Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats

The Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats from November 23, 2025, tell the story of a close and highly competitive NFL game that ended with the Chicago Bears defeating the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-28 at Soldier Field. The final score was tight, but the underlying numbers reveal an even more interesting contest. Pittsburgh produced 345 total yards and ran for 186 yards, while Chicago generated 328 total yards and relied more heavily on its passing attack. The Steelers controlled the ball for 33:09, yet the Bears made the critical plays needed to turn their opportunities into points.

For anyone studying the box score, this matchup is a useful example of why total yardage alone does not determine an NFL winner. Pittsburgh actually gained more total yards and recorded more first downs, but Chicago finished with three passing touchdowns from Caleb Williams and protected the football better in the passing game. Those details helped the Bears overcome Pittsburgh’s strong rushing performance.

Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The game took place at Soldier Field in Chicago on November 23, 2025. Chicago entered the contest with an 8-3 record and a 4-1 home mark, while Pittsburgh was 6-5 overall and 2-3 on the road.

The Bears eventually prevailed 31-28.

The scoring was relatively balanced during the first half. Both teams scored seven points in the opening quarter. Pittsburgh then added 14 points in the second quarter, giving the Steelers a 21-17 halftime advantage. Chicago responded with a seven-point third quarter while Pittsburgh was held scoreless. Both teams scored seven points in the fourth quarter.

That sequence mattered.

Pittsburgh had the stronger second quarter, but Chicago’s ability to score in the third quarter prevented the Steelers from creating separation. The Bears then matched Pittsburgh in the final period and held on for a three-point victory.

According to the official NFL game summary, Pittsburgh finished with 22 first downs compared with 19 for Chicago. The Steelers also produced 345 total yards to Chicago’s 328. (NFL)

Those numbers show why this was not a simple case of the winning team dominating statistically.

Final Score by Quarter

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Pittsburgh Steelers	7	14	0	7	28
Chicago Bears	7	10	7	7	31

The most important swing came in the third quarter. Pittsburgh had scored 21 points by halftime but failed to add anything after the break until the fourth quarter.

Chicago, meanwhile, kept scoring.

That difference helped the Bears maintain enough momentum to survive Pittsburgh’s late push.

Caleb Williams Leads Chicago’s Passing Attack

Caleb Williams was one of the most important individual players in the game.

The Chicago quarterback completed 19 of 35 passes for 239 yards, three touchdowns and no interceptions. His passer rating was 104.3, and he was sacked once.

The completion percentage was not particularly high at approximately 54.3 percent, but the quality of the successful plays was more important than the raw completion rate.

Williams averaged roughly 6.8 yards per pass attempt based on his 239 passing yards over 35 attempts. More importantly, he threw three touchdown passes without giving Pittsburgh an interception.

That combination gave Chicago an efficient scoring profile.

The Bears did not need Williams to complete a huge percentage of his attempts. They needed him to convert enough opportunities into touchdowns, and he did exactly that.

Why Williams’ Three Touchdowns Mattered

The biggest contrast between the two quarterbacks was touchdown production.

Williams:

• 19 completions
• 35 attempts
• 239 passing yards
• 3 passing touchdowns
• 0 interceptions
• 1 sack
• 104.3 passer rating

Mason Rudolph:

• 24 completions
• 31 attempts
• 171 passing yards
• 1 passing touchdown
• 1 interception
• 2 sacks
• 86.9 passer rating

Rudolph completed a higher percentage of his throws, approximately 77.4 percent, compared with Williams’ approximately 54.3 percent.

However, Williams created significantly more scoring value through the air.

That is one of the clearest lessons from this game. Completion percentage can provide useful context, but it cannot be examined in isolation. A quarterback who completes more short or intermediate passes may still produce less scoring value than another quarterback who completes fewer passes but consistently creates explosive or touchdown-producing plays.

Mason Rudolph Delivers an Accurate but Less Explosive Performance

Mason Rudolph’s performance deserves a closer look because the Steelers quarterback was accurate throughout much of the afternoon.

Rudolph completed 24 of 31 passes for 171 yards. He threw one touchdown and one interception and was sacked twice.

His completion rate was strong, but his average gain per attempt was considerably lower than Williams’ production. Pittsburgh also finished with 159 net passing yards after accounting for sack yardage.

The Steelers’ offensive approach leaned heavily on the ground game.

That reduced the amount of pressure placed on Rudolph to carry the entire offense, but it also meant Pittsburgh needed to capitalize on its rushing efficiency and maintain possession.

