Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats
The Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats provide a detailed look at how Chicago secured a convincing 27-7 victory over Philadelphia on September 28, 2026. The supplied ESPN box-score data highlights the difference between the two teams in quarterback efficiency, receiving production, defensive execution, and scoring opportunities. Chicago finished with 247 passing yards, 128 rushing yards, two passing touchdowns, and two interceptions on defense. Philadelphia, meanwhile, struggled to turn its offensive possessions into points, finishing with 141 team passing yards and only one touchdown.
The final score tells an important part of the story, but the individual performances reveal much more. Case Keenum delivered an efficient passing performance for Chicago, while Kalif Raymond and Luther Burden III provided valuable receiving production. On Philadelphia’s side, Saquon Barkley led the rushing attack, and DeVonta Smith was the team’s leading receiver. However, the Eagles could not match Chicago’s overall offensive balance or create enough scoring opportunities to change the result.
This breakdown examines the available player statistics, team comparisons, defensive contributions, special teams performances, and the most important lessons from the reported matchup.
Data note: This article uses the ESPN statistics supplied for game ID 401872963. The supplied record identifies the game as September 28, 2026, and Week 8, but those details and some player/team assignments should be independently checked against the original box score before publication. The analysis below distinguishes the reported statistics from broader interpretations.
Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup was played at Soldier Field in Chicago, with the Bears controlling the scoreboard from the opening quarter.
Final Score
Chicago Bears Logo PNG Transparent & SVG Vector – Freebie Supply
Chicago Bears
27
Winner
Philadelphia Eagles
7
Final score
| Game detail | Information |
| Date | September 28, 2026 |
| Venue | Soldier Field |
| Competition | NFL regular season |
| Reported week | Week 3 |
| ESPN game ID | 401872963 |
| Result | Chicago won 27-7 |
An important schedule correction: Although the supplied ESPN extraction labels the contest as Week 8, the official Philadelphia Eagles game page identifies it as Week 3. The teams’ 2-1 records also support the Week 3 designation. The game date and final score are consistent across the available game records.
Philadelphia Eagles – Philadelphiaeagles.com+1
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring
| Quarter | Philadelphia Eagles | Chicago Bears |
| First | 0 | 7 |
| Second | 7 | 3 |
| Third | 0 | 10 |
| Fourth | 0 | 7 |
| Final | 7 | 27 |
Chicago established an early advantage by scoring seven points in the first quarter. Philadelphia responded with a touchdown in the second quarter, but the Bears maintained their lead with a field goal.
The third quarter became a major turning point. Chicago added ten unanswered points, increasing its advantage to 20-7. The Bears then scored another touchdown in the fourth quarter to complete the 27-7 victory.
The scoring pattern demonstrates how Chicago gradually increased its control instead of relying on one unusually productive quarter.
Game Summary and Key Numbers
Several figures immediately stand out when comparing both teams.
| Statistical category | Bears | Eagles |
| Final score | 27 | 7 |
| Passing yards | 247 | 141 |
| Rushing yards | 128 | 107 |
| Receiving yards | 247 | 153 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 | 0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 | 2 |
| Defensive interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks recorded | 2 | 0 |
| Field goals made | 2 | 0 |
| Extra points made | 3 | 1 |
One particularly important difference was passing efficiency. Chicago completed 24 of 34 passes, while Philadelphia completed 16 of 26 team passing attempts. The Bears also produced two passing touchdowns without throwing an interception.
Philadelphia’s offense was less productive through the air, and its two interceptions created additional opportunities for Chicago.
Statistical clarification: The supplied individual Philadelphia passing figures total 153 yards for Jalen Hurts, but the team passing entry lists 141 yards. The receiving totals also list 153 yards. These figures should not be treated as interchangeable. The official game records provide additional team-level context, including 248 total net yards for Philadelphia and 375 for Chicago.
ESPN+1
Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats: Quarterback Performances
Quarterback performance was one of the clearest differences between the teams. Chicago received an efficient performance from Case Keenum, while Jalen Hurts struggled to generate passing touchdowns and avoid turnovers.
Case Keenum: Chicago’s Offensive Leader
Philadelphia Eagles v Chicago Bears
Case Keenum
Best quarterback performance
110.8
Passer rating
Keenum delivered one of the most important individual performances of the game. He completed 24 of 34 passing attempts for 247 yards, averaging 7.3 yards per attempt.
His passing statistics included:
| Passing statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 34 |
| Completion percentage | 70.6% |
| Passing yards | 247 |
| Yards per attempt | 7.3 |
| Passing touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks taken | 0 |
| QBR | 74.5 |
| Passer rating | 110.8 |
The 70.6% completion rate is particularly impressive because it shows that Keenum consistently connected with his receivers.
His 247 passing yards accounted for all of Chicago’s reported team passing production. More importantly, he converted that yardage into two touchdowns without giving Philadelphia an interception.
