Denver Broncos vs Buffalo Bills Match Player Stats
The denver broncos vs buffalo bills match player stats from the January 18, 2026, AFC Divisional Playoffs reveal how Denver secured a dramatic 33-30 overtime victory against Buffalo. The Broncos combined three passing touchdowns, four successful field goals, and timely defensive plays to advance after a tightly contested battle. Josh Allen delivered three touchdown passes and 283 passing yards for the Bills, while Bo Nix answered with 279 passing yards and three touchdowns of his own. Despite Buffalo’s advantage on the ground, Denver made the decisive plays when the game was on the line.
This matchup offered a compelling contrast between two different offensive approaches. Buffalo leaned on its productive rushing attack, led by James Cook III and Allen, while Denver relied more heavily on its passing game and kicking unit. Both quarterbacks produced three touchdown passes, but turnovers and defensive pressure helped shape the final result. Examining the individual performances, team statistics, and scoring progression provides a clearer understanding of why the Broncos emerged victorious in overtime.
Denver Broncos vs Buffalo Bills Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The AFC Divisional Playoff contest took place on January 18, 2026. Denver entered the game with a 14-3 regular-season record and an 8-1 home record, while Buffalo arrived at 12-5 overall and 5-3 on the road.
Denver Broncos
Home team
33
FINAL / OT
Jan 18, 2026
vs.
Buffalo Bills
Away team
30
Denver record entering game
14-3
Buffalo record entering game
12-5
Denver passing leader
Bo Nix
Buffalo passing leader
Josh Allen
The final score tells only part of the story. Denver scored 17 points in the second quarter, creating an important cushion before Buffalo mounted a late comeback. The Bills scored 13 points in the fourth quarter to force a closer finish, but the Broncos produced the only points in overtime.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Buffalo Bills | Denver Broncos |
| First quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 3 | 17 |
| Third quarter | 7 | 3 |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 7 |
| Overtime | 0 | 3 |
| Final score | 30 | 33 |
Denver’s 17-point second quarter was the largest scoring swing of the game. Buffalo remained competitive through the second half, but the Broncos ultimately converted their overtime opportunity into three points.
The supplied ESPN box-score data is the statistical basis for this breakdown. For the official game record and individual player figures, consult the ESPN box score.
Quarterback Stats: Bo Nix vs Josh Allen
Quarterback performance was one of the defining features of this playoff matchup. Both starters threw three touchdown passes, but their supporting numbers show how differently they managed the game.
| Passing statistic | Bo Nix, Denver | Josh Allen, Buffalo |
| Completions | 26 | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 46 | 39 |
| Completion percentage | 56.5% | 64.1% |
| Passing yards | 279 | 283 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.1 | 7.3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 2 |
| Sacks taken | 0 | 3 |
| Sack yards lost | 0 | 17 |
| Passer rating | 87.1 | 90.0 |
| ESPN QBR | 64.6 | 47.6 |
Completion percentages are calculated from the supplied completions and attempts. Other figures are from the provided game statistics.
Bo Nix’s passing performance
Bo Nix completed 26 of 46 attempts for 279 yards and three touchdowns. He averaged 6.1 yards per attempt and finished with an 87.1 passer rating and a 64.6 ESPN QBR.
His completion percentage was approximately 56.5%, which indicates that Denver needed a substantial number of attempts to produce its passing output. Nevertheless, Nix matched Allen’s touchdown total and finished with one fewer interception.
Three aspects of his performance stand out:
- Touchdown production: Three touchdown passes accounted for the Broncos’ entire passing-touchdown total.
- Availability in the pocket: The supplied statistics record no sacks taken by Nix, in contrast with Allen’s three.
- Composure through a close finish: Denver’s offense produced the points required to win in overtime, although the available aggregate statistics do not identify every decision that led to that outcome.
Nix’s performance was not defined by exceptional efficiency on every attempt. Rather, his value came from maintaining the offense’s scoring potential and avoiding the additional losses associated with sacks.
His 279 passing yards were only four fewer than Allen’s. That small difference is important because it shows that the two quarterbacks generated similar total passing production even though their completion rates and yards per attempt differed.
Josh Allen’s passing performance
Allen completed 25 of 39 passes for 283 yards, three touchdowns, and two interceptions. He averaged 7.3 yards per attempt and posted a 90.0 passer rating.
