Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats tell the story of one of the most dramatic NFC Wild Card Playoff games in recent history. Played on January 11, 2026, the rivalry delivered everything football fans expect from two historic franchises. Green Bay built a comfortable lead through three quarters, but Chicago responded with an unforgettable fourth quarter, scoring 25 points to secure a thrilling 31 to 27 victory.
While the final score reflects Chicago’s remarkable comeback, the statistics reveal a much deeper story. Jordan Love produced one of his strongest passing performances of the season with four touchdown passes, yet the Bears found answers when it mattered most. Caleb Williams showed resilience despite throwing two interceptions, while key contributors like Colston Loveland, DJ Moore, D’Andre Swift, Jaquan Brisker, and Cairo Santos played significant roles in turning the game around.
Looking closely at the chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats helps explain how momentum shifted, which individual performances influenced the outcome, and why Chicago advanced despite facing one of the NFL’s most efficient passing attacks.
Match Overview
Game Information
| Category | Details |
| Event | NFC Wild Card Playoffs |
| Date | January 11, 2026 |
| Venue | ESPN Box Score |
| Winner | Chicago Bears |
| Final Score | Chicago Bears 31, Green Bay Packers 27 |
| Chicago Record | 11 to 6 |
| Green Bay Record | 9 to 7 to 1 |
The game perfectly illustrated why playoff football often depends on execution during the closing minutes rather than early dominance. Green Bay controlled much of the contest before Chicago completely transformed the momentum during the final quarter.
Quarter by Quarter Score
| Quarter | Green Bay | Chicago |
| First | 7 | 3 |
| Second | 14 | 0 |
| Third | 0 | 3 |
| Fourth | 6 | 25 |
| Final | 27 | 31 |
The fourth quarter stands out immediately. Scoring 25 points in a playoff game against an experienced opponent requires efficient offense, disciplined defense, and flawless special teams execution.
Why This Game Matters
The Bears and Packers have one of the NFL’s oldest rivalries, and postseason meetings always carry additional significance.
This matchup demonstrated several important realities.
- A strong first half does not guarantee victory.
- Turnovers do not always determine the winner.
- Special teams can completely change playoff momentum.
- Fourth quarter execution remains the biggest difference between winning and losing.
Those themes become even clearer when examining each statistical category.
Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats Breakdown
Team Offensive Comparison
| Offensive Category | Green Bay | Chicago |
| Passing Yards | 323 | 361 |
| Team Rushing Yards | 99 | 93 |
| Total Passing Touchdowns | 4 | 2 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Team Receptions | 24 | 24 |
At first glance, Green Bay appears to own the statistical advantage because of four passing touchdowns.
However, football games are decided by total scoring opportunities rather than isolated statistics.
Chicago consistently generated explosive passing plays while combining them with timely field goals and a rushing touchdown. That balanced scoring approach ultimately proved more valuable than Green Bay’s touchdown production through the air.
Another interesting observation is that both offenses finished with exactly 24 receptions, showing just how evenly matched the passing attacks were despite their different styles.
Quarterback Performance Analysis
Caleb Williams
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 48 |
| Passing Yards | 361 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| QBR | 36.6 |
| Passer Rating | 71.6 |
Looking only at the interceptions could create the wrong impression.
Caleb Williams repeatedly attacked downfield throughout the game and finished with the highest passing yardage between both quarterbacks. His willingness to continue throwing after early mistakes demonstrated confidence that many young quarterbacks struggle to maintain during playoff pressure.
One lesson from this performance is that quarterback evaluation should never depend exclusively on interception totals. Timing, leadership, decision making during critical drives, and response to adversity all matter.
Williams recovered from difficult moments and helped engineer one of the biggest fourth quarter comebacks of the postseason.
Jordan Love
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 46 |
| Passing Yards | 323 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| QBR | 80.6 |
| Passer Rating | 103.8 |
Jordan Love delivered an outstanding statistical performance.
