Chicago Bears vs 49ers Match Player Stats
Chicago Bears vs 49ers match player stats from the December 29, 2025 matchup tell the story of a high-scoring game decided by production on both sides of the ball. San Francisco defeated Chicago 42-38 after the 49ers produced 200 rushing yards, 303 passing yards, and three passing touchdowns, while the Bears answered with 330 passing yards, 110 rushing yards, and two touchdowns through the air. The numbers show a game in which both quarterbacks played efficiently, several young Chicago pass catchers delivered major performances, and Christian McCaffrey was a central force for San Francisco.
The final score alone does not explain how the game developed. Chicago and San Francisco both scored 14 points in the opening quarter, but the 49ers added another 14 points in the second quarter to create separation. Chicago responded with seven points in the third and 10 in the fourth, while San Francisco added seven points in each of the final two quarters.
That scoring pattern matters when evaluating individual performances. A player can produce excellent raw numbers without controlling the entire game, while another player’s contribution can become more important because of when and how those yards or touchdowns were generated.
This detailed breakdown examines the quarterback numbers, rushing production, receiving leaders, defensive statistics, turnovers, special teams, and the team-level differences that shaped the 42-38 result.
Chicago Bears vs 49ers Match Player Stats
The statistical profile of the game was remarkably balanced in several areas, but San Francisco created a significant advantage on the ground.
| Category | Chicago Bears | San Francisco 49ers |
| Final Score | 38 | 42 |
| Passing Yards | 330 | 303 |
| Rushing Yards | 110 | 200 |
| Total Listed Offensive Yards | 440 | 503 |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 3 |
| Rushing TDs | 2 | 3 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks Allowed | 0 | 1 |
| Team Tackles | 78 | 58 |
| Defensive Sacks | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive Interceptions | 1 | 0 |
The biggest statistical difference was rushing production. San Francisco gained 200 yards on 34 carries, averaging 5.9 yards per attempt. Chicago produced 110 yards on 22 carries, averaging 5.0 yards per attempt.
Chicago had the advantage in passing yardage, 330 to 303, but San Francisco’s 90-yard edge in rushing production more than offset that difference.
The turnover column is also important. Chicago threw no interceptions and recorded one defensive interception. San Francisco threw one interception and recorded none. Despite that turnover advantage, Chicago still lost by four points.
That is a useful reminder that turnovers are only one part of the overall statistical picture.
Caleb Williams’ Passing Performance
Caleb Williams completed 25 of 42 attempts for 330 yards and two touchdowns without throwing an interception.
His completion rate was approximately 59.5 percent, while his average was listed at 7.9 yards per attempt. He was not sacked, and his passer rating was 100.3. The supplied data also lists a 71.9 QBR.
From a statistical perspective, the most important part of Williams’ performance was his ability to create passing production without giving the 49ers a turnover through the air.
His 330 passing yards represented the largest individual passing total in the game. Chicago also converted that passing volume into two touchdowns, giving Williams responsibility for a significant portion of the Bears’ 38 points.
The absence of sacks is another notable detail. San Francisco recorded zero sacks against Williams, meaning Chicago’s passing production was not reduced by quarterback takedowns.
At the same time, the 42-point San Francisco offense shows why Williams’ numbers should be considered within the full game context. Chicago’s quarterback statistics were strong, but the Bears defense allowed San Francisco to produce 503 listed offensive yards.
Williams and Chicago’s Passing Volume
Williams attempted 42 passes compared with Brock Purdy’s 33 attempts.
That nine-attempt difference helps explain why Chicago finished with more passing yards despite losing the overall offensive-yardage battle.
Chicago’s passing attack generated 330 yards on 25 completions. The Bears averaged 13.2 yards per completed pass across the team’s receiving statistics.
The distribution was also concentrated among two primary targets.
Luther Burden III led Chicago with 138 receiving yards, while Colston Loveland added 94. Together, they accounted for 232 receiving yards.
That means these two players produced more than 70 percent of Chicago’s 330 receiving yards.
Brock Purdy’s Passing Numbers
Brock Purdy completed 24 of 33 passes for 303 yards, three touchdowns, and one interception.
His listed average was 9.2 yards per attempt, higher than Williams’ 7.9. Purdy also recorded an 84.1 QBR and a 118.6 passer rating.
The three touchdown passes were particularly important because San Francisco finished with 42 points.
