Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs Atlanta Falcons Match Player Stats reveal a thrilling divisional showdown that showcased the evolving dynamics of NFC South football. The September 7th encounter between these longtime rivals delivered compelling individual performances that went far beyond the final 23-20 scoreline, with rookie sensation Emeka Egbuka stealing the spotlight through his two-touchdown breakout performance while Baker Mayfield orchestrated a masterful comeback victory despite facing a depleted receiving corps.
This comprehensive statistical breakdown examines how Tampa Bay’s 17-of-32 passing efficiency from Mayfield (167 yards, 3 TDs) overcame Michael Penix Jr.’s more prolific 27-of-42 showing for 298 yards, highlighting the crucial difference between volume statistics and situational execution that ultimately determined the outcome. The game’s most intriguing subplot emerged through the contrasting approaches each team employed, with Atlanta’s balanced offensive attack generating 358 total yards compared to Tampa Bay’s more explosive but inconsistent 260-yard effort that proved more effective in crucial scoring situations.
Game Overview and Key Takeaways
Atlanta's 31-26 victory over Tampa Bay wasn't just another divisional win—it was a statement game that positioned the Falcons as legitimate contenders in the NFC South. The statistical narrative reveals a tale of two quarterbacks operating under vastly different circumstances, with supporting casts that either elevated or hindered their performances.
Kirk Cousins’ 276 passing yards with four touchdowns demonstrated the type of efficiency that championship teams require. Meanwhile, Baker Mayfield’s 330-yard effort, though impressive in volume, came with costly turnovers that ultimately decided the contest. The difference wasn’t just in execution but in situational awareness during critical moments.
What makes this matchup particularly intriguing from a statistical perspective is how both teams approached their offensive game plans. Tampa Bay leaned heavily on Mayfield’s arm talent, attempting 32 passes compared to just 23 rushing attempts. Atlanta, conversely, maintained better balance with their offensive attack, utilizing Bijan Robinson’s versatility to create mismatches throughout the contest.
Quarterback Duel: Baker Mayfield vs Michael Penix Jr.
Passing Performance Deep Dive
Baker Mayfield’s statistical output tells a complex story of high-volume production marred by critical mistakes. His 17-of-32 completion rate for 167 yards represents a significant departure from his season-long efficiency metrics. The quarterback rating of 87.8 doesn’t capture the full context of his performance, particularly considering the pressure he faced with depleted receiving options.
The absence of Chris Godwin and limited availability of Mike Evans forced Mayfield into uncomfortable situations where he relied heavily on Cade Otton and emerging targets like Emeka Egbuka. This shift in target distribution created opportunities but also exposed Tampa Bay’s depth concerns at the receiver position.
Michael Penix Jr.’s entry into the game provided a different dynamic entirely. His 27-of-42 performance for 298 yards showcased a more methodical approach to moving the football. The 83.3 quarterback rating, while not spectacular, reflected solid decision-making and an understanding of Atlanta’s offensive system that bodes well for future opportunities.
| Quarterback | Comp/Att | Yards | TD | INT | QBR | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baker Mayfield | 17/32 | 167 | 3 | 0 | 87.8 | 99.3 |
| Michael Penix Jr. | 27/42 | 298 | 1 | 0 | 83.3 | 93.2 |
Advanced QB Metrics
The pressure response statistics reveal fascinating insights about both quarterbacks’ pocket presence. Mayfield, despite facing consistent pressure from Atlanta’s pass rush, maintained his characteristic ability to extend plays with his mobility. His five rushing attempts for 39 yards included several scrambles that kept drives alive when the pocket collapsed.
Penix Jr.’s six rushing attempts for 21 yards and one touchdown demonstrated his willingness to use his legs when opportunities presented themselves. More importantly, his decision-making under pressure showed the poise that Atlanta’s coaching staff has praised throughout his development.
Time to throw metrics favor Penix Jr., who consistently got the ball out quickly to his primary receivers. This efficiency helped Atlanta sustain drives and control the game’s tempo, particularly during their fourth-quarter scoring drive that sealed the victory.
Offensive Skill Position Standouts
Wide Receiver Battle
Emeka Egbuka’s breakout performance for Tampa Bay provided the most compelling individual story from the receiving corps. His four catches for 67 yards and two touchdowns represented a career-best effort that showcased his ability to make contested catches in traffic. The 16.8 yards per reception average demonstrates his big-play capability, something Tampa Bay desperately needed with their established receivers limited.
Mike Evans’ five receptions for 51 yards reflected his continued importance to Tampa Bay’s offense, even while battling through injury concerns. His 10.2 yards per catch may seem modest, but his presence created favorable matchups for other receivers throughout the contest.
Atlanta’s receiving production was more evenly distributed, with Bijan Robinson leading the way from an unconventional position. His six catches for 100 yards and one touchdown from the backfield created mismatches that Tampa Bay’s defense struggled to address consistently.