His completion percentage of approximately 64.1% was higher than Nix’s, and his average gain per attempt was also better. These figures suggest that Allen generated more passing yardage from each opportunity.
However, the two interceptions and three sacks complicated an otherwise productive performance.
Allen’s numbers illustrate an important point about quarterback evaluation: passing efficiency and overall game outcome are related, but they are not interchangeable. A quarterback can complete a high percentage of passes, average more yards per attempt, and still finish on the losing side if turnovers and other situational factors prove costly.
Allen also contributed 66 rushing yards, making him a threat beyond the passing game. That mobility helped Buffalo create offense in multiple ways, but his rushing production did not result in a rushing touchdown.
Which quarterback performed better?
The answer depends on which measures matter most.
Allen led in passing yards, completion percentage, yards per attempt, and passer rating. Nix led in ESPN QBR and threw one fewer interception. Both recorded three touchdown passes, and Nix was not sacked according to the supplied data.
Neither quarterback dominated every category. Allen’s stronger conventional passing efficiency was offset by a greater turnover total, while Nix delivered comparable yardage and touchdown production with fewer interceptions.
The most useful conclusion is that Allen produced the more efficient passing line by several traditional measures, but Denver’s quarterback performance was sufficient to support a winning team effort.
Running Back Stats and the Ground Game
The rushing numbers reveal one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams. Buffalo gained 183 rushing yards on 36 attempts, while Denver recorded 70 yards on 22 attempts.
That is a difference of 113 rushing yards in Buffalo’s favor. Yet the Bills did not score a rushing touchdown, and their advantage on the ground did not translate into an overtime victory.
Buffalo Bills rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| James Cook III | 24 | 117 | 4.9 | 0 | 24 |
| Josh Allen | 12 | 66 | 5.5 | 0 | 26 |
| Team total | 36 | 183 | 5.1 | 0 | 26 |
James Cook III leads Buffalo’s rushing attack
James Cook III was Buffalo’s leading rusher with 117 yards on 24 carries. His average of 4.9 yards per carry shows that the Bills repeatedly gained useful yardage through the running game.
Cook supplied the foundation of Buffalo’s ground production. His 117 yards represented approximately 64% of the team’s listed rushing total, making him the principal contributor in this area.
His workload also demonstrated Buffalo’s willingness to rely on the running game. Twenty-four carries gave Cook a significant role in the offensive plan, while his 24-yard longest run shows that he generated a meaningful chunk gain.
However, rushing yardage alone does not reveal how effectively an offense handled every important situation. The supplied statistics list no rushing touchdowns for Cook. That does not diminish his yardage contribution, but it does distinguish between moving the ball and finishing a possession with a score.
Josh Allen adds 66 rushing yards
Allen’s 12 carries produced 66 yards at 5.5 yards per attempt. His longest run covered 26 yards, the longest rushing gain recorded in Buffalo’s supplied team statistics.
His rushing contribution gave Denver another problem to manage. Defenders could not focus exclusively on preventing passes because Allen could also gain yards with his legs.
Cook and Allen combined for all 183 of Buffalo’s listed rushing yards. Their different roles complemented each other: Cook provided the larger workload, while Allen supplied an additional mobile threat.
Even with that production, Buffalo failed to score on the ground. This distinction matters when interpreting the team’s offensive balance. A strong rushing total can help control possession and create favorable situations, but the offense must still convert its opportunities into points.
Denver Broncos rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Yards per carry | Rushing TDs | Longest run |
| Bo Nix | 12 | 29 | 2.4 | 0 | 11 |
| Jaleel McLaughlin | 4 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 | 13 |
| RJ Harvey | 6 | 20 | 3.3 | 0 | 12 |
| Team total | 22 | 70 | 3.2 | 0 | 13 |
Denver’s rushing attack was considerably less productive. Nix gained 29 yards on 12 attempts, McLaughlin added 21 yards, and Harvey recorded 20.
McLaughlin had the strongest average among Denver’s three listed rushers, gaining 5.3 yards per carry. His four attempts produced a respectable return, although his limited workload makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions about what would have happened with more carries.
Harvey added a mix of rushing and receiving production. His five catches for 46 yards gave him another way to contribute even when the ground game struggled.
The Broncos’ team average of 3.2 yards per carry was well below Buffalo’s 5.1. Denver therefore had less success generating rushing yardage, making its passing production and field-goal scoring especially relevant to the final result.
