Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats

The Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats tell a much more interesting story than the final score alone. Minnesota finished with a 27-24 victory, but the numbers show a closely contested game in which both teams produced 120-yard-level rushing efficiency, while the biggest statistical difference came through passing efficiency, turnovers, and several individual scoring plays.

For readers trying to understand what actually decided the game, the box score provides several useful clues. J.J. McCarthy completed 13 of 20 passes for 143 yards, two touchdowns, and one interception. Caleb Williams was more productive in raw passing volume, completing 21 of 35 attempts for 210 yards and one touchdown without throwing an interception. Yet Minnesota still came away with the three-point win.

That contrast is exactly why player statistics need context. A larger passing total does not automatically mean a better offensive performance, and a quarterback’s interception count does not tell the entire turnover story. Chicago recorded an interception return touchdown, while Minnesota benefited from a lost fumble by DJ Moore.

This breakdown examines the major passing, rushing, receiving, defensive, kicking, punting, and return statistics from the matchup and explains what those numbers reveal about how the 27-24 result developed.

Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats at a Glance

Category	Minnesota Vikings	Chicago Bears
Final Score	27	24
Record	1-0	0-1
Passing	13/20, 143 yards	21/35, 210 yards
Passing TDs	2	1
Passing INTs	1	0
Team Rushing	26 carries, 120 yards	26 carries, 119 yards
Rushing Average	4.6	4.6
Rushing TDs	1	1
Team Receiving	13 receptions, 143 yards	21 receptions, 210 yards
Receiving TDs	2	1
Defensive Sacks	2	3
Tackles	66	60
Fumbles Lost	0 listed for Minnesota	1
Field Goals	2/2	1/2
Extra Points	1/1	3/3
Long Field Goal	59 yards	42 yards

The table immediately highlights the unusual nature of the contest. Chicago had more completions and passing yards, while Minnesota had fewer completions but more passing touchdowns. The rushing production was almost identical, and both teams averaged 4.6 yards per carry.

J.J. McCarthy’s Passing Performance

J.J. McCarthy finished the game with 13 completions on 20 attempts for 143 yards. His average was 7.2 yards per attempt, and he threw two touchdowns against one interception.

His listed passer rating was 98.5, with a 47.1 QBR.

The most important part of his stat line is not simply the 143 passing yards. It is the relationship between efficiency and scoring.

McCarthy attempted only 20 passes, yet two of those completions resulted in touchdowns. That means Minnesota was able to convert a relatively modest passing workload into meaningful scoring production.

His 7.2 yards per attempt also indicates that Minnesota was not relying entirely on short, low-risk throws. The passing game generated reasonable yardage whenever the Vikings connected.

At the same time, the three sacks for a combined nine yards matter. Sacks reduce offensive efficiency, put the quarterback in difficult down-and-distance situations, and can erase otherwise productive drives.

So McCarthy’s performance was productive but not flawless.

McCarthy’s Most Important Numbers

• 13 completions
• 20 attempts
• 143 passing yards
• 7.2 yards per attempt
• 2 passing touchdowns
• 1 interception
• 3 sacks
• 9 sack yards
• 47.1 QBR
• 98.5 passer rating

The two touchdown passes were particularly valuable because Minnesota won by only three points.

Caleb Williams Produced More Passing Volume

Caleb Williams had the larger passing workload and the larger yardage total.

He completed 21 of 35 attempts for 210 yards, averaging 6.0 yards per attempt. He threw one touchdown and no interceptions.

His listed QBR was 71.2, while his passer rating was 86.6.

On the surface, Williams’ 210 yards look significantly stronger than McCarthy’s 143. Chicago also completed eight more passes.

But passing yardage needs to be evaluated alongside the scoreboard and scoring efficiency.

Chicago’s 210 passing yards resulted in one passing touchdown. Minnesota’s 143 passing yards resulted in two.

That does not mean McCarthy automatically played better in every aspect. It means the two quarterbacks contributed differently. Williams generated more volume, while McCarthy’s passing production produced more touchdowns relative to his workload.

Williams’ Key Numbers

• 21 completions
• 35 attempts
• 210 passing yards
• 6.0 yards per attempt
• 1 passing touchdown
• 0 interceptions
• 2 sacks
• 12 sack yards
• 71.2 QBR
• 86.6 passer rating

One positive for Williams is the absence of an interception. However, Chicago’s overall turnover situation still hurt the team because DJ Moore lost a fumble.

