Bengals vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The bengals vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats provide a detailed look at how Pittsburgh secured a 30-27 victory over Cincinnati on September 27, 2026. The supplied box score shows a competitive AFC North matchup in which Joe Burrow threw three touchdown passes for the Bengals, while Aaron Rodgers matched that total for the Steelers. Pittsburgh’s ground game, led by Jaylen Warren, added another important dimension to the contest.
The final score tells only part of the story. Cincinnati produced 282 passing yards through Burrow and found the end zone three times through the air. Pittsburgh recorded 138 rushing yards, averaged 6.0 yards per carry, and converted its scoring opportunities into a narrow win. Chris Boswell also made all three of his field-goal attempts, contributing 12 points to Pittsburgh’s total.
This breakdown examines the quarterback performances, leading rushers, receiving statistics, defensive contributions, special teams, and the numbers that help explain the three-point difference. All game statistics below come from the supplied box-score data. One important qualification is that the supplied material contains inconsistent week and schedule labels, so September 27, 2026, and the reported 30-27 final score are used as the reference details rather than treating the listed Week 7 label as independently verified.
Bengals vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats: Game Summary
Cincinnati Bengals
Away team
27
Record: 2-1
FINAL
Sep 27, 2026
vs.
Pittsburgh Steelers
Home team
30
Record: 2-1
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
| Cincinnati | 7 | 10 | 3 | 7 | 27 |
| Pittsburgh | 14 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 30 |
Source: supplied ESPN box-score data, game ID 401872950. The game details are presented as supplied and have not been independently verified.
Pittsburgh built its advantage with a 14-point opening quarter, while Cincinnati responded with 10 points in the second quarter and continued scoring after halftime. The Steelers’ six-point fourth quarter was enough to preserve their three-point lead in the reported final result.
Three central themes stand out:
- Quarterback production: Both Burrow and Rodgers threw three touchdown passes.
- Rushing efficiency: Pittsburgh averaged 6.0 yards per carry, compared with Cincinnati’s 4.6.
- Special teams: Boswell scored 12 points, compared with Evan McPherson’s nine.
These figures offer a useful starting point for understanding the result, but the individual performances and their context reveal more.
Quarterback Stats: Joe Burrow vs. Aaron Rodgers
Quarterback play was one of the most compelling parts of this reported matchup. Both starters threw three touchdown passes, yet they reached their totals through different passing profiles.
| Passing statistic | Joe Burrow | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 28 | 19 |
| Attempts | 37 | 34 |
| Completion rate | 75.7% | 55.9% |
| Passing yards | 282 | 292 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.6 | 8.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 13 | 19 |
| ESPN QBR | 93.8 | 67.3 |
| Passer rating | 123.9 | 101.6 |
Completion rates are calculated from the supplied completions and attempts. Other figures follow the supplied box-score data.
Joe Burrow’s passing performance
Burrow completed 28 of 37 attempts for 282 yards and three touchdowns without throwing an interception. His completion rate was approximately 75.7%, a strong indication that he consistently connected with his receivers.
His reported passer rating of 123.9 reinforces the quality of his statistical performance. Burrow averaged 7.6 yards per attempt, giving Cincinnati a combination of reliable completions and productive downfield passing.
His performance had three notable strengths:
- Accuracy: Completing more than three-quarters of his attempts helped Cincinnati sustain its passing offense.
- Touchdown production: Three scoring passes accounted for all three of the Bengals’ reported offensive touchdowns.
- Ball security through the air: Burrow finished without an interception, limiting the damage from passing mistakes.
However, the box score also lists one sack for 13 yards lost. That loss matters because sacks can push an offense into longer passing situations and make it harder to sustain a drive.
The supplied rushing figures list Burrow with two carries for 13 yards. His contribution on the ground was modest, but those yards added some value beyond his passing totals.