What the rushing comparison tells us
Buffalo won the rushing battle convincingly, but rushing yardage was not enough to determine the winner.
The key distinction is between gaining yards and completing scoring drives. Buffalo generated more than twice Denver’s rushing yardage, yet neither team recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied data.
Denver compensated with its passing touchdowns and four successful field goals. This is a useful lesson when evaluating NFL statistics: a team can lose one major statistical category while still winning through a more productive combination of passing, kicking, and defensive execution.
Receiving Stats: Who Made the Biggest Impact?
The receiving numbers show how both offenses distributed the ball. Buffalo recorded 25 receptions for 283 yards and three touchdowns, while Denver finished with 26 receptions for 279 yards and three touchdowns.
The totals are remarkably close. Denver had one more reception, while Buffalo produced four more receiving yards.
Denver Broncos receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Marvin Mims Jr. | 8 | 8 | 93 | 11.6 | 1 |
| Courtland Sutton | 4 | 9 | 53 | 13.3 | 0 |
| RJ Harvey | 5 | 6 | 46 | 9.2 | 0 |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | 2 | 5 | 33 | 16.5 | 1 |
| Pat Bryant | 3 | 3 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 |
| Frank Crum | 1 | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 1 |
| Evan Engram | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Tyler Badie | 1 | 2 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Nate Adkins | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 0 |
Marvin Mims Jr. leads Denver’s receivers
Marvin Mims Jr. was Denver’s most productive receiver, recording eight catches for 93 yards and a touchdown on eight targets.
His perfect catch rate in the supplied statistics was particularly notable. He caught every pass directed his way and averaged 11.6 yards per reception.
Mims’ 93 yards were the highest individual receiving total for either team. He supplied a consistent outlet for Nix and contributed a touchdown, combining volume with scoring impact.
His performance also demonstrates why targets and receptions should be considered together. A receiver with many catches may have accumulated short gains, while a receiver with fewer catches might have generated more yardage per opportunity. Mims delivered both a high reception total and the leading yardage figure.
Courtland Sutton’s contribution
Sutton caught four passes for 53 yards on nine targets. His average of 13.3 yards per reception was higher than Mims’ average, even though Sutton finished with fewer total yards.
The difference between Sutton’s nine targets and four catches indicates that he did not convert every opportunity into a reception. That alone does not establish why individual passes were incomplete, but it helps describe his statistical role.
Sutton’s output gave Denver another productive receiving option. The Broncos did not need a single player to account for all their passing production because several receivers contributed yardage or touchdowns.
Denver’s secondary receiving contributions
RJ Harvey caught five passes for 46 yards, adding a useful dimension to an offense that struggled to generate rushing yards. His receiving contribution was almost as large as his 20 rushing yards, showing the value of using a versatile player in more than one role.
Lil’Jordan Humphrey recorded two receptions for 33 yards and a touchdown. His 16.5 yards per catch was the highest average among Denver’s listed receivers with at least one reception.
Pat Bryant caught all three of his targeted passes for 32 yards. Frank Crum caught his only target for a seven-yard touchdown, while Evan Engram, Tyler Badie, and Nate Adkins added smaller receiving totals.
These contributions matter because touchdown production was distributed across multiple players. Mims, Humphrey, and Crum each recorded a receiving touchdown in the supplied data, helping Denver maintain several scoring threats.
Buffalo Bills receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Average per catch | TDs |
| Dalton Kincaid | 6 | 6 | 83 | 13.8 | 1 |
| Khalil Shakir | 7 | 9 | 75 | 10.7 | 0 |
| Ray Davis | 2 | 2 | 33 | 16.5 | 0 |
| Dawson Knox | 3 | 5 | 32 | 10.7 | 0 |
| James Cook III | 2 | 3 | 24 | 12.0 | 0 |
| Brandin Cooks | 2 | 6 | 20 | 10.0 | 0 |
| Keon Coleman | 1 | 3 | 10 | 10.0 | 1 |
| Mecole Hardman Jr. | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4.0 | 1 |
| Curtis Samuel | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
Dalton Kincaid delivers Buffalo’s leading receiving yardage
Dalton Kincaid led the Bills with 83 receiving yards on six receptions. He caught all six of his targets, averaged 13.8 yards per reception, and scored one touchdown.
