Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats from December 7, 2025, tell a much more detailed story than the final 28-21 score. Green Bay defeated Chicago at Lambeau Field, but the game was competitive deep into the fourth quarter. The Packers finished with 337 total yards to Chicago’s 315, while Jordan Love produced 234 passing yards and three touchdowns. Caleb Williams threw for 186 yards and two touchdowns, but his late interception in the end zone ended Chicago’s final scoring opportunity. (NFL)
This was a game where the box score and the game situation need to be read together. Chicago actually had more first downs, more offensive plays, more rushing yards, and more time of possession. Green Bay, however, was more efficient with its opportunities. The Packers averaged 6.5 yards per offensive play compared with 4.6 for the Bears and converted 66.7% of their third downs compared with Chicago’s 50%. (NFL)
For readers searching for the chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats, the most important numbers are not limited to passing yards. Quarterback efficiency, receiving production, rushing attempts, touchdown distribution, turnovers, third-down performance, and the final defensive play all help explain why Green Bay won.
Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Week 14 NFC North matchup was played at Lambeau Field on December 7, 2025. Green Bay entered the game with a 9-3-1 record, while Chicago was 9-4. The Packers ultimately won 28-21. (Football Database)
Final Score by Quarter
| Quarter | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| First | 0 | 0 |
| Second | 3 | 14 |
| Third | 11 | 7 |
| Fourth | 7 | 7 |
| Final | 21 | 28 |
The score reveals an important part of the game’s flow. Neither team scored in the opening quarter. Green Bay then created separation in the second quarter by scoring 14 points while Chicago managed only a field goal.
Chicago responded strongly after halftime, scoring 11 points in the third quarter and entering the final period within three points. The Bears eventually tied the game at 21-21 in the fourth quarter before Green Bay answered with Josh Jacobs’ touchdown run. (Football Database)
That sequence is why looking only at the final score can be misleading. Chicago did not spend the entire game being dominated. Instead, the Packers created an early advantage, Chicago recovered, and Green Bay made the decisive late play.
Team Statistics That Explain the Result
The overall team numbers provide useful context for the individual player performances.
| Statistic | Chicago Bears | Green Bay Packers |
| Total yards | 315 | 337 |
| Passing yards, gross | 186 | 234 |
| Net passing yards | 177 | 220 |
| Rushing yards | 138 | 117 |
| Total plays | 68 | 52 |
| First downs | 21 | 17 |
| Third down | 8/16 | 8/12 |
| Fourth down | 1/2 | 0/0 |
| Turnovers | 1 | 1 |
| Time of possession | 33:29 | 26:31 |
| Penalties | 4 for 17 yards | 6 for 55 yards |
| Red zone | 2/4 | 1/1 |
These figures show an unusual contrast.
Chicago ran 68 offensive plays, 16 more than Green Bay. The Bears also held the ball for almost seven minutes longer. Yet the Packers gained 337 yards on only 52 plays. That works out to 6.5 yards per play for Green Bay compared with 4.6 for Chicago. (NFL)
That efficiency difference is one of the strongest statistical explanations for the final result.
Green Bay did not need as many possessions or plays to generate production. Its passing attack produced 220 net passing yards, while Chicago finished with 177 net passing yards. The Packers also converted 8 of 12 third downs, an excellent 66.7% rate. Chicago converted 8 of 16. (NFL)
Caleb Williams Player Stats
Caleb Williams completed 19 of 35 passes for 186 yards, two touchdowns and one interception. He averaged 5.3 yards per attempt and finished with a 76.6 passer rating. He was sacked once for nine yards. (packerstats.com)
His passing line can be summarized as follows:
| Statistic | Caleb Williams |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 35 |
| Completion rate | 54.3% |
| Passing yards | 186 |
| Yards per attempt | 5.3 |
| Passing TDs | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards | 9 |
| Passer rating | 76.6 |
| Rushing | 4 carries, 15 yards |
The completion rate and yards per attempt indicate that Chicago’s passing game was not consistently producing large gains. Williams completed 54.3% of his attempts, while Green Bay’s Jordan Love completed 68.0% of his. (FantasyData)
Williams did contribute two touchdown passes, which kept Chicago competitive.