The Quarterback Comparison Needs Context

A simple quarterback comparison might suggest that Williams had the better statistical performance because he completed 21 passes for 210 yards compared with McCarthy’s 13 completions for 143 yards.

That conclusion is too simple.

McCarthy:

• Had two passing touchdowns
• Averaged 7.2 yards per attempt
• Recorded a 98.5 passer rating
• Took three sacks

Williams:

• Had 67 more passing yards
• Completed eight more passes
• Had one passing touchdown
• Threw no interceptions
• Took two sacks
• Recorded an 86.6 passer rating

The difference demonstrates why football analysis should use several measurements instead of one statistic.

Passing yards explain volume. Completion percentage shows accuracy in a basic sense. Yards per attempt provides some insight into throwing efficiency. Touchdowns show scoring production. Sacks reveal another part of quarterback pressure. Turnovers show ball security.

Taken together, the numbers create a much clearer picture.

Minnesota’s Rushing Attack

Minnesota carried the ball 26 times for 120 yards, averaging 4.6 yards per carry.

The Vikings also recorded one rushing touchdown and had a longest run of 19 yards.

Jordan Mason led Minnesota’s rushing production with 15 carries for 68 yards. His 4.5-yard average and 19-yard longest run made him the team’s primary source of rushing volume.

J.J. McCarthy also contributed 25 rushing yards on only two carries. His 12.5-yard average was boosted by a 14-yard run and included a rushing touchdown.

Aaron Jones Sr. added eight carries for 23 yards.

Justin Jefferson recorded one rushing attempt for four yards.

Jordan Mason’s Role

Mason’s 15 carries represented the largest share of Minnesota’s rushing attempts among its running backs.

His 68 yards were not based on one huge statistical outlier alone. His longest run was 19 yards, while his overall average remained 4.5 yards.

That makes his contribution particularly useful when assessing Minnesota’s offensive balance.

A team does not need a 150-yard rushing performance to benefit from its ground game. Consistent gains can help keep the offense in manageable situations, slow down a pass rush, and give the quarterback a more balanced playbook.

J.J. McCarthy Added a Valuable Rushing Dimension

McCarthy’s two rushing attempts produced 25 yards.

That is an unusually strong average of 12.5 yards per carry, although the small number of attempts should be considered before drawing broad conclusions.

His longest run was 14 yards, and he scored one rushing touchdown.

The rushing touchdown is especially important because Minnesota’s quarterback contributed directly to the ground scoring total.

When a quarterback can create yardage outside the pocket or on designed runs, the defense has another element to account for. However, two attempts are not enough to establish a long-term rushing trend.

Chicago’s Ground Game Nearly Matched Minnesota

Chicago also carried the ball 26 times, producing 119 yards.

That resulted in the same 4.6 yards per carry listed for Minnesota.

The Bears had one rushing touchdown, and their longest rushing play went for 13 yards.

Caleb Williams led Chicago in rushing with six attempts for 58 yards. His 9.7-yard average and 13-yard long demonstrate how much of Chicago’s rushing efficiency came from the quarterback.

D’Andre Swift had the most rushing attempts for Chicago, carrying 17 times for 53 yards.

DJ Moore added three carries for eight yards.

D’Andre Swift Provided the Workload

Swift’s 17 carries were the largest rushing workload for either Chicago player.

He gained 53 yards, producing a 3.1-yard average.

That figure is considerably lower than the team’s overall 4.6-yard average because Williams’ rushing efficiency raised the team total.

This distinction is useful. A team rushing average can sometimes hide how efficiently the primary running back actually performed.

Swift’s contribution was primarily about volume. Williams supplied a large portion of the explosive efficiency.

Caleb Williams Was Chicago’s Most Efficient Runner

Williams averaged 9.7 yards per rushing attempt, considerably more than Swift’s 3.1.

His 58 rushing yards also made him Chicago’s leading rusher despite having only six attempts.

He scored one rushing touchdown.

This is a strong example of why quarterback rushing numbers should not be ignored when evaluating a team’s offensive performance. Williams’ legs generated a substantial portion of Chicago’s ground production.

At the same time, the six-attempt sample is small, so it should not be interpreted as evidence that Chicago’s entire rushing attack was highly efficient.

Receiving Statistics Tell Another Story

Minnesota recorded 13 receptions for 143 yards, averaging 11.0 yards per reception.

