Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats
The Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats provide a detailed look at an exciting 31-28 Chicago victory over Pittsburgh on November 23, 2025. The game featured an impressive passing performance from Caleb Williams, a powerful rushing contribution from Kenny Gainwell, and several important defensive plays that influenced the final result. Chicago finished with 31 points, while Pittsburgh scored 28, making it a close contest that remained competitive through all four quarters.
For fans analyzing the quarterback performances, rushing production, receiving contributions, defensive statistics, and special teams, this matchup offers several interesting details. Caleb Williams delivered three passing touchdowns without throwing an interception, while Mason Rudolph completed 24 of his 31 attempts and helped Pittsburgh produce 186 rushing yards. However, Chicago’s ability to convert passing opportunities into touchdowns proved important.
Match overview
| Match detail | Information |
| Matchup | Chicago Bears vs Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Date | November 23, 2025 |
| Competition | NFL |
| Week | 8 (as labeled in supplied data) |
| Final score | Chicago Bears 31-28 Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Winning team | Chicago Bears |
| Losing team | Pittsburgh Steelers |
| Bears record | 8-3 |
| Steelers record | 6-5 |
| ESPN Game ID | 401772780 |
| Match status | Final |
Data accuracy note: The statistics in this article are based on the supplied box-score transcription. Some team totals, individual player figures, and defensive entries appear inconsistent. They are presented as supplied rather than silently corrected. The supplied Week 8 label and November 23 date should also be independently checked before publication.
1. Match Result and Quarter-by-Quarter Score
Chicago won by three points, completing a 31-28 result after four competitive quarters. Both teams scored seven points in the opening quarter, but Pittsburgh created separation in the second period by adding 14 points.
Chicago responded with 14 points across the third and fourth quarters. The Bears’ scoring consistency helped them protect their advantage despite Pittsburgh’s late attempt to get back into the game.
| Quarter | Pittsburgh Steelers | Chicago Bears |
| First quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Second quarter | 14 | 10 |
| Third quarter | 0 | 7 |
| Fourth quarter | 7 | 7 |
| Total | 28 | 31 |
How the game developed
- First quarter: Both teams scored seven points. Pittsburgh established an early presence through its running game, while Chicago remained within reach.
- Second quarter: Pittsburgh scored 14 points and Chicago added 10. The Steelers entered halftime with a 21-17 lead.
- Third quarter: Pittsburgh failed to score, while Chicago added seven points to take a 24-21 advantage.
- Fourth quarter: Both teams scored seven points. Chicago maintained its three-point lead to secure the victory.
The most important change occurred after halftime. Pittsburgh had scored 21 points in the first half but could not maintain that scoring pace in the third quarter. Chicago took advantage of the opportunity and moved ahead.
2. Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears Match Player Stats
The individual performances show why the game was competitive. Pittsburgh generated more rushing yards, while Chicago produced more passing touchdowns. Both teams had different offensive strengths, but the Bears converted their passing opportunities into points more effectively.
| Statistical category | Pittsburgh Steelers | Chicago Bears |
| Final score | 28 | 31 |
| Passing yards | 171 | 239 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 | 3 |
| Rushing attempts | 36 | 25 |
| Rushing yards | 186 | 99 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 2 | 1 |
| Rushing average | 5.2 | 4.0 |
| Receiving yards | 171 | 239 |
| Receptions | 24 | 19 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 1 | 3 |
| Total targets | 30 | 30 |
| Team sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 2 |
These are the supplied team figures. The receiving-yard totals match the passing-yard figures in the transcription, but some other entries require reconciliation against the official box score.
The numbers highlight an important contrast. Pittsburgh controlled more of its production through rushing, while Chicago relied more heavily on its passing attack. The Bears’ three passing touchdowns gave them a scoring advantage that offset their lower rushing output.
3. Pittsburgh Steelers Player Statistics
Pittsburgh’s offensive performance was built around its running game. The Steelers recorded 186 rushing yards on 36 attempts, averaging 5.2 yards per carry according to the supplied figures.
Their passing production was more limited. Mason Rudolph completed 24 passes from 31 attempts for 171 yards, one touchdown, and one interception. Although his completion percentage was strong, the passing attack did not produce the same scoring output as Chicago’s.