The most important play involving Williams, however, came at the end of the game. With Chicago facing fourth-and-1 from the Green Bay 14-yard line, Williams rolled left after a fake handoff and attempted to find Cole Kmet in the end zone. Keisean Nixon intercepted the pass with 22 seconds remaining, preserving the Packers’ 28-21 victory. (CBS Sports)
That play is particularly important when interpreting the quarterback statistics. Williams’ final interception was not an ordinary midfield turnover. It came during Chicago’s last scoring opportunity, in a situation where a successful completion could have extended the game.
Jordan Love Player Stats
Jordan Love produced the more efficient quarterback performance.
He completed 17 of 25 passes for 234 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. His 9.4 yards per attempt was substantially higher than Williams’ 5.3. Love was also sacked once, losing 14 yards. His passer rating was 120.7. (NFL)
| Statistic | Jordan Love |
| Completions | 17 |
| Attempts | 25 |
| Completion rate | 68.0% |
| Passing yards | 234 |
| Yards per attempt | 9.4 |
| Passing TDs | 3 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards | 14 |
| Passer rating | 120.7 |
| Rushing | 1 carry, -1 yard |
The contrast between Love and Williams is particularly clear when efficiency is considered.
Love attempted 10 fewer passes but gained 48 more passing yards. He also produced one additional passing touchdown. His 9.4 yards per attempt indicates that Green Bay was generating substantially more yardage whenever Love threw the football. (NFL)
This does not mean every Green Bay pass was successful. Love did throw one interception. But the overall passing efficiency favored Green Bay strongly.
D’Andre Swift Rushing Stats
D’Andre Swift led Chicago’s rushing attack with 13 carries for 63 yards.
His average was 4.8 yards per carry, and his longest run covered eight yards. (packerstats.com)
| Bears Rusher | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| D’Andre Swift | 13 | 63 | 4.8 | 0 |
| Kyle Monangai | 14 | 57 | 4.1 | 0 |
| Caleb Williams | 4 | 15 | 3.8 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 3 | 3.0 | 0 |
| Team | 32 | 138 | 4.3 | 0 |
Chicago’s running game was productive enough to keep Green Bay from completely controlling the game on the ground.
Swift and Kyle Monangai combined for 120 rushing yards on 27 attempts. That means the Bears’ primary running backs accounted for most of Chicago’s rushing production.
The limitation was scoring. Despite gaining 138 rushing yards, Chicago did not score a rushing touchdown. All of its touchdowns came through the passing game. (NFL)
Kyle Monangai’s Contribution
Kyle Monangai carried the ball 14 times for 57 yards, averaging 4.1 yards per carry.
His workload was slightly larger than Swift’s in terms of attempts, although Swift gained more total yards.
Monangai also played a role in Chicago’s scoring sequence. During the third quarter, his run helped complete a two-point conversion following Olamide Zaccheaus’ touchdown reception. The scoring drive was part of Chicago’s second-half comeback. (Football Database)
His 57 rushing yards also demonstrate that Chicago had a functional rushing attack. The Bears finished with 138 rushing yards compared with 117 for Green Bay. (NFL)
Josh Jacobs Rushing Stats
Josh Jacobs was Green Bay’s leading rusher, carrying 20 times for 86 yards and one touchdown.
| Packers Rusher | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| Josh Jacobs | 20 | 86 | 4.3 | 1 |
| Jayden Reed | 2 | 22 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Emanuel Wilson | 3 | 10 | 3.3 | 0 |
| Jordan Love | 1 | -1 | -1.0 | 0 |
| Team | 26 | 117 | 4.5 | 1 |
Jacobs’ touchdown became the decisive score.
