Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats from October 11, 2026, tell the story of a dominant Green Bay performance, highlighted by Jordan Love’s explosive passing, Christian Watson’s two-touchdown display, and a defense that repeatedly disrupted Chicago’s passing game. According to the supplied ESPN box-score data, the Green Bay Packers defeated the Chicago Bears 31-7 in a Week 6 NFL matchup. The Packers built their advantage through efficient downfield passing, defensive takeaways, and consistent scoring across all four quarters.
This game was decided by more than the final score. Green Bay’s passing attack averaged a reported 11.8 yards per attempt, while Chicago’s quarterbacks combined for three interceptions and no passing touchdowns. Although D’Andre Swift provided Chicago’s only touchdown, the Bears struggled to sustain enough successful possessions to challenge Green Bay’s lead.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual quarterback performances, rushing and receiving production, defensive statistics, turnovers, special teams, and the most important lessons from the matchup. The figures below come from the supplied game data attributed to ESPN. Some entries contain internal inconsistencies, so those limitations are identified rather than silently corrected.
Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The October 11 meeting featured two NFC North rivals with identical 3-2 records entering the supplied game record summary. Green Bay finished with a 24-point victory, improving the significance of its performance in a division matchup.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers |
| Date | October 11, 2026 |
| NFL week | Week 6 |
| Final score | Packers 31, Bears 7 |
| Bears points | 7 |
| Packers points | 31 |
| Bears passing yards | 165 |
| Packers passing yards | 358 reported team total |
| Bears rushing yards | 81 |
| Packers rushing yards | 70 |
| Bears interceptions thrown | 3 |
| Packers interceptions recorded | 3 |
| Bears sacks recorded | 2 |
| Packers sacks recorded | 4 |
Green Bay’s biggest statistical advantage came through the air. Its reported 358 team passing yards were more than twice Chicago’s 165, creating a substantial difference in offensive efficiency.
The rushing numbers were closer than the final score suggests. Chicago recorded 81 rushing yards, compared with Green Bay’s 70. However, the Bears’ modest advantage on the ground did not compensate for their passing struggles and turnovers.
The defensive figures also reveal a major contrast. Green Bay recorded three interceptions and four sacks in the supplied statistics. Chicago managed two sacks, including two credited to Austin Booker, but did not record an interception.
One important distinction: the supplied individual passing line credits Jordan Love with 367 passing yards, while the team total lists 358. That discrepancy is retained as a source-data limitation and should be resolved against the official box score before publication.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern illustrates how Green Bay gradually turned an early advantage into a comfortable victory.
| Quarter | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| First quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 9 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 8 |
| Final score | 7 | 31 |
First quarter: Green Bay establishes control
Green Bay opened the scoring with seven points, while Chicago failed to reach the scoreboard. That early lead allowed the Packers to play with greater flexibility as the game progressed.
An early deficit can change the choices available to an offense. A team that falls behind may need to attempt more passes, accept more risk on difficult throws, and move away from a balanced run-pass approach. Those decisions can create opportunities for opposing defensive backs and pass rushers.
Chicago’s eventual three interceptions made that problem especially costly.
Second quarter: Chicago finds its only touchdown
Both teams scored seven points in the second quarter. Chicago’s touchdown brought its total to seven, but the Bears did not score again for the remainder of the game.
Green Bay’s additional points maintained a 14-7 advantage at halftime according to the supplied quarter-by-quarter figures. The Bears were still within one score at that stage, but they needed a more productive second half to remain competitive.
Third quarter: The Packers extend the margin
Green Bay added nine points in the third quarter, while Chicago was held scoreless. The resulting 23-7 lead gave the Packers a 16-point cushion heading into the final period.
This was a critical phase because Chicago needed a touchdown drive to reduce the gap. Instead, Green Bay increased its advantage and placed additional pressure on the Bears’ quarterbacks.
Fourth quarter: Green Bay closes out the game
The Packers scored another eight points in the fourth quarter, completing the 31-7 result. Chicago failed to add to its seven points.
The fourth-quarter scoring confirmed that Green Bay could maintain control after building its lead. Chicago, meanwhile, did not find a second scoring solution when its initial offensive approach failed.
Quarterback Stats: Jordan Love Dominates Chicago’s Passing Game
Quarterback production was the clearest difference in the game. Jordan Love delivered an efficient, high-yardage performance for Green Bay, while Chicago’s Case Keenum and Tyson Bagent struggled to protect the football and create scoring opportunities.