The Steelers ultimately did a good job moving the football. The problem was converting enough of that production into a winning point total.

Pittsburgh’s Rushing Attack Was a Major Strength

One of the most impressive numbers in the box score was Pittsburgh’s rushing production.

The Steelers ran 36 times for 186 yards, averaging 5.2 yards per carry.

That was substantially better than Chicago’s 99 rushing yards on 25 attempts.

Kenny Gainwell led Pittsburgh’s rushing attack with 10 carries for 92 yards. His 9.2-yard average was particularly impressive, and his longest run covered 55 yards.

A single 55-yard run can dramatically affect a player’s average, but the broader team rushing total also confirms that Pittsburgh’s ground game was effective.

The Steelers generated 186 rushing yards while maintaining possession for more than 33 minutes.

That is usually a strong formula for winning.

It simply was not enough on this occasion.

Kenny Gainwell’s Big-Play Impact

Gainwell’s performance stood out because of the combination of volume and explosiveness.

He carried the ball only 10 times, yet gained 92 yards.

His 55-yard long run accounted for a substantial portion of his total. That means the performance should be interpreted in two ways.

First, Gainwell demonstrated the ability to create a major explosive play.

Second, Pittsburgh did not rely on him for a massive workload throughout the game.

That distinction matters when evaluating individual rushing statistics. A player with 92 yards on 10 attempts has a very different statistical profile from a player with 92 yards on 25 carries.

For Pittsburgh, the bigger takeaway is that the Steelers had a productive rushing foundation that could have supported a winning offensive performance.

Chicago’s Running Game Was More Modest

Chicago rushed 25 times for 99 yards, averaging exactly 4.0 yards per carry.

Kyle Monangai led the Bears with 12 carries for 48 yards and one touchdown.

The Bears did not match Pittsburgh’s rushing production, but they did not need to.

Chicago’s offense was more productive through the passing game, and that balance allowed the Bears to score 31 points despite finishing with fewer total yards than Pittsburgh.

This is another reason the final score needs to be analyzed alongside the individual statistics.

The Steelers won the rushing-yardage battle by 87 yards.

Chicago still won the game.

DJ Moore Was Chicago’s Most Productive Receiver

DJ Moore was one of the biggest contributors to the Bears’ victory.

He caught five passes for 64 yards and two touchdowns.

His average of 12.8 yards per reception shows that his production was not simply based on short completions. He also provided Chicago with significant scoring value.

Moore’s two touchdown receptions were particularly important because Williams threw three touchdown passes in total.

That means Moore accounted for two-thirds of Chicago’s passing touchdowns.

For a receiving player, touchdown production is not always a complete measure of performance, but in a three-point game it becomes especially important.

Chicago needed its passing attack to compensate for its lower rushing output, and Moore’s scoring impact helped make that possible.

Calvin Austin III Provides Pittsburgh’s Receiving Highlight

Calvin Austin III led Pittsburgh’s receiving group with four receptions for 36 yards.

His average was 9.0 yards per reception, with a longest reception of 19 yards.

Pittsburgh’s receiving numbers were much more evenly distributed than Chicago’s touchdown production.

The Steelers finished with 24 receptions for 171 yards and one passing touchdown.

That means Rudolph completed a large number of passes, but Pittsburgh did not generate the same touchdown efficiency through the air that Chicago did.

The Steelers’ passing game was therefore productive in terms of completions but less productive in terms of scoring impact.

Comparing the Two Passing Games

The contrast between the quarterbacks is one of the most useful parts of the box score.

Category	Mason Rudolph	Caleb Williams
Completions	24	19
Attempts	31	35
Completion Rate	77.4%	54.3%
Passing Yards	171	239
Passing TDs	1	3
Interceptions	1	0
Sacks	2	1
Passer Rating	86.9	104.3

Rudolph was more accurate by completion percentage.

Williams was more productive by passing yards, touchdowns and passer rating.

The most significant difference was turnovers.

Williams did not throw an interception.

Rudolph threw one.

In a game decided by three points, avoiding a turnover becomes especially valuable.

Defensive Leaders and Impact Plays

Defense also played an important role in the game.

Jalen Ramsey led Pittsburgh with nine tackles, including three solo tackles.

Pittsburgh’s defense recorded 64 total tackles, 29 solo tackles, one sack, two tackles for loss, three passes defended and one quarterback hit.