With the game tied at 21-21 in the fourth quarter, Jacobs scored on a two-yard run to give Green Bay a 28-21 lead. (Football Database)
His overall yardage was not dramatically higher than Chicago’s leading rushers, but his touchdown came at a critical moment. That is an important distinction when interpreting player statistics. Production is not only about volume. Timing can determine how a particular contribution affects the outcome.
Chicago Bears Receiving Stats
Luther Burden III led Chicago in receiving yardage with four receptions for 67 yards on six targets.
His 16.8 yards per reception was Chicago’s highest among the principal receiving contributors in the supplied game statistics. His longest reception went for 27 yards. (packerstats.com)
Bears Receiving Leaders
| Player | Targets | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Luther Burden III | 6 | 4 | 67 | 16.8 | 0 |
| Colston Loveland | 5 | 4 | 29 | 7.3 | 1 |
| D’Andre Swift | 4 | 3 | 19 | 6.3 | 0 |
| Cole Kmet | 3 | 2 | 42 | 21.0 | 0 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 3 | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 1 |
| Devin Duvernay | 1 | 1 | 24 | 24.0 | 0 |
| Durham Smythe | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 |
| Kyle Monangai | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Burden’s 67 yards were particularly significant because Chicago needed explosive plays to offset its relatively low passing efficiency.
Cole Kmet also produced an interesting statistical line. He caught only two passes, but they went for 42 yards, an average of 21 yards per reception. His involvement was also central to the game’s final play because Williams attempted to locate him in the end zone before Nixon made the interception. (CBS Sports)
Colston Loveland and Olamide Zaccheaus each recorded touchdown receptions, giving Williams two different scoring targets.
Christian Watson Leads the Packers
Christian Watson was Green Bay’s most productive receiver by yardage and touchdowns.
He caught four passes for 89 yards and two touchdowns. His average was 22.3 yards per reception. (SportBaseline)
Packers Receiving Leaders
| Player | Receptions | Yards | Average | TD |
| Christian Watson | 4 | 89 | 22.3 | 2 |
| Other Packers receivers | 13 | 145 | 11.2 | 1 |
| Team | 17 | 234 | 13.8 | 3 |
Watson’s two touchdowns came from passes of 23 and 41 yards. The second was especially important because it came during the third quarter after Chicago had begun its comeback. (Football Database)
The receiving production helps explain Love’s 9.4 yards per attempt.
Green Bay was not simply completing short passes and slowly moving the chains. The Packers generated substantial yardage on completed throws, with Watson providing two of the game’s biggest scoring plays.
Bo Melton’s Big Touchdown
Bo Melton also made a major contribution with a 45-yard touchdown reception from Love in the second quarter.
That touchdown gave Green Bay a 14-3 halftime advantage. (Football Database)
A single explosive reception can dramatically change the statistical shape of a game. Before halftime, Chicago had struggled to produce offensive momentum. Green Bay’s two touchdown passes in the second quarter created the largest early scoring gap.
This is one reason yards per attempt can provide useful context alongside completion percentage. A quarterback who completes fewer passes can still generate strong offensive results when his completions consistently produce substantial gains.
Defensive Player Stats and the Final Turnover
The defining defensive statistic was the interception total.
Chicago’s C.J. Gardner-Johnson intercepted Jordan Love and returned the ball 28 yards. Green Bay’s Keisean Nixon intercepted Caleb Williams and returned the ball for no yardage. (NFL)
Both teams therefore finished with one interception.
But the timing was completely different.
Chicago’s interception gave the Bears a takeaway from Green Bay’s offense. Nixon’s interception came with only 22 seconds remaining and ended Chicago’s final possession.
That is why turnover counts alone do not fully explain the game.
Keisean Nixon’s Game-Sealing Interception
Nixon’s interception occurred in the end zone on fourth down. Chicago was already inside the Green Bay 15-yard line, meaning the Bears were in position to potentially tie the game with a touchdown.