Jordan Love passing stats
| Statistic | Jordan Love |
| Completions | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 80.6% |
| Passing yards | 367 individual total reported |
| Yards per attempt | 11.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Yards lost on sacks | 9 |
| Passer rating | 137.5 |
| QBR | 94.1 |
Love’s reported 25 completions on 31 attempts translate to a completion rate of approximately 80.6%. That is an impressive figure, particularly alongside the reported 11.8 yards per attempt.
Completion percentage alone does not tell the whole story. A quarterback can complete many short passes without moving the ball efficiently. Love’s reported yards per attempt indicate that Green Bay combined accurate passing with significant gains downfield.
His two touchdown passes to Christian Watson were particularly important. Watson’s ability to turn catches into large gains gave the Packers a direct route to scoring without requiring a long sequence of short plays.
Love also avoided interceptions. In a game where Chicago threw three interceptions, that difference in ball security was significant. Green Bay could continue attacking without giving away possessions through interceptions.
The supplied data lists Love’s individual passing total as 367 yards but Green Bay’s team total as 358 yards. Those figures cannot both represent the same official passing-yard total under ordinary NFL box-score accounting. The individual line is therefore presented as supplied, not as an independently verified correction.
Case Keenum passing stats
| Statistic | Case Keenum |
| Completions | 11 |
| Pass attempts | 19 |
| Completion percentage | 57.9% |
| Passing yards | 108 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.7 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 13 |
| Passer rating | 52.1 |
| QBR | 26.3 |
Keenum completed 11 of 19 passes, but his production did not translate into a touchdown. His 108 passing yards and 5.7 yards per attempt were well below Love’s reported efficiency.
Keenum’s interception also mattered because Chicago was already facing a difficult scoring situation. When a team has limited offensive production, each possession becomes more valuable. An interception can erase the chance to score and hand the opponent an opportunity to extend its lead.
The two sacks credited to Keenum added another challenge. Sacks can push an offense behind schedule, making third-down conversions more difficult and increasing pressure on subsequent throws.
Tyson Bagent passing stats
| Statistic | Tyson Bagent |
| Completions | 12 |
| Pass attempts | 21 |
| Completion percentage | 57.1% |
| Passing yards | 87 |
| Yards per attempt | 4.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 17 |
| Passer rating | 27.4 |
| QBR | 22.1 |
Bagent completed 12 passes but gained only 87 passing yards. His reported 4.1 yards per attempt suggests that Chicago struggled to generate meaningful progress through the air.
The two interceptions were the most damaging elements of his statistical line. Even if a quarterback completes enough short passes to keep an offense moving occasionally, turnovers can outweigh those gains.
Bagent also took two sacks for a reported loss of 17 yards. The combination of interceptions and sacks made it difficult for Chicago to build a consistent passing rhythm.
ESPN’s fantasy football reporting subsequently described Bagent as having been benched late in the third quarter after his second interception. That report provides additional context for the quarterback situation, although the supplied box-score figures remain the basis for the statistical tables. Read ESPN’s official game recap.
Comparing the three quarterback performances
| Category | Jordan Love | Case Keenum | Tyson Bagent |
| Completions | 25 | 11 | 12 |
| Attempts | 31 | 19 | 21 |
| Passing yards | 367 listed | 108 | 87 |
| Touchdowns | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Yards per attempt | 11.8 | 5.7 | 4.1 |
| Passer rating | 137.5 | 52.1 | 27.4 |
The contrast is clear. Love produced two passing touchdowns without throwing an interception, while Chicago’s quarterbacks combined for three interceptions and no passing scores.
Keenum’s 108 yards were higher than Bagent’s 87, but both struggled to create enough explosive plays. The Packers’ passing attack consistently offered more value per attempt.
For readers evaluating quarterback play, the most useful approach is to consider completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks together. No single statistic fully describes a performance, but the combined picture here strongly favors Love.
Rushing Stats: D’Andre Swift Leads the Bears
Chicago actually finished with more rushing yards than Green Bay in the supplied team totals. That fact makes the final score particularly revealing: winning the rushing-yard comparison did not mean winning the overall offensive battle.
