Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats
The chicago bears vs las vegas raiders match player stats reveal how Chicago secured a dramatic 25-24 victory over Las Vegas on September 28, 2025, despite being heavily outperformed in the rushing game. The Week 4 NFL matchup featured an impressive performance from Raiders running back Ashton Jeanty, three interceptions by the Bears defense, and a perfect kicking display from Cairo Santos. Although Las Vegas produced 240 rushing yards compared with Chicago’s 69, the Bears found a way to win through defensive takeaways and consistent scoring opportunities.
The one-point result made this matchup particularly interesting because both teams showed different strengths. Las Vegas controlled much of the ground game, while Chicago benefited from its ability to create turnovers and convert field-goal opportunities. Kevin Byard recorded two interceptions, Geno Smith threw three interceptions, and Santos converted all four of his field-goal attempts.
For fans examining individual performances, this game provides an excellent example of why total yardage does not always determine the winner. The final score, individual player contributions, defensive statistics, and special-teams execution all help explain how Chicago overcame several statistical disadvantages.
Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The September 28 meeting between Chicago and Las Vegas delivered a close finish with several important individual performances. Chicago entered the contest looking to improve its season record, while the Raiders wanted to protect their home field and build momentum.
Here is a quick overview of the matchup.
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders |
| Sport | NFL |
| Date | September 28, 2025 |
| Week | Week 4 |
| Stadium designation | Las Vegas home game |
| Final score | Bears 25, Raiders 24 |
| Winning team | Chicago Bears |
| Winning margin | 1 point |
| Bears record after game | 2-2 |
| Raiders record after game | 1-3 |
| Bears away record | 1-1 |
| Raiders home record | 0-2 |
| Game ID | 401772742 |
| Box score provider | ESPN |
Chicago’s victory came through a combination of defensive pressure, interceptions, and accurate kicking. The Raiders had the more productive rushing attack, but their passing mistakes proved costly.
Final Score by Quarter
The scoring pattern shows how the game changed throughout the four quarters.
| Quarter | Chicago Bears | Las Vegas Raiders |
| First Quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Second Quarter | 6 | 7 |
| Third Quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Fourth Quarter | 9 | 3 |
| Total | 25 | 24 |
Las Vegas started strongly and maintained its lead through the first three quarters. Chicago, however, produced nine points in the fourth quarter while limiting the Raiders to only three.
That final-quarter difference ultimately decided the contest.
Chicago Bears Player Stats and Offensive Performance
Chicago’s offensive production was not overwhelming, but the team made important plays when scoring opportunities appeared. Caleb Williams handled most of the passing responsibilities, while D’Andre Swift provided the touchdown that ultimately put the Bears ahead.
The offense finished with 271 total net yards, including 212 gross passing yards and 69 rushing yards.
Caleb Williams Passing Stats
Caleb Williams completed 22 of 37 passing attempts for 212 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He finished with a 73.3 passer rating and a 47.0 QBR.
| Passing Statistic | Caleb Williams |
| Completions | 22 |
| Attempts | 37 |
| Completion Percentage | 59.5% |
| Passing Yards | 212 |
| Yards per Attempt | 5.7 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks Taken | 1 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 10 |
| Passer Rating | 73.3 |
| QBR | 47.0 |
Williams experienced a challenging passing matchup. His 212 passing yards represented a reasonable contribution, but the offense struggled to generate consistent explosive plays through the air.
His most important passing connection came with Rome Odunze, who caught four passes for 69 yards and a touchdown.
The quarterback’s only interception was one of the mistakes that kept Las Vegas competitive. However, Williams avoided losing a fumble despite recording two fumbles during the game.
His performance demonstrates an important distinction between individual passing production and overall offensive efficiency. Completing 22 passes is useful, but the Bears needed their running game, defense, and kicker to help finish the job.
D’Andre Swift Rushing Stats
D’Andre Swift delivered Chicago’s most important rushing contribution. He recorded 14 carries for 38 yards and one touchdown.
| Rushing Statistic | D’Andre Swift |
| Carries | 14 |
| Rushing Yards | 38 |
| Average | 2.7 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Run | 13 yards |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving Yards | 22 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
| Targets | 6 |
Swift’s average of 2.7 yards per carry shows that Las Vegas generally limited his opportunities to gain significant yardage.