According to the game report, Kmet had moved behind Nixon in the end zone, but Nixon made a leaping interception on Williams’ pass. (CBS Sports)
That play converted a potential scoring opportunity into a turnover and effectively ended the contest.
For statistical analysis, this is a good example of why situational context matters. A defensive player can finish with one interception and have that one play carry enormous significance.
Chicago’s Kicking and Special Teams Stats
Cairo Santos was perfect on field goals, making both attempts.
His field goals came from 33 and 41 yards. He also converted his only extra-point attempt, finishing with seven points. (Football Database)
Tory Taylor punted four times for 208 yards, averaging 52.0 yards per punt. His longest punt traveled 63 yards, and two punts finished inside the 20-yard line. (NFL)
Chicago also received 91 kickoff return yards, with Devin Duvernay accounting for 69 of them.
These numbers show that Chicago’s special teams were not the main statistical reason for the defeat. The Bears were perfect on field goals and generated solid field-position opportunities through punting and kick returns.
Green Bay Special Teams Stats
Brandon McManus did not attempt a field goal but converted all four extra-point attempts.
Daniel Whelan punted three times for 145 yards, averaging 48.3 yards per punt. His longest punt was 55 yards, and one finished inside the 20-yard line. (NFL)
Green Bay’s kickoff return unit produced 85 yards.
The Packers also committed six penalties for 55 yards, compared with four penalties for 17 yards by Chicago. Therefore, penalty yardage actually favored Chicago significantly, but the Bears could not turn that advantage into a victory.
Why Green Bay Won Despite Fewer Plays
One of the most interesting aspects of the game is that Green Bay ran only 52 offensive plays compared with Chicago’s 68.
At first glance, that might suggest Chicago controlled the game.
The Bears had 21 first downs compared with 17 for Green Bay. They also held the ball for 33:29 compared with Green Bay’s 26:31. (NFL)
Yet Green Bay produced more total yards.
The explanation is efficiency.
Green Bay averaged 6.5 yards per offensive play. Chicago averaged 4.6. The Packers also averaged 9.4 yards per passing attempt, while Chicago averaged 5.3. (NFL)
In simple terms, Chicago often needed more plays to gain its yards. Green Bay needed fewer.
That difference becomes particularly important in a close game because explosive plays can compensate for fewer possessions.
Third-Down Efficiency Was a Major Difference
Chicago converted 8 of 16 third downs, exactly 50%.
Green Bay converted 8 of 12, or 66.7%.
Both teams converted eight third downs, but Green Bay needed four fewer attempts to reach that number. (NFL)
This is a useful statistic for evaluating offensive efficiency.
Chicago’s offense stayed on the field frequently enough to accumulate 21 first downs and 68 plays. But Green Bay was better at turning third-down situations into continued possessions.
That helped the Packers maintain efficiency despite having the ball for less time.
Red-Zone Performance
The red-zone numbers also deserve attention.
Chicago scored on two of four red-zone trips, producing a 50% touchdown rate in those opportunities.
Green Bay went 1-for-1 in the red zone, producing a 100% rate. (NFL)
Chicago’s final failed opportunity is particularly important because the game ended with the Bears inside the Green Bay 15-yard line.
The raw red-zone percentages therefore need context. Green Bay had only one red-zone opportunity according to the official team statistics, so its 100% rate came from a very small sample.
Chicago had more opportunities but did not convert all of them.
The Importance of Explosive Plays
Green Bay’s offense created several high-value plays through the passing game.
Christian Watson scored on catches of 23 and 41 yards. Bo Melton added a 45-yard touchdown reception. (Football Database)
Those plays helped create the difference between the teams’ passing efficiency.
Chicago’s offense had explosive receptions too. Kmet averaged 21.0 yards per catch, while Burden averaged 16.8. Duvernay caught his only target for 24 yards. (packerstats.com)
The difference was that Green Bay converted its biggest passing plays into touchdowns.
