Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats
The Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats from the August 15, 2026 NFL preseason game tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. Chicago defeated Cleveland 34-10, but the most useful information comes from examining passing efficiency, turnovers, rushing production, receiving output, defensive pressure, and how the game changed after halftime. Chicago finished with 348 passing yards and three passing touchdowns, while Cleveland managed 206 passing yards without a passing touchdown. The Bears also forced two interceptions and produced three sacks, creating a decisive advantage in a preseason contest where individual performances and roster evaluation matter as much as the scoreboard.
Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on August 15, 2026, during the NFL preseason. Chicago entered the game with a 1-0 preseason record, while Cleveland fell to 0-1.
The final score was:
Chicago Bears 34, Cleveland Browns 10
The scoring pattern is particularly important because the game was relatively close early before Chicago took control.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Cleveland Browns | 3 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| Chicago Bears | 0 | 10 | 14 | 10 | 34 |
Cleveland actually led 10-3 at one point before Chicago responded with 31 unanswered points according to the supplied game data.
That second-half collapse is one of the biggest analytical takeaways. Cleveland did not score in either the third or fourth quarter, while Chicago scored 24 points after halftime.
For anyone examining preseason statistics, that distinction matters. A preseason box score should not be interpreted exactly like a regular-season game because teams rotate players heavily and evaluate different combinations. Still, sustained offensive production, turnover creation, quarterback efficiency, and defensive disruption remain useful indicators of how individual units performed on that particular night.
Passing Comparison
The biggest statistical difference between the teams came through the air.
Cleveland completed 22 of 34 passes for 206 yards. Chicago completed 25 of 40 attempts for 348 yards.
| Passing Category | Browns | Bears |
| Completions/Attempts | 22/34 | 25/40 |
| Passing Yards | 206 | 348 |
| Yards per Attempt | 6.7 | 9.2 |
| Passing TDs | 0 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 1 |
| Sacks | 3 | 2 |
| Sack Yards | 22 | 20 |
| Passer Rating | 59.4 | 107.1 |
The difference in yards per attempt is striking.
Cleveland averaged 6.7 yards every time it attempted a pass, while Chicago averaged 9.2. That 2.5-yard gap per attempt helped create a major difference in total passing production.
Chicago also converted its passing opportunities into touchdowns. The Bears threw three touchdown passes, while Cleveland did not throw a passing touchdown.
Turnovers made the comparison even more difficult for Cleveland. The Browns threw two interceptions, compared with one from Chicago.
Why the passing numbers matter
Passing yards alone do not always explain offensive performance. A team can accumulate yardage through short completions while struggling to generate explosive plays.
The Chicago numbers show a more productive passing attack because the Bears combined volume with stronger average gains.
The Browns completed 22 passes on 34 attempts, giving them a completion rate of approximately 64.7 percent.
Chicago completed 25 of 40 attempts, a completion rate of 62.5 percent.
Cleveland therefore had the slightly better completion percentage, but Chicago was much more productive per attempt.
That contrast is useful when interpreting quarterback statistics. Completion percentage can look healthy while an offense still struggles to generate enough meaningful yardage.
Cleveland Quarterback Performance
Three Cleveland quarterbacks appeared in the supplied statistics:
- Deshaun Watson
- Shedeur Sanders
- Dillon Gabriel
Their individual numbers provide a more detailed picture than the team totals.
Deshaun Watson
Watson completed 11 of 15 passes for 126 yards.
That represents a completion rate of approximately 73.3 percent.
His listed statistics were:
11 completions on 15 attempts, 126 passing yards
Watson produced the highest passing yardage total among Cleveland’s quarterbacks. He also had the most attempts and completions.
The 126 yards represented more than half of Cleveland’s 206 total passing yards. Based on the supplied figures, Watson accounted for approximately 61 percent of the Browns’ passing yardage.
His performance is therefore an important part of understanding Cleveland’s first-half offensive production.
However, the team ultimately finished without a passing touchdown, and the Browns’ overall passing efficiency was significantly below Chicago’s.
