Minnesota Vikings vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats
The minnesota vikings vs pittsburgh steelers match player stats from September 28, 2025, tell the story of a closely contested NFL game in which the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Minnesota Vikings 24-21. Played as part of the 2025 NFL regular season, this matchup featured impressive offensive production, important defensive plays, and a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback attempt by Minnesota. Carson Wentz threw for 350 yards and two touchdowns, while Justin Jefferson and Jordan Addison combined for 240 receiving yards. However, Pittsburgh’s defensive pressure, two interceptions, and Kenny Gainwell’s outstanding rushing performance proved decisive. Gainwell finished with 99 rushing yards and two touchdowns, helping Pittsburgh secure an important victory and improve its record to 3-1.
The final score does not fully explain how competitive this contest was. Minnesota struggled to establish its running game and surrendered six sacks, but its passing attack remained dangerous throughout the afternoon. Pittsburgh, meanwhile, relied on an efficient passing performance from Aaron Rodgers, an effective ground attack, and a defense that consistently disrupted Minnesota’s offensive rhythm.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving statistics, defensive contributions, special teams, and the most important factors behind Pittsburgh’s victory.
Minnesota Vikings vs Pittsburgh Steelers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The September 28 meeting between Minnesota and Pittsburgh delivered an interesting contrast in offensive approaches. Minnesota attempted to create explosive plays through its passing game, while Pittsburgh balanced its offense with a productive rushing attack and controlled quarterback play.
Pittsburgh finished the game with a 24-21 victory. The Steelers scored consistently during the first three quarters, building a 21-6 advantage before Minnesota responded with 15 fourth-quarter points.
Match Information
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Minnesota Vikings |
| Competition | National Football League |
| Match Date | September 28, 2025 |
| Match Status | Final |
| Winning Team | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Losing Team | Minnesota Vikings |
| Final Score | Steelers 24, Vikings 21 |
| Minnesota Record | 2-2 |
| Pittsburgh Record | 3-1 |
| ESPN Game ID | 401772632 |
| Featured Minnesota QB | Carson Wentz |
| Featured Pittsburgh QB | Aaron Rodgers |
The most important difference between the teams was their ability to protect the quarterback and create defensive turnovers.
Minnesota gained 350 passing yards, but its offense allowed six sacks and threw two interceptions. Pittsburgh recorded only 200 passing yards, yet Rodgers completed 18 of 22 attempts without an interception.
The Steelers also received a major contribution from Kenny Gainwell, who scored twice on the ground.
Final Score by Quarter
The scoring progression shows how Pittsburgh established control before Minnesota made its late push.
| Quarter | Minnesota Vikings | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| First Quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Second Quarter | 3 | 7 |
| Third Quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Fourth Quarter | 15 | 3 |
| Final Score | 21 | 24 |
Pittsburgh scored seven points in each of the first three quarters. This steady production created a 21-6 advantage entering the final period.
Minnesota’s offense finally found greater scoring momentum in the fourth quarter. The Vikings scored 15 points, making the contest much closer, but Pittsburgh’s earlier advantage proved sufficient.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers highlight an important lesson about this matchup: Minnesota’s late offensive improvement was not enough to erase the problems that developed during the first three quarters.
Quarterback Performance: Carson Wentz vs Aaron Rodgers
Quarterback production was one of the most interesting parts of this game.
Carson Wentz produced significantly more passing yards than Aaron Rodgers. However, Rodgers delivered the more efficient performance, avoiding interceptions and completing a high percentage of his attempts.
Carson Wentz Player Stats
Carson Wentz was Minnesota’s featured quarterback and handled most of the team’s offensive passing responsibilities.
| Statistic | Carson Wentz |
| Completions | 30 |
| Attempts | 46 |
| Completion Percentage | 65.2% |
| Passing Yards | 350 |
| Yards per Attempt | 7.6 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 48 |
| QBR | 42.0 |
| Passer Rating | 84.5 |
| Rushing Attempts | 2 |
| Rushing Yards | 12 |
| Rushing Average | 6.0 |
| Longest Rush | 11 yards |
Wentz delivered an impressive passing-yardage total. His 350 yards demonstrated that Minnesota could move the football through the air, particularly when targeting its leading receivers.
His connection with Justin Jefferson was particularly productive. Jefferson recorded 126 receiving yards, while Jordan Addison added another 114 yards.
Together, those two receivers provided 240 receiving yards, representing a significant portion of Minnesota’s passing production.
However, Wentz’s performance also included two interceptions. Those turnovers were especially damaging because Minnesota needed to maintain possession and convert its offensive opportunities into points.
