Chicago Bears vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats
The Chicago Bears vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats from October 26, 2025, tell the story of a game in which Baltimore defeated Chicago 30-16 by combining a productive rushing attack, efficient quarterback play, and timely scoring. Although Chicago finished with more passing yards, the Ravens controlled the game through the ground game and converted their offensive opportunities into points when it mattered most. The final score reflected a clear difference in how the two teams managed their possessions, especially after a scoreless second quarter for the Bears.
Baltimore entered the matchup with a 2-5 record, while Chicago stood at 4-3. The Bears opened the scoring with six first-quarter points, but Baltimore responded with 10 points in the second quarter and another six in the third. The Ravens then added 14 points in the fourth quarter to secure the victory. Chicago scored 10 points in the final period, but its late response was not enough to overcome Baltimore’s lead.
For readers examining the box score, the most important details extend beyond the final result. Caleb Williams passed for 285 yards, Rome Odunze recorded 114 receiving yards, and D’Andre Swift scored Chicago’s only touchdown. On Baltimore’s side, Derrick Henry rushed for 71 yards and two touchdowns, Tyler Huntley passed for 186 yards without an interception, and Charlie Kolar caught a touchdown pass. Tyler Loop also contributed 12 points through field goals and extra points.
This complete statistical breakdown covers the final score, quarterback performance, rushing and receiving production, defensive contributions, special teams, and the numbers that best explain Baltimore’s victory. All game statistics below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data.
Chicago Bears vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats: Final Score and Team Comparison
The Ravens won 30-16, but the difference between the teams becomes clearer when the score is compared with their offensive production. Chicago moved the ball effectively through the air, while Baltimore produced more rushing yards and scored three touchdowns across its rushing and passing attack.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Chicago Bears | Baltimore Ravens |
| First quarter | 6 | 0 |
| Second quarter | 0 | 10 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 6 |
| Fourth quarter | 10 | 14 |
| Final score | 16 | 30 |
The opening quarter favored Chicago, which scored six points without allowing Baltimore to score. However, the Bears failed to add to their total in either the second or third quarter. Baltimore took advantage of that scoring drought, moving ahead by halftime and extending its advantage after the break.
The fourth quarter produced the highest combined scoring output. Chicago scored 10 points, but Baltimore added 14, preserving and extending its lead rather than allowing the Bears to build a serious comeback.
Team statistics at a glance
| Statistical category | Chicago Bears | Baltimore Ravens |
| Final points | 16 | 30 |
| Passing completions/attempts | 25/38 | 17/22 |
| Passing yards | 285 | 186 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 | 1 |
| Passing interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Rushing attempts | 23 | 35 |
| Rushing yards | 96 | 177 |
| Average yards per carry | 4.2 | 5.1 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 2 |
| Receiving yards | 285 | 186 |
| Total receptions | 25 | 17 |
| Total targets | 35 | 22 |
| Team sacks recorded | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 6 |
| Quarterback hits | 3 | 4 |
| Field goals made | 3 | 3 |
The strongest statistical distinction was Baltimore’s rushing advantage. The Ravens gained 177 yards on 35 attempts, compared with Chicago’s 96 yards on 23 attempts. That produced an 81-yard difference on the ground and gave Baltimore a more reliable way to sustain possessions.
Chicago recorded 99 more passing yards than Baltimore, but the additional yardage did not translate into a passing touchdown. Baltimore, meanwhile, threw one touchdown pass and avoided an interception. These figures illustrate why passing totals alone cannot explain the result.
The defensive statistics also show different strengths. Chicago recorded two sacks, one more than Baltimore, while the Ravens registered six tackles for loss and four quarterback hits. Baltimore’s ability to disrupt plays behind the line of scrimmage complemented its offensive production.
Quarterback Stats: Caleb Williams vs Tyler Huntley
The quarterback comparison is one of the most revealing parts of this game. Caleb Williams produced the larger passing total, but Tyler Huntley was more efficient by completion percentage, yards per attempt, and passer rating.
