Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats
The Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats from October 5, 2025, tell the story of a closely contested NFL game in which Minnesota secured a 21-17 victory over Cleveland in Week 5. The Vikings combined efficient passing, a productive rushing touchdown, and key contributions from their receiving corps to finish four points ahead. Cleveland produced a strong performance on the ground, with Quinshon Judkins rushing for 110 yards, while quarterback Dillon Gabriel threw two touchdown passes without an interception. Despite those contributions, the Browns could not turn their offensive production into enough points to win.
The final score alone does not explain how the game unfolded. Minnesota quarterback Carson Wentz completed 25 of 34 passes for 236 yards and one touchdown, while Justin Jefferson recorded seven receptions for 123 yards. Cleveland answered with a balanced offensive approach led by Judkins and Gabriel. Defensive pressure, ball security, red-zone execution, and the distribution of scoring across four quarters all help explain the result.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback performances, rushing and receiving production, defensive statistics, special teams, and the key statistical differences between the teams. It also explains how to interpret the box score without confusing individual achievements with overall team performance.
Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The two teams met on Sunday, October 5, 2025, in a Week 5 regular-season NFL matchup. Minnesota finished with 21 points, while Cleveland scored 17. The Vikings’ victory was decided by four points, making every scoring opportunity and possession important to the final outcome.
| Game Detail | Result |
| Matchup | Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns |
| Date | October 5, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL regular season, Week 5 |
| Final score | Vikings 21, Browns 17 |
| Winning team | Minnesota Vikings |
| Losing team | Cleveland Browns |
| Vikings record shown in supplied box score | 3-2 |
| Browns record shown in supplied box score | 1-4 |
| Vikings passing leader | Carson Wentz |
| Browns passing leader | Dillon Gabriel |
| Vikings rushing leader | Jordan Mason |
| Browns rushing leader | Quinshon Judkins |
| Vikings receiving leader | Justin Jefferson |
| Browns receiving leader | David Njoku |
Minnesota’s offense recorded two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Cleveland also recorded two passing touchdowns but did not score a rushing touchdown. That distinction is important because the teams produced the same number of passing touchdowns, yet Minnesota found an additional way to reach the end zone.
The supplied box-score data also shows that neither team recorded an interception. Cleveland’s defense registered three sacks, compared with two for Minnesota. Both teams generated pressure, but the Vikings ultimately finished with the higher score.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Minnesota Vikings | Cleveland Browns |
| First quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Third quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 0 |
| Final score | 21 | 17 |
The first quarter ended with both teams scoring seven points. Cleveland then added a field goal in the second quarter while Minnesota remained scoreless. The teams exchanged seven-point quarters in the third, leaving Minnesota ahead by one point entering the fourth quarter.
The decisive scoring difference came in the final period. Minnesota added seven points, while Cleveland failed to score. This fourth-quarter contrast explains the final margin more directly than the overall yardage totals alone.
Quarterback Stats: Carson Wentz vs Dillon Gabriel
Quarterback production provides a useful starting point for understanding this game. Both starting quarterbacks threw two or fewer touchdown passes, and neither threw an interception. However, Minnesota’s passing game generated more yards and a higher completion percentage, while Cleveland’s passing offense faced a different challenge in converting its opportunities into points.
Carson Wentz’s passing performance
Carson Wentz led Minnesota’s passing attack with 25 completions on 34 attempts for 236 passing yards. He threw one touchdown and no interceptions.
| Statistic | Carson Wentz |
| Completions | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 73.5% |
| Passing yards | 236 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 3 |
| Sack yards lost | 16 |
| Passer rating | 102.1 |
| ESPN QBR | 55.2 |
Wentz completed approximately 73.5% of his attempts, calculated from the supplied completion and attempt totals. That high completion rate indicates that Minnesota consistently connected on its passing attempts.
His 236 passing yards were also important because they supported a receiving group that included Justin Jefferson, Jordan Addison, and T.J. Hockenson. Jefferson supplied the biggest share of Minnesota’s receiving yardage, while Addison and Josh Oliver each recorded a touchdown.
Wentz took three sacks for a combined loss of 16 yards. Sacks matter because they can move an offense out of favorable down-and-distance situations and reduce the value of otherwise productive drives. The fact that Wentz avoided interceptions helped Minnesota protect its possessions, although the Vikings still lost two fumbles according to the supplied statistics.
