The Chicago Bears vs Green Bay Packers match player stats from October 11, 2026, show how explosive passing and five takeaways powered Green Bay’s 31-7 victory. Jordan Love threw for 367 yards, while Christian Watson delivered two touchdown catches at Lambeau Field.
Chicago stayed within seven points at halftime, but Green Bay scored 17 unanswered points after the break. The Bears finished without a passing touchdown and struggled to recover from an early deficit.
This breakdown covers the Week 5 meeting, including quarterback numbers, rushing and receiving leaders, defensive contributions, and the plays that separated the teams.
Match Overview and Quarter-by-Quarter Score
| Match detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Date | October 11, 2026 |
| Competition | NFL regular season, Week 5 |
| Venue | Lambeau Field, Green Bay |
| Final score | Packers 31, Bears 7 |
| Halftime score | Packers 14, Bears 7 |
| Winning quarterback | Jordan Love |
| Leading receiver | Christian Watson, 143 yards |
Green Bay established its lead early and protected it throughout the second half.
| Team | First quarter | Second quarter | Third quarter | Fourth quarter | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chicago Bears | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 |
| Green Bay Packers | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 31 |
The halftime score left Chicago within reach. However, the Bears could not add another point, while Green Bay continued finding opportunities downfield.
Quarterback Stats: Jordan Love Sets the Standard
Love combined accuracy with substantial gains through the air. Chicago used Tyson Bagent and Case Keenum, but neither produced a touchdown pass.
| Quarterback | Team | Completions/Attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | Packers | 25/31 | 367 | 2 | 0 |
| Tyson Bagent | Bears | 12/21 | 87 | 0 | 2 |
| Case Keenum | Bears | 11/19 | 108 | 0 | 1 |
Why Love’s Performance Mattered
Love completed 80.6% of his attempts and finished with a 137.5 passer rating. His production came without an interception, allowing Green Bay to attack without giving Chicago a turnover opportunity.
His touchdown connections with Watson covered 42 and 53 yards. Those plays made Green Bay dangerous beyond the short passing game and punished Chicago for allowing receivers behind the defense.
Chicago’s Quarterback Change
Bagent started in place of injured Caleb Williams. Keenum entered during the fourth quarter, with Chicago already facing a substantial deficit.
The change increased Chicago’s passing yardage but did not produce a scoring recovery. Together, the quarterbacks threw three interceptions, making it difficult to sustain a comeback.
Read more TablesProWorld Com: What the Website Actually Publishes
Rushing Stats: Swift Leads in Yards, Lloyd in Touchdowns
Chicago gained more rushing yards than Green Bay, but the Packers received the greater scoring return from their ground game.
| Player | Team | Carries | Rushing yards | Rushing TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D’Andre Swift | Bears | 9 | 43 | 1 |
| Tyson Bagent | Bears | 3 | 17 | 0 |
| Zavion Thomas | Bears | 1 | 11 | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | Bears | 5 | 6 | 0 |
| MarShawn Lloyd | Packers | 10 | 31 | 2 |
| Kaleb Johnson | Packers | 7 | 26 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong | Packers | 5 | 7 | 0 |
| Jordan Love | Packers | 1 | 6 | 0 |
Swift provided Chicago’s only touchdown and averaged approximately 4.8 yards per carry. He also contributed as a receiver, giving the Bears useful production in both areas.
Lloyd’s value came near the end zone. His two rushing touchdowns demonstrate why yardage alone cannot explain a running back’s impact: finishing drives can matter more than leading the rushing table.
Receiving Leaders: Watson and Golden Stretch Chicago
Green Bay had two receivers surpass 100 yards. Chicago’s leading receiver finished below 50.
| Player | Team | Receptions | Receiving yards | Receiving TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | Packers | 6 | 143 | 2 |
| Matthew Golden | Packers | 6 | 123 | 0 |
| Tucker Kraft | Packers | 5 | 64 | 0 |
| Bo Melton | Packers | 3 | 20 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | Bears | 4 | 47 | 0 |
| Rome Odunze | Bears | 3 | 40 | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | Bears | 5 | 34 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | Bears | 4 | 30 | 0 |
| Colston Loveland | Bears | 2 | 19 | 0 |
Watson delivered the touchdowns, while Golden supplied another significant downfield threat. Together, they accumulated 266 receiving yards, making them the central pairing in Green Bay’s passing attack.
Kraft added a productive option at tight end. That distribution meant Chicago could not solve its coverage problems simply by focusing on one receiver.
For the Bears, Burden led in receiving yards, while Roschon Johnson caught the most passes. However, Chicago’s completed throws did not generate enough distance or scoring opportunities to match Green Bay.
Defensive Impact: Five Takeaways Change the Game
Green Bay’s defense repeatedly ended Chicago possessions by taking the football away.
| Packers defender | Key contribution |
|---|---|
| Xavier McKinney | Two interceptions |
| Ty’Ron Hopper | One interception |
| Devonte Wyatt | Two sacks and a forced fumble |
| Evan Williams | One fumble recovery |
| Dani Dennis-Sutton | One fumble recovery and a sack |
| Zaire Franklin | One forced fumble |
McKinney stood out by intercepting Bagent twice. Hopper added another interception against Keenum, while Green Bay recovered two fumbles.
Those takeaways affected both opportunity and pressure. Each lost possession reduced Chicago’s chances to close the gap, increasing the burden on the offense whenever it returned to the field.
Green Bay also finished without a turnover. The resulting 5-0 turnover advantage was one of the clearest differences between the teams.
Team Stats Explain More Than the Final Score
| Statistic | Bears | Packers |
|---|---|---|
| Total net yards | 246 | 428 |
| Net passing yards | 165 | 358 |
| Rushing yards | 81 | 70 |
| Turnovers committed | 5 | 0 |
| Time of possession | 29:36 | 30:24 |
| Penalties | 3 | 4 |
| Penalty yards | 20 | 25 |
Possession time was almost even, yet Green Bay gained 182 more net yards. That comparison points toward offensive productivity rather than a simple advantage in time with the football.
Chicago’s slight rushing edge could not offset the much larger passing gap. Green Bay gained 193 more net passing yards and converted its attacking opportunities into four touchdowns.
Passing totals also require one clarification. Love’s individual passing figure was 367 yards, while Green Bay’s team net passing total was 358 after sack losses. Chicago’s quarterbacks combined for 195 passing yards, with sacks reducing the team’s net figure to 165.
The Turning Point: Watson Answers a Costly Penalty
The game’s pivotal sequence arrived on Green Bay’s opening possession after halftime. An apparent touchdown pass to J. Michael Sturdivant came back because of offensive pass interference.
Rather than allowing the setback to end the drive, Love connected with Watson for a 53-yard touchdown on third-and-22. The score extended Green Bay’s lead to 20-7 after a missed extra point.
Chicago then failed to score on its response. Green Bay added a field goal before Lloyd’s second rushing touchdown and a successful two-point conversion established the final margin.
Watson’s catch changed the immediate task for Chicago. A manageable seven-point halftime deficit became a situation requiring multiple scoring possessions against a defense already creating turnovers.
What the Player Stats Ultimately Show
Love supplied the most complete offensive performance, Watson delivered the biggest scoring plays, and McKinney led the takeaway effort. Lloyd added finishing power near the goal line.
Chicago received contributions from Swift and its receiving group, but those gains never formed a consistent scoring attack. The decisive combination was Green Bay’s ability to create long completions while preventing Chicago from protecting possession.
Read more : Research Dossier for Target Company: What to Include and How to Build One