Completing 24 passes for 323 yards with four touchdowns and no interceptions normally results in victory. His accuracy throughout the first half consistently stretched Chicago’s secondary and created multiple explosive plays.
The Packers quarterback remained poised in the pocket while distributing the football efficiently to multiple receivers.
Despite those impressive numbers, football remains a team game.
Chicago’s late defensive adjustments, combined with offensive efficiency and outstanding kicking, prevented Love’s performance from translating into a playoff win.
Comparing the Quarterbacks
| Category | Caleb Williams | Jordan Love |
| Passing Yards | 361 | 323 |
| Passing TD | 2 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Passer Rating | 71.6 | 103.8 |
| QBR | 36.6 | 80.6 |
From a purely statistical perspective, Jordan Love posted the stronger quarterback numbers.
From a game management perspective, Caleb Williams led the winning team when every possession became critical during the closing minutes.
This comparison highlights an important football principle.
Individual efficiency does not always outweigh clutch execution.
Running Game Analysis
Chicago Bears Rushing Attack
D’Andre Swift led Chicago’s ground game with 13 carries for 54 yards and one touchdown.
Although his average gain was modest, his ability to finish drives inside the red zone made his contribution extremely valuable.
Chicago’s rushing attack totaled 93 yards on 28 carries.
Rather than relying on explosive rushing plays, the Bears used the running game to control tempo and create manageable passing situations.
That balanced offensive philosophy became increasingly effective during the fourth quarter when sustained drives mattered most.
Green Bay Packers Rushing Attack
Josh Jacobs finished with:
- 19 rushing attempts
- 55 rushing yards
- No rushing touchdowns
Green Bay accumulated 99 rushing yards as a team, narrowly outperforming Chicago on the ground.
However, the Packers never converted those rushing opportunities into touchdowns.
That difference became significant because Chicago combined moderate rushing production with scoring efficiency.
In playoff football, productive drives matter far more than total rushing yards.
Receiving Leaders
Chicago Receiving Leaders
Colston Loveland emerged as the game’s most productive receiver.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TD |
| Colston Loveland | 8 | 137 | 0 |
| DJ Moore | 6 | 64 | 1 |
Loveland consistently created separation across the middle of the field and became Caleb Williams’ most dependable target.
Although he did not score a touchdown, his 137 receiving yards repeatedly extended drives and shifted field position.
DJ Moore added another important dimension with his touchdown reception, giving Chicago a reliable scoring option during crucial possessions.
Green Bay Receiving Leaders
Green Bay received excellent production from multiple targets.
| Player | Receptions | Yards | TD |
| Romeo Doubs | 8 | 124 | 1 |
| Matthew Golden | 4 | 84 | 1 |
Romeo Doubs showcased his ability to generate explosive plays while finishing with 124 receiving yards.
Matthew Golden complemented that production with 84 yards and a touchdown, helping Green Bay maintain offensive balance throughout much of the contest.
Together, they played a major role in Jordan Love’s four touchdown performance.
Defensive Performance Analysis
Defense often receives less attention than quarterbacks and wide receivers, yet this playoff game showed how a few timely defensive plays can influence momentum. While neither defense completely shut down the opposing offense, both units produced important moments that shaped the flow of the contest.
Green Bay generated two interceptions that temporarily slowed Chicago’s passing attack, while the Bears focused on limiting explosive plays during the closing stages. The difference was not about dominating statistically. It was about responding under pressure when every possession became more valuable.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Green Bay | Chicago |
| Total Tackles | 66 | 63 |
| Solo Tackles | 44 | 38 |
| Sacks | 1 | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 3 | 2 |
| Pass Deflections | 9 | 7 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
Green Bay posted stronger numbers in several defensive categories, especially interceptions and pass breakups. However, Chicago’s defense tightened late in the game, preventing the Packers from maintaining the offensive rhythm they enjoyed during the first half.
This contrast highlights an important point when evaluating football statistics. Leading in defensive categories does not automatically guarantee victory if the opponent capitalizes on its opportunities during the decisive moments.
