Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats
Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears match player stats from the NFC Wild Card playoff on January 10, 2026, tell the story of one of the most dramatic games of the postseason. Chicago overcame an 18-point deficit to defeat Green Bay 31-27 at Soldier Field. Jordan Love delivered four touchdown passes without an interception, while Caleb Williams threw for 361 yards and two touchdowns, but also had two interceptions. The Bears ultimately won because their offense found another level in the fourth quarter, their defense created enough pressure, and their special teams proved more reliable in crucial moments.
The final score alone does not fully explain what happened. Green Bay produced 421 total yards, scored four touchdowns, converted all three of its fourth-down attempts, and finished 3-for-3 in the red zone. Chicago generated 445 total yards, controlled possession for 32:41, converted 10 of 19 third downs, and scored 25 fourth-quarter points. Those numbers reveal how a game that appeared firmly under Green Bay’s control at halftime became a Chicago victory by the final whistle.
Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats at a Glance
The game was played at Soldier Field as an NFC Wild Card playoff matchup. Green Bay entered with a 9-7-1 regular-season record, while Chicago entered at 11-6. The Packers led 21-3 at halftime and 21-6 entering the fourth quarter, but the Bears produced a historic comeback to win 31-27.
| Category | Green Bay Packers | Chicago Bears |
| Final Score | 27 | 31 |
| Total Yards | 421 | 445 |
| Passing Yards | 322 net | 352 net |
| Rushing Yards | 99 | 93 |
| First Downs | 21 | 24 |
| Third Down | 6/15 | 10/19 |
| Fourth Down | 3/3 | 2/6 |
| Possession | 27:19 | 32:41 |
| Passing TDs | 4 | 2 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Fumbles | 4, none lost | 1, none lost |
| Field Goals | 0/2 | 3/3 |
| Red Zone | 3/3 | 2/5 |
The most important contrast is efficiency. Green Bay was highly efficient inside the red zone and through the air, but Chicago won the broader situational battle. The Bears converted more third downs, possessed the ball for more than five additional minutes, and received a perfect kicking performance from Cairo Santos.
Jordan Love’s Passing Performance
Jordan Love produced one of the strongest statistical passing performances in a losing playoff effort.
He completed 24 of 46 passes for 323 yards, four touchdowns, and zero interceptions. His official passer rating was 103.8. He was sacked only once for one yard, giving Green Bay 322 net passing yards.
Those numbers are particularly impressive considering the circumstances.
Love’s 24 completions were spread across multiple receivers rather than concentrated on one target. That distribution made Green Bay’s passing attack difficult to predict during the first three quarters.
His four touchdown passes accounted for every Packers touchdown in the game. Christian Watson, Jayden Reed, Romeo Doubs, and Matthew Golden each recorded a touchdown reception.
From a quarterback evaluation perspective, the most important number may be zero interceptions. Love protected the football through the air while repeatedly producing explosive plays. His problem was not a lack of production. Green Bay’s inability to close the game came from a combination of defensive breakdowns, missed kicking opportunities, and late-game execution.
That distinction matters when evaluating player performance. A quarterback can play well statistically and still lose because football outcomes depend on all three phases.
Caleb Williams’ Statistical Performance
Caleb Williams had a much more complicated statistical profile.
He completed 24 of 48 passes for 361 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions. He was sacked once for nine yards and finished with a 71.6 passer rating. Despite the lower rating, his fourth-quarter performance was central to Chicago’s comeback.
The raw numbers show both sides of his performance.
What Williams Did Well
Williams produced 361 gross passing yards, 38 more than Love. He also helped Chicago sustain several important fourth-quarter drives.
His ability to extend plays became increasingly important as the game progressed. The Packers had opportunities to pressure him, but Chicago’s quarterback repeatedly found ways to create enough time for receivers to get open.
That became especially damaging in the final quarter.
The Bears scored on all four of their fourth-quarter possessions, producing 25 points in the quarter.
What Williams Could Have Done Better
The two interceptions prevented the performance from being statistically clean.
A 24-of-48 completion line also shows that Chicago’s passing attack required a high volume of attempts. His 50 percent completion rate was significantly below Love’s 52.2 percent.
Yet playoff quarterback evaluation cannot rely exclusively on passer rating.
Williams’ most important contribution came from the timing and volume of his production. When the Bears needed consecutive scoring drives in the fourth quarter, he kept generating enough offense to keep the comeback alive.
That is the major lesson from his stat line: efficiency was inconsistent, but late-game production was decisive.
