Arizona Cardinals vs Bengals Match Player Stats

The arizona cardinals vs bengals match player stats from December 28, 2025, tell a much clearer story than the 37-14 final score alone. Cincinnati controlled the game through a balanced offensive performance, with Joe Burrow throwing for 305 yards and two touchdowns while Chase Brown added 101 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns. Arizona had productive individual performances from Trey McBride and Michael Wilson, but the Cardinals struggled to sustain enough offensive production to keep pace. The defensive numbers also show an interesting contrast: Arizona recorded more total tackles, while Cincinnati generated more sacks and quarterback pressure.

Table of Contents

Arizona Cardinals vs Bengals Match Player Stats at a Glance

The game ended with the Cincinnati Bengals defeating the Arizona Cardinals 37-14 on December 28, 2025.

Here are the most important numbers from the supplied game data:

Category	Arizona Cardinals	Cincinnati Bengals
Final Score	14	37
Passing Yards	212	309 team passing
Rushing Yards	42	120
Passing TDs	2	2
Rushing TDs	0	3
Interceptions	0	0
Sacks Allowed	4	3
Team Tackles	85	54
Defensive Sacks	3	4
Total Offensive Yards*	254	429
Record	3-13	6-10

*The offensive total is based on the supplied passing and rushing figures.

The biggest difference was not simply quarterback production. Cincinnati combined efficient passing, a stronger rushing attack, and five total offensive touchdowns. Arizona produced two passing touchdowns but could not establish a comparable rushing threat.

Quarterback Stats: Joe Burrow vs Jacoby Brissett

Quarterback performance was one of the clearest areas separating the two teams.

Joe Burrow’s Passing Performance

Joe Burrow completed 24 of 31 passes for 305 yards, averaging 9.8 yards per attempt. He threw two touchdowns and no interceptions.

His supplied statistical line was:

Stat	Joe Burrow
Completions	24
Attempts	31
Completion Rate	77.4%
Passing Yards	305
Yards per Attempt	9.8
Touchdowns	2
Interceptions	0
Sacks	3
Sack Yards	20
QBR	68.5
Passer Rating	129.1

A 77.4% completion rate combined with 9.8 yards per attempt is particularly significant. It indicates that Burrow was not simply relying on short, low-risk completions.

He was completing a high percentage of passes while still producing substantial yardage.

The 129.1 passer rating also reflects how efficiently Cincinnati’s passing game converted its opportunities.

Jacoby Brissett’s Passing Performance

Jacoby Brissett completed 21 of 37 attempts for 212 yards, with two touchdowns and no interceptions.

Stat	Jacoby Brissett
Completions	21
Attempts	37
Completion Rate	56.8%
Passing Yards	212
Yards per Attempt	5.7
Touchdowns	2
Interceptions	0
Sacks	4
Sack Yards	21
QBR	28.0
Passer Rating	91.3

Brissett’s two touchdowns and zero interceptions show that he avoided the most obvious turnover mistake. However, his 5.7 yards per attempt was considerably lower than Burrow’s 9.8.

That difference matters.

Arizona needed more explosive passing production because its rushing attack generated only 42 yards. When the ground game is producing little, the passing game generally has to carry a larger portion of the offense.

Brissett also absorbed four sacks, compared with three for Burrow. The difference was only one sack, but the larger issue was the overall efficiency lost through those negative plays.

Joe Flacco’s Limited Role

Joe Flacco also appeared for Cincinnati, completing 3 of 5 passes for 24 yards.

Stat	Joe Flacco
Completions	3
Attempts	5
Passing Yards	24
Yards per Attempt	4.8
Touchdowns	0
Interceptions	0
QBR	75.4
Passer Rating	72.1

His contribution was limited compared with Burrow’s workload, so the major quarterback comparison remains Burrow against Brissett.

Rushing Statistics Reveal a Major Difference

One of the strongest indicators in the arizona cardinals vs bengals match player stats is the rushing disparity.

Arizona finished with 13 carries for 42 yards, an average of 3.2 yards per carry.

Cincinnati recorded 35 carries for 120 yards, averaging 3.4 yards per carry.

The average efficiency was not dramatically different, but Cincinnati’s volume was much greater.

That difference in rushing attempts gave the Bengals more opportunities to control the game on the ground and produce touchdowns.

Arizona Rushing Leaders

Michael Carter

Michael Carter led Arizona with:

7 carries
29 yards
4.1 yards per carry
11-yard long
0 touchdowns

Carter was the Cardinals’ most effective runner by average and total yardage among the listed Arizona rushers.

