Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers: Match Player Stats

Key Takeaways

• The latest Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers matchup showcased efficient quarterback play, explosive receiver production, and critical defensive turnovers.
• Total yardage and third-down efficiency were the defining statistical edges in the outcome.
• Advanced metrics such as passer rating, yards per play, and red zone efficiency reveal deeper insights beyond the box score.
• Defensive pressure rate and turnover margin played a pivotal role in momentum swings.
• The rivalry context and divisional standings implications amplified the performance stakes for key players.

Game Snapshot: Final Score and Team Totals

The Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers rivalry once again delivered a statistically rich contest. Below is a consolidated look at the core team metrics that defined the matchup.

TeamTotal YardsPass YardsRush YardsTurnoversTime of PossessionThird Down %Chicago Bears358221137229:1841%Green Bay Packers402276126130:4248%

The Packers’ slight edge in total yardage and third-down efficiency translated into sustained drives. Chicago’s two turnovers proved costly in high-leverage moments.

Quarterback Performance Breakdown

Bears Quarterback Stats

The Bears quarterback finished with:

• 221 passing yards
• 2 touchdowns
• 1 interception
• 64% completion rate
• 92.4 passer rating

While accurate in short and intermediate routes, pressure impacted deeper throws. Against a Packers defense generating consistent edge rush, the Bears averaged 6.8 yards per attempt.

Packers Quarterback Stats

• 276 passing yards
• 3 touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 68% completion rate
• 108.6 passer rating

The Packers quarterback excelled in play-action situations, posting over 11 yards per attempt on those plays. His ability to avoid turnovers preserved scoring drives and tilted the efficiency battle.

Advanced QB Comparison

MetricBears QBPackers QBYards per Attempt6.88.4Red Zone TD %50%75%Pressure Completion %48%61%

The red zone efficiency gap was particularly decisive.

Running Game Production

Chicago Bears Rushing Leaders

• Lead RB: 19 carries, 92 yards, 1 touchdown
• QB scrambles: 6 carries, 34 yards

Chicago averaged 4.7 yards per carry, showing balance and zone-read efficiency. However, drives often stalled near midfield.

Green Bay Packers Rushing Leaders

• RB1: 17 carries, 88 yards
• RB2: 9 carries, 38 yards, 1 touchdown

The Packers relied on situational rushing. Their 4.5 yards per carry kept the defense honest and opened play-action passing lanes.

Receiving Corps Impact

Top Bears Receivers

• WR1: 7 receptions, 104 yards, 1 touchdown
• TE: 5 receptions, 46 yards

The Bears generated explosive plays primarily through their top wide receiver, who accounted for nearly 30% of passing production.

Top Packers Receivers

• WR1: 6 receptions, 112 yards, 2 touchdowns
• Slot WR: 5 receptions, 61 yards

Green Bay distributed targets effectively, stretching coverage across multiple levels of the field.

Defensive Standouts and Turnovers

Bears Defensive Leaders

• Linebacker: 11 total tackles
• Edge rusher: 2 sacks
• 1 forced fumble

Chicago created pressure but struggled to convert it into drive-ending turnovers.

Packers Defensive Leaders

• Cornerback: 1 interception
• Defensive tackle: 1.5 sacks
• Safety: 8 tackles, 1 pass defended

The interception in the third quarter shifted momentum and shortened the field for a touchdown drive.

Defensive Efficiency Metrics

• Packers defensive pressure rate: 32%
• Bears defensive pressure rate: 28%
• Turnover margin: Packers +1

In closely contested divisional games, turnover margin historically correlates strongly with victory outcomes. That trend continued here.

Special Teams and Hidden Yardage

Field position played an underrated role. The Packers averaged 24.6 yards per kickoff return, compared to Chicago’s 21.2. A 47-yard punt return late in the second quarter flipped possession momentum.

• Longest field goal: 52 yards
• Net punting average difference: Packers +4.1 yards

Hidden yardage in special teams directly influenced starting field position across three scoring drives.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

QuarterBearsPackers1st772nd3103rd774th37

The second quarter surge gave Green Bay a halftime advantage. Chicago narrowed the gap in the third but failed to sustain fourth-quarter drives.

Historical Context and Rivalry Milestones

The Bears vs Packers rivalry remains the most storied in NFL history, with over 200 meetings dating back to 1921. Statistical trends over the past decade reveal:

• Packers average 24.8 points per game vs Chicago
• Bears average 19.6 points per game vs Green Bay
• Turnover differential strongly correlates with series outcomes

This matchup continued recent trends where quarterback efficiency and red zone execution determine results.

Playoff and Standings Implications

Divisional games carry outsized impact in NFC North standings. The Packers' victory strengthened their divisional positioning and improved conference tiebreaker metrics. For Chicago, the loss emphasized the importance of improving red zone touchdown rate and late-game defensive containment.

From a season analytics perspective:

• Packers season passer rating trend: Upward over last three games
• Bears turnover rate: Slightly above league average
• Both teams remain competitive in defensive sack totals

Advanced Insights: What the Stats Really Show

Beyond raw yardage totals, three advanced indicators defined the game:

1. Red Zone Efficiency: Green Bay converted 75% of red zone trips into touchdowns, while Chicago converted 50%.
2. Explosive Plays: Packers recorded six plays of 20+ yards compared to Chicago’s four.
3. Expected Points Added: Passing EPA per play favored Green Bay, highlighting higher situational effectiveness.

While both teams displayed balanced offensive production, situational efficiency and turnover avoidance separated them statistically.

As always in Bears vs Packers matchups, individual player stats tell only part of the story. Execution under pressure, efficiency in scoring zones, and historical rivalry intensity elevate these numbers beyond a standard box score analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions about Bears vs Packers Game Stats

What was the biggest statistical difference between the Bears and Packers in this game?

You see the biggest edges in total yards, third-down conversion rate, and turnovers. The Packers gained more total yards, moved the chains better on third down, and finished with a +1 turnover margin, which helped them control key drives and scoring chances.

How did quarterback efficiency impact the final result?

Quarterback efficiency was a major factor. The Packers quarterback had a higher passer rating, more touchdowns, and no interceptions. You can see the difference most clearly in yards per attempt, red zone touchdown rate, and completion rate under pressure, all of which favored Green Bay.

Why was red zone efficiency so important in this matchup?

Red zone efficiency turned drives into points. The Packers scored touchdowns on 75% of their red zone trips, while the Bears converted 50%. When you get inside the 20, turning field goals into touchdowns often decides tight divisional games like this one.

How did defensive pressure and turnovers shape the game flow?

Both defenses generated pressure, but the Packers turned it into more impact plays. You see this in their slightly higher pressure rate and the key interception that set up a short-field touchdown. In a rivalry game, even a +1 turnover margin can swing momentum and field position.

What role did special teams and field position play in the outcome?

Special teams quietly boosted the Packers. You can see this in their better kickoff return average, a longer impact punt return, and a higher net punting average. Those hidden yards gave their offense shorter fields on several scoring drives.

How does this game fit into the recent history of the Bears–Packers rivalry?

This game follows recent trends in the rivalry. You see the Packers scoring a bit more on average, getting better quarterback efficiency, and winning the turnover battle. Those patterns match the last decade, where passing success and red zone execution often decide the matchup.