Bengals vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats

The bengals vs minnesota vikings match player stats from September 21, 2025, tell the story of a game that quickly moved beyond a normal close NFL contest. The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 48-10, producing a dominant performance through efficient passing, explosive rushing, defensive pressure, and opportunistic turnovers. Minnesota finished with 183 passing yards and 169 rushing yards, while Cincinnati managed only 118 team passing yards and 53 rushing yards. The final score reflected a major difference in execution, especially during the first three quarters.

This game is particularly useful to study because the final score alone does not explain how Minnesota created such a large advantage. The Vikings scored 14 points in the first quarter, 20 in the second, and another 14 in the third before Cincinnati finally found the end zone in the fourth. Minnesota’s offense was balanced, but its defensive production also played a major role. The Vikings recorded four sacks, nine quarterback hits, seven tackles for loss, two interceptions, and two defensive touchdowns. Cincinnati, meanwhile, lost three of five fumbles and threw two interceptions.

The individual numbers also reveal several important stories. Carson Wentz delivered an efficient passing performance, Jordan Mason produced the game’s leading rushing performance, Justin Jefferson led Minnesota’s receiving group, and Minnesota’s defense repeatedly put Cincinnati in difficult situations. For the Bengals, Jake Browning completed 19 of 27 passes but finished with only 140 passing yards, two interceptions, and three sacks. That combination made it difficult for Cincinnati to sustain drives.

Bengals vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The matchup ended with Minnesota ahead 48-10, but the score developed through several different phases.

Minnesota led 14-0 after the opening quarter. The Vikings then added 20 points in the second quarter to take a 34-3 halftime lead. Another 14 points in the third quarter pushed the advantage to 48-3 before Cincinnati scored its only touchdown in the fourth quarter.

Final Score Breakdown

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Minnesota Vikings	14	20	14	0	48
Cincinnati Bengals	0	3	0	7	10

The quarter-by-quarter scoring is important because it shows that Minnesota did not simply win through a late surge. The Vikings established control early and maintained it for most of the contest.

Cincinnati’s three points in the second quarter came from Evan McPherson, who converted a 45-yard field goal. His kicking line was perfect, with one field goal and one extra point for four total points.

Minnesota’s Will Reichard was also perfect. He made both of his field-goal attempts and all six extra-point attempts, finishing with 12 points.

The biggest difference, however, was not kicking. It was the combined impact of offensive efficiency and defensive disruption.

How Minnesota Controlled the Game

The Vikings produced 352 yards from their listed passing and rushing totals, compared with 171 for Cincinnati. That is a substantial difference in offensive production.

Minnesota averaged 8.4 yards per pass attempt and 5.5 yards per rushing attempt. Cincinnati averaged 5.2 yards per pass attempt and only 2.5 yards per rushing attempt.

Those numbers provide a simple explanation for why the game became one-sided.

Minnesota was able to create positive plays through both phases of the offense. Cincinnati struggled to establish the run and could not consistently create enough passing production to compensate.

Minnesota’s Passing Efficiency

Carson Wentz completed 14 of 20 passes for 173 yards and two touchdowns without throwing an interception. His 8.7 yards per attempt and 129.8 passer rating were the strongest passing figures in the game.

Max Brosmer also appeared in the game, completing two of four passes for 29 yards.

Together, Minnesota’s quarterbacks went 16 of 24 for 183 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. The team recorded a 120.5 passer rating.

The most important aspect of Wentz’s performance was not simply his completion percentage. He avoided the costly mistake that Cincinnati’s passing game could not avoid. Wentz finished with zero interceptions while Browning threw two.

That difference mattered enormously because turnovers gave Minnesota additional opportunities and contributed to the defensive scoring advantage.

Cincinnati’s Passing Problems

Jake Browning completed 19 of 27 passes, which is a completion rate of roughly 70 percent. On the surface, that number looks respectable.

The problem was what happened after the completions.

Browning finished with 140 passing yards, two interceptions, and three sacks. His listed 63.8 passer rating was significantly lower than Wentz’s 129.8 rating.

The Bengals’ team passing line also shows four sacks for 22 yards. The listed team passing total was 118 yards, while Browning’s individual passing line showed 140 yards before sack adjustments.