Keenum also contributed as a runner. He recorded four carries for six yards and scored one rushing touchdown.
That rushing touchdown gave Chicago another scoring option. It also demonstrated that the Bears could finish a possession without depending entirely on their running backs or wide receivers.
Keenum’s performance was especially significant because the official Bears recap identifies him as a replacement for injured starter Caleb Williams. The same report states that second-string quarterback Tyson Bagent had not been cleared from concussion protocol until Sunday.
Chicago Bears+1
Jalen Hurts: Philadelphia’s Quarterback Numbers
Jalen Hurts wants the Eagles to learn from their mistakes in a loss to the Bears
Jalen Hurts
Philadelphia Eagles quarterback
153
Passing yards reported
Jalen Hurts completed 16 of 25 passes for 153 yards. His average was 6.1 yards per attempt, and he finished with one interception and no passing touchdowns.
| Passing statistic | Performance |
| Completions | 16 |
| Attempts | 25 |
| Completion percentage | 64.0% |
| Passing yards | 153 |
| Yards per attempt | 6.1 |
| Passing touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks taken | 2 |
| Sack yardage | 12 |
| QBR | 40.3 |
| Passer rating | 64.2 |
Hurts was not completely ineffective as a quarterback. His 64% completion rate indicates that he connected with receivers on a reasonable proportion of his attempts.
The bigger issue was the lack of scoring production through the passing game.
He failed to throw a touchdown and was intercepted once. Philadelphia also recorded two sacks for a combined loss of 12 yards.
These results made it harder for the Eagles to maintain offensive momentum.
Hurts did provide a rushing touchdown, which prevented Philadelphia from being shut out. However, the Eagles needed more consistent contributions from their passing attack to challenge Chicago’s lead.
Andy Dalton’s Passing Appearance
Andy Dalton recorded one passing attempt, which resulted in an interception.
| Statistic | Result |
| Completions | 0 |
| Attempts | 1 |
| Passing yards | 0 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Passer rating | 0.0 |
This single attempt contributed to Philadelphia’s two team interceptions.
It is important not to overinterpret Dalton’s performance. One attempt is far too small a sample to judge his overall quarterback ability. However, the interception was costly within this particular game.
Quarterback Comparison
| Category | Case Keenum | Jalen Hurts |
| Completions | 24 | 16 |
| Attempts | 34 | 25 |
| Passing yards | 247 | 153 |
| Completion rate | 70.6% | 64.0% |
| Passing TDs | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Passer rating | 110.8 | 64.2 |
| Rushing TDs | 1 | 1 |
Keenum had the stronger performance in nearly every major passing category.
The difference in passer rating was 46.6 points, while Chicago produced 94 more passing yards through its quarterback.
The most important distinction was not simply the amount of yardage. Keenum converted his opportunities into touchdowns while protecting the football.
Running Back Performances and Rushing Statistics
Running production was another important part of the contest. Both teams recorded a rushing touchdown, but Chicago finished with more rushing attempts and total rushing yards.
The Bears recorded 128 rushing yards on 35 attempts, averaging 3.7 yards per carry. Philadelphia gained 107 yards on 19 attempts, averaging 5.6 yards per carry.
Although Philadelphia had the higher average, Chicago’s greater number of rushing attempts helped the offense maintain balance and support its passing game.
D’Andre Swift Leads Chicago’s Rushing Attack
D’Andre Swift has appropriate place in fresh PFF fantasy running back ranking
D’Andre Swift
84
Rushing yards
D’Andre Swift was Chicago’s leading running back, finishing with 84 rushing yards on 20 carries.
| Rushing statistic | Performance |
| Carries | 20 |
| Rushing yards | 84 |
| Average | 4.2 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 15 yards |
Swift received the largest share of Chicago’s rushing attempts. His 20 carries represented more than half of the Bears’ 35 team rushing attempts.
His average of 4.2 yards per carry provided useful production without requiring Chicago to rely exclusively on explosive running plays.
Swift also contributed as a receiver, recording two catches for four yards on three targets.
Although his receiving numbers were modest, his involvement in both phases gave the Bears another way to use him in their offensive formation.
His biggest contribution was consistency. By handling 20 carries, Swift helped Chicago maintain its ground attack and avoid putting the entire offensive workload on Keenum.
Kyle Monangai’s Contribution
Kyle Monangai finished as Chicago’s second-leading rusher.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Carries | 10 |
| Rushing yards | 31 |
| Average | 3.1 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 8 yards |
Monangai recorded 10 rushing attempts for 31 yards.
His average of 3.1 yards per carry was lower than Swift’s, but his workload helped distribute the rushing responsibilities.
Using multiple running backs can help an offense maintain its running game throughout a contest. It also gives the coaching staff different options depending on down, distance, and formation.
Luther Burden III Adds Rushing Production
Luther Burden III was primarily involved in the receiving game, but he also recorded one rushing attempt.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Carries | 1 |
| Rushing yards | 7 |
| Average | 7.0 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 7 yards |
His seven-yard run added a small contribution to Chicago’s overall rushing total.
