Green Bay Packers vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats
The green bay packers vs minnesota vikings match player stats from the NFL regular season game played on January 4, 2026 tell the story of a defensive battle rather than an offensive shootout. Minnesota secured a 16 to 3 victory over Green Bay in a game where field position, defensive pressure, and efficient rushing made the biggest difference. Although neither quarterback threw a touchdown pass, the Vikings consistently controlled possession and prevented the Packers from creating explosive plays.
Looking beyond the final score reveals why Minnesota earned the win. The Vikings produced more passing yards, rushed the football effectively, generated four sacks, and forced Green Bay into difficult third down situations throughout the afternoon. On the other side, the Packers struggled to establish rhythm through the air and finished with only 34 passing yards. While the result may appear one sided, several individual performances stood out and deserve closer examination.
This detailed breakdown explores every important aspect of the game, including quarterback efficiency, rushing production, receiving performances, defensive impact, special teams, and the numbers that ultimately decided the contest.
Match Overview
| Match Detail | Result |
| Competition | NFL Regular Season |
| Date | January 4, 2026 |
| Venue Status | Final |
| Final Score | Minnesota Vikings 16, Green Bay Packers 3 |
| Winner | Minnesota Vikings |
| Green Bay Record | 9 7 1 |
| Minnesota Record | 9 8 |
Quarter by Quarter Score
| Quarter | Green Bay | Minnesota |
| First | 0 | 3 |
| Second | 0 | 10 |
| Third | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth | 3 | 3 |
| Final | 3 | 16 |
The scoring progression highlights Minnesota’s early control. The Vikings built a comfortable halftime lead before relying on disciplined defense and efficient game management during the second half.
Green Bay Packers vs Minnesota Vikings Match Player Stats Breakdown
A closer look at the statistics shows significant differences between the two teams in several important categories.
| Category | Green Bay Packers | Minnesota Vikings |
| Passing Yards | 34 | 226 |
| Passing Completions | 6 | 21 |
| Passing Attempts | 11 | 31 |
| Rushing Attempts | 31 | 31 |
| Rushing Yards | 105 | 137 |
| Receiving Yards | 34 | 239 |
| Team Sacks | 2 | 4 |
| Total Tackles | 69 | 63 |
| Solo Tackles | 39 | 35 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 | 8 |
| QB Hits | 7 | 5 |
Several trends become immediately clear.
- Minnesota dominated the passing game.
- Green Bay remained competitive on the ground but lacked explosive plays.
- The Vikings doubled the Packers’ sack total.
- Minnesota created twice as many tackles behind the line of scrimmage.
These differences ultimately determined the outcome.
Quarterback Performance Analysis
Quarterback statistics rarely tell the entire story, but in this matchup they explain much of the offensive difference between the teams.
Clayton Tune
Green Bay entered the game needing consistent quarterback play, but Clayton Tune faced relentless defensive pressure.
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 6 |
| Attempts | 11 |
| Passing Yards | 34 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 4 |
| QBR | 18.2 |
| Passer Rating | 60.4 |
Although Tune avoided turnovers, Minnesota’s pass rush never allowed him to settle into a comfortable rhythm. Four sacks and only 34 passing yards illustrate how effectively the Vikings disrupted Green Bay’s offensive game plan.
One positive takeaway is that Tune protected the football. However, modern NFL offenses require much greater production through the air to consistently compete.
J.J. McCarthy
Minnesota did not ask J.J. McCarthy to carry the offense with spectacular plays. Instead, he executed a balanced game plan with confidence.
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 14 |
| Attempts | 23 |
| Passing Yards | 182 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| QBR | 68.5 |
| Passer Rating | 85.8 |
McCarthy consistently moved the chains with accurate short and intermediate throws. His decision making stood out because he protected possession while giving playmakers opportunities after the catch.
This type of efficient quarterback performance often goes unnoticed compared to games featuring multiple touchdown passes, yet it is exactly the kind of football that wins low scoring contests.
