Chicago Bears vs Bengals Match Player Stats
The chicago bears vs bengals match player stats from the August 23, 2026, NFL preseason game reveal how Cincinnati turned a close opening quarter into a convincing 27-9 victory over Chicago. The Bengals finished with 282 passing yards, three passing touchdowns, and a more productive offensive performance, while the Bears managed 236 passing yards without finding the end zone. Cincinnati also recorded two sacks and consistently made Chicago work for its yards. These numbers provide a useful look at quarterback efficiency, receiving production, defensive pressure, special teams, and the areas each team needs to evaluate after a preseason contest.
The final score tells only part of the story. Chicago and Cincinnati both scored three points in the first quarter, but the Bengals took control with 14 points in the second quarter. Another touchdown in the third quarter extended their advantage, and a fourth-quarter field goal completed the scoring. Chicago failed to add points after halftime, leaving its offense without a touchdown throughout the game.
This article examines the individual performances, team statistics, scoring progression, and key lessons from the matchup. All game figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box score data. Because this was a preseason contest, the statistics are best understood as evidence of performance in this particular game rather than a complete measure of either team’s regular-season potential.
Chicago Bears vs Bengals Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Chicago Bears 27-9 on August 23, 2026. Cincinnati improved its preseason record to 2-0, while Chicago moved to 1-1.
| Game detail | Result |
| Matchup | Chicago Bears vs. Cincinnati Bengals |
| Date | August 23, 2026 |
| Competition | NFL preseason |
| Final score | Bengals 27, Bears 9 |
| Venue designation | Cincinnati home game |
| Chicago record after game | 1-1 overall, 0-1 away |
| Cincinnati record after game | 2-0 overall, 2-0 home |
| Chicago passing yards | 236 |
| Cincinnati passing yards | 282 |
| Chicago passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Cincinnati passing touchdowns | 3 |
| Chicago sacks recorded | 0 |
| Cincinnati sacks recorded | 2 |
The most important statistical difference was passing efficiency and scoring. Chicago recorded 43 pass attempts and completed 24, while Cincinnati completed 25 of 38 attempts. The Bengals gained 46 more passing yards despite throwing five fewer passes.
Cincinnati also converted its passing production into touchdowns. Its quarterbacks combined for three touchdown passes, while Chicago’s three listed passers finished without a passing touchdown or interception. The Bears’ inability to turn their passing yards into touchdowns was a central reason they finished with only nine points.
The defensive numbers also favored Cincinnati in one important category. The Bengals recorded two sacks, while Chicago recorded none. Although sacks alone do not explain the outcome, they indicate that Cincinnati’s defense created more direct pressure on the opposing passing game.
For readers who want to verify the individual figures, the official ESPN box score page is the relevant statistical reference.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring pattern explains when the game moved away from Chicago and why the Bears could not build a comeback.
| Quarter | Chicago Bears | Cincinnati Bengals |
| First quarter | 3 | 3 |
| Second quarter | 6 | 14 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 0 | 3 |
| Final score | 9 | 27 |
First quarter: Both teams start evenly
Chicago and Cincinnati each scored three points in the opening quarter. Neither side established a scoring advantage, and the opening period suggested a more competitive contest than the final margin eventually indicated.
A tied first quarter is not enough to determine which team controlled the game. Field position, the quality of offensive possessions, and the ability to finish drives all matter. The later scoring pattern showed that Cincinnati was better at converting opportunities into points.
Second quarter: Cincinnati creates separation
The Bengals scored 14 points in the second quarter, compared with six for Chicago. This was the game’s defining scoring period.
Cincinnati’s ability to produce two touchdowns’ worth of scoring in one quarter gave it control of the scoreboard. Chicago managed two field goals during the quarter’s scoring progression, but its offense did not produce a touchdown.
That distinction is important. Field goals can keep a team competitive, but offenses generally need touchdowns to respond when an opponent is scoring consistently. Cincinnati’s second-quarter advantage made Chicago’s remaining possessions more consequential.
Third quarter: Another touchdown extends the lead
Cincinnati added seven points in the third quarter, while Chicago was held scoreless. The Bengals therefore increased their lead after halftime rather than allowing the Bears to regain momentum.