His passer rating of 102.1 reflects a productive statistical performance. His QBR of 55.2 measures quarterback performance on a different scale, so the two figures should not be compared as though they use the same calculation.
Cam Akers’ passing contribution
Cam Akers also appeared in the passing statistics, completing his only pass attempt for 32 yards and a touchdown.
| Statistic | Cam Akers |
| Completions | 1 |
| Attempts | 1 |
| Passing yards | 32 |
| Yards per attempt | 32.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Passer rating | 158.3 |
| ESPN QBR | 100.0 |
Akers’ contribution stands out because his only recorded attempt produced a touchdown. His perfect completion rate and 158.3 passer rating are mathematically consistent with the limited passing line, but the sample size matters. One attempt cannot provide the same evidence of sustained passing efficiency as a full game of quarterback play.
This play also explains why Minnesota’s team passing totals list two touchdowns even though Wentz recorded one. The supplied data credits one passing touchdown to Wentz and another to Akers.
Dillon Gabriel’s passing performance
Dillon Gabriel completed 19 of 33 passes for 190 passing yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions.
| Statistic | Dillon Gabriel |
| Completions | 19 |
| Pass attempts | 33 |
| Completion percentage | 57.6% |
| Passing yards | 190 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 8 |
| Passer rating | 94.3 |
| ESPN QBR | 38.4 |
Gabriel’s two touchdown passes matched Minnesota’s total passing touchdowns. He also protected the ball from interceptions, avoiding one of the most damaging outcomes for a quarterback.
His 190 passing yards were 46 fewer than Wentz’s 236. Gabriel completed approximately 57.6% of his attempts, a lower rate than Wentz’s 73.5%. Cleveland therefore received fewer passing yards despite attempting a similar number of passes.
The Browns’ rushing production helped balance their offense, but their passing game generated less yardage per attempt. Gabriel’s two sacks resulted in eight yards lost. Those losses were smaller than Minnesota’s combined sack yardage, although the number of sacks alone does not establish which quarterback faced greater overall pressure.
Quarterback comparison
| Statistic | Carson Wentz | Dillon Gabriel |
| Completions | 25 | 19 |
| Attempts | 34 | 33 |
| Completion percentage | 73.5% | 57.6% |
| Passing yards | 236 | 190 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.9 | 5.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 3 | 2 |
| Passer rating | 102.1 | 94.3 |
Wentz produced more passing yards, completed a greater percentage of his attempts, and recorded the higher passer rating. Gabriel threw one more touchdown pass than Wentz, but Wentz’s team also received a passing touchdown from Akers.
The comparison illustrates why touchdown totals should not be treated as a complete measurement of quarterback performance. Completion percentage, yards per attempt, sacks, turnovers, and the timing of scoring plays all contribute to the larger picture.
Rushing Stats: Jordan Mason vs Quinshon Judkins
The rushing comparison reveals one of the clearest differences between the two offenses. Cleveland gained more rushing yards and recorded more carries, while Minnesota received the only rushing touchdown listed in the supplied team statistics.
Jordan Mason leads Minnesota’s rushing attack
Jordan Mason led the Vikings with 13 carries for 52 yards and one touchdown.
| Statistic | Jordan Mason |
| Carries | 13 |
| Rushing yards | 52 |
| Yards per carry | 4.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 14 yards |
Mason averaged 4.0 yards per carry. His rushing touchdown was especially important because it gave Minnesota a scoring route that did not depend on a conventional quarterback passing touchdown.
His production was not based on a single extremely long run. The longest carry in his supplied line was 14 yards, suggesting that his total came from a series of shorter gains and at least one meaningful longer run.
Mason also recorded three receptions for four yards. Those receiving numbers contributed little yardage, but they show that he was involved in both phases of Minnesota’s offense.
Other Minnesota rushing contributors
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns |
| Jordan Mason | 13 | 52 | 4.0 | 1 |
| Zavier Scott | 5 | 18 | 3.6 | 0 |
| Jalen Nailor | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 |
| Carson Wentz | 3 | 13 | 4.3 | 0 |
| Max Brosmer | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Team total as supplied | 23 | 97 | 4.2 | 1 |
Mason handled the largest share of Minnesota’s listed carries. Scott added 18 yards on five attempts, while Nailor gained 15 yards on a single carry. Nailor’s 15.0-yard average is the highest among these players, but it reflects only one attempt.
Wentz added 13 rushing yards, providing some additional mobility at quarterback. Brosmer’s one recorded carry lost a yard.
