Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The minnesota vikings vs green bay packers match player stats from September 14, 2026, tell the story of a dramatic NFL contest that changed direction in the fourth quarter. The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Green Bay Packers 39-22 after scoring 22 points in the final quarter. Green Bay had controlled much of the scoring earlier in the game, but Minnesota’s late surge turned a competitive matchup into a convincing victory. The individual numbers reveal several important storylines, including Jordan Love’s high-volume passing performance, Christian Watson’s explosive receiving production, Carson Wentz’s touchdown efficiency, and Justin Jefferson’s impact in the red zone.
The final score alone does not explain how Minnesota won. Green Bay produced 387 passing yards, while Minnesota’s defense recorded four sacks and 15 quarterback hits according to the supplied box-score data. The Vikings also found a balance between their running game and passing attack, recording two rushing touchdowns and three receiving touchdowns. These contrasting performances make the game especially interesting for readers who want to understand individual contributions, team efficiency, and the moments that shaped the result.
This breakdown examines the passing, rushing, receiving, defensive, kicking, and special-teams statistics from the supplied ESPN box-score data. It also explains what the numbers mean, where each team performed well, and which statistical patterns best explain Minnesota’s 39-22 victory.
Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Vikings entered the final quarter trailing on the scoreboard but finished with a 17-point victory. Their 22-point fourth quarter was the defining feature of the game, while Green Bay failed to add any points during the final 15 minutes.
Minnesota Vikings
Home team
39 – 22
Final
September 14, 2026
Green Bay Packers
Away team
Scoring by quarter
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
| Minnesota | 3 | 7 | 7 | 22 | 39 |
| Green Bay | 9 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 22 |
The quarter-by-quarter scoring provides the clearest explanation of the result. Green Bay scored 19 points in the first half, compared with Minnesota’s 10. The Packers then added three points in the third quarter, taking their total to 22. Minnesota responded with seven points in the third quarter and an explosive 22-point finish.
Both teams ended with 22 points scored through the first three quarters combined only if their individual quarter totals are considered separately? No. Green Bay had 22 points after three quarters, while Minnesota had 17. The Vikings then scored 22 in the fourth quarter to finish with 39.
That distinction matters because Minnesota’s victory was not the result of a small, steady scoring advantage. It came from a decisive late-game swing.
Game information at a glance
| Match detail | Result |
| Game | Minnesota Vikings vs. Green Bay Packers |
| Date | September 14, 2026 |
| Competition | National Football League |
| Final score | Vikings 39, Packers 22 |
| Minnesota record in supplied data | 1-0 |
| Green Bay record in supplied data | 0-1 |
| Minnesota fourth-quarter points | 22 |
| Green Bay fourth-quarter points | 0 |
| Biggest statistical storyline | Minnesota’s fourth-quarter scoring surge |
The records and game details above reflect the supplied box-score information. The analysis below focuses on the recorded statistics rather than assuming details about individual plays that are not included in the data.
How Minnesota Turned the Game Around
Minnesota’s comeback can be understood through three connected factors: late scoring, defensive pressure, and efficient touchdown production.
First, the Vikings converted their opportunities into points during the final quarter. Scoring 22 points in one quarter is a substantial contribution to a final total of 39, accounting for more than half of Minnesota’s points.
Second, Minnesota generated four sacks and 15 quarterback hits. Those numbers indicate consistent disruption of Green Bay’s passing game, even though Jordan Love still accumulated considerable yardage.
Third, the Vikings scored five offensive touchdowns across their rushing and receiving categories in the supplied data: two rushing touchdowns and three receiving touchdowns. Green Bay recorded two receiving touchdowns and no rushing touchdowns.
The difference was not simply that Minnesota gained more passing yards. It did not. Instead, Minnesota’s scoring balance, defensive activity, and late-game execution were central to the final result.
A useful way to read this game is to separate between-yardage production and scoring production. Green Bay’s passing attack generated large gains, but Minnesota put more of its offensive production on the scoreboard. That contrast is one of the most important lessons in the statistical record.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring pattern explains why this game deserves more than a routine final-score recap. Each quarter presented a different challenge, and the Vikings eventually found the answers that Green Bay could not.