Chicago Bears Defensive Leaders
Jaquan Brisker Sets the Tone
Jaquan Brisker finished as Chicago’s leading tackler.
| Statistic | Total |
| Total Tackles | 9 |
| Solo Tackles | 5 |
Brisker remained active throughout the game, making stops against both the run and the pass. His awareness helped limit additional yardage after completions, an important factor considering Jordan Love threw for more than 300 yards.
His performance reflected consistency rather than flashy highlights. Every successful defense relies on players who repeatedly make sound decisions, and Brisker filled that role effectively.
Overall Bears Defensive Effort
Chicago recorded:
- 63 total tackles
- 38 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 2 tackles for loss
- 7 pass deflections
Although these numbers appear slightly lower than Green Bay’s totals, the defense deserves credit for responding after halftime. The Packers scored only six points in the fourth quarter despite entering the period with a comfortable advantage.
That adjustment created the opportunity for Chicago’s offense to complete the comeback.
Green Bay Packers Defensive Leaders
Edgerrin Cooper’s Consistent Performance
Edgerrin Cooper led the Packers with:
| Statistic | Total |
| Total Tackles | 8 |
| Solo Tackles | 6 |
Cooper consistently arrived around the football and prevented several gains from becoming explosive plays. His six solo tackles demonstrate how often he finished plays without relying on assistance from teammates.
Packers Defensive Production
Green Bay finished with:
- 66 total tackles
- 44 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 3 tackles for loss
- 9 pass deflections
These numbers indicate an active and aggressive defense that challenged Chicago’s receivers throughout the afternoon.
However, playoff football frequently rewards the defense that performs best during the final possessions rather than the one producing the highest totals across four quarters.
Turnover Analysis
Turnovers are usually one of the first statistics analysts examine after a playoff game.
This matchup produced an interesting result.
Chicago
- 2 interceptions thrown
- 1 fumble
- 0 fumbles lost
Green Bay
- 0 interceptions thrown
- 4 fumbles
- 0 fumbles lost
Green Bay’s defense deserves recognition for forcing two interceptions from Caleb Williams.
Ty’Ron Hopper and Carrington Valentine each recorded one interception, disrupting Chicago’s passing rhythm at important moments.
Despite those takeaways, the Packers could not convert them into enough points to secure the victory.
Chicago deserves equal credit for protecting the football after those interceptions. The Bears avoided losing their lone fumble, preventing Green Bay from gaining another valuable possession.
The turnover battle illustrates why context matters.
Winning the turnover margin helps, but capitalizing on those opportunities is equally important.
Special Teams Analysis
Special teams quietly became one of the biggest differences in this playoff contest.
Cairo Santos Delivers Under Pressure
| Statistic | Total |
| Field Goals | 3 of 3 |
| Long Field Goal | 51 yards |
| Extra Points | 2 of 2 |
| Total Points | 11 |
Santos produced a flawless kicking performance.
His 51 yard field goal demonstrated both accuracy and confidence, while every successful kick added valuable points during a game decided by only four.
Reliable kicking often becomes the difference in postseason football, and Santos delivered exactly what Chicago needed.
Brandon McManus Struggles
| Statistic | Total |
| Field Goals | 0 of 2 |
| Extra Points | 3 of 4 |
| Total Points | 3 |
McManus experienced one of the more difficult performances of the afternoon.
Missing both field goal attempts and one extra point created an eight point swing that proved costly in such a closely contested game.
Although football games are never decided by one player alone, special teams mistakes become magnified during the playoffs.
Return Game Comparison
Chicago Returns
Devin Duvernay made an immediate impact.
| Return Type | Total |
| Kick Returns | 3 |
| Kick Return Yards | 80 |
| Average | 26.7 |
| Punt Returns | 3 |
| Punt Return Yards | 64 |
| Average | 21.3 |
Duvernay consistently provided favorable field position, reducing the distance Chicago’s offense needed to travel on several possessions.
Winning the field position battle often goes unnoticed, but it significantly influences offensive play calling.