That distinction is crucial. Not every long gain produces points. The Packers’ explosive plays repeatedly resulted in direct scoring production.
The Game’s Most Important Statistical Turning Points
Three moments stand out when the numbers are connected to the game situation.
1. Green Bay’s Second-Quarter Surge
The Packers entered halftime leading 14-3.
Watson scored first on a 23-yard touchdown reception, and Melton followed with a 45-yard touchdown reception. (Football Database)
That gave Green Bay a 14-3 advantage after a scoreless first quarter.
2. Chicago’s Second-Half Response
The Bears scored 11 points in the third quarter and entered the fourth quarter only three points behind.
Olamide Zaccheaus caught a one-yard touchdown pass from Williams, followed by a successful two-point conversion. Santos then added a 41-yard field goal. (Football Database)
Chicago’s offense clearly improved after halftime.
3. The Final Fourth-Down Interception
Chicago tied the game at 21-21 after Loveland’s one-yard touchdown reception.
Green Bay answered with Jacobs’ two-yard rushing touchdown.
Chicago then reached the Green Bay red zone late in the game but failed to convert fourth down when Nixon intercepted Williams in the end zone. (Football Database)
Those sequences explain the 28-21 final score more effectively than any single box-score statistic.
What the Player Stats Say About the Quarterbacks
The quarterback comparison is one of the clearest statistical contrasts in this matchup.
Williams had:
- 35 attempts
- 19 completions
- 186 yards
- 2 touchdowns
- 1 interception
- 5.3 yards per attempt
- 76.6 passer rating
Love had:
- 25 attempts
- 17 completions
- 234 yards
- 3 touchdowns
- 1 interception
- 9.4 yards per attempt
- 120.7 passer rating
Love threw fewer passes but produced considerably more yardage and one more touchdown. (FantasyData)
Williams, meanwhile, was asked to throw 10 more passes.
That difference matters because it shows two different offensive approaches. Chicago generated a large amount of offensive volume, while Green Bay generated more production per passing attempt.
The final interception also had an unusually high impact because of its timing.
What the Running Game Says
Chicago actually gained more rushing yards than Green Bay.
The Bears finished with 138 rushing yards on 32 attempts, averaging 4.3 yards per carry.
The Packers gained 117 yards on 26 attempts, averaging 4.5 yards per carry. (NFL)
Therefore, the final result cannot reasonably be explained by Green Bay simply dominating the ground game.
Chicago had more rushing yards.
Green Bay’s advantage came primarily through passing efficiency and scoring efficiency.
Jacobs’ late touchdown was nevertheless critical because it turned a tied game into a seven-point Green Bay lead.
What the Receiving Numbers Reveal
The receiving statistics point toward a more explosive Green Bay passing attack.
Watson’s four catches produced 89 yards and two touchdowns.
Chicago’s leading receiver, Burden, recorded four catches for 67 yards but no touchdowns. (packerstats.com)
This is a good illustration of the difference between yardage leadership and scoring impact.
Burden was Chicago’s top receiving yardage producer.
Watson was Green Bay’s top receiving yardage producer and also accounted for two touchdowns.
That combination made Watson’s production particularly influential on the scoreboard.
How the Game Fits Into the 2025 Rivalry
The December 7 matchup was one of two meetings between the Bears and Packers during the 2025 regular season.
Green Bay won the first meeting 28-21 at Lambeau Field. Chicago later defeated Green Bay 22-16 in the December 20 meeting at Soldier Field, meaning the teams split their 2025 regular-season series. (StatMuse)
That later result is important when discussing the December 7 game because the 28-21 result was not the final outcome of the season series.
For anyone researching individual performances, however, the December 7 box score remains its own distinct statistical record.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
When researching NFL player statistics, it is easy to focus on the biggest number.
A more useful approach is to examine several categories together:
- Volume: How many passes, carries, targets, or defensive opportunities did a player receive?
- Efficiency: How much production came from each opportunity?