This distinction matters when analyzing box scores. Passing totals can appear different depending on whether the source is showing individual passing production or team net passing after sack yardage.

Browning’s performance illustrates why completion percentage alone is not enough to evaluate quarterback play. A quarterback can complete a high percentage of passes while still struggling if the offense does not generate enough yardage, touchdowns, or possession value.

Jordan Mason Was the Rushing Difference

One of the clearest individual stories in the game was Jordan Mason.

Mason carried the ball 16 times for 116 yards and two touchdowns. He averaged 7.3 yards per carry and produced a long run of 24 yards.

That was a major contrast to Cincinnati’s entire rushing attack.

The Bengals recorded 21 rushing attempts for only 53 yards, averaging 2.5 yards per carry. Minnesota had 31 attempts for 169 yards at 5.5 yards per carry.

Mason alone produced more rushing yards than Cincinnati’s entire team.

That is one of the most revealing numbers in the bengals vs minnesota vikings match player stats.

Minnesota’s Rushing Distribution

Minnesota’s rushing production was not entirely dependent on Mason.

Player	Carries	Yards	Average	TD	Long
Jordan Mason	16	116	7.3	2	24
Zavier Scott	8	30	3.8	0	11
Cam Akers	5	19	3.8	0	14
Carson Wentz	2	4	2.0	0	3
Team	31	169	5.5	2	24

The distribution shows that Minnesota could keep the running game active without asking one player to carry every rushing opportunity.

Mason was clearly the centerpiece, but Scott and Akers also contributed.

The two rushing touchdowns from Mason were particularly important because they turned his yardage production into direct scoring value.

Cincinnati’s Running Game Never Got Going

Cincinnati’s rushing statistics were one of the biggest warning signs in the box score.

The Bengals finished with 21 carries for 53 yards and no rushing touchdowns.

Chase Brown received 10 carries but gained only three yards, an average of 0.3 yards per attempt. That is an extremely difficult environment for any offense.

Samaje Perine provided Cincinnati’s most efficient rushing performance. He carried four times for 21 yards, averaging 5.3 yards per carry, with a long gain of 12 yards.

Tahj Brooks added 17 yards on five attempts.

Ja’Marr Chase had one rushing attempt for nine yards, while Jake Browning added three rushing yards.

The contrast with Minnesota was significant. The Vikings were averaging more than twice as many rushing yards per attempt.

When an offense is gaining only 2.5 yards per carry, it becomes difficult to stay ahead of the chains. That creates more obvious passing situations, which can allow the defense to increase pressure.

That appears especially relevant in this matchup because Minnesota also generated nine quarterback hits and four sacks.

Justin Jefferson Led Minnesota’s Receivers

Justin Jefferson was Minnesota’s leading receiver by yardage.

He caught five passes for 75 yards on seven targets. His average was 15.0 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 36 yards.

Jefferson’s 36-yard reception was the longest receiving play listed for either team.

His production was important because it demonstrated Minnesota’s ability to create explosive plays through the passing game even while maintaining a productive running attack.

The Vikings did not need Jefferson to dominate the target volume. Five receptions were enough to give him a major impact because of his efficiency.

Minnesota Receiving Breakdown

Player	Receptions	Yards	Average	TD	Targets	Long
Justin Jefferson	5	75	15.0	0	7	36
T.J. Hockenson	5	49	9.8	1	6	13
Jalen Nailor	3	37	12.3	0	5	22
Zavier Scott	1	20	20.0	0	1	20
Josh Oliver	1	12	12.0	1	1	12
Tai Felton	1	9	9.0	0	1	9
Adam Thielen	0	0	0.0	0	2	0
Cam Akers	0	0	0.0	0	1	0
Team	16	202	12.6	2	24	36

The table shows another important detail: Minnesota’s receiving group averaged 12.6 yards per reception.

That is substantially higher than Cincinnati’s 7.4 yards per reception.

The Vikings therefore gained more yards each time they completed a pass, which helped their offense maintain efficiency without requiring a massive number of receptions.

T.J. Hockenson Added a Touchdown

T.J. Hockenson caught five passes for 49 yards and a touchdown on six targets.

His 9.8 yards per reception was lower than Jefferson’s, but Hockenson provided consistent production and found the end zone.

