

Cleveland’s missed extra point and missed field goal directly affected the one-point margin.

Step 6: Study the Fourth Quarter

Close games often contain their most valuable plays late.

Cincinnati’s defense and special teams became especially important in the final minutes.

Step 7: Separate Volume From Impact

A player can lead the box score in yards without producing the most important play.

Conversely, a player can have modest numbers but deliver a game-changing touchdown, interception, sack, or field-position play.

What These Stats Mean for Fantasy Football

This game also demonstrates why a single-game fantasy evaluation can be tricky.

Burrow’s 113 passing yards and one touchdown represent a relatively modest fantasy performance.

Flacco’s 290 yards look much better in raw passing production, but his two interceptions reduce the value of that performance in most scoring systems.

Sampson’s eight receptions for 64 yards were particularly notable from a volume perspective. His receiving involvement gave him a meaningful floor even though his rushing output was limited.

For Cincinnati, Chase Brown’s rushing touchdown provided strong scoring value despite his 2.0-yard rushing average.

That is why fantasy managers should separate:

Touch volume
Receiving volume
Yardage efficiency
Touchdowns
Turnovers
Red-zone opportunities

A player who receives consistent opportunities may remain valuable even when efficiency is poor in one particular matchup.

What These Stats Mean for Team Evaluation

For team analysis, the matchup provides a broader lesson.

Cincinnati’s victory should not be interpreted as proof that its offense dominated Cleveland.

The Bengals actually produced one of the lowest offensive yardage totals possible for a winning team in this game. The official Bengals game summary notes that the 141 net yards were the second-fewest in a win in franchise history.

At the same time, Cleveland’s loss should not automatically be interpreted as an offensive collapse.

The Browns generated 327 net yards and 22 first downs.

The more accurate conclusion is that Cleveland’s offense was productive but inefficient in high-leverage situations.

Cincinnati’s defense and special teams compensated for the offense’s limited production.

The Most Important Statistical Takeaways

The bengals vs cleveland browns match player stats reveal several important lessons.

First, Cincinnati won the turnover battle 2-0.

Second, Cleveland generated far more offensive volume but converted that volume into only 16 points.

Third, Burrow’s modest passing numbers were enough because he protected the football.

Fourth, Flacco’s 290 passing yards were impressive but were offset by two interceptions.

Fifth, Chase Brown’s 43 rushing yards mattered because one of those runs became a touchdown.

Sixth, Dylan Sampson was productive in both phases of Cleveland’s offense.

Seventh, Cincinnati’s defense delivered the decisive takeaways.

Eighth, special teams created a meaningful scoring difference through McPherson’s perfect kicking performance and Cleveland’s missed opportunities.

Finally, Cincinnati’s late defensive execution protected a one-point advantage despite Cleveland’s enormous statistical edge in total offense.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score between the Bengals and Browns?

The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Cleveland Browns 17-16 on September 7, 2025, at Huntington Bank Field.

Who was the leading passer in the game?

Joe Flacco led all passers with 290 yards on 31 completions from 45 attempts. Joe Burrow completed 14 of 23 passes for 113 yards and one touchdown.

Who led the Bengals in rushing?

Chase Brown led Cincinnati with 21 carries for 43 yards and one rushing touchdown.

Who led the Browns in receiving?

Jerry Jeudy led Cleveland with five receptions for 66 yards. Dylan Sampson had eight receptions for 64 yards, while Harold Fannin Jr. recorded seven receptions for 63 yards.

How many turnovers did each team have?

Cincinnati had zero turnovers. Cleveland had two turnovers, both interceptions.

Why did Cincinnati win despite having fewer yards?

The Bengals protected the football, converted their scoring opportunities, and made two crucial interceptions. Cleveland had substantially more offensive yardage but lost the turnover battle and missed an extra point and a field goal.

Conclusion

The bengals vs cleveland browns match player stats present one of the clearest examples of why an NFL game cannot be understood from total yardage alone.

Cleveland produced 327 net yards, 22 first downs, 278 net passing yards, and nearly 36 minutes of possession. Those numbers normally describe a team in control.

But Cincinnati converted its opportunities more effectively.

Burrow avoided turnovers. Brown scored the opening touchdown. Fant supplied the passing touchdown. McPherson was perfect on his kicks. Cincinnati’s defense intercepted Flacco twice, and the Bengals’ late defensive execution stopped Cleveland from turning its statistical advantage into a winning score.

For Cleveland, the loss was less about a lack of offensive production and more about execution at critical moments. Flacco’s 290 yards and the Browns’ 327 total net yards showed that the offense could move the football. The two interceptions, missed extra point, and missed field goal demonstrated why production must ultimately be converted into points.

The game therefore belongs in the category of close NFL contests where efficiency, turnovers, field position, and situational execution mattered more than raw statistical volume.

The final score was 17-16, but the box score tells a much richer story: Cleveland won the yardage battle, while Cincinnati won the moments that mattered most.