Aaron Rodgers’ passing performance
Rodgers completed 19 of 34 attempts for 292 yards, three touchdowns, and one interception. His 292 passing yards exceeded Burrow’s total by 10 yards, even though he completed nine fewer passes.
Rodgers averaged 8.6 yards per attempt, compared with Burrow’s 7.6. That difference suggests Pittsburgh generated more passing yardage per attempt, although yards per attempt alone cannot establish whether every throw was more efficient or valuable.
His reported passer rating was 101.6, while his ESPN QBR was 67.3.
Rodgers’ performance featured several important elements:
- Scoring ability: Three touchdown passes gave Pittsburgh a productive passing attack.
- Downfield output: His 8.6 yards per attempt helped him finish with the higher passing-yardage total.
- A costly interception: Unlike Burrow, Rodgers threw one interception, giving Cincinnati a defensive opportunity.
The two sacks recorded against Rodgers also resulted in 19 yards lost. That is six more yards lost to sacks than Cincinnati’s quarterback surrendered.
Who had the better quarterback performance?
The answer depends on the metric.
Burrow led in completion rate, interceptions avoided, passer rating, and reported QBR. Rodgers led in total passing yards and yards per attempt. Both threw three touchdown passes.
For a balanced assessment, Burrow had the stronger statistical profile in accuracy and ball security. Rodgers produced slightly more passing yardage with fewer completions, but his interception and lower efficiency ratings temper that advantage.
Neither quarterback’s passing line, on its own, explains the final result. Pittsburgh’s running game and kicking production are important parts of the wider picture.
Rushing Stats: Jaylen Warren Leads Pittsburgh
The rushing comparison is one of the clearest statistical differences in the game. Pittsburgh recorded 138 rushing yards on 23 carries, while Cincinnati gained 83 yards on 18 attempts.
| Rushing statistic | Bengals | Steelers |
| Team carries | 18 | 23 |
| Rushing yards | 83 | 138 |
| Yards per carry | 4.6 | 6.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Leading rusher | Chase Brown | Jaylen Warren |
| Leading rusher’s yards | 61 | 127 |
Pittsburgh gained 55 more rushing yards than Cincinnati. The Steelers also averaged 1.4 more yards per carry, giving them a meaningful advantage in ground production.
Jaylen Warren’s outstanding performance
Warren was Pittsburgh’s leading rusher, finishing with 17 carries for 127 yards. He averaged 7.5 yards per carry, and his longest run covered 35 yards.
Jaylen Warren: Rushing breakdown
Rushing yards
127
Carries
17
Yards per carry
7.5
Longest run
35 yards
Warren’s output is especially notable because he accounted for approximately 92% of Pittsburgh’s listed team rushing yards. His 127 yards represented the overwhelming majority of the Steelers’ 138-yard total.
That concentration matters when evaluating the offensive balance. Rather than spreading the ground production evenly among several runners, Pittsburgh relied heavily on Warren to move the ball.
His 7.5-yard average also suggests that Pittsburgh found productive running opportunities. However, the box score alone does not identify how many yards came before contact, how many runs occurred in short-yardage situations, or how much came from a single long gain. Those details would be needed to measure his performance more fully.
Warren did not record a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics. Pittsburgh instead depended on its passing touchdowns and field goals to produce its final score.
Chase Brown’s contribution for Cincinnati
Brown led the Bengals with 13 carries for 61 yards. He averaged 4.7 yards per attempt, with a longest run of 13 yards.
Although his total was well below Warren’s, Brown provided a productive foundation for Cincinnati’s rushing attack. His average of 4.7 yards per carry indicates that he gained useful yardage on his attempts.
The contrast between the two runners is clear:
- Warren gained 66 more rushing yards.
- Warren averaged 2.8 more yards per carry.
- Brown carried the ball 13 times, compared with Warren’s 17.
- Neither player recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied box score.
Brown also caught two passes for eight yards. That receiving contribution added another small element to his overall offensive workload.