The six sacks were another major concern.
A quarterback can produce strong passing numbers and still struggle to control a game when the opposing defense consistently reaches him. Pittsburgh’s defensive front created pressure throughout the contest, limiting Minnesota’s ability to operate comfortably.
Wentz also recorded 12 rushing yards on two attempts. His longest run covered 11 yards, showing that he could contribute occasionally outside the pocket.
Overall, Wentz delivered strong passing volume but experienced problems with ball security and protection.
Aaron Rodgers Player Stats
Aaron Rodgers played a more controlled game for Pittsburgh.
His passing production was lower than Wentz’s, but his efficiency and ball security helped the Steelers maintain offensive balance.
| Statistic | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 18 |
| Attempts | 22 |
| Completion Percentage | 81.8% |
| Passing Yards | 200 |
| Yards per Attempt | 9.1 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 2 |
| Sack Yards Lost | 18 |
| QBR | 41.1 |
| Passer Rating | 119.7 |
| Rushing Attempts | 3 |
| Rushing Yards | 8 |
| Rushing Average | 2.7 |
| Longest Rush | 10 yards |
Rodgers completed 18 of his 22 passing attempts, giving him an excellent completion percentage of 81.8%.
His 200 passing yards were considerably lower than Wentz’s total, but his 9.1 yards per attempt demonstrated that Pittsburgh was gaining meaningful yardage when he threw the football.
The absence of interceptions was particularly important.
Rodgers protected possession and allowed Pittsburgh’s offense to maintain a consistent approach. He also took only two sacks, compared with the six sacks allowed by Minnesota.
His passer rating of 119.7 was another indication of his efficient performance.
Rodgers contributed eight rushing yards on three attempts, although his primary value came through his passing decisions and ability to distribute the football.
Quarterback Comparison
| Category | Carson Wentz | Aaron Rodgers |
| Completions | 30 | 18 |
| Attempts | 46 | 22 |
| Completion Percentage | 65.2% | 81.8% |
| Passing Yards | 350 | 200 |
| Yards per Attempt | 7.6 | 9.1 |
| Touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 | 2 |
| Passer Rating | 84.5 | 119.7 |
Wentz won the passing-yardage comparison, but Rodgers delivered the more efficient performance.
The difference becomes clearer when examining interceptions and sacks. Minnesota’s quarterback lost possession twice through interceptions and faced six sacks. Pittsburgh’s quarterback avoided interceptions and took only two sacks.
This comparison demonstrates why passing yards alone cannot determine quarterback effectiveness.
Minnesota Vikings Rushing Stats
Minnesota struggled to establish a consistent running game against Pittsburgh.
The Vikings finished with 70 rushing yards on 20 attempts, averaging 3.5 yards per carry. They did not record a rushing touchdown.
Jordan Mason led the team in rushing production.
Jordan Mason Rushing Stats
| Statistic | Jordan Mason |
| Carries | 16 |
| Rushing Yards | 57 |
| Average | 3.6 yards |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Rush | 9 yards |
| Receptions | 3 |
| Receiving Yards | 15 |
Mason handled the majority of Minnesota’s rushing workload.
His 16 carries accounted for most of the team’s rushing attempts, but his 57 yards showed that Pittsburgh generally limited his opportunities to produce explosive runs.
Mason averaged 3.6 yards per carry, which was not enough to consistently keep Minnesota in favorable down-and-distance situations.
He also contributed as a receiver, catching three passes for 15 yards.
His involvement in both phases made him a useful offensive option, but the Vikings needed more production from their rushing attack.
Other Minnesota Rushing Performances
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Jordan Mason | 16 | 57 | 3.6 | 0 | 9 |
| Carson Wentz | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 0 | 11 |
| Zavier Scott | 2 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 |
| Team Total | 20 | 70 | 3.5 | 0 | 11 |
Wentz’s 11-yard run was the longest rushing play among the listed Minnesota contributors.
Zavier Scott had a limited rushing impact, finishing with one yard on two attempts. However, his receiving contribution was more valuable, as he caught six passes for 43 yards and a touchdown.
The lack of a rushing touchdown was an important difference between the teams.
Minnesota depended heavily on its passing attack to generate scoring opportunities, while Pittsburgh successfully used its running backs to finish drives.
Pittsburgh Steelers Rushing Stats
Pittsburgh’s rushing attack was one of the strongest elements of its winning performance.
The Steelers recorded 131 rushing yards on 29 attempts, averaging 4.5 yards per carry. More importantly, they scored two rushing touchdowns.