However, his fourth-quarter touchdown became the defining offensive moment of the contest.
He scored on a two-yard rushing play with 1:34 remaining. Chicago attempted a two-point conversion but failed. That left the Bears with a one-point advantage at 25-24.
The importance of Swift’s contribution was therefore much greater than his rushing total alone suggests.
He also provided an additional passing option, catching four passes for 22 yards. His ability to contribute as both a runner and receiver helped Chicago maintain flexibility in its offensive approach.
Kyle Monangai Rushing Contribution
Kyle Monangai provided another option in Chicago’s backfield.
| Statistic | Kyle Monangai |
| Carries | 4 |
| Rushing Yards | 18 |
| Average | 4.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Run | 9 yards |
Monangai averaged 4.5 yards per carry, which was higher than Swift’s average.
Although his workload was limited, his production showed that Chicago could find some positive rushing opportunities through different backfield options.
Chicago’s Total Rushing Production
The Bears finished with 26 rushing attempts for 69 yards and one rushing touchdown.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| D’Andre Swift | 14 | 38 | 2.7 | 1 |
| Kyle Monangai | 4 | 18 | 4.5 | 0 |
| Caleb Williams | 8 | 13 | 1.6 | 0 |
| Team Total | 26 | 69 | 2.7 | 1 |
Chicago’s rushing production was one of its biggest statistical weaknesses.
The team averaged only 2.7 yards per carry. That made it harder to maintain favorable down-and-distance situations and placed additional responsibility on Williams.
Despite those limitations, the Bears found a way to produce the winning touchdown through Swift’s late fourth-quarter run.
Chicago Bears Receiving Stats
The Bears distributed their passing production across several receivers. The Rome Odunze led the team in receiving yards, while Cole Kmet and Olamide Zaccheaus also contributed useful catches.
Rome Odunze Leads Chicago’s Receivers
Rome Odunze was Chicago’s leading receiver with four receptions for 69 yards and one touchdown.
| Receiving Statistic | Rome Odunze |
| Targets | 8 |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving Yards | 69 |
| Average | 17.3 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 27 yards |
Odunze’s 27-yard touchdown reception from Caleb Williams was particularly important.
The scoring play helped Chicago move ahead 16-14 during the third quarter. It also demonstrated the value of vertical passing opportunities when the running game is struggling.
Odunze averaged 17.3 yards per reception, giving him the highest receiving average among Chicago’s primary pass catchers.
His performance was an important positive for the Bears offense.
Cole Kmet Receiving Stats
Cole Kmet finished second among Chicago’s leading receivers in yardage.
| Statistic | Cole Kmet |
| Targets | 9 |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving Yards | 46 |
| Average | 15.3 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 29 yards |
Kmet’s nine targets were the most among Chicago’s listed receivers.
Although he caught only three passes, his 46 receiving yards showed that he remained an important part of the passing offense.
His longest reception covered 29 yards, providing Chicago with a valuable downfield gain.
Olamide Zaccheaus Receiving Stats
Olamide Zaccheaus provided a reliable short-to-intermediate passing option.
| Statistic | Olamide Zaccheaus |
| Targets | 6 |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 41 |
| Average | 8.2 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 13 yards |
Zaccheaus led Chicago in receptions with five.
His catch production helped the Bears distribute the ball instead of depending entirely on one receiver.
A 5-of-6 receiving performance also represented an efficient contribution in terms of opportunities converted.
D.J. Moore Receiving Stats
D.J. Moore finished with four receptions for 38 yards.
| Statistic | D.J. Moore |
| Targets | 5 |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving Yards | 38 |
| Average | 9.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 17 yards |
Moore converted four of his five targets into receptions.
While he did not produce a receiving touchdown, his involvement gave Williams another dependable option.
Other Chicago Receiving Contributions
D’Andre Swift added four receptions for 22 yards, while Luther Burden III recorded two catches for minus-four receiving yards.
| Player | Targets | Receptions | Yards | TD |
| Rome Odunze | 8 | 4 | 69 | 1 |
| Cole Kmet | 9 | 3 | 46 | 0 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 6 | 5 | 41 | 0 |
| D.J. Moore | 5 | 4 | 38 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | 6 | 4 | 22 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | 2 | 2 | -4 | 0 |
| Total | 36 | 22 | 212 | 1 |
The receiving numbers show that Chicago had multiple contributors, even though Odunze was the most productive downfield option.