Emari Demercado

Demercado recorded:

5 carries
11 yards
2.2 yards per carry
4-yard long
0 touchdowns

Corey Kiner

Kiner had:

1 carry
2 yards
2.0 yards per carry
0 touchdowns

Arizona’s limited rushing workload is notable. The Cardinals had only 13 team rushing attempts, compared with Cincinnati’s 35.

Cincinnati Rushing Leaders

Chase Brown

Chase Brown was one of the most important players in the game.

He recorded:

22 carries
101 yards
4.6 yards per carry
2 touchdowns
25-yard long

Brown accounted for more than 80% of Cincinnati’s listed rushing attempts among the primary runners and became the centerpiece of the ground attack.

His two rushing touchdowns also directly contributed to Cincinnati’s ability to turn offensive drives into points.

Tahj Brooks

Tahj Brooks recorded:

3 carries
10 yards
3.3 yards per carry
0 touchdowns

Samaje Perine

Perine contributed:

3 carries
5 yards
1.7 yards per carry
1 touchdown

His rushing efficiency was modest, but the touchdown gave his limited workload direct scoring value.

Receiving Leaders and Target Distribution

The receiving numbers provide another useful way to understand how the game developed.

Arizona had 21 receptions for 212 yards in the supplied receiving data, while Cincinnati’s receiving figures list 27 receptions for 329 yards.

Trey McBride Led Arizona in Receptions

Trey McBride had the highest reception total for Arizona:

10 receptions
76 yards
7.6 yards per reception
1 touchdown
18-yard long
13 targets

The 13 targets are especially important.

McBride received the largest share of Brissett’s attention among the listed Arizona receivers. He accounted for 10 of Arizona’s 21 listed receptions.

That made him the most consistently involved receiving option for the Cardinals.

Michael Wilson Provided Arizona’s Biggest Receiving Play

Michael Wilson produced:

5 receptions
89 yards
17.8 yards per reception
1 touchdown
38-yard long
10 targets

Wilson’s 89 yards were the most among Arizona receivers.

His 17.8 yards per reception also show a different role from McBride. McBride provided volume, while Wilson delivered greater average yardage per catch.

The 38-yard reception was the longest listed Arizona offensive play through the passing game.

Other Arizona Receivers

Xavier Weaver recorded:

2 receptions
24 yards
12.0 yards per reception
3 targets

Michael Carter added:

2 receptions
14 yards
7.0 yards per reception
4 targets

Emari Demercado had:

2 receptions
9 yards
4.5 yards per reception
3 targets

Elijah Higgins was targeted once without a reception.

Marvin Harrison Jr. was also listed with one target and no reception.

The Harrison Jr. line is particularly notable because a single target produced no reception, while McBride and Wilson handled much more of the listed receiving production.

Cincinnati Receiving Leaders

Cincinnati’s receiving group produced a deeper spread of contributions.

Ja’Marr Chase

Ja’Marr Chase recorded:

7 receptions
60 yards
8.6 yards per reception
2 touchdowns
22-yard long
9 targets

The two touchdowns make Chase one of the game’s most important scoring players.

His 60 receiving yards were not the highest on Cincinnati, but his scoring impact was significant.

Tee Higgins

Tee Higgins recorded:

4 receptions
59 yards
14.8 yards per reception
39-yard long
5 targets

Higgins’ 39-yard reception was the longest listed Cincinnati reception.

His 14.8 yards per catch also made him an important big-play option.

Mike Gesicki

Mike Gesicki recorded:

2 receptions
47 yards
23.5 yards per reception
32-yard long
2 targets

The efficiency of Gesicki’s limited workload stands out.

Two catches produced 47 yards, meaning his average exceeded 23 yards per reception.

Andrei Iosivas

Iosivas contributed:

4 receptions
41 yards
10.3 yards per reception
5 targets

This gave Cincinnati another reliable contributor outside its primary receiving names.

Chase Brown as a Receiving Threat

Brown was not limited to rushing.

He also recorded:

3 receptions
40 yards
13.3 yards per reception
18-yard long
3 targets

That combination of 101 rushing yards, two rushing touchdowns, and 40 receiving yards made Brown one of the most complete offensive contributors in the game.

Defensive Player Stats

Offensive statistics explain much of Cincinnati’s success, but the defensive numbers also provide useful context.

Arizona recorded 85 total tackles, while Cincinnati recorded 54.

At first glance, that might suggest Arizona’s defense performed better. However, tackle totals must be interpreted carefully.

A defense can record a high number of tackles because it is repeatedly forced onto the field and is making stops after allowing completions or runs.