Kenny Gainwell led the way with an outstanding individual performance.
Kenny Gainwell Rushing Stats
| Statistic | Kenny Gainwell |
| Carries | 19 |
| Rushing Yards | 99 |
| Average | 5.2 yards |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 2 |
| Longest Rush | 15 yards |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Receiving Yards | 35 |
Gainwell was Pittsburgh’s most productive offensive player in the running game.
He finished just one yard short of the 100-yard rushing mark, averaging an impressive 5.2 yards per carry.
His two rushing touchdowns were particularly valuable because they helped Pittsburgh build its lead during the opening three quarters.
Gainwell also contributed as a receiver, catching six passes for 35 yards.
This combination of rushing and receiving production gave Pittsburgh an effective offensive option in multiple situations.
His involvement allowed the Steelers to maintain offensive balance rather than depending entirely on Rodgers’ passing ability.
Other Pittsburgh Rushing Performances
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Touchdowns | Long |
| Kenny Gainwell | 19 | 99 | 5.2 | 2 | 15 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 6 | 22 | 3.7 | 0 | 9 |
| Aaron Rodgers | 3 | 8 | 2.7 | 0 | 10 |
| Connor Heyward | 1 | 2 | 2.0 | 0 | 2 |
| Team Total | 29 | 131 | 4.5 | 2 | 15 |
Kaleb Johnson added 22 rushing yards on six attempts, providing additional support behind Gainwell.
Rodgers contributed eight yards on the ground, while Connor Heyward recorded two yards on one attempt.
Pittsburgh’s 131 rushing yards compared favorably with Minnesota’s 70.
The 61-yard difference helped Pittsburgh control the offensive balance of the game.
The two rushing touchdowns were even more important because Minnesota did not score any touchdowns on the ground.
Receiving Stats: Minnesota Vikings vs Pittsburgh Steelers
The receiving comparison featured several impressive individual performances.
Minnesota had greater overall passing volume, and its leading receivers produced substantial yardage. Pittsburgh, however, received an explosive performance from DK Metcalf.
Both teams finished with a receiver recording 126 yards.
Justin Jefferson Receiving Stats
Justin Jefferson was Minnesota’s leading receiver.
| Statistic | Justin Jefferson |
| Receptions | 10 |
| Targets | 11 |
| Receiving Yards | 126 |
| Average | 12.6 yards |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 29 yards |
Jefferson caught 10 of his 11 targets, demonstrating excellent reliability.
His 126 receiving yards made him one of the most productive players on the field.
The 90.9% catch rate was particularly impressive, considering the volume of opportunities he received.
Jefferson consistently provided Wentz with a dependable receiving option. His ability to gain yards after the catch and convert important passing opportunities helped Minnesota move the ball.
However, he did not record a receiving touchdown.
His yardage production was significant, but Minnesota needed more of those successful plays to result in points.
Jordan Addison Receiving Stats
Jordan Addison delivered another major performance for Minnesota.
| Statistic | Jordan Addison |
| Receptions | 4 |
| Targets | 8 |
| Receiving Yards | 114 |
| Average | 28.5 yards |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest Reception | 81 yards |
Addison averaged an outstanding 28.5 yards per reception.
His 81-yard reception was the longest listed passing play for Minnesota and demonstrated his ability to create explosive offensive opportunities.
He caught four passes on eight targets, producing 114 receiving yards.
Although his reception total was lower than Jefferson’s, his average yards per catch was much higher.
This difference highlights the complementary nature of their performances.
Jefferson provided consistent production, while Addison delivered explosive gains that could quickly change field position.
Neither player recorded a receiving touchdown, which limited the direct scoring impact of their yardage totals.
Other Minnesota Receiving Performances
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| Justin Jefferson | 10 | 11 | 126 | 12.6 | 0 | 29 |
| Jordan Addison | 4 | 8 | 114 | 28.5 | 0 | 81 |
| Zavier Scott | 6 | 8 | 43 | 7.2 | 1 | 16 |
| T.J. Hockenson | 4 | 5 | 39 | 9.8 | 0 | 14 |
| Jordan Mason | 3 | 3 | 15 | 5.0 | 0 | 13 |
| Adam Thielen | 2 | 3 | 11 | 5.5 | 0 | 6 |
| Jalen Nailor | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2.0 | 1 | 2 |
| Josh Oliver | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 30 | 42 | 350 | 11.7 | 2 | 81 |
Zavier Scott recorded six receptions for 43 yards and one touchdown.