The offense recorded 22 receptions for 212 yards and one receiving touchdown.
Las Vegas Raiders Player Stats and Offensive Performance
Las Vegas produced more total offensive yardage than Chicago, finishing with 357 total net yards compared with the Bears’ 271.
The Raiders were particularly effective on the ground. Their running backs consistently found space, and Ashton Jeanty delivered one of the most impressive individual rushing performances of the matchup.
However, the Raiders could not turn their offensive yardage advantage into a victory.
Geno Smith’s three interceptions and the team’s inability to protect its fourth-quarter lead played major roles in the defeat.
Geno Smith Passing Stats
The Geno Smith completed 14 of 21 passing attempts for 117 yards, two touchdowns, and three interceptions.
| Passing Statistic | Geno Smith |
| Completions | 14 |
| Attempts | 21 |
| Completion Percentage | 66.7% |
| Passing Yards | 117 |
| Yards per Attempt | 5.6 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 3 |
| Sacks Taken | 0 |
| Passer Rating | 73.0 |
| QBR | 20.4 |
Smith’s passing performance was unusual because he produced two touchdowns while also throwing three interceptions.
His completion percentage was better than Williams’ 59.5%, but the turnovers made his overall performance much less effective.
His 117 passing yards were also considerably lower than Williams’ 212.
The three interceptions were especially damaging because they repeatedly gave Chicago opportunities to regain possession.
Smith did not take a sack, meaning the Bears generated their defensive impact primarily through coverage and ball disruption rather than conventional quarterback pressure.
Why Geno Smith’s Interceptions Mattered
Interceptions can change the direction of an NFL game even when a quarterback is producing touchdowns.
Smith’s three interceptions meant that Las Vegas lost several opportunities to continue offensive drives.
Kevin Byard recorded two of those interceptions, while Tyrique Stevenson Sr. added another.
The Bears converted those defensive opportunities into an important advantage in a game decided by one point.
Smith’s two touchdown passes to Ashton Jeanty showed that the Raiders could still create scoring opportunities through the passing game. Unfortunately, those successful plays were not enough to compensate for the turnovers.
Ashton Jeanty Rushing Stats
Ashton Jeanty was arguably the most productive offensive player in the entire matchup.
The Raiders running back finished with 21 carries for 138 yards and one rushing touchdown.
| Rushing Statistic | Ashton Jeanty |
| Carries | 21 |
| Rushing Yards | 138 |
| Average | 6.6 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Run | 64 yards |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Receiving Yards | 17 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 2 |
| Targets | 2 |
Jeanty’s 64-yard rushing touchdown was one of the biggest offensive plays of the game.
It demonstrated his ability to turn an ordinary rushing opportunity into an explosive scoring play.
His 138 rushing yards accounted for more than half of Las Vegas’ total rushing production.
He also contributed in the passing game, recording two receptions for 17 yards and two touchdowns.
That gave him three total touchdowns across rushing and receiving.
His performance was particularly impressive considering the Bears eventually won the game.
Raheem Mostert Rushing Stats
Raheem Mostert provided another explosive element to the Raiders’ rushing attack.
| Statistic | Raheem Mostert |
| Carries | 4 |
| Rushing Yards | 62 |
| Average | 15.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Run | 37 yards |
| Receptions | 1 |
| Receiving Yards | 11 |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
Mostert averaged an outstanding 15.5 yards per carry.
His four rushing attempts produced 62 yards, making him one of the most efficient runners in the contest.
His 37-yard longest run demonstrated how dangerous the Raiders’ backfield could become when Chicago failed to close running lanes.
Mostert also caught one pass for 11 yards.
Geno Smith’s Rushing Contribution
Smith added another dimension to the Raiders’ rushing attack.
| Statistic | Geno Smith |
| Carries | 4 |
| Rushing Yards | 31 |
| Average | 7.8 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Run | 20 yards |
Smith’s 31 rushing yards helped Las Vegas reach 240 total rushing yards.
His ability to gain yards outside the pocket made the Bears defense account for another potential running threat.