Josh Oliver also scored a receiving touchdown, giving Minnesota two passing touchdowns across its receiving group.

This distribution demonstrates how Minnesota was able to create scoring opportunities from multiple positions rather than relying exclusively on one receiver.

Cincinnati’s Receiving Numbers

Ja’Marr Chase led Cincinnati in receiving production with five receptions for 50 yards on six targets.

His longest reception went for 28 yards.

No other Cincinnati receiver reached 30 receiving yards.

Noah Fant recorded five catches for 26 yards, while Drew Sample caught two passes for 20 yards and a touchdown.

Chase Brown caught four passes for 17 yards.

The Bengals’ complete receiving production was 19 receptions for 140 yards and one touchdown.

Although Cincinnati completed 19 passes compared with Minnesota’s 16, the Vikings produced far more receiving yardage.

That is a key analytical point.

Completion volume does not automatically equal offensive efficiency.

Minnesota generated 202 receiving yards on 16 receptions. Cincinnati generated 140 yards on 19 receptions.

The difference was 62 receiving yards despite Minnesota having three fewer catches.

Drew Sample Provided Cincinnati’s Only Receiving Touchdown

Drew Sample caught two passes for 20 yards and scored Cincinnati’s only receiving touchdown.

His longest reception was 16 yards.

The touchdown was one of the few positive offensive moments for Cincinnati in a game where the Bengals were held scoreless in the first and third quarters.

Ja’Marr Chase’s five catches for 50 yards made him Cincinnati’s leading receiver, but the overall passing game did not produce enough explosive or scoring plays to keep pace with Minnesota.

Defensive Statistics Explain the Margin

The offensive numbers explain part of the 48-10 result, but Minnesota’s defense deserves equal attention.

The Vikings recorded:

• 4 sacks
• 9 quarterback hits
• 7 tackles for loss
• 5 passes defended
• 2 interceptions
• 2 defensive touchdowns

Cincinnati recorded:

• 3 sacks
• 5 quarterback hits
• 3 tackles for loss
• 1 pass defended
• 0 interceptions
• 0 defensive touchdowns

The difference in defensive disruption was substantial.

Minnesota generated more pressure and produced more negative plays behind the line of scrimmage.

The Turnover Battle

Turnovers were another defining element.

Cincinnati fumbled five times and lost three of those fumbles. Minnesota fumbled four times but lost only one.

Cincinnati also threw two interceptions.

Minnesota threw none.

That means Cincinnati lost five possessions through its listed lost fumbles and interceptions, while Minnesota lost one fumble.

A turnover margin that extreme can fundamentally change a football game.

It can shorten the field for the offense, create defensive scoring opportunities, and prevent an opponent from converting promising drives into points.

Isaiah Rodgers Produced a Defensive Touchdown

Isaiah Rodgers recorded an interception and returned it 87 yards for a touchdown.

That was the longest interception return listed in the game and one of Minnesota’s two defensive touchdowns.

Joshua Metellus also intercepted a pass, although his return produced zero yards and no touchdown.

The two interceptions were particularly damaging because Cincinnati was already struggling to generate offensive yardage.

Minnesota did not merely stop drives. It converted defensive opportunities into points.

That is a major reason the game became so lopsided.

Minnesota’s Pass Rush Created Pressure

Minnesota recorded nine quarterback hits compared with Cincinnati’s five.

The Vikings also recorded four sacks.

Those numbers show that the defensive front was consistently affecting the quarterback.

Pressure does not always appear directly in a basic scoring summary, but it can influence every offensive decision. A quarterback facing repeated pressure has less time to survey the field, and receivers have less opportunity to develop longer routes.

In this game, Minnesota combined pressure with interceptions and defensive touchdowns.

That combination was devastating.

Cincinnati’s Defense Had Some Positive Production

The final score should not obscure every positive Cincinnati defensive statistic.

The Bengals recorded three sacks and five quarterback hits.

They also recorded 72 total tackles, including 41 solo tackles.

Minnesota recorded 62 total tackles but had 45 solo tackles.

Cincinnati’s defense therefore had opportunities to make plays, but those plays were not enough to overcome the offensive and turnover problems.

The Bengals also recorded three tackles for loss.