Chicago recorded 21 receptions for 210 yards, averaging 10.0 yards per reception.

Chicago therefore had eight more receptions and 67 more receiving yards.

Yet Minnesota scored two receiving touchdowns compared with Chicago’s one.

This is one of the clearest statistical contrasts in the game.

Minnesota’s Leading Receivers

Aaron Jones Sr. finished with:

• 3 receptions
• 44 yards
• 14.7 yards per reception
• 1 touchdown
• 27-yard long

Justin Jefferson recorded:

• 4 receptions
• 44 yards
• 11.0 yards per reception
• 1 touchdown
• 17-yard long

Jalen Nailor had one reception for 28 yards.

T.J. Hockenson caught three passes for 15 yards.

Jordan Mason recorded one reception for seven yards.

Josh Oliver caught one pass for five yards.

Adam Thielen was listed with zero receptions and zero yards.

The distribution shows that Minnesota’s scoring production was shared between Jones and Jefferson.

Justin Jefferson’s Contribution

Jefferson caught four passes for 44 yards and one touchdown.

His 17-yard longest reception indicates that his production was not based on one extremely long catch.

Four receptions may not look overwhelming in isolation, especially compared with Chicago’s receiving totals, but the touchdown makes his contribution more significant.

In a three-point game, scoring plays deserve special attention.

Jefferson’s touchdown gave Minnesota a direct scoring return from one of its most important offensive weapons.

Aaron Jones Sr. Was a Major Receiving Contributor

Jones Sr. caught three passes for 44 yards and one touchdown.

His 14.7 yards per reception was higher than Jefferson’s 11.0 average.

The 27-yard reception was also Minnesota’s longest listed reception.

That makes Jones particularly interesting in this statistical breakdown because he contributed through both rushing and receiving.

He rushed eight times for 23 yards and added 44 receiving yards.

His total offensive involvement therefore went beyond his rushing statistics.

Chicago’s Receiving Production Was More Extensive

Chicago’s passing attack distributed the ball across a larger group of players.

DJ Moore led the Bears with three receptions for 68 yards, averaging 22.7 yards per reception. His longest reception went for 30 yards.

Olamide Zaccheaus caught four passes for 42 yards.

Rome Odunze recorded six receptions for 37 yards and one touchdown.

Cole Kmet had one reception for 31 yards.

Colston Loveland caught two passes for 12 yards.

D’Andre Swift had three receptions for 12 yards.

Kyle Monangai recorded one reception for 11 yards.

Luther Burden III had one reception for negative three yards.

DJ Moore Created Explosive Yardage

Moore’s three catches for 68 yards stand out immediately.

His 22.7-yard average was the highest receiving average among the listed Chicago players with positive yardage.

His longest catch was 30 yards.

That means Moore was highly productive on a limited number of receptions.

However, his fumble was also one of the game’s most important negative plays. The statistical line therefore captures both sides of his contribution: explosive receiving production and a costly turnover.

Rome Odunze Scored Chicago’s Receiving Touchdown

Odunze led Chicago in receptions with six.

He gained 37 yards and scored one touchdown.

His average was 6.2 yards per reception based on the listed figures.

This is an interesting contrast with Moore.

Moore produced significantly more yardage per catch, while Odunze provided more reception volume and scored Chicago’s listed receiving touchdown.

Together, their production shows that Chicago’s passing attack had multiple ways to move the ball.

Turnovers Were a Major Difference

Turnovers can be more important than raw yardage, especially in a close game.

Minnesota’s listed fumble statistics show Jay Ward with zero fumbles, zero lost, and one recovery.

Chicago’s fumble statistics list DJ Moore with one fumble and one lost.

Chicago also recorded an interception through Nahshon Wright, who returned it 74 yards for a touchdown.

This creates an unusual turnover picture.

Minnesota threw one interception, but Chicago turned that interception into a defensive touchdown.

Chicago lost one fumble, while Minnesota did not have a listed lost fumble.

Therefore, both teams produced a major defensive turnover play.

The important difference is that the turnovers did not simply appear as abstract numbers. Each had direct scoring implications.

Nahshon Wright’s 74-Yard Interception Return

Nahshon Wright recorded one interception and returned it 74 yards for a touchdown.

That was Chicago’s listed defensive touchdown.

A defensive touchdown is especially valuable because it allows a team to score without requiring its offense to complete a drive.