The lack of second-half scoring from Chicago is one of the clearest weaknesses visible in the final statistics. The Bears had passing and receiving production, but none of it resulted in a touchdown.
Fourth quarter: Cincinnati closes the game
The Bengals added three points in the final quarter. Chicago again failed to score.
By the end of the game, Cincinnati had scored in every quarter, while Chicago’s scoring was concentrated in the first half. This consistent scoring distribution reflects the difference between Cincinnati’s ability to finish possessions and Chicago’s inability to sustain a scoring response.
Quarterback Player Stats: Bears vs. Bengals
Quarterback statistics provide one of the clearest ways to understand the offensive difference. Completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdown production, turnovers, and sacks all contribute to the broader picture.
Chicago Bears quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Completion rate | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Sacks taken | Passer rating |
| Case Keenum | 9/17 | 52.9% | 119 | 7.0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 75.4 |
| Miller Moss | 13/21 | 61.9% | 103 | 4.9 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 74.1 |
| Caleb Williams | 2/5 | 40.0% | 28 | 5.6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 58.8 |
| Team total | 24/43 | 55.8% | 236 | 5.8 | 0 | 0 | 2 allowed | 72.8 |
Case Keenum: Productive yardage without a touchdown
Case Keenum completed nine of 17 passes for 119 yards. His average of 7.0 yards per attempt was the highest among Chicago’s three listed quarterbacks.
Keenum’s numbers indicate that he generated useful yardage on his attempts. He also avoided interceptions and was not sacked according to the supplied box score.
However, his performance did not include a touchdown pass. Passing yardage is valuable, but its effect on the final score depends on whether the offense can convert drives into touchdowns or field goals. Keenum’s passing production did not translate into a passing score in this game.
His 119 yards were the highest individual passing total among Chicago’s listed quarterbacks, although his smaller number of attempts compared with Moss means the two performances should not be judged by yardage alone.
Miller Moss: Chicago’s busiest passer
Miller Moss completed 13 of 21 attempts for 103 yards. His 61.9% completion rate was the highest among Chicago’s listed quarterbacks, but his 4.9 yards per attempt was the lowest.
This contrast is important. Completion percentage shows how often a quarterback completes a pass, but it does not reveal how far those completions advance the offense. Moss completed more than six out of every ten attempts, yet the average gain per attempt remained limited.
Moss also took two sacks for a combined loss of 14 yards. Sacks can damage an offensive possession by creating longer down-and-distance situations and reducing the effectiveness of subsequent plays.
He did not throw a touchdown or interception. His performance therefore included some positive ball security, but the passing output and sacks highlight areas that deserve closer evaluation.
Caleb Williams: Limited statistical sample
Caleb Williams completed two of five passes for 28 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions. His 58.8 passer rating was the lowest among the three Chicago quarterbacks listed in the supplied data.
Five attempts are too few to support broad conclusions about a quarterback’s ability. His statistics describe a limited appearance rather than a complete evaluation of his performance or overall standing on the team.
The appropriate takeaway is narrow: Williams contributed 28 passing yards in this game, but the supplied figures do not show a touchdown pass during his appearance.
Cincinnati Bengals quarterback statistics
| Quarterback | Completions/Attempts | Completion rate | Passing yards | Yards per attempt | TD | INT | Sacks taken | Passer rating |
| Josh Johnson | 15/23 | 65.2% | 156 | 6.8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 113.7 |
| Sean Clifford | 10/15 | 66.7% | 126 | 8.4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 87.1 |
| Team total | 25/38 | 65.8% | 282 | 7.4 | 3 | 1 | 0 allowed | 103.2 |
Josh Johnson: Cincinnati’s most efficient scoring passer
Josh Johnson completed 15 of 23 passes for 156 yards, throwing two touchdowns without an interception. His passer rating of 113.7 was the highest among the quarterbacks listed for either team.
Johnson’s performance combined volume, accuracy, and scoring production. He completed 65.2% of his attempts, averaged 6.8 yards per attempt, and produced two touchdown passes.