Green Bay Returns
Keisean Nixon handled kickoff duties effectively.
| Statistic | Total |
| Kick Returns | 3 |
| Return Yards | 69 |
| Average | 23.0 |
While Nixon generated respectable returns, Chicago enjoyed a slight advantage in average starting field position because of Duvernay’s production.
Punting Comparison
Daniel Whelan served as Green Bay’s punter.
| Statistic | Total |
| Punts | 4 |
| Total Yards | 195 |
| Average | 48.8 |
| Long | 58 |
One unusual aspect of this matchup was Chicago recording no punts.
That statistic reflects the Bears’ offensive approach.
Every drive ended with points, a turnover, or the end of a half rather than a punt.
Avoiding punts in a playoff game demonstrates offensive efficiency, even when facing an aggressive defense.
Coaching Adjustments That Changed the Game
One of the most interesting aspects of the chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats is how they reflect coaching adjustments after halftime.
Chicago did not panic despite trailing for much of the contest.
Instead, the Bears gradually increased their passing aggression while continuing to involve D’Andre Swift enough to keep Green Bay’s defense honest.
Defensively, Chicago became more disciplined against explosive passing plays during the final quarter.
Meanwhile, Green Bay’s offense could not sustain the same level of efficiency that produced 21 first half points.
Momentum shifted because Chicago successfully adapted while Green Bay struggled to match those adjustments.
Offensive Balance Comparison
Although Green Bay threw four touchdown passes, Chicago displayed greater offensive balance.
Green Bay
- 323 passing yards
- 99 rushing yards
- Four passing touchdowns
- No rushing touchdowns
Chicago
- 361 passing yards
- 93 rushing yards
- Two passing touchdowns
- One rushing touchdown
- Three successful field goals
Chicago generated points in multiple ways.
That versatility became valuable during the closing stages when every possession demanded a different approach.
Players Who Exceeded Expectations
Several players performed beyond what many fans expected entering the Wild Card matchup.
Colston Loveland
His 137 receiving yards established him as Chicago’s most productive receiver.
More importantly, many of those receptions extended drives that eventually resulted in points.
Cairo Santos
Eleven total points from the kicker often receive little attention, yet every successful kick proved essential in a four point victory.
Devin Duvernay
Excellent kick and punt returns consistently improved field position.
Although return specialists rarely headline postgame discussions, their contributions often influence hidden yardage that accumulates throughout the game.
Romeo Doubs
Doubs continued developing into one of Jordan Love’s most dependable targets.
His eight receptions and 124 receiving yards demonstrated excellent chemistry with the Packers quarterback.
Jordan Love
Despite the loss, Love’s four touchdown passes and zero interceptions reflected one of his better statistical playoff performances.
The outcome should not overshadow the quality of his individual play.
Key Moments That Decided the Game
Every playoff game has defining sequences that ultimately determine the result. In this NFC Wild Card matchup, the statistics only tell part of the story. The timing of Chicago’s biggest plays explains why the Bears completed one of the most memorable comebacks of the postseason.
Chicago’s Fourth Quarter Surge
The most remarkable statistic from this game is not passing yards or touchdowns. It is the fourth quarter scoring.
| Quarter | Chicago Points |
| First | 3 |
| Second | 0 |
| Third | 3 |
| Fourth | 25 |
Scoring 25 points in the final quarter against a division rival in a playoff game reflects outstanding execution under pressure. Chicago remained composed, capitalized on scoring opportunities, and avoided costly mistakes during the game’s most important period.
Green Bay’s Early Dominance
Green Bay entered the fourth quarter with control of the game after building an impressive offensive performance through the first three quarters.
Jordan Love consistently found open receivers, while Romeo Doubs and Matthew Golden created explosive plays that stretched Chicago’s secondary.
However, maintaining an early advantage requires the same level of execution throughout the entire game. Chicago’s adjustments gradually reduced Green Bay’s offensive efficiency, allowing the Bears to erase the deficit.
