bengals vs green bay packers match player stats
The bengals vs green bay packers match player stats tell a more revealing story than the 27-18 final score alone. Green Bay defeated Cincinnati on October 12, 2025, but the game was not simply a case of one team dominating from start to finish. The Packers built a 10-point halftime advantage, Cincinnati responded in the third quarter, and Green Bay then produced a decisive fourth-quarter finish. The statistical contrast is especially clear in rushing efficiency, passing efficiency, explosive receiving plays, and the ability to convert offensive production into points.
For readers studying the box score, this matchup offers a useful lesson: raw yardage does not always explain why a team wins. Cincinnati finished with 478 total offensive yards, while Green Bay produced 412. Yet the Packers won comfortably enough because their offense was more efficient in several high-value areas, particularly on the ground and in the scoring phase. Josh Jacobs supplied two rushing touchdowns, Jordan Love delivered 259 passing yards, and Green Bay averaged 13.6 yards per reception as a team.
Cincinnati had its own standout performances. Joe Flacco completed 29 of 45 passes for 219 yards and two touchdowns without throwing an interception. Ja’Marr Chase caught 10 passes for 94 yards and a touchdown, while Tee Higgins added 62 yards. Those numbers show that the Bengals generated productive passing volume, but the overall offensive profile was less efficient than Green Bay’s.
Game Overview
The Packers entered the matchup at 3-1-1 overall and 3-0 at home, while Cincinnati was 2-4 overall and 1-3 on the road. The final result extended Green Bay’s strong home record and left the Bengals with another road defeat.
The scoring pattern is important:
| Quarter | Bengals | Packers |
| First | 0 | 0 |
| Second | 0 | 10 |
| Third | 7 | 0 |
| Fourth | 11 | 17 |
| Final | 18 | 27 |
The first quarter produced no points from either side. Green Bay then opened the scoring in the second quarter with a 43-yard field goal from Lucas Havrisik before Josh Jacobs added a rushing touchdown.
Cincinnati answered after halftime with a touchdown drive that narrowed the gap. The Bengals then added 11 fourth-quarter points, showing that their offense was capable of generating a late push.
The Packers, however, responded with 17 fourth-quarter points of their own. That final-quarter production prevented Cincinnati from turning its comeback attempt into a winning finish.
This sequence matters when analyzing the player statistics. Cincinnati’s numbers were not empty. Flacco completed nearly two-thirds of his attempts, Chase reached 94 receiving yards, and the Bengals had multiple players contributing as pass catchers. But Green Bay consistently generated more value per opportunity.
bengals vs green bay packers match player stats: Quarterback Comparison
The quarterback comparison is one of the clearest places to see the difference between volume and efficiency.
Joe Flacco
Joe Flacco finished with:
| Statistic | Joe Flacco |
| Completions | 29 |
| Attempts | 45 |
| Completion rate | 64.4% |
| Passing yards | 219 |
| Yards per attempt | 4.9 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards | -6 |
| QBR | 65.1 |
| Passer rating | 90.9 |
Flacco’s 29 completions were substantial, but they came on 45 attempts. His 4.9 yards per attempt shows that Cincinnati’s passing game produced relatively modest gains on a per-attempt basis.
His most important positive statistic was the lack of interceptions. Against a Packers defense that recorded no interceptions, Flacco avoided the kind of turnover that can quickly change a close game.
The two touchdown passes also gave Cincinnati a chance to stay competitive. However, the overall passing efficiency did not match Green Bay’s.
Jordan Love
Jordan Love’s numbers were:
| Statistic | Jordan Love |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 26 |
| Completion rate | 73.1% |
| Passing yards | 259 |
| Yards per attempt | 10.0 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards | -3 |
| QBR | 76.5 |
| Passer rating | 101.3 |
Love attempted 19 fewer passes than Flacco but produced 40 more passing yards.
That difference is significant.
Love averaged 10.0 yards per attempt compared with Flacco’s 4.9. In other words, Green Bay generated considerably more yardage from each passing opportunity.
Love did throw one interception, which was a clear negative in his performance. Cincinnati’s Geno Stone recorded the interception and returned it 25 yards. Even so, Love’s combination of completion percentage and explosive passing production produced the stronger overall quarterback performance.
The passer-rating difference tells the same story. Love finished at 101.3, compared with Flacco’s 90.9.
What the quarterback numbers really show
It would be too simplistic to say Love played well because his team won and Flacco played poorly because Cincinnati lost.
The more accurate conclusion is that both quarterbacks had useful moments, but they operated very different passing profiles.