- Emeka Egbuka: 4 rec, 67 yards, 2 TD (breakout performance)
- Mike Evans: 5 rec, 51 yards, 0 TD (played through injury)
- Bijan Robinson: 6 rec, 100 yards, 1 TD (versatility showcase)
- Kyle Pitts Sr.: 7 rec, 59 yards, 0 TD (consistent target)
Running Game Comparison
The ground game statistics reveal contrasting philosophies between these NFC South rivals. Tampa Bay’s rushing attack generated 101 yards on 23 carries, a respectable 4.4 yards per attempt that kept their offense balanced despite the passing game emphasis.
Bucky Irving’s 14 carries for 37 yards (2.6 YPC) reflected Tampa Bay’s struggles to establish consistent running lanes. However, his receiving contributions (4 catches for 8 yards and one touchdown) demonstrate his value as a versatile backfield option.
Atlanta’s rushing efficiency proved superior, with 69 total yards on 28 carries (2.5 YPC). While the per-carry average appears modest, the Falcons’ ability to convert short-yardage situations and maintain possession during crucial moments made their ground game more impactful than raw statistics suggest.
| Team | Carries | Yards | YPC | Long | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tampa Bay | 23 | 101 | 4.4 | 20 | 0 |
| Atlanta | 28 | 69 | 2.5 | 12 | 1 |
Bijan Robinson’s dual-threat capability (12 carries, 24 yards rushing; 6 catches, 100 yards receiving) exemplifies modern NFL versatility. His ability to line up anywhere on the field creates matchup problems that defensive coordinators must account for in their game planning.
Tight End Impact
Cade Otton emerged as Tampa Bay’s most reliable target, particularly in the red zone where his route-running precision and sure hands provided Mayfield with a consistent option. His statistical line doesn’t fully capture his importance to Tampa Bay’s offensive rhythm.
Kyle Pitts Sr.’s seven receptions for 59 yards represented solid production, though not the explosive plays that his talent suggests he’s capable of generating. His 8.4 yards per catch reflects Atlanta’s utilization of him in shorter routes rather than the downfield targets that maximize his skill set.
The tight end position proved crucial for both teams’ offensive success, with these players providing reliable targets when primary receivers faced double coverage or tight windows in crucial situations.
Defensive Player Performances
Pass Rush Analysis
Tampa Bay’s pass rush generated meaningful pressure despite not recording overwhelming sack totals. Vita Vea’s presence in the interior consistently collapsed the pocket, while Haason Reddick’s edge rushing created opportunities for coverage sacks and hurried throws.
The sack distribution shows Yaya Diaby and others contributing to a collective effort that kept Atlanta’s quarterbacks uncomfortable throughout extended drives. However, the inability to generate consistent third-down pressure allowed Atlanta to sustain crucial scoring drives.
Atlanta’s defensive front, led by Arnold Ebiketie and supported by a rotation of pass rushers, created enough disruption to force Tampa Bay into predictable passing situations. Their seven total quarterback hits reflected a gameplan focused on preventing big plays rather than pursuing spectacular individual statistics.
Secondary Standouts
The interception battle told a significant story about both teams’ defensive execution. While neither team recorded interceptions during this particular contest, the pass coverage metrics reveal interesting tactical approaches.
Tampa Bay’s secondary, anchored by Antoine Winfield Jr. and Jamel Dean, focused on limiting big plays rather than generating turnovers. Their coverage statistics show consistent position but perhaps missed opportunities to create game-changing moments.
A.J. Terrell Jr.’s coverage grade against Tampa Bay’s receivers demonstrated why he’s considered among the NFC South’s premier cornerbacks. His ability to shadow receivers throughout their routes limited Tampa Bay’s deep passing opportunities.
Jessie Bates III’s seven tackles from the safety position reflected his range and willingness to support run defense while maintaining deep coverage responsibilities. His versatility allows Atlanta’s defense to disguise coverages and create confusion for opposing quarterbacks.
Special Teams Impact Players
Kicking Game Performance
Chase McLaughlin’s 1-of-2 field goal performance for Tampa Bay included a crucial miss that could have altered the game’s final outcome. His 48-yard successful attempt demonstrated his range, but the missed opportunity highlighted the razor-thin margins in divisional contests.
Younghoe Koo’s 2-of-3 field goal performance for Atlanta (66.7%) provided the steady special teams contribution that winning teams require. His reliability from various distances has become a significant advantage in close games throughout the season.
The extra point efficiency (Tampa Bay 2/3, Atlanta 2/2) reflects the importance of consistency in special teams execution. These seemingly routine plays often determine outcomes in tightly contested divisional matchups.
Return Game Analysis
Sean Tucker’s kick return average of 27.0 yards for Tampa Bay provided solid field position throughout the contest. His 35-yard long return set up one of Tampa Bay’s scoring opportunities, demonstrating the hidden impact of special teams field position.
Atlanta’s return game, split between Natrone Brooks and Jamal Agnew, averaged 25.0 yards per return. While not spectacular, their consistent execution prevented Tampa Bay from gaining significant advantages through their coverage units.