It also changes how the quarterback statistics should be interpreted.

McCarthy’s interception did not merely reduce his passing efficiency. It directly created a Chicago touchdown.

Despite that, Minnesota still won.

That makes the Vikings’ ability to produce enough offensive scoring to overcome a defensive touchdown one of the most important aspects of the game.

Defensive Statistics Were Closely Matched

Minnesota recorded:

• 66 tackles
• 41 solo tackles
• 2 sacks
• 6 tackles for loss
• 3 passes defended
• 3 quarterback hits

Chicago recorded:

• 60 tackles
• 38 solo tackles
• 3 sacks
• 6 tackles for loss
• 5 passes defended
• 5 quarterback hits
• 1 defensive touchdown

Chicago had one more sack and two more quarterback hits.

Minnesota had six more total tackles and three more solo tackles.

Both teams recorded six tackles for loss.

This is another area where the overall numbers were remarkably close.

What the Sack Numbers Tell Us

Chicago recorded three sacks for 12 yards.

Minnesota recorded two sacks for nine yards.

The difference is not enormous, but it shows that both defenses were able to create pressure.

McCarthy was sacked three times, while Williams was sacked twice.

Because sack totals are often affected by quarterback movement and offensive line play, they should not be treated as a pure measure of defensive quality.

Still, in a close contest, avoiding negative plays becomes important.

The Vikings gave up three sacks while the Bears gave up two, yet Minnesota’s offense still generated enough scoring efficiency to win.

Special Teams Played an Important Role

The kicking statistics provide another major clue about the final result.

Minnesota’s Will Reichard converted both field-goal attempts, including a 59-yard field goal.

He also made his only extra-point attempt.

His total was seven points.

Chicago’s Cairo Santos made one of two field-goal attempts, with a longest successful kick of 42 yards.

He converted all three extra-point attempts for six points.

The difference in field-goal efficiency was therefore significant.

Minnesota received points from both field-goal attempts.

Chicago missed one.

In a three-point game, a missed field goal can become one of the most important individual special teams statistics.

Will Reichard’s 59-Yard Field Goal

A successful 59-yard field goal is one of the most notable individual statistics in the game.

Reichard went 2-for-2 and finished with seven points.

The 59-yard kick demonstrates that Minnesota’s scoring opportunities were not limited to touchdowns.

Field goals can become especially important in close games because they allow an offense to convert possessions that do not end in the end zone.

Minnesota’s perfect field-goal record helped maximize its scoring efficiency.

Punting Comparison

Minnesota’s Ryan Wright punted seven times for 333 yards.

His average was 47.6 yards per punt, with a longest punt of 54 yards.

Chicago’s Tory Taylor punted six times for 266 yards.

His average was 44.3 yards, and his longest punt was 56 yards.

Taylor recorded one punt inside the 20-yard line, while Wright was listed with zero.

The punting numbers indicate that both teams relied heavily on field-position changes.

Minnesota punted once more and generated a higher average distance.

Chicago, however, had the better listed inside-the-20 result.

Kick Returns and Punt Returns

Minnesota’s kick return production included Ty Chandler with three returns for 84 yards, averaging 28.0 yards per return. His longest return was 33 yards.

Myles Price added two kick returns for 49 yards, averaging 24.5 yards, with a long of 25.

Chicago’s Devin Duvernay recorded three kick returns for 81 yards, averaging 27.0 yards, with a long of 34.

Luther Burden III added one return for 44 yards.

Burden’s single return produced an impressive 44-yard average because he had only one attempt.

On punt returns, Myles Price returned four punts for 68 yards, averaging 17.0 yards with a long of 22.

Duvernay returned four punts for 37 yards, averaging 9.3 yards with a long of 22.

Minnesota therefore received stronger listed punt-return production.

Why the Final Score Was So Close

The overall statistics explain why the final score remained within one possession.

Minnesota won 27-24, but Chicago was not dominated statistically.

Chicago actually had:

• More completions
• More passing yards
• More receiving yards
• More receptions
• One more defensive sack
• Two more quarterback hits
• A defensive touchdown

Minnesota had:

• More passing touchdowns
• A higher listed passer rating
• Slightly more team rushing yards
• Perfect field-goal kicking
• A lost-fumble advantage
• More total tackles
• Better listed punt-return efficiency

This is why looking only at total yardage can be misleading.

Chicago’s passing game moved the ball effectively, but Minnesota was more efficient at turning certain opportunities into points.