Flacco was asked to throw frequently and completed a high number of passes, but Cincinnati averaged only 4.9 yards per attempt. Love was more selective and efficient, completing 19 of 26 passes while averaging 10.0 yards per attempt.
That difference helped Green Bay create more explosive offensive plays without requiring a high volume of passing attempts.
Rushing Comparison
The ground game was arguably the biggest statistical separator.
Cincinnati rushed 16 times for 55 yards, averaging 3.4 yards per carry. Green Bay rushed 33 times for 153 yards, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.
That represents a difference of:
| Category | Bengals | Packers |
| Rushing attempts | 16 | 33 |
| Rushing yards | 55 | 153 |
| Average | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 2 |
| Long rush | 13 | 16 |
Green Bay gained 98 more rushing yards despite averaging only 1.2 more yards per carry.
The volume difference is striking. The Packers ran more than twice as many rushing attempts as Cincinnati.
That gave Green Bay a second path to move the ball and allowed the offense to maintain pressure even when the passing game was not perfect.
Josh Jacobs leads Green Bay
Josh Jacobs was the central figure in the Packers’ rushing attack.
He recorded:
- 18 carries
- 93 yards
- 5.2 yards per carry
- 2 touchdowns
- 16-yard longest run
Jacobs accounted for 93 of Green Bay’s 153 rushing yards, or roughly 61% of the team’s rushing production.
His two touchdowns were even more important than his yardage total because they directly converted rushing opportunities into points.
Jacobs also contributed as a receiver, catching five passes for 57 yards. That gave him 150 combined rushing and receiving yards.
His performance demonstrates why box-score analysis should not isolate a running back’s rushing statistics from his receiving work. Jacobs was one of the most productive all-around offensive players in the game.
Cincinnati’s rushing attack
Chase Brown led Cincinnati with nine carries for 42 yards, averaging 4.7 yards per carry.
His numbers were respectable on a per-carry basis, but the workload was limited.
Samaje Perine added six carries for 16 yards, while Ja’Marr Chase recorded one rushing attempt for minus-3 yards.
The Bengals therefore finished with only 16 total rushing attempts.
The issue was not simply that Cincinnati failed to produce explosive rushing plays. The bigger issue was that the team did not generate enough rushing volume or rushing touchdowns to balance its passing attack.
Receiving Statistics
The receiving numbers reveal another major difference between the teams.
Cincinnati recorded 29 receptions for 219 yards, while Green Bay had 19 receptions for 259 yards.
That creates an unusual but important contrast.
Cincinnati completed more passes and recorded more receptions, but Green Bay gained 40 more receiving yards.
The average reception was also substantially different:
- Cincinnati: 7.6 yards per reception
- Green Bay: 13.6 yards per reception
Green Bay therefore gained nearly six additional yards every time one of its receivers caught the ball.
Ja’Marr Chase
Ja’Marr Chase was Cincinnati’s leading receiver.
His line:
| Statistic | Ja’Marr Chase |
| Receptions | 10 |
| Targets | 12 |
| Receiving yards | 94 |
| Average | 9.4 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Long reception | 19 |
Chase’s 10 receptions represented more than one-third of Cincinnati’s 29 completed passes.
He was also targeted 12 times, meaning he accounted for 30% of Cincinnati’s listed targets.
His performance was productive, but it was not built around huge gains. His longest reception was 19 yards, and his average was 9.4 yards per catch.
That makes his performance different from Green Bay’s most explosive receiving production.
Tee Higgins
Tee Higgins added five receptions for 62 yards.
His 12.4 yards per reception were better than Chase’s average, although he did not score.
Higgins also had eight targets, making him an important secondary option in Cincinnati’s passing game.
Together, Chase and Higgins accounted for:
- 15 receptions
- 156 yards
- 20 targets
- 1 touchdown
That means the Bengals’ two leading wide receivers accounted for a large share of the team’s passing production.
Matthew Golden
Matthew Golden produced one of the most explosive statistical performances for Green Bay.
He caught only three passes, but those receptions produced 86 yards.
His average was 28.7 yards per catch, and his longest reception was 35 yards.
This is exactly why reception totals should not be interpreted without yardage efficiency.
Golden had seven fewer receptions than Chase but finished only eight yards behind him.
His three catches generated almost as much yardage as Chase’s 10 catches.
Josh Jacobs as a receiver
Jacobs also made a significant contribution through the air.
He caught five passes for 57 yards, with a long of 29 yards.
His 11.4 yards per reception meant Cincinnati had to account for him not only as a runner but also as a passing-game option.
That dual threat helped create flexibility in Green Bay’s offensive approach.
Romeo Doubs and Tucker Kraft
Romeo Doubs recorded five receptions for 55 yards on nine targets.
