Closing spread
ARI -3
Total
45
Model margin
+6.3est.
ARI perspective
Push chance
7.3%est.
the line sits on a key number
Win probability
- Cardinals
- Titans
How each play moved the game.
Matchup
Where the edges are
Season-long league percentiles for both sides, mirrored. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge.
- -0.113EPA / play-0.074
- 40.6%Success rate40.7%
- -0.080EPA / dropback+0.031
- -0.171EPA / rush-0.308
- 6.1%Explosive rate8.0%
- 34.5%Third-down rate38.3%
- 51.6%Red-zone TD rate42.5%
- 1.17Points / drive1.36
- 2.5%Turnover rate3.1%
- +0.045EPA / play allowed-0.050
Bar length is league percentile, already oriented so longer is better. The saturated side of a lopsided row holds the edge; rows within ~12 points are washed as even.
The rivalry
ARI lead 4–2 since 1999
Meetings average 41.8 points. ARI are 4-1-1 ATS in the series.
Possession by possession
How it unfolded
Every drive: who had the ball, how far it went, how it ended, and the score as it settled.
| Ball | Start | Plays | Yards | Result | TEN–ARI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TEN | Q1 15:00 | 6 | 80 | Touchdown | 7–0 |
| ARI | Q1 11:39 | 7 | 28 | Turnover | 7–0 |
| TEN | Q1 7:51 | 8 | 31 | Field goal | 10–0 |
| ARI | Q1 2:42 | 3 | -12 | Punt | 10–0 |
| TEN | Q1 1:21 | 4 | 6 | Punt | 10–0 |
| ARI | Q2 14:47 | 4 | 38 | Punt | 10–0 |
| TEN | Q2 11:59 | 4 | 21 | Turnover | 10–0 |
| ARI | Q2 10:01 | 3 | 6 | Field goal | 10–3 |
| TEN | Q2 9:23 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 10–3 |
| ARI | Q2 8:19 | 3 | 2 | Punt | 10–3 |
| TEN | Q2 7:02 | 4 | 20 | Opp touchdown | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q2 4:44 | 0 | 0 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q2 4:44 | 5 | 25 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q2 2:00 | 2 | 8 | Punt | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q2 0:25 | 1 | -2 | End of half | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 15:00 | 4 | 12 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q3 13:05 | 3 | 7 | Punt | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 11:37 | 2 | 0 | Punt | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 11:24 | 1 | -4 | Punt | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 11:11 | 0 | 0 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q3 10:52 | 4 | 8 | Turnover on downs | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 9:19 | 3 | 0 | Punt | 10–10 |
| TEN | Q3 7:30 | 3 | -7 | Punt | 10–10 |
| ARI | Q3 6:43 | 10 | 54 | Field goal | 10–13 |
| TEN | Q3 0:29 | 3 | 8 | Punt | 10–13 |
| ARI | Q4 14:50 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 10–13 |
| TEN | Q4 13:40 | 4 | 8 | Turnover on downs | 10–13 |
| ARI | Q4 12:19 | 3 | 3 | Punt | 10–13 |
| TEN | Q4 11:17 | 7 | 43 | Punt | 10–13 |
| ARI | Q4 7:37 | 3 | 4 | Punt | 10–13 |
| TEN | Q4 6:35 | 1 | -4 | Turnover | 10–13 |
| ARI | Q4 6:30 | 3 | 39 | Touchdown | 10–20 |
| TEN | Q4 5:20 | 9 | 41 | Turnover on downs | 10–20 |
| TEN | Q4 2:30 | 4 | 23 | Turnover on downs | 10–20 |
| TEN | Q4 1:50 | 2 | 9 | Turnover on downs | 10–20 |
| ARI | Q4 1:42 | 3 | 1 | Punt | 10–20 |
| TEN | Q4 0:36 | 2 | 18 | End of half | 10–20 |
Box score
Individual performances
Titans
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Billy Volek | 18/32 | 198 | 1 | 1 |
| Matt Mauck | 8/13 | 71 | 0 | 0 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chris Brown | 10 | 37 | 3.7 | 0 |
| Jarrett Payton | 12 | 30 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Matt Mauck | 4 | 20 | 5.0 | 0 |
| Billy Volek | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
Cardinals
Passing
| Player | C/Att | Yds | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh McCown | 12/28 | 140 | 1 | 1 |
Rushing
| Player | Car | Yds | Avg | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| J.J. Arrington | 5 | 30 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Anquan Boldin | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 0 |
| Marcel Shipp | 14 | 8 | 0.6 | 0 |
| Josh McCown | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
Where this game is likely to land
- Model
- Smooth (normal)
- Betting line
Probability of each final margin. Football scoring clusters — the spikes at 3 and 7 are real, and a smooth model misses them.
Positive margins favour Cardinals; negative favour Titans.
Half-point at risk
7.34%
outcomes that flip if the line moves 0.5
Model home win
65.5%
Expected total
44.3est.
Model
Where the number comes from
Each component is additive, in points of expected margin.
- Team ratings (opponent-adjusted EPA)+3.38
- Home-field advantage+2.56
- Quarterback adjustment-0.25
- Rest differential+0.56
- Expected margin+6.25