Case Keenum’s Rushing Touchdown
Keenum recorded four carries for six rushing yards and one touchdown.
His longest run was seven yards.
The touchdown was important because it gave Chicago a third scoring method beyond its two passing touchdowns and field goals.
Quarterback rushing touchdowns can also create additional defensive challenges. Opponents must account for the possibility that the quarterback will keep the ball near the goal line instead of handing it to a running back.
Saquon Barkley Leads Philadelphia’s Ground Game
La Jornada – Barkley, corredor mejor pagado con contrato de 41.2 mdd con Eagles
Saquon Barkley
82
Rushing yards
Saquon Barkley was Philadelphia’s leading rushing player.
He recorded 15 carries for 82 yards, averaging 5.5 yards per attempt.
| Rushing statistic | Performance |
| Carries | 15 |
| Rushing yards | 82 |
| Average | 5.5 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 17 yards |
Barkley’s average of 5.5 yards per carry was the highest among the two teams’ primary running backs.
His 82 rushing yards represented a significant portion of Philadelphia’s 107 team rushing yards.
However, his production did not translate into a rushing touchdown.
Barkley also recorded one reception for minus two yards. Although he received two targets, that reception did not add meaningful receiving production.
His individual rushing performance was respectable, but Philadelphia needed more support from its passing attack to turn those rushing gains into points.
Jalen Hurts’ Rushing Contribution
Hurts was Philadelphia’s only player to record a rushing touchdown.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Carries | 4 |
| Rushing yards | 25 |
| Average | 6.3 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 20 yards |
Hurts averaged 6.3 yards per carry, which was higher than the average recorded by either Chicago running back.
His longest run covered 20 yards, and his rushing touchdown accounted for Philadelphia’s only score.
This contribution demonstrates why Hurts’ mobility remains an important part of the Eagles’ offensive approach.
However, the Bears managed to limit the overall effectiveness of Philadelphia’s offense despite Hurts’ individual rushing success.
Complete Rushing Comparison
| Player | Team | Carries | Yards | Average | TD |
| D’Andre Swift | CHI | 20 | 84 | 4.2 | 0 |
| Kyle Monangai | CHI | 10 | 31 | 3.1 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | CHI | 1 | 7 | 7.0 | 0 |
| Case Keenum | CHI | 4 | 6 | 1.5 | 1 |
| Saquon Barkley | PHI | 15 | 82 | 5.5 | 0 |
| Jalen Hurts | PHI | 4 | 25 | 6.3 | 1 |
Key takeaway: Philadelphia averaged more yards per rushing attempt, but Chicago recorded 16 more rushing attempts and 21 more rushing yards. The Bears’ willingness to keep running the football helped create a more balanced offensive performance.
Receiving Statistics: Which Players Made the Biggest Impact?
The receiving statistics reveal another important difference between the teams.
Chicago recorded 24 receptions for 247 yards and two touchdowns. Philadelphia recorded 16 receptions for 153 receiving yards without a receiving touchdown.
Chicago also averaged 10.3 yards per reception, compared with Philadelphia’s 9.6 yards.
The Bears spread their receiving production across several players, allowing Keenum to find multiple targets throughout the game.
Kalif Raymond: Chicago’s Leading Receiver
Eagles Bears Football | National | idahostatejournal.com
Kalif Raymond
Top receiving performance
90
Receiving yards
Kalif Raymond delivered Chicago’s strongest individual receiving performance.
He finished with six receptions for 90 yards and one touchdown.
| Receiving statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Targets | 7 |
| Receiving yards | 90 |
| Average | 15.0 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 41 yards |
Raymond caught six of his seven targets, giving him an impressive catch rate of approximately 85.7%.
His 90 yards were the highest receiving total recorded by either team.
The most important part of his performance was the 41-yard reception. According to the game scoring records, Raymond’s 41-yard touchdown reception from Keenum in the third quarter increased Chicago’s lead to 20-7.
That score was a defining moment because it gave the Bears a two-touchdown advantage and placed additional pressure on Philadelphia’s offense.
Raymond’s 15.0 yards per reception also showed that Chicago was able to generate meaningful gains through the passing game.
Luther Burden III: A Complete Offensive Contribution
Luther Burden III
61
Receiving yards
Luther Burden III recorded seven receptions for 61 yards and one touchdown.
| Receiving statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 7 |
| Targets | 11 |
| Receiving yards | 61 |
| Average | 8.7 |
| Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest reception | 25 yards |
Burden led Chicago in receptions with seven.
His 11 targets were also the highest among the Bears’ receiving players.
He caught approximately 63.6% of his targets, providing Keenum with a reliable option throughout the game.
Burden’s touchdown came in the first quarter on an eight-yard pass from Keenum. That play gave Chicago an early 7-0 advantage.
His involvement was not limited to receiving. He also recorded one carry for seven yards.