First quarter: Green Bay establishes early control
Green Bay opened with a 59-yard field goal from Trey Smack, followed by an 81-yard touchdown connection between Jordan Love and Christian Watson. The failed extra point left the Packers with nine points.
Minnesota answered with a 38-yard field goal from Will Reichard. The quarter ended with Green Bay ahead 9-3.
Watson’s long touchdown demonstrated Green Bay’s ability to create explosive passing plays. It also established an important contrast for the rest of the game: the Packers could gain substantial yardage through the air, but they needed to maintain that production when Minnesota adjusted its approach.
Second quarter: The Packers extend their lead
Green Bay added another field goal and a late touchdown pass from Love to Watson. Minnesota responded with a touchdown pass from Carson Wentz to Justin Jefferson.
The Packers led 19-10 at halftime. Love had already connected with Watson for two touchdowns, and Green Bay appeared to have the advantage in offensive production.
Minnesota, however, had begun establishing a connection between Wentz and Jefferson that would become central to the comeback.
Third quarter: Green Bay still leads, but Minnesota responds
Trey Smack converted a 26-yard field goal, extending Green Bay’s lead to 22-10. Minnesota then answered with a 16-yard touchdown reception by tight end T.J. Hockenson, bringing the score to 22-17.
The five-point difference meant the Vikings needed only one successful touchdown drive and a successful extra-point attempt to take the lead. The game remained within reach, but Minnesota still had to execute under pressure.
Fourth quarter: Minnesota takes control
The final quarter produced the decisive scoring sequence.
25-22
6:37 left
Aaron Jones Sr. scores the go-ahead touchdown
Jones rushed for a three-yard touchdown. Carson Wentz connected with Justin Jefferson on the two-point conversion, giving Minnesota its first lead.
32-22
4:48 left
Jordan Mason adds another rushing touchdown
Mason finished a Minnesota scoring drive with a one-yard run, extending the Vikings’ advantage to 10 points.
39-22
3:55 left
Jefferson completes the scoring
Wentz found Jefferson for a nine-yard touchdown. Reichard converted the extra point to establish the final 17-point margin.
The final-quarter scoring was part of a larger sequence in which Minnesota scored 29 unanswered points to finish the game. The comeback followed a major change at quarterback, with Wentz taking over after Kyler Murray exited with a concussion. The official game recap and detailed scoring record can be reviewed through the ESPN game box score.
The lesson is clear: a team can control the early scoreboard and still lose if it cannot respond to a change in momentum, protect the football, and make critical stops.
Quarterback Stats: Jordan Love, Carson Wentz and Kyler Murray
Quarterback statistics are often the first numbers fans check after an NFL game. In this matchup, however, the passing leader by yardage was not the quarterback who delivered the most touchdowns.
The following figures come from the supplied individual player statistics.
| Passing statistic | Jordan Love | Carson Wentz | Kyler Murray |
| Team | Green Bay | Minnesota | Minnesota |
| Completions | 21 | 12 | 3 |
| Attempts | 42 | 19 | 5 |
| Completion percentage | 50.0% | 63.2% | 60.0% |
| Passing yards | 387 | 133 | 18 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.2 | 7.0 | 3.6 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Passing rating | 88.1 | 123.5 | 27.5 |
| QBR | 69.8 | 72.7 | 2.6 |
Note: The QBR and passer rating columns use different rating systems. They should not be compared as if they share the same scale.
Jordan Love: 387 passing yards and two touchdowns
Love completed 21 of 42 attempts for 387 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. His average of 9.2 yards per attempt indicates that Green Bay generated significant passing production from its attempts.
His performance had two distinct sides.
On the positive side, Love found Watson for two touchdowns, including an 81-yard score. He also distributed the ball to other receivers, with Matthew Golden recording 95 yards and Tucker Kraft adding 65.
On the negative side, Love’s completion rate was 50%, he took four sacks, and he threw an interception. The supplied data also records two fumbles, one of which Green Bay lost. Those mistakes became particularly costly as Minnesota mounted its comeback.