Caleb Williams’ passing performance
| Statistic | Caleb Williams |
| Completions | 25 |
| Pass attempts | 38 |
| Completion percentage | 65.8% |
| Passing yards | 285 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 1 |
| Sack yardage | 9 |
| QBR | 67.0 |
| Passer rating | 77.2 |
Williams completed 25 of his 38 attempts for 285 yards. His completion rate of approximately 65.8% indicates that he connected on nearly two-thirds of his passes, and his 7.5 yards per attempt reflects a respectable level of passing production.
However, the box score shows that Williams did not throw a touchdown pass and was intercepted once. That distinction matters because passing yards measure how far the ball advances through the air, not whether those yards result in points.
Williams also contributed with his legs, rushing three times for 24 yards. His average of 8.0 yards per carry and longest run of 22 yards show that he could create additional yardage outside conventional passing plays.
His performance therefore included several positive elements: a solid completion rate, 285 passing yards, and useful rushing production. The main limitation was the absence of a passing touchdown, which restricted Chicago’s ability to convert its passing yardage into a larger score.
Tyler Huntley’s passing performance
| Statistic | Tyler Huntley |
| Completions | 17 |
| Pass attempts | 22 |
| Completion percentage | 77.3% |
| Passing yards | 186 |
| Yards per attempt | 8.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yardage | 8 |
| QBR | 88.3 |
| Passer rating | 116.9 |
Huntley completed 17 of 22 passes, giving him a completion percentage of approximately 77.3%. He threw for 186 yards, averaged 8.5 yards per attempt, recorded one passing touchdown, and did not throw an interception.
The difference between the quarterbacks was not simply accuracy. Huntley’s yards per attempt were higher despite his substantially lower passing total. That suggests Baltimore generated more yardage per passing attempt, while Chicago relied on a larger volume of throws.
Huntley also took two sacks for a combined loss of eight yards. Although those sacks interrupted some plays, Baltimore still maintained a productive offensive balance through its running backs and the quarterback’s own rushing ability.
His 116.9 passer rating and 88.3 QBR were both higher than Williams’ corresponding figures in the supplied box score. These metrics support the conclusion that Huntley had the more efficient passing performance, even though Williams accumulated more total passing yards.
Which quarterback performed better?
The answer depends on the measure being considered.
- Passing volume: Williams led with 285 yards compared with Huntley’s 186.
- Completion percentage: Huntley led at approximately 77.3%, compared with Williams at 65.8%.
- Yards per attempt: Huntley averaged 8.5, while Williams averaged 7.5.
- Passing touchdowns: Huntley threw one, while Williams threw none.
- Interceptions: Huntley avoided turnovers through the air, while Williams threw one interception.
- Rushing contribution: Williams gained 24 rushing yards, but Huntley gained 53.
Williams produced more total passing yardage, but Huntley’s efficiency and mobility were more closely aligned with Baltimore’s winning performance. His contribution to the running game also made the Ravens’ offense harder to defend with a passing-only approach.
Rushing Stats: Derrick Henry Leads Baltimore’s Ground Game
Baltimore’s rushing attack was the defining statistical advantage of the matchup. The Ravens accumulated 177 rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns, compared with Chicago’s 96 yards and one touchdown.
The difference was not limited to Derrick Henry. Huntley and Keaton Mitchell also generated substantial yardage, giving Baltimore multiple ways to move the ball.
Derrick Henry’s rushing numbers
| Statistic | Derrick Henry |
| Carries | 21 |
| Rushing yards | 71 |
| Yards per carry | 3.4 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 |
| Longest run | 10 yards |
Henry carried the ball 21 times for 71 yards and two touchdowns. His average of 3.4 yards per carry was lower than the team’s overall average, but his scoring production was crucial.
Both of Henry’s rushing touchdowns helped Baltimore turn possession and field position into points. A running back’s value cannot be judged solely by yards per carry, especially when short gains near the goal line produce touchdowns.
Henry’s workload also provided a consistent foundation for Baltimore’s offense. With 21 carries, he accounted for a large share of the Ravens’ rushing attempts and helped keep the ground game central to their approach.
Tyler Huntley’s rushing contribution
| Statistic | Tyler Huntley |
| Carries | 8 |
| Rushing yards | 53 |
| Yards per carry | 6.6 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 29 yards |
Huntley added 53 rushing yards on eight attempts. His 6.6 yards per carry and 29-yard longest run gave Baltimore a significant secondary rushing threat.