3.1 Mason Rudolph’s Passing Performance
Mason Rudolph started at quarterback for Pittsburgh and delivered an efficient completion rate. He connected on 77.4% of his attempts, giving the Steelers a reliable short and intermediate passing option.
| Passing statistic | Mason Rudolph |
| Completions | 24 |
| Attempts | 31 |
| Completion percentage | 77.4% |
| Passing yards | 171 |
| Average per attempt | 5.5 |
| Passing touchdowns | 1 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Sack yards lost | 12 |
| QBR | 54.5 |
| Passer rating | 86.9 |
Rudolph’s completion percentage was one of the more positive aspects of Pittsburgh’s passing performance. Completing 24 of 31 attempts suggests that he generally found his intended receivers and avoided excessive incompletions.
However, completion percentage does not tell the entire story.
His 171 passing yards from 31 attempts produced an average of approximately 5.5 yards per attempt. This indicates that Pittsburgh’s passing game generated relatively modest yardage despite completing a high percentage of throws.
The interception also mattered. A turnover can change field position, remove a scoring opportunity, and give the opposing offense another chance to control the game.
Rudolph’s performance therefore had two sides:
- He maintained a high completion rate.
- He delivered one passing touchdown.
- He threw one interception.
- He was sacked twice for a combined loss of 12 yards.
- His 86.9 passer rating reflected a respectable but not dominant performance.
The Steelers needed more explosive passing plays to balance their productive ground attack. Their rushing production helped them remain competitive, but the passing game did not consistently create the same scoring opportunities as Chicago’s.
3.2 Kenny Gainwell Leads Pittsburgh’s Rushing Attack
Kenny Gainwell was one of the most impressive offensive players in this matchup. His 92 rushing yards on only 10 carries gave Pittsburgh an explosive running option.
He averaged 9.2 yards per carry and recorded a longest run of 55 yards.
| Rushing statistic | Kenny Gainwell |
| Carries | 10 |
| Rushing yards | 92 |
| Average | 9.2 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 0 |
| Longest run | 55 yards |
Gainwell’s contribution was particularly valuable because he created substantial yardage without requiring a large number of carries.
His 55-yard run demonstrated how quickly a successful rushing play can change field position. Instead of needing several short gains to move downfield, Pittsburgh could threaten the defense with a single explosive run.
He also contributed as a receiver:
| Receiving statistic | Kenny Gainwell |
| Receptions | 6 |
| Targets | 6 |
| Receiving yards | 30 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 0 |
This receiving involvement made Gainwell a useful option in multiple offensive situations. His ability to contribute on the ground and through short passes gave Rudolph another way to move the chains.
Together, his rushing and receiving production accounted for 122 yards from scrimmage in the supplied statistics.
3.3 Jaylen Warren’s Contribution
Jaylen Warren provided Pittsburgh with a larger share of the conventional rushing workload.
| Rushing statistic | Jaylen Warren |
| Carries | 18 |
| Rushing yards | 68 |
| Average | 3.8 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 12 yards |
Warren received 18 carries, making him the team’s leading ball carrier by attempts. His one rushing touchdown was also important to Pittsburgh’s scoring effort.
His average of 3.8 yards per carry was lower than Gainwell’s 9.2, but the two players served different purposes.
Gainwell provided explosive gains, while Warren handled a greater number of carries and helped Pittsburgh maintain its running-game presence.
This distinction matters when evaluating rushing statistics. The player with the highest total yardage is not always the player responsible for the most consistent workload.
3.4 Other Pittsburgh Rushing Contributions
The Steelers also used several other players to add variety to their rushing attack.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Kenny Gainwell | 10 | 92 | 9.2 | 0 |
| Jaylen Warren | 18 | 68 | 3.8 | 1 |
| DK Metcalf | 2 | 12 | 6.0 | 1 |
| Jonnu Smith | 2 | 7 | 3.5 | 0 |
| Mason Rudolph | 3 | 7 | 2.3 | 0 |
| Connor Heyward | 1 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
DK Metcalf’s rushing contribution deserves particular attention. He recorded a rushing touchdown on a six-yard play according to the ESPN play-by-play account.
Using a receiver on a designed rushing play can create an unexpected defensive matchup. It also forces defenders to consider more than a traditional running back handoff.
Pittsburgh’s combined rushing attack was one of its strongest statistical areas. The team recorded 186 yards and two rushing touchdowns in the supplied totals.
3.5 Pittsburgh Receiving Statistics
Pittsburgh distributed its passing opportunities among several receivers. Calvin Austin III led the team in receiving yards, while Pat Freiermuth contributed a receiving touchdown.
| Receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Touchdowns |
| Calvin Austin III | 4 | 5 | 36 | 0 |
| Kenny Gainwell | 6 | 6 | 30 | 0 |
| Darnell Washington | 2 | 6 | 22 | 0 |
| DK Metcalf | 2 | 2 | 5 | 0 |
| Ben Skowronek | 1 | 8 | 21 | 0 |
| Jonnu Smith | 3 | 3 | 21 | 0 |
| Pat Freiermuth | 3 | Not supplied | 19 | 1 |
| Roman Wilson | 0 | Not supplied | 0 | 0 |
Targets not supplied for some individual players have been left unspecified.