Other rushing contributors
Cincinnati’s remaining rushing production came from Burrow and Samaje Perine.
| Bengals player | Carries | Yards | Average |
| Chase Brown | 13 | 61 | 4.7 |
| Joe Burrow | 2 | 13 | 6.5 |
| Samaje Perine | 3 | 9 | 3.0 |
| Team total | 18 | 83 | 4.6 |
Pittsburgh’s other listed rushers contributed considerably less than Warren.
| Steelers player | Carries | Yards | Average |
| Jaylen Warren | 17 | 127 | 7.5 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 3 | 10 | 3.3 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 1 | 1 | 1.0 |
| Travis Homer | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Lew Nichols | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
The Steelers’ team total of 23 carries matches the individual attempts listed in the supplied data.
Why the rushing difference matters
Pittsburgh’s ground advantage gave the offense another way to generate yards without relying entirely on Rodgers’ passing. A productive rushing attack can help maintain offensive balance, create different defensive alignments, and provide more options when passing plays are unavailable.
Still, rushing yards are not the same as scoring efficiency. Neither team recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied figures. Pittsburgh’s advantage came from yardage and efficiency rather than a reported ground score.
For readers assessing the game’s overall performance, Warren’s 127 yards are among the most important individual numbers in the box score.
Receiving Stats: Ja’Marr Chase, Tee Higgins and Pittsburgh’s Targets
The receiving statistics show two different patterns. Cincinnati completed more passes and distributed the ball among a larger group of receivers. Pittsburgh produced more yards per reception and received significant contributions from Warren, Darnell Washington, and Roman Wilson.
| Receiving statistic | Bengals | Steelers |
| Receptions | 28 | 19 |
| Receiving yards | 282 | 292 |
| Yards per reception | 10.1 | 15.4 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Average yards per reception difference | Lower | Higher |
The Steelers gained only 10 more receiving yards despite recording nine fewer receptions. Their reported 15.4 yards per catch was substantially higher than Cincinnati’s 10.1.
That difference points to a more productive average gain on completed passes for Pittsburgh. It does not, by itself, prove that Pittsburgh’s passing offense was better in every situation, since completion percentage, interceptions, sacks, and touchdown production also matter.
Ja’Marr Chase’s receiving numbers
Chase led Cincinnati’s listed receivers with nine catches for 98 yards and one touchdown. He received 12 targets and averaged 10.9 yards per reception.
His nine receptions represented a major share of the Bengals’ passing output. Chase accounted for 98 of Cincinnati’s 282 receiving yards, or approximately 34.8%.
His contribution had three clear dimensions:
- Volume: Twelve targets made him the most-targeted Bengals receiver in the supplied data.
- Reliable production: Nine catches converted those targets into a substantial share of the passing offense.
- Scoring: His one touchdown added to Cincinnati’s three passing scores.
Chase’s longest reception was listed at 21 yards. Although he did not have the longest individual catch among Cincinnati’s leading receivers, his combination of catches, yardage, and a touchdown made him a central part of Burrow’s performance.
Tee Higgins provides a second scoring option
Higgins recorded six receptions for 90 yards and one touchdown on seven targets. His 15.0 yards per reception exceeded Chase’s 10.9.
Higgins’ longest catch covered 28 yards. His receiving line suggests that he contributed both meaningful yardage and scoring value while drawing fewer targets than Chase.
Together, Chase and Higgins combined for:
- 15 receptions
- 188 receiving yards
- Two touchdowns
- 19 targets
Their combined yardage represented approximately two-thirds of Cincinnati’s listed receiving total. This concentration shows how important the Bengals’ two leading wideouts were to their passing offense.
Mike Gesicki adds a third touchdown
Gesicki recorded three receptions for 37 yards and one touchdown on three targets. He averaged 12.3 yards per reception, and his longest catch was 25 yards.
His three catches resulted in a touchdown on the final listed line, giving Cincinnati a third scoring receiver alongside Chase and Higgins.