His two touchdowns were especially important in a game where Cincinnati’s passing offense generated three scoring throws in total. Johnson was the only quarterback listed in this matchup to finish with multiple touchdown passes.
He also avoided sacks in the supplied statistics. That does not prove that he faced no pressure, but it does show that the Bengals’ passing game did not record a sack against him.
Sean Clifford: Strong yardage efficiency with a turnover
Sean Clifford completed 10 of 15 passes for 126 yards, averaging 8.4 yards per attempt. That was the highest yards-per-attempt figure among all five quarterbacks in the supplied tables.
Clifford also threw one touchdown and one interception. His performance therefore combined efficient yardage generation with a costly mistake.
His 66.7% completion rate was slightly higher than Johnson’s, and his average gain per attempt was higher as well. However, the interception is an important qualification. A quarterback’s efficiency cannot be evaluated only by how much ground his completions cover.
In preseason analysis, a productive passing average is encouraging, but turnovers remain a key factor when assessing decision-making and possession management.
Why Cincinnati’s quarterback numbers were stronger
The comparison reveals several differences:
- Completion rate: Cincinnati completed 65.8% of its passes, compared with Chicago’s 55.8%.
- Passing yardage: The Bengals gained 282 yards, 46 more than the Bears.
- Yards per attempt: Cincinnati averaged 7.4 yards, compared with Chicago’s 5.8.
- Touchdowns: Cincinnati threw three touchdown passes, while Chicago threw none.
- Interceptions: Cincinnati threw one interception, while Chicago threw none.
- Sacks: Chicago’s quarterbacks were charged with two sacks, while Cincinnati’s quarterbacks were not sacked.
The Bengals were not flawless. Their interception shows that Chicago’s defense created at least one turnover opportunity and converted it into possession. However, Cincinnati’s touchdown production and greater passing efficiency outweighed that mistake in the final result.
Rushing Statistics: Chicago Bears vs. Cincinnati Bengals
Rushing production offers another way to evaluate the matchup. Chicago recorded more team rushing yards than Cincinnati, but the Bears did not score a rushing touchdown. The Bengals gained fewer yards on the ground and still won by 18 points because their passing offense was considerably more productive.
Team rushing comparison
| Rushing statistic | Chicago Bears | Cincinnati Bengals |
| Rushing attempts | 22 | 20 |
| Rushing yards | 86 | 64 |
| Yards per carry | 3.9 | 3.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Longest run | 16 yards | 10 yards |
Chicago gained 22 more rushing yards and averaged 0.7 more yards per carry. These figures suggest that the Bears had the more productive ground game in terms of total yardage and average gain.
However, rushing statistics must be interpreted alongside passing and scoring numbers. Cincinnati did not need to win the rushing comparison to win the game. Its three passing touchdowns provided a scoring advantage that Chicago could not match.
The Bears also recorded two more rushing attempts. The difference was not enormous, but Chicago had slightly more ground-game volume without generating a touchdown.
Chicago Bears rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| Roschon Johnson | 12 | 42 | 3.5 | 8 yards | 0 |
| Salvon Ahmed | 6 | 36 | 6.0 | 16 yards | 0 |
| Miller Moss | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 yards | 0 |
| Brittain Brown | 3 | 3 | 1.0 | 3 yards | 0 |
Roschon Johnson led Chicago in rushing attempts and total rushing yards. His 12 carries produced 42 yards, an average of 3.5 yards per attempt. His role gave the Bears a consistent rushing option, although he did not record a touchdown.
Salvon Ahmed delivered the strongest average among Chicago’s listed runners with multiple carries. He gained 36 yards on six attempts, averaging 6.0 yards per carry. His longest run was 16 yards, the longest rushing play recorded by either team in the supplied statistics.
Ahmed’s average was 2.5 yards per carry higher than Johnson’s. That difference suggests Ahmed generated more yardage per opportunity, but a small number of carries can make averages fluctuate. Evaluating a runner fully requires more information about blocking, down and distance, defensive alignment, and the situation in which each carry occurred.
Miller Moss added five rushing yards on one attempt, while Brittain Brown gained three yards on three carries. Brown’s limited production reduced the team’s overall average, but his three attempts alone do not establish a wider performance trend.