His performance was one of Buffalo’s most efficient receiving contributions. He matched his target total with his reception total while also producing a touchdown.
Kincaid’s 83 yards placed him second among all listed receivers in the game, behind Mims. His output helped Buffalo maintain passing production despite the defensive pressure and turnovers that affected the overall contest.
Khalil Shakir provides consistent volume
Shakir caught seven passes for 75 yards on nine targets. He led Buffalo in receptions and averaged 10.7 yards per catch.
His role was different from Kincaid’s. Shakir generated more catches, while Kincaid gained more yards and recorded a touchdown. Together, they accounted for 158 receiving yards, a substantial share of Buffalo’s 283 passing yards.
Shakir’s contribution illustrates the value of dependable receiving volume. Seven catches can help sustain drives and create manageable situations for the offense, although the supplied totals alone do not show the down and distance of each reception.
Buffalo’s other receiving contributors
Ray Davis recorded two catches for 33 yards, averaging 16.5 yards per reception. Dawson Knox added three catches for 32 yards, while Cook gained 24 receiving yards on two catches.
Brandin Cooks caught two passes for 20 yards. Keon Coleman added a 10-yard touchdown reception, and Mecole Hardman Jr. recorded a four-yard touchdown catch.
Curtis Samuel finished with one reception for two yards. These smaller totals should be read in context: not every receiver is expected to lead the offense in yardage, and a short touchdown catch can be valuable even if it contributes little to the overall yardage total.
Receiving comparison: Denver vs Buffalo
Denver’s receivers produced 279 yards, three touchdowns, and 26 catches. Buffalo’s receivers generated 283 yards, three touchdowns, and 25 catches.
The Bills averaged 11.3 yards per reception, compared with Denver’s 10.7. Denver, however, recorded one additional reception and distributed its touchdown catches among three listed players.
The numbers show two productive passing attacks with slightly different statistical profiles. Buffalo gained marginally more yardage per catch, while Denver completed more receptions and received a strong performance from Mims.
Defensive Player Stats: Tackles, Sacks, and Interceptions
Defense played a central role in a game that remained close enough to require overtime. Denver recorded three sacks and two interceptions, while Buffalo’s defense registered no sacks and one interception in the supplied statistics.
The difference in takeaways is especially important. Denver’s defense recorded two interceptions, giving the Broncos opportunities to disrupt Buffalo’s passing attack. Allen finished with two interceptions, while Nix threw one.
Denver Broncos defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Passes defended | QB hits |
| Alex Singleton | 14 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Talanoa Hufanga | 10 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P.J. Locke | 9 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Dondrea Tillman | 6 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Malcolm Roach | 5 | 3 | 1.5 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| Zach Allen | 5 | 3 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Devon Key | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Riley Moss | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dre Greenlaw | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nik Bonitto | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Pat Surtain II | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja’Quan McMillian | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
QB hits means quarterback hits. The table highlights selected defenders rather than every player listed in the source statistics.
Alex Singleton leads Denver in tackles
Alex Singleton recorded 14 total tackles, including 11 solo tackles. He led Denver in both categories and was the team’s most prominent statistical contributor in tackling.
Tackles are a useful measure of defensive involvement, but they should not be treated as a complete measure of defensive quality. A defender can record numerous tackles because the opponent repeatedly targets his area of the field. Other players may have a smaller tackle total but contribute through pressure, coverage, or turnovers.
Singleton’s numbers nevertheless show how heavily involved he was in Denver’s defensive effort. His 11 solo tackles also indicate that most of his recorded tackles did not require a shared credit.
Talanoa Hufanga added 10 tackles, including seven solo stops. P.J. Locke recorded nine tackles and one pass defended. Together, these players helped account for a substantial portion of Denver’s defensive activity.
Malcolm Roach and Nik Bonitto generate pressure
Malcolm Roach recorded 1.5 sacks and three quarterback hits. Zach Allen added half a sack and three quarterback hits, while Nik Bonitto recorded one sack and one quarterback hit.
These figures help explain Denver’s defensive impact beyond its interceptions. Quarterback pressure can force hurried throws, disrupt timing, and limit the time available for receivers to get open.
Denver finished with three team sacks and 10 quarterback hits according to the supplied data. Buffalo, meanwhile, recorded no sacks and three quarterback hits.