Max Brosmer Adds Valuable Support
Minnesota also received quality snaps from Max Brosmer.
| Statistic | Value |
| Completions | 7 |
| Attempts | 8 |
| Passing Yards | 57 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Passer Rating | 96.4 |
Completing seven of eight attempts helped Minnesota maintain offensive consistency whenever he entered the game.
Rushing Attack Comparison
Running the football became increasingly important because neither team generated explosive passing production.
Green Bay Packers Rushing Leaders
Chris Brooks delivered Green Bay’s most productive rushing performance.
| Player | Carries | Yards |
| Chris Brooks | 13 | 61 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 18 | 44 |
Brooks averaged nearly five yards per carry, demonstrating good vision and patience between the tackles. Wilson handled a heavier workload but found fewer running lanes against Minnesota’s disciplined front seven.
Together they helped Green Bay maintain offensive balance, yet the lack of passing success allowed Minnesota to focus more defenders near the line of scrimmage during critical situations.
Minnesota Vikings Rushing Leaders
Jordan Mason provided the offensive spark that Green Bay struggled to contain.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Touchdowns |
| Jordan Mason | 14 | 94 | 0 |
| C.J. Ham | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Jordan Mason averaged more than six yards per carry and repeatedly produced positive gains on early downs. His ability to keep the offense ahead of schedule reduced pressure on the passing game.
C.J. Ham finished one of the Vikings’ most important drives with a one yard rushing touchdown, giving Minnesota valuable breathing room on the scoreboard.
Comparing Team Offensive Efficiency
Although both clubs recorded the same number of rushing attempts, Minnesota produced a much more balanced offensive attack.
Green Bay’s offense became one dimensional because it could not consistently complete passes. When defenses recognize that a team cannot threaten them vertically, running lanes naturally become smaller.
Minnesota avoided that problem by combining productive rushing with efficient passing. The balance between those two elements allowed the Vikings to control both the clock and field position throughout the afternoon.
In many NFL games, the team with the flashiest highlights receives most of the attention. This matchup demonstrated that disciplined execution, efficient decision making, and winning the field position battle can be equally valuable.
Receiving Performance Analysis
The receiving statistics from the green bay packers vs minnesota vikings match player stats show one of the biggest differences between the two teams. Minnesota created consistent opportunities for its pass catchers, while Green Bay struggled to generate production through the passing attack.
A successful passing offense usually depends on three factors: quarterback accuracy, protection from the offensive line, and receivers creating separation. In this matchup, Minnesota performed better in all three areas.
Minnesota Vikings Receiving Leaders
Justin Jefferson once again showed why elite receivers can change the direction of a game even without scoring touchdowns.
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards |
| Justin Jefferson | 8 | 101 |
| Jalen Nailor | 3 | 49 |
Jefferson was the clear focal point of the Vikings passing attack. His eight receptions provided stability, allowing Minnesota to consistently move the chains. Even without finding the end zone, his ability to win individual matchups forced Green Bay’s defense to adjust throughout the game.
Jalen Nailor also contributed important plays by creating additional receiving options. His 49 yards helped prevent the Packers from focusing exclusively on Jefferson.
Green Bay Packers Receiving Leaders
Green Bay’s receiving production was limited throughout the contest.
| Player | Receptions | Receiving Yards |
| Jakobie Keeney-James | 2 | 15 |
The Packers finished with only 34 total receiving yards, a number that made it extremely difficult to create scoring opportunities. The limited passing output also placed additional pressure on the rushing attack.
When an offense cannot consistently complete short and intermediate throws, defenses can aggressively attack the running game. Minnesota used this advantage effectively by controlling the line of scrimmage and forcing difficult situations.
Defensive Player Statistics and Game Impact
Defense was the defining factor in this matchup. While Minnesota’s offense provided enough production to win, the defensive unit created the separation that decided the game.
The Vikings defense consistently pressured Green Bay’s quarterback, limited explosive plays, and forced the Packers to rely on long drives.
Green Bay Packers Defensive Numbers
| Category | Statistic |
| Total Tackles | 69 |
| Solo Tackles | 39 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 |
| Pass Deflections | 2 |
| QB Hits | 7 |
Green Bay’s defense remained active despite the offensive struggles. The unit recorded 69 total tackles and created pressure with seven quarterback hits.