Cincinnati Bengals rushing leaders
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Longest run | TD |
| Tahj Brooks | 3 | 16 | 5.3 | 10 yards | 0 |
| Sean Clifford | 4 | 11 | 2.8 | 8 yards | 0 |
| Kentrel Bullock | 6 | 10 | 1.7 | 7 yards | 0 |
| Dohnte Meyers | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 9 yards | 0 |
| Kendall Milton | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 5 yards | 0 |
| Josh Johnson | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 yards | 0 |
| Jamal Haynes | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 2 yards | 0 |
| Gary Brightwell | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | Not listed | 0 |
| Ke’Shawn Williams | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | Not listed | 0 |
Tahj Brooks led Cincinnati’s listed runners with 16 rushing yards on three attempts. His average of 5.3 yards per carry was productive, although his total workload was limited.
Sean Clifford added 11 yards on four carries, while Kentrel Bullock recorded 10 yards on six attempts. Bullock received more rushing opportunities than any listed Cincinnati player, but his 1.7-yard average was relatively low.
Several other players contributed small amounts of rushing yardage. Dohnte Meyers averaged 9.0 yards on his single attempt, and Josh Johnson averaged 7.0 yards on one carry. Those numbers are accurate for the recorded attempts, but neither sample is large enough to establish a dependable rushing trend.
The larger lesson is that Cincinnati’s ground game was secondary to its passing production. The Bengals gained 64 rushing yards without a rushing touchdown, yet their offense scored 27 points through a combination of passing touchdowns and field goals.
Receiving Statistics and Top Pass Catchers
Receiving production is particularly useful when evaluating how quarterbacks distribute the ball. It shows which players generated yardage, how many opportunities they converted into receptions, and which targets contributed touchdowns.
The supplied team totals show that Chicago recorded 250 receiving yards on 24 receptions, while Cincinnati produced 282 yards on 25 receptions. Cincinnati therefore gained 32 more receiving yards on just one additional catch.
Chicago Bears receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per reception | Longest reception | TD |
| Maurice Alexander | 5 | 60 | 12.0 | 18 yards | 0 |
| JP Richardson | 5 | 48 | 9.6 | 19 yards | 0 |
| Jahdae Walker | 1 | 36 | 36.0 | 36 yards | 0 |
| Sam Roush | 2 | 30 | 15.0 | 26 yards | 0 |
| Rome Odunze | 1 | 18 | 18.0 | 18 yards | 0 |
| Scotty Miller | 2 | 18 | 9.0 | 13 yards | 0 |
| Salvon Ahmed | 3 | 14 | 4.7 | 8 yards | 0 |
| Colston Loveland | 1 | 10 | 10.0 | 10 yards | 0 |
| Brittain Brown | 2 | 10 | 5.0 | 5 yards | 0 |
| Omari Kelly | 1 | 5 | 5.0 | 5 yards | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | 1 | 1 | 1.0 | 1 yard | 0 |
Maurice Alexander leads Chicago in receiving
Maurice Alexander was Chicago’s leading receiver by total yardage, finishing with five receptions for 60 yards. His 12.0-yard average gave the Bears a useful source of downfield production.
JP Richardson matched Alexander’s five receptions and finished with 48 yards. Richardson’s longest catch was 19 yards, one yard longer than Alexander’s best reception.
Together, Alexander and Richardson accounted for 108 receiving yards. That is a substantial share of Chicago’s 250 team receiving yards, demonstrating how much of the passing production came from two players.
Neither receiver recorded a touchdown. Their contributions helped move the ball, but Chicago did not complete a passing drive with a score.
Jahdae Walker provides the longest catch
Jahdae Walker recorded one reception for 36 yards, the longest reception among the listed players on either team. His 36.0 yards per reception reflects that single catch rather than a sustained average across multiple opportunities.
Sam Roush added 30 yards on two catches, averaging 15.0 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 26 yards, showing that Chicago had multiple players capable of producing substantial gains on individual plays.
Rome Odunze finished with one catch for 18 yards, while Scotty Miller recorded two receptions for the same total. These contributions added to the Bears’ receiving yardage, but the offense could not turn its passing production into a touchdown.