That difference suggests Denver created more direct pressure on the opposing quarterback. It does not mean every pressure resulted in a turnover, but the combination of sacks, hits, and interceptions provides a stronger picture of defensive activity than tackles alone.
Denver’s interception production
The supplied statistics credit P.J. Locke with one interception and 30 return yards. Ja’Quan McMillian recorded another interception, with no return yards listed.
Together, these two players accounted for Denver’s two interceptions and 30 interception-return yards.
Interceptions can change a game because they end an opponent’s possession and transfer the ball to the other team. Their value depends on the circumstances, including field position, time remaining, and whether the offense converts the turnover into points.
The available aggregate figures do not establish exactly how many points resulted directly from each interception. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute a particular scoring drive to either player without checking the individual play-by-play record.
Buffalo Bills defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Passes defended | QB hits |
| Cole Bishop | 12 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Cam Lewis | 10 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Taron Johnson | 6 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Shaq Thompson | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Tre’Davious White | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Joey Bosa | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Deone Walker | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Matt Milano | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Christian Benford | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Greg Rousseau | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Cole Bishop leads Buffalo’s defense
Cole Bishop recorded 12 tackles, including seven solo tackles, and two tackles for loss. He led the Bills in total tackles.
Cam Lewis followed with 10 tackles and two passes defended. Taron Johnson added six tackles, while Shaq Thompson recorded five tackles and two tackles for loss.
These performances show that Buffalo had several defenders involved in stopping Denver’s offense. The Bills finished with 63 total tackles, 37 solo tackles, five tackles for loss, seven passes defended, and three quarterback hits.
However, the team did not record a sack in the supplied figures. That is a meaningful difference when comparing the two defenses because Denver registered three sacks and substantially more quarterback hits.
What the defensive comparison reveals
| Defensive statistic | Denver Broncos | Buffalo Bills |
| Total tackles | 81 | 63 |
| Solo tackles | 54 | 37 |
| Sacks | 3 | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 7 |
| Quarterback hits | 10 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Denver led in total tackles, solo tackles, sacks, quarterback hits, and interceptions. Buffalo led in tackles for loss and passes defended.
The table supports a nuanced conclusion. Denver generated more quarterback pressure and recorded more interceptions, while Buffalo had more passes defended and tackles for loss. Neither defense recorded a defensive touchdown.
The Broncos’ advantage in takeaways and pressure is consistent with the winning result, but these numbers should not be interpreted as proof that defense alone decided the game. Denver also needed three passing touchdowns and 15 points from its kicker.
Turnovers and Fumbles: Why Ball Security Mattered
Turnovers are especially consequential in playoff games because each possession carries greater importance when there is no guarantee of another game for the losing team.
The supplied statistics list five Buffalo team fumbles, with three lost and two recovered. Denver is listed with one team fumble and no fumbles lost, although the source table also lists four recoveries for Denver. That recovery figure does not reconcile neatly with the team fumble total, so it should be treated cautiously rather than used as a definitive measure of the number of loose-ball recoveries.
Buffalo’s fumble statistics
| Player | Fumbles | Fumbles lost | Fumbles recovered |
| Josh Allen | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| James Cook III | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Alec Anderson | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Allen’s listed three fumbles, including two lost, and Cook’s lost fumble are notable because they identify potential possession problems for Buffalo.
However, an important distinction is necessary: a fumble is not automatically a turnover. The offensive team may recover its own fumble and retain possession. A fumble lost means the ball changed possession, while a recovered fumble can have a different effect depending on who secured it.
The supplied figures identify three Buffalo fumbles lost at the team level. Those numbers deserve attention when evaluating the Bills’ performance, but the aggregate data does not establish the exact scoring impact of each fumble.
Denver’s ball security
Bo Nix is listed with one fumble, zero fumbles lost, and one recovery. The Broncos’ team figures also list no fumbles lost.
Avoiding a lost fumble can be important in a close contest. Even if a quarterback mishandles the ball, the offense may preserve the possession if a teammate recovers it.
The most defensible comparison is that the supplied team totals show three Buffalo fumbles lost and none for Denver. Combined with the interception figures, that indicates more recorded possession losses for Buffalo.
Still, turnovers should be evaluated alongside field position, scoring opportunities, and the timing of each event. A turnover near the opponent’s goal line may have a different impact from one deep in a team’s own territory.