The individual lines in the supplied data do not perfectly reconcile with every team-level total. The team figures above are therefore retained as displayed rather than adjusted to force a mathematical match.
Quinshon Judkins delivers Cleveland’s biggest rushing performance
Quinshon Judkins led the Browns with 23 carries for 110 yards.
| Statistic | Quinshon Judkins |
| Carries | 23 |
| Rushing yards | 110 |
| Yards per carry | 4.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 32 yards |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving yards | 18 |
Judkins averaged 4.8 yards per carry and produced the game’s most productive individual rushing line. His 32-yard longest run gave Cleveland a substantial gain without requiring a completed pass.
He also recorded one reception for 18 yards, bringing his listed combined rushing and receiving yardage to 128. That total demonstrates his involvement in Cleveland’s offensive production, although his official rushing total remains 110 yards.
The most important distinction is that Judkins did not record a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics. Cleveland’s offense produced two passing touchdowns, but its ground game did not add a rushing score. Minnesota’s Mason did, and that difference contributed directly to the scoring comparison.
Other Cleveland rushing contributors
| Player | Carries | Rushing Yards | Yards per Carry | Touchdowns |
| Quinshon Judkins | 23 | 110 | 4.8 | 0 |
| Jerome Ford | 5 | 18 | 3.6 | 0 |
| Malachi Corley | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Dillon Gabriel | 2 | 5 | 2.5 | 0 |
| Dylan Sampson | 1 | -4 | -4.0 | 0 |
| Team total as supplied | 32 | 140 | 4.4 | 0 |
Judkins accounted for most of Cleveland’s listed rushing production. Ford contributed 18 yards on five carries, and Corley added 11 yards on one attempt.
Gabriel recorded five rushing yards on two carries, while Sampson lost four yards on his lone attempt. Those negative or modest gains matter because rushing efficiency depends on the full set of carries, not simply the best run of the game.
Rushing comparison and what it means
Cleveland’s team rushing line lists 140 yards on 32 carries, compared with Minnesota’s 97 yards on 23 carries. Cleveland therefore had 43 more listed rushing yards and nine additional attempts.
That advantage did not translate into a victory. The Browns’ rushing production helped move the ball, but Minnesota finished with more points and recorded a rushing touchdown. The contrast shows why total rushing yards and scoring output must be evaluated separately.
For readers assessing an individual player’s performance, Judkins’ 110 yards are the leading figure on Cleveland’s side. For readers assessing the game’s result, the more useful question is how each offense converted its possessions and yards into touchdowns and field goals.
Receiving Stats: Justin Jefferson vs David Njoku
Minnesota’s receiving game produced a major individual highlight through Justin Jefferson. Cleveland’s David Njoku led the Browns’ receivers, while additional contributions from Jordan Addison and Harold Fannin Jr. helped both teams reach the end zone through the air.
Justin Jefferson leads all listed receivers
Justin Jefferson finished with seven receptions for 123 yards on 11 targets.
| Statistic | Justin Jefferson |
| Targets | 11 |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Catch rate | 63.6% |
| Receiving yards | 123 |
| Yards per reception | 17.6 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 38 yards |
Jefferson’s 123 yards represented a substantial share of Minnesota’s listed team receiving production. He averaged 17.6 yards per catch, demonstrating his ability to generate meaningful gains when he secured the ball.
His longest reception was 38 yards. That single play contributed to his overall total, but his seven receptions also show that the passing game repeatedly involved him rather than relying exclusively on one explosive catch.
Jefferson did not record a receiving touchdown in the supplied statistics. His impact was primarily reflected in yardage and his ability to move the offense into more favorable field position.
A useful distinction for interpreting his line is the difference between targets, catches, and yards. Eleven targets indicate how often the ball was directed toward him, seven receptions measure completed connections, and 123 yards show the resulting production. Each number describes a different part of his role.
Minnesota’s other receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Touchdowns |
| Justin Jefferson | 7 | 11 | 123 | 0 |
| Jordan Addison | 5 | 6 | 41 | 1 |
| T.J. Hockenson | 6 | 6 | 38 | 0 |
| Josh Oliver | 2 | 3 | 35 | 1 |
| Jalen Nailor | 3 | 4 | 27 | 0 |
| Jordan Mason | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Team total as supplied | 26 | 34 | 268 | 2 |
Jordan Addison caught five passes for 41 yards and one touchdown. His six targets produced a catch rate of approximately 83.3%, making him an efficient contributor in the supplied receiving line.