Shedeur Sanders
Sanders completed 6 of 11 attempts for 79 yards and threw one interception.
His completion percentage was approximately 54.5 percent.
The interception is important because Cleveland finished with two interceptions as a team. Sanders accounted for one of them.
At the same time, 79 passing yards from 11 attempts demonstrates that he contributed meaningful yardage during his appearance. The statistics should therefore be viewed as a complete performance rather than judging the quarterback only by the turnover.
Dillon Gabriel
Gabriel completed 5 of 8 passes for 23 yards and threw one interception.
His completion percentage was 62.5 percent.
The low yardage total stands out. Despite completing more than 60 percent of his attempts, he averaged only 2.9 yards per attempt based on the supplied numbers.
Gabriel also accounted for Cleveland’s second interception.
This is a useful example of why completion percentage alone cannot determine quarterback effectiveness.
Chicago Quarterback Performance
Chicago used three quarterbacks in the supplied statistics:
- Tyson Bagent
- Case Keenum
- Miller Moss
Their combined production was considerably stronger than Cleveland’s.
Tyson Bagent
Bagent completed 13 of 22 passes for 169 yards, with one touchdown and one interception.
His completion rate was approximately 59.1 percent.
He produced the most completions and passing attempts among Chicago’s quarterbacks.
The 169 yards also represented a substantial portion of Chicago’s 348 passing yards.
Bagent’s statistics included both a touchdown and an interception, showing that his performance included productive plays but also a turnover.
Case Keenum
Keenum completed 9 of 10 passes for 151 yards and two touchdowns.
That is an extremely efficient statistical line.
His completion percentage was 90 percent, and his two touchdown passes represented two-thirds of Chicago’s three passing touchdowns.
His 151 yards on only 10 attempts also indicate significant downfield production based on the supplied box score.
Keenum’s numbers are particularly notable when comparing passing efficiency rather than simply total volume.
Miller Moss
Moss completed 3 of 8 passes for 48 yards.
His completion percentage was 37.5 percent.
He attempted eight passes and produced 48 yards, adding to Chicago’s overall passing total.
Taken together, Chicago’s three quarterbacks generated 368 listed receiving yards on 25 receptions, although the team passing total was 348 yards. The supplied team and receiving figures therefore should be treated as separate box-score categories rather than attempting to reconcile them as identical totals.
Rushing Performance
The rushing statistics were much closer than the passing numbers.
Cleveland recorded:
27 carries, 108 yards, 4.0 yards per carry, one touchdown
Chicago recorded:
21 carries, 82 yards, 3.9 yards per carry, one touchdown
| Rushing Category | Browns | Bears |
| Attempts | 27 | 21 |
| Yards | 108 | 82 |
| Average | 4.0 | 3.9 |
| Touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Longest Run | 28 yards | 19 yards |
Cleveland actually had the better rushing numbers.
The Browns gained 108 yards on the ground compared with 82 for Chicago. Their 4.0-yard average was also slightly better than Chicago’s 3.9.
This creates an interesting contrast with the final score.
Chicago dominated the game overall despite Cleveland holding the rushing advantage. That shows how strongly the passing game and turnovers influenced the result.
Cleveland rushing leader
Davon Booth led Cleveland with:
4 carries, 53 yards, 13.3 yards per carry
His 53 yards accounted for nearly half of Cleveland’s 108 rushing yards.
Booth also recorded the longest listed Cleveland run, with the team reaching a 28-yard long rush.
His average of 13.3 yards per carry was far above Cleveland’s overall 4.0-yard rushing average.
That difference suggests Cleveland had at least one source of explosive rushing production even though the offense struggled to sustain scoring after halftime.
Chicago rushing leader
Roschon Johnson led Chicago with:
8 carries, 34 yards, 4.3 yards per carry
Johnson received the largest number of rushing attempts among the listed Chicago players.
His 34 yards represented a significant portion of the Bears’ 82 rushing yards.