Combining his receiving and rushing production, Burden contributed 68 yards from scrimmage and one touchdown.
This versatility made him one of Chicago’s most useful offensive players in the reported matchup.
Rome Odunze’s Receiving Numbers
Rome Odunze recorded three catches for 44 yards.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Targets | 6 |
| Receiving yards | 44 |
| Average | 14.7 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 22 yards |
Odunze averaged 14.7 yards per reception, making him another productive downfield option for Chicago.
Although he did not score a touchdown, his 44 yards helped the Bears maintain offensive balance.
His performance also shows that Chicago was not dependent on Raymond alone.
Colston Loveland’s Contribution
Colston Loveland finished with four receptions for 31 yards on four targets.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Targets | 4 |
| Receiving yards | 31 |
| Average | 7.8 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 12 yards |
Loveland caught every target recorded in the supplied statistics.
His 100% catch rate made him a dependable short-range option.
While his average yards per reception were lower than Raymond’s and Odunze’s, his ability to secure the ball helped maintain possession.
Other Chicago Receiving Performances
The remaining Bears receivers also contributed to the team’s 247 receiving yards.
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | TD |
| Sam Roush | 1 | 1 | 16 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
| Zavion Thomas | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Cole Kmet | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Sam Roush produced 16 yards on his only reception, while Swift added two short catches.
Zavion Thomas recorded one reception for one yard. Cole Kmet received one target but did not record a catch.
These smaller contributions helped Chicago distribute the passing workload across different offensive positions.
DeVonta Smith Leads Philadelphia’s Receiving Group
New Orleans Saints v Philadelphia Eagles
DeVonta Smith
65
Receiving yards
DeVonta Smith was Philadelphia’s leading receiver.
He finished with six catches for 65 yards on eight targets.
| Receiving statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Targets | 8 |
| Receiving yards | 65 |
| Average | 10.8 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 30 yards |
Smith’s six receptions tied Raymond for the same number of catches.
However, Raymond produced 25 more receiving yards and scored a touchdown.
Smith’s performance was still important because he provided a consistent receiving option for Hurts.
His 30-yard longest reception was also the longest individual reception among Philadelphia’s listed receivers.
The main limitation was the absence of a receiving touchdown.
Dontayvion Wicks
Dontayvion Wicks recorded two receptions for 32 yards on five targets.
His average was 16.0 yards per reception, the highest among Philadelphia’s listed receivers.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 2 |
| Targets | 5 |
| Receiving yards | 32 |
| Average | 16.0 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 19 yards |
Wicks demonstrated the ability to gain significant yardage when targeted.
However, five targets resulted in only two catches. Philadelphia needed more consistent production from its supporting receivers.
Makai Lemon’s Receiving Performance
Makai Lemon recorded three receptions for 29 yards.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Targets | 4 |
| Receiving yards | 29 |
| Average | 9.7 |
| Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest reception | 19 yards |
Lemon caught three of his four targets and averaged 9.7 yards per reception.
His performance provided additional support to Smith and Wicks, but Philadelphia could not turn its receiving production into a passing touchdown.
Other Philadelphia Receiving Players
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | TD |
| Will Shipley | 1 | 2 | 11 | 0 |
| Zach Ertz | 1 | 2 | 9 | 0 |
| Tank Bigsby | 1 | 1 | 5 | 0 |
| Johnny Mundt | 1 | 1 | 4 | 0 |
| Saquon Barkley | 1 | 2 | -2 | 0 |
Philadelphia’s supporting receiving group contributed several short completions.
However, none of these players recorded a receiving touchdown.
Barkley’s negative two receiving yards also reduced the value of his limited involvement in the passing game.
Complete Receiving Comparison
| Player | Team | REC | Yards | Average | TD |
| Kalif Raymond | CHI | 6 | 90 | 15.0 | 1 |
| Luther Burden III | CHI | 7 | 61 | 8.7 | 1 |
| Rome Odunze | CHI | 3 | 44 | 14.7 | 0 |
| Colston Loveland | CHI | 4 | 31 | 7.8 | 0 |
| DeVonta Smith | PHI | 6 | 65 | 10.8 | 0 |
| Dontayvion Wicks | PHI | 2 | 32 | 16.0 | 0 |
| Makai Lemon | PHI | 3 | 29 | 9.7 | 0 |
| Will Shipley | PHI | 1 | 11 | 11.0 | 0 |
| Zach Ertz | PHI | 1 | 9 | 9.0 | 0 |
The biggest receiving difference was touchdown production. Chicago’s top two receivers combined for 151 yards and two touchdowns. Philadelphia’s leading receiver, Smith, finished with 65 yards and no touchdowns.
Defensive Player Stats: How Chicago Controlled Philadelphia
Chicago’s defensive performance was one of the biggest reasons the Bears secured the victory.
The defense intercepted two passes, recorded two sacks, and limited Philadelphia to one touchdown.
The Bears also prevented Hurts from recording a passing touchdown.