His involvement was important because he provided Minnesota with another option beyond its primary wide receivers.
T.J. Hockenson added four receptions for 39 yards, giving the offense additional production from the tight end position.
Adam Thielen finished with two catches for 11 yards, while Jalen Nailor recorded one reception for two yards and a touchdown.
Although Minnesota had several contributors, Jefferson and Addison were responsible for the largest share of its receiving yardage.
DK Metcalf Receiving Stats
DK Metcalf was Pittsburgh’s leading receiver and delivered one of the game’s most explosive performances.
| Statistic | DK Metcalf |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Targets | 5 |
| Receiving Yards | 126 |
| Average | 25.2 yards |
| Receiving Touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest Reception | 80 yards |
Metcalf caught all five of his targets and finished with 126 receiving yards.
His average of 25.2 yards per reception was exceptional.
The most significant moment in his receiving performance was an 80-yard reception, which demonstrated his ability to stretch the field and create a major offensive opportunity.
Unlike Jefferson, Metcalf also recorded a receiving touchdown.
His contribution was especially valuable because Pittsburgh did not need to rely on a high passing volume to create explosive plays.
Rodgers completed only 18 passes, but Metcalf’s ability to generate substantial yardage made those opportunities count.
Other Pittsburgh Receiving Performances
| Player | Receptions | Targets | Yards | Average | TD | Long |
| DK Metcalf | 5 | 5 | 126 | 25.2 | 1 | 80 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 6 | 6 | 35 | 5.8 | 0 | 8 |
| Darnell Washington | 3 | 3 | 20 | 6.7 | 0 | 8 |
| Calvin Austin III | 2 | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 0 | 8 |
| Jonnu Smith | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3.0 | 0 | 6 |
| Scotty Miller | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ben Skowronek | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kaleb Johnson | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Team Total | 18 | 22 | 200 | 11.1 | 1 | 80 |
Kenny Gainwell was Pittsburgh’s second-most productive receiver by reception volume.
He caught six passes for 35 yards, demonstrating his importance as a versatile offensive player.
Darnell Washington added 20 receiving yards, while Calvin Austin III recorded 13.
Jonnu Smith contributed two receptions for six yards.
The biggest difference between the teams was the distribution of receiving production. Minnesota had more total receptions, but Pittsburgh benefited from Metcalf’s explosive yardage and touchdown.
Defensive Player Stats: Which Team Had the Stronger Defense?
Defense was arguably the deciding factor in Pittsburgh’s victory.
Minnesota’s offense produced more passing yards, but Pittsburgh’s defensive unit generated six sacks and two interceptions.
Those plays disrupted Minnesota’s offensive rhythm and prevented its passing production from translating into a larger scoreboard advantage.
Minnesota Vikings Defensive Stats
| Defensive Category | Team Total |
| Total Tackles | 69 |
| Solo Tackles | 37 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 |
| Passes Defended | 0 |
| Quarterback Hits | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
Minnesota’s defense recorded two sacks and four tackles for loss.
However, the team did not record an interception or a pass defended in the supplied defensive statistics.
The absence of interceptions was especially important because Pittsburgh’s quarterback completed 18 of 22 attempts without turning the football over.
Minnesota’s Leading Defensive Players
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Additional Production |
| Eric Wilson | 9 | 5 | Team-leading tackles |
| Joshua Metellus | 9 | 4 | Team-leading tackles |
| Ivan Pace Jr. | 7 | 2 | 7 total tackles |
| Javon Hargrave | 5 | 4 | 5 total tackles |
| Jonathan Allen | 5 | 3 | 5 total tackles |
| Dallas Turner | 4 | 1 | 4 total tackles |
| Harrison Smith | 3 | 3 | 2 sacks, 2 TFL, 2 QB hits |
Eric Wilson and Joshua Metellus shared the team lead with nine total tackles.
Wilson recorded five solo tackles, while Metellus finished with four.
Ivan Pace Jr. added seven tackles, contributing to Minnesota’s defensive workload.
Harrison Smith produced one of the most notable individual defensive performances.
He recorded two sacks, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits.
Those numbers showed his ability to contribute beyond ordinary tackling responsibilities.
Despite Smith’s strong performance, Minnesota’s defense did not generate enough pressure collectively to match Pittsburgh’s six sacks.
Pittsburgh Steelers Defensive Stats
| Defensive Category | Team Total |
| Total Tackles | 75 |
| Solo Tackles | 47 |
| Sacks | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 10 |
| Passes Defended | 8 |
| Quarterback Hits | 14 |
| Interceptions | 2 |
Pittsburgh delivered a much more disruptive defensive performance.