Kicking Stats: Matt Prater vs Wil Lutz
Special teams were a major part of the final score. Denver’s Wil Lutz scored 15 points, while Buffalo’s Matt Prater scored 12.
Both kickers were perfect on their listed field-goal and extra-point attempts.
| Kicking statistic | Wil Lutz, Denver | Matt Prater, Buffalo |
| Field goals made | 4 | 3 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 | 3 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 50 yards | 50 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Total kicking points | 15 | 12 |
Wil Lutz gives Denver a three-point edge in kicking
Lutz converted all four field-goal attempts, including a longest successful kick of 50 yards. He also made all three extra points.
His 15 kicking points were three more than Prater’s 12. That difference matches the three-point margin in the final score, although it would be misleading to say the kicking comparison alone explains the win.
Denver’s four field goals supplied 12 points, and its extra points contributed three more. The ability to turn possessions into field goals rather than leave them scoreless helped the Broncos build their overall total.
The supplied figures do not include the distance of every field goal, so it is not possible to assess all four attempts in terms of difficulty. What can be stated confidently is that Lutz converted every recorded attempt.
Matt Prater remains perfect
Prater made all three of his field goals, with a longest successful kick of 50 yards. He also converted three extra points, giving him 12 total points.
His perfect record means Buffalo did not leave a missed field goal or extra point in the supplied kicking line. The Bills’ defeat therefore cannot be explained by missed kicks in these figures.
Instead, the kicking statistics show that both teams received reliable scoring from their specialists, with Denver attempting and making one additional field goal.
Why special teams deserve attention
Football analysis often focuses on quarterbacks and receivers, but kicking can be decisive when two offenses produce similar yardage and touchdown totals.
Denver and Buffalo each recorded three passing touchdowns, and their passing yardage totals differed by only four yards. Lutz’s additional field goal was one of the clear statistical differences between the teams.
Special teams did not operate in isolation. Their scoring depended on the offense creating opportunities, and the final result also reflected defensive plays and possession management.
Kick Returns and Punting Statistics
The return game provided another measure of field-position production. Neither team recorded a punt return in the supplied data.
Kick-return comparison
| Player or team | Returns | Total yards | Average per return | Longest return |
| Ray Davis, Buffalo | 5 | 130 | 26.0 | 28 |
| Mecole Hardman Jr., Buffalo | 1 | 22 | 22.0 | 22 |
| Buffalo team total | 6 | 152 | 25.3 | 28 |
| Jaleel McLaughlin, Denver | 3 | 59 | 19.7 | 27 |
| Marvin Mims Jr., Denver | 2 | 50 | 25.0 | 25 |
| Tyler Badie, Denver | 1 | 27 | 27.0 | 27 |
| Denver team total | 6 | 136 | 22.7 | 27 |
Buffalo gained 152 yards on six kick returns, compared with Denver’s 136 yards on six returns. The Bills therefore averaged 25.3 yards per return, while the Broncos averaged 22.7.
Ray Davis accounted for most of Buffalo’s return yardage with 130 yards on five returns. Denver’s return production was more widely distributed, with McLaughlin, Mims, and Badie all contributing.
Return yardage can affect the starting field position of an offensive possession, but it does not directly count as passing or rushing yardage. Keeping these categories separate is important when comparing official player statistics.
Denver’s punting figures
Denver punter Jeremy Crawshaw recorded four punts for 188 yards, averaging 47.0 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 65 yards, and one punt resulted in a touchback. Two punts were listed inside the 20-yard line.
No Buffalo punting was recorded in the supplied table.
The absence of Buffalo punting figures should not be interpreted as proof that the Bills never faced a punting situation unless the original play-by-play confirms it. It means only that no Buffalo punting statistics were provided in the dataset being analyzed.
Punting statistics help explain how a team handles possessions that do not end in a score. Distance is useful, but placement matters too. A punt inside the 20 can force the opposing offense to travel farther, while a touchback may reduce that field-position advantage.
In this matchup, Crawshaw’s figures show that Denver had measurable punting production even though the team’s overall scoring came from touchdowns, extra points, and field goals.