Chicago did not need a dominant rushing performance to win because its passing attack created the larger statistical advantage.
Receiving Production
The receiving statistics further emphasize Chicago’s offensive advantage.
Cleveland recorded:
22 receptions, 228 yards, 10.4 yards per reception, 0 touchdowns, 43-yard long
Chicago recorded:
25 receptions, 368 yards, 14.7 yards per reception, 3 touchdowns, 49-yard long
The Bears averaged 14.7 yards per reception compared with 10.4 for Cleveland.
That is a difference of 4.3 yards per reception.
Chicago also produced three receiving touchdowns, while Cleveland produced none.
Cleveland receiving leader
Dylan Sampson led Cleveland with:
2 receptions, 43 yards, 21.5 yards per reception
His average was significantly higher than Cleveland’s overall receiving average.
That makes Sampson’s contribution notable despite the small number of receptions.
The Browns’ longest listed reception was 43 yards, meaning Sampson’s production matched the team’s longest reception.
Chicago receiving leader
Kaden Davis led Chicago with:
4 receptions, 88 yards, 22.0 yards per reception
Davis’ 88 yards were the highest listed receiving total for either team.
His 22.0-yard average also indicates substantial explosive-play production.
Chicago’s receiving statistics were therefore not simply built on short completions. The team produced multiple significant gains through the passing game.
Turnovers and Their Impact
Turnovers were another major difference between the teams.
Cleveland recorded:
- 2 interceptions thrown
- 2 fumbles
- 1 fumble lost
- 1 fumble recovered
Chicago recorded:
- 1 interception thrown
- 0 fumbles
- 0 fumbles lost
- 1 fumble recovered
Defensively, Cleveland intercepted Chicago once.
Chicago intercepted Cleveland twice.
This produced a clear turnover advantage for Chicago.
Why turnovers mattered
Cleveland gave Chicago two interception opportunities that became defensive takeaways.
Chicago threw one interception, meaning the Bears finished with a positive interception margin.
The Browns also lost one fumble, adding another negative component to their ball-security performance.
Chicago, by contrast, did not lose a fumble according to the supplied statistics.
In a preseason game, turnovers can be especially damaging because individual players are competing for roster positions and playing time. A single mistake can also change the evaluation of an otherwise productive drive.
Defensive Statistics
Chicago recorded more total tackles:
76 tackles
Cleveland recorded:
61 tackles
The Bears also had the advantage in sacks:
Chicago: 3 sacks
Cleveland: 2 sacks
Chicago recorded seven tackles for loss, compared with five for Cleveland.
Both teams registered five quarterback hits.
| Defensive Category | Browns | Bears |
| Total Tackles | 61 | 76 |
| Solo Tackles | 44 | 43 |
| Sacks | 2 | 3 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 | 7 |
| Passes Defended | 9 | 8 |
| QB Hits | 5 | 5 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 2 |
The total tackle figure should not automatically be interpreted as meaning Chicago’s defense was dramatically better in every individual category. Teams that spend more time defending can accumulate more tackles.
Still, Chicago’s advantage in sacks and tackles for loss points toward more disruption around the line of scrimmage.
Cleveland defensive performance
Cleveland recorded two sacks, five tackles for loss, nine passes defended, and five quarterback hits.
The nine passes defended were actually one more than Chicago recorded.
Cleveland also intercepted one Chicago pass.
Therefore, despite losing 34-10, the Browns did produce several positive defensive statistics.
Chicago defensive performance
Chicago produced three sacks, seven tackles for loss, eight passes defended, and five quarterback hits.
The Bears also intercepted Cleveland twice.
Their ability to combine pressure with takeaways was especially important.
The defense did not need to completely shut down Cleveland’s rushing attack. Instead, Chicago benefited from disrupting the passing game and creating turnovers.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams also contributed to the statistical profile.
Cleveland kicking
Andre Szmyt finished:
1-for-1 on field goals
His longest field goal was 50 yards.