T.J. Hockenson recorded six receptions on six targets for 38 yards. His 100% catch rate is notable, although his average gain of 6.3 yards per reception was much lower than Jefferson’s. That contrast illustrates how different receivers can serve different purposes within the same passing offense.
Josh Oliver caught two passes for 35 yards and one touchdown. His 32-yard longest reception accounted for most of that yardage, while his touchdown gave Minnesota another scoring contributor beyond Jefferson.
Nailor added 27 receiving yards, and Mason caught three short passes for four yards. The combination of high-volume targets, shorter completions, and a few longer gains gave Minnesota several ways to advance the ball.
David Njoku leads Cleveland’s receiving production
David Njoku recorded six receptions for 67 yards and one touchdown on nine targets.
| Statistic | David Njoku |
| Targets | 9 |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Catch rate | 66.7% |
| Receiving yards | 67 |
| Yards per reception | 11.2 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 17 yards |
Njoku was Cleveland’s leading listed receiver in yardage. His six catches provided a consistent target for Gabriel, and his touchdown contributed to the Browns’ two passing scores.
His 11.2 yards per reception placed him below Jefferson’s 17.6-yard average, but the players had different overall receiving totals and roles. Jefferson produced more yardage, while Njoku supplied a receiving touchdown.
Njoku’s nine targets also made him one of Cleveland’s frequently involved pass catchers. His six receptions yielded a 66.7% catch rate based on the supplied numbers.
Cleveland’s other receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving Yards | Touchdowns |
| David Njoku | 6 | 9 | 67 | 1 |
| Isaiah Bond | 2 | 7 | 29 | 0 |
| Jamari Thrash | 1 | 1 | 22 | 0 |
| Jerome Ford | 2 | 2 | 20 | 0 |
| Quinshon Judkins | 1 | 2 | 18 | 0 |
| Jerry Jeudy | 2 | 5 | 15 | 0 |
| Harold Fannin Jr. | 4 | 4 | 13 | 1 |
| Dylan Sampson | 1 | 2 | 6 | 0 |
| Team total as supplied | 19 | 32 | 190 | 2 |
Isaiah Bond gained 29 yards on two receptions, while Thrash gained 22 yards on his only catch. Ford and Judkins provided additional receiving options from the backfield.
Harold Fannin Jr. caught four passes for 13 yards and a touchdown. His yardage total was modest, but the touchdown demonstrates why receiving production cannot be judged by yardage alone. A short catch can still be decisive when it occurs in a scoring situation.
Jerry Jeudy recorded two catches for 15 yards, and Sampson added six yards on one reception.
Receiving comparison
The supplied team receiving figures list 268 yards for Minnesota and 190 for Cleveland, an apparent advantage of 78 yards for the Vikings. Minnesota also recorded 26 receptions compared with Cleveland’s 19.
The difference in receiving yardage aligns with the individual performances of Jefferson and the Vikings’ supporting cast. Cleveland had productive contributors, especially Njoku, but no listed Browns receiver matched Jefferson’s 123 yards.
These figures should not be confused with net passing yards, which can account for sack losses. The supplied box-score text also contains discrepancies between some team totals and individual lines, so its displayed totals are preserved without attempting to reconstruct missing or inconsistent values.
Defensive Player Stats: Sacks, Tackles, and Pressure
Defense was important on both sides. Cleveland recorded three sacks and six tackles for loss, while Minnesota recorded two sacks and five tackles for loss. Neither defense recorded an interception in the supplied data.
These figures show that both teams disrupted plays behind or near the line of scrimmage. However, sacks and tackles are only part of defensive performance. They do not independently reveal every coverage assignment, pressure that forced a hurried throw, or stop that occurred on a crucial down.