The Steelers recorded six sacks, 10 tackles for loss, eight passes defended, and 14 quarterback hits.
These numbers explain why Minnesota struggled despite gaining 350 passing yards.
The Steelers repeatedly created negative plays and forced Wentz into difficult situations.
Their two interceptions were particularly valuable because they prevented Minnesota from maintaining uninterrupted offensive drives.
Pittsburgh’s Leading Defensive Players
| Player | Total Tackles | Solo Tackles | Additional Production |
| Payton Wilson | 13 | 8 | 2 TFL, 1 QB hit |
| Patrick Queen | 11 | 8 | 1 sack, 3 TFL, 1 QB hit |
| DeShon Elliott | 6 | 4 | 1 sack, 1 TFL, 2 PD, 2 QB hits, 1 INT |
| T.J. Watt | 5 | 3 | 1 sack, 1 TFL, 1 PD, 2 QB hits, 1 INT |
| Nick Herbig | 5 | 3 | 1.5 sacks, 1 TFL, 3 QB hits |
| Keeanu Benton | 4 | 1 | 1.5 sacks, 1 TFL, 3 QB hits |
Payton Wilson led Pittsburgh with 13 total tackles and eight solo tackles.
His performance helped the Steelers maintain defensive control throughout the game.
Patrick Queen also delivered a productive outing, recording 11 tackles, one sack, three tackles for loss, and one quarterback hit.
T.J. Watt contributed a sack, a pass defended, two quarterback hits, and an interception.
DeShon Elliott also recorded an interception and a sack.
Nick Herbig and Keeanu Benton each added 1.5 sacks, making their contributions particularly important to Pittsburgh’s pass rush.
T.J. Watt and DeShon Elliott Interceptions
Pittsburgh recorded two interceptions during the contest.
| Player | Interceptions | Return Yards | Touchdowns |
| T.J. Watt | 1 | 13 | 0 |
| DeShon Elliott | 1 | -4 | 0 |
| Team Total | 2 | 9 | 0 |
T.J. Watt and DeShon Elliott each recorded an interception.
Their contributions helped Pittsburgh win the turnover battle.
Minnesota finished without an interception, while Pittsburgh secured two.
The difference in turnovers was one of the clearest statistical advantages for the Steelers.
Special Teams Performance
Special teams contributed to the overall game performance through field goals, extra points, kick returns, and punting.
Both teams received useful contributions from their kickers and return units.
Minnesota Vikings Kicking Stats
Will Reichard handled Minnesota’s kicking responsibilities.
| Statistic | Will Reichard |
| Field Goals Made | 2 |
| Field Goal Attempts | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% |
| Longest Field Goal | 41 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 1 |
| Extra Point Attempts | 1 |
| Total Points | 7 |
Reichard converted both field-goal attempts and his extra-point attempt.
His perfect field-goal record helped Minnesota remain competitive on the scoreboard.
Pittsburgh Steelers Kicking Stats
Chris Boswell handled Pittsburgh’s kicking duties.
| Statistic | Chris Boswell |
| Field Goals Made | 1 |
| Field Goal Attempts | 2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 50% |
| Longest Field Goal | 33 yards |
| Extra Points Made | 3 |
| Extra Point Attempts | 3 |
| Total Points | 6 |
Boswell converted one of his two field-goal attempts and successfully made all three extra points.
Although his field-goal percentage was lower than Reichard’s, Pittsburgh’s three touchdowns created additional extra-point opportunities.
Kicker Comparison
| Category | Will Reichard | Chris Boswell |
| Field Goals | 2/2 | 1/2 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 100% | 50% |
| Longest Field Goal | 41 yards | 33 yards |
| Extra Points | 1/1 | 3/3 |
| Total Points | 7 | 6 |
Reichard had the better field-goal accuracy, while Boswell contributed through three successful extra points.
Minnesota Vikings Kick Returns
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Tai Felton | 3 | 77 | 25.7 | 28 |
| Myles Price | 2 | 47 | 23.5 | 28 |
| Team Total | 5 | 124 | 24.8 | 28 |
Minnesota finished with 124 kick-return yards.
Tai Felton led the team with 77 yards on three returns, averaging 25.7 yards.
Myles Price added 47 yards on two attempts.
Pittsburgh Steelers Kick Returns
| Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Trey Sermon | 2 | 51 | 25.5 | 26 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 2 | 49 | 24.5 | 25 |
| Team Total | 4 | 100 | 25.0 | 26 |
Pittsburgh recorded 100 kick-return yards.