Leading Packers Defender
Jamon Johnson led Green Bay in tackling production.
| Player | Total Tackles |
| Jamon Johnson | 10 |
A high tackle total often indicates defensive involvement, and Johnson was consistently around the football. However, tackling volume alone does not always equal defensive success. The Packers needed more negative plays and turnovers to give their offense additional opportunities.
Green Bay did not record an interception and failed to create a major defensive momentum shift.
Minnesota Vikings Defensive Numbers
Minnesota’s defense produced the more disruptive performance.
| Category | Statistic |
| Total Tackles | 63 |
| Solo Tackles | 35 |
| Sacks | 4 |
| Tackles for Loss | 8 |
| Pass Deflections | 3 |
| QB Hits | 5 |
The most important difference was Minnesota’s ability to create plays behind the line of scrimmage.
The Vikings recorded:
- Four sacks
- Eight tackles for loss
- Three pass deflections
Those numbers show a defense that was not simply reacting but actively controlling the game.
Leading Vikings Defender
Eric Wilson recorded the most tackles for Minnesota.
| Player | Total Tackles |
| Eric Wilson | 9 |
Wilson’s performance reflected Minnesota’s defensive consistency. The Vikings limited big plays and forced Green Bay into difficult third down situations.
Why Minnesota’s Defense Won the Matchup
A closer statistical analysis shows that Minnesota’s defensive success came from multiple areas working together.
1. Strong Pass Rush
The Vikings generated four sacks compared to Green Bay’s two. Pressure affected Clayton Tune’s timing and prevented longer developing routes from becoming successful.
Quarterbacks often struggle when they cannot trust their protection. Even when pressure does not directly create a sack, it can force rushed decisions and incomplete passes.
2. Better Situational Defense
Minnesota’s defense was effective on important downs. The unit avoided allowing Green Bay to build momentum and consistently forced the Packers into predictable offensive situations.
3. Limiting Explosive Plays
The NFL has increasingly become a league where explosive plays often decide games. Minnesota prevented Green Bay from creating major gains through the air.
The Packers’ longest sustained offensive drives never developed into consistent scoring threats because the Vikings eliminated easy opportunities.
Special Teams Performance Analysis
Special teams played a major role in a low scoring contest. When offensive production is limited, field goals, punting, and return efficiency become even more valuable.
Kicking Comparison
| Team | Kicker | Field Goals | Long | Extra Points | Points |
| Green Bay | Brandon McManus | 1/1 | 24 yards | Not listed | 3 |
| Minnesota | Will Reichard | 3/3 | 43 yards | 1/1 | 10 |
Will Reichard delivered a perfect kicking performance and accounted for 10 Minnesota points.
His ability to convert from different distances gave the Vikings important scoreboard control. In a game where touchdowns were difficult to find, reliable kicking created a significant advantage.
Brandon McManus converted Green Bay’s only scoring opportunity, producing the Packers’ entire offensive output.
Punting Comparison
| Team | Punter | Punts | Total Yards | Average | Long |
| Green Bay | Daniel Whelan | 8 | 431 | 53.9 | 68 |
| Minnesota | Ryan Wright | 4 | 196 | 49.0 | 55 |
Daniel Whelan had a busy afternoon because Green Bay struggled to maintain offensive drives.
His 68 yard punt demonstrated strong leg strength, but frequent punting also reflected offensive inconsistency. Minnesota needed only four punts because the offense generated more sustained possessions.
Return Game Breakdown
Kick Returns
| Team | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Green Bay | 3 | 80 | 26.7 |
| Minnesota | 1 | 29 | 29.0 |
Green Bay created slightly more return opportunities, but Minnesota maintained better average field position.
Punt Returns
Minnesota recorded the only notable punt return production.
| Player | Returns | Yards |
| Jeshaun Jones | 2 | 5 |
The return numbers were not the main deciding factor, but both teams avoided major special teams mistakes.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can completely change an NFL game, but this matchup was unusual because neither offense committed costly giveaways.