The key analytical point is that passing yards are not a complete measure of quarterback performance. A quarterback can gain substantial yardage while still leaving scoring opportunities unused or creating risks that allow the opposition to change the game.
Love’s 387 yards were an impressive total, but Green Bay scored only three points after halftime and none in the fourth quarter.
Carson Wentz: Three touchdown passes without an interception
Wentz completed 12 of 19 passes for 133 yards and three touchdowns. He did not throw an interception, and his passer rating was 123.5.
His completion rate of 63.2% was higher than Love’s, although he attempted fewer passes and accumulated considerably fewer yards. The more important distinction was his ability to finish scoring drives.
Wentz produced touchdown passes to Jefferson and Hockenson, then connected with Jefferson again during the fourth quarter. His three passing touchdowns accounted for all three of Minnesota’s receiving touchdowns.
The numbers illustrate why quarterback efficiency must be considered alongside volume. Love produced almost three times as many passing yards, but Wentz delivered one more passing touchdown and avoided an interception.
Wentz also helped Minnesota through a sudden change in its quarterback situation. Rather than treating the passing game as a contest of total yardage, he operated within an offense that combined passing touchdowns with productive rushing plays.
Kyler Murray: A short and interrupted appearance
Murray completed three of five passes for 18 yards before leaving the game with a concussion. He also recorded two rushing attempts for nine yards.
His brief appearance should not be judged as if he played the entire contest. Five passing attempts are too few to provide a reliable picture of his performance over a full game, and his departure changed Minnesota’s offensive plan.
The most important context is that Wentz entered unexpectedly and helped the Vikings complete the comeback. That makes Minnesota’s quarterback situation a major part of the game’s story, rather than simply a footnote in the box score.
What the quarterback comparison really shows
Three lessons emerge from these figures:
- Yardage and scoring are different measures. Love led by a wide margin in passing yards, while Wentz led in passing touchdowns.
- Protecting possession matters. Wentz threw no interceptions, while Love threw one and lost a fumble.
- Adaptability can change a game. Minnesota adjusted after Murray’s departure and found a way to score consistently late.
A complete quarterback evaluation should include completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, fumbles, game situation, and the outcome of scoring opportunities.
Rushing Stats: Jordan Mason, Aaron Jones Sr. and MarShawn Lloyd
The ground game provided a useful contrast between the two teams. Minnesota recorded 107 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, while Green Bay finished with 66 rushing yards and no rushing touchdowns.
| Rushing player | Team | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| Jordan Mason | Minnesota | 15 | 59 | 3.9 | 1 | 28 |
| Aaron Jones Sr. | Minnesota | 12 | 40 | 3.3 | 1 | 8 |
| Kyler Murray | Minnesota | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 | 7 |
| Carson Wentz | Minnesota | 5 | -1 | -0.2 | 0 | 1 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | Green Bay | 13 | 37 | 2.8 | 0 | 12 |
| Chris Brooks | Green Bay | 7 | 29 | 4.1 | 0 | 14 |
| Jordan Love | Green Bay | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
Jordan Mason leads Minnesota’s rushing attack
Mason finished with 59 yards on 15 carries, averaging 3.9 yards per attempt. He also recorded a rushing touchdown and a longest run of 28 yards.
His contribution was important because Minnesota did not need to rely exclusively on passing to score. Mason’s touchdown gave the Vikings another way to finish a drive, and his rushing production helped keep the offensive attack balanced.
A rushing average around four yards per carry can be useful when a team remains willing to run in short-yardage situations. The value of those attempts is not captured entirely by the average: down, distance, field position, and whether the run results in a first down or touchdown all matter.
Aaron Jones Sr. delivers in a decisive moment
Jones recorded 40 rushing yards on 12 attempts, averaging 3.3 yards per carry. His most important contribution was his three-yard touchdown that gave Minnesota its first lead.
A running back does not need to lead the game in total yardage to have a decisive impact. Jones’ score came during the critical fourth-quarter sequence, when Minnesota needed to turn a close contest into a lead.