Philadelphia’s defensive unit recorded more total tackles, but Chicago produced the more valuable game-changing plays.
T.J. Edwards: An Important Defensive Contributor
T.J. Edwards excited for Dennis Allen’s aggressive defensive scheme | Chicago Bears News
T.J. Edwards
1 INT
Interception
T.J. Edwards recorded three total tackles, two solo tackles, one tackle for loss, and three passes defended in the supplied defensive table.
He also recorded one interception.
His ability to disrupt Philadelphia’s passing attack contributed to Chicago’s defensive success.
An interception is valuable because it ends the opponent’s possession and gives the defense’s offense an opportunity to take control of the football.
Edwards’ contribution was especially important in a game where Philadelphia struggled to score.
Dillon Thieneman’s Defensive Performance
Dillon Thieneman led Chicago’s listed defensive players with six total tackles.
His statistics included:
| Defensive category | Performance |
| Total tackles | 6 |
| Solo tackles | 4 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 0 |
| Passes defended | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
Thieneman’s interception gave Chicago another important defensive takeaway.
His six tackles also demonstrated consistent involvement in stopping Philadelphia’s offensive plays.
Dayo Odeyingbo Records a Sack
Dayo Odeyingbo recorded three total tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, and one quarterback hit.
His sack was part of Chicago’s two-sack defensive performance.
Sacks can change the structure of an offensive possession by creating long-yardage situations. They can also force quarterbacks to make quicker decisions on subsequent plays.
Odeyingbo’s pressure helped Chicago make Philadelphia’s passing game less comfortable.
Jaylon Johnson’s Defensive Contribution
Jaylon Johnson recorded five total tackles, all of which were solo tackles.
He also registered one tackle for loss.
His contribution helped Chicago maintain defensive pressure and limit Philadelphia’s opportunities to gain consistent yardage.
Other Chicago Defensive Leaders
| Player | Tackles | Solo | Sacks | TFL | Passes defended |
| Dillon Thieneman | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jaylon Johnson | 5 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Devin Bush | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Xavier Woods | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Malik Muhammad II | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Elijah Hicks | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Austin Booker | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| T.J. Edwards | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Cam Lewis | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dayo Odeyingbo | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Montez Sweat | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
The figures show that Chicago received contributions from different areas of its defense.
The defensive line generated pressure, the linebackers contributed tackles, and the secondary helped disrupt passing plays.
Philadelphia Eagles Defensive Player Statistics
Philadelphia’s defense recorded 80 total tackles and six passes defended.
Although those figures indicate substantial defensive activity, the Eagles failed to record a sack or interception in the supplied statistics.
The defense also allowed Chicago to produce 247 passing yards and two passing touchdowns.
Zack Baun Leads Philadelphia’s Tackles
Chicago Bears v Philadelphia Eagles – NFL 2025
Zack Baun
9
Total tackles
Zack Baun finished with nine total tackles, including five solo tackles.
He also recorded two tackles for loss and one pass defended.
| Defensive category | Performance |
| Total tackles | 9 |
| Solo tackles | 5 |
| Sacks | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 |
| Passes defended | 1 |
| QB hits | 0 |
Baun was one of Philadelphia’s most active defenders.
His two tackles for loss were particularly useful because they helped disrupt Chicago’s offensive plays behind the line of scrimmage.
However, the Eagles needed more pressure on Keenum to prevent him from completing 24 passes.
Andrew Mukuba and Jihaad Campbell
Andrew Mukuba and Jihaad Campbell each recorded nine total tackles.
Their statistics were:
| Player | Total tackles | Solo tackles |
| Andrew Mukuba | 9 | 4 |
| Jihaad Campbell | 9 | 4 |
Both players contributed to Philadelphia’s overall tackle total.
Their involvement shows that Chicago faced defensive resistance, even though the Bears eventually scored 27 points.
Quinyon Mitchell’s Pass Coverage
Quinyon Mitchell recorded seven tackles, including six solo tackles.
He also recorded two tackles for loss and two passes defended.
Cooper DeJean also recorded two passes defended, along with five total tackles.
These players helped Philadelphia challenge Chicago’s receiving options.
However, the Eagles did not record an interception or sack, which limited the defense’s ability to create game-changing moments.
Philadelphia’s Other Defensive Leaders
| Player | Total tackles | Solo | TFL | Passes defended | QB hits |
| Zack Baun | 9 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Andrew Mukuba | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jihaad Campbell | 9 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quinyon Mitchell | 7 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Marcus Epps | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Riq Woolen | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cooper DeJean | 5 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Michael Carter II | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalyx Hunt | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Jalen Carter | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Defensive Comparison
| Defensive category | Chicago | Philadelphia |
| Total tackles | 50 | 80 |
| Solo tackles | 31 | 39 |
| Sacks | 2 | 0 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 4 | 6 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 | 3 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
Philadelphia recorded more tackles and passes defended, but Chicago created more decisive plays.