Colston Loveland caught one pass for 10 yards. Running backs Salvon Ahmed, Brittain Brown, and Roschon Johnson also appeared in the receiving statistics, showing that the Bears used players from the backfield as passing targets.
Cincinnati Bengals receiving leaders
| Player | Receptions | Receiving yards | Yards per reception | Longest reception | TD |
| Colbie Young | 3 | 48 | 16.0 | 18 yards | 1 |
| Ke’Shawn Williams | 3 | 42 | 14.0 | 18 yards | 0 |
| Dohnte Meyers | 5 | 41 | 8.2 | 14 yards | 0 |
| Charlie Jones | 2 | 35 | 17.5 | 26 yards | 0 |
| Jordan Moore | 2 | 25 | 12.5 | 20 yards | 0 |
| Mitchell Tinsley | 2 | 21 | 10.5 | 17 yards | 0 |
| Noah Thomas | 1 | 20 | 20.0 | 20 yards | 1 |
| Tahj Brooks | 2 | 20 | 10.0 | 19 yards | 0 |
| Tanner Hudson | 2 | 17 | 8.5 | 11 yards | 0 |
| Jamal Haynes | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 yards | 0 |
| Jack Endries | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 7 yards | 0 |
| Kendric Pryor | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | -1 yard | 0 |
Colbie Young makes a scoring impact
Colbie Young led Cincinnati’s listed receivers with 48 yards and three receptions. He averaged 16.0 yards per catch and recorded one touchdown.
His combination of receiving yardage and scoring production made him one of the most consequential players in the passing game. Unlike Chicago’s leading receivers, Young converted his production into a touchdown.
Ke’Shawn Williams also caught three passes, gaining 42 yards at an average of 14.0 yards per reception. Dohnte Meyers led the Bengals with five catches and contributed 41 receiving yards.
These figures show that Cincinnati did not depend on a single receiver for every meaningful gain. Several players contributed, giving the passing attack multiple options.
Charlie Jones and Noah Thomas add explosive plays
Charlie Jones caught two passes for 35 yards, averaging 17.5 yards per reception. His longest reception covered 26 yards, matching the longest catch recorded by Cincinnati’s listed receivers.
Noah Thomas caught one pass for 20 yards and recorded a touchdown. Although his total was smaller than Young’s, the scoring reception made his contribution especially valuable.
Jordan Moore and Mitchell Tinsley added 25 and 21 yards, respectively. Tahj Brooks contributed 20 receiving yards on two catches, while Tanner Hudson added 17 yards.
The variety of contributors matters because a passing offense becomes harder to defend when different players can gain yards and score. The box score supports the conclusion that Cincinnati distributed its receiving production across several targets.
Receiving efficiency and scoring conversion
The team comparison offers three useful observations:
- Cincinnati gained 32 more receiving yards than Chicago.
- The Bengals averaged 11.3 yards per reception, compared with Chicago’s 10.4.
- Cincinnati recorded three receiving touchdowns, while Chicago recorded none.
The third difference was the most important. Chicago’s receivers generated respectable yardage, including a 36-yard catch, but Cincinnati’s receivers were more effective at converting opportunities into points.
Receiving yardage is not a complete measure of receiver quality. Targets, route assignments, separation, contested catches, blocking, and the situation of each play also influence performance. The available figures provide a strong statistical comparison, but they do not show every detail needed to evaluate each player’s complete contribution.
Defensive Player and Team Statistics
Defense played a meaningful role in the result. Cincinnati recorded two sacks, four tackles for loss, and four quarterback hits. Chicago recorded no sacks, two tackles for loss, and four quarterback hits.
| Defensive statistic | Chicago Bears | Cincinnati Bengals |
| Total tackles | 59 | 71 |
| Solo tackles | 33 | 40 |
| Sacks | 0 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 | 4 |
| Passes defended | 6 | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 | 4 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions recorded | 1 | 0 |
Cincinnati generates more negative plays
The Bengals recorded 71 total tackles, 12 more than Chicago’s 59. They also produced twice as many tackles for loss and recorded two sacks.