His touchdown also helped show the benefit of having multiple players capable of finishing rushing opportunities. Mason supplied the other rushing touchdown, giving Minnesota two different scoring threats on the ground.
Green Bay’s running backs produce limited scoring value
Lloyd led Green Bay with 37 yards on 13 carries, averaging 2.8 yards per attempt. Brooks added 29 yards on seven carries, a stronger average of 4.1 yards.
Neither player scored a rushing touchdown.
The difference between the teams was therefore not simply the number of carries. Green Bay’s runners had opportunities, but Minnesota’s rushing attack produced more yards overall and converted two rushing opportunities into touchdowns.
Green Bay’s rushing total also meant the Packers relied heavily on Love’s arm. Although that strategy generated 387 passing yards, it made the offense more dependent on the passing game to sustain drives and create points.
Why rushing efficiency matters
Rushing statistics are most useful when interpreted in context. Total yards tell readers how much ground a player gained, while yards per carry help show the typical return from each attempt.
Touchdowns and the longest run add further context. A player might gain steady short yardage without breaking a long run, while another might produce a strong average through one explosive attempt.
For this matchup, Minnesota’s advantage in rushing touchdowns was particularly significant because it gave the team additional ways to score during its late surge.
Receiving Stats: Christian Watson, Justin Jefferson and the Leading Targets
The receiving numbers reveal two different offensive approaches. Green Bay produced greater overall receiving yardage, while Minnesota’s leading receivers were closely connected to the touchdowns that decided the game.
Green Bay receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Yards per catch | Touchdowns | Longest reception |
| Christian Watson | 6 | 8 | 147 | 24.5 | 2 | 81 |
| Matthew Golden | 6 | 12 | 95 | 15.8 | 0 | 42 |
| Tucker Kraft | 3 | 6 | 65 | 21.7 | 0 | 30 |
| Jonnu Smith | 2 | 3 | 50 | 25.0 | 0 | 43 |
| Jayden Reed | 3 | 7 | 20 | 6.7 | 0 | 7 |
| Bo Melton | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 0 | 10 |
Christian Watson: Green Bay’s explosive receiver
Watson caught six passes on eight targets for 147 yards and two touchdowns. His average of 24.5 yards per reception was the highest among the main receiving contributors listed for either team.
His longest catch was an 81-yard touchdown. That single play illustrates the value of explosive receiving production: one successful connection can change field position immediately and put a defense under pressure.
Watson also caught Green Bay’s other passing touchdown, giving him both of Love’s touchdown receptions. His performance was a major reason the Packers accumulated so much passing yardage.
However, his success did not translate into a Green Bay victory. Receiving yards can help an offense move down the field, but the team must also convert drives into points, protect possession, and prevent the opponent from responding.
Matthew Golden: A productive supporting target
Golden recorded six receptions for 95 yards on 12 targets. His 15.8 yards per reception showed that he contributed more than short, low-yardage completions.
He matched Watson in catches, but he received four more targets and did not score a touchdown. This illustrates why receptions and targets should be considered together.
A receiver’s catch total shows how many passes he completed, while the target count indicates how often the quarterback looked in his direction. The gap between the two can reveal how frequently a player was targeted without making a catch.
Golden’s production was substantial, but Watson had the greater impact in terms of yardage per catch and touchdowns.
Tucker Kraft and Jonnu Smith add depth
Kraft recorded three catches for 65 yards, averaging 21.7 yards per reception. Smith caught two passes for 50 yards, averaging 25 yards per catch.
Although neither player scored, both contributed meaningful yardage. Their numbers show that Green Bay’s receiving production extended beyond one player.
The challenge was turning that distribution of yardage into a more consistent scoring output. Green Bay’s passing game was capable of producing big plays, but its second-half scoring stalled.
Justin Jefferson: Minnesota’s leading receiver
Jefferson caught eight passes on nine targets for 92 yards and two touchdowns. He averaged 11.5 yards per reception, and his longest catch covered 39 yards.
His yardage total was lower than Watson’s, but his touchdown production was crucial. Jefferson scored once before halftime and again in the fourth quarter, with the latter helping establish Minnesota’s final margin.