Tucker Kraft had two receptions for 43 yards and one touchdown.
Kraft’s numbers are especially interesting because two catches generated 43 yards. His 21.5 yards per reception were among the strongest efficiency numbers in the game.
The Packers did not need one receiver to dominate the target share. Instead, their production was distributed across multiple players while still generating big gains.
Team Offensive Comparison
A direct comparison makes the differences easier to understand.
| Category | Bengals | Packers |
| Passing yards | 219 | 259 |
| Rushing yards | 55 | 153 |
| Total listed offensive yards | 274 | 412 |
| Passing attempts | 45 | 26 |
| Rushing attempts | 16 | 33 |
| Rushing average | 3.4 | 4.6 |
| Receiving yards | 219 | 259 |
| Receiving average | 7.6 | 13.6 |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing TDs | 0 | 2 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 1 |
The overall statistical picture favors Green Bay in several important areas.
The Packers produced 40 more passing yards and 98 more rushing yards. Their combined passing and rushing production was therefore substantially higher.
The Bengals did have two passing touchdowns compared with Green Bay’s one, but the Packers made up the difference with two rushing touchdowns.
This is a useful reminder that touchdowns can arrive through different offensive channels.
Defensive Performance
The defensive statistics were relatively balanced in several areas.
Cincinnati recorded:
- 70 total tackles
- 42 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 4 tackles for loss
- 6 passes defended
- 4 quarterback hits
- 1 interception
Green Bay recorded:
- 67 total tackles
- 31 solo tackles
- 1 sack
- 5 tackles for loss
- 3 passes defended
- 5 quarterback hits
- 0 interceptions
The Bengals actually recorded more total tackles and more passes defended.
They also produced the game’s only interception.
Geno Stone was responsible for that turnover, intercepting Jordan Love and returning it 25 yards.
Yet Cincinnati’s defense still allowed 27 points.
This is an important distinction between individual defensive production and overall defensive effectiveness. A defense can accumulate tackles and produce a turnover while still giving up too much efficient offense.
Green Bay’s defensive pressure
The Packers recorded five tackles for loss and five quarterback hits.
They also registered one sack.
Those numbers indicate that the defense did enough to disrupt Cincinnati without needing a large number of sacks.
The Bengals’ one sack and four quarterback hits show that Cincinnati also created some pressure, but the Packers ultimately managed to maintain enough offensive efficiency to score 27 points.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams can become overlooked when people focus only on quarterbacks and receivers, but this game included several meaningful contributions.
Evan McPherson
Cincinnati kicker Evan McPherson finished:
- Field goals: 1 of 3
- Field-goal percentage: 33.3%
- Long: 45 yards
- Extra points: 1 of 1
- Points: 4
The missed field-goal opportunities are important because Cincinnati scored only 18 points.
When a team loses by nine points, missed scoring opportunities become especially relevant to the postgame analysis.
Lucas Havrisik
Green Bay kicker Lucas Havrisik was perfect:
- Field goals: 2 of 2
- Long: 43 yards
- Extra points: 3 of 3
- Points: 9
Havrisik’s nine points represented one-third of Green Bay’s final scoring total.
The contrast between the kickers was therefore meaningful. Green Bay converted every listed field-goal and extra-point opportunity, while Cincinnati missed two field-goal attempts.
Punting
Ryan Rehkow punted four times for Cincinnati for 211 yards, averaging 52.8 yards per punt.
He had three punts placed inside the 20-yard line and a long of 58 yards.
Green Bay’s Daniel Whelan punted twice for 91 yards, averaging 45.5 yards, with one inside the 20 and a long of 56 yards.
Cincinnati also received strong kick-return production from Charlie Jones, who recorded four returns for 90 yards.
Green Bay’s kick-return unit produced 132 yards on four returns, averaging 33.0 yards per return.
Savion Williams had three returns for 96 yards, while Bo Melton added one return for 36 yards.
The Biggest Statistical Mismatches
Looking beyond individual names reveals several numbers that explain the outcome.
1. Rushing volume
Green Bay ran the ball 33 times.
Cincinnati ran it 16 times.
That 17-attempt difference gave the Packers significantly more opportunities to control the game on the ground.
2. Rushing touchdowns
Green Bay scored two rushing touchdowns.
Cincinnati scored none.
Josh Jacobs accounted for both Packers rushing touchdowns.
This was one of the clearest scoring advantages in the game.
3. Passing efficiency
Love averaged 10.0 yards per attempt.
Flacco averaged 4.9.
That is a major efficiency gap.
Flacco completed more passes, but Green Bay gained considerably more yardage per passing attempt.