- Scoring: Did production result directly in touchdowns or field goals?
- Situational value: Did the production happen during an important part of the game?
- Turnovers: Did the player create or prevent a possession-changing mistake?
- Team context: Was the player working within a high-volume or low-volume offense?
Using those categories makes the December 7 statistics much easier to understand.
For example, Williams had more pass attempts than Love, but Love produced more passing yards. Swift had 63 rushing yards, but Jacobs’ 86 yards included the game’s decisive rushing touchdown. Burden led Chicago in receiving yards, while Watson led Green Bay in both receiving yards and receiving touchdowns.
Key Takeaways From the Box Score
The most important statistical observations from this game are straightforward.
Jordan Love was the more efficient passer. He completed 68% of his passes and averaged 9.4 yards per attempt while throwing three touchdowns. (FantasyData)
Caleb Williams produced two touchdown passes but struggled to match Green Bay’s passing efficiency. He completed 54.3% of his attempts and averaged 5.3 yards per attempt. (FantasyData)
Chicago ran the ball effectively. The Bears gained 138 rushing yards, 21 more than Green Bay. (NFL)
Green Bay created more explosive passing production. Watson and Melton combined for three touchdown receptions, including plays of 23, 41 and 45 yards. (Football Database)
Chicago controlled more of the clock. The Bears possessed the ball for 33:29. (NFL)
Green Bay was more efficient on third down. The Packers converted 66.7% compared with Chicago’s 50%. (NFL)
The final turnover was decisive. Nixon intercepted Williams in the end zone with 22 seconds remaining. (CBS Sports)
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Bears in passing against the Packers on December 7, 2025?
Caleb Williams led Chicago in passing, completing 19 of 35 attempts for 186 yards, two touchdowns and one interception.
Who led the Packers in passing against the Bears?
Jordan Love completed 17 of 25 passes for 234 yards, three touchdowns and one interception. He finished with a 120.7 passer rating.
Who was the leading rusher for Chicago?
D’Andre Swift led the Bears with 63 rushing yards on 13 carries. Kyle Monangai had 57 yards on 14 carries.
Who led Green Bay in rushing?
Josh Jacobs led the Packers with 86 yards on 20 carries and scored the game-winning rushing touchdown.
Who led the game in receiving yards?
Christian Watson led all listed primary receivers with 89 yards on four receptions and scored two touchdowns.
What was the final score of the Bears vs Packers game?
Green Bay defeated Chicago 28-21 at Lambeau Field on December 7, 2025. (NFL)
Conclusion
The chicago bears vs green bay packers match player stats show a close game in which efficiency ultimately mattered more than volume.
Chicago produced 315 total yards, ran 68 offensive plays, gained 138 rushing yards and held the ball for more than 33 minutes. Green Bay nevertheless generated 337 yards on only 52 plays. The Packers were more efficient through the air, converting a higher percentage of third downs and producing more yards per offensive play. (NFL)
Jordan Love’s 234 passing yards and three touchdowns gave Green Bay a clear passing advantage, while Christian Watson’s 89 receiving yards and two touchdowns supplied the game’s most productive receiving performance. Josh Jacobs then delivered the decisive rushing touchdown late in the fourth quarter.
For Chicago, Williams’ two touchdown passes, Swift’s 63 rushing yards, Monangai’s 57 yards and Burden’s 67 receiving yards helped produce a strong second-half response. The Bears turned a 14-3 halftime deficit into a 21-21 tie before Green Bay regained the lead.
The final defensive play provided the clearest ending to the statistical story. Keisean Nixon’s interception of Williams in the end zone with 22 seconds remaining stopped Chicago’s final attempt to tie the game and preserved Green Bay’s 28-21 victory. (CBS Sports)
The broader lesson from this box score is that player statistics become more useful when volume, efficiency, scoring and game situation are considered together. A team can have more plays, more possession time and more rushing yards while still losing because the opponent generates greater production from fewer opportunities.