Complete Statistical Comparison
Passing Leaders
| Team | Player | Statistics |
| Chicago Bears | Caleb Williams | 24 of 48, 361 YDS, 2 TD, 2 INT |
| Green Bay Packers | Jordan Love | 24 of 46, 323 YDS, 4 TD, 0 INT |
Rushing Leaders
| Team | Player | Statistics |
| Chicago Bears | D’Andre Swift | 13 CAR, 54 YDS, 1 TD |
| Green Bay Packers | Josh Jacobs | 19 CAR, 55 YDS |
Receiving Leaders
| Team | Player | Statistics |
| Chicago Bears | Colston Loveland | 8 REC, 137 YDS |
| Green Bay Packers | Romeo Doubs | 8 REC, 124 YDS, 1 TD |
Defensive Leaders
| Team | Player | Statistics |
| Chicago Bears | Jaquan Brisker | 9 Tackles |
| Green Bay Packers | Edgerrin Cooper | 8 Tackles |
What the Statistics Really Tell Us
Looking beyond the box score reveals several important insights.
First, quarterback statistics alone rarely determine playoff winners. Jordan Love produced a higher passer rating, more touchdown passes, and avoided interceptions, yet Chicago still won.
Second, complementary football played a major role. The Bears combined productive passing, efficient special teams, timely defense, and balanced offensive play calling when the game reached its most critical stage.
Third, situational execution outweighed overall statistical advantages. Green Bay led several major statistical categories, but Chicago excelled during the possessions that mattered most.
Finally, momentum remains one of football’s most powerful factors. Once Chicago gained confidence in the fourth quarter, every successful drive increased pressure on Green Bay.
Lessons from the Chicago Bears Victory
The game offers valuable lessons for teams preparing for postseason football.
- Never abandon the game plan because of an early deficit.
- Special teams can influence playoff games as much as offense or defense.
- Field position often determines scoring opportunities.
- Balanced offensive production creates more consistent success than relying on one area.
- Defensive adjustments after halftime can completely change a game’s direction.
- Composure during the final quarter often separates winners from losers.
These observations explain why the Bears successfully completed their comeback despite facing a quarterback who delivered one of the strongest passing performances of Wild Card Weekend.
FAQs
Who won the NFC Wild Card game between the Bears and Packers?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Green Bay Packers by a final score of 31 to 27 after scoring 25 points in the fourth quarter.
Who had the most passing yards in the game?
Caleb Williams led all quarterbacks with 361 passing yards, while Jordan Love finished with 323 passing yards and four touchdown passes.
Who was the leading receiver?
Colston Loveland led all receivers with eight catches for 137 yards. Romeo Doubs was Green Bay’s top receiver with eight receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown.
Which player led the rushing attack?
Josh Jacobs led Green Bay with 55 rushing yards, while D’Andre Swift led Chicago with 54 rushing yards and scored the Bears’ only rushing touchdown.
What was the biggest difference in the game?
Chicago’s 25 point fourth quarter, perfect kicking by Cairo Santos, and strong second half adjustments allowed the Bears to overcome Green Bay’s early lead.
Conclusion
The chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats highlight far more than individual numbers. They illustrate how playoff football rewards resilience, discipline, and execution during the most important moments.
Jordan Love delivered an outstanding passing performance, Romeo Doubs and Matthew Golden created explosive plays, and Green Bay’s defense forced two interceptions. Even with those impressive achievements, Chicago found another level during the final quarter.
Caleb Williams responded positively after early mistakes, Colston Loveland became his most reliable target, D’Andre Swift contributed a valuable rushing touchdown, Jaquan Brisker anchored the defense, and Cairo Santos produced a flawless kicking performance. Combined with effective coaching adjustments, these contributions transformed a difficult afternoon into a memorable playoff victory.
For anyone studying the chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats, this game serves as an excellent reminder that football is not decided by one statistic. Success comes from consistent execution across offense, defense, and special teams, especially when the pressure is highest.