Minnesota Vikings defensive leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Additional Recorded Stats |
| Eric Wilson | 9 | 4 | No additional stats listed |
| Theo Jackson | 8 | 1 | No additional stats listed |
| Dallas Turner | 7 | 3 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Levi Drake Rodriguez | 6 | 1 | 1 tackle for loss |
| Byron Murphy Jr. | 5 | 4 | 1 pass defended |
| Isaiah Rodgers | 5 | 3 | No additional stats listed |
| Harrison Smith | 5 | 1 | No additional stats listed |
| Javon Hargrave | 5 | 1 | No additional stats listed |
| Joshua Metellus | 4 | 4 | 1 pass defended |
| Ivan Pace Jr. | 4 | 3 | 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss, 1 QB hit |
| Jonathan Greenard | 4 | 2 | 1 tackle for loss, 2 passes defended, 1 QB hit |
| Jeff Okudah | 3 | 3 | No additional stats listed |
| Tyrion Ingram-Dawkins | 2 | 1 | 1 sack, 1 tackle for loss, 1 QB hit |
Eric Wilson led Minnesota’s listed defenders with nine total tackles. Theo Jackson followed with eight, while Dallas Turner recorded seven and added a tackle for loss.
Ivan Pace Jr. contributed a sack, a tackle for loss, and a quarterback hit. Tyrion Ingram-Dawkins also recorded a sack, a tackle for loss, and a quarterback hit. Those individual entries account for the two Minnesota sacks shown in the supplied defensive data.
Jonathan Greenard recorded two passes defended and a quarterback hit. Passes defended are useful indicators of activity in coverage, although the statistic alone does not show whether a play ended in an incompletion because of the defender’s action or another factor.
The Vikings’ team defensive line lists 80 total tackles, 35 solo tackles, two sacks, five tackles for loss, five passes defended, and three quarterback hits.
Cleveland Browns defensive leaders
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Additional Recorded Stats |
| Carson Schwesinger | 12 | 2 | No additional stats listed |
| Ronnie Hickman | 10 | 6 | No additional stats listed |
| Devin Bush | 6 | 4 | No additional stats listed |
| Greg Newsome II | 6 | 4 | 1 pass defended |
| Myles Harden | 5 | 4 | No additional stats listed |
| Alex Wright | 4 | 2 | 1 sack, 2 tackles for loss, 1 QB hit |
| Grant Delpit | 4 | 1 | 1 pass defended |
| Myles Garrett | 3 | 3 | No additional stats listed |
| Denzel Ward | 3 | 2 | 1 pass defended |
| Rayshawn Jenkins | 3 | Not specified | No additional stats listed |
| Maliek Collins | 2 | 2 | 2 sacks, 2 tackles for loss, 2 QB hits |
| Isaiah McGuire | 2 | 2 | 2 tackles for loss |
| Mason Graham | 2 | 2 | No additional stats listed |
Carson Schwesinger led Cleveland with 12 total tackles, while Ronnie Hickman recorded 10. Their tackle totals indicate frequent involvement in defensive plays, but a higher number of tackles does not automatically mean a defender performed better than a teammate with fewer opportunities.
Maliek Collins recorded two sacks, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits in the supplied table. Alex Wright added a sack, two tackles for loss, and a quarterback hit.
Cleveland’s three sacks exceeded Minnesota’s two. Its defense also recorded six tackles for loss, compared with five for Minnesota. The Browns therefore produced more of these negative offensive plays, even though their team lost the game.
The Browns’ team defensive line lists 75 total tackles, 36 solo tackles, three sacks, six tackles for loss, three passes defended, and three quarterback hits.
What the defensive statistics reveal
The defensive comparison presents an important distinction between pressure and the final result. Cleveland’s pass rush generated more sacks, but Minnesota still scored 21 points. Minnesota recorded fewer sacks yet held Cleveland to 17 points.
Neither team recorded an interception, so the supplied statistics do not identify a passing turnover as a decisive event. The defensive figures are better interpreted as a collection of pressure, tackling, and coverage contributions rather than proof that one defense dominated every phase.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers can change the value of otherwise productive drives. A team may gain yards and reach scoring territory, but losing possession can erase an opportunity before it produces points.
According to the supplied fumble statistics, Minnesota recorded two fumbles and lost both. Cleveland recorded no fumbles of its own in the team row and recovered two fumbles.
| Turnover Statistic | Minnesota Vikings | Cleveland Browns |
| Team fumbles | 2 | 0 |
| Fumbles lost | 2 | 0 |
| Opponent fumbles recovered | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded by defense | 0 | 0 |
The data lists Zavier Scott and Jordan Mason as the Minnesota players who each fumbled and lost possession. Cleveland’s Grant Delpit and Mohamoud Diabate are listed with one fumble recovery apiece.
These entries require careful interpretation. A fumble recovery does not necessarily mean the recovering player forced the fumble. The supplied table identifies the recoveries but does not establish which defender caused each loss of possession.