This distribution matters because it shows that the Bengals’ touchdown production was not limited to their two primary wideouts. Gesicki also converted his opportunities into a scoring contribution.
Cincinnati’s other receivers
The remaining Bengals receiving statistics show a broader distribution of shorter gains.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Touchdowns |
| Dohnte Meyers | 3 | 29 | 0 |
| Tanner Hudson | 2 | 13 | 0 |
| Chase Brown | 2 | 8 | 0 |
| Samaje Perine | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Colbie Young | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Drew Sample | 1 | 0 | 0 |
These players provided additional targets and completions beyond Cincinnati’s three leading scoring receivers. The supplied data lists nine receivers with at least one catch, although not all played equally important roles in the passing production.
A notable detail is that Sample recorded one reception for zero yards. A catch can count as a reception without adding receiving yardage, which is why receptions and yards should be considered separate measures.
Darnell Washington’s impact for Pittsburgh
Washington led the Steelers in receiving yards with 67 on three catches. He averaged 22.3 yards per reception and recorded a long reception of 47 yards.
His six targets produced three catches, making his average gain particularly notable. The 47-yard reception was the longest catch listed for either team’s featured receiving contributors in the supplied data.
Washington did not record a receiving touchdown, but his yardage helped Pittsburgh generate its 292-yard receiving total.
A long reception can change field position quickly and reduce the number of plays needed to reach scoring range. Even without a touchdown, Washington’s output was an important component of the Steelers’ passing production.
Roman Wilson and the Steelers’ scoring balance
Wilson caught four passes for 60 yards and one touchdown on four targets. His 20.0 yards per reception ranked among Pittsburgh’s strongest averages in the supplied figures.
Wilson’s four catches and four targets indicate that he caught every pass directed to him according to the provided statistics. His 38-yard long reception and touchdown made him a productive option in the passing game.
Warren also contributed as a receiver, recording three catches for 49 yards. That receiving total added to his 127 rushing yards, giving him 176 combined rushing and receiving yards.
DK Metcalf caught three passes for 31 yards and one touchdown. Ben Skowronek recorded one catch for 23 yards and one touchdown, while Pat Freiermuth had two catches for 30 yards.
Pittsburgh’s other receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Touchdowns |
| Darnell Washington | 3 | 67 | 0 |
| Roman Wilson | 4 | 60 | 1 |
| Jaylen Warren | 3 | 49 | 0 |
| DK Metcalf | 3 | 31 | 1 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 2 | 30 | 0 |
| Ben Skowronek | 1 | 23 | 1 |
| Michael Pittman Jr. | 2 | 16 | 0 |
| Germie Bernard | 1 | 14 | 0 |
| Robert Tonyan | 1 | 2 | 0 |
Wilson led the listed Steelers receivers in receptions, while Washington led in receiving yards. This distinction shows why a receiving leaderboard should include more than one statistic.
The numbers also suggest that Pittsburgh spread its receiving production across several players rather than relying on a single receiver to produce the majority of its yards.
Total Offensive Production: How the Teams Compared
The overall offensive statistics help explain how the teams reached a combined 57 points.
| Category | Cincinnati | Pittsburgh |
| Passing yards | 282 | 292 |
| Rushing yards | 83 | 138 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 | 3 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Field goals made | 2 | 3 |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Listed fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 by Burrow | 1 by Rodgers |
Based on the supplied passing and rushing figures, Pittsburgh generated 430 combined passing and rushing yards, while Cincinnati generated 365. This gives the Steelers a 65-yard advantage in those two categories.
These combined totals are calculated by adding the listed passing and rushing yardage. They should not be treated as official total-offense figures without checking how the original statistics account for sacks and other adjustments.
Pittsburgh’s advantage on the ground
The Steelers’ 138 rushing yards were 55 more than Cincinnati’s 83. This was the largest difference between the two teams in the primary yardage categories supplied.