The punt return statistics favor Tampa Bay, with Kameron Johnson’s 54-yard return representing the game’s most explosive special teams play. This type of field-flipping moment can shift momentum and create scoring opportunities that don’t appear in traditional offensive statistics.
Advanced Analytics and Context
Situational Football Performance
Third-down efficiency separated these teams throughout the contest. Atlanta’s ability to convert crucial third downs during their scoring drives reflected superior situational preparation and execution. Their success in these high-leverage moments allowed them to control game tempo and limit Tampa Bay’s possessions.
Red zone performance statistics reveal why Atlanta emerged victorious. Their touchdown efficiency inside the 20-yard line, particularly through Bijan Robinson’s receiving touchdown and other scoring opportunities, maximized their opportunities when they reached premium field position.
Tampa Bay’s two-minute drill execution showed flashes of brilliance but ultimately fell short when they needed it most. Their final drive reached Atlanta’s 33-yard line, demonstrating their ability to move the football under pressure, but the inability to convert the final opportunity defined their defeat.
Efficiency Metrics
Yards per play differential heavily favored Atlanta, whose balanced offensive approach created more sustainable drive efficiency. Their ability to generate positive yardage on early downs reduced their reliance on third-down conversions and kept their offense ahead of schedule.
Time of possession statistics reflected Atlanta’s ability to sustain drives through their running game and short passing attack. This approach limited Tampa Bay’s offensive opportunities while keeping Atlanta’s defense fresh throughout the fourth quarter.
The explosive play differential (10+ yard gains) showed both teams capable of generating big plays, but Atlanta’s timing of these gains proved more impactful in crucial scoring situations.
Injury Impact and Depth Chart Changes
Chris Godwin’s season-ending absence and Mike Evans’ expected three-game absence created significant challenges for Tampa Bay’s offensive planning. The statistical impact appears in their target distribution, with Emeka Egbuka and other receivers receiving increased opportunities that they hadn’t previously experienced.
Sterling Shepard’s hamstring injury during the second quarter, though he returned, demonstrated Tampa Bay’s vulnerability at the receiver position. Their depth chart adjustments throughout the game showed both resilience and the challenges facing their offensive coordination.
Atlanta’s injury situation proved less disruptive, though Ruke Orhorhoro’s ankle injury in the third quarter required defensive line adjustments that could impact their future performances.
Historical Context and Rivalry Stats
This victory gave Atlanta a 2-0 season series advantage over Tampa Bay, effectively providing them with a three-game divisional lead due to tiebreaker implications. Their 4-0 record within the NFC South represents the type of divisional dominance that typically leads to playoff appearances.
The statistical comparison between these teams’ 2025 meetings shows Atlanta’s growth throughout the season. Their offensive efficiency improvements and defensive consistency have created a formula that’s proven difficult for divisional opponents to counter.
Tampa Bay’s three-time defending division championship streak faces serious jeopardy based on these head-to-head results. Their statistical profile suggests they remain talented enough to compete, but the margin for error has essentially disappeared.
Fantasy Football Implications
Bijan Robinson’s dual-threat performance (100 receiving yards, 24 rushing yards, 1 TD) reinforces his status as a premium fantasy asset. His versatility creates weekly upside that few other running backs can match, particularly in PPR formats.
Emeka Egbuka’s two-touchdown performance likely makes him a popular waiver wire target, though his long-term fantasy value depends on Tampa Bay’s receiver health and his ability to maintain this level of production.
Baker Mayfield’s interception concerns over recent weeks create uncertainty for fantasy managers who’ve relied on his touchdown production. His 21 touchdown passes lead the league, but the seven interceptions over three games suggest potential regression.
Looking Ahead: What These Stats Mean
The statistical trends from this matchup suggest Atlanta has found an offensive identity that maximizes their personnel strengths. Bijan Robinson’s versatility, combined with improving quarterback play, creates matchup problems that opposing defenses will struggle to solve consistently.
Tampa Bay’s offensive adjustments without their primary receivers will define their remaining season success. The emergence of players like Emeka Egbuka provides hope, but the statistical burden on Baker Mayfield requires improved decision-making to maintain their competitive level.
Defensively, both teams showed vulnerabilities that playoff-caliber opponents will attempt to exploit. Atlanta’s pass rush inconsistency and Tampa Bay’s coverage lapses suggest areas where coaching adjustments and personnel improvements could prove crucial.
The NFC South race appears increasingly favorable for Atlanta based on these statistical indicators. Their divisional dominance, combined with improved offensive efficiency and timely defensive plays, positions them as the most likely division winner despite Tampa Bay’s recent championship pedigree.
This comprehensive statistical analysis reveals a changing of the guard in the NFC South, with Atlanta’s balanced approach and situational excellence overcoming Tampa Bay’s individual talent advantages. The numbers tell a story of two teams heading in different directions, with playoff implications that extend far beyond this single divisional matchup.