The Steelers also recorded a defensive touchdown in the game statistics.

Chicago’s defensive numbers were even more active from a tackle perspective.

D’Marco Jackson led the Bears with 15 tackles, including five solo tackles and one tackle for loss.

Chicago’s defense finished with 88 total tackles, 40 solo tackles, two sacks, five tackles for loss, four passes defended and four quarterback hits.

The Bears also recorded an interception through Nahshon Wright.

The Turnover Battle

Turnovers are one of the most important categories to examine in any close NFL game.

Pittsburgh recorded two team fumbles and lost one.

Chicago also recorded two team fumbles, but lost both.

That means the Bears actually lost more fumbles than Pittsburgh.

However, Chicago’s passing game produced three touchdowns without an interception, while Pittsburgh’s passing game included one interception.

The turnover picture was therefore more complicated than simply counting total giveaways.

Pittsburgh’s lost fumble and Rudolph’s interception both represented opportunities that Chicago could use.

Chicago’s two lost fumbles gave Pittsburgh opportunities as well.

The Bears ultimately did enough with their offensive possessions to survive those mistakes.

Chicago’s Defense Created More Pressure

The defensive statistics show another important advantage for Chicago.

The Bears recorded two sacks compared with one by Pittsburgh.

Chicago also registered four quarterback hits compared with one for the Steelers.

That pressure helped limit Pittsburgh’s ability to generate consistent passing production.

The Steelers had 24 completions, but those completions produced only 171 gross passing yards.

Chicago’s defense also recorded an interception.

For a defense facing an offense that had already established a productive rushing attack, creating pressure without completely abandoning run support was important.

Pittsburgh Controlled More of the Offensive Volume

One of the most interesting parts of the box score is Pittsburgh’s overall offensive volume.

The Steelers ran 69 offensive plays.

Chicago ran 61.

Pittsburgh also recorded 22 first downs compared with Chicago’s 19 and held the ball for 33:09.

Yet the Bears won.

This is a valuable reminder that possession, play count and yardage are process statistics rather than guaranteed indicators of victory.

Pittsburgh had more opportunities to move the football.

Chicago was more effective at turning its passing opportunities into touchdowns.

That distinction ultimately decided the game.

Total Offense Comparison

Category	Pittsburgh	Chicago
First Downs	22	19
Total Yards	345	328
Offensive Plays	69	61
Yards per Play	5.0	5.4
Rushing Yards	186	99
Rushing Attempts	36	25
Rushing Average	5.2	4.0
Gross Passing Yards	171	239
Net Passing Yards	159	229
Possession	33:09	26:51

Pittsburgh won the volume battle in several categories.

Chicago won the scoreboard.

That is the central statistical theme of this matchup.

Third Down and Fourth Down Efficiency

Pittsburgh converted eight of 14 third downs, which equaled 57.1 percent.

Chicago converted seven of 13, or 53.8 percent.

Both offenses were reasonably effective on third down.

The fourth-down numbers were more revealing.

Pittsburgh converted one of three fourth-down attempts.

Chicago converted its only fourth-down attempt.

In a close game, failing on two fourth-down attempts can have a major impact because those possessions end without producing a first down or an immediate scoring opportunity.

Chicago’s perfect fourth-down result allowed the Bears to keep a possession alive when it mattered.

Red Zone Execution

Both teams were perfect in the red zone.

Pittsburgh scored on three of three red-zone trips.

Chicago also scored on three of three red-zone trips.

That means the difference was not red-zone failure.

Instead, the teams separated themselves through the number and type of scoring opportunities they created outside the red zone and through the efficiency of their passing touchdowns.

Both offenses finished with four touchdowns.

Pittsburgh scored two rushing touchdowns and one passing touchdown, along with one defensive touchdown.

Chicago scored one rushing touchdown and three passing touchdowns.

This tells us that Pittsburgh’s scoring profile was more balanced across offense and defense, while Chicago relied more heavily on the passing game.

Special Teams Statistics

Special teams provided another layer to the matchup.

Pittsburgh returned four kickoffs for 63 yards, averaging 15.8 yards per return.

Chicago returned five kickoffs for 134 yards, averaging 26.8 yards per return.

That gave Chicago a significant field-position advantage in the kickoff-return category.

Calvin Austin III also returned two punts for 24 yards for Pittsburgh.

Chicago did not record a punt return.

On kicking plays, Chris Boswell converted all four Pittsburgh extra-point attempts.