Trey Sermon led the Steelers with 51 yards, while Gainwell contributed another 49.
The two teams produced similar kick-return averages, with Pittsburgh recording 25.0 yards per return compared with Minnesota’s 24.8.
Punt Return Statistics
| Team | Player | Returns | Yards | Average | Longest |
| Minnesota | Myles Price | 2 | 13 | 6.5 | 13 |
| Pittsburgh | Calvin Austin III | 2 | 9 | 4.5 | 12 |
Minnesota gained 13 punt-return yards, while Pittsburgh finished with nine.
Neither team generated a major scoring opportunity through punt returns according to the supplied statistics.
Punting Performance
| Statistic | Ryan Wright | Corliss Waitman |
| Team | Minnesota | Pittsburgh |
| Punts | 3 | 3 |
| Total Punt Yards | 136 | 146 |
| Average | 45.3 | 48.7 |
| Touchbacks | 0 | 1 |
| Inside 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Longest Punt | 49 | 54 |
Corliss Waitman averaged 48.7 yards per punt, compared with Ryan Wright’s 45.3.
Waitman also recorded the longest punt of the game at 54 yards.
Both punters handled three attempts.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Turnovers played an important role in the final result.
Minnesota recorded two interceptions, while Pittsburgh did not throw any.
The difference gave the Steelers a clear advantage in ball security.
Team Turnover Statistics
| Category | Minnesota | Pittsburgh |
| Interceptions Thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Interceptions Recorded | 0 | 2 |
| Fumbles | 2 | 1 |
| Fumbles Lost | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles Recovered | 1 | 1 |
Neither team lost a fumble according to the supplied data.
Minnesota recorded two fumbles, while Pittsburgh recorded one.
However, both teams finished with zero fumbles lost.
The most important turnover difference came through interceptions.
Pittsburgh recorded two interceptions, with T.J. Watt and DeShon Elliott each contributing one.
Minnesota did not intercept Rodgers.
Why the Turnover Difference Mattered
Minnesota’s passing game generated substantial yardage, but its two interceptions reduced the value of that production.
In a three-point game, possession security becomes especially important.
Every turnover creates an opportunity for the opposing team to gain possession and potentially change the scoreboard.
Pittsburgh’s ability to avoid interceptions helped protect its lead.
The Steelers did not need Rodgers to throw for 300 or 350 yards. They needed him to make efficient decisions, distribute the football, and avoid mistakes.
That approach worked.
Why the Pittsburgh Steelers Won the Game
Pittsburgh’s 24-21 victory resulted from several important advantages.
Although Minnesota produced more passing yards, Pittsburgh was more effective in the areas that directly influenced the result.
1. Pittsburgh Established an Early Lead
The Steelers scored seven points in each of the first three quarters.
This consistent production allowed them to enter the fourth quarter with a 21-6 advantage.
Minnesota scored only six points during the opening two quarters and failed to score in the third.
That offensive slowdown forced the Vikings to rely on a late comeback.
2. Kenny Gainwell Controlled the Ground Game
Gainwell finished with 99 rushing yards and two touchdowns.
He averaged 5.2 yards per carry and handled 19 rushing attempts.
His production gave Pittsburgh a reliable offensive foundation.
The Vikings, meanwhile, managed only 70 rushing yards as a team.
The 61-yard difference in rushing production favored Pittsburgh.
3. Pittsburgh’s Defense Pressured Carson Wentz
The Steelers recorded six sacks and 14 quarterback hits.
Those numbers demonstrate the pressure Minnesota faced throughout the contest.
Wentz still managed 350 passing yards, but the six sacks resulted in 48 yards lost.
Pittsburgh’s defensive front repeatedly disrupted Minnesota’s offensive timing.
4. The Steelers Won the Interception Battle
Pittsburgh recorded two interceptions.
Minnesota recorded none.
The interceptions by Watt and Elliott were major defensive contributions.
They helped prevent Minnesota from maintaining possession and building consistent offensive momentum.
5. DK Metcalf Produced Explosive Receiving Plays
Metcalf finished with 126 receiving yards and one touchdown.
His 80-yard reception was particularly important.
He averaged 25.2 yards per catch and converted all five targets into receptions.
This explosive production helped Pittsburgh create significant offensive gains without relying on a large passing volume.
How Minnesota Nearly Completed a Fourth-Quarter Comeback
The fourth quarter was Minnesota’s strongest scoring period.
After entering the final quarter trailing 21-6, the Vikings scored 15 points.
Their improved offensive production made the final score much closer.