Chicago Bears rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| D’Andre Swift | 9 | 43 | 4.8 | 1 |
| Tyson Bagent | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 0 |
| Zavion Thomas | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 6 | 1.2 | 0 |
| Case Keenum | 1 | 4 | 4.0 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 2 | 0.5 | 0 |
| Kalif Raymond | 1 | -2 | -2.0 | 0 |
| Team total supplied | 24 | 81 | 3.4 | 1 |
The listed individual carry counts add up to 24. Individual rushing yards add up to 81.
D’Andre Swift’s contribution
Swift led Chicago with 43 rushing yards on nine carries, averaging 4.8 yards per attempt. He also recorded the Bears’ only touchdown, making him the team’s most productive scoring contributor.
His average was respectable, but nine carries limited the total number of opportunities to build on that efficiency. Chicago’s passing problems also made it harder to use the ground game as part of a balanced attack.
Swift added four receptions for 30 receiving yards according to the supplied receiving data. Combining his rushing and receiving totals gives him 73 yards from scrimmage and one rushing touchdown.
That dual contribution matters because running backs can influence a game beyond handoffs. Receptions can help an offense gain manageable yardage, particularly when the quarterback faces pressure. However, those short gains are not always enough to overcome interceptions and a lack of passing touchdowns.
Tyson Bagent adds mobility
Bagent recorded 17 rushing yards on three attempts, averaging 5.7 yards per carry. His rushing output was useful in isolation, but it did not compensate for his passing struggles.
Quarterback rushing can create an extra challenge for defenders because they must account for both the pass and the possibility of a scramble. Yet that threat becomes less valuable when turnovers repeatedly end drives.
Green Bay Packers rushing statistics
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 10 | 31 | 3.1 | 2 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 5 | 7 | 1.4 | 0 |
| Jordan Love | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Tucker Kraft | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Tyrod Taylor | 2 | -2 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Team total supplied | 26 | 70 | 2.7 | 2 |
MarShawn Lloyd delivers in the red zone
Lloyd recorded 31 rushing yards on 10 carries and scored two touchdowns. His average of 3.1 yards per carry was modest, but the touchdowns were the defining part of his contribution.
This illustrates an important distinction between total yardage and scoring value. A running back can have a low average yet still play a decisive role by finishing possessions near the goal line.
Green Bay did not need its rushing attack to dominate the yardage column. Love and the receivers created the larger gains through the air, while Lloyd helped convert opportunities into points.
What the rushing comparison tells us
Chicago’s 81 rushing yards exceeded Green Bay’s 70, yet the Packers scored 24 more points. The difference demonstrates why rushing totals must be read alongside passing efficiency and turnovers.
The Bears gained some useful yardage on the ground, particularly through Swift, but could not turn that production into sustained scoring. Green Bay’s rushing attack was less productive by average, but its two rushing touchdowns helped complete the offensive picture.
Receiving Stats: Christian Watson Leads Green Bay
The receiving statistics show Green Bay’s ability to create explosive plays. Christian Watson and Matthew Golden both produced more than 100 receiving yards in the supplied data, while Chicago’s leading receiver, Luther Burden III, finished with 47 yards.
Green Bay Packers receiving stats
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Touchdowns |
| Christian Watson | 6 | 143 | 23.8 | 2 |
| Matthew Golden | 6 | 123 | 20.5 | 0 |
| Tucker Kraft | 5 | 64 | 12.8 | 0 |
| Bo Melton | 3 | 20 | 6.7 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | 3 | 11 | 3.7 | 0 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 |
| Skyy Moore | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| Team total supplied | 25 | 367 | 14.7 | 2 |
The receiving figures show a high-impact passing offense. Watson and Golden combined for 266 receiving yards on 12 catches. Their combined average was approximately 22.2 yards per reception.
That is a major source of separation in the statistical comparison. Green Bay had two receivers capable of producing large chunks of yardage, forcing Chicago to defend both the deep passing game and intermediate routes.
Christian Watson’s two-touchdown performance
Watson led the supplied receiving statistics with six catches for 143 yards and two touchdowns. His average of 23.8 yards per reception reflects the explosive nature of his contribution.
The longest listed reception was 53 yards. A catch of that length can change field position immediately and create a scoring opportunity without requiring an offense to convert several third downs.
Watson’s two touchdowns also gave his yardage direct scoreboard value. He was not simply accumulating catches between the 20-yard lines; he was finishing drives.
The connection between Love and Watson was central to Green Bay’s passing success. Love delivered the ball efficiently, while Watson turned those opportunities into high-value gains.
Matthew Golden adds a second major threat
Golden recorded six receptions for 123 yards, averaging 20.5 yards per catch. His longest reception was listed as 50 yards.