Green Bay Turnovers
| Category | Result |
| Team Fumbles | 1 |
| Lost Fumbles | 0 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 |
Minnesota Turnovers
| Category | Result |
| Team Fumbles | 1 |
| Lost Fumbles | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 |
Minnesota actually committed the only lost fumble of the game, but Green Bay was unable to capitalize.
This highlights an important football lesson: turnovers matter most when teams convert them into points. The Packers’ offense could not take advantage of the extra opportunity.
Tactical Lessons From the Match
This game provides several useful lessons for analyzing NFL performances beyond the final score.
Offensive Balance Creates Stability
Minnesota’s offense succeeded because it did not depend on one area. The Vikings combined:
- 226 passing yards
- 137 rushing yards
- 239 receiving yards
That balance prevented Green Bay’s defense from predicting every play.
Defensive Pressure Changes Quarterback Decisions
The four sacks recorded by Minnesota affected more than the official stat sheet. Pressure influenced timing, play selection, and confidence.
A quarterback under constant pressure often has fewer chances to create successful explosive plays.
Field Goals Can Define Defensive Games
Minnesota’s three successful field goals created separation in a game where touchdowns were rare.
In defensive battles, every scoring opportunity becomes more valuable. The Vikings maximized their chances while Green Bay struggled to reach scoring territory.
Key Turning Points That Decided the Game
The final score of 16 to 3 may suggest a simple defensive victory, but several moments throughout the game shaped the outcome. Understanding these moments provides deeper value than only looking at the box score.
The biggest difference between the teams was not one individual play. Instead, Minnesota consistently won small battles in important areas.
Minnesota’s First Half Control
The Vikings established control early by building a 13 to 0 halftime advantage.
The quarter scoring showed Minnesota’s gradual progress:
- First quarter: Minnesota 3, Green Bay 0
- Second quarter: Minnesota 10, Green Bay 0
The Vikings did not need explosive touchdowns to create separation. Their approach focused on:
- Moving the chains
- Protecting the football
- Creating manageable third downs
- Winning field position
This style forced Green Bay to play from behind, which increased pressure on the Packers’ passing game.
Green Bay’s Offensive Limitations
The most significant challenge for Green Bay was its inability to generate consistent offensive production.
The Packers finished with:
- 34 passing yards
- 6 completed passes
- 0 passing touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
Avoiding turnovers helped Green Bay remain competitive, but the offense could not create enough scoring opportunities.
In the modern NFL, defensive performances can keep a team close, but the offense must eventually produce points. Green Bay’s inability to stretch the field allowed Minnesota to control the pace.
Minnesota’s Ability to Control Time and Possession
Although possession statistics are not included in the provided box score data, Minnesota’s offensive numbers indicate better consistency.
The Vikings produced:
- 21 completed passes
- 226 passing yards
- 137 rushing yards
- 239 receiving yards
These numbers show an offense capable of creating first downs in multiple ways.
A balanced offense forces defenders to hesitate. When linebackers must respect the running game and defensive backs must cover talented receivers like Justin Jefferson, quarterbacks receive more favorable opportunities.
Statistical Comparison: The Numbers Behind the Victory
The following comparison summarizes the biggest statistical differences.
| Category | Advantage |
| Passing Production | Minnesota Vikings |
| Rushing Production | Minnesota Vikings |
| Receiving Production | Minnesota Vikings |
| Sacks | Minnesota Vikings |
| Tackles | Green Bay Packers |
| Field Goals | Minnesota Vikings |
| Turnover Margin | Even impact |
The Packers actually recorded more total tackles, but Minnesota controlled the more important efficiency categories.
This is a valuable reminder that football games are not won by accumulating one statistic. Teams win by combining successful plays in the areas that directly influence scoring.
Advanced Player Impact Analysis
Traditional statistics provide the foundation, but player impact often requires additional context.
Justin Jefferson’s Influence Beyond Yardage
Justin Jefferson recorded:
- 8 receptions
- 101 receiving yards
His impact extended beyond those numbers.
Elite receivers affect defensive decisions even when they are not targeted. Opposing defenses often adjust coverage schemes, provide safety help, or change pressure packages because of their presence.