For that reason, tackles alone do not determine defensive quality.

Arizona Defensive Leaders

Cody Simon

Cody Simon led Arizona with:

15 total tackles
4 solo tackles
0.5 sacks
1 quarterback hit

His 15 total tackles were the highest individual tackle figure listed for either team.

Dadrion Taylor-Demerson

Taylor-Demerson recorded:

9 total tackles
5 solo tackles

He was one of Arizona’s most active defenders.

Denzel Burke

Burke finished with:

6 total tackles
5 solo tackles
1 tackle for loss
2 passes defended

The two passes defended were notable among Arizona’s listed defensive statistics.

Darren Hall

Hall recorded:

6 total tackles
2 solo tackles

Arizona’s team defense finished with three sacks, three tackles for loss, four passes defended, and five quarterback hits.

Cincinnati Defensive Leaders

Joe Giles-Harris

Giles-Harris recorded:

7 total tackles
4 solo tackles

He led Cincinnati in total tackles among the listed individual defenders.

Myles Murphy

Murphy contributed:

6 total tackles
4 solo tackles
1 sack
1 tackle for loss
1 quarterback hit

His ability to generate a sack and tackle for loss gave him direct impact on Arizona’s passing game.

Demetrius Knight Jr.

Knight Jr. recorded:

5 total tackles
1 solo tackle

Geno Stone

Stone finished with:

4 total tackles
3 solo tackles

Cincinnati’s defense recorded four sacks, four tackles for loss, six passes defended, and eight quarterback hits.

The eight quarterback hits are especially useful when evaluating how Cincinnati affected Arizona’s passing rhythm.

Arizona Cardinals vs Bengals Match Player Stats: What the Numbers Really Show

The raw statistics become more meaningful when viewed together.

The most important theme was offensive balance.

Cincinnati did not need Burrow to throw the ball 40 or 50 times. Burrow completed 24 passes for 305 yards while the Bengals ran the ball 35 times.

That balance created multiple ways for Cincinnati to attack.

Arizona, by contrast, recorded only 13 rushing attempts.

Cincinnati Controlled Offensive Volume

The Bengals had:

35 rushing attempts
120 rushing yards
3 rushing touchdowns
309 team passing yards
2 passing touchdowns

That combination produced a much more diverse scoring profile.

Arizona had:

13 rushing attempts
42 rushing yards
0 rushing touchdowns
212 passing yards
2 passing touchdowns

Arizona’s offense therefore relied heavily on the passing game while receiving little support from the ground attack.

Touchdown Distribution Was Crucial

Cincinnati scored five offensive touchdowns in the supplied statistics.

Two came through Burrow’s passing production.

Three came on the ground.

Arizona scored two touchdowns, both through the passing game.

This difference is important because Cincinnati could score through different phases of its offense.

The Importance of Chase Brown

Among all the individual player performances, Chase Brown deserves special attention.

His 22 carries represented the largest rushing workload in the game. He converted those opportunities into 101 yards and two touchdowns.

He also added 40 receiving yards.

That means Brown’s listed offensive production totaled 141 yards from scrimmage.

His contribution was not simply about moving the ball. He also converted rushing opportunities into points.

For a team trying to maintain control of a game, that type of performance is extremely valuable.

The Importance of Trey McBride and Michael Wilson

Arizona’s receiving production was concentrated around two players.

McBride had 10 catches for 76 yards and a touchdown.

Wilson had five catches for 89 yards and a touchdown.

Together, they accounted for:

15 receptions
165 yards
2 touchdowns

That is a substantial share of Arizona’s listed receiving production.

Their numbers also show two different forms of offensive value.

McBride was the volume receiver.

Wilson was the more explosive receiver by yards per catch.

If Arizona had been able to add a stronger rushing contribution, these receiving performances could have had greater overall influence on the scoreboard.

Third Down and Drive Sustainability

The supplied data does not include a complete third-down conversion breakdown, so it would be inappropriate to assign a specific third-down percentage.

However, the offensive statistics allow us to identify a broader issue.

Arizona’s 42 rushing yards meant the Cardinals had less ability to create manageable situations through the running game. Cincinnati’s 120 rushing yards and 35 attempts gave the Bengals a more sustainable offensive structure.

This is one reason raw passing yards should not be viewed in isolation.

Arizona’s 212 passing yards do not necessarily indicate that the passing game was the only problem. The larger issue was that the Cardinals lacked enough complementary production.

Sack and Pressure Comparison

The supplied defensive statistics show:

Defensive Category	Arizona	Cincinnati
Sacks	3	4
Tackles for Loss	3	4
Passes Defended	4	6
QB Hits	5	8

Cincinnati led in every listed pressure category.