Quarterback rushing production can change the way a defense must allocate its attention. When a quarterback can gain yardage on designed runs or scramble opportunities, defenders cannot focus exclusively on the running back or passing targets.
Huntley’s contribution was particularly valuable because it complemented Henry rather than replacing him. Henry supplied the heavier workload and touchdowns, while Huntley added explosive running plays that increased the team’s total output.
Keaton Mitchell’s explosive runs
| Statistic | Keaton Mitchell |
| Carries | 4 |
| Rushing yards | 43 |
| Yards per carry | 10.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 25 yards |
Mitchell recorded 43 yards on only four carries. His 10.8 yards per carry was Baltimore’s highest average among the listed runners with multiple attempts.
Although Mitchell did not score, his contribution illustrates the importance of explosive plays. Four carries generated almost half as many yards as Henry produced on 21 attempts. That comparison does not mean Mitchell was more valuable overall, because the players had different roles and workloads, but it shows how quickly a limited number of successful runs can increase team efficiency.
Chicago’s rushing production
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Longest run |
| D’Andre Swift | 11 | 45 | 4.1 | 1 | 13 |
| Caleb Williams | 3 | 24 | 8.0 | 0 | 22 |
| Kyle Monangai | 7 | 24 | 3.4 | 0 | 15 |
| DJ Moore | 2 | 3 | 1.5 | 0 | 3 |
| Team total | 23 | 96 | 4.2 | 1 | 22 |
Swift led Chicago in carries and rushing yards, finishing with 45 yards and one touchdown on 11 attempts. His average of 4.1 yards per carry was close to the team’s 4.2-yard average.
Williams’ 24 rushing yards were also important. He averaged 8.0 yards per attempt, and his 22-yard run was Chicago’s longest listed rushing play. Monangai added another 24 yards on seven carries.
Chicago’s issue was the overall volume and scoring output of its ground game. The Bears gained 96 rushing yards, 81 fewer than Baltimore, and recorded one rushing touchdown compared with Baltimore’s two.
What the rushing comparison reveals
Baltimore’s advantage came from a combination of workload, quarterback mobility, and explosive runs. The Ravens had 12 more rushing attempts and gained 81 additional yards.
Their 5.1 yards per carry also exceeded Chicago’s 4.2. That difference helped Baltimore sustain drives and gave the offense more opportunities to score without depending on repeated passing attempts.
For Chicago, the figures show that the rushing game was productive in stretches but did not match Baltimore’s total impact. Swift scored, and Williams supplied useful scrambles or runs, yet the team could not keep pace with the Ravens’ combined ground production.
Receiving Stats: Rome Odunze Tops Chicago’s Pass Catchers
Chicago’s passing game produced 285 yards, and Rome Odunze was the leading receiver with 114 yards. Baltimore spread its receiving production across several players, with Zay Flowers leading the team in receptions and receiving yards.
The receiving figures also help explain why the teams’ passing totals produced different scoring outcomes.
Chicago Bears receiving statistics
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards | Yards per reception | Touchdowns | Longest reception | Targets |
| Rome Odunze | 7 | 114 | 16.3 | 0 | 27 | 10 |
| DJ Moore | 4 | 73 | 18.3 | 0 | 42 | 7 |
| Colston Loveland | 3 | 38 | 12.7 | 0 | 18 | 5 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 7 | 33 | 4.7 | 0 | 6 | 7 |
| D’Andre Swift | 2 | 26 | 13.0 | 0 | 25 | 2 |
| Devin Duvernay | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 | -1 | 1 |
| Team total | 25 | 285 | 11.4 | 0 | 42 | 35 |
Rome Odunze’s 114-yard performance
Odunze finished with seven receptions for 114 yards on 10 targets. His 16.3 yards per reception made him Chicago’s leading receiver by total yardage and one of the team’s most productive options in the passing game.
His numbers indicate that he contributed more than short, routine completions. The 27-yard longest reception and high average per catch show that his receptions generated meaningful yardage.