Cairo Santos made his only field-goal attempt, a 47-yarder, and also converted all four extra-point attempts.

The kicking numbers were not the main reason for the result, but Chicago’s kickoff-return production was notable.

Punting Comparison

Pittsburgh’s Corliss Waitman punted three times for 106 yards, averaging 35.3 yards per punt with a long of 39 yards.

Chicago’s Tory Taylor punted four times for 202 yards, averaging 50.5 yards per punt with a long of 58 yards.

The raw punting average strongly favored Chicago.

However, punting should always be evaluated in context. A high number of punts can indicate that an offense struggled to sustain drives. Therefore, the Bears’ superior punting average does not automatically mean Chicago’s offense performed better.

The broader game statistics show that Chicago was more effective when it reached meaningful scoring opportunities.

Why Pittsburgh Lost Despite More Rushing Yards

This is arguably the most important question raised by the game.

Pittsburgh rushed for 186 yards.

Chicago rushed for only 99.

The Steelers also recorded more first downs and more total yards.

Yet Pittsburgh lost.

The explanation is offensive efficiency.

Chicago gained 239 gross passing yards and scored three passing touchdowns.

Pittsburgh gained 171 gross passing yards and scored one passing touchdown.

The Steelers’ rushing attack gave them a strong statistical foundation, but the Bears’ passing game generated more points from fewer offensive plays.

That is why the box score should never be reduced to one category.

The Efficiency Difference

Chicago averaged 5.4 yards per offensive play.

Pittsburgh averaged 5.0.

The difference looks small.

But over an entire game, small efficiency advantages can influence scoring opportunities.

Chicago also gained 229 net passing yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 159.

That 70-yard difference in net passing production was substantial.

Pittsburgh compensated for some of it with its running game.

Chicago compensated for its lower rushing total through passing efficiency.

What the Game Says About Quarterback Evaluation

This matchup also provides a useful case study for evaluating quarterbacks.

If someone looked only at completion percentage, Rudolph would appear to have had the cleaner statistical performance.

He completed 24 of 31 passes.

Williams completed 19 of 35.

But football quarterback evaluation requires a broader view.

Williams threw three touchdowns and zero interceptions.

Rudolph threw one touchdown and one interception.

Williams also finished with more passing yards and a higher passer rating.

The conclusion is not that completion percentage is unimportant. Rather, it should be evaluated alongside touchdown production, turnovers, passing volume, efficiency and game situation.

In this game, Williams’ passing profile was more valuable to the winning team.

What Pittsburgh Did Well

Despite the loss, the Steelers had several strong elements in their performance.

1. Strong Ground Game

The Steelers produced 186 rushing yards on 36 attempts.

That is one of the clearest positives in the box score.

2. Strong Third-Down Conversion

Pittsburgh converted 57.1 percent of its third downs.

That kept the offense on the field and contributed to the team’s 33:09 time of possession.

3. More First Downs

The Steelers recorded 22 first downs.

Chicago recorded 19.

4. Productive Overall Yardage

Pittsburgh generated 345 total yards.

That was 17 more yards than Chicago.

5. Efficient Red-Zone Execution

Pittsburgh scored on all three of its red-zone opportunities.

These statistics demonstrate that the Steelers were competitive throughout the game and had several offensive strengths that could have produced a victory.

What Chicago Did Well

The Bears also had several clear advantages.

1. Three Passing Touchdowns

Williams produced three passing touchdowns without throwing an interception.

That was arguably the most important individual statistical advantage.

2. More Net Passing Yards

Chicago produced 229 net passing yards compared with Pittsburgh’s 159.

3. Better Offensive Efficiency Per Play

Chicago averaged 5.4 yards per offensive play.

4. Strong Defensive Pressure

The Bears recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits.

5. Strong Kickoff Returns

Chicago averaged 26.8 yards per kickoff return.

6. Perfect Red-Zone Performance

The Bears scored on all three red-zone possessions.

Those factors helped Chicago win despite losing the rushing-yardage and total-yardage battles.

Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways

The Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats reveal a game that was much closer than the final record comparison might suggest.