These statistics suggest Cincinnati’s defense had more success stopping plays behind the line of scrimmage. Tackles for loss can disrupt an offense’s rhythm, while sacks can create long passing situations and force quarterbacks to adjust their decisions.
The four quarterback hits recorded by each defense make the comparison more interesting. Chicago generated pressure opportunities, but it did not record a sack in the supplied team statistics. Cincinnati converted two of its defensive opportunities into sacks.
However, tackle totals alone should not be treated as proof that one defense played better in every respect. A defense can accumulate tackles because opponents complete passes and runners reach the second level. More detailed information about third-down stops, red-zone defense, and explosive plays would help explain the full defensive performance.
Chicago records the interception
Skyler Thomas recorded Chicago’s listed interception, returning it for one yard without a touchdown. The Bears finished with one team interception, while Cincinnati recorded none.
This was a positive result for Chicago’s defense because an interception ends an opposing passing attempt and gives the defending team possession. The short return did not produce a defensive touchdown, but the turnover still represented a successful defensive play.
The interception also shows why the final score should not be interpreted as a complete defensive failure by Chicago. The Bears created a turnover and recorded six passes defended, compared with Cincinnati’s three.
The difficulty was that these defensive contributions did not lead to enough offensive scoring to change the outcome.
What the defensive figures do not reveal
The supplied data does not include every individual defensive player’s tackle count, coverage assignment, missed tackle, or snap total. It would therefore be misleading to name a single defensive player as the game’s overall best performer based solely on the available team totals.
A more complete evaluation would examine:
- Third-down conversion rates allowed.
- Red-zone possessions and touchdowns conceded.
- Pressure rate and quarterback time to throw.
- Missed tackles and yards after contact.
- Defensive snaps and performance by personnel group.
These measures would provide more context for understanding why Cincinnati won and how each team performed in specific situations.
Special Teams: Kicking, Punting, and Returns
Special teams did not determine the entire game, but the numbers reveal several differences in field position and scoring reliability.
Kicking statistics
| Kicking statistic | Cairo Santos, Chicago | Evan McPherson, Cincinnati |
| Field goals made | 3 | 2 |
| Field goals attempted | 4 | 2 |
| Field goal accuracy | 75.0% | 100.0% |
| Longest field goal | 45 yards | 58 yards |
| Extra points made | 0 | 3 |
| Points scored | 9 | 9 |
Cairo Santos made three field goals on four attempts and scored all nine of Chicago’s points. His longest successful field goal was 45 yards.
Evan McPherson converted both field goal attempts, including a long of 58 yards, and made all three extra points. His kicking contributed nine points to Cincinnati’s total.
The comparison illustrates two different roles in the final scoring pattern. Chicago depended entirely on field goals, while Cincinnati’s kick scoring complemented three passing touchdowns. Santos produced more field goals, but McPherson was perfect on his recorded attempts.
Cincinnati’s extra points followed its touchdowns, while Chicago had no extra-point attempts because the Bears did not score a touchdown. Consequently, the nine points attributed to each kicker do not mean their overall scoring contributions occurred in the same way.
Punting statistics
| Punting statistic | Chicago Bears | Cincinnati Bengals |
| Punts | 6 | 5 |
| Total punting yards | 311 | 223 |
| Average punt | 51.8 yards | 44.6 yards |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Punts inside the 20 | 1 | 4 |
| Longest punt | 63 yards | 51 yards |
Tory Taylor averaged 51.8 yards per punt for Chicago, with a longest punt of 63 yards. Ryan Rehkow averaged 44.6 yards for Cincinnati and placed four punts inside the 20-yard line.
Chicago had the higher average and longer individual punt. Cincinnati, however, had more punts land inside the opponent’s 20-yard line, according to the supplied statistics.
These numbers measure different aspects of punting. Distance can help a team gain field position, while placement can force an opponent to begin a drive deep in its own territory. Neither statistic alone establishes the full value of a punter’s performance.
Chicago punted six times, compared with Cincinnati’s five. That difference is consistent with the broader scoring picture: the Bears struggled to finish possessions, while the Bengals scored more consistently.