Odunze did not score a touchdown, however. That distinction is important when evaluating his overall impact. His yardage helped Chicago advance the ball, but the receiving unit did not record a touchdown in the supplied team statistics.
DJ Moore’s downfield production
Moore recorded four receptions for 73 yards on seven targets. His 18.3 yards per reception was higher than Odunze’s average, and he produced the Bears’ longest reception at 42 yards.
Moore’s figures demonstrate how a receiver can make a substantial contribution with fewer catches. His average was supported by a big-play profile, with the longest reception providing a significant portion of his total.
Together, Odunze and Moore accounted for 187 receiving yards. That represented a large share of Chicago’s 285 passing yards and showed how important the pair was to the offense.
Other Chicago receivers
Loveland caught three passes for 38 yards, while Zaccheaus recorded seven receptions for 33 yards. Their contrasting figures demonstrate different receiving roles: Loveland averaged 12.7 yards per catch, while Zaccheaus averaged 4.7.
Swift contributed 26 receiving yards on two catches, giving him a role in both the running and passing games. Duvernay caught one pass for two yards, and Burden recorded one reception for minus one yard.
The overall pattern was a combination of productive downfield gains and shorter completions. Chicago moved the ball through several targets, but the group did not record a receiving touchdown.
Baltimore Ravens receiving statistics
| Receiver | Receptions | Yards | Yards per reception | Touchdowns | Longest reception | Targets |
| Zay Flowers | 7 | 63 | 9.0 | 0 | 20 | 9 |
| Rashod Bateman | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 0 | 36 | 4 |
| Mark Andrews | 3 | 34 | 11.3 | 0 | 24 | 3 |
| DeAndre Hopkins | 1 | 14 | 14.0 | 0 | 14 | 1 |
| Charlie Kolar | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| Isaiah Likely | 2 | 8 | 4.0 | 0 | 5 | 2 |
| Tylan Wallace | 1 | 6 | 6.0 | 0 | 6 | 1 |
| Derrick Henry | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Team total | 17 | 186 | 10.9 | 1 | 36 | 22 |
Zay Flowers leads the Ravens
Flowers finished with seven receptions for 63 yards on nine targets. He led Baltimore in both catches and receiving yardage, providing a reliable option for Huntley.
His average of 9.0 yards per reception was lower than several of Baltimore’s other receivers, but his seven catches gave him a prominent role in the passing attack.
Flowers’ performance illustrates why reception totals and yardage should be examined together. A receiver who consistently catches the ball can help maintain drives even without recording the longest gain or a touchdown.
Rashod Bateman’s big-play efficiency
Bateman caught two passes for 51 yards on four targets. His 25.5 yards per reception was Baltimore’s highest average among the listed receivers with catches.
His longest reception covered 36 yards, showing that he generated significant yardage without needing a high number of targets. Bateman’s contribution complemented Flowers’ more frequent involvement.
Andrews added three receptions for 34 yards, while Hopkins recorded one catch for 14 yards. Kolar caught one pass for 10 yards and scored Baltimore’s receiving touchdown.
Charlie Kolar’s touchdown contribution
Kolar’s line was modest in yardage but important on the scoreboard: one reception, 10 yards, and one touchdown. A touchdown catch can have a greater direct effect on a game’s result than several additional yards accumulated between the 20-yard lines.
Baltimore’s receiving unit did not rely on one player for all its production. Flowers supplied the highest reception and yardage totals, Bateman created a downfield threat, and Kolar provided the scoring catch.
Why Chicago’s receiving advantage did not produce a win
Chicago gained 285 passing yards, compared with Baltimore’s 186. Yet the Bears had no passing touchdowns in the supplied statistics, while Baltimore had one.
This is a useful reminder that passing yards and scoring efficiency measure different aspects of an offense. Yardage indicates how much ground a team covered through the air. Touchdowns show whether those advances were converted into the most valuable scoring outcome.
Chicago’s receivers produced several strong individual performances, but Baltimore’s offense benefited from a more balanced scoring profile, including two rushing touchdowns and a receiving touchdown.
Defensive Player and Team Stats
The defensive comparison reveals two teams that generated pressure in different ways. Chicago recorded more sacks, while Baltimore produced more tackles for loss and quarterback hits.