Although he did not record a touchdown in the supplied table, his yardage was important because it prevented Chicago from focusing its coverage entirely on Watson.
When a team has multiple receivers producing explosive plays, the defense must decide how to allocate its coverage. Giving extra attention to one receiver can open opportunities for another. Golden’s production demonstrates the value of having more than one downfield threat.
Tucker Kraft provides support
Kraft recorded five catches for 64 yards, averaging 12.8 yards per reception. His longest reception was listed as 46 yards.
His role added another option to the passing attack. A productive tight end can give a quarterback a target across the middle, near the sideline, or in areas where defenders must choose between covering a receiver and supporting the run defense.
Kraft’s receiving production helped keep Green Bay’s offense from becoming dependent on a single player.
Chicago Bears receiving stats
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Average per catch | Touchdowns |
| Luther Burden III | 4 | 47 | 11.8 | 0 |
| Rome Odunze | 3 | 40 | 13.3 | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | 5 | 34 | 6.8 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | 4 | 30 | 7.5 | 0 |
| Colston Loveland | 2 | 19 | 9.5 | 0 |
| Zavion Thomas | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 0 |
| Kalif Raymond | 3 | 6 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Jahdae Walker | 0 | 0 | Not applicable | 0 |
| Team total supplied | 23 | 195 | 8.5 | 0 |
The supplied Bears receiving total lists 195 yards, but the passing table lists only 165 team passing yards. Those figures do not reconcile under normal NFL statistical accounting. The receiving table is therefore shown as transcribed, and its team total should be checked against the official box score before publication.
Luther Burden III leads Chicago’s receivers
Burden recorded four receptions for 47 yards, with a longest catch of 23 yards. He was Chicago’s leading receiver by yardage in the supplied table.
Rome Odunze followed with three catches for 40 yards. His average of 13.3 yards per reception was slightly higher than Burden’s reported average.
Neither player recorded a touchdown. That absence highlights the Bears’ central offensive problem: they generated some receiving yardage but did not convert it into passing scores.
Roschon Johnson and D’Andre Swift as receiving options
Johnson recorded five receptions for 34 yards, while Swift added four catches for 30 yards. Their combined nine receptions provided a short-passing option for Chicago.
These contributions can help an offense stay involved in a game, but the average gains were relatively limited. Green Bay’s leading receivers, by comparison, averaged more than 20 yards per catch for Watson and Golden.
The difference was not merely the number of catches. It was how much field position Chicago gained from each completion.
Receiving comparison: where Green Bay separated itself
Green Bay’s listed receiving average was 14.7 yards per catch, compared with Chicago’s 8.5. Even allowing for the discrepancy between Chicago’s receiving and passing totals, the individual lines show a clear difference in explosive production.
The Packers had two receivers exceed 120 yards, while no Bears receiver reached 50. That imbalance helps explain why Love’s passing performance was more productive than Chicago’s combined quarterback output.
Defensive Player Stats: Packers Force Three Interceptions
Green Bay’s defense played a major role in the 31-7 victory. The supplied statistics credit the Packers with three interceptions, four sacks, eight pass deflections, and nine quarterback hits. Chicago’s defense recorded two sacks, with Austin Booker responsible for both.
These numbers show how defensive pressure and ball security shaped the game. Green Bay’s offense created explosive plays, while its defense repeatedly prevented Chicago from building momentum.
Green Bay Packers defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Pass deflections |
| Evan Williams | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zaire Franklin | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Javon Bullard | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Keisean Nixon | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Isaiah McDuffie | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Devonte Wyatt | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Dani Dennis-Sutton | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Brandon Cisse | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Selected players are shown. The supplied defensive table contains additional players.
Evan Williams leads the Packers in tackles
Williams finished with 12 total tackles, including seven solo tackles. That was the highest tackle total listed for either team.
Tackles indicate how frequently a defender finishes a play, but they do not automatically establish that a player was the most effective defender. A high total can reflect strong activity, the number of plays directed toward a defender, or a defense spending considerable time on the field.
Williams’ total nevertheless highlights his involvement throughout the game.
Devonte Wyatt creates interior pressure
Wyatt recorded two sacks, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits in the supplied data. Those figures indicate that he contributed beyond ordinary tackles by disrupting plays behind the line of scrimmage.