That matters because pressure can influence quarterback efficiency without necessarily producing an interception.

Neither team recorded an interception, so Cincinnati’s defensive impact came more from pressure and disruption than from takeaways.

Arizona also generated three sacks, but Cincinnati’s four sacks and eight quarterback hits gave it a slightly stronger statistical pressure profile.

Turnover-Free Football

Both teams avoided interceptions, and neither team recorded a listed fumble.

That is an important part of the game because Cincinnati won without relying on a major turnover advantage in the supplied statistics.

Burrow’s zero interceptions combined with his 305 yards and two touchdowns was particularly efficient.

Brissett also avoided interceptions, but Arizona’s offense still produced significantly fewer total yards and fewer points.

This is a useful reminder that turnover avoidance is valuable, but it cannot compensate for large differences in offensive efficiency and scoring production.

Special Teams Statistics

Special teams also contributed several useful data points.

Arizona Kick Returns

Steven Sims recorded:

5 kick returns
132 yards
26.4 yards per return
31-yard long

Xavier Weaver added one return for 27 yards.

Arizona’s team total was:

6 returns
159 yards
26.5 yards per return
31-yard long

Sims therefore provided solid field-position value even though Arizona did not turn that advantage into enough offensive points.

Cincinnati Punt Returns

Ke’Shawn Williams recorded:

5 punt returns
56 yards
11.2 yards per return
43-yard long

His 43-yard return was the longest listed punt return of the game.

Punting

Arizona’s Matt Haack punted six times for 326 yards.

His average was 54.3 yards per punt, with three punts inside the 20-yard line.

Cincinnati’s Ryan Rehkow punted twice for 85 yards, averaging 42.5 yards per punt.

The difference in punt volume is itself informative. Arizona punted three times as often as Cincinnati in the supplied figures, suggesting Cincinnati sustained more drives and avoided situations that repeatedly forced it to surrender possession.

Kicking Statistics

Arizona’s Chad Ryland did not attempt a field goal and converted both extra-point attempts.

Cincinnati’s Evan McPherson was:

1-for-1 on field goals
57-yard long
4-for-5 on extra points
7 total points

The 57-yard field goal was the longest listed field goal in the game.

Why the Final Score Was So Wide

A 37-14 result represents a 23-point margin.

The player statistics suggest several connected reasons.

1. Cincinnati Had More Offensive Balance

The Bengals produced 120 rushing yards and 309 team passing yards.

Arizona produced 42 rushing yards and 212 passing yards.

That is a major difference in total offensive production.

2. Cincinnati Had More Rushing Touchdowns

The Bengals scored three rushing touchdowns.

Arizona scored none.

This gave Cincinnati another reliable route to the end zone.

3. Burrow Was Highly Efficient

Burrow completed 77.4% of his passes and averaged 9.8 yards per attempt.

That combination helped Cincinnati gain substantial yardage without requiring an excessive number of passing attempts.

4. Cincinnati Generated More Pressure

The Bengals recorded four sacks and eight quarterback hits.

Arizona recorded three sacks and five quarterback hits.

The difference was not enormous in sacks, but Cincinnati’s broader pressure numbers were stronger.

5. Arizona’s Rushing Game Was Limited

Only 13 team rushing attempts produced 42 yards.

That placed greater responsibility on Brissett and the passing game.

Player Performance Rankings

Based strictly on the supplied statistics, several players stand out.

1. Joe Burrow

Burrow’s 305 passing yards, two touchdowns, zero interceptions, 77.4% completion rate, and 129.1 passer rating make him one of the clearest top performers.

2. Chase Brown

Brown combined 101 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns with 40 receiving yards.

His 141 listed yards from scrimmage were highly valuable.

3. Ja’Marr Chase

Chase produced seven receptions, 60 yards, and two touchdowns.

His scoring efficiency was a major part of Cincinnati’s offensive success.

4. Trey McBride

McBride caught 10 passes for 76 yards and a touchdown.

His 13 targets demonstrate how heavily Arizona relied on him.

5. Michael Wilson

Wilson finished with 89 receiving yards and a touchdown, including a 38-yard long reception.

His explosive production was one of the strongest positive elements of Arizona’s offense.

6. Cody Simon

Simon led the game in listed total tackles with 15 and also recorded half a sack.

His workload shows how active Arizona’s defense was.

What Fantasy Football Readers Can Learn

Although fantasy scoring systems vary, the statistical profile provides several useful lessons.