Those differences help explain how the Ravens could win while allowing 285 passing yards.
Team defensive statistics
| Defensive category | Chicago Bears | Baltimore Ravens |
| Total tackles | 74 | 68 |
| Solo tackles | 41 | 44 |
| Sacks | 2 | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 4 | 6 |
| Passes defended | 1 | 2 |
| Quarterback hits | 3 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | None listed | 1 |
Chicago recorded 74 total tackles and 41 solo tackles. Baltimore recorded 68 total tackles and 44 solo tackles. The Bears’ higher total tackle count does not automatically mean they defended better, because teams can accumulate tackles while allowing successful offensive plays.
Baltimore’s six tackles for loss exceeded Chicago’s four, while its four quarterback hits also surpassed Chicago’s three. These figures suggest that the Ravens were able to disrupt plays beyond simply completing tackles after gains.
Baltimore’s interception
The supplied box score credits Nate Wiggins with one interception for nine return yards and no defensive touchdown. This was an important defensive contribution because an interception ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defense an opportunity to change field position.
Chicago had one interception thrown by Williams, matching the turnover reflected in the individual passing line. No Chicago defensive interception was listed in the supplied data.
Neither team recorded a defensive touchdown, so the interception did not directly add six points to Baltimore’s score. Its importance lies in the change of possession and the potential to prevent Chicago from extending a drive.
Sacks and pressure
Chicago recorded two sacks, totaling nine yards lost by Baltimore’s offense according to the supplied team data. Baltimore recorded one sack, with eight yards lost by Chicago.
The sack totals favored Chicago, but the Ravens had more tackles for loss and quarterback hits. A defense can create pressure and disrupt running plays without recording a sack on every occasion.
The broader comparison therefore points to different defensive strengths rather than a complete advantage for one unit in every category. Chicago created more sacks, while Baltimore recorded more plays behind the line and more quarterback hits.
What the defensive numbers mean
Defensive statistics are most useful when viewed together. Tackles measure involvement, sacks record a specific type of quarterback stop, tackles for loss show disruption in the backfield, and interceptions record turnovers.
Baltimore’s combination of six tackles for loss, four quarterback hits, and one interception provided several ways to interrupt Chicago’s offense. That defensive activity helped complement the Ravens’ stronger rushing production and more efficient quarterback performance.
Special Teams Stats: Kickers, Returns, and Punting
Special teams contributed directly to the scoring comparison. Both kickers made three field goals, but Baltimore’s Tyler Loop converted all his attempts, while Chicago’s Cairo Santos missed one of four attempts.
Loop finished with 12 points, compared with Santos’ 10. In a game decided by 14 points, the kicking difference was not the sole reason for the outcome, but it formed part of the broader scoring picture.
Kicking statistics
| Statistic | Cairo Santos, Chicago | Tyler Loop, Baltimore |
| Field goals made | 3 | 3 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 | 3 |
| Field goal percentage | 75.0% | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 47 yards | 42 yards |
| Extra points made | 1 | 3 |
| Extra points attempted | 1 | 3 |
| Total points | 10 | 12 |
Santos made three of four field goals, including a longest successful kick of 47 yards. Loop made all three of his attempts, with a longest field goal of 42 yards.
The accuracy difference was clear, but it is important not to assume that every missed field goal automatically cost a team three points. The outcome depends on the distance, field position, and circumstances of the attempt. The supplied data confirms one miss for Santos but does not establish every detail surrounding that attempt.
Loop also converted all three extra points, compared with Santos’ one successful extra point. The number of extra points reflects the teams’ scoring opportunities, including Baltimore’s greater number of touchdowns.
Kick return statistics
| Player or team | Returns | Return yards | Average | Longest return | Touchdowns |
| Devin Duvernay, Chicago | 3 | 96 | 32.0 | 49 | 0 |
| Josh Blackwell, Chicago | 3 | 61 | 20.3 | 24 | 0 |
| Chicago team total | 6 | 157 | 26.2 | 49 | 0 |
| Rasheen Ali, Baltimore | 3 | 88 | 29.3 | 34 | 0 |
| Keaton Mitchell, Baltimore | 2 | 66 | 33.0 | 39 | 0 |
| Baltimore team total | 5 | 154 | 30.8 | 39 | 0 |
Chicago recorded 157 kick return yards, slightly exceeding Baltimore’s 154. Duvernay led the Bears with 96 yards and a 49-yard longest return.