Minnesota’s two lost fumbles are notable because the Vikings won despite the recorded turnover disadvantage. The outcome suggests that the team’s scoring production was sufficient to withstand those losses, but the supplied summary does not provide enough detail to assign a precise number of points to each turnover or identify the exact scoring consequences.
For Cleveland, recovering two fumbles created opportunities to take possession. The Browns still finished four points behind, showing that turnovers recovered are not equivalent to points scored.
Special Teams Stats: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams influence field position and scoring opportunities even when they do not produce a touchdown. The supplied statistics show differences in punting volume, return production, and field-goal results.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Will Reichard, Minnesota | Andre Szmyt, Cleveland |
| Field goals made | 0 | 1 |
| Field goals attempted | 1 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 0.0% | 100.0% |
| Longest field goal | Displayed as 0 yards | 31 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 | 2 |
| Extra points attempted | 3 | 2 |
| Total points | 3 | 5 |
Reichard converted all three extra-point attempts but missed his only field-goal attempt. Szmyt converted a 31-yard field goal and both of his extra-point attempts.
The missed Minnesota field goal represents a lost scoring opportunity in the supplied kicking line. However, without the full play-by-play context, it would be inaccurate to claim that this kick alone determined the outcome.
Szmyt finished with five kicking points, compared with Reichard’s three. Minnesota’s advantage came from the overall scoring mix, including its rushing touchdown and two passing touchdowns.
Punting statistics
| Statistic | Ryan Wright, Minnesota | Corey Bojorquez, Cleveland |
| Punts | 5 | 8 |
| Total punt yards | 286 | 360 |
| Average punt distance | 57.2 yards | 45.0 yards |
| Longest punt | 77 yards | 57 yards |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 1 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 2 | 2 |
Wright averaged 57.2 yards per punt, compared with Bojorquez’s 45.0 yards. Wright also recorded the longer punt, at 77 yards.
Cleveland punted eight times, three more than Minnesota. Punt totals often reflect offensive drive outcomes, but they should not be interpreted in isolation because field position, penalties, and game situation also affect punting decisions.
Both punters recorded two punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line according to the supplied figures. Wright had no touchbacks, while Bojorquez had one.
Kick returns and punt returns
| Return Category | Player | Returns | Yards | Average |
| Vikings kick returns | Myles Price | 4 | 102 | 25.5 |
| Browns kick returns | Jerome Ford | 3 | 78 | 26.0 |
| Vikings punt returns | Myles Price | 3 | 15 | 5.0 |
| Browns punt returns | Gage Larvadain | 3 | 31 | 10.3 |
Myles Price averaged 25.5 yards on four kick returns for Minnesota. His three punt returns produced 15 yards, including a longest return of 12 yards.
Jerome Ford averaged 26.0 yards across three Cleveland kick returns. Gage Larvadain returned three punts for 31 yards, averaging 10.3 yards per return.
Ford’s average on kick returns was slightly higher than Price’s, while Larvadain produced the better average on punt returns. Those differences offer a more complete view of return performance than total return yards alone, since each player had a different number of opportunities.
The supplied return statistics list no return touchdowns for these players. Their contribution was therefore primarily related to field position rather than direct scoring.
Team Statistics Comparison
The following table brings together several major statistical categories from the supplied box-score text.
| Statistic | Minnesota Vikings | Cleveland Browns |
| Final score | 21 | 17 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 0 |
| Team passing completions | 26 | 19 |
| Team passing attempts | 35 | 33 |
| Team passing yards | 252 | 182 net passing yards displayed |
| Yards per pass attempt | 7.7 | 5.8 |
| Team rushing attempts | 23 | 32 |
| Team rushing yards | 97 | 140 |
| Yards per rush | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| Team receiving yards | 268 | 190 |
| Team sacks recorded | 2 | 3 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 5 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 3 | 3 |
| Fumbles lost by offense | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 0 |
The passing and receiving figures above reproduce the supplied data, including the team-level values that do not reconcile perfectly across every category. In particular, the listed Minnesota team passing yardage differs from the listed receiving yardage, and Cleveland’s team passing row displays net passing yards while its individual quarterback line reports passing yards. These values should not be combined as though they were identical measures.
Passing efficiency favored Minnesota in the supplied figures
Minnesota’s team passing row lists 7.7 yards per attempt, compared with Cleveland’s 5.8. Wentz also completed a larger percentage of his attempts than Gabriel.