The comeback attempt demonstrated that Minnesota’s passing attack remained capable of generating scoring opportunities even after a difficult first three quarters.
Justin Jefferson continued to provide reliable receiving production, while Jordan Addison’s explosive plays gave the offense opportunities to gain large amounts of yardage quickly.
Carson Wentz also finished with two passing touchdowns.
However, the earlier problems remained significant.
The Vikings had already surrendered six sacks and thrown two interceptions.
Their rushing game had also failed to produce a touchdown.
Pittsburgh needed only three points in the fourth quarter to preserve its advantage.
The Steelers managed to hold on and finish the contest with a 24-21 victory.
The final period showed Minnesota’s offensive potential, but the first three quarters demonstrated why the Vikings had placed themselves in such a difficult position.
Statistical Comparison: Minnesota Vikings vs Pittsburgh Steelers
The following table summarizes the most important team and player statistics from the matchup.
| Statistical Category | Minnesota Vikings | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Final Score | 21 | 24 |
| Passing Completions | 30 | 18 |
| Passing Attempts | 46 | 22 |
| Passing Yards | 350 | 200 |
| Passing Touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions Thrown | 2 | 0 |
| Sacks Taken | 6 | 2 |
| Rushing Attempts | 20 | 29 |
| Rushing Yards | 70 | 131 |
| Rushing Average | 3.5 | 4.5 |
| Rushing Touchdowns | 0 | 2 |
| Receiving Receptions | 30 | 18 |
| Receiving Yards | 350 | 200 |
| Defensive Sacks | 2 | 6 |
| Tackles for Loss | 4 | 10 |
| Passes Defended | 0 | 8 |
| Quarterback Hits | 3 | 14 |
| Interceptions Recorded | 0 | 2 |
| Total Tackles | 69 | 75 |
| Kick Returns | 5 | 4 |
| Kick Return Yards | 124 | 100 |
| Punt Returns | 2 | 2 |
| Punt Return Yards | 13 | 9 |
The comparison reveals that both teams had different strengths.
Minnesota was more productive through the air, finishing with 150 more passing yards.
Pittsburgh was stronger on the ground, recording 61 more rushing yards and two rushing touchdowns.
The defensive comparison was even more favorable to Pittsburgh.
The Steelers recorded four additional sacks, six more tackles for loss, eight more quarterback hits, and two interceptions.
These advantages help explain the final result.
Key Individual Performers
Several players delivered performances that deserve special attention.
Kenny Gainwell: Pittsburgh’s Offensive Difference-Maker
Gainwell was arguably the most important offensive contributor for Pittsburgh.
His 99 rushing yards and two touchdowns gave the Steelers consistent production on the ground.
He also caught six passes for 35 yards.
His ability to contribute in both rushing and receiving situations made him an important part of Pittsburgh’s offensive approach.
Justin Jefferson: Minnesota’s Most Productive Receiver
Jefferson recorded 10 catches for 126 yards.
He caught 10 of his 11 targets, demonstrating excellent consistency.
Although he did not score a receiving touchdown, his yardage production helped Minnesota maintain offensive opportunities.
DK Metcalf: Pittsburgh’s Explosive Receiving Threat
Metcalf matched Jefferson’s 126 receiving yards but needed only five receptions.
His 80-yard reception and one touchdown made his performance particularly important.
His 25.2-yard average demonstrated how effectively Pittsburgh created explosive passing opportunities.
Carson Wentz: High Passing Volume, Difficult Conditions
Wentz threw for 350 yards and two touchdowns.
However, he also recorded two interceptions and took six sacks.
His performance showed the difference between producing passing yardage and consistently controlling the game.
T.J. Watt: Defensive Impact
Watt contributed five tackles, one sack, one tackle for loss, two quarterback hits, one pass defended, and one interception.
His ability to contribute in several defensive categories made him an important part of Pittsburgh’s victory.
Harrison Smith: Minnesota’s Defensive Leader
Smith recorded two sacks, two tackles for loss, and two quarterback hits.
Although Minnesota lost, his defensive production stood out.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The statistical details provide several useful lessons about offensive and defensive football.
Passing Efficiency Can Matter More Than Passing Volume
Minnesota gained 350 passing yards, while Pittsburgh gained 200.
At first glance, that difference might suggest Minnesota had the stronger passing performance.
However, Pittsburgh completed 81.8% of its attempts, compared with Minnesota’s 65.2%.
Rodgers also threw no interceptions.
This demonstrates why passing yards should always be evaluated alongside completion percentage, touchdowns, interceptions, and sacks.
