Green Bay found the big plays. Chicago kept losing the ball. Those two differences shaped the Packers’ 31–7 victory over the Bears at Lambeau Field on 11 October 2026. What remained a seven-point contest at half-time became a convincing home win as Green Bay’s passing attack and defence took control.
The Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats tell the story through several standout performances. Jordan Love passed for 367 yards, Christian Watson caught two touchdowns, and Matthew Golden added another 123 receiving yards. MarShawn Lloyd supplied two rushing scores, while the Packers forced five turnovers. Chicago briefly threatened a recovery through D’Andre Swift, but its attack could not produce enough consistent possession or scoring opportunities to keep pace.
Match Overview: Chicago’s Response Fades After Half-Time
Green Bay started with purpose. Its opening scoring drive covered 91 yards and finished with Love finding Watson for a 42-yard touchdown. The Packers immediately showed that they were prepared to attack beyond Chicago’s shorter coverage.
An interception by Xavier McKinney created another opportunity, and Lloyd’s rushing touchdown extended the advantage to 14–0. Chicago was already facing two problems: stopping explosive passes and avoiding mistakes when it had possession.
The Bears eventually settled into their strongest drive of the afternoon. They travelled 78 yards across 16 plays, using nine minutes and ten seconds before Swift scored on fourth-and-goal. At 14–7, the match still offered Chicago a route back.
Green Bay closed that route after the interval. Watson scored again, the defence continued disrupting possessions, and the Packers won the second half 17–0.
| Match detail | Result |
|---|---|
| Date | 11 October 2026 |
| Venue | Lambeau Field |
| Competition | NFL regular season, Week 5 |
| Final score | Packers 31–7 Bears |
| Half-time score | Packers 14–7 Bears |
| Second-half scoring | Packers 17–0 Bears |
The final margin reflected Green Bay’s ability to create quick gains while making Chicago work much harder for every scoring chance.
Passing Stats: Jordan Love Combines Accuracy with Ambition
Love delivered the most influential offensive performance of the game. He completed 25 of 31 attempts for 367 yards, throwing two touchdowns without an interception.
His completion rate was approximately 80.6%, alongside a passer rating of 137.5. Those figures are particularly impressive because Green Bay repeatedly attempted meaningful gains downfield.
Quarterback comparison
| Player | Team | Completions/attempts | Passing yards | TD | INT | Passer rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordan Love | Packers | 25/31 | 367 | 2 | 0 | 137.5 |
| Tyson Bagent | Bears | 12/21 | 87 | 0 | 2 | 27.4 |
| Case Keenum | Bears | 11/19 | 108 | 0 | 1 | 52.1 |
Chicago started Bagent because Caleb Williams was unavailable through injury. Bagent struggled to establish a productive passing rhythm, and his two interceptions increased the pressure on an attack already chasing the score.
Keenum entered during the fourth quarter and passed for 108 yards. However, his interception near the goal line stopped a promising scoring opportunity.
The Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats make the quarterback contrast clear. Love generated more yardage than Chicago’s two passers combined, supplied both passing touchdowns and protected possession throughout.
Chicago finished with 195 individual passing yards between Bagent and Keenum. Green Bay’s advantage therefore involved both production and ball security.
Receiving Stats: Watson and Golden Give Green Bay Two Major Threats
Watson provided the finishing touches, while Golden repeatedly helped move the Packers into dangerous positions. Together, they gave Chicago’s secondary more problems than it could solve.
Both receivers caught six passes. Watson finished with 143 yards and two touchdowns, while Golden contributed 123 yards.
Leading receiving performances
| Player | Team | Receptions | Receiving yards | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian Watson | Packers | 6 | 143 | 2 |
| Matthew Golden | Packers | 6 | 123 | 0 |
| Tucker Kraft | Packers | 5 | 64 | 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’s touchdowns came from 42 and 53 yards. Those scoring plays meant Chicago could not afford even a brief breakdown in deeper coverage.
Golden added receptions of 50 and 36 yards. His contribution mattered because the Packers could continue finding substantial gains without relying entirely on Watson.
Kraft also played an important supporting role. His five receptions produced 64 yards, including a 46-yard gain that added another dimension to Green Bay’s passing attack.
Watson and Golden combined for 266 receiving yards. Their success placed constant pressure on Chicago to defend the full length of the field.
Burden led the Bears with 47 receiving yards, but Chicago lacked a comparable individual performance. Its shorter gains rarely developed into the sustained scoring pressure needed to challenge Green Bay.
Rushing Stats: Lloyd Makes His Opportunities Count
The rushing figures present a different picture from the passing comparison. Green Bay did not overwhelm Chicago through a huge ground total, but Lloyd delivered when the Packers reached scoring positions.