Purdy was sacked once for a total loss of seven yards. He also contributed with his legs, rushing six times for 28 yards and two touchdowns.
That combination made Purdy’s statistical contribution broader than his passing line alone suggests.
Purdy’s Efficiency Compared With Williams
The two quarterbacks produced very different statistical profiles.
Williams:
- 25 completions on 42 attempts
- 330 passing yards
- 2 passing touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 7.9 yards per attempt
- 0 sacks
- 100.3 passer rating
Purdy:
- 24 completions on 33 attempts
- 303 passing yards
- 3 passing touchdowns
- 1 interception
- 9.2 yards per attempt
- 1 sack
- 118.6 passer rating
Williams generated more total passing yards and avoided both interceptions and sacks.
Purdy, however, produced three passing touchdowns on nine fewer attempts and averaged more yards per attempt.
Neither quarterback’s statistical line should be evaluated using a single number. The passing yardage, efficiency, touchdown production, turnovers, and rushing contributions together provide a much clearer picture.
Christian McCaffrey Leads San Francisco’s Ground Game
Christian McCaffrey was the leading rusher in the matchup.
He carried the ball 23 times for 140 yards, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. His longest run was 41 yards, and he scored one rushing touchdown.
McCaffrey’s 140 rushing yards represented 70 percent of San Francisco’s 200 team rushing yards.
That level of concentration is one of the clearest statistical features of the game.
San Francisco did not need to distribute its rushing workload evenly. McCaffrey handled the majority of the carries and generated substantial yardage, including a 41-yard long run.
His receiving contribution added another dimension. McCaffrey caught four passes for 41 yards on six targets, averaging 10.3 yards per reception.
Across rushing and receiving, he therefore produced 181 yards from scrimmage.
That figure demonstrates how extensively San Francisco used him as an offensive centerpiece.
D’Andre Swift’s Chicago Rushing Production
D’Andre Swift led Chicago in rushing with nine carries for 54 yards and two touchdowns.
He averaged 6.0 yards per carry and recorded a 22-yard long run.
Swift’s two rushing touchdowns accounted for all of Chicago’s team rushing touchdowns.
That is significant because Chicago finished with only 110 rushing yards. Swift therefore supplied a large portion of the team’s ground-game production while also contributing as a receiver.
He caught two passes for 25 yards on three targets, giving him 79 total yards from scrimmage.
The statistical contrast with McCaffrey is interesting. McCaffrey accumulated more rushing volume and substantially more rushing yardage, while Swift’s nine carries produced two touchdowns.
Chicago’s Overall Rushing Attack
The Bears finished with 22 rushing attempts for 110 yards.
The team’s average was 5.0 yards per carry, with a long run of 22 yards and two rushing touchdowns.
After Swift, Kyle Monangai carried eight times for 38 yards. He averaged 4.8 yards per attempt and had an 18-yard long.
Williams also contributed five carries for 18 yards.
Chicago therefore received meaningful rushing contributions from its running back group and quarterback, but the total volume remained well below San Francisco’s.
The difference was 12 rushing attempts and 90 rushing yards.
That is one of the most important statistical gaps in the game.
San Francisco’s Additional Rushing Contributions
Although McCaffrey dominated the rushing totals, San Francisco received production from several other players.
Brock Purdy rushed six times for 28 yards and two touchdowns.
Brian Robinson Jr. added four carries for 22 yards, averaging 5.5 yards per carry.
Skyy Moore had one carry for 10 yards.
Together with McCaffrey, these players produced San Francisco’s 200 rushing yards.
Purdy’s two rushing touchdowns are especially notable. He threw three touchdown passes and added two rushing scores, meaning he was directly responsible for five San Francisco touchdowns according to the supplied statistics.
That is a major part of the offensive story.
Luther Burden III Breaks Out for Chicago
Luther Burden III was Chicago’s leading receiver by a wide margin.
He caught eight passes for 138 yards and one touchdown on nine targets.
His 17.3 yards per reception average was the highest among Chicago players with substantial receiving volume. His longest reception traveled 35 yards.
The combination of eight receptions and 138 yards means Burden was not simply benefiting from one isolated big play. He consistently contributed across multiple catches.
His nine targets were also the second-highest total among Chicago pass catchers, behind Loveland’s 10.
Burden’s production was one of the main reasons Chicago finished with 330 passing yards.
Colston Loveland’s 94-Yard Receiving Game
Colston Loveland recorded six receptions for 94 yards and one touchdown.