Tre Tucker’s Rushing Stats
Tre Tucker recorded two rushing attempts for nine yards.
| Statistic | Tre Tucker |
| Carries | 2 |
| Rushing Yards | 9 |
| Average | 4.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Run | 9 yards |
Tucker’s rushing contribution was smaller than Jeanty’s and Mostert’s, but it added another option to the Raiders’ offensive approach.
Las Vegas Total Rushing Statistics
The Raiders finished with 31 rushing attempts for 240 yards and one rushing touchdown.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| Ashton Jeanty | 21 | 138 | 6.6 | 1 |
| Raheem Mostert | 4 | 62 | 15.5 | 0 |
| Geno Smith | 4 | 31 | 7.8 | 0 |
| Tre Tucker | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 0 |
| Team Total | 31 | 240 | 7.7 | 1 |
The Raiders averaged approximately 7.7 yards per rushing attempt.
That was a major advantage over Chicago’s 2.7-yard average.
The difference of 171 rushing yards illustrates how effectively Las Vegas moved the ball on the ground.
However, rushing efficiency alone could not overcome the turnover problem.
Las Vegas Raiders Receiving Stats
The Raiders’ passing attack generated 117 receiving yards and two touchdowns.
Brock Bowers led the team in receiving yards, while Jeanty was the most important scoring target.
Brock Bowers Receiving Stats
The Brock Bowers finished with five receptions for 46 yards.
| Statistic | Brock Bowers |
| Targets | 6 |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 46 |
| Average | 9.2 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 19 yards |
Bowers was one of Smith’s most reliable receiving options.
He caught five of six targets, producing the highest reception total among Raiders receivers.
Although he did not record a touchdown, his involvement helped move the offense through the passing game.
His performance also showed why he remained an important part of the Raiders’ offensive structure.
Jakobi Meyers Receiving Stats
Jakobi Meyers recorded four receptions for 30 yards.
| Statistic | Jakobi Meyers |
| Targets | 7 |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Receiving Yards | 30 |
| Average | 7.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
Meyers provided another passing option for Smith.
He received seven targets, which showed that the quarterback regularly looked in his direction.
However, his 30 receiving yards were not enough to create the type of passing production Las Vegas needed.
Ashton Jeanty Receiving Stats
Jeanty was also a major contributor through the air.
He recorded two receptions for 17 yards and two receiving touchdowns.
His receiving contribution was particularly significant because both catches resulted in scores.
The first touchdown came on an eight-yard pass from Smith during the opening quarter. His second receiving touchdown covered nine yards in the third quarter.
Those plays helped Las Vegas establish and maintain its scoring advantage.
Jeanty’s combination of rushing and receiving production made him the standout offensive performer for the Raiders.
Other Raiders Receiving Contributions
Tre Tucker recorded two receptions for 13 yards, while Mostert added one catch for 11 yards.
Dont’e Thornton Jr. was listed without a reception.
| Player | Targets | Receptions | Yards | TD |
| Brock Bowers | 6 | 5 | 46 | 0 |
| Jakobi Meyers | 7 | 4 | 30 | 0 |
| Ashton Jeanty | 2 | 2 | 17 | 2 |
| Tre Tucker | 2 | 2 | 13 | 0 |
| Raheem Mostert | 1 | 1 | 11 | 0 |
| Dont’e Thornton Jr. | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 20 | 14 | 117 | 2 |
The Raiders’ receiving unit produced two touchdowns, both through Jeanty.
However, the team recorded only 14 receptions.
Compared with Chicago’s 22 catches, Las Vegas had fewer successful receiving connections and significantly less passing yardage.
Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders Defensive Player Stats
Defense was arguably the most important factor in Chicago’s victory.
The Bears allowed 240 rushing yards, which was a significant weakness. However, they created three interceptions and repeatedly disrupted Las Vegas’ passing game.
The Raiders also produced defensive stops, but they could not prevent Chicago from scoring the decisive fourth-quarter touchdown.
Kevin Byard’s Two Interceptions
Kevin Byard delivered one of the most important defensive performances of the game.
| Defensive Statistic | Kevin Byard |
| Total Tackles | 7 |
| Solo Tackles | 5 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Interception Return Yards | 47 |
| Interception Touchdowns | 0 |
Byard recorded two interceptions against Geno Smith.