Interior pressure can be particularly difficult for a quarterback because it reduces the space available to step into a throw. Even when a defender does not record a sack, pressure can force an early release, a less accurate pass, or a decision to abandon the intended target.
Wyatt’s reported two sacks made him one of Green Bay’s most productive pass rushers.
Dani Dennis-Sutton and Brandon Cisse add pressure
Dennis-Sutton recorded one sack, two tackles for loss, one pass deflection, and two quarterback hits. Cisse added one sack, one tackle for loss, one pass deflection, and one quarterback hit.
Together, their listed production illustrates the variety of ways defenders can influence passing plays. Sacks create immediate losses, quarterback hits disrupt timing, and pass deflections can prevent completions or create turnover opportunities.
Green Bay’s interception leaders
The supplied interception table credits Xavier McKinney with two interceptions and Ty’Ron Hopper with one.
| Player | Interceptions | Return yards | Defensive touchdowns |
| Xavier McKinney | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Ty’Ron Hopper | 1 | 20 | 0 |
| Team total | 3 | 23 | 0 |
Three interceptions are particularly significant in a game where Chicago failed to score after the second quarter. Each interception ended a Bears possession and limited the offense’s opportunities to close the gap.
However, an interception does not automatically produce points. Its value depends on the field position that follows and whether the offense converts the resulting possession into a score. In this matchup, Green Bay combined its defensive production with enough offensive efficiency to maintain a commanding lead.
Chicago Bears defensive leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Sacks | Tackles for loss | Quarterback hits |
| Devin Bush | 8 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Dillon Thieneman | 7 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Austin Booker | 5 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| Cam Lewis | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Grady Jarrett | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Austin Booker provides Chicago’s biggest pass-rushing contribution
Booker recorded five total tackles, two sacks, three tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits. He was Chicago’s most productive pass rusher in the supplied statistics.
His performance shows that the Bears were capable of disrupting Love on individual plays. Yet two sacks were not enough to offset Green Bay’s downfield passing success.
This is an important distinction when assessing a defensive line. Pressure matters, but its effect depends on whether it consistently limits completions, forces turnovers, or prevents touchdowns. Green Bay still produced two passing scores and substantial receiving yardage despite Chicago’s recorded sacks.
Devin Bush and Dillon Thieneman remain active
Bush recorded eight tackles and two tackles for loss. Thieneman contributed seven tackles, one tackle for loss, and one pass deflection.
Their numbers show involvement in defensive stops, but the overall result suggests Chicago needed more impact plays from the defense as a unit. The Bears recorded no interceptions in the supplied statistics, while Green Bay recorded three.
Comparing the defenses
| Defensive category | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| Total tackles | 64 | 68 |
| Solo tackles | 45 | 47 |
| Sacks | 2 | 4 |
| Tackles for loss | 10 | 8 |
| Pass deflections | 4 | 8 |
| Quarterback hits | 5 | 9 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 3 |
The Bears recorded more tackles for loss in the supplied totals, but Green Bay had the advantage in sacks, pass deflections, quarterback hits, and interceptions.
That pattern helps explain the difference between isolated defensive success and game-changing defensive production. Chicago had defenders capable of stopping plays behind the line of scrimmage, but Green Bay created more pressure on the passing game and generated turnovers.
Turnovers and Ball Security: A Major Difference
Turnovers were among the most important elements of this matchup.
The supplied data credits Chicago with three interceptions thrown and two fumbles lost. Green Bay was credited with no interceptions thrown and no fumbles lost.
| Turnover category | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| Interceptions thrown | 3 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Total listed giveaways | 5 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 3 |
The combined five giveaways listed for Chicago represent a substantial disadvantage. However, the supplied individual fumble entries identify one lost fumble for Case Keenum and one for Rome Odunze, so the team total should be verified alongside the official game log.
Why interceptions changed the game
An interception ends an offensive possession immediately. It can also give the opposing offense a shorter field, reducing the distance needed to reach scoring range.
For Chicago, the interceptions were especially damaging because the team had no passing touchdowns to offset them. A productive offense can sometimes recover from a turnover by scoring on subsequent possessions. An offense struggling to move the ball has less room for mistakes.
Why Green Bay’s ball security mattered
Love threw no interceptions in the supplied data. That allowed the Packers to keep their passing production without the same turnover cost Chicago faced.
Ball security does not require an offense to avoid every difficult throw. It requires good decisions, awareness of defensive coverage, and a willingness to protect possession when the risk of a turnover outweighs the possible reward.