He was targeted 10 times, the most of any Chicago receiver.
Loveland averaged 15.7 yards per reception and had a 36-yard long reception, which was the longest listed reception for Chicago.
His six catches on 10 targets also show that Chicago repeatedly looked in his direction.
Burden and Loveland combined for:
- 14 receptions
- 232 receiving yards
- 2 receiving touchdowns
- 19 total targets
That pairing accounted for both of Chicago’s receiving touchdowns.
Their combined production was a central component of the Bears’ passing success.
Other Chicago Receiving Numbers
Jahdae Walker caught two passes for 30 yards on four targets.
D’Andre Swift added two receptions for 25 yards.
Cole Kmet recorded two catches for 16 yards on three targets.
Durham Smythe caught one pass for 11 yards on three targets.
Kyle Monangai contributed three receptions for nine yards on four targets.
DJ Moore had one reception for seven yards on four targets.
Devin Duvernay was targeted once but did not record a reception.
The distribution shows that Chicago’s receiving production was heavily concentrated at the top.
Burden and Loveland were the only Bears receivers to reach 90 yards, and they were also the only Chicago players to score receiving touchdowns.
San Francisco’s Receiving Leaders
Ricky Pearsall led San Francisco in receiving yards with five receptions for 85 yards on eight targets.
He averaged 17.0 yards per reception and recorded a 30-yard long.
Jake Tonges led the 49ers in receptions, catching seven passes for 60 yards on nine targets. He also scored one touchdown.
Jauan Jennings caught two passes for 42 yards and a touchdown. His 38-yard reception was San Francisco’s longest catch.
Christian McCaffrey added four receptions for 41 yards on six targets.
Demarcus Robinson caught two passes for 30 yards.
Kendrick Bourne caught one pass for 25 yards on his only target.
Kyle Juszczyk caught two passes for 14 yards and one touchdown.
Brian Robinson Jr. added one reception for six yards.
San Francisco’s receiving statistics show a wider distribution than Chicago’s. Eight players recorded at least one reception.
Comparing the Receiving Attacks
The team receiving numbers were:
Chicago
- 25 receptions
- 330 yards
- 13.2 yards per reception
- 2 touchdowns
- 39 targets
- 36-yard long
San Francisco
- 24 receptions
- 303 yards
- 12.6 yards per reception
- 3 touchdowns
- 33 targets
- 38-yard long
Chicago had one more reception and 27 more receiving yards.
San Francisco had one fewer reception but produced one additional receiving touchdown.
This is an important distinction. Yardage does not always translate directly into points.
Chicago’s passing game produced more yards, but San Francisco converted its passing production into more touchdowns.
Defensive Player Stats for Chicago
Chicago recorded 78 total tackles compared with San Francisco’s 58.
Tremaine Edmunds and T.J. Edwards led the Bears with nine tackles each.
Edmunds recorded seven solo tackles.
Edwards had six solo tackles and also produced one pass defense and one defensive touchdown.
Jaquan Brisker recorded eight tackles, including three solo tackles, and one pass defense.
Nahshon Wright had seven tackles with six solo.
Gervon Dexter Sr. also recorded seven tackles.
Montez Sweat finished with five tackles.
Joe Tryon-Shoyinka had five tackles and one tackle for loss.
C.J. Gardner-Johnson recorded three tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, two pass defenses, and one quarterback hit.
Chicago’s defensive numbers show a high tackle volume, but the team did not generate a large number of sacks. It recorded one sack overall.
T.J. Edwards’ Defensive Touchdown
One of the most important individual defensive plays in the supplied data came from T.J. Edwards.
Edwards intercepted Brock Purdy and returned the interception 34 yards for a touchdown.
That was Chicago’s only interception and its only defensive touchdown.
San Francisco did not record an interception against Williams.
The turnover margin therefore favored Chicago in terms of interceptions, yet the Bears still surrendered 42 points.
This illustrates why defensive touchdowns can be valuable without necessarily defining the complete defensive performance.
Chicago also recorded six pass defenses, three tackles for loss, one sack, and one quarterback hit.
San Francisco Defensive Player Stats
Tatum Bethune led San Francisco with 11 tackles, including seven solo tackles. He also recorded one tackle for loss and one pass defense.
Dee Winters had seven tackles, all seven recorded as solo, plus one tackle for loss.
Upton Stout recorded four tackles.
Deommodore Lenoir and Ji’Ayir Brown each recorded four tackles.