His ability to read the quarterback and create turnovers helped Chicago control important moments.
The 47 interception return yards also provided additional field-position value.
Byard’s performance was particularly important because the Bears struggled to stop Jeanty and Mostert on the ground.
Creating turnovers helped compensate for the defensive problems in the running game.
Tremaine Edmunds Defensive Stats
Tremaine Edmunds led Chicago in total tackles.
| Statistic | Tremaine Edmunds |
| Total Tackles | 11 |
| Solo Tackles | 6 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 0 |
Edmunds finished with 11 tackles, including six solo stops.
His involvement was important in a game where Las Vegas repeatedly attacked the Bears through the running game.
A linebacker facing an efficient rushing offense must consistently make tackles and limit additional yards after contact.
Edmunds’ tackle production reflected his significant defensive workload.
Tyrique Stevenson Sr. Defensive Stats
Tyrique Stevenson Sr. contributed another interception for Chicago.
| Statistic | Tyrique Stevenson Sr. |
| Total Tackles | 6 |
| Solo Tackles | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Interception Return Yards | 3 |
Stevenson’s interception gave Chicago another important defensive takeaway.
Together, Byard and Stevenson accounted for all three of the Bears’ interceptions.
Other Chicago Defensive Contributors
Several other defenders contributed to the Bears’ tackling production.
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles |
| Tremaine Edmunds | 11 | 6 |
| Kevin Byard | 7 | 5 |
| Tyrique Stevenson Sr. | 6 | 4 |
| Noah Sewell | 5 | 1 |
| Nahshon Wright | 4 | 4 |
Chicago recorded 67 total tackles and 38 solo tackles.
The defense also produced:
- 3 interceptions.
- 50 interception return yards.
- 5 tackles for loss.
- 4 passes defended.
- 1 quarterback hit.
- 0 sacks.
The absence of sacks is an important detail. Chicago did not need to consistently bring down Smith behind the line of scrimmage to create defensive opportunities.
Instead, its secondary produced the most decisive plays.
Las Vegas Raiders Defensive Stats
The Raiders defense recorded 67 total tackles, one sack, and one interception.
Devin White led the team in total tackles, while Maxx Crosby produced an active performance around the line of scrimmage.
Devin White Defensive Stats
| Statistic | Devin White |
| Total Tackles | 9 |
| Solo Tackles | 8 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 0 |
White recorded nine tackles, including eight solo tackles.
His performance made him the leading tackler for Las Vegas.
The Raiders needed their defensive players to limit Chicago’s scoring opportunities, especially after the offense lost possession through interceptions.
Maxx Crosby Defensive Stats
Maxx Crosby remained one of the Raiders’ most active defenders.
| Statistic | Maxx Crosby |
| Total Tackles | 5 |
| Solo Tackles | 5 |
| Tackles for Loss | 3 |
| Passes Defended | 3 |
| Quarterback Hits | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Interception Return Yards | 19 |
Crosby’s three tackles for loss were particularly notable.
They demonstrated his ability to disrupt offensive plays before Chicago could develop its intended running or passing action.
He also recorded three passes defended and one quarterback hit.
His interception provided Las Vegas with an additional defensive takeaway.
However, the Raiders could not turn their defensive production into enough stops to preserve the lead.
Jeremy Chinn and Kyu Blu Kelly
Other important Raiders defensive contributions came from Jeremy Chinn and Kyu Blu Kelly.
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles |
| Jeremy Chinn | 7 | 3 |
| Kyu Blu Kelly | 6 | 4 |
Chinn finished with seven tackles, while Kelly recorded six.
Both contributed to a defense that kept Chicago’s offensive production relatively limited.
Team Defensive Comparison
| Defensive Category | Chicago Bears | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Total Tackles | 67 | 67 |
| Solo Tackles | 38 | 39 |
| Sacks | 0 | 1 |
| Tackles for Loss | 5 | 8 |
| Passes Defended | 4 | 6 |
| QB Hits | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 3 | 1 |
| Interception Return Yards | 50 | 19 |
The numbers show two different defensive approaches.
Las Vegas produced more tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits. Chicago, however, won the turnover battle.
That difference was decisive.
Special Teams Performance: Cairo Santos Makes the Difference
Special teams played a major role in the final result.