The Importance of Scoring Efficiency

Minnesota’s 143 passing yards produced two passing touchdowns.

Chicago’s 210 passing yards produced one.

That does not mean Minnesota’s offense was superior in every category. Chicago clearly produced more passing volume.

It does demonstrate that efficiency and production are different concepts.

Imagine two offenses:

One produces 300 yards but struggles to finish drives.

Another produces 220 yards but consistently turns possessions into touchdowns and field goals.

The second team can win despite having fewer yards.

The Vikings’ 27 points compared with Chicago’s 24 demonstrate this principle.

A Closer Look at Offensive Balance

Both teams recorded exactly 26 rushing attempts.

Minnesota gained 120 rushing yards.

Chicago gained 119.

That is about as close as a rushing comparison can get.

The difference came elsewhere.

Minnesota’s passing production was smaller in volume but more touchdown-focused.

Chicago’s passing production was larger in volume but generated fewer passing touchdowns.

This suggests the game was not decided by one team completely controlling the line of scrimmage.

Instead, several smaller statistical advantages combined to produce the final three-point margin.

What the Receiving Numbers Reveal

Minnesota’s 13 receptions for 143 yards produced an 11.0-yard average.

Chicago’s 21 receptions for 210 yards produced a 10.0-yard average.

Chicago completed more passes and moved the chains through a broader receiving distribution.

Minnesota’s average per reception was slightly higher, suggesting that its completed passes generated marginally more yardage on average.

Again, neither number tells the whole story.

A high reception count can indicate a quarterback repeatedly finding available targets.

A higher yards-per-reception number can indicate more downfield production.

Both styles can succeed.

Individual Players Who Stood Out

Several players deserve special attention when reviewing the numbers.

J.J. McCarthy

McCarthy finished with 143 passing yards and three total touchdowns when his two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown are considered.

His 98.5 passer rating was higher than Williams’ 86.6.

However, he also threw one interception and was sacked three times.

Caleb Williams

Williams produced 210 passing yards and 58 rushing yards.

His combined rushing and passing yardage made him one of Chicago’s most productive offensive players.

He also avoided an interception.

Jordan Mason

Mason carried 15 times for 68 yards and led Minnesota in rushing.

His 19-yard run was the longest Vikings rushing play listed.

D’Andre Swift

Swift handled 17 rushing attempts for 53 yards.

He also caught three passes for 12 yards.

His contribution was based largely on workload.

Justin Jefferson

Jefferson caught four passes for 44 yards and a touchdown.

His touchdown was one of Minnesota’s key receiving scores.

Aaron Jones Sr.

Jones contributed both as a runner and receiver.

He rushed eight times for 23 yards and caught three passes for 44 yards and a touchdown.

DJ Moore

Moore caught three passes for 68 yards and averaged 22.7 yards per reception.

His 30-yard reception was Chicago’s longest listed catch.

His lost fumble, however, was a major negative event.

Rome Odunze

Odunze led Chicago with six receptions and scored the team’s listed receiving touchdown.

Nahshon Wright

Wright produced one of the game’s biggest defensive plays with a 74-yard interception return touchdown.

Will Reichard

Reichard was perfect on two field-goal attempts, including a 59-yard kick, and finished with seven points.

The Biggest Statistical Lessons

There are several useful lessons for anyone analyzing this matchup.

1. Passing yards are not enough

Chicago had 210 passing yards compared with Minnesota’s 143.

Yet Minnesota scored 27 points and won.

The scoring output associated with the passing game matters.

2. Turnovers can change the game

Chicago’s defense turned an interception into a 74-yard touchdown.

Minnesota still overcame that major setback.

Chicago also lost a fumble through Moore.

Turnover impact should therefore be analyzed by both frequency and scoring consequence.

3. Rushing production was almost identical

The Vikings had 120 rushing yards.

The Bears had 119.

Both averaged 4.6 yards per carry.

This was not a game in which one rushing attack completely overwhelmed the other.

4. Special teams can decide close games

Reichard made both field goals.

Santos made one of two.

That difference matters when the final margin is three points.

5. Explosive plays came from multiple sources

Minnesota had a 59-yard field goal and several meaningful receiving plays.

Chicago had Moore’s 30-yard reception and Wright’s 74-yard interception return touchdown.

The game featured several high-value individual plays rather than one statistical category dominating from start to finish.