He finished with 31 yards from ten carries and scored twice. Swift gained more rushing yards individually, yet Lloyd had the greater touchdown contribution.
Selected rushing figures
| Player | Team | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | TD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MarShawn Lloyd | Packers | 10 | 31 | 3.1 | 2 |
| Kaleb Johnson | Packers | 7 | 26 | 3.7 | 0 |
| Pierre Strong Jr. | Packers | 5 | 7 | 1.4 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | Bears | 9 | 43 | 4.8 | 1 |
| Tyson Bagent | Bears | 3 | 17 | 5.7 | 0 |
| Roschon Johnson | Bears | 5 | 6 | 1.2 | 0 |
Lloyd’s first touchdown strengthened Green Bay’s early advantage. His second came on a four-yard run at the start of the fourth quarter, helping place the result beyond Chicago’s reach.
Swift supplied the Bears’ only touchdown and added 30 receiving yards to his rushing contribution. His combined 73 yards showed that he remained a useful outlet despite Chicago’s wider difficulties.
The Bears finished with 81 rushing yards as a team. That was a sharp reduction from the league-leading 196.3-yard average they carried into the match.
The rushing section of the Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats therefore highlights two separate outcomes: Chicago struggled to establish its usual ground production, while Green Bay converted limited rushing yardage into valuable scores.
Defensive Stats and Team Comparison: Five Turnovers Decide the Direction
Green Bay’s defence ensured that its offence rarely had to repair damage caused by lost possession. The Packers committed no turnovers and forced five from Chicago.
McKinney led the interception count with two, while Ty’Ron Hopper added another. Two fumble recoveries completed the takeaway total.
Standout defensive contributions
| Packers player | Key contribution |
|---|---|
| Xavier McKinney | Two interceptions |
| Ty’Ron Hopper | One interception |
| Devonte Wyatt | Two sacks and one forced fumble |
| Zaire Franklin | One forced fumble |
| Evan Williams | One fumble recovery |
| Dani Dennis-Sutton | One fumble recovery and one sack |
These contributions affected different stages of Chicago’s possessions. Interceptions stopped passing opportunities, while forced fumbles removed possession even after the Bears had completed a play or attempted to escape pressure.
Green Bay forced turnovers on four consecutive Chicago possessions during the second half. That sequence repeatedly prevented the Bears from building a response.
Overall team comparison
| Statistic | Packers | Bears |
|---|---|---|
| Total net yards | 428 | 246 |
| Rushing yards | 70 | 81 |
| Turnovers committed | 0 | 5 |
| Time of possession | 30:24 | 29:36 |
| Final points | 31 | 7 |
Possession time was almost equal, but Green Bay gained 182 more net yards. That contrast shows why simply holding the ball does not guarantee control.
Chicago spent almost as long in possession, yet its drives produced fewer yards and far more mistakes. Green Bay used its opportunities with greater efficiency.
The Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats ultimately point towards the same combination: explosive passing created the advantage, and defensive takeaways protected it.
Conclusion
The Green Bay Packers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats show how several strong individual performances combined into a convincing team victory. Love supplied accuracy and distance, Watson delivered two major scoring plays, and Golden kept Chicago’s coverage under pressure.
Lloyd added decisive finishes on the ground, while the defence repeatedly took possession away. Chicago produced one substantial scoring drive but could not sustain that standard.
The game remained competitive at half-time. Green Bay’s cleaner execution after the break turned it into a result the Bears could no longer influence.
Also read: Shaun Holguin: His Personal Life, Past Marriage and Life After Divorce
(FAQs)
Who won the Packers vs Bears match on 11 October 2026?
The Green Bay Packers won 31–7 at Lambeau Field. They led 14–7 at half-time before scoring 17 unanswered points after the break.
How many passing yards did Jordan Love record?
Love threw for 367 yards. He completed 25 of 31 passes, with two touchdowns and no interceptions.
Who finished with the most receiving yards?
Christian Watson led the game with 143 receiving yards. Matthew Golden was next with 123 yards, giving Green Bay two receivers above 100 yards.
How many touchdowns did MarShawn Lloyd score?
Lloyd scored two rushing touchdowns. He finished with 31 rushing yards from ten attempts.
Why did Caleb Williams miss the game?
Williams was unavailable through injury. Tyson Bagent started for Chicago, and Case Keenum replaced him during the fourth quarter.
How many turnovers did the Packers force?
Green Bay forced five turnovers: three interceptions and two fumble recoveries. The Packers did not commit a turnover themselves.