Brown also had one pass defense.
Jason Pinnock recorded three tackles and one tackle for loss.
Darrell Luter Jr. had three tackles and one pass defense.
The 49ers’ defense finished with 58 tackles, 35 solo tackles, four tackles for loss, five pass defenses, and three quarterback hits.
Interestingly, San Francisco recorded no sacks in the game.
That means the 49ers defense managed to win the game without recording a quarterback sack.
The Defensive Contrast
Chicago finished with:
- 78 tackles
- 41 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 3 tackles for loss
- 6 pass defenses
- 1 quarterback hit
- 1 defensive touchdown
San Francisco finished with:
- 58 tackles
- 35 solo tackles
- 0 sacks
- 4 tackles for loss
- 5 pass defenses
- 3 quarterback hits
- 0 defensive touchdowns
The Bears generated more total tackles and recorded the game’s only sack and interception.
San Francisco generated more tackles for loss and quarterback hits.
These numbers suggest two different defensive statistical profiles, but the final result was determined by the complete game rather than one defensive category.
Special Teams Statistics
Chicago’s kicking production came from Cairo Santos.
Santos converted his only field-goal attempt, a 29-yard kick, and made all five extra-point attempts.
He finished with eight points.
San Francisco’s Eddy Pineiro attempted no field goals and made all six extra-point attempts, finishing with six points.
The field-goal difference was therefore two points in Chicago’s favor.
Chicago’s punter Tory Taylor recorded three punts for 176 yards, averaging 58.7 yards per punt. His longest punt was 64 yards, with one touchback and one punt inside the 20-yard line.
San Francisco’s Thomas Morstead punted twice for 81 yards, averaging 40.5 yards. His longest punt was 49 yards, and both punts were listed as inside the 20.
Kick Return Statistics
Chicago recorded four kick returns for 102 yards.
Josh Blackwell returned three kicks for 73 yards, averaging 24.3 yards per return. His longest return was 30 yards.
Devin Duvernay returned one kick for 29 yards.
San Francisco’s Skyy Moore returned four kicks for 92 yards, averaging 23.0 yards per return.
Moore also returned two punts for 11 yards.
Chicago did not record a punt return.
The kick-return numbers were relatively close, with Chicago producing 10 more return yards.
What the 42-38 Score Tells Us
The final score indicates that neither offense was consistently contained.
Chicago scored 14 points in the first quarter, seven in the second, seven in the third, and 10 in the fourth.
San Francisco scored 14 points in the first, 14 in the second, seven in the third, and seven in the fourth.
The second quarter was the largest scoring difference.
San Francisco’s 14 points in that period gave it a seven-point advantage at halftime relative to Chicago’s seven.
After halftime, the teams each scored 14 points.
That means Chicago’s late scoring was not enough to completely erase the advantage San Francisco built earlier.
The final margin was four points.
Where Chicago Had the Statistical Edge
Chicago’s clearest advantages were in several passing and defensive categories.
The Bears had:
- 27 more passing yards.
- Six more team tackles.
- One defensive interception.
- One defensive touchdown.
- One defensive sack.
- One fewer interception thrown.
- No sacks allowed.
- Four more kick-return yards.
- More field-goal points.
The passing advantage was particularly clear.
Williams threw for 330 yards compared with Purdy’s 303.
Chicago also finished with 25 receptions compared with San Francisco’s 24.
Yet these advantages were not enough to produce the victory.
Where San Francisco Had the Statistical Edge
San Francisco’s largest advantage was on the ground.
The 49ers produced 200 rushing yards compared with Chicago’s 110.
That was a 90-yard difference.
San Francisco also had:
- 34 rushing attempts compared with 22
- 3 rushing touchdowns compared with 2
- 3 passing touchdowns compared with 2
- 503 listed offensive yards compared with Chicago’s 440
- 9.2 yards per pass attempt compared with 7.9
- 118.6 passer rating compared with 100.3
The combination of rushing volume and touchdown efficiency stands out.
San Francisco did not need to dominate the passing-yardage category to produce 42 points.
Total Offensive Production
Based on the supplied passing and rushing figures, San Francisco produced 503 listed offensive yards.
Chicago produced 440.
That creates a 63-yard advantage for the 49ers.
The breakdown is revealing.
Chicago:
330 passing + 110 rushing = 440 yards
San Francisco:
303 passing + 200 rushing = 503 yards
Chicago won the passing-yardage battle by 27 yards.