Because both quarterbacks threw three touchdowns, Pittsburgh’s stronger rushing production stands out as an important point of separation.
Cincinnati’s ball security was mixed
Burrow did not throw an interception, but the Bengals’ team statistics list two fumbles lost. That is an important distinction.
Avoiding interceptions does not automatically mean an offense protected the ball throughout the game. Fumbles can also end possessions and give the opposition opportunities.
The supplied figures identify one lost fumble for Burrow and one for Ke’Shawn Williams. Pittsburgh’s team data lists no fumbles lost, although the defensive recovery statistics are presented separately.
The box score does not establish exactly how each turnover affected the final score, so it would be inaccurate to assign a particular number of points to them without play-by-play confirmation.
Why three points separated the teams
Pittsburgh won 30-27, a margin of three points. Both teams recorded three passing touchdowns and three extra points in the supplied data.
The kicking totals provide another point of difference. Pittsburgh made three field goals, while Cincinnati made two. That accounts for three additional field-goal points for the Steelers.
The scoring arithmetic is consistent with the listed totals:
- Cincinnati: three passing touchdowns, three extra points, and two field goals, for 27 points.
- Pittsburgh: three passing touchdowns, three extra points, and three field goals, for 30 points.
This is a straightforward statistical explanation of the final score. It does not establish the exact timing or circumstances of each score, which would require the play-by-play record.
Defensive Stats: Tackles, Sacks and Turnovers
Offensive production receives much of the attention after a 30-27 result, but defensive statistics help explain the other side of the contest. The supplied numbers show that Cincinnati recorded more sacks, while Pittsburgh finished with more total tackles.
| Defensive statistic | Bengals | Steelers |
| Total tackles | 60 | 72 |
| Solo tackles | 30 | 33 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 3 | 3 |
| Passes defended | 6 | 5 |
| Quarterback hits | 8 | 6 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
Cincinnati’s pass rush
The Bengals recorded two sacks and eight quarterback hits. Pittsburgh recorded one sack and six quarterback hits.
The difference suggests that Cincinnati generated more recorded disruption in the backfield. Sacks are particularly valuable because they stop a passing play behind the line of scrimmage and can place an offense in a difficult down-and-distance situation.
However, pressure does not always translate into a turnover or a scoring stop. Pittsburgh still threw three touchdown passes and accumulated 292 passing yards, showing that the Bengals’ defensive disruption did not prevent the Steelers from producing through the air.
The supplied data does not identify individual sack leaders, so naming a specific defensive player as the leading pass rusher would require additional evidence.
Pittsburgh’s tackling numbers
The Steelers recorded 72 total tackles and 33 solo tackles, compared with Cincinnati’s 60 total tackles and 30 solo tackles.
These totals are not direct measures of defensive quality. A defense may record more tackles because it faces more offensive plays, while a lower tackle count can reflect fewer opportunities rather than weaker performance.
The useful comparison is that Pittsburgh recorded more tackles, while Cincinnati produced more sacks and quarterback hits. Those statistics describe different aspects of defensive activity.
Jordan Battle’s interception
The Bengals’ defensive statistics list one interception by Jordan Battle, who returned it 11 yards without scoring a touchdown.
That interception was a positive individual defensive contribution, but it did not produce a listed defensive touchdown. Rodgers’ passing line also includes one interception, creating an apparent discrepancy between the supplied quarterback and team-defense figures if both are interpreted as describing the same event.
For a fully reconciled turnover report, the official play-by-play record should be checked before assigning the interception to a specific quarterback or drive.
Tackles for loss and passes defended
Both teams recorded three tackles for loss. Cincinnati had six passes defended, while Pittsburgh had five.
A tackle for loss can disrupt a running play or a completed pass behind the line of scrimmage. Passes defended indicate that a defender disrupted or prevented a completion, but they do not necessarily mean the defense created a turnover.