Jefferson’s eight receptions on nine targets also indicate a high completion rate on passes directed toward him. That is useful evidence of how consistently Wentz connected with his primary receiving target.
Jefferson’s contribution was especially important because Minnesota did not need him to match Watson’s yardage. Instead, he helped turn passing opportunities into touchdowns at key moments.
T.J. Hockenson: A scoring threat from tight end
Hockenson finished with four receptions for 36 yards and one touchdown. His 16-yard scoring reception in the third quarter kept Minnesota within striking distance.
His numbers illustrate why a receiving player’s value should not be measured by yardage alone. Hockenson gained fewer yards than Jefferson, but his touchdown arrived at a moment when Minnesota needed to respond to Green Bay’s field goal.
Minnesota’s other receiving contributors
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Touchdowns |
| Josh Oliver | 2 | 4 | 22 | 0 |
| DeeJay Dallas | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Aaron Jones Sr. | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Jauan Jennings | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Jordan Addison | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
Oliver added 22 yards on two catches, while Dallas recorded one reception for one yard. The other listed players did not record a catch.
These supporting contributions matter because an offense does not operate through its leading receiver alone. Tight ends, running backs, and secondary wide receivers can create options that help a quarterback avoid predictable passing patterns.
Receiving comparison: Production versus impact
| Category | Green Bay | Minnesota |
| Team receptions | 21 | 15 |
| Team receiving yards, as supplied | 387 | 151 |
| Average yards per reception | 18.4 | 10.1 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 | 3 |
| Longest reception | 81 yards | 39 yards |
Green Bay’s receivers recorded more catches and far more receiving yards, while Minnesota’s receivers produced one additional touchdown.
There is a data-quality detail worth noting: the supplied Minnesota team passing row lists 132 passing yards, while its individual receiving totals add up to 151 yards and Wentz plus Murray combine for 151 passing yards. The individual player figures and the game recap support the 151-yard total, so the 132-yard team-row figure should be treated as an apparent inconsistency rather than silently combined with the other numbers.
That distinction is important for trustworthy sports reporting. When a team summary and individual rows conflict, the article should identify the discrepancy instead of presenting both as if they agree.
Defensive Player Stats: Sacks, Tackles, Interceptions and Turnovers
The defensive statistics help explain how Minnesota overcame Green Bay’s passing advantage. The Vikings did not hold Love to a low yardage total, but they created pressure and benefited from mistakes at important moments.
Team defensive comparison
| Defensive statistic | Green Bay Packers | Minnesota Vikings |
| Total tackles | 59 | 59 |
| Solo tackles | 46 | 48 |
| Sacks | 3 | 4 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 7 |
| Passes defended | 2 | 4 |
| Quarterback hits | 6 | 15 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded in supplied data | 1 | 1 |
Minnesota’s four sacks compared with Green Bay’s three. The difference was more pronounced in quarterback hits, where the Vikings recorded 15 against the Packers’ six.
Quarterback hits do not always lead directly to sacks or turnovers. However, they can disrupt timing, force hurried throws, and make it harder for a quarterback to execute a planned play. The number recorded by Minnesota suggests that its defense consistently challenged Green Bay’s passing operation.
The Vikings also recorded seven tackles for loss, compared with four for Green Bay. Tackles for loss can undermine an offense by creating longer second or third downs, reducing the likelihood of a successful drive.
Andrew Van Ginkel leads Minnesota’s pressure effort
Van Ginkel recorded three total tackles, two solo tackles, 1.5 sacks, one tackle for loss, and two quarterback hits.
His sack production was particularly valuable against a quarterback who had already thrown for 387 yards. Generating pressure without needing to stop every completed pass can be a useful defensive approach when an opponent is gaining yards through explosive plays.
Van Ginkel’s contribution also shows why defensive statistics should be considered collectively. Tackles measure involvement, sacks measure quarterback takedowns, and quarterback hits provide a broader view of pressure. No single figure explains the entire defensive performance.