Baltimore’s return unit averaged 30.8 yards per return, compared with Chicago’s 26.2. Mitchell averaged 33.0 yards across two returns, while Ali averaged 29.3 across three.
The totals show that Chicago gained more kick return yardage overall, but Baltimore averaged more per return. Neither team recorded a kick return touchdown.
Punt returns and punting
Chicago’s Duvernay recorded one punt return for eight yards. No Baltimore punt return was listed.
| Punting statistic | Tory Taylor, Chicago | Jordan Stout, Baltimore |
| Punts | 2 | 2 |
| Total punt yards | 108 | 95 |
| Average punt | 54.0 yards | 47.5 yards |
| Longest punt | 65 yards | 55 yards |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 0 | 2 |
Taylor averaged 54.0 yards per punt, including a longest kick of 65 yards. Stout averaged 47.5 yards and placed both punts inside the 20-yard line.
The figures show two different outcomes: Chicago generated more gross punting distance, while Baltimore recorded more punts inside the opponent’s 20-yard line. Gross distance alone does not reveal the full effect of a punt because placement and the resulting starting position also matter.
Special teams were therefore a mixed statistical picture. Chicago had more total kick return yards and longer punting distance, while Baltimore had a better kick return average, perfect field-goal accuracy, and more punts inside the 20.
Game Analysis: The Biggest Factors Behind Baltimore’s 30-16 Victory
The statistical evidence points to three major factors behind Baltimore’s victory: rushing production, efficient passing, and the ability to maintain scoring pressure across the middle and final quarters.
1. Baltimore controlled the ground game
The Ravens gained 177 rushing yards, compared with Chicago’s 96. This 81-yard difference was one of the clearest advantages in the matchup.
Baltimore’s ground game also produced two touchdowns. Henry handled the largest share of the workload, while Huntley and Mitchell added valuable yardage through their own runs.
This combination reduced Baltimore’s dependence on passing volume. Even with fewer passing yards, the Ravens could advance the ball through multiple offensive options.
Chicago had some effective rushing performances, particularly from Swift and Williams. However, the Bears did not produce the same total yardage or number of rushing touchdowns.
2. Huntley was more efficient with fewer attempts
Huntley completed 77.3% of his passes and averaged 8.5 yards per attempt. Williams completed approximately 65.8% and averaged 7.5 yards per attempt.
Williams’ 285 passing yards were impressive in isolation, but his higher attempt total did not result in a passing touchdown. Huntley gained fewer total yards through the air, yet he recorded a touchdown and avoided an interception.
This distinction matters when evaluating quarterback performance. A quarterback who throws more often may accumulate more yards without necessarily producing more scoring opportunities. Completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, and rushing output offer a more complete picture.
3. Chicago’s second- and third-quarter scoring drought mattered
Chicago scored six points in the first quarter, none in the second, none in the third, and 10 in the fourth.
Baltimore, in contrast, scored 10 points in the second quarter and six in the third before adding 14 in the fourth. The Ravens used the middle quarters to establish their lead and then outscored Chicago again in the final period.
The sequence highlights the importance of maintaining offensive production throughout a game. An early scoring advantage offers little protection if a team cannot keep adding points.
Chicago’s fourth-quarter output demonstrated that the offense could still score late. However, a 10-point final quarter was insufficient against a Baltimore team that scored 14 during the same period.
4. The Ravens converted production into touchdowns
Chicago’s passing game generated 285 yards but no passing touchdowns. Baltimore’s passing attack produced 186 yards and one touchdown, while its rushing game added two more.
Touchdowns are not the only useful measure of offensive performance, and a team cannot be evaluated entirely through its final scoring total. Still, the contrast is revealing: Baltimore generated three offensive touchdowns across its passing and rushing units, while Chicago’s listed offensive touchdowns came from Swift’s rushing performance.