The challenge was consistency. Against a Minnesota offense that averaged 5.5 yards per rushing attempt and 8.4 yards per passing attempt, isolated defensive successes were not enough to change the overall direction of the game.

Bengals vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats: Key Individual Performers

A useful way to understand the matchup is to identify the players who had the greatest statistical influence.

Jordan Mason

Mason was arguably Minnesota’s most productive offensive player.

His 116 rushing yards represented more than two-thirds of the Vikings’ 169 rushing yards. His two rushing touchdowns gave him direct scoring impact.

Also, his 7.3 yards per carry also demonstrated efficiency.

Carson Wentz

Wentz completed 14 of 20 passes for 173 yards and two touchdowns.

He avoided interceptions and finished with a 129.8 passer rating.

His 8.7 yards per attempt indicates that Minnesota’s passing attack was not dependent on short, low-value completions.

Justin Jefferson

Jefferson caught five passes for 75 yards.

His 36-yard reception was the game’s longest listed catch, and his 15.0 yards per reception gave Minnesota an explosive receiving element.

T.J. Hockenson

Hockenson caught five passes for 49 yards and a touchdown.

His six targets ranked second among Minnesota players.

Isaiah Rodgers

Rodgers changed the game with an 87-yard interception return touchdown.

A defensive touchdown can have an outsized impact because it both removes an offensive possession and adds points for the defense.

Jake Browning

Browning completed 19 of 27 passes for 140 yards and one touchdown.

However, two interceptions and three sacks significantly reduced the value of that passing production.

Ja’Marr Chase

Chase finished with five receptions for 50 yards on six targets.

He was Cincinnati’s leading receiver but did not score a touchdown.

Samaje Perine

Perine averaged 5.3 yards per carry on four attempts and led Cincinnati’s individual rushing efficiency.

His 21 rushing yards were useful, but the limited volume meant that his contribution could not compensate for the Bengals’ broader rushing struggles.

What the Yardage Difference Tells Us

The listed offensive numbers show a major gap.

Minnesota:

• 183 passing yards
• 169 rushing yards
• 352 combined passing and rushing yards

Cincinnati:

• 118 team passing yards
• 53 rushing yards
• 171 combined passing and rushing yards

The difference is 181 yards.

Minnesota therefore produced more than twice Cincinnati’s listed combined offensive yardage.

That kind of gap rarely occurs by accident.

The Vikings were better at creating yardage through the air and on the ground, while Cincinnati struggled in both areas.

Efficiency Was More Important Than Possession Volume

One of the easiest mistakes in football analysis is to focus on raw attempts without considering efficiency.

Minnesota attempted 24 passes and ran the ball 31 times.

Cincinnati attempted 27 passes and ran 21 times.

Despite throwing three fewer passes, Minnesota generated significantly more passing yardage.

Despite running 10 more times, Minnesota also generated dramatically more rushing yardage.

This means the Vikings were not simply winning because they had more opportunities.

They were making more of those opportunities.

That is a much stronger indicator of why the game ended 48-10.

Special Teams Also Produced Reliable Results

Special teams did not decide the game by itself, but both teams had useful contributions.

Will Reichard converted two field goals and six extra points for 12 points.

Evan McPherson made his lone field-goal attempt and extra-point attempt for four points.

Minnesota also produced 84 kick-return yards on three returns, averaging 28.0 yards per return.

Tai Felton had one 34-yard kick return, while Myles Price recorded two returns for 50 yards.

Cincinnati returned seven kickoffs for 149 yards, averaging 21.3 yards per return.

Samaje Perine led Cincinnati’s kick-return production with 88 yards on four returns.

The Bengals also had one punt return for nine yards.

Minnesota recorded five punt returns for 68 yards, all by Myles Price.

These numbers show that Cincinnati was not completely outplayed in every special-teams category, but Minnesota’s offensive and defensive advantages were too large.

Punting Comparison

Ryan Rehkow punted six times for 328 yards, averaging 54.7 yards per punt, with a long of 70 yards and one punt inside the 20.

Ryan Wright punted five times for 220 yards, averaging 44.0 yards, with a long of 46 and two punts inside the 20.

Rehkow’s raw punting average was higher, but Minnesota’s offense generated enough production that the Vikings did not need to rely heavily on field-position battles.