Blake Cashman contributes across multiple categories
Cashman finished with seven tackles, including five solo tackles, half a sack, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits.
His numbers show involvement in both run defense and pressure situations. Tackles for loss are especially useful when evaluating defenders who help disrupt plays before the offense reaches its intended target.
Byron Murphy Jr. leads Minnesota in tackles
Murphy recorded eight total tackles, seven solo tackles, and one pass defended. He did not record a sack.
His tackle total was the highest among the Minnesota defensive standouts supplied for this game. That contribution indicates consistent involvement in defensive plays, although tackle totals alone do not establish whether every tackle prevented a first down or limited a significant gain.
Green Bay’s defensive standouts
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks | Other contributions |
| Edgerrin Cooper | 7 | 6 | 1.0 | 2 tackles for loss |
| Keisean Nixon | 5 | 3 | 0.5 | 1 tackle for loss, 1 pass defended, 2 quarterback hits |
| Lukas Van Ness | 4 | 4 | 1.0 | 1 tackle for loss, 1 quarterback hit |
Cooper led the listed Green Bay defensive standouts with seven tackles and added a sack and two tackles for loss. Nixon contributed pressure and pass defense, while Van Ness also recorded a sack.
Green Bay’s defense was not without productive individual performances. The problem was that it could not prevent Minnesota from scoring repeatedly in the fourth quarter.
Turnovers and their effect on the result
The supplied data records one interception for each team, along with two Green Bay fumbles and one lost fumble. Minnesota recorded no fumbles lost in the supplied team summary.
Keisean Nixon recorded an interception for Green Bay, while James Pierre recorded one for Minnesota. Their listed return distances were 11 yards and 28 yards, respectively.
The broader game recap also identifies a crucial late Love fumble on a sack. That turnover, combined with Minnesota’s interception, contributed to the Packers’ inability to regain control.
Turnovers are important because they can change more than possession. They can affect field position, shorten the distance to a scoring opportunity, and place pressure on an offense that has just surrendered the ball. In a game decided by a late scoring surge, these events can be more influential than a modest difference in total yardage.
Special Teams Stats: Kickers, Punters and Returners
Special teams often receive less attention than quarterbacks and receivers, but their contributions can affect field position and the scoreboard. This matchup featured a long field goal, productive kickoff returns, and differences in extra-point results.
Kicking comparison
| Statistic | Trey Smack, Green Bay | Will Reichard, Minnesota |
| Field goals made | 3 | 1 |
| Field-goal attempts | 3 | 1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 59 yards | 38 yards |
| Extra points made | 1 | 4 |
| Extra-point attempts | 2 | 4 |
| Total points | 10 | 7 |
Smack converted three field goals, including a 59-yard kick, and finished with 10 points. Reichard converted one field goal and four extra points for seven points.
The difference in total kicking points should be viewed alongside the touchdowns scored by each offense. Green Bay’s three field goals provided useful points early, but Minnesota’s later touchdowns changed the scoring balance.
Smack’s 59-yard conversion was an important early contribution. However, a long field goal cannot compensate indefinitely for an offense that stops scoring, particularly when the opponent begins converting its drives into touchdowns.
Punting comparison
| Statistic | Daniel Whelan, Green Bay | Brett Thorson, Minnesota |
| Punts | 3 | 4 |
| Total punting yards | 116 | 161 |
| Average yards per punt | 38.7 | 40.3 |
| Longest punt | 49 yards | 48 yards |
| Inside the 20 | 2 | 3 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 0 |
Thorson averaged 40.3 yards per punt and placed three punts inside the 20-yard line. Whelan averaged 38.7 yards and recorded two punts inside the 20.
A punt’s value depends on more than distance. Pinning an opponent close to its own goal line can force a longer drive and improve the kicking team’s field-position position. The inside-the-20 statistic helps explain this element of special-teams performance.
Kick returns and field position
Minnesota’s Myles Price recorded five kickoff returns for 179 yards, averaging 35.8 yards per return. His longest return was 68 yards.
Green Bay’s Bo Melton returned four kickoffs for 124 yards, averaging 31.0 yards, with a long of 59 yards. Kaleb Johnson added two returns for 52 yards.