These categories help readers look beyond total tackles when comparing the defensive units.
Special Teams Stats: Evan McPherson vs. Chris Boswell
Special teams contributed directly to the final three-point margin. Both kickers were perfect on field goals and extra points in the supplied data, but Pittsburgh attempted one additional field goal.
| Kicking statistic | Evan McPherson | Chris Boswell |
| Field goals made | 2 | 3 |
| Field goals attempted | 2 | 3 |
| Field-goal accuracy | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 50 yards | 44 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 3 |
| Total points | 9 | 12 |
Chris Boswell’s perfect performance
Boswell made all three of his field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 44 yards. He also converted all three extra points.
His 12 points were the highest individual kicking total in the supplied box score. The three field goals accounted for nine points, while the extra points supplied the remaining three.
In a game decided by three points, that additional field goal is a meaningful part of the scoring comparison. It demonstrates the value of converting scoring opportunities into points even when an offense does not finish every possession with a touchdown.
Evan McPherson’s reliable kicking
McPherson also delivered a perfect performance, making both field-goal attempts and all three extra points. His longest field goal was 50 yards.
His nine points helped Cincinnati stay competitive in a game where the offense produced three passing touchdowns. The data gives no indication that a missed kick cost the Bengals points because all listed attempts were successful.
The value of field-goal opportunities
The difference between two and three field goals can be decisive in a close contest. However, the box-score summary does not provide enough information to determine why each team attempted its kicks, whether either team declined a fourth-down opportunity, or whether field position affected a particular decision.
Those details matter when evaluating coaching decisions and offensive execution. The accurate conclusion from the available numbers is that both kickers were perfect, and Boswell scored three more points than McPherson.
Kick Returns and Punting Statistics
Return teams and punters affect field position, even when they do not score touchdowns. The supplied data lists more kick-return yardage for Cincinnati, while Pittsburgh recorded the longer average punt.
| Special teams statistic | Bengals | Steelers |
| Kick returns | 7 | 5 |
| Kick-return yards | 184 | 102 |
| Average kick return | 26.3 | 20.4 |
| Longest kick return | 34 yards | 22 yards |
| Punt returns | 1 | 1 |
| Punt-return yards | 0 | 5 |
| Punts | 2 | 1 |
| Punting yards | 84 | 51 |
| Average punt | 42.0 | 51.0 |
Cincinnati’s kick-return production
Cincinnati recorded seven kick returns for 184 yards, averaging 26.3 yards per return. Ke’Shawn Williams led the listed returners with five returns for 131 yards.
His longest return covered 34 yards. Tahj Brooks added one return for 27 yards, while Perine recorded one for 26 yards.
The Bengals’ return total was 82 yards higher than Pittsburgh’s. However, return yardage should not be confused with offensive scrimmage yardage. It reflects the distance gained after kickoffs and helps describe how teams begin their possessions.
Pittsburgh’s return performance
Pittsburgh recorded five kick returns for 102 yards, with Kaden Wetjen handling all five according to the supplied data. His average was 20.4 yards, and his longest return covered 22 yards.
The Steelers therefore generated fewer kick-return yards than Cincinnati. That difference did not prevent them from winning, but it is a useful reminder that one team can lead a special-teams category without winning the overall contest.
Punting and field position
Ryan Rehkow punted twice for Cincinnati, totaling 84 yards at an average of 42.0 yards per punt. Both punts were listed as finishing inside the 20-yard line, with a longest punt of 43 yards.
Cameron Johnston punted once for Pittsburgh, gaining 51 yards at an average of 51.0 yards. His punt was also listed inside the 20, and it was his longest of the game.
The sample size is very small, with two punts for Cincinnati and one for Pittsburgh. Therefore, the averages should be read as descriptions of this particular game rather than evidence of a lasting difference between the punters.