This is an important distinction when reading special-teams statistics. A strong punting average can be valuable, but it does not compensate for a large offensive and defensive deficit.

The Most Important Statistical Lessons

The bengals vs minnesota vikings match player stats reveal several broader lessons about NFL game analysis.

1. Completion Percentage Does Not Tell the Whole Story

Browning completed approximately 70 percent of his passes, yet his team scored only 10 points.

Wentz completed 70 percent of his passes as well, but Minnesota scored 48 points.

The difference came from yardage efficiency, touchdowns, turnovers, and the surrounding team performance.

2. Explosive Plays Matter

Jefferson averaged 15.0 yards per reception.

Mason averaged 7.3 yards per rush.

Minnesota’s receiving group averaged 12.6 yards per catch.

These are strong indicators of an offense capable of generating meaningful gains without requiring excessive volume.

3. Turnovers Can Change the Entire Game

Cincinnati lost three fumbles and threw two interceptions.

Minnesota lost one fumble and threw none.

That five-turnover difference gave Minnesota a huge advantage in possession value.

4. Defensive Scoring Is a Major Swing

Minnesota’s defense scored two touchdowns.

Cincinnati’s defense scored none.

A defense that can turn stops into points places enormous pressure on the opposing offense.

5. The Running Game Can Control Defensive Structure

Minnesota’s 169 rushing yards forced Cincinnati to respect the run.

That can create opportunities in the passing game, particularly for a receiver such as Jefferson.

Cincinnati’s 53 rushing yards, by comparison, made it harder to maintain offensive balance.

How to Read a Box Score Like an Analyst

A strong box-score analysis should move beyond listing player statistics.

Start with the final score, then examine the scoring distribution.

Next, compare passing efficiency.

Then look at rushing efficiency.

After that, examine turnovers and defensive pressure.

Finally, compare explosive plays and scoring contributions.

For this matchup, that process produces a clear conclusion.

Minnesota won in nearly every major efficiency category.

The Vikings passed more effectively, ran the ball far better, created more defensive pressure, forced more turnovers, scored defensive touchdowns, and converted their opportunities into points.

Cincinnati had individual contributions from Chase, Perine, Browning, and others, but those performances were not enough to offset the team-level disadvantages.

Why the 48-10 Score Matters

A 48-10 final score is more meaningful when the underlying statistics support it.

In this case, they do.

Minnesota had:

• 181 more listed combined passing and rushing yards
• 116 rushing yards from Jordan Mason alone
• 202 receiving yards
• Two passing touchdowns
• Two rushing touchdowns
• Two interceptions
• Two defensive touchdowns
• Four sacks
• Nine quarterback hits
• Seven tackles for loss

Cincinnati had:

• 53 rushing yards
• 118 listed team passing yards
• Two interceptions thrown
• Three lost fumbles
• Three sacks defensively
• One receiving touchdown
• One field goal

The result was therefore not simply a matter of one or two unlucky plays.

The statistics show sustained Minnesota superiority across offense, defense, and turnover production.

What Cincinnati Could Have Done Differently

Based strictly on the statistical profile of the game, Cincinnati needed more offensive balance and better ball security.

The rushing attack produced only 53 yards.

That placed more responsibility on Browning.

Once Minnesota’s defense generated pressure, the Bengals faced a difficult cycle. Limited rushing success could create more passing situations, while pressure and turnovers made those passing situations increasingly dangerous.

The Bengals also needed to protect possessions.

Five lost turnovers is an enormous problem against any NFL opponent.

Even if the offense had remained inefficient, reducing those mistakes could have prevented Minnesota from receiving some of its most valuable scoring opportunities.

The data does not allow us to claim exactly what specific play calls should have been used, but it clearly identifies the statistical problems that needed to be addressed.

What Minnesota Did Particularly Well

Minnesota’s strongest feature was balance.

The Vikings did not need to choose between the run and pass.

They generated 169 rushing yards and 183 passing yards.

Mason created a major rushing threat.

Jefferson provided explosive receiving production.

Hockenson contributed a touchdown.

Wentz avoided interceptions.

The defense then added pressure and takeaways.

That combination made Minnesota difficult to defend and allowed the Vikings to build a 34-3 halftime advantage.

Once the game reached that point, the statistical foundation of the victory was already firmly established.