Price’s average was higher, and his 68-yard return represented a notable field-position contribution. However, neither team’s listed kickoff returners recorded a touchdown.
Green Bay’s Skyy Moore returned two punts for 17 yards, while Price recorded one punt return for 13 yards for Minnesota.
These figures are useful for evaluating the starting positions that returners help create. They should not, by themselves, be treated as proof that a particular return directly caused a touchdown.
Team Statistics: Why the Final Score Does Not Tell the Whole Story
One of the most interesting elements of this matchup is the gap between total offensive yardage and the final score. The game-center team statistics show that Green Bay gained more total net yards, even though Minnesota won by 17 points.
| Team statistic | Green Bay Packers | Minnesota Vikings |
| Total net yards | 419 | 239 |
| Rushing yards in supplied player totals | 66 | 107 |
| Passing yards, individual totals combined | 387 | 151 |
| Third-down conversions | 3 of 12 | 8 of 15 |
| Third-down conversion rate | 25.0% | 53.3% |
| Turnovers reported in game summary | 2 | 1 |
| Penalties | 12 | 3 |
| Penalty yards | 98 | 15 |
| Time of possession | 27:02 | 32:58 |
| Final points | 22 | 39 |
Team totals and player totals may use different statistical definitions. The individual passing figures above are shown to make the underlying data transparent, while the net-yardage, penalty, possession, and third-down figures follow the game-center summary.
Green Bay won the yardage battle but lost the game
The Packers’ 419 total net yards were well above Minnesota’s 239. Yet Green Bay scored 22 points, while Minnesota scored 39.
This is a strong example of why yardage should not be used as a substitute for overall effectiveness. An offense can move the ball successfully and still struggle to turn those gains into points.
Green Bay’s passing production was especially strong. Love threw for 387 yards, and Watson supplied 147 receiving yards. However, the Packers’ offense failed to score in the fourth quarter and committed turnovers.
Minnesota, by contrast, gained fewer yards but produced more touchdowns and capitalized on key opportunities late in the game.
Third-down efficiency favored Minnesota
Minnesota converted eight of 15 third downs, a rate of approximately 53.3%. Green Bay converted three of 12, or 25%.
Third-down conversions matter because they help determine whether an offense can sustain a drive. Converting a third down keeps possession alive and creates more opportunities to reach scoring range.
The difference between 53.3% and 25% is substantial. Minnesota had more success extending drives, while Green Bay struggled to keep its possessions moving consistently.
This helps explain why the Vikings could win despite the gap in total yardage. The ability to sustain drives and convert opportunities into points can matter more than gaining large amounts of yardage on a smaller number of plays.
Penalties hurt Green Bay’s position
Green Bay was charged with 12 penalties for 98 yards, compared with Minnesota’s three penalties for 15 yards.
Penalties can erase successful plays, extend an opponent’s drive, create difficult down-and-distance situations, or provide an offense with extra opportunities. Their impact depends on when they occur, but a difference of nine penalties is notable.
The game recap also describes a decisive Minnesota drive extended by multiple Green Bay defensive penalties. Those calls helped the Vikings move into the lead during the fourth quarter.
The numbers do not mean every Green Bay penalty was equally costly. They do show that discipline was a major statistical difference between the teams.
Minnesota controlled possession for longer
The Vikings held the ball for 32 minutes and 58 seconds, while the Packers had possession for 27 minutes and two seconds.
The difference was nearly six minutes. Longer possession can help a team maintain offensive rhythm while limiting the opponent’s opportunities to score.
Possession time is not automatically a sign of a better offense, especially when a team trails and must pass more frequently. In this game, though, Minnesota’s longer possessions aligned with stronger third-down efficiency and its ability to finish drives with touchdowns.
Key Lessons From the Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The statistics provide several useful lessons for fans, analysts, and fantasy football readers.
1. Explosive plays need consistent scoring support
Watson’s 147 receiving yards and two touchdowns demonstrated Green Bay’s ability to produce big plays. But explosive receptions alone could not sustain the Packers’ scoring after halftime.