These differences help explain how Minnesota generated more listed passing yardage. They do not, by themselves, prove that every passing play was more effective. Touchdown timing, down-and-distance situations, pressure, and field position all affect how passing production contributes to a win.
Cleveland held the rushing advantage
Cleveland’s team rushing row lists 140 yards, compared with Minnesota’s 97. Judkins was responsible for 110 of Cleveland’s listed rushing yards.
Yet Cleveland’s higher rushing total did not create a scoring advantage. The Browns recorded no rushing touchdown in the supplied table, while Mason scored one for Minnesota. This is a clear example of why rushing yardage should be read alongside touchdowns and the final score.
Minnesota’s receiving production stood out
The supplied team receiving totals give Minnesota 268 yards and Cleveland 190. Jefferson’s 123 yards were the most of any listed receiver, while Njoku led Cleveland with 67.
The Vikings also received touchdowns from Addison and Oliver. Cleveland’s receiving touchdowns came from Njoku and Fannin Jr. Both teams therefore distributed their passing scores across two listed receivers or contributors, even though their total passing yardage differed.
Defensive pressure was competitive
Cleveland’s three sacks and six tackles for loss exceeded Minnesota’s two sacks and five tackles for loss. Both teams recorded three quarterback hits.
The figures indicate that the Browns generated more recorded sacks and tackles for loss, but Minnesota still secured the win. Defensive pressure is valuable, yet it must be considered alongside offensive execution, turnover consequences, and scoring efficiency.
Key Factors Behind Minnesota’s 21-17 Victory
The result is best understood through several connected factors rather than one isolated statistic.
1. Minnesota scored in the fourth quarter
The Vikings entered the fourth quarter with a narrow advantage after the teams matched each other with seven points in the third. Minnesota then scored seven more points, while Cleveland remained scoreless.
This difference was the most direct factor in the final margin. Cleveland had produced enough offense to remain competitive, but it did not add to its score in the final quarter.
2. Jordan Mason supplied a rushing touchdown
Mason’s 52 rushing yards were fewer than Judkins’ 110, but Mason also recorded a rushing touchdown. That scoring contribution gave Minnesota a route to the end zone that Cleveland’s rushing statistics did not provide.
Touchdowns are not interchangeable with yardage. A player can accumulate substantial rushing production without scoring, while a shorter rushing performance can still be highly valuable if it includes a touchdown.
3. Justin Jefferson generated explosive receiving yardage
Jefferson’s 123 receiving yards gave Minnesota a major source of offensive production. His 17.6 yards per reception and 38-yard longest catch indicate that he was capable of producing significant gains through the air.
His impact should not be reduced to touchdown totals. A receiver can help an offense advance into scoring range without personally completing the final scoring play.
4. Cleveland’s rushing advantage did not settle the game
Judkins gained 110 yards, and Cleveland’s team rushing row listed 140 yards. The Browns also averaged 4.4 yards per carry according to the supplied figures.
That output helped Cleveland maintain a balanced offense. However, the absence of a recorded rushing touchdown meant that the Browns depended on their passing touchdowns and field goal for their listed scoring production.
5. Both quarterbacks avoided interceptions
Wentz and Gabriel threw no interceptions in their supplied individual lines. That reduced one potential source of lost possessions, although Minnesota’s two lost fumbles remained a negative factor in the turnover data.
The lack of interceptions also means that the supplied record does not support attributing the result to an interception return or an interception that directly ended a drive.
6. Cleveland generated more sacks but still lost
The Browns recorded three sacks, with Collins accounting for two in the supplied defensive table. Minnesota recorded two sacks.
This difference shows that a defense can win some individual statistical categories without winning the game. Sacks may disrupt drives, but the final result depends on how both teams perform across the full contest.
How to Read the Match Player Statistics Correctly
A box score is most useful when each statistic is interpreted according to what it measures. Readers often focus on passing yards, rushing totals, or the number of touchdowns, but no single category fully explains a football game.
Passing yards versus passer rating
Passing yards measure the yardage credited to a quarterback’s completed passes. Passer rating is a calculated measure based on several passing outcomes, including completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions.
Wentz’s 236 yards and 102.1 rating describe different aspects of his performance. Neither figure should be treated as a complete substitute for the other.
Completion percentage versus yards per attempt
Completion percentage measures the proportion of pass attempts completed. Yards per attempt measures average passing yardage per attempt.