Fumbles and Turnovers: An Important Data Check
Turnover analysis deserves special attention because it can help explain why an offense wins or loses a close game. The supplied statistics list two Cincinnati fumbles lost and none for Pittsburgh.
| Turnover category | Bengals | Steelers |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Quarterback interceptions | 0 listed for Burrow | 1 listed for Rodgers |
| Team defensive interceptions | 1 | 0 |
These numbers require careful interpretation. The Bengals’ team data lists two lost fumbles, including one credited to Burrow and one to Williams. The team defensive table separately lists Battle’s interception. The Steelers’ recovery statistics also list recoveries by Skowronek and Sebastian Joseph-Day.
A recovery credited to a player does not automatically tell the complete story of possession changes without the play-by-play context. For example, recovery statistics may include loose-ball situations that require a closer look at how the original possession was recorded.
The reported figures should therefore not be combined into a definitive turnover differential without confirming each play.
Why turnovers matter beyond the raw totals
Turnovers can have several effects:
- They end a possession before the offense can complete its planned drive.
- They may give the opposing offense a shorter field.
- They can affect play-calling and risk tolerance.
- They may change momentum, although momentum itself is difficult to measure from a box score.
For this matchup, the two reported Cincinnati fumbles lost stand out as an area worth investigating. Yet the available statistics do not establish exactly how many points, if any, Pittsburgh scored directly after those turnovers.
A trustworthy match analysis distinguishes between what the box score confirms and what requires play-by-play evidence.
Three Key Statistical Takeaways From the Game
The most useful way to read a football box score is to connect individual statistics with the wider team performance. Three patterns stand out from the supplied numbers.
1. Pittsburgh had the stronger rushing attack
The Steelers gained 138 rushing yards on 23 carries, compared with Cincinnati’s 83 yards on 18 attempts.
Warren’s 127 rushing yards were central to that difference. His 7.5-yard average was notably higher than Brown’s 4.7, and his 35-yard longest run gave Pittsburgh an explosive ground contribution.
This was not a rushing-touchdown advantage because neither team recorded one. It was an advantage in total ground yardage and average efficiency.
2. Both quarterbacks produced three touchdown passes
Burrow and Rodgers each threw three touchdown passes. Burrow was more accurate and avoided an interception, while Rodgers gained more passing yards and averaged more yards per attempt.
This makes the quarterback comparison more nuanced than simply declaring one player the winner. Burrow’s passing efficiency was stronger by the supplied ratings, but Rodgers’ passing output still played an important role in Pittsburgh’s 30-point total.
3. Field goals helped separate the final scores
Both kickers converted every listed field goal and extra point. Boswell made three field goals, compared with McPherson’s two.
That one additional field goal represents three points, exactly the difference between the teams’ final totals. This is a direct scoring comparison rather than speculation about a particular late-game decision.
How to Read a Football Box Score Correctly
Readers searching for player statistics often see passing yards, catches, tackles, and turnovers presented in one large table. Understanding the categories makes the numbers more useful.
Passing yards versus total offense
Passing yards measure the yardage credited to the passing game, while rushing yards describe yardage gained on rushing plays. Adding the two gives a useful combined figure, but it may not match an official total-offense figure if sack yardage or other adjustments are handled differently.
For this game, the supplied numbers give Pittsburgh 430 combined passing and rushing yards and Cincinnati 365. That 65-yard difference provides a broad measure of offensive production, not a complete account of every possession.
Completion percentage versus passer rating
Completion percentage measures the share of pass attempts completed. Passer rating is a separate calculation that uses passing efficiency measures such as completions, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions.
QBR is another rating system and should not be treated as interchangeable with passer rating. That is why Burrow’s completion rate, passer rating, and QBR should be considered separate pieces of evidence rather than one combined score.
Receiving yards versus yards per catch
Receiving yards show total production, while yards per reception measure the average gain for each catch. A receiver with fewer catches can still finish with more yards if the average gain is higher.
Washington’s three catches for 67 yards illustrate this point. Wilson’s four catches for 60 yards show a different type of contribution, with more receptions but fewer total yards.