How to Read These Numbers Without Misleading Yourself

A good box-score analysis should separate three things: volume, efficiency, and impact.

Volume asks how much a player or team did.

Examples include:

• Passing attempts
• Carries
• Receptions
• Total tackles

Efficiency asks how productive those opportunities were.

Examples include:

• Yards per attempt
• Yards per carry
• Yards per reception
• Field-goal percentage

Impact asks whether the production directly affected the result.

Examples include:

• Touchdowns
• Turnovers
• Defensive scores
• Long field goals
• Fourth-quarter plays

The strongest player analysis combines all three.

For example, Caleb Williams’ 210 passing yards show strong volume. His 6.0 yards per attempt provides an efficiency measure. His one passing touchdown and zero interceptions provide additional context.

For McCarthy, 143 passing yards represent lower volume, but his two passing touchdowns and 98.5 rating show a different form of efficiency.

What Fans Should Take Away From the Matchup

For Minnesota, the biggest takeaway is that the offense did enough despite not dominating the passing yardage battle.

The Vikings received meaningful contributions from McCarthy, Mason, Jefferson, Jones, and Reichard.

Their rushing attack produced 120 yards, while the passing game generated two touchdowns from only 20 attempts.

For Chicago, the numbers show that the team was competitive.

Williams generated 210 passing yards and 58 rushing yards. Moore produced 68 receiving yards on only three catches. Odunze recorded six receptions and a touchdown. The defense generated three sacks and a defensive touchdown.

The problem was that several positive statistical performances did not translate into enough total points.

That is one of the most important lessons from the box score.

Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats: Final Statistical Verdict

The Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats show a game decided by several small margins rather than one overwhelming statistical advantage.

Minnesota did not win the passing-yardage battle.

Chicago did not win the scoreboard.

The Bears did not lose because their quarterback threw interceptions. Williams finished with zero.

The Vikings did not win because they dominated the running game. Both teams produced almost identical rushing numbers.

Instead, Minnesota combined two passing touchdowns, a rushing touchdown, perfect field-goal kicking, 120 rushing yards, and enough defensive resistance to finish three points ahead.

Chicago generated more passing volume and produced a defensive touchdown, but a lost fumble, a missed field goal, and lower touchdown production through the passing game left the Bears short.

The most revealing comparison may be the simplest one: Minnesota had 143 passing yards and 27 points, while Chicago had 210 passing yards and 24 points.

That difference captures the central story of the game. Yardage matters, but football games are ultimately decided by how effectively teams turn possessions into points.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the final score between the Minnesota Vikings and Chicago Bears?

Minnesota defeated Chicago 27-24 according to the supplied game data.

Who had more passing yards?

Caleb Williams had more passing yards, finishing with 210 on 21 completions. J.J. McCarthy recorded 143 passing yards on 13 completions.

Who scored the most passing touchdowns?

J.J. McCarthy threw two touchdown passes. Caleb Williams threw one.

Which team had more rushing yards?

Minnesota had 120 rushing yards on 26 attempts, while Chicago had 119 rushing yards on 26 attempts.

Who was Minnesota’s leading rusher?

Jordan Mason led Minnesota with 15 carries for 68 yards and a longest run of 19 yards.

Who recorded the defensive touchdown?

Chicago’s Nahshon Wright recorded an interception and returned it 74 yards for a touchdown.

Conclusion

The Minnesota Vikings vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats provide a strong example of why a complete box-score review needs more than passing yards or total offense.

Chicago generated greater passing volume, with Caleb Williams throwing for 210 yards and completing 21 passes. Minnesota’s J.J. McCarthy threw for 143 yards but produced two passing touchdowns and finished with a higher listed passer rating.

On the ground, the teams were almost perfectly matched. Minnesota recorded 120 rushing yards, while Chicago had 119, with both teams averaging 4.6 yards per carry.

The receiving numbers also favored Chicago in volume, but Minnesota converted its passing production into more touchdowns. Special teams then added another important difference, as Will Reichard made both field-goal attempts while Cairo Santos converted one of two.

Defensively, Chicago created a 74-yard interception return touchdown and recorded three sacks. Minnesota answered with stronger overall tackle numbers and avoided a listed lost fumble.

Ultimately, the 27-24 result came down to execution across several areas rather than domination in one category. The statistics show two competitive teams that moved the ball in different ways, with Minnesota doing just enough in scoring efficiency and situational execution to secure the victory.