This distinction is important when evaluating defensive performance.
A team can record a high number of tackles without consistently preventing first downs or stopping scoring drives. Interceptions and sacks often have a greater immediate impact on the scoreboard.
Chicago’s two interceptions and two sacks helped make the difference.
Turnovers and Fumbles: A Decisive Difference
Turnovers were another major factor in the result.
Chicago recorded two interceptions and recovered two fumbles according to the supplied defensive and fumble statistics. Philadelphia recorded two interceptions thrown and lost one fumble.
Philadelphia’s Turnover Problems
Tank Bigsby recorded one fumble, which Philadelphia lost.
The team finished with one fumble lost and two interceptions thrown.
| Turnover category | Philadelphia |
| Fumbles | 1 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 2 |
| Total recorded turnovers | 3 |
Three turnovers are particularly damaging because they reduce the number of offensive possessions available to a team.
Philadelphia also had to deal with Chicago’s defensive pressure, making it harder to recover from mistakes.
Chicago’s Ball Security
Case Keenum recorded one fumble, but it was not lost.
Xavier Woods was credited with one fumble recovery in the supplied statistics.
| Turnover category | Chicago |
| Fumbles | 1 |
| Fumbles lost | 0 |
| Interceptions thrown | 0 |
| Defensive interceptions | 2 |
Chicago protected the ball more effectively.
Keenum avoided throwing an interception, and the Bears did not lose their recorded fumble.
This allowed the offense to maintain possession more consistently.
Why Turnover Margin Matters
Turnover margin is one of the most useful statistics when evaluating an NFL game.
When a team creates turnovers without giving the ball away, it gains additional opportunities to score.
In this matchup, Chicago benefited from Philadelphia’s three recorded turnovers while avoiding an interception itself.
The difference helped Chicago control the game and maintain its advantage.
Special Teams Statistics
Special teams also played an important supporting role in the Bears’ victory.
Chicago received reliable kicking production from Cairo Santos, while Philadelphia’s Jake Elliott converted its only extra-point attempt.
Cairo Santos: Perfect Field Goal Performance
HIGHLIGHT: Cairo Santos’ 29-yard FG gets Bears on board just before halftime
Cairo Santos
Perfect kicking record
9
Total points
Santos converted both field goal attempts and all three extra-point attempts.
| Kicking statistic | Performance |
| Field goals made | 2 |
| Field goal attempts | 2 |
| Field goal percentage | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 48 yards |
| Extra points made | 3 |
| Extra-point attempts | 3 |
| Total points | 9 |
His longest successful field goal covered 48 yards.
Santos contributed nine points, which represented one-third of Chicago’s total scoring output.
His reliability helped the Bears turn offensive possessions into points even when they did not end with touchdowns.
Jake Elliott’s Performance
Jake Elliott recorded one successful extra point.
| Kicking statistic | Performance |
| Field goals made | 0 |
| Field goal attempts | 0 |
| Extra points made | 1 |
| Extra-point attempts | 1 |
| Total points | 1 |
Philadelphia did not attempt a field goal according to the supplied kicking statistics.
Elliott converted the extra point following Hurts’ rushing touchdown.
Kick Return Statistics
Kick returns provide teams with an opportunity to improve their starting field position.
Philadelphia recorded three kick returns for 70 yards.
Chicago recorded one kick return for 32 yards.
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Will Shipley | PHI | 2 | 44 | 22.0 | 27 |
| Britain Covey | PHI | 1 | 26 | 26.0 | 26 |
| Zavion Thomas | CHI | 1 | 32 | 32.0 | 32 |
Zavion Thomas recorded the highest kick-return average at 32.0 yards.
For Philadelphia, Will Shipley handled two returns and gained 44 yards.
Britain Covey added another 26 yards on one return.
Neither team recorded a kick-return touchdown.
Punt Return Statistics
| Player | Team | Returns | Yards | Average | Long |
| Britain Covey | PHI | 1 | 8 | 8.0 | 8 |
| Kalif Raymond | CHI | 2 | 15 | 7.5 | 9 |
Raymond handled two punt returns for 15 yards, while Covey recorded one for eight yards.
Neither player scored a punt-return touchdown.
Punting Comparison
| Statistic | Braden Mann | Tory Taylor |
| Team | Philadelphia | Chicago |
| Punts | 4 | 2 |
| Total yards | 167 | 105 |
| Average | 41.8 | 52.5 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 1 |
| Inside 20 | 2 | 0 |
| Longest punt | 50 | 55 |
Braden Mann punted four times for Philadelphia and averaged 41.8 yards.
Tory Taylor punted twice for Chicago and averaged 52.5 yards.
Taylor’s longest punt traveled 55 yards, while Mann’s longest covered 50 yards.
Mann placed two punts inside the 20-yard line, demonstrating useful directional and field-position production.
Taylor produced the higher average, although one of his punts resulted in a touchback.