Team Statistical Comparison
The individual performances become more meaningful when viewed alongside the team totals. Denver and Buffalo finished with nearly identical passing yardage, but the Bills held a substantial advantage in rushing production.
| Team statistic | Denver Broncos | Buffalo Bills |
| Passing yards | 279 | 283 |
| Rushing yards | 70 | 183 |
| Rushing attempts | 22 | 36 |
| Rushing average | 3.2 | 5.1 |
| Receptions | 26 | 25 |
| Receiving yards | 279 | 283 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Field goals made | 4 | 3 |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 2 | 1 |
| Sacks recorded by defense | 3 | 0 |
| Kick-return yards | 136 | 152 |
| Final score | 33 | 30 |
The passing and receiving totals are presented separately because they describe different aspects of the same passing production. Receiving yards are the yards accumulated by pass catchers, while passing yards are credited to the quarterback and passing offense under the official statistics.
Three statistical differences that stand out
- Buffalo was more productive on the ground. The Bills gained 183 rushing yards, compared with Denver’s 70. Cook and Allen gave Buffalo a dependable source of rushing yardage, but the Bills did not record a rushing touchdown.
- Denver generated more defensive pressure. The Broncos recorded three sacks and 10 quarterback hits, compared with Buffalo’s zero sacks and three quarterback hits. Denver also recorded two interceptions.
- Denver made one additional field goal. Lutz converted four attempts, while Prater converted three. Both were perfect on their listed attempts, but Denver collected three additional points from field goals.
These differences help explain why the final score did not simply reflect which team accumulated the most rushing yards. Football outcomes depend on how teams convert their opportunities into points, protect possession, and respond to changing game situations.
How Denver Won Despite Buffalo’s Rushing Advantage
The Broncos’ victory illustrates why a box score should be read as a connected set of statistics rather than a collection of isolated totals.
Buffalo’s rushing production was clearly superior. Cook averaged 4.9 yards per carry, Allen averaged 5.5, and the team finished at 5.1 yards per attempt. Denver’s team average was just 3.2.
Nevertheless, the Broncos matched Buffalo’s three passing touchdowns, gained nearly the same number of passing yards, and made one additional field goal.
Denver maintained comparable passing production
Nix threw for 279 yards and three touchdowns. Allen threw for 283 yards and the same number of touchdowns.
The four-yard difference between the quarterbacks’ passing totals is small. Their individual efficiency measures differed, but Denver did not need to win the passing-yardage category by a large margin to keep its offense productive.
Mims’ 93 receiving yards were particularly valuable to Denver’s passing output. Sutton, Harvey, and Humphrey also contributed, giving Nix several options for gaining yardage.
Defensive pressure and takeaways favored Denver
Denver’s three sacks, 10 quarterback hits, and two interceptions represent a stronger statistical showing in those categories than Buffalo’s figures.
Allen still generated three passing touchdowns and 66 rushing yards. His overall production was substantial, but his two interceptions and two listed lost fumbles are relevant when evaluating Buffalo’s possession management.
The supplied totals do not identify the precise number of points resulting from each turnover. Therefore, the safest conclusion is that Denver generated more recorded defensive takeaways and applied more quarterback pressure, both of which are important indicators of defensive activity.
Denver capitalized on its kicking opportunities
Lutz made four field goals, and Prater made three. Every listed field goal and extra point was converted.
That reliability helped Denver accumulate 33 points without needing to dominate the rushing category. It also demonstrates why a complete player-stat analysis must include kickers rather than focusing exclusively on quarterbacks, running backs, and wide receivers.
The fourth quarter and overtime decided the result
Buffalo scored 13 points in the fourth quarter, while Denver scored seven. That late scoring made the final stretch competitive and brought the game to overtime.
Denver then scored three points in overtime, while Buffalo failed to add to its total.
The quarter-by-quarter data establishes the scoring sequence, but it does not independently establish every tactical decision or explain each possession. Those details require a play-by-play review. The broader conclusion is clear: Denver’s second-quarter scoring advantage was not enough to finish the game in regulation, so the Broncos also had to produce the decisive overtime points.
Understanding the Most Important Player Statistics
For readers comparing individual performances, it helps to understand what each major statistic actually measures.
Passing yards and completion percentage
Passing yards measure the yardage credited to a quarterback’s completed passes. Completion percentage is calculated by dividing completions by attempts and multiplying by 100.
Allen completed 64.1% of his passes, compared with Nix’s 56.5%. Allen also averaged 7.3 yards per attempt, while Nix averaged 6.1.