Kick return statistics
| Team | Returns | Return yards | Average | Longest return |
| Chicago Bears | 3 | 62 | 20.7 | 29 yards |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 3 | 83 | 27.7 | 29 yards |
Both teams recorded three kick returns, but Cincinnati gained 21 more return yards. The Bengals averaged 27.7 yards per return, compared with Chicago’s 20.7.
Dohnte Meyers gained 54 yards on two Cincinnati kick returns, while Tahj Brooks recorded 29 yards on one return. For Chicago, Kaden Davis gained 48 yards on two returns, and JP Richardson added 14 yards on one.
The longest return for both teams was 29 yards. Cincinnati’s advantage therefore came from its total return yardage rather than a longer individual return.
Punt return statistics
| Team | Punt returns | Return yards | Average | Longest return |
| Chicago Bears | 3 | 18 | 6.0 | 12 yards |
| Cincinnati Bengals | 3 | 46 | 15.3 | 25 yards |
Cincinnati also led in punt return production. The Bengals gained 46 yards on three returns, while Chicago gained 18.
Dohnte Meyers returned two punts for 34 yards, averaging 17.0 yards per return. Ke’Shawn Williams added 12 yards on one return. Chicago’s listed returners were Kaden Davis and Scotty Miller.
The return game gave Cincinnati another modest advantage in field-position production. Combined with the passing touchdowns, those additional yards helped explain how the Bengals maintained control of the contest.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The most useful way to interpret the game is to separate raw production from the results that production created.
1. Cincinnati converted passing yards into touchdowns
The Bengals finished with 282 passing yards and three passing touchdowns. Chicago recorded 236 passing yards and no passing touchdowns.
This is the clearest distinction in the offensive numbers. Chicago gained enough yardage to produce some scoring opportunities, but its passing game did not finish with a touchdown. Cincinnati was more effective at turning its passing production into points.
2. Chicago’s rushing advantage did not translate into a scoring advantage
The Bears gained 86 rushing yards on 22 attempts, while Cincinnati recorded 64 yards on 20 attempts. Chicago won the rushing comparison but still lost by 18 points.
That result demonstrates why a single statistical category should never be used as a complete measure of team performance. Passing touchdowns, field goals, turnovers, and defensive stops all influence the final result.
3. Cincinnati was more efficient through the air
The Bengals completed 65.8% of their passes and averaged 7.4 yards per attempt. Chicago completed 55.8% and averaged 5.8 yards per attempt.
The difference in average yards per attempt was 1.6 yards. Across a passing offense, that gap can accumulate quickly and create more favorable down-and-distance situations.
4. The Bears avoided interceptions but still struggled to score
Chicago’s listed quarterbacks combined for zero interceptions. Cincinnati threw one interception, yet the Bengals won comfortably.
This is a useful reminder that avoiding turnovers is only one part of offensive performance. A team can protect the ball and still lose if it cannot sustain productive drives or score touchdowns.
5. Cincinnati’s defensive pressure added to its advantage
The Bengals recorded two sacks and four tackles for loss, compared with zero sacks and two tackles for loss for Chicago. These numbers support the view that Cincinnati created more negative plays.
However, they do not establish that every Bengals defender outperformed every Bears defender. The conclusion is limited to the team-level evidence provided in the box score.
How to Read Preseason Player Statistics Correctly
Preseason box scores can help readers understand player contributions, but they should not be treated in exactly the same way as regular-season statistics.
First, playing time can vary considerably. One quarterback may receive more opportunities than another, and some players may participate in only a small portion of the game. That makes direct comparisons difficult when the number of attempts or carries is low.
Second, preseason games are often used to evaluate combinations of players and different tactical approaches. A receiver’s production may reflect the quarterback throwing to him, the defensive personnel on the field, and the role assigned to him on a particular drive.
Third, statistics do not show every aspect of a player’s performance. A receiver may block effectively without recording a catch, while a defensive player may influence a quarterback’s decision without registering a sack. The box score is valuable, but it is not a complete film evaluation.
For readers comparing individual performances, the most reliable approach is to consider several factors together:
- Volume: How many passes, carries, receptions, or defensive opportunities did the player receive?