Chase Brown’s performance is particularly attractive because his value came from multiple categories. He recorded significant rushing volume, two rushing touchdowns, and 40 receiving yards.

McBride’s 13 targets also stand out from a volume perspective.

Wilson’s 89 receiving yards and touchdown demonstrate the value of explosive plays, although the one-game sample should not be treated as a prediction of future production.

Burrow’s combination of 305 yards and two touchdowns demonstrates why efficiency metrics are useful alongside raw passing volume.

The broader lesson is that fantasy analysis should consider opportunity, efficiency, and touchdown involvement rather than looking at yardage alone.

What These Numbers Mean for Team Evaluation

A single game should not be used to make sweeping judgments about an entire franchise.

However, this matchup offers a useful case study in how several statistical categories interact.

Arizona had players who produced strong individual numbers.

McBride caught 10 passes.

Wilson produced 89 receiving yards and a touchdown.

Simon made 15 tackles.

Sims generated 132 kick-return yards.

Yet Cincinnati still won comfortably.

That happens because football is a team sport where individual production must connect across multiple phases.

A strong receiver performance cannot completely overcome a weak rushing attack.

A high tackle total does not necessarily mean the defense controlled the game.

Good special teams returns do not automatically become points.

The Cincinnati performance was effective because its individual contributions worked together.

Arizona Cardinals vs Bengals Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways

The most important conclusions from the supplied statistics are straightforward.

Joe Burrow was the most efficient quarterback. His 305 yards, two touchdowns, zero interceptions, and 129.1 passer rating were the foundation of Cincinnati’s passing success.

Chase Brown was the leading all-around offensive contributor. He produced 101 rushing yards, two rushing touchdowns, and 40 receiving yards.

Ja’Marr Chase delivered important scoring production. His seven receptions included two touchdowns.

Trey McBride was Arizona’s primary receiving target. His 10 receptions and 13 targets gave him the largest receiving workload among the Cardinals.

Michael Wilson provided Arizona’s biggest receiving production by yardage. He recorded 89 yards and a touchdown.

Cincinnati’s running game was substantially more involved. The Bengals ran 35 times for 120 yards, compared with Arizona’s 13 attempts for 42 yards.

Cincinnati generated more defensive pressure. Four sacks and eight quarterback hits compared with Arizona’s three sacks and five quarterback hits.

Neither team relied on turnovers. Both teams were listed with zero interceptions and no fumbles.

Arizona’s high tackle total requires context. The Cardinals recorded 85 tackles compared with Cincinnati’s 54, but the Bengals still controlled the scoreboard and generated more offensive production.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score between the Arizona Cardinals and Bengals?

The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Arizona Cardinals 37-14 on December 28, 2025.

Who was the leading passer in the game?

Joe Burrow was the leading passer. He completed 24 of 31 passes for 305 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions.

Who led the game in rushing?

Chase Brown led the rushing production with 22 carries for 101 yards and two touchdowns.

Who led Arizona in receiving?

Michael Wilson led Arizona in receiving yards with 89, while Trey McBride led the Cardinals in receptions with 10.

How many touchdowns did Ja’Marr Chase score?

Ja’Marr Chase scored two receiving touchdowns on seven receptions for 60 yards.

Did either team record an interception?

No. The supplied statistics show that neither Arizona nor Cincinnati recorded an interception.

Conclusion

The arizona cardinals vs bengals match player stats provide a strong statistical explanation for Cincinnati’s 37-14 victory.

Joe Burrow’s passing efficiency was a major factor, but the Bengals did not win through the passing game alone. Chase Brown gave Cincinnati a powerful rushing contribution, scoring twice on the ground while also adding 40 receiving yards. Ja’Marr Chase supplied two receiving touchdowns, while Tee Higgins, Mike Gesicki, Andrei Iosivas, and other contributors helped create a more diverse offensive attack.

Arizona had its own standout performances. Trey McBride was heavily involved with 10 receptions and 13 targets. Michael Wilson delivered 89 receiving yards and a touchdown. Cody Simon recorded 15 tackles, and Steven Sims provided 132 kick-return yards.

The difference was how those individual performances translated into overall team production.

Cincinnati finished with 120 rushing yards and 309 team passing yards, while Arizona recorded 42 rushing yards and 212 passing yards. The Bengals also scored three rushing touchdowns compared with none for Arizona and generated eight quarterback hits compared with five for the Cardinals.

Perhaps the most useful lesson from this game is that box score analysis should go beyond identifying who had the most yards. The relationship between volume, efficiency, scoring, field position, quarterback pressure, and offensive balance gives a much more complete picture of why one team wins and another falls behind.