Romeo Doubs Was Green Bay’s Receiving Star
Romeo Doubs led all Packers receivers with eight catches for 124 yards and one touchdown.
His 124 receiving yards represented the highest individual receiving total for Green Bay in the game. More importantly, Doubs consistently gave Love a reliable option when Chicago’s defense needed to defend multiple threats.
Doubs’ performance is one of the clearest examples of why box scores need context.
A receiver can produce more than 100 yards and a touchdown, yet his team can still lose because the opponent’s offense becomes more productive at the critical point of the game.
For Green Bay, Doubs was productive enough to deserve attention in any review of the contest. The issue was not the lack of a primary receiving weapon. The issue was maintaining offensive and defensive control after building a substantial lead.
Matthew Golden Made an Impact
Matthew Golden finished with four receptions for 84 yards and one touchdown.
His contribution was particularly notable because the rookie delivered an explosive receiving performance in his first playoff appearance. One of his catches went for 36 yards, providing Green Bay with an important chunk play.
Golden’s 84 yards ranked second among Packers receivers.
The combination of Golden, Doubs, Reed, and Watson gave Love several viable options. Green Bay’s four receiving touchdowns show just how productive the passing attack was.
Jayden Reed and Christian Watson
Jayden Reed recorded four receptions for 43 yards and one touchdown. He also contributed 14 rushing yards on one carry.
Christian Watson caught three passes for 36 yards and a touchdown.
Watson’s touchdown came on a seven-yard reception from Love and helped establish Green Bay’s early offensive momentum. However, one of the game’s most memorable moments involving Watson came when he lost the ball during a chaotic play near the goal line. The fumble was not lost, so it did not appear as a turnover in the final statistics.
This is an important distinction when analyzing fumble statistics.
Green Bay was charged with four fumbles but lost none. Chicago had one fumble and also lost none. Therefore, the raw fumble totals did not directly create a turnover advantage for either team.
Colston Loveland Led Chicago’s Receivers
Colston Loveland was the Bears’ leading receiver with eight receptions for 137 yards.
His 137 yards were the highest receiving total by any player in the game.
Loveland’s production became especially important as Chicago attempted to recover from its large deficit. His ability to move the chains gave Williams a dependable target during the comeback.
The 137-yard performance also highlights an important difference between the teams. Green Bay had a higher total of passing touchdowns, but Chicago’s leading receiver accumulated more yards than any Packers receiver.
That demonstrates how yardage and scoring can tell different stories.
DJ Moore Provided the Go-Ahead Touchdown
DJ Moore finished with six receptions for 64 yards and one touchdown.
His most important play came late in the fourth quarter when Williams found him open for the go-ahead touchdown. The play shifted the game from a Green Bay-controlled contest into a Chicago lead.
That play is an excellent example of why individual statistics should be connected to game situations.
Moore did not lead Chicago in receiving yards. Loveland had more than twice as many receiving yards. But Moore’s touchdown arrived at the moment when Chicago needed a decisive play.
Other Chicago Receiving Numbers
Chicago received contributions from several players:
- Rome Odunze recorded two receptions for 44 yards.
- Luther Burden III caught three passes for 42 yards.
- D’Andre Swift added two receptions for 38 yards.
- Kyle Monangai caught one pass for 22 yards.
- Olamide Zaccheaus recorded one reception for eight yards and one touchdown.
This distribution helped Chicago prevent Green Bay from focusing exclusively on one receiving option.
The Bears finished with 24 completions for 361 gross passing yards and two passing touchdowns. Green Bay also completed 24 passes, but Love’s four passing touchdowns gave the Packers a substantial scoring advantage through the air.
Josh Jacobs’ Rushing Numbers
Josh Jacobs carried the ball 19 times for 55 yards.
His 55 rushing yards were enough to lead Green Bay in rushing, but his 2.9 yards per carry average shows that the Packers struggled to consistently generate efficiency on the ground.
Green Bay finished with 99 rushing yards on 23 attempts, averaging 4.3 yards per rushing attempt as a team.
The team average was boosted by several short-volume explosive runs.
Chris Brooks gained 16 yards on one carry. Jayden Reed gained 14 yards on one carry. Jordan Love added 11 yards on one carry.
Those plays helped the Packers reach 99 rushing yards, but Jacobs’ workload demonstrates that the primary rushing attack did not consistently produce the same efficiency as Green Bay’s passing game.
D’Andre Swift Led Chicago’s Rushing Attack
D’Andre Swift carried 13 times for 54 yards and one touchdown.
His 4.2 yards per carry average was better than Jacobs’ 2.9, although Chicago finished with 93 rushing yards compared with Green Bay’s 99.