He also converted one extra point.
His listed scoring total was four points.
Chicago kicking
Cairo Santos finished:
2-for-3 on field goals
His longest successful field goal was 51 yards.
He converted all four extra-point attempts.
His listed scoring total was nine points.
The field-goal comparison shows that Santos attempted three field goals and made two, while Szmyt attempted one and made one.
Kick returns
Cleveland recorded five kick returns for 122 yards, averaging 24.4 yards per return.
Chicago recorded three kick returns for 70 yards, averaging 23.3 yards per return.
Cleveland therefore had more return opportunities and more total kick-return yardage.
The Browns’ longest kick return was 27 yards, while Chicago’s longest was 30 yards.
Punt returns
Cleveland recorded two punt returns for 39 yards.
Chicago recorded four punt returns for 42 yards.
Cleveland had the stronger average at 19.5 yards per return, compared with Chicago’s 10.5.
These special teams figures show that Chicago’s overall victory was not based on dominating every phase. Cleveland actually held advantages in several return statistics.
Punting Comparison
Cleveland punted five times for 245 yards, averaging 49.0 yards per punt.
Chicago punted four times for 188 yards, averaging 47.0 yards.
Cleveland’s longest punt was 65 yards, compared with 60 for Chicago.
The Browns also recorded two punts inside the 20-yard line.
Chicago recorded one.
This is another area where Cleveland’s statistical performance was competitive despite the final result.
The key difference was that Chicago created more offensive value when it had possession.
What the Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats Reveal
The Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats reveal an important distinction between individual statistical categories and overall game control.
Cleveland had several advantages:
- More rushing yards
- Better rushing average
- More kick-return yards
- Higher punt-return average
- More passes defended
- One successful field goal from one attempt
Chicago had much larger advantages in the categories most directly connected to scoring:
- 348 passing yards versus 206
- 9.2 passing average versus 6.7
- Three passing touchdowns versus zero
- One interception thrown versus two
- Three sacks versus two
- Seven tackles for loss versus five
- Three receiving touchdowns versus zero
- No fumbles lost versus one
The final 34-10 result is therefore consistent with the broader statistical picture.
Chicago did not need to win every category. It won the categories that produced the largest scoring impact.
First-Half Versus Second-Half Analysis
The scoring progression deserves special attention.
Cleveland scored three points in the first quarter and seven in the second.
Chicago scored zero in the first quarter and 10 in the second.
At halftime, the game was competitive.
The situation changed dramatically after the break.
Chicago scored:
14 points in Q3
and
10 points in Q4
Cleveland scored:
0 points in Q3
and
0 points in Q4
That means Chicago outscored Cleveland 24-0 during the second half.
This is one of the clearest explanations for the final score.
The second-half performance also demonstrates why looking only at total game statistics can hide the timing of important events.
A team may accumulate respectable statistics while losing control during a specific period. In this game, Chicago’s second-half scoring was decisive.
Key Individual Performers
Several players stand out when the supplied numbers are compared across both teams.
Deshaun Watson
Watson led Cleveland quarterbacks in passing production with 126 yards on 15 attempts.
His 11 completions were also the most among Cleveland quarterbacks.
Shedeur Sanders
Sanders completed six passes for 79 yards but also threw an interception.
His performance contributed to Cleveland’s overall passing production while also accounting for one of the team’s two interceptions.
Dillon Gabriel
Gabriel completed five of eight passes for 23 yards and threw one interception.
His limited yardage production was one of the weaker passing figures in the supplied statistics.
Tyson Bagent
Bagent led Chicago in attempts, completions, and passing yards, finishing with 169 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.
Case Keenum
Keenum produced one of Chicago’s most efficient statistical performances, completing nine of 10 passes for 151 yards and two touchdowns.
Davon Booth
Booth was Cleveland’s leading rusher with 53 yards on only four attempts.
His 13.3-yard average was the highest listed rushing average for the game among the named rushing leaders.