Tackles versus defensive impact
Total tackles describe recorded defensive stops or assists. They do not measure every aspect of defensive performance. Sacks, tackles for loss, interceptions, passes defended, and quarterback hits provide additional context.
In the supplied data, Pittsburgh had more tackles, but Cincinnati had more sacks and quarterback hits. Both sets of figures are informative, and neither alone proves which defense played better overall.
Source Reliability and Game Information
For readers who want to verify the reported score and statistics, the official NFL game center provides a useful reference point:
Official NFL game center: Bengals at Steelers, 2026 Week 3
The supplied ESPN box-score details identify the game as September 27, 2026, with game ID 401872950. The NFL schedule independently lists Cincinnati’s 27-30 loss to Pittsburgh on that date as a Week 3 result.
Game Center
+2
This matters because the source data also includes a Week 7 label and other schedule entries that do not align with the September 27 game. For clarity, the analysis above uses the supplied player statistics while treating the game as a Week 3 matchup, consistent with the NFL schedule.
A complete statistical audit should also reconcile any differences between individual player totals and team totals, particularly turnovers, sack yardage, and receiving-yard calculations. Such checks help prevent small source inconsistencies from becoming misleading claims in a published article.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of Bengals vs. Pittsburgh Steelers?
According to the supplied box score and the NFL game center, the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 30-27 on September 27, 2026, in a Week 3 regular-season matchup.
2. How many passing touchdowns did Joe Burrow and Aaron Rodgers throw?
Both quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes. Burrow completed 28 of 37 attempts for 282 yards without an interception, while Rodgers completed 19 of 34 attempts for 292 yards and one interception.
3. Who was the leading rusher in the Bengals vs. Steelers game?
Jaylen Warren led all listed rushers with 127 yards on 17 carries. He averaged 7.5 yards per carry and recorded a longest run of 35 yards. Cincinnati’s leading rusher was Chase Brown, who gained 61 yards on 13 carries.
4. Who led the game in receiving yards?
Darnell Washington led the listed receivers with 67 yards on three catches for Pittsburgh. For Cincinnati, Ja’Marr Chase led his team with 98 receiving yards on nine receptions and scored one touchdown.
5. How did the kickers perform?
Both kickers made all their listed field goals and extra points. Chris Boswell converted three field goals and three extra points for 12 points, while Evan McPherson made two field goals and three extra points for nine points.
6. Which team had more rushing yards and defensive sacks?
Pittsburgh led in rushing yards with 138 compared with Cincinnati’s 83. Cincinnati recorded two sacks, while Pittsburgh recorded one. The Steelers also recorded more total tackles, with 72 compared with the Bengals’ 60.
Conclusion
The bengals vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats show a closely contested game in which Pittsburgh emerged with a 30-27 victory. Both quarterbacks threw three touchdown passes, but their statistical profiles differed. Burrow completed more passes and avoided interceptions, while Rodgers gained slightly more passing yardage and averaged more yards per attempt.
Jaylen Warren was one of the standout performers, gaining 127 rushing yards and adding 49 receiving yards. Ja’Marr Chase led Cincinnati with 98 receiving yards, while Tee Higgins and Mike Gesicki each contributed a touchdown. On special teams, Chris Boswell’s three field goals helped distinguish Pittsburgh’s scoring output from Cincinnati’s.
The clearest statistical differences were Pittsburgh’s 55-yard rushing advantage, its additional field goal, and the contrasting turnover figures. Together, these details provide a fuller picture than the final score alone. The supplied numbers also highlight why accurate source checking matters, especially when schedule labels and individual statistics need reconciliation.
For readers evaluating the matchup, the key takeaway is that passing touchdowns were evenly matched, but Pittsburgh produced more on the ground and scored three additional points through field goals. Those figures offer the most direct explanation of the reported result without assuming details that the box score does not establish.