Swift’s touchdown was Chicago’s only rushing touchdown.
Kyle Monangai added 27 rushing yards on eight attempts, while Williams contributed 20 rushing yards on four carries. Williams’ rushing ability added another layer to Chicago’s offensive approach because Green Bay’s defense had to account for the quarterback as a potential runner.
The Rushing Battle Was Closer Than the Score Suggests
One of the most interesting aspects of the statistical comparison is that Green Bay actually produced slightly more rushing yardage.
The Packers recorded 99 rushing yards.
The Bears recorded 93.
That means Chicago did not win because it completely dominated the ground game.
Instead, the difference came from passing production, third-down execution, possession, special teams, and fourth-quarter scoring.
This is an important analytical point for anyone studying Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears match player stats. The final score can make a team appear overwhelmingly superior, but the underlying numbers show a much more balanced contest.
Defensive Leaders for Green Bay
Edgerrin Cooper led the Packers with eight tackles, including six solo tackles.
Carrington Valentine recorded one sack and one interception. Ty’Ron Hopper also intercepted Williams.
Green Bay therefore created two interceptions while allowing no passing touchdowns to its own defense’s opponent through the air until Chicago’s two fourth-quarter touchdown passes.
The defensive numbers were strong early.
The problem was that Green Bay could not maintain pressure on Williams during the comeback.
The Packers recorded only one sack, while Chicago also recorded one sack. That limited pressure became increasingly important as Williams began finding open receivers downfield.
Chicago’s Defensive Leaders
Jaquan Brisker led the Bears with nine tackles, including five solo tackles.
Austin Booker recorded Chicago’s only sack.
Chicago did not intercept Love.
That is a striking statistic because Love threw four touchdown passes and no interceptions. The Bears therefore had to win the game without generating a takeaway through the passing game.
Their defense instead relied on tackling, situational stops, and limiting Green Bay’s ability to turn its offensive production into enough points.
The Third-Down Difference
Third down may be one of the most useful statistics for explaining the result.
Green Bay converted six of 15 third downs, a 40 percent success rate.
Chicago converted 10 of 19, or 52.6 percent.
That difference may appear modest, but it affected the number of offensive opportunities each team received.
Chicago extended drives more consistently.
That helped explain why the Bears held the ball for 32:41 compared with Green Bay’s 27:19.
Possession alone does not determine NFL games, but when it is combined with third-down conversion and fourth-quarter scoring, it becomes much more meaningful.
Green Bay’s Perfect Fourth-Down Record
Green Bay converted all three of its fourth-down attempts.
That is an impressive 100 percent success rate.
It also shows that Green Bay was aggressive and effective when facing high-leverage fourth downs.
However, the Packers’ fourth-down success could not compensate for other late-game problems.
Chicago converted two of six fourth-down attempts, a 33.3 percent success rate. The Bears were therefore less efficient on fourth down but still managed to win because their broader offensive execution improved dramatically in the final quarter.
Red-Zone Efficiency
Green Bay was perfect in the red zone.
The Packers scored touchdowns on all three of their red-zone opportunities.
Chicago, by comparison, scored touchdowns on two of five red-zone opportunities.
On the surface, that gives Green Bay a major statistical advantage.
It also demonstrates why red-zone percentage alone cannot predict the winner.
Green Bay’s three red-zone touchdowns were extremely efficient, but Chicago created enough overall offensive production and late-game opportunities to overcome that efficiency advantage.
Cairo Santos vs Brandon McManus
Special teams played a major role.
Cairo Santos converted all three of his field-goal attempts and both extra-point attempts. His field goals included a long of 51 yards, giving Chicago 11 points from kicking.
Brandon McManus had a much more difficult evening.
He went 0-for-2 on field goals and converted three of four extra points. He finished with three points.
That created a major scoring gap in the kicking game.
McManus missed an extra point and two field goals, including a 44-yard attempt with less than three minutes remaining that would have extended Green Bay’s lead.
This is arguably one of the biggest lessons from the game.
A quarterback can throw four touchdown passes and finish with a passer rating above 100, but missed kicks can still become decisive in a four-point playoff loss.
Return Game Comparison
Green Bay’s kickoff return production included:
- Keisean Nixon: three returns for 69 yards
- Josh Jacobs: two returns for 61 yards
Chicago’s kickoff returns included:
- Devin Duvernay: three returns for 80 yards
- Josh Blackwell: one return for 19 yards
Duvernay also produced three punt returns for 64 yards.