Roschon Johnson
Johnson led Chicago in rushing attempts and finished with 34 yards on eight carries.
Dylan Sampson
Sampson led Cleveland’s listed receivers with 43 yards on two catches.
Kaden Davis
Davis led all listed receivers with 88 yards on four receptions.
His 22.0-yard average was also an important indicator of Chicago’s explosive receiving production.
A Better Way to Read Preseason Player Statistics
Preseason statistics require context.
A regular-season box score often reflects a team’s strongest available lineup for a meaningful portion of the game. Preseason games are different because coaches use them to evaluate players, combinations, depth, and situational performance.
That means a player with fewer snaps can still have a meaningful statistical impact.
It also means that one game should not be treated as a definitive prediction of a player’s regular-season role.
When evaluating a preseason performance, it is useful to consider several questions.
1. Was the player efficient?
Look beyond raw volume.
For quarterbacks, compare attempts with yardage and touchdowns.
For running backs, compare carries with yards and explosive gains.
For receivers, examine receptions, targets, yardage, and average gain.
2. Did the player create or prevent turnovers?
Turnovers often have greater immediate value than modest statistical differences.
Chicago’s two interceptions were especially important because Cleveland finished with two interceptions thrown.
3. Did the player create explosive plays?
The supplied statistics contain several examples.
Davon Booth averaged 13.3 yards per carry.
Dylan Sampson averaged 21.5 yards per reception.
Kaden Davis averaged 22.0 yards per reception.
These figures point toward big-play ability, although they come from limited opportunities.
4. Was production sustained?
A two-catch performance or four-carry performance can look excellent on paper, but volume matters.
The strongest evaluation combines efficiency with opportunity.
5. Did the player contribute to winning plays?
Statistics become more meaningful when connected to the game situation.
Chicago’s passing touchdowns, defensive takeaways, and second-half scoring all contributed directly to the 34-10 victory.
Biggest Statistical Lessons From the Game
The most important lesson from this matchup is that one statistical category rarely determines the outcome.
Cleveland rushed for more yards.
Yet Chicago won comfortably.
Cleveland had more kick-return yardage.
Yet Chicago scored 34 points.
Cleveland defended nine passes compared with Chicago’s eight.
Yet the Bears produced two interceptions.
The decisive statistical story was therefore concentrated in passing efficiency, scoring production, and turnovers.
Chicago’s 9.2 yards per passing attempt compared with Cleveland’s 6.7.
Chicago threw three touchdown passes compared with none for Cleveland.
Chicago intercepted Cleveland twice.
Cleveland lost one fumble.
Chicago also scored 24 unanswered points in the second half.
Those figures provide a much stronger explanation of the final score than any isolated statistic.
How the Quarterback Numbers Should Be Interpreted
Quarterback statistics are particularly easy to misunderstand in preseason football.
For example, Cleveland’s overall completion percentage was better than Chicago’s based on the supplied team numbers.
Cleveland completed 64.7 percent of its passes.
Chicago completed 62.5 percent.
If someone looked only at completion percentage, they could conclude that Cleveland had the more accurate passing attack.
The rest of the numbers tell a different story.
Chicago produced:
- More passing yards
- More yards per attempt
- More passing touchdowns
- Fewer interceptions
- A higher passer rating
Chicago’s listed passer rating was 107.1 compared with Cleveland’s 59.4.
This is why statistical analysis should use multiple measurements instead of selecting one favorable category.
What Cleveland Did Well
Despite the 34-10 defeat, Cleveland produced several encouraging statistical areas.
The Browns ran for 108 yards, which was 26 more than Chicago.
Their rushing average was also slightly higher.
Cleveland’s return game generated 122 kick-return yards and 39 punt-return yards.
The defense recorded nine passes defended, five tackles for loss, two sacks, and one interception.
The team also produced several explosive individual performances.
Davon Booth averaged 13.3 yards per carry.
Dylan Sampson averaged 21.5 yards per reception.
Those numbers show that the Browns were capable of generating explosive plays even though they struggled to turn those opportunities into sustained scoring.