Biggest Turning Points in the Bears vs Eagles Game
The final result was influenced by several important moments rather than a single play.
Looking at the scoring sequence and player statistics helps explain how Chicago built its advantage.
1. Luther Burden III Gives Chicago an Early Lead
Chicago opened the scoring with an eight-yard touchdown reception by Luther Burden III from Case Keenum.
Cairo Santos converted the extra point to make the score 7-0.
This early score gave Chicago confidence and allowed the Bears to establish their preferred offensive approach.
2. Cairo Santos Extends the Advantage
Santos converted a 29-yard field goal in the second quarter.
The score increased Chicago’s lead to 10-0.
Philadelphia eventually responded with a touchdown, but the field goal helped the Bears maintain control of the scoreboard.
3. Jalen Hurts Keeps Philadelphia in the Game
Hurts scored on a one-yard rushing touchdown just before halftime.
Jake Elliott converted the extra point, reducing the deficit to 10-7.
This was Philadelphia’s only scoring touchdown.
The play demonstrated Hurts’ ability to create opportunities near the goal line, even when the passing attack was struggling.
4. Santos Converts Another Field Goal
Chicago opened the third-quarter scoring with a 48-yard field goal.
The successful kick extended the lead to 13-7.
This was an important possession because it prevented Philadelphia from equalizing and maintained Chicago’s scoring momentum.
5. Kalif Raymond’s 41-Yard Touchdown
Raymond’s 41-yard touchdown reception from Keenum was arguably the most important offensive play of the game.
The Bears increased their advantage to 20-7 after Santos converted the extra point.
This play demonstrated the effectiveness of Chicago’s passing attack and made Philadelphia’s comeback considerably more difficult.
6. Keenum Completes the Scoring
Keenum scored a one-yard rushing touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Santos converted the extra point, bringing the score to 27-7.
The touchdown completed Chicago’s scoring performance and confirmed its control of the game.
The official game records also identify these scoring plays and their sequence.
Pro Football Reference+1
Why the Chicago Bears Won
Chicago’s victory was based on several connected advantages.
The Bears did not depend on one player to produce every important offensive play. Instead, their quarterback, receivers, running backs, kicker, and defensive players all contributed.
Here are the five biggest reasons behind the result.
1. Better Quarterback Efficiency
Keenum completed 70.6% of his passes and threw two touchdowns without an interception.
Hurts completed 64% of his passes and failed to record a passing touchdown.
The difference in quarterback production helped Chicago maintain offensive consistency.
2. More Productive Receiving Touchdowns
Raymond and Burden combined for two receiving touchdowns.
Philadelphia’s receivers did not record a touchdown.
Even though Smith produced 65 yards, the Eagles could not generate the same scoring impact through the air.
3. Better Turnover Management
Chicago recorded two interceptions and avoided losing its recorded fumble.
Philadelphia threw two interceptions and lost one fumble.
This gave the Bears a substantial advantage in possession management.
4. Strong Defensive Pressure
Chicago recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits.
Philadelphia did not record a sack in the supplied statistics.
The Bears also limited Hurts to a 64.2 passer rating.
These defensive contributions made it difficult for Philadelphia to develop a consistent passing attack.
5. Reliable Kicking
Santos converted both field goals and all three extra points.
His nine points provided valuable support to the Bears’ offense.
Philadelphia did not attempt a field goal, leaving its scoring opportunities more dependent on touchdowns.
Why Philadelphia Lost Despite Saquon Barkley’s Strong Performance
Philadelphia’s loss should not be attributed to one player.
Barkley produced 82 rushing yards at an average of 5.5 yards per carry. Hurts also recorded 25 rushing yards and the team’s only touchdown.
Smith added 65 receiving yards.
These were useful individual contributions, but the offense did not combine them into enough scoring drives.
Three problems stand out.
First, the passing attack lacked touchdown production. Hurts threw for 153 yards without a passing touchdown. Dalton’s only attempt also ended in an interception.
Second, turnovers damaged Philadelphia’s opportunities. Two interceptions and one lost fumble gave Chicago additional chances to control possession.
Third, the defense could not stop Chicago’s passing touchdowns. Raymond and Burden both found the end zone, while Keenum finished with a 110.8 passer rating.
The Eagles also struggled on third down. The official Bears recap reports that Philadelphia converted only two of nine third-down attempts, a success rate of 22.2%.
Chicago Bears+1
This statistic provides useful context for understanding why Philadelphia struggled to sustain drives.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The numbers provide several lessons beyond the final score.
Chicago Demonstrated Offensive Balance
Chicago produced 247 passing yards and 128 rushing yards.
The Bears had two passing touchdowns and one rushing touchdown.
This balance made the offense less predictable.
When a team can successfully pass and run the football, the defense must prepare for multiple types of plays.
Chicago’s receiving production also came from several players, making it difficult to focus defensive attention on only one target.
Philadelphia Needed More Passing Production
Philadelphia’s rushing average was better than Chicago’s, but its passing game did not provide enough scoring support.