Chicago’s ability to generate 64 punt-return yards gave the Bears an additional field-position advantage. Green Bay had no punt returns.
Field position is sometimes overlooked when reviewing player statistics because it does not always appear beside a quarterback’s passing total or a running back’s rushing total.
In a close playoff game, however, those hidden yards matter.
The Fourth Quarter Changed Everything
The biggest statistical story was the fourth quarter.
Green Bay entered the final quarter with a 21-6 lead.
Chicago scored 25 points in the fourth quarter and finished with 31 points.
Green Bay scored six points in the final quarter.
The Bears therefore outscored the Packers 25-6 in the period that decided the game.
That is the central reason the box score must be read chronologically rather than simply as a collection of final totals.
For three quarters, Green Bay looked like the superior team.
For the final quarter, Chicago was clearly the better team.
How Chicago Completed the Comeback
Chicago’s comeback was not based on one lucky play.
It was a sequence of successful possessions.
The Bears scored on all four of their fourth-quarter possessions. Williams became more effective at creating time, the receivers found space, and the offense continued converting important downs.
The defense also prevented Green Bay from extending its advantage enough to make the comeback impossible.
The result was an 18-point comeback and Chicago’s first playoff victory in 14 seasons. The comeback was the largest playoff comeback in Bears franchise history.
Why Green Bay Lost Despite Strong Player Statistics
This is perhaps the most important analytical question.
How did Green Bay lose after producing four passing touchdowns, no interceptions from Love, perfect red-zone efficiency, and 421 total yards?
The answer is that the Packers lost several smaller battles simultaneously.
Missed Kicks
Green Bay received only three points from its kicker.
Chicago received 11.
That eight-point difference was significant in a four-point game.
Defensive Collapse
The Packers allowed 25 fourth-quarter points.
Their defense struggled to contain Williams once the Bears found their rhythm.
Third-Down Gap
Chicago converted 10 third downs compared with Green Bay’s six.
Possession Gap
Chicago controlled the ball for 32:41.
Green Bay possessed it for 27:19.
Late-Game Execution
Green Bay’s final moments included a delay-of-game penalty coming out of a timeout and a fumbled snap on the final play. These execution problems contributed to the collapse.
The lesson is straightforward: strong individual statistics do not guarantee strong team execution.
A Deeper Look at the Offensive Efficiency
Green Bay produced 421 yards on 70 offensive plays.
That equals exactly 6.0 yards per offensive play.
Chicago produced 445 yards on 77 plays.
The Bears averaged 5.8 yards per play.
That is a fascinating comparison.
Green Bay was slightly more efficient on a per-play basis.
Chicago simply ran more plays.
That combination explains how the Bears could generate more total yardage without being more efficient on every individual snap.
Chicago’s 77 offensive plays compared with Green Bay’s 70 gave the Bears seven additional opportunities to accumulate yards.
Passing Efficiency vs Volume
Green Bay and Chicago both completed 24 passes.
But the context was different.
Love needed 46 attempts to produce 323 yards.
Williams needed 48 attempts to produce 361 yards.
That means Williams threw two more passes and gained 38 more yards.
Neither quarterback had an elite completion percentage, but both produced explosive passing numbers.
Love’s major advantage was ball security and touchdown production.
Williams’ major advantage was volume and fourth-quarter effectiveness.
This is why comparing only passer rating would miss much of the game’s story.
What the Player Stats Say About Green Bay
The Packers’ statistical profile suggests an offense capable of winning playoff games.
Love threw four touchdowns without an interception.
Doubs exceeded 120 yards.
Golden produced 84 yards and a touchdown.
The team gained 421 yards.
The Packers converted all three fourth-down attempts.
The offense also went 3-for-3 in the red zone.
Those are winning-level numbers in many circumstances.
The major concern was consistency across all three phases.
The offense was productive, the defense was competitive for most of the game, and the special teams unit ultimately became a weakness.
What the Player Stats Say About Chicago
Chicago’s numbers reveal a team that survived an uneven start and became increasingly effective.
Williams threw two interceptions, yet still finished with 361 yards and two touchdowns.
Loveland produced 137 receiving yards.
Moore delivered the decisive touchdown.
Swift scored on the ground.
Santos converted every kick.
Brisker led the defense with nine tackles.
Most importantly, Chicago’s offense scored 25 points in the fourth quarter.
The Bears did not need every player to dominate. They needed enough players to make important plays at the right time.
Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Biggest Individual Takeaways
The most significant individual performances can be summarized as follows:
Jordan Love: 24/46, 323 yards, four touchdowns, zero interceptions, 103.8 rating.