Cairo Santos was perfect on field goals, converting all four attempts. His consistency helped Chicago remain close even when the offense struggled to score touchdowns.
Daniel Carlson, meanwhile, missed one of his two field-goal attempts.
Cairo Santos Kicking Stats
PERFECT FIELD-GOAL PERFORMANCE
| Kicking Statistic | Cairo Santos |
| Field Goals Made | 4 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 4 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 52 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 1 |
| Extra Points Attempted | 1 |
| Total Points | 13 |
Santos scored 13 of Chicago’s 25 points.
His four successful field goals included attempts from 46, 43, 52, and 51 yards.
The 52-yard conversion was especially valuable because it demonstrated that Chicago could score from considerable distance.
His performance also reduced the pressure on the offense to finish every promising drive with a touchdown.
In a game decided by one point, every successful kick mattered.
Daniel Carlson Kicking Stats
| Kicking Statistic | Daniel Carlson |
| Field Goals Made | 1 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 50% |
| Longest Field Goal | 29 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 3 |
| Extra Points Attempted | 3 |
| Total Points | 6 |
Carlson converted all three extra-point attempts but made only one of his two field-goal attempts.
His missed field goal represented an important difference between the teams’ special-teams performances.
Chicago received 13 points from Santos, while Carlson contributed six points.
Punting Comparison
Both punters had relatively limited workloads.
| Statistic | Tory Taylor | AJ Cole |
| Team | Chicago | Las Vegas |
| Punts | 3 | 1 |
| Punting Yards | 148 | 60 |
| Average | 49.3 | 60.0 |
| Touchbacks | 1 | 0 |
| Inside the 20 | 1 | 0 |
| Longest Punt | 62 | 60 |
Tory Taylor averaged 49.3 yards across three punts.
AJ Cole recorded one punt for 60 yards.
Although Cole had the higher average, Taylor’s greater workload meant he had more opportunities to influence field position.
Kick and Punt Return Stats
Return production was another part of the special-teams comparison.
| Return Category | Chicago Bears | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Kick Returns | 5 | 7 |
| Kick Return Yards | 122 | 190 |
| Average | 24.4 | 27.1 |
| Punt Returns | 1 | 1 |
| Punt Return Yards | 19 | 7 |
For Chicago, Devin Duvernay recorded three kickoff returns for 76 yards. Luther Burden III added two returns for 46 yards.
For Las Vegas, Raheem Mostert returned four kickoffs for 96 yards, while Dylan Laube returned three for 94 yards.
Devin Duvernay also recorded Chicago’s 19-yard punt return.
Tre Tucker handled the Raiders’ punt return, gaining seven yards.
The Raiders had the advantage in total kickoff return yardage, but Chicago’s kicking accuracy made the bigger difference on the scoreboard.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
Individual performances become easier to understand when the overall team numbers are considered.
The following table highlights the most important statistical differences between the Bears and Raiders.
| Team Statistic | Chicago Bears | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Final Score | 25 | 24 |
| Total Net Yards | 271 | 357 |
| First Downs | 16 | 17 |
| Rushing Attempts | 26 | 31 |
| Rushing Yards | 69 | 240 |
| Rushing Average | 2.7 | 7.7 |
| Gross Passing Yards | 212 | 117 |
| Net Passing Yards | 202 | 117 |
| Passing Completions | 22 | 14 |
| Passing Attempts | 37 | 21 |
| Passing Interceptions | 1 | 3 |
| Sacks Allowed | 1 | 0 |
| Turnovers Lost | 1 | 4 |
| Field Goals | 4/4 | 1/2 |
| Punts | 3 | 1 |
| Third-Down Efficiency | 7/16 | 2/8 |
| Fourth-Down Efficiency | 1/1 | 0/1 |
| Penalties | 8 | 5 |
| Penalty Yards | 60 | 36 |
| Time of Possession | 33:10 | 26:50 |
One important detail is that the Bears had more passing yards and the Raiders had more rushing yards.
Chicago’s passing game generated 202 net passing yards, while Las Vegas finished with 117.
On the other hand, the Raiders generated 171 more rushing yards.
The result was a 357-271 advantage in total net yards for Las Vegas.
Yet Chicago won the game.