A team must combine big plays with efficient third-down execution, ball security, and red-zone production.
2. Turnovers can outweigh a yardage advantage
Green Bay gained more net yards but committed two turnovers in the game summary. Minnesota’s defense took advantage of critical mistakes, while the Vikings’ offense turned its late opportunities into touchdowns.
This does not mean turnovers always determine the winner. It does show why ball security is one of the most important factors when reviewing a close game or a major comeback.
3. Quarterback adaptability matters
Murray’s early departure forced Wentz into a larger role. Wentz responded with three touchdown passes and no interceptions.
His performance highlights the value of a backup quarterback who can enter a game without disrupting the team’s ability to execute. It also illustrates why player statistics should be read with game context, particularly when injuries change the plan.
4. Touchdowns are more valuable than empty yardage
Green Bay’s passing game produced more yards, but Minnesota recorded five offensive touchdowns across passing and rushing. The Vikings’ ability to score through multiple players gave the offense more ways to finish drives.
5. Defensive pressure can change the closing stages
Minnesota recorded 15 quarterback hits and four sacks. Pressure can create hurried decisions and increase the possibility of mistakes, particularly late in a game when the offense is trying to protect a lead.
6. Penalties can extend a comeback
Green Bay’s 12 penalties for 98 yards compared with Minnesota’s three for 15 yards. Penalties do not explain every part of the outcome, but they can be especially damaging when a defense needs one final stop.
Together, these factors explain why the Vikings won despite allowing a substantial amount of passing yardage.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers game?
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Green Bay Packers 39-22 on September 13, 2026, according to the game recap and box-score records. Minnesota scored 22 points in the fourth quarter, while Green Bay was held scoreless in the final period.
2. Who was the leading passer in the game?
Jordan Love led all quarterbacks with 387 passing yards, completing 21 of 42 attempts for two touchdowns and one interception. Carson Wentz threw for 133 yards and three touchdowns for Minnesota, finishing with a higher passer rating of 123.5.
3. Which player scored the most receiving touchdowns?
Christian Watson and Justin Jefferson each recorded two receiving touchdowns. Watson gained 147 receiving yards for Green Bay, while Jefferson recorded 92 yards for Minnesota.
4. How many rushing touchdowns did Minnesota score?
Minnesota scored two rushing touchdowns. Jordan Mason scored on a one-yard run, and Aaron Jones Sr. scored on a three-yard run during the fourth-quarter comeback.
5. Why did Minnesota win despite gaining fewer yards?
Minnesota gained 239 total net yards compared with Green Bay’s 419, according to the game-center statistics. However, the Vikings converted third downs more effectively, committed fewer penalties, benefited from turnovers, and scored 29 unanswered points to close the game.
6. Which defense recorded more sacks?
Minnesota recorded four sacks, while Green Bay recorded three. The Vikings also registered 15 quarterback hits, compared with six for the Packers, indicating greater pressure on the opposing quarterback.
Conclusion
The minnesota vikings vs green bay packers match player stats reveal a game in which offensive yardage and winning football did not tell the same story. Green Bay produced 387 passing yards through Jordan Love and received an explosive performance from Christian Watson, who finished with 147 receiving yards and two touchdowns. Yet the Packers could not maintain their scoring pace after halftime.
Minnesota’s victory came through a combination of quarterback efficiency, productive rushing, defensive pressure, and better execution in decisive situations. Carson Wentz threw three touchdown passes without an interception, Justin Jefferson caught two touchdown passes, and Jordan Mason and Aaron Jones Sr. each scored on the ground. The Vikings also recorded more sacks, more quarterback hits, fewer penalties, and a higher third-down conversion rate.
The most important statistic remains the fourth-quarter scoring difference. Minnesota scored 22 points in the final period, while Green Bay scored none. That late surge transformed a five-point deficit entering the fourth quarter into a 17-point victory.
For readers evaluating individual performances, the broader lesson is to look beyond passing yards and reception totals. Touchdowns, turnovers, third-down conversions, penalties, and game context provide a more complete explanation of how an NFL contest is decided.