Caleb Williams: 24/48, 361 yards, two touchdowns, two interceptions, 71.6 rating.
Romeo Doubs: eight receptions, 124 yards, one touchdown.
Colston Loveland: eight receptions, 137 yards.
Josh Jacobs: 19 carries, 55 yards.
D’Andre Swift: 13 carries, 54 yards, one touchdown.
Jaquan Brisker: nine tackles, five solo.
Edgerrin Cooper: eight tackles, six solo.
Cairo Santos: three field goals on three attempts and two extra points.
Brandon McManus: zero field goals on two attempts and three extra points.
The contrast between the quarterbacks and kickers is particularly revealing. Love had the better efficiency rating and no interceptions, but Williams’ team won. Santos was perfect, while McManus struggled, and those special-teams points mattered enormously.
What Fans Should Look For When Reading NFL Player Stats
A useful way to interpret a box score is to avoid treating every statistic equally.
Start with the final score, then examine:
- Total yards
- Third-down conversion
- Red-zone efficiency
- Turnovers
- Time of possession
- Explosive plays
- Kicking efficiency
- Fourth-quarter scoring
- Individual matchup statistics
- Situational execution
This approach provides a much clearer picture than simply looking at passing yards or touchdowns.
The Packers-Bears game is a perfect example.
Green Bay won several statistical categories but lost the game because Chicago was better when the stakes were highest.
Why the Final Score Does Not Tell the Whole Story
Chicago’s 31-27 victory looks straightforward when displayed on a scoreboard.
It was anything but straightforward.
The Bears trailed 21-3 at halftime.
They trailed 21-6 entering the fourth quarter.
They then scored 25 points in the fourth quarter.
The Packers had four passing touchdowns.
The Bears had two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown.
Green Bay had zero turnovers through interceptions and lost zero fumbles.
Yet Chicago won.
That is why serious statistical analysis must connect player numbers to game context.
How This Game Should Be Remembered
This was not simply a game where one team played well and the other played poorly.
It was a game of changing momentum.
Green Bay controlled the first half.
Chicago controlled the final quarter.
Love produced the cleaner quarterback statistical performance.
Williams produced the more important late-game performance.
Doubs led Green Bay’s receivers.
Loveland led Chicago’s receivers.
Jacobs led Green Bay’s rushing attack.
Swift produced Chicago’s rushing touchdown.
Santos delivered a perfect kicking performance.
McManus struggled in a game where every point mattered.
Together, those details explain why Chicago advanced.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Packers vs Bears playoff game?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Green Bay Packers 31-27 in the NFC Wild Card playoffs at Soldier Field. Chicago overcame an 18-point deficit to advance.
How many passing yards did Jordan Love have?
Jordan Love completed 24 of 46 passes for 323 yards, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. He finished with a 103.8 passer rating.
How many passing yards did Caleb Williams have?
Caleb Williams completed 24 of 48 passes for 361 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions. His passer rating was 71.6.
Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Chicago tight end Colston Loveland led all receivers with eight catches for 137 yards. Green Bay’s Romeo Doubs led the Packers with eight receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown.
How many points did Chicago score in the fourth quarter?
Chicago scored 25 points in the fourth quarter, turning a 21-6 deficit into a 31-27 victory.
Which team had more total yards?
Chicago had 445 total yards, while Green Bay had 421. The Bears also ran seven more offensive plays, 77 compared with Green Bay’s 70.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears match player stats reveal a game that was far more competitive than the final comeback might initially suggest.
Jordan Love delivered 323 passing yards and four touchdowns without throwing an interception. Romeo Doubs produced 124 receiving yards, while Green Bay’s offense finished with 421 total yards and perfect red-zone efficiency.
Chicago answered with 445 total yards, 361 passing yards from Caleb Williams, 137 receiving yards from Colston Loveland, a 54-yard rushing performance from D’Andre Swift, and a perfect kicking display from Cairo Santos.
The defining difference came in the fourth quarter. Chicago scored 25 points while Green Bay managed six. The Bears also held advantages in third-down conversion, time of possession, and total offensive plays.
For anyone studying the game from a statistical perspective, the most useful lesson is that football performance cannot be measured by one number. Love’s passer rating was better than Williams’ rating, Green Bay scored more passing touchdowns, and the Packers converted all three fourth-down attempts. Yet Chicago made the critical plays late, while Green Bay’s defense and special teams failed to protect a large lead.
The result was a 31-27 Chicago victory and one of the most memorable comeback wins in the rivalry’s playoff history.
One Comment