4. Receiving explosiveness
Green Bay averaged 13.6 yards per reception.
Cincinnati averaged 7.6.
Matthew Golden’s 28.7-yard average was particularly influential.
5. Field-goal accuracy
Green Bay converted both field-goal attempts.
Cincinnati converted only one of three.
In a nine-point game, those missed opportunities mattered.
Why Cincinnati’s 29 Completions Did Not Produce a Win
One of the most interesting questions in this matchup is how Cincinnati could complete 29 passes while Green Bay completed only 19 and still lose by nine.
The answer is efficiency.
Cincinnati’s 29 completions produced 219 yards.
Green Bay’s 19 completions produced 259 yards.
That means the Packers averaged substantially more yards on each completed pass.
Cincinnati relied on volume.
Green Bay relied more heavily on explosive gains.
Neither approach is automatically better. But in this particular matchup, Green Bay’s approach generated more total offensive production and helped the Packers reach 27 points.
This is why completion totals can sometimes be misleading.
A quarterback who completes 30 short passes may produce less offensive value than a quarterback who completes 20 passes containing several explosive gains.
The context around each completion matters.
Why Josh Jacobs Was So Important
Jacobs’ performance deserves special attention because it connected multiple statistical categories.
His rushing totals alone were strong:
93 yards and two touchdowns.
His receiving totals added another 57 yards.
That gave him 150 combined yards.
More importantly, his two rushing touchdowns directly influenced the scoreboard.
The Packers could use Jacobs as a traditional runner, a receiver, and a scoring option.
This reduced the need for Jordan Love to carry the entire offense through passing volume.
That is visible in Love’s 26 attempts.
The quarterback did not need to throw 40 or 45 passes because Green Bay’s rushing attack provided a productive alternative.
Why Ja’Marr Chase Still Had a Strong Game
A loss does not make a player’s individual performance poor.
Chase caught 10 of 12 targets for 94 yards and one touchdown.
That is a substantial workload and a productive receiving line.
His 10 catches also show how central he was to Cincinnati’s offensive plan.
The limitation was not necessarily Chase’s performance. The larger issue was the amount of yardage generated around those catches.
His longest reception was 19 yards, and his average was 9.4 yards.
For comparison, Matthew Golden averaged 28.7 yards on his three receptions.
This contrast illustrates how two productive receivers can affect a game in completely different ways.
Chase provided consistent involvement.
Golden provided explosive yardage.
What the Game Says About Offensive Efficiency
The most useful way to study this matchup is not simply to identify who had the most yards.
Instead, examine how efficiently each team converted opportunities into production.
Green Bay had:
- Fewer passing attempts
- Fewer completions
- More passing yards
- More rushing attempts
- More rushing yards
- More rushing touchdowns
- Higher yards per reception
- More total points
Cincinnati had:
- More passing attempts
- More completions
- More receptions
- Two passing touchdowns
- One defensive interception
- More total tackles
- More passes defended
The Packers won because the categories most closely tied to scoring efficiency favored them.
What Fantasy Football Players Can Learn
Although this was a team game, the statistics also provide useful fantasy football context.
Josh Jacobs
Jacobs was the clearest fantasy standout because he combined rushing volume, rushing touchdowns, and receiving production.
His 18 carries and two touchdowns provided a strong floor, while his five receptions for 57 yards increased his overall value.
Ja’Marr Chase
Chase’s 12 targets and 10 receptions demonstrate a high involvement level.
His touchdown also boosted his fantasy output.
However, the 94 receiving yards show that his production came through volume rather than extremely long receptions.
Jordan Love
Love’s 259 passing yards, one touchdown, one interception, and 26 attempts produced a solid statistical performance.
His 26 rushing attempts were not present, but he did add 26 rushing yards on seven carries.
That rushing contribution provided additional value beyond the passing line.
Matthew Golden
Golden’s three receptions for 86 yards illustrate the volatility of explosive receivers.
His production was heavily dependent on big plays, but those big plays can dramatically change fantasy results.
A Player-by-Player Snapshot
Cincinnati Bengals
Joe Flacco: 29 of 45, 219 yards, 2 TD, 0 INT, 90.9 rating.
Chase Brown: 9 carries, 42 yards, 4.7 average.
Ja’Marr Chase: 10 catches, 94 yards, 1 TD on 12 targets.
Tee Higgins: 5 catches, 62 yards on 8 targets.
Noah Fant: 4 catches, 27 yards.
Tanner Hudson: 4 catches, 10 yards, 1 TD.
Samaje Perine: 6 carries for 16 yards and 2 receptions for 16 yards.
Geno Stone: 1 interception and 25 return yards.