A Productive Running Game Can Control the Scoreboard
Pittsburgh’s 131 rushing yards helped balance its offense.
Gainwell’s two rushing touchdowns were particularly important.
Minnesota’s inability to establish a similar rushing attack placed more pressure on its passing game.
Defensive Pressure Changes Offensive Decisions
Six sacks and 14 quarterback hits are significant defensive numbers.
They show how Pittsburgh consistently challenged Minnesota’s offensive protection.
When a quarterback faces repeated pressure, the offense may struggle to maintain timing and execute its intended plays.
Explosive Receivers Can Change a Game Quickly
Addison’s 81-yard reception and Metcalf’s 80-yard reception demonstrated the value of downfield receiving threats.
Both players created substantial yardage on individual plays.
However, Metcalf’s receiving touchdown gave his performance an additional scoring impact.
Late Scoring Does Not Always Mean a Comeback
Minnesota’s 15 fourth-quarter points showed strong late-game offensive production.
However, Pittsburgh had already established a 15-point advantage.
The Vikings needed to overcome the earlier deficit, and the final three-point margin showed how close they came.
Official Box Score and Statistical Accuracy
For readers who want to verify individual performances, the original game record is available through the ESPN NFL box score.
The figures in this article follow the September 28, 2025 statistics supplied for ESPN Game ID 401772632.
Player statistics and team totals should be considered separately where appropriate. Passing yards represent quarterback production, while receiving yards represent the yardage accumulated by the team’s receivers. Sacks also affect the evaluation of quarterback protection and offensive performance.
This distinction matters when comparing teams because a higher passing-yard total does not automatically indicate a more successful offensive performance.
The available data provides a clear picture of the individual contributions and the statistical differences behind Pittsburgh’s victory.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Minnesota Vikings vs Pittsburgh Steelers game on September 28, 2025?
The Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Minnesota Vikings 24-21 on September 28, 2025. Pittsburgh established a 21-6 lead through the first three quarters before Minnesota scored 15 points in the fourth quarter.
2. How many passing yards did Carson Wentz record against the Steelers?
Carson Wentz recorded 350 passing yards, completing 30 of 46 attempts. He threw two touchdowns and two interceptions and finished with an 84.5 passer rating.
3. How many rushing yards did Kenny Gainwell have against Minnesota?
Kenny Gainwell recorded 99 rushing yards on 19 carries, averaging 5.2 yards per attempt. He also scored two rushing touchdowns and caught six passes for 35 receiving yards.
4. Who led the Minnesota Vikings in receiving yards?
Justin Jefferson led Minnesota with 126 receiving yards on 10 receptions and 11 targets. Jordan Addison also recorded 114 receiving yards, including a long reception of 81 yards.
5. How many sacks did the Pittsburgh Steelers record?
Pittsburgh recorded six sacks against Minnesota. Nick Herbig and Keeanu Benton each recorded 1.5 sacks, while Patrick Queen, DeShon Elliott, and T.J. Watt also contributed to the pass rush.
6. How many interceptions were recorded in the game?
The Pittsburgh Steelers recorded two interceptions, one by T.J. Watt and another by DeShon Elliott. Minnesota did not record an interception against Aaron Rodgers.
Conclusion
The September 28, 2025 matchup between the Minnesota Vikings and Pittsburgh Steelers was a competitive contest decided by offensive balance, defensive pressure, and turnovers.
Pittsburgh secured a 24-21 victory after building a 21-6 advantage through the first three quarters. Minnesota responded with 15 fourth-quarter points, but the late comeback attempt fell short.
Carson Wentz delivered 350 passing yards and two touchdowns, while Justin Jefferson recorded 126 receiving yards. Jordan Addison also produced 114 receiving yards, including an 81-yard reception. Despite those impressive numbers, Minnesota struggled with two interceptions, six sacks allowed, and limited rushing production.
For Pittsburgh, Kenny Gainwell was a major difference-maker with 99 rushing yards and two touchdowns. Aaron Rodgers completed 18 of 22 passes for 200 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. DK Metcalf added 126 receiving yards and a touchdown, while the Steelers’ defense recorded six sacks and two interceptions.
The most important statistical advantage belonged to Pittsburgh’s defense. Its ability to pressure Wentz, create turnovers, and limit Minnesota’s running game helped protect the early lead.
Ultimately, the game demonstrated that offensive yardage alone does not determine the outcome of an NFL contest. Efficient quarterback play, effective rushing production, defensive pressure, and possession security can be equally important. Pittsburgh performed better in several of those decisive areas and earned a three-point victory.