This is a useful reminder that offensive yardage and winning football games are related, but they are not interchangeable measures.
How the Chicago Bears Won Despite Being Outgained
Chicago’s victory becomes easier to understand when the major statistical factors are examined together.
The Raiders gained more yards, produced a more efficient rushing attack, and recorded more total first downs.
Nevertheless, Chicago controlled the most important scoring opportunities.
There were five major reasons behind the result.
1. Chicago Won the Turnover Battle
The Bears recorded three interceptions, compared with one interception by Las Vegas.
This created a substantial advantage in possession-changing plays.
Geno Smith’s three interceptions were especially costly because they interrupted drives that could have produced additional scoring opportunities.
The Raiders also lost one fumble through Ashton Jeanty.
Chicago did not lose either of its two recorded fumbles.
Consequently, the Bears finished with one turnover lost, while Las Vegas finished with four.
This four-turnover difference was one of the clearest explanations for the result.
2. Cairo Santos Converted Every Field Goal
Santos made all four field-goal attempts.
His conversions came from 46, 43, 52, and 51 yards.
These kicks contributed 12 points, with his successful extra point adding another point.
The Bears did not need to score a touchdown on every promising drive because Santos consistently converted their field-goal opportunities.
Carlson’s 1-of-2 performance was less effective.
In a one-point contest, the difference between perfect and imperfect kicking becomes particularly important.
3. Chicago Produced the Decisive Fourth-Quarter Touchdown
The Raiders entered the fourth quarter with a 21-16 lead.
Chicago scored a field goal to make it 21-19.
Carlson then converted a 29-yard field goal, giving Las Vegas a 24-19 advantage.
With 1:34 remaining, Swift scored on a two-yard rushing attempt.
Chicago took a 25-24 lead.
The Bears attempted a two-point conversion but failed.
Even without the extra conversion, Swift’s touchdown was enough to give Chicago the victory.
4. The Bears Converted More Third Downs
Chicago converted seven of 16 third-down attempts.
Las Vegas converted only two of eight.
This difference helped the Bears sustain drives and maintain possession.
The Raiders were more explosive on the ground, but they did not convert third downs at the same rate.
Chicago also converted its only fourth-down attempt, while Las Vegas failed on its only fourth-down opportunity.
These smaller situations contributed to the overall result.
5. Chicago Benefited From a More Productive Passing Game
Williams finished with 212 passing yards, compared with Smith’s 117.
The Bears also recorded 22 receptions, while the Raiders managed 14.
Although Williams threw one interception, Smith threw three.
Chicago’s passing production was therefore more balanced in terms of yardage and possession security.
The combination of passing production, defensive turnovers, and field-goal accuracy ultimately overcame the Raiders’ rushing advantage.
Key Turning Points That Decided the Game
Beyond the final statistics, several individual moments explain why Chicago escaped with a narrow victory.
Ashton Jeanty’s 64-Yard Touchdown
Jeanty’s 64-yard rushing touchdown gave Las Vegas a 14-6 lead in the second quarter.
It was the biggest rushing play of the game and demonstrated the Raiders’ ability to create explosive offensive opportunities.
Rome Odunze’s Third-Quarter Touchdown
Williams connected with Odunze for a 27-yard touchdown.
The play gave Chicago a 16-14 advantage and showed that the Bears could produce scoring opportunities through their passing game.
Kevin Byard’s Defensive Impact
Byard’s two interceptions disrupted Smith’s passing rhythm.
His defensive contribution was especially valuable because the Bears struggled to contain the Raiders’ rushing attack.
Santos’ 51-Yard Field Goal
Santos converted a 51-yard field goal during the fourth quarter.
That kick brought Chicago within two points at 21-19 and kept the Bears close enough to take advantage of their next scoring opportunity.
Swift’s Winning Touchdown
Swift’s two-yard touchdown run with 1:34 remaining gave Chicago its decisive 25-24 lead.
It was the final scoring play of the game.