Green Bay’s statistical advantage in this area was clear.
Special Teams Stats: Returns, Kicking, and Punting
Special teams contributed to the field-position picture, although the supplied statistics do not indicate a return touchdown for either team.
Kick return statistics
| Team | Returner | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Chicago | Zavion Thomas | 6 | 192 | 32.0 | 61 yards |
| Green Bay | Bo Melton | 2 | 48 | 24.0 | 28 yards |
Thomas averaged 32.0 yards per kick return, with a longest return of 61 yards. That was a strong individual return figure in the supplied data.
The Bears’ return production suggests that special teams provided opportunities to improve field position. However, those gains did not translate into enough offensive scoring to change the result.
Punt return statistics
| Team | Returner | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Chicago | Kalif Raymond | 1 | 9 | 9.0 |
| Green Bay | Matthew Golden | 2 | 27 | 13.5 |
Green Bay averaged 13.5 yards per punt return, while Chicago averaged 9.0. These are small sample sizes, so they should not be treated as firm evidence of a season-long advantage.
Kicking statistics
| Team | Kicker | Field goals | Extra points | Total points listed |
| Chicago | Cairo Santos | 0/1 | 1/1 | 1 |
| Green Bay | Trey Smack | 1/3 | 2/3 | 5 |
The kicking data lists Chicago as missing its only field-goal attempt and converting one extra point. Green Bay is listed as converting one of three field-goal attempts and two of three extra points.
These entries require caution because they do not reconcile with the listed final score and touchdown totals under standard NFL scoring. They should be checked against the official box score before being treated as definitive.
The broader point remains that Green Bay won comfortably despite the supplied kicking line showing several missed opportunities. The Packers’ offensive touchdowns were sufficient to establish a decisive lead.
Punting statistics
| Team | Punter | Punts | Total yards | Average | Inside the 20 |
| Chicago | Tory Taylor | 4 | 212 | 53.0 | 1 |
| Green Bay | Daniel Whelan | 4 | 221 | 55.3 | 2 |
Both punters averaged more than 50 yards per punt in the supplied data. Whelan’s listed average was slightly higher, and two of his punts reportedly finished inside the opponent’s 20-yard line.
Punting can help a team limit the opponent’s starting field position when a drive fails. But strong punting cannot fully compensate for turnovers and a lack of touchdowns, which is what made Chicago’s overall offensive performance so costly.
Team Statistics and What They Reveal
Individual performances explain who contributed, but team statistics show why the game developed as it did. Green Bay’s passing production, defensive takeaways, and ability to score in every quarter were the most important factors in the result.
Offensive production comparison
| Statistic | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| Passing yards, team total supplied | 165 | 358 |
| Rushing yards | 81 | 70 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 3 | 0 |
| Rushing attempts | 24 | 26 |
| Passing attempts | 40 | 31 |
Passing-yard totals are reproduced from the supplied team statistics. Green Bay’s individual and team passing totals differ, and Chicago’s passing and receiving totals do not reconcile.
Passing efficiency decided the statistical contest
Green Bay’s reported 11.8 yards per attempt was far above Chicago’s 4.9. That difference indicates that the Packers gained substantially more yardage from each pass attempt.
The Packers also attempted nine fewer passes than Chicago according to the supplied team totals. Despite that, they recorded more than twice as many passing yards.
This is the clearest evidence of the difference in offensive efficiency. Chicago attempted to move the ball more often through the air but gained much less yardage and threw three interceptions. Green Bay made its passing attempts more productive while avoiding interceptions.
Rushing production did not determine the winner
Chicago gained 11 more rushing yards than Green Bay. That advantage did not translate into a close game because rushing yardage was only one part of the offensive picture.
The Bears recorded one rushing touchdown, while the Packers recorded two. Green Bay’s passing attack also produced two touchdowns, giving the Packers more scoring options.
A team can win the rushing-yard comparison and still lose comfortably when the opponent has a much more efficient passing attack. This game provides a clear example of that principle.
Defensive takeaways amplified Green Bay’s lead
The supplied data credits Green Bay with three interceptions and four sacks. Chicago’s defense recorded two sacks but no interceptions.
The Packers’ ability to take the ball away reduced Chicago’s chances of building a comeback. It also allowed Green Bay to keep attacking without facing the same turnover risk.
The result was a combination of offensive efficiency and defensive pressure, rather than a victory based on one statistical category alone.