The Ravens therefore extracted more direct scoring value from their offensive opportunities.
5. Special teams favored Baltimore in kicking accuracy
Both kickers made three field goals, but Loop converted all three attempts, while Santos made three of four.
Loop also scored 12 total points through field goals and extra points, compared with Santos’ 10. This two-point difference contributed to the overall result, although Baltimore’s wider offensive advantage was more significant.
The kicking figures reinforce the importance of execution in every phase. Even when teams have comparable field-goal totals, accuracy and touchdown-related extra points can affect the scoreboard.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
Looking beyond individual totals provides a clearer understanding of what the game says about the two offenses and defenses.
Chicago Bears: Productive passing without enough scoring
Chicago’s passing numbers show that the offense could move the ball through the air. Williams threw for 285 yards, Odunze gained 114 receiving yards, and Moore added 73.
Odunze and Moore combined for 187 receiving yards, demonstrating how much production came from the Bears’ leading wide receivers. Williams also added 24 rushing yards, giving Chicago another way to advance the ball.
The challenge was converting that yardage into touchdowns. The team recorded no passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown. It also threw one interception.
These numbers suggest that Chicago’s offensive production was not evenly reflected in its scoring output. The Bears created passing yardage, but Baltimore produced more rushing touchdowns and finished with a more balanced scoring distribution.
It would be inaccurate to attribute the result to Williams alone. Football scoring depends on the entire offense, defensive stops, special teams, and possession outcomes. The supplied statistics support a more specific conclusion: Chicago’s passing attack gained yards, but its overall scoring production fell short of Baltimore’s.
Baltimore Ravens: A balanced approach with multiple rushing threats
Baltimore’s offensive performance was built on contributions from several players.
Henry scored twice on the ground, Huntley contributed both passing efficiency and 53 rushing yards, and Mitchell averaged 10.8 yards per carry. Flowers led the receivers in catches and yardage, while Bateman supplied 51 yards on just two receptions.
This distribution made the Ravens less dependent on one method of gaining yards. Henry handled the primary rushing workload, but Huntley’s mobility and Mitchell’s explosive runs added further production.
Baltimore’s passing game also made its opportunities count. Huntley completed 17 of 22 attempts, threw a touchdown, and avoided an interception. Kolar’s touchdown reception supplied another scoring route beyond the ground game.
The figures suggest that Baltimore’s advantage came from complementary production rather than an overwhelming performance in every individual category.
The defensive picture was more complicated
Chicago recorded two sacks, compared with Baltimore’s one, and finished with more total tackles. Those statistics show that the Bears had defensive plays that disrupted Baltimore’s offense.
However, the Ravens recorded more tackles for loss and quarterback hits. They also registered an interception through Wiggins.
This is why defensive performance should not be judged using one statistic. Sacks are important, but they do not capture every disrupted run, forced change in direction, or turnover opportunity. Similarly, a high tackle total does not necessarily indicate that a defense prevented substantial yardage.
Baltimore’s defensive production included several different forms of disruption, while its offense supplied the scoring advantage needed to win.
How to Read This Box Score Correctly
A box score is a useful record of what happened, but its statistics need context. Readers comparing quarterback performances, rushing production, or defensive contributions should understand what each measure captures and what it leaves out.
Passing yards versus passing efficiency
Passing yards measure total yardage gained through completed passes. They do not independently measure accuracy, turnover avoidance, or scoring success.
In this game, Williams gained 285 passing yards and Huntley gained 186. Huntley nevertheless recorded a higher completion percentage, more yards per attempt, one passing touchdown, and no interceptions.
The most useful comparison therefore includes both volume and efficiency.
Rushing average versus total workload
Yards per carry help compare the average result of rushing attempts, but a high average does not automatically make a player the most valuable runner.
Mitchell averaged 10.8 yards per carry on four attempts. Henry averaged 3.4 yards on 21 carries but scored twice.
Mitchell provided explosive production, while Henry handled a much larger workload and supplied the touchdowns. Their roles were different, and the statistics should be interpreted accordingly.
Receiving yards versus scoring impact
Odunze led Chicago with 114 receiving yards, while Flowers led Baltimore with 63. Yet Baltimore’s receiving group recorded a touchdown through Kolar.