Player Comparison: Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders
Comparing the leading players from both teams provides a clearer picture of how the matchup developed.
| Position | Chicago Bears | Las Vegas Raiders |
| Quarterback | Caleb Williams | Geno Smith |
| Passing Yards | 212 | 117 |
| Passing TDs | 1 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 1 | 3 |
| Leading Rusher | D’Andre Swift | Ashton Jeanty |
| Rushing Yards | 38 | 138 |
| Leading Receiver | Rome Odunze | Brock Bowers |
| Receiving Yards | 69 | 46 |
| Leading Tackler | Tremaine Edmunds | Devin White |
| Total Tackles | 11 | 9 |
| Interception Leader | Kevin Byard | Maxx Crosby |
| Field Goals Made | Cairo Santos: 4 | Daniel Carlson: 1 |
There is an interesting difference between the leading players.
Jeanty clearly dominated the rushing comparison, while Williams had a stronger passing-yardage performance than Smith.
Odunze produced more receiving yards than Bowers, and Byard had the biggest interception performance of either defense.
These individual comparisons explain why the final result did not follow the overall rushing statistics.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
This matchup provides several useful lessons for understanding NFL team performance.
Chicago’s Passing Game Was More Productive
The Bears finished with 212 gross passing yards, compared with 117 for Las Vegas.
Williams also connected with more receivers, producing 22 completions from 37 attempts.
This helped Chicago maintain offensive balance despite its limited rushing production.
Las Vegas Had a Major Rushing Advantage
The Raiders generated 240 rushing yards.
Jeanty was the primary contributor, but Mostert also averaged more than 15 yards per carry.
The Raiders demonstrated that they could create explosive plays without depending entirely on their passing game.
Turnovers Were More Important Than Total Yardage
Las Vegas finished with 357 total net yards, 86 more than Chicago.
However, the Raiders lost four turnovers, while Chicago lost only one.
The Bears converted their defensive opportunities into a significant advantage.
Special Teams Influenced the Final Score
Santos converted four field goals.
Carlson converted one of two attempts.
The difference in field-goal production was important because the teams finished only one point apart.
The Bears Demonstrated Fourth-Quarter Resilience
Chicago entered the final quarter trailing 21-16.
The team continued to generate scoring opportunities and eventually took the lead through Swift’s touchdown.
The ability to finish a close game was one of the strongest aspects of Chicago’s performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chicago Bears vs Las Vegas Raiders game on September 28, 2025?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Las Vegas Raiders 25-24 on September 28, 2025. Chicago secured the one-point victory with a fourth-quarter touchdown by D’Andre Swift.
2. How many passing yards did Caleb Williams record against the Raiders?
Caleb Williams completed 22 of 37 passes for 212 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. He finished with a 73.3 passer rating.
3. How many rushing yards did Ashton Jeanty have against Chicago?
Ashton Jeanty recorded 138 rushing yards on 21 carries, averaging 6.6 yards per attempt. He also scored one rushing touchdown and added two receiving touchdowns.
4. Who scored the most points for the Chicago Bears?
Cairo Santos scored the most points for Chicago with 13. He converted four field goals and one extra point without missing an attempt.
5. How many interceptions did the Chicago Bears record?
Chicago recorded three interceptions. Kevin Byard made two interceptions for 47 return yards, while Tyrique Stevenson Sr. recorded one interception for three return yards.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the Bears and Raiders?
The biggest difference was rushing production. Las Vegas recorded 240 rushing yards, while Chicago managed only 69. Despite this advantage, the Raiders lost because of turnovers and less effective field-goal production.
Conclusion
The September 28, 2025 matchup between the Chicago Bears and Las Vegas Raiders demonstrated how defensive takeaways and special-teams execution can outweigh an opponent’s statistical advantage.
Las Vegas produced 240 rushing yards and 357 total net yards. Ashton Jeanty delivered an outstanding performance with 138 rushing yards and three total touchdowns. Geno Smith also threw two touchdown passes, but his three interceptions significantly damaged the Raiders’ chances.
Chicago responded with a more productive passing attack, three defensive interceptions, and a perfect kicking performance from Cairo Santos. Caleb Williams threw for 212 yards, Rome Odunze recorded 69 receiving yards and a touchdown, and D’Andre Swift scored the decisive fourth-quarter touchdown.
Kevin Byard’s two interceptions and Santos’ four successful field goals were among the most important individual contributions.
Ultimately, the Bears won 25-24 despite being outgained by 86 total yards. The game remains an excellent example of how turnovers, scoring efficiency, and execution in crucial moments can determine an NFL result.