- Efficiency: How much production came from each opportunity?
- Scoring impact: Did the player contribute to a touchdown, field goal, or important possession?
- Ball security: Were there interceptions, fumbles, or other costly mistakes?
- Sample size: Was the player involved enough for the numbers to support a broad conclusion?
Using these factors helps distinguish a genuinely productive performance from a high average created by one play or a limited number of attempts.
Data Accuracy and Statistical Limitations
This breakdown uses the game details and player figures provided in the supplied ESPN box score transcription. The date, final score, team totals, and individual statistics are presented as supplied rather than supplemented with unverified claims.
One important distinction concerns the difference between team passing yards and receiving yards. Passing totals can be affected by how sacks are accounted for in a box score, so passing yardage and receiving yardage should not automatically be treated as interchangeable measures.
The supplied figures list Chicago with 236 team passing yards and 250 team receiving yards. Cincinnati is listed with 282 passing yards and 282 receiving yards. These differences in the Chicago totals warrant checking the original box score before using the figures for detailed calculations or independent statistical research.
The listed Chicago rushing attempts also require care when reconciling them with player-level totals. Individual rushing statistics may not always sum neatly to the team total when different statistical categories are included or when source data has been transcribed.
For this reason, the article uses the supplied team totals for the broad comparison and identifies player-level numbers as recorded in the provided data. Readers who need the figures for a formal statistical report should compare the individual and team tables against the original source.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chicago Bears vs. Bengals preseason game on August 23, 2026?
The Cincinnati Bengals defeated the Chicago Bears 27-9. Cincinnati scored 14 points in the second quarter and finished with three passing touchdowns.
2. Which team had more passing yards?
The Cincinnati Bengals recorded 282 passing yards, compared with 236 for the Chicago Bears. Cincinnati also averaged 7.4 yards per pass attempt, while Chicago averaged 5.8.
3. Which quarterback threw the most touchdowns?
Josh Johnson led the listed quarterbacks with two touchdown passes for Cincinnati. Sean Clifford added one touchdown pass, giving the Bengals three passing touchdowns overall. Chicago’s listed quarterbacks did not record a passing touchdown.
4. Who was Chicago’s leading receiver?
Maurice Alexander led Chicago in receiving yards with 60 on five receptions. JP Richardson also caught five passes and finished with 48 yards. Jahdae Walker recorded Chicago’s longest reception, a 36-yard catch.
5. Which team had more rushing yards?
The Chicago Bears gained 86 rushing yards on 22 attempts, averaging 3.9 yards per carry. The Cincinnati Bengals gained 64 yards on 20 attempts, averaging 3.2 yards per carry. Neither team recorded a rushing touchdown in the supplied statistics.
6. How many sacks did each team record?
Cincinnati recorded two sacks, while Chicago recorded none. The Bears did record one interception, credited to Skyler Thomas in the supplied data.
Conclusion
The chicago bears vs bengals match player stats show that Cincinnati’s 27-9 preseason victory was driven primarily by its passing offense and its ability to convert opportunities into touchdowns. The Bengals produced 282 passing yards, three passing touchdowns, and two sacks on defense. Chicago generated 236 passing yards and 86 rushing yards but failed to score a touchdown.
Josh Johnson led Cincinnati’s passing attack with two touchdown passes, while Sean Clifford added another touchdown despite throwing an interception. For Chicago, Case Keenum led the listed quarterbacks in passing yards, Maurice Alexander topped the receiving chart, and Salvon Ahmed recorded the highest rushing average among the Bears’ listed players with multiple carries.
The defensive and special teams numbers add further context. Cincinnati recorded more tackles for loss and generated more return yardage, while Chicago’s defense secured the game’s only listed interception. Cairo Santos scored all nine of Chicago’s points, illustrating the Bears’ reliance on field goals instead of touchdowns.
Ultimately, the result highlights the difference between gaining yards and converting those yards into points. Chicago had a productive rushing performance by comparison, but Cincinnati’s more efficient passing attack and stronger scoring output proved decisive. Because this was a preseason game, the statistics offer a useful snapshot of individual contributions without serving as a definitive prediction of either team’s regular-season performance.