A quarterback can complete many short passes and post a high completion percentage without producing especially high yardage per attempt. Conversely, a quarterback who completes fewer passes may gain more yards through longer completions. Looking at both statistics provides a more balanced comparison.
Rushing yards versus rushing touchdowns
Judkins’ 110 rushing yards demonstrate strong volume and yardage production. Mason’s 52 yards and one touchdown show a different form of contribution.
When comparing running backs, consider carries, yards per carry, longest run, touchdowns, and receiving involvement. Each reveals a separate aspect of performance.
Tackles versus defensive impact
A defender’s tackle total indicates how frequently the player was credited with stopping or assisting on a play. It does not automatically measure the quality of each tackle or its effect on the game.
Sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits provide additional context. Down, distance, field position, and game situation are also important when evaluating defensive performance.
Why the supplied totals require care
The supplied data contains several team-level and individual-level discrepancies. For example, Minnesota’s listed team passing yards and receiving yards differ, while some Cleveland passing values distinguish gross passing yards from net passing yards after sacks. Certain individual rushing figures also do not reconcile exactly with the team rushing line.
This article preserves those displayed values rather than inventing corrections. Anyone using the statistics for advanced analysis, fantasy football, or historical recordkeeping should distinguish between the figures reproduced here and any subsequently verified official correction.
Historical and Analytical Context
The game offers a useful case study in the difference between statistical volume and scoring efficiency. Cleveland generated more listed rushing yards and recorded more sacks, yet Minnesota finished with the higher score.
Minnesota’s passing game produced a stronger listed yardage total, and its scoring was spread across two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. Cleveland relied on two passing touchdowns and one field goal in the supplied scoring summary.
This does not mean rushing yardage is unimportant or that sacks fail to influence outcomes. Instead, the result demonstrates that individual categories operate together. A team must convert its opportunities into points, avoid damaging mistakes, and prevent its opponent from scoring enough to overtake it.
The same approach is useful when reviewing other NFL matchups. Rather than declaring a team dominant because it led in total yards, compare the scoring breakdown, turnovers, passing efficiency, rushing touchdowns, and defensive pressure. The combination often provides a clearer explanation of the final score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns game on October 5, 2025?
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Cleveland Browns 21-17 in their Week 5 NFL matchup on October 5, 2025.
2. Who was the leading passer in the game?
Carson Wentz led Minnesota with 236 passing yards, completing 25 of 34 attempts with one touchdown and no interceptions. Dillon Gabriel led Cleveland with 190 passing yards, two touchdowns, and no interceptions.
3. Which player recorded the most rushing yards?
Quinshon Judkins led the listed rushing statistics with 110 yards on 23 carries for Cleveland. Minnesota’s Jordan Mason recorded 52 rushing yards and one touchdown.
4. How many receiving yards did Justin Jefferson record?
Justin Jefferson recorded seven receptions for 123 yards on 11 targets. His longest reception was 38 yards, and he did not record a receiving touchdown in the supplied statistics.
5. Which team recorded more sacks?
Cleveland recorded three sacks, while Minnesota recorded two. Maliek Collins accounted for two of Cleveland’s sacks in the supplied defensive statistics.
6. Did either team record an interception?
No interceptions were recorded for either team in the supplied box-score data. Both Wentz and Gabriel finished with zero interceptions in their individual passing lines.
Conclusion
The October 5, 2025, matchup between Minnesota and Cleveland finished with a 21-17 Vikings victory. Carson Wentz completed 25 of 34 passes for 236 yards, Justin Jefferson led all listed receivers with 123 yards, and Jordan Mason contributed 52 rushing yards and a touchdown. For Cleveland, Dillon Gabriel threw two touchdown passes without an interception, while Quinshon Judkins led the rushing attack with 110 yards.
The broader statistical picture explains why the final score was not simply a reflection of total yardage. Cleveland recorded more rushing yards and more sacks, but Minnesota scored a rushing touchdown, generated more listed passing yardage, and added seven points in the fourth quarter while the Browns were held scoreless.
The Minnesota Vikings vs Cleveland Browns Match Player Stats are most informative when passing, rushing, receiving, defense, special teams, and turnover figures are considered together. The supplied data contains some inconsistencies between individual and team totals, so those values should be treated as displayed rather than silently corrected. Even with that limitation, the main result is clear: Minnesota converted its offensive contributions into 21 points and held on for a four-point win.