Hurts had no passing touchdowns, and the Eagles’ receiving group did not record a touchdown.
A successful rushing attack is valuable, but NFL offenses also need to capitalize on passing opportunities.
Philadelphia’s inability to do so was a major limitation.
Defensive Statistics Must Be Read in Context
Philadelphia recorded 80 total tackles compared with Chicago’s 50.
At first glance, that might suggest a more active Eagles defense.
However, total tackles do not automatically indicate defensive superiority.
Chicago generated two interceptions, two sacks, and four quarterback hits. Philadelphia failed to record an interception or sack in the supplied figures.
The Bears’ defense produced more game-changing plays despite having fewer total tackles.
Special Teams Supported Chicago’s Advantage
Santos contributed nine points, while Chicago’s punting average was higher.
These contributions did not receive as much attention as Keenum’s passing performance, but they helped the Bears maintain their advantage.
Historical and Statistical Context: How to Read This Matchup
A single NFL game should not be treated as a complete measure of a team’s quality.
The statistics from this matchup provide a snapshot of what happened on September 28, 2026. They do not automatically predict the teams’ future performances.
When comparing Chicago and Philadelphia, it is useful to examine several categories together:
- Passing efficiency: Completion rate, yards per attempt, touchdowns, and interceptions.
- Rushing efficiency: Attempts, average yards, longest runs, and rushing touchdowns.
- Receiving production: Receptions, targets, yards, and scoring plays.
- Defensive impact: Sacks, tackles for loss, interceptions, and quarterback hits.
- Possession management: Fumbles, turnovers, and third-down conversions.
- Special teams: Field goals, extra points, punts, and return yardage.
These categories offer a more complete picture than looking at the final score alone.
For example, Barkley’s 5.5 yards per carry was higher than Swift’s 4.2. However, Chicago still won the game comfortably because its passing attack and defense performed more effectively.
Likewise, Philadelphia’s 80 tackles did not translate into the same defensive impact as Chicago’s two interceptions.
The best way to interpret player statistics is to consider how individual contributions affected the team’s overall performance.
Official Game Information and Statistical Reference
Readers who want to examine the original box score can consult the official Philadelphia Eagles game box score.
The game record includes the scoring summary, team statistics, and individual player performances.
For accurate statistical research, it is important to distinguish between:
- Individual player statistics.
- Team totals.
- Game-level results.
- Calculated figures such as completion percentages and receiving averages.
This distinction helps prevent errors when comparing player performances or preparing sports analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
1. What was the final score of the Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles game?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Philadelphia Eagles 27-7 on September 28, 2026, at Soldier Field in Chicago.
2. How many passing yards did Case Keenum record against the Eagles?
Case Keenum completed 24 of 34 passes for 247 yards, two passing touchdowns, and zero interceptions. He also scored one rushing touchdown.
3. Who was the leading receiver in the game?
Kalif Raymond was the leading receiver with six receptions for 90 yards and one touchdown. Luther Burden III followed with seven receptions for 61 yards and one touchdown.
4. How many rushing yards did Saquon Barkley record?
Saquon Barkley recorded 82 rushing yards on 15 carries, averaging 5.5 yards per attempt. He did not score a rushing touchdown.
5. How many interceptions did the Chicago Bears record?
Chicago recorded two interceptions. T.J. Edwards and Dillon Thieneman each registered one interception.
6. Why did the Chicago Bears defeat the Philadelphia Eagles?
Chicago benefited from better quarterback efficiency, two passing touchdowns, effective receiving production, and two defensive interceptions. Philadelphia struggled with turnovers and failed to record a passing touchdown.
Conclusion
The Chicago Bears vs Philadelphia Eagles Match Player Stats demonstrate how Chicago produced a convincing 27-7 victory through balanced offensive production and effective defensive execution.
Case Keenum was the standout quarterback, completing 24 of 34 passes for 247 yards and two touchdowns without throwing an interception. He also added a rushing touchdown, making his performance even more valuable.
Kalif Raymond led the receiving group with 90 yards and a touchdown, while Luther Burden III contributed seven catches, 61 receiving yards, and another touchdown. D’Andre Swift supported the offense with 84 rushing yards on 20 carries.
Philadelphia had some encouraging individual performances. Saquon Barkley averaged 5.5 yards per carry, Jalen Hurts scored a rushing touchdown, and DeVonta Smith led the Eagles in receiving yards with 65.
However, the Eagles struggled to turn those individual contributions into consistent scoring opportunities. Two interceptions, a lost fumble, and the absence of a passing touchdown made the difference difficult to overcome.
Chicago’s two defensive interceptions, two sacks, and reliable kicking performance completed a strong team effort.
Ultimately, the matchup demonstrated the importance of quarterback efficiency, turnover management, receiving touchdowns, and defensive pressure in determining an NFL result. The individual statistics explain why Chicago controlled the game and finished with a comfortable 20-point victory.