Three Key Lessons From the Matchup
The game offers several useful lessons for readers analyzing NFL box scores, evaluating players, or following the NFC North rivalry.
1. Passing efficiency can outweigh raw attempt volume
Chicago attempted 40 passes, while Green Bay attempted 31. Yet Green Bay generated far more passing yards and recorded two passing touchdowns.
This illustrates why passing attempts and completions should not be viewed in isolation. Yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks offer a clearer picture of whether a quarterback is creating meaningful offensive value.
2. Turnovers can erase otherwise useful production
Swift’s 43 rushing yards and one touchdown gave Chicago a productive individual performance. Thomas also provided strong kick-return yardage.
Those contributions were not enough to offset the passing struggles and turnovers. Football rewards teams for turning possessions into points, not simply for accumulating yardage.
3. Multiple receiving threats make an offense harder to defend
Watson and Golden both surpassed 120 receiving yards in the supplied data. Their combined production forced Chicago to account for more than one major downfield threat.
A defense that concentrates on limiting one receiver can leave other targets with more room to operate. When a quarterback can distribute the ball to multiple productive receivers, the offense gains more ways to create explosive plays.
Data Accuracy and How to Read the Box Score
A useful statistical article must distinguish between reported figures and independently verified facts. The supplied game data contains several inconsistencies that readers should know about.
- Passing yards: Love’s individual line lists 367 yards, while Green Bay’s team passing total lists 358.
- Chicago receiving yards: The receiving table lists 195 team yards, while the passing table lists 165.
- Green Bay receiving yards: The receiving table lists 367 team yards, while the passing table lists 358.
- Kicking totals: The listed field-goal and extra-point conversions do not fully reconcile with the final score.
- Turnovers and fumbles: The individual and team fumble entries should be cross-checked against the official game record before drawing conclusions about the exact number of giveaways.
These differences do not change the supplied final score of 31-7, but they matter when publishing detailed statistical analysis. Individual player totals, team totals, and scoring summaries should agree before an article presents every number as definitive.
For readers looking up the chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats, the most dependable approach is to consult the official box score and compare the relevant categories directly. The analysis above preserves the supplied figures while clearly identifying where verification is needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Bears vs Packers game on October 11, 2026?
The supplied ESPN game data lists the Green Bay Packers defeating the Chicago Bears 31-7 in Week 6 of the 2026 NFL season.
2. How many passing yards did Jordan Love record against the Bears?
The supplied individual passing statistics list Jordan Love with 367 passing yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. The team passing total lists 358 yards, so the passing-yard figure should be verified against the official box score.
3. Who was Green Bay’s leading receiver against Chicago?
Christian Watson led the supplied receiving statistics with six receptions for 143 yards and two touchdowns. His longest listed reception was 53 yards.
4. Who scored Chicago’s only touchdown?
D’Andre Swift was credited with Chicago’s only touchdown in the supplied data. He recorded 43 rushing yards on nine carries and averaged 4.8 yards per carry.
5. How many interceptions did the Packers record?
The supplied defensive statistics credit Green Bay with three interceptions: two by Xavier McKinney and one by Ty’Ron Hopper. Chicago’s quarterbacks were listed with three interceptions combined.
6. Which team had more rushing yards?
Chicago recorded 81 rushing yards, compared with Green Bay’s 70 in the supplied team totals. Despite that advantage, the Bears lost 31-7 because Green Bay produced more passing yardage and touchdowns while benefiting from defensive takeaways.
Conclusion
The October 11, 2026, matchup between Chicago and Green Bay was defined by the Packers’ superior passing efficiency, explosive receiving production, and ability to create turnovers. The supplied chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats show Jordan Love throwing two touchdowns without an interception, Christian Watson recording 143 receiving yards and two scores, and MarShawn Lloyd contributing two rushing touchdowns.
Chicago received its strongest offensive contribution from D’Andre Swift, who recorded 43 rushing yards and the team’s only touchdown. However, the Bears’ quarterbacks combined for three interceptions and no passing touchdowns, making it difficult to sustain drives or challenge Green Bay’s lead.
The defensive comparison also favored the Packers, who were credited with four sacks and three interceptions. Although Chicago recorded more rushing yards, its overall offensive production was not enough to overcome Green Bay’s advantages through the air and in turnover creation.
The final score tells the broad story, while the player statistics explain how the result happened. Because several supplied totals do not reconcile, the detailed figures should be checked against the official box score before publication as verified statistics.