A receiver can gain substantial yardage without scoring. Conversely, a shorter reception in a scoring situation can have a major effect on the result.
Reception totals, targets, average yards per catch, longest reception, and touchdowns should therefore be considered together.
Team tackles versus defensive effectiveness
Chicago recorded 74 total tackles, while Baltimore recorded 68. Those numbers measure defensive involvement, not simply the number of successful stops.
The context changes when tackles for loss, sacks, quarterback hits, and interceptions are included. Baltimore’s six tackles for loss and four quarterback hits indicate that it disrupted plays in ways that the total tackle count alone does not show.
Understanding the supplied data
The statistics in this article are taken from the ESPN box-score information supplied for the October 26, 2025, game. Readers seeking the original record can consult the ESPN box score for the Bears-Ravens game.
The supplied data contains both individual player lines and team totals. Some passing and receiving totals appear more than once because player statistics and team summaries are displayed separately. These repeated values should not be added together.
There is also an important distinction between an interception thrown by a quarterback and an interception recorded by a defense. Williams’ passing line lists one interception thrown, while Wiggins’ defensive line lists one interception for Baltimore. These are two descriptions of the same type of turnover from opposite sides of the play, not two separate interceptions.
Finally, the box score supports conclusions about recorded production, but it does not establish every tactical detail. Without a verified play-by-play review, it would be inappropriate to claim that a particular coverage scheme, coaching decision, or individual mistake definitively caused the result.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chicago Bears vs Baltimore Ravens game on October 26, 2025?
The Baltimore Ravens defeated the Chicago Bears 30-16. Baltimore scored 10 points in the second quarter, six in the third, and 14 in the fourth to secure the victory.
2. How many passing yards did Caleb Williams record against Baltimore?
Caleb Williams completed 25 of 38 passes for 285 yards. He recorded no passing touchdowns and threw one interception, according to the supplied box score.
3. How many rushing touchdowns did Derrick Henry score?
Derrick Henry scored two rushing touchdowns on 21 carries for 71 yards. He averaged 3.4 yards per carry, and his longest run was 10 yards.
4. Who was Chicago’s leading receiver against Baltimore?
Rome Odunze led Chicago with seven receptions for 114 yards on 10 targets. His longest reception was 27 yards, and he did not record a receiving touchdown.
5. How did Tyler Huntley perform against the Bears?
Tyler Huntley completed 17 of 22 passes for 186 yards and one touchdown without an interception. He also rushed eight times for 53 yards, averaging 6.6 yards per carry.
6. Which team had more rushing yards?
Baltimore had more rushing yards, gaining 177 on 35 carries. Chicago recorded 96 rushing yards on 23 carries. The Ravens held an 81-yard advantage on the ground and scored two rushing touchdowns compared with Chicago’s one.
Conclusion
The Chicago Bears vs Baltimore Ravens Match Player Stats show how Baltimore secured its 30-16 victory through a stronger rushing attack, efficient quarterback play, and more consistent scoring across four quarters.
Caleb Williams led the passing comparison with 285 yards, while Rome Odunze topped Chicago’s receiving statistics with 114 yards. D’Andre Swift contributed the Bears’ rushing touchdown, but Chicago’s offense did not record a passing touchdown and went scoreless in both the second and third quarters.
Baltimore’s performance was more balanced. Derrick Henry scored two rushing touchdowns, Huntley combined efficient passing with 53 rushing yards, and Mitchell added 43 yards on just four carries. Flowers led the Ravens’ receivers, while Kolar caught the team’s passing touchdown. Loop’s perfect field-goal record also helped Baltimore capitalize on its scoring opportunities.
Defensively, the Ravens recorded six tackles for loss, four quarterback hits, and an interception. Chicago produced two sacks, but its defensive efforts could not overcome Baltimore’s offensive advantage.
The central lesson from this matchup is that total yardage does not tell the whole story. Chicago gained more passing yards, but Baltimore generated more rushing production, recorded more offensive touchdowns, and maintained its scoring advantage through the final quarter. Together, these statistics explain why the Ravens won despite finishing with fewer passing yards.