Evan McPherson: 1 of 3 field goals and 1 of 1 extra points.
Green Bay Packers
Jordan Love: 19 of 26, 259 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 101.3 rating.
Josh Jacobs: 18 carries, 93 yards, 2 TD, plus 5 receptions for 57 yards.
Matthew Golden: 3 catches, 86 yards.
Romeo Doubs: 5 catches, 55 yards on 9 targets.
Tucker Kraft: 2 catches, 43 yards, 1 TD.
Lucas Havrisik: 2 of 2 field goals and 3 of 3 extra points.
Edgerrin Cooper: 11 total tackles.
The individual numbers reinforce the larger story: Green Bay received meaningful contributions from several parts of the roster instead of relying on one statistical category.
What Advanced Readers Should Notice
A deeper reading of the box score reveals an important principle about football analysis.
The Bengals actually produced several strong individual statistics.
Flacco threw two touchdowns without an interception.
Chase caught 10 passes.
Cincinnati recorded the game’s only interception.
The defense made six passes defended.
Charlie Jones contributed strong return numbers.
Yet those positive statistics did not translate into a win.
Why?
Because football is a chain of interconnected outcomes.
Passing efficiency affects field position.
Rushing efficiency affects down and distance.
Field position affects scoring opportunities.
Scoring opportunities affect the value of turnovers.
And scoring efficiency ultimately determines the result.
Green Bay’s advantage was not overwhelming in every category. Instead, the Packers won enough of the high-impact categories to overcome Cincinnati’s strengths.
That is often a better way to understand a box score than searching for a single “winning statistic.”
bengals vs green bay packers match player stats: The Numbers That Matter Most
If someone only has a minute to study the game, these are the numbers worth remembering:
Final score: Packers 27, Bengals 18.
Jordan Love: 259 passing yards, 1 TD, 1 INT.
Joe Flacco: 219 passing yards, 2 TD, 0 INT.
Josh Jacobs: 93 rushing yards, 2 rushing TDs.
Ja’Marr Chase: 94 receiving yards, 1 receiving TD.
Matthew Golden: 86 receiving yards on only 3 catches.
Green Bay rushing: 153 yards.
Cincinnati rushing: 55 yards.
Green Bay receiving: 259 yards.
Cincinnati receiving: 219 yards.
Green Bay field goals: 2 of 2.
Cincinnati field goals: 1 of 3.
These figures explain much of the outcome without requiring a play-by-play breakdown.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Bengals vs Packers game on October 12, 2025?
The Green Bay Packers defeated the Cincinnati Bengals 27-18 at home.
Who was the leading passer in the game?
Jordan Love led Green Bay with 19 completions on 26 attempts for 259 yards, one touchdown, one interception, and a 101.3 passer rating.
Who led the game in rushing?
Josh Jacobs led all rushers with 18 carries for 93 yards and two touchdowns.
Who led Cincinnati in receiving?
Ja’Marr Chase led the Bengals with 10 receptions for 94 yards and one touchdown on 12 targets.
Which team had the better rushing attack?
Green Bay had the stronger rushing attack, producing 153 yards on 33 carries compared with Cincinnati’s 55 yards on 16 carries.
Did either team record multiple interceptions?
No. Cincinnati recorded one interception by Geno Stone, while Green Bay recorded none.
Conclusion
The bengals vs green bay packers match player stats show why the Packers were able to win despite Cincinnati producing several strong individual performances.
Joe Flacco protected the football and threw two touchdown passes. Ja’Marr Chase delivered 10 receptions and a touchdown. Cincinnati’s defense also recorded the only interception of the game. Those were meaningful positives.
Green Bay, however, produced the more efficient overall offensive performance.
Jordan Love averaged 10.0 yards per passing attempt. The Packers rushed for 153 yards, nearly three times Cincinnati’s total. Josh Jacobs scored twice on the ground and added 57 receiving yards. Matthew Golden generated 86 yards on only three catches. Tucker Kraft produced a touchdown on two receptions. Lucas Havrisik converted every field-goal and extra-point opportunity.
The biggest lesson from the numbers is that football results are usually shaped by several connected advantages rather than one headline statistic. Cincinnati had more completions and more defensive tackles, but Green Bay created more explosive offensive production, ran the ball more effectively, scored more touchdowns on the ground, and converted its kicking opportunities.
For anyone reviewing this matchup for player evaluation, fantasy football, historical analysis, or statistical research, the box score is most useful when the numbers are considered together. The final 27-18 score becomes much easier to understand once passing efficiency, rushing volume, receiving explosiveness, touchdown distribution, turnovers, and special teams are viewed as parts of the same game.