Jefferson’s ability to consistently create separation helped Minnesota maintain offensive flexibility.
Jordan Mason’s Running Efficiency
Jordan Mason delivered one of the strongest individual performances of the game.
His numbers:
- 14 carries
- 94 rushing yards
Mason averaged more than six yards per carry, giving Minnesota excellent down and distance situations.
Successful rushing performances are not only about total yards. Efficiency matters because it keeps offenses ahead of schedule.
A running back who consistently creates positive yardage makes the entire offense easier to operate.
Minnesota Defensive Front Creates Problems
The Vikings defensive front produced:
- 4 sacks
- 8 tackles for loss
- 5 quarterback hits
These statistics show disruption.
A defense does not need constant turnovers to dominate. Creating negative plays can be equally valuable because it prevents offenses from developing rhythm.
What Green Bay Can Learn From This Performance
Even in defeat, the Packers’ statistics reveal some positive areas.
Defensive Effort Remained Competitive
Green Bay recorded:
- 69 total tackles
- 39 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 7 quarterback hits
The defense continued fighting throughout the game and created pressure.
The challenge was that the offense could not provide enough support.
Running Game Showed Potential
Chris Brooks and Emanuel Wilson combined for productive rushing numbers.
| Player | Attempts | Yards |
| Chris Brooks | 13 | 61 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 18 | 44 |
The rushing attack provided some stability, but without passing efficiency, Minnesota could focus more resources on stopping the run.
A balanced offensive attack will be important for Green Bay moving forward.
What Minnesota Can Build On
The Vikings demonstrated several qualities associated with winning football teams.
Efficient Quarterback Play
J.J. McCarthy avoided mistakes and produced efficient passing numbers.
His performance:
- 14 completions
- 182 passing yards
- 0 interceptions
- 85.8 passer rating
Efficiency and decision making were central to Minnesota’s success.
Strong Defensive Identity
The Vikings defense created pressure without relying on turnovers.
Four sacks and eight tackles for loss show a unit capable of disrupting opposing offenses.
Reliable Special Teams
Will Reichard’s perfect kicking performance provided valuable points.
In close games, special teams often separates winning teams from losing teams.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of the Green Bay Packers vs Minnesota Vikings game?
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Green Bay Packers 16 to 3 in the NFL regular season matchup played on January 4, 2026.
Who was the leading passer in the game?
J.J. McCarthy was Minnesota’s leading passer with 14 completions on 23 attempts for 182 yards. Clayton Tune led Green Bay with 6 completions for 34 yards.
Who were the top rushing performers?
Jordan Mason led the Vikings with 94 rushing yards on 14 carries. Chris Brooks was Green Bay’s top rusher with 61 yards on 13 carries.
Which receiver had the best performance?
Justin Jefferson was the leading receiver with 8 catches for 101 yards.
How did the defenses compare?
Minnesota produced the stronger defensive performance with 4 sacks and 8 tackles for loss. Green Bay recorded 2 sacks and 4 tackles for loss.
Did either team create turnovers?
Neither team recorded an interception. Minnesota lost one fumble, while Green Bay recovered its only team fumble.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers and Minnesota Vikings matchup showed how effective defense, balanced offense, and reliable special teams can determine an NFL result. Minnesota’s 16 to 3 victory was built on consistent execution rather than one spectacular moment.
The biggest statistical advantages came from Minnesota’s passing efficiency, rushing production, defensive pressure, and kicking accuracy. J.J. McCarthy managed the offense effectively, Jordan Mason provided valuable rushing yards, and Justin Jefferson delivered another productive receiving performance.
Green Bay showed defensive effort and some positive rushing production, but the offense struggled to generate enough opportunities. The lack of passing production made it difficult for the Packers to challenge Minnesota’s defensive strategy.
When analyzing green bay packers vs minnesota vikings match player stats, the most important takeaway is that winning football is usually about combining multiple small advantages. Minnesota succeeded because it performed better in the areas that directly influenced scoring and game control.
For fans, analysts, and anyone studying NFL performance, this matchup provides a clear example of why complete statistical analysis goes beyond the scoreboard.