The most important lessons from the numbers are:

1. Pittsburgh dominated rushing production with 186 yards.
2. Chicago produced 239 gross passing yards.
3. Caleb Williams threw three touchdowns without an interception.
4. Mason Rudolph completed 24 passes but produced only one passing touchdown.
5. DJ Moore caught five passes for 64 yards and two touchdowns.
6. Kenny Gainwell rushed for 92 yards on only 10 carries.
7. Pittsburgh had 22 first downs compared with Chicago’s 19.
8. Pittsburgh gained 345 total yards compared with Chicago’s 328.
9. Chicago recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits.
10. Both teams scored on all three of their red-zone possessions.
11. Chicago won despite having fewer offensive plays.
12. The final margin was only three points.

These statistics show how closely matched the teams were in several areas.

The deciding factor was not simply who gained more yards.

It was which team produced more valuable scoring plays.

How to Read These Player Stats Correctly

When analyzing an NFL box score, it is easy to focus on the biggest yardage number.

That approach can be misleading.

A better process is to examine the game in layers.

Start With the Score

The final result establishes the basic context.

Chicago won 31-28.

Examine Total Offense

Pittsburgh had 345 yards.

Chicago had 328.

That suggests Pittsburgh moved the football effectively.

Examine Passing and Rushing Separately

Pittsburgh dominated on the ground.

Chicago had the clear passing advantage.

Examine Turnovers

Williams threw no interceptions.

Rudolph threw one.

The Bears also lost two fumbles, while Pittsburgh lost one.

Examine Scoring Efficiency

Chicago scored three passing touchdowns.

Pittsburgh scored one passing touchdown and two rushing touchdowns.

Examine Situational Football

Both teams were excellent in the red zone.

Pittsburgh had a slight third-down advantage but struggled more on fourth down.

This layered approach provides a much more accurate understanding of what happened.

Broader Significance of the 31-28 Result

A three-point NFL game often contains several moments that could have changed the outcome.

That is especially true here because neither offense was completely shut down.

Pittsburgh had enough rushing production to control stretches of the game.

Chicago had enough passing efficiency to answer.

The Bears’ ability to score seven points in the third quarter was particularly important because Pittsburgh had built a 21-17 halftime lead.

If Chicago had remained scoreless in the third quarter, the final period would have been played from a very different position.

Instead, the Bears entered the fourth quarter having regained momentum.

The Steelers scored seven points in the final period, but Chicago matched them.

That was enough to preserve the victory.

Official Statistical Reference

For readers who want to verify the numbers against the official record, the official NFL gamebook provides the final team statistics and player data for the November 23, 2025 matchup. The official NFL game center also records the 31-28 Chicago victory. (NFL)

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Steelers vs Bears game on November 23, 2025?

The Chicago Bears defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-28 at Soldier Field.

What were Caleb Williams’ stats against the Steelers?

Caleb Williams completed 19 of 35 passes for 239 yards, three touchdowns and no interceptions. He was sacked once and finished with a 104.3 passer rating.

What were Mason Rudolph’s stats against the Bears?

Mason Rudolph completed 24 of 31 passes for 171 yards, one touchdown and one interception. He was sacked twice and finished with an 86.9 passer rating.

Who was Pittsburgh’s leading rusher?

Kenny Gainwell led Pittsburgh with 10 carries for 92 yards. He averaged 9.2 yards per carry and had a 55-yard run.

Who was Chicago’s leading receiver?

DJ Moore led Chicago with five receptions for 64 yards and two touchdowns.

Which team had more total yards?

Pittsburgh had more total yards. The Steelers recorded 345 yards, while Chicago finished with 328.

Conclusion

The Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats provide a strong example of why NFL games cannot be understood by looking at total yardage alone.

Pittsburgh had several statistical advantages. The Steelers gained more total yards, rushed for 87 more yards than Chicago, recorded more first downs and controlled possession for more than 33 minutes.

Chicago still found a way to win.

The Bears’ passing game made the difference. Caleb Williams produced 239 passing yards and three touchdowns without an interception, while DJ Moore supplied two of those touchdown receptions. Chicago also generated more net passing yards and more quarterback pressure.

Pittsburgh’s 186 rushing yards and Kenny Gainwell’s explosive 92-yard performance were significant positives, but the Steelers did not receive enough passing production to turn their offensive volume into a victory.

The final 31-28 score reflects how competitive the matchup was. Neither team completely controlled the game, and both offenses had periods of success. Chicago’s ability to answer Pittsburgh’s second-quarter surge with a productive third quarter ultimately proved decisive.

For anyone studying player performance, this matchup is a useful reminder that the most meaningful statistics are the ones connected to scoring efficiency, turnovers, situational execution and the ability to create valuable plays when the game is still in balance.