What Chicago Did Well
Chicago’s strongest area was offensive efficiency.
The Bears generated 348 passing yards and three passing touchdowns.
Their 14.7 yards per reception average was also substantially higher than Cleveland’s 10.4.
The defense complemented that offense by creating two interceptions and three sacks.
Chicago also avoided losing a fumble.
Most importantly, the Bears transformed their statistical advantages into points.
After scoring only 10 points through the first half, Chicago scored 24 in the second half.
That combination of offensive production and defensive disruption explains why the Bears finished with a 24-point victory margin.
Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Final Statistical Assessment
The Cleveland Browns vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats provide a useful example of why a complete box-score review is better than simply reading the final score.
Chicago won 34-10 because it generated significantly more through the passing game and converted those opportunities into touchdowns.
The Bears finished with 348 passing yards, 368 listed receiving yards, three passing touchdowns, and a 107.1 team passer rating.
Cleveland finished with 206 passing yards, 228 listed receiving yards, no passing touchdowns, and a 59.4 team passer rating.
The Browns were better on the ground, producing 108 rushing yards compared with Chicago’s 82.
That advantage, however, was not enough to overcome the passing and turnover gap.
Chicago’s two defensive interceptions compared with Cleveland’s one, while Cleveland threw two interceptions compared with Chicago’s one.
The Browns also lost one fumble.
The second-half scoring pattern was perhaps the clearest indicator of the game’s direction. Chicago scored 24 points after halftime while Cleveland was shut out.
For preseason analysis, the most reasonable conclusion is not that every individual statistic predicts future regular-season performance. Instead, the game provides a snapshot of which players and units produced efficiently under the opportunities they received.
The standout statistical performances included Case Keenum’s 9-for-10 passing line with two touchdowns, Tyson Bagent’s 169 passing yards, Kaden Davis’ 88 receiving yards, Davon Booth’s 53 rushing yards on four carries, and the Chicago defense’s two interceptions and three sacks.
Cleveland also had notable individual contributions, particularly from Watson in the passing game, Booth on the ground, and Sampson as a receiver.
Ultimately, the box score shows a game in which Cleveland competed statistically in several secondary categories but could not match Chicago’s passing efficiency, turnover production, or second-half scoring.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Cleveland Browns and Chicago Bears?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Cleveland Browns 34-10 in the August 15, 2026 NFL preseason game.
Who led the Cleveland Browns in passing?
Deshaun Watson led Cleveland’s listed quarterbacks with 11 completions on 15 attempts for 126 yards.
Who led the Chicago Bears in passing?
Tyson Bagent led Chicago’s listed quarterbacks with 13 completions on 22 attempts for 169 yards, one touchdown, and one interception.
Who was the leading rusher in the game?
Among the listed rushing leaders, Cleveland’s Davon Booth produced 53 yards on four carries, while Chicago’s Roschon Johnson led the Bears with 34 yards on eight carries.
Which team had more passing yards?
Chicago had substantially more passing production, finishing with 348 passing yards compared with Cleveland’s 206.
How many turnovers did each team record?
Cleveland threw two interceptions and lost one fumble. Chicago threw one interception and did not lose a fumble according to the supplied statistics.
Conclusion
The August 15, 2026 preseason matchup between Cleveland and Chicago produced a final score that was explained by several connected statistical trends rather than one individual category. Cleveland ran the ball effectively and produced strong return numbers, but Chicago created a much larger advantage through passing efficiency, touchdown production, and defensive takeaways.
The Bears’ 348 passing yards, three passing touchdowns, two interceptions, and 24 second-half points were central to the 34-10 victory. Cleveland’s 108 rushing yards and several explosive individual plays showed that the Browns had positive moments, but those moments did not translate into second-half scoring.
For readers studying preseason performance, the most useful approach is to evaluate volume, efficiency, turnovers, explosive plays, and game context together. That produces a more accurate understanding of what the player statistics actually say about the matchup.