These figures favor Allen in conventional passing efficiency, but they do not account for every part of quarterback play. Turnovers, sacks, touchdowns, and situational performance all influence the overall evaluation.
Passer rating and ESPN QBR
Passer rating is a formula-based measure derived from passing statistics. ESPN’s QBR is a separate measure intended to evaluate a quarterback’s overall contribution, incorporating factors beyond the traditional passer-rating formula.
The two measurements should not be treated as interchangeable.
Allen’s passer rating was 90.0, above Nix’s 87.1. However, Nix recorded a 64.6 QBR, compared with Allen’s 47.6.
This difference illustrates why it is useful to consult more than one quarterback measure. Each metric emphasizes different elements of performance, and neither should be interpreted as a complete description of every play.
Yards per carry
Yards per carry is calculated by dividing rushing yards by rushing attempts. It helps compare how efficiently players gain ground, although it can be influenced by a small number of unusually long runs.
Buffalo’s 5.1-yard team average exceeded Denver’s 3.2-yard average. Cook’s 4.9 and Allen’s 5.5 were both above the Bills’ overall average contribution from the ground game.
For Denver, McLaughlin’s 5.3-yard average was the highest among the listed Broncos rushers, but he had only four attempts. His average is useful context, not proof that he would have maintained the same rate over a larger workload.
Receiving yards per catch
Receiving average is calculated by dividing receiving yards by receptions.
Kincaid averaged 13.8 yards per catch, while Mims averaged 11.6. Shakir averaged 10.7, and Sutton averaged 13.3.
These figures describe the yardage gained on completed receptions. They do not reveal whether a player consistently separated from coverage, how difficult the catches were, or how much a reception mattered in a particular situation.
Those questions require more detailed play analysis.
Tackles, sacks, and interceptions
Tackles measure recorded defensive stops. Sacks credit defenders with tackling a passer behind the line of scrimmage under the applicable statistical rules, while interceptions record passes caught by the defense.
Denver’s three sacks and two interceptions were notable differences in the defensive comparison. Buffalo’s seven passes defended, however, show that its defenders also disrupted Denver’s passing game.
A balanced evaluation considers the entire defensive contribution rather than ranking players by one statistic alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Denver Broncos vs Buffalo Bills game?
The Denver Broncos defeated the Buffalo Bills 33-30 in overtime on January 18, 2026, in the AFC Divisional Playoffs.
2. How many passing yards did Bo Nix and Josh Allen record?
Bo Nix threw for 279 yards, while Josh Allen recorded 283 passing yards. Both quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes.
3. Who was the leading rusher in the game?
James Cook III led all listed players with 117 rushing yards on 24 carries. Josh Allen added 66 rushing yards, helping Buffalo finish with 183 team rushing yards.
4. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Marvin Mims Jr. led all listed receivers with 93 yards on eight receptions for Denver. Buffalo’s Dalton Kincaid followed with 83 yards and one receiving touchdown.
5. Which team recorded more interceptions and sacks?
Denver recorded two interceptions and three sacks. Buffalo recorded one interception and no sacks in the supplied defensive statistics.
6. How did the kickers perform?
Wil Lutz made all four field goals and all three extra points for Denver, scoring 15 points. Matt Prater made all three field goals and all three extra points for Buffalo, scoring 12 points.
Conclusion
The denver broncos vs buffalo bills match player stats reveal a playoff game shaped by contrasting strengths. Buffalo dominated the rushing comparison, gaining 183 yards on the ground, while Denver finished with 70. Allen produced slightly more passing yardage than Nix, but both quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes.
The Broncos separated themselves through a combination of passing production, successful field goals, defensive pressure, and interceptions. Mims led the receiving group with 93 yards, Cook led the rushing attack with 117, and Singleton topped Denver’s defense with 14 tackles. Lutz’s four successful field goals provided three more points than Prater’s three.
The final 33-30 overtime score reflects how closely matched the teams were in several important offensive categories. Buffalo’s rushing advantage did not overcome Denver’s overall scoring output, and the Broncos secured the win with the only points scored in overtime.
For an accurate understanding of this matchup, the most useful approach is to evaluate the passing, rushing, receiving, defensive, turnover, and kicking statistics together. No single number explains the entire result, but the combined evidence shows how Denver prevailed in a competitive postseason contest.