Final Statistical Perspective

The bengals vs minnesota vikings match player stats from September 21, 2025, show one of the clearest examples of how multiple small advantages can combine into a decisive NFL victory.

Minnesota did not rely on one statistical category.

The Vikings ran the ball effectively, passed efficiently, protected the football better, created pressure, intercepted two passes, scored twice on defense, and received strong individual performances from Jordan Mason, Carson Wentz, Justin Jefferson, T.J. Hockenson, and Isaiah Rodgers.

Cincinnati’s strongest individual offensive numbers came from Browning’s completion percentage, Chase’s five receptions for 50 yards, and Perine’s efficient rushing. But those contributions were overwhelmed by the team’s low rushing output, limited passing yardage, turnovers, and inability to prevent Minnesota from producing explosive plays.

The most important lesson from the box score is that player statistics make the most sense when viewed together. A receiver’s yardage should be considered alongside quarterback efficiency. A quarterback’s completion percentage should be considered alongside turnovers and sacks. Rushing numbers should be evaluated alongside overall offensive balance. Defensive statistics should be connected to field position, turnovers, and scoring.

Viewed through that lens, the game becomes easy to understand.

Minnesota was more efficient on offense, more disruptive on defense, and significantly better at protecting the football. The 48-10 final score was supported by the underlying numbers rather than being an isolated result.

For readers studying this matchup, the most revealing individual performances were Jordan Mason’s 116 rushing yards and two touchdowns, Carson Wentz’s 173 passing yards and two touchdowns without an interception, Justin Jefferson’s 75 receiving yards, and Isaiah Rodgers’ 87-yard interception return touchdown. On Cincinnati’s side, Ja’Marr Chase led the receiving group with 50 yards, while Jake Browning’s two interceptions and the team’s three lost fumbles were among the most damaging statistics.

Together, these numbers provide a much clearer picture of the contest than the final score alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Bengals vs Vikings game on September 21, 2025?

The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 48-10 on September 21, 2025.

Who was the leading rusher in the game?

Jordan Mason led all rushers with 116 yards on 16 carries. He averaged 7.3 yards per carry and scored two rushing touchdowns.

How did Carson Wentz perform?

Carson Wentz completed 14 of 20 passes for 173 yards and two touchdowns. He threw no interceptions and recorded a 129.8 passer rating.

How many yards did Justin Jefferson have?

Justin Jefferson recorded five receptions for 75 yards on seven targets. His longest reception was 36 yards.

How many turnovers did Cincinnati have?

Cincinnati lost three fumbles and threw two interceptions, resulting in five lost possessions through the listed turnovers.

Which team had the better rushing attack?

Minnesota had the much stronger rushing attack. The Vikings recorded 169 rushing yards on 31 carries, while Cincinnati had 53 yards on 21 carries.

Conclusion

The September 21, 2025 matchup between Cincinnati and Minnesota was decided by far more than the 48-10 scoreline. The underlying statistics show a Vikings team that consistently created better offensive gains, protected the football more effectively, and generated significantly more defensive disruption.

Jordan Mason’s 116 rushing yards and two touchdowns gave Minnesota a powerful ground-game foundation. Carson Wentz added two touchdown passes without an interception, while Justin Jefferson supplied 75 receiving yards and a 36-yard long reception. T.J. Hockenson added another touchdown, and Isaiah Rodgers turned an interception into an 87-yard defensive touchdown.

Cincinnati struggled to match that production. The Bengals managed only 53 rushing yards, 118 listed team passing yards, and one receiving touchdown. Jake Browning completed 19 of 27 passes but threw two interceptions and was sacked three times. The Bengals also lost three fumbles.

The defensive numbers reinforce the same conclusion. Minnesota recorded four sacks, nine quarterback hits, seven tackles for loss, two interceptions, and two defensive touchdowns. Those plays helped turn a competitive NFL matchup on paper into a one-sided result.

The most useful way to interpret this box score is therefore to connect individual production with team efficiency. Minnesota’s players did not simply accumulate statistics. Their production directly contributed to sustained drives, explosive plays, turnovers, and points. Cincinnati’s numbers, meanwhile, show how limited rushing efficiency and poor ball security can undermine otherwise respectable individual completion and receiving figures.