San Francisco won the rushing-yardage battle by 90 yards.
The rushing advantage was therefore much larger than Chicago’s passing advantage.
That difference is one of the clearest explanations for the overall offensive statistical edge.
Touchdown Distribution
The touchdown distribution provides another useful way to understand the game.
Chicago scored:
- 2 passing touchdowns
- 2 rushing touchdowns
- 1 defensive touchdown
San Francisco scored:
- 3 passing touchdowns
- 3 rushing touchdowns
Chicago therefore recorded five touchdowns across offense and defense in the supplied statistics.
San Francisco recorded six offensive touchdowns.
The Bears had the only defensive touchdown, but the 49ers had the extra offensive touchdown.
That one-touchdown difference was offset partially by Chicago’s successful field goal and extra-point production, resulting in a four-point final margin.
Why the Quarterback Numbers Need Context
It would be easy to look only at passing yards and conclude that Williams had the larger statistical passing day.
He did.
But quarterback evaluation becomes more useful when multiple categories are considered.
Williams had more passing yards, fewer attempts without an interception, and no sacks.
Purdy had fewer passing yards but more touchdown passes, a higher yards-per-attempt figure, and two rushing touchdowns.
Purdy’s rushing production is especially important because his six carries generated 28 yards and two touchdowns.
His overall involvement in five touchdowns through passing and rushing was a major part of San Francisco’s offensive output.
The Importance of Explosive Plays
Several individual long plays influenced the statistical shape of the game.
For Chicago, Loveland recorded a 36-yard reception, while Burden III had a 35-yard catch.
Swift’s longest run was 22 yards.
For San Francisco, McCaffrey recorded a 41-yard run, while Jennings had a 38-yard reception.
These explosive plays help explain why both offenses generated strong averages.
Chicago’s receiving group averaged 13.2 yards per reception.
San Francisco averaged 12.6.
San Francisco’s rushing average of 5.9 yards per carry was higher than Chicago’s 5.0.
The long-play numbers therefore reinforce the broader statistical trend rather than standing alone.
A Practical Way to Read This Box Score
For readers researching individual player statistics, it helps to examine the game in layers.
Start with the quarterback line.
Then examine rushing volume.
Next, look at target distribution and receiving efficiency.
After that, check turnovers and defensive touchdowns.
Finally, consider special teams and scoring by quarter.
Using that process here produces a much more complete picture than simply looking at the final score.
The game featured:
- High passing production from both quarterbacks
- A major rushing advantage for San Francisco
- Two standout Chicago receivers
- A dominant rushing performance from McCaffrey
- A defensive touchdown by Chicago
- Strong touchdown production from Purdy
- No sacks allowed by Chicago
- No defensive sacks by San Francisco
- A four-point final margin
Player Stat Leaders at a Glance
Chicago Leaders
Passing: Caleb Williams, 330 yards
Rushing: D’Andre Swift, 54 yards
Receiving: Luther Burden III, 138 yards
Tackles: Tremaine Edmunds and T.J. Edwards, 9 each
Interception: T.J. Edwards, 1
Defensive touchdown: T.J. Edwards, 1
Kicking points: Cairo Santos, 8
San Francisco Leaders
Passing: Brock Purdy, 303 yards
Rushing: Christian McCaffrey, 140 yards
Receiving: Ricky Pearsall, 85 yards
Receptions: Jake Tonges, 7
Tackles: Tatum Bethune, 11
Rushing touchdowns: Brock Purdy, 2
Receiving touchdowns: Jake Tonges, Jauan Jennings, and Kyle Juszczyk, 1 each
How the Game Can Be Interpreted Statistically
The most interesting aspect of this matchup is that the losing team won several individual statistical categories.
Chicago had more passing yards.
Williams threw no interceptions.
Chicago had the only defensive interception.
The Bears had more total tackles.
Chicago also recorded a defensive touchdown.
Despite those advantages, San Francisco generated more total offensive yardage and six offensive touchdowns.
The 200 rushing yards were particularly important.
San Francisco’s ground game did not merely add yardage to the box score. It produced three rushing touchdowns, including two from Purdy and one from McCaffrey.
That allowed the 49ers to score efficiently even though Chicago finished with more passing yards.
What the Receiving Numbers Reveal About Offensive Design
Chicago’s receiving distribution was top-heavy.
Burden and Loveland combined for 232 yards and both scored touchdowns.
Their 19 combined targets show that they were major parts of the passing plan.
San Francisco’s production was more distributed.
Pearsall, Tonges, Jennings, McCaffrey, Robinson, Bourne, Juszczyk, and Brian Robinson Jr. all recorded receptions.
This does not automatically make one approach better than the other. It simply describes how the production was distributed in this particular game.
Chicago relied heavily on two high-output receiving performances.
San Francisco spread its receiving production across a larger group while also generating 200 rushing yards.
The Role of Turnovers
Turnovers are often among the first statistics readers check after a close game.
Chicago’s defense intercepted Purdy once and returned it 34 yards for a touchdown.
San Francisco did not intercept Williams.
Chicago’s offense also avoided a lost fumble, while San Francisco recorded no fumbles according to the supplied data.
Therefore, the turnover story did not favor San Francisco in terms of interceptions.
Yet the 49ers still won.
This is important because it demonstrates how a team can overcome a turnover disadvantage through offensive production.
San Francisco’s 200 rushing yards, six offensive touchdowns, and 503 listed offensive yards were significant enough to offset Chicago’s interception and defensive touchdown.
Final Statistical Takeaway
The complete statistical profile shows two productive offenses taking different routes to scoring.
Chicago’s offense leaned toward the passing game.
The Bears produced 330 passing yards and 110 rushing yards. Burden and Loveland were the leading receiving threats, while Swift scored twice on the ground. Williams passed for two touchdowns without an interception.
San Francisco produced a more balanced and rushing-heavy attack.
The 49ers recorded 303 passing yards and 200 rushing yards. McCaffrey led the ground game with 140 yards, while Purdy added two rushing touchdowns and three passing touchdowns.
Defensively, Chicago produced the only interception and defensive touchdown, while San Francisco finished without a sack but still held enough overall production to secure the win.
The final 42-38 score reflects how narrow the difference was. Chicago generated 440 listed offensive yards to San Francisco’s 503, while both teams produced significant individual performances.
For anyone studying this matchup, the biggest statistical lesson is that passing-yardage superiority does not necessarily translate into overall offensive superiority. In this game, San Francisco’s 200 rushing yards and six offensive touchdowns created the difference despite Chicago’s stronger passing total and defensive turnover production.
For broader football statistics and official league information, readers can consult the NFL official website.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Bears in passing against the 49ers?
Caleb Williams led Chicago with 25 completions on 42 attempts for 330 yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions. He finished with a 100.3 passer rating.
Who led the 49ers in rushing?
Christian McCaffrey led San Francisco with 23 carries for 140 yards, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. He also scored one rushing touchdown.
Who was Chicago’s leading receiver?
Luther Burden III led the Bears with eight receptions for 138 yards and one touchdown on nine targets.
How many rushing yards did the 49ers have?
San Francisco recorded 200 rushing yards on 34 carries, averaging 5.9 yards per attempt.
Did the Bears record an interception?
Yes. T.J. Edwards intercepted Brock Purdy and returned the pick 34 yards for a touchdown.
What was the final score?
San Francisco defeated Chicago 42-38 on December 29, 2025.
Conclusion
The Chicago Bears vs 49ers matchup produced one of the most statistically interesting types of football games: a close final score with both teams generating substantial offensive production.
Chicago finished with 330 passing yards and 110 rushing yards. Caleb Williams protected the football through the air, while Luther Burden III and Colston Loveland provided the majority of the team’s receiving production. D’Andre Swift added two rushing touchdowns, and T.J. Edwards created Chicago’s only defensive touchdown.
San Francisco finished with 303 passing yards and 200 rushing yards. Christian McCaffrey was the leading rusher with 140 yards, while Brock Purdy combined three passing touchdowns with two rushing scores. The 49ers also received contributions from a broad group of receivers.
The most important statistical difference was the ground game. San Francisco’s 200 rushing yards were 90 more than Chicago’s 110. That advantage helped the 49ers finish with 503 listed offensive yards compared with Chicago’s 440.
The game also shows why a complete box-score analysis is more useful than focusing on one category. Chicago won the passing-yardage battle and recorded the only defensive interception, yet San Francisco produced more total offense and more offensive touchdowns.
For readers looking for reliable player-level analysis, the strongest approach is to consider passing, rushing, receiving, defensive production, turnovers, special teams, and scoring distribution together. Those categories provide the context needed to understand not just who accumulated statistics, but how those statistics shaped the 42-38 result.