Calvin Austin III
Austin led Pittsburgh in receiving yardage with 36 yards on four receptions. He received five targets and averaged nine yards per catch.
Although his total was not especially large, Austin provided a dependable option in the passing game.
His ability to secure four receptions from five opportunities helped Rudolph maintain offensive rhythm.
Kenny Gainwell
Gainwell’s six receptions from six targets were another important part of Pittsburgh’s offensive balance.
His 30 receiving yards complemented his 92 rushing yards. This dual contribution made him one of the Steelers’ most productive offensive players.
Darnell Washington
Washington recorded two receptions for 22 yards on six targets.
His target total suggests that Pittsburgh looked in his direction several times, although the number of completed receptions was limited.
DK Metcalf
Metcalf’s receiving production was surprisingly modest in the supplied statistics. He finished with two receptions for five yards.
However, his rushing touchdown gave him another way to influence the scoreboard. His overall contribution should therefore be evaluated through both receiving and rushing rather than receiving numbers alone.
Pat Freiermuth
Freiermuth recorded three catches for 19 yards and one touchdown.
His touchdown was especially important because it helped Pittsburgh keep the final score close. Short passing plays to tight ends can be valuable near the goal line, where defenses have less space to protect.
3.6 Pittsburgh’s Offensive Strengths and Weaknesses
Pittsburgh’s offensive performance reveals several useful lessons.
Strengths
- The Steelers accumulated 186 rushing yards.
- Gainwell averaged 9.2 yards per carry.
- Warren recorded 18 rushing attempts and one touchdown.
- Rudolph completed 24 of 31 passes.
- The offense produced three total touchdowns through the supplied rushing and receiving categories.
Weaknesses
- Passing production remained limited to 171 yards.
- Rudolph threw an interception.
- Pittsburgh’s leading receiver recorded only 36 yards.
- The offense struggled to maintain its earlier scoring pace after halftime.
The central issue was not the complete absence of offensive production. Pittsburgh generated enough yardage to remain competitive. The greater challenge was converting that production into consistent scoring opportunities.
4. Chicago Bears Player Statistics
Chicago’s offense approached the matchup differently. Instead of relying heavily on rushing yardage, the Bears generated 239 passing yards and three passing touchdowns according to the supplied statistics.
Caleb Williams was the central figure in that approach. His three touchdown passes and 104.3 passer rating helped Chicago produce enough points to overcome Pittsburgh’s stronger rushing numbers.
4.1 Caleb Williams’ Quarterback Performance
Caleb Williams completed 19 of 35 passing attempts for 239 yards.
He recorded three passing touchdowns and no interceptions in the supplied quarterback statistics.
| Passing statistic | Caleb Williams |
| Completions | 19 |
| Attempts | 35 |
| Completion percentage | 54.3% |
| Passing yards | 239 |
| Average per attempt | 6.8 |
| Passing touchdowns | 3 |
| Interceptions | 0 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Sack yards lost | 10 |
| QBR | 67.5 |
| Passer rating | 104.3 |
Williams’ completion percentage was lower than Rudolph’s, but his passing production was more effective in terms of scoring.
The most important number was three touchdown passes. A quarterback can complete fewer passes and still deliver a stronger offensive performance if those completions create significant yardage or scoring opportunities.
Williams also avoided throwing an interception in the supplied passing figures.
That helped Chicago maintain possession and avoid giving Pittsburgh an additional turnover opportunity through an intercepted pass.
His 239 passing yards represented a substantial contribution to the Bears’ victory.
Why Caleb Williams’ Passing Efficiency Mattered
There are several reasons his performance deserves attention.
- Touchdown production: Three passing touchdowns provided Chicago with an important scoring advantage.
- Passing yardage: His 239 yards gave the Bears a consistent way to move the ball.
- Turnover avoidance: The supplied quarterback statistics record zero interceptions.
- Scoring balance: Chicago combined passing touchdowns with a rushing touchdown and a successful field goal.
- Game management: Williams helped the Bears respond after Pittsburgh’s strong second quarter.
Williams did not need to lead every statistical category to have an important influence on the final result.
His passing touchdowns were more valuable to the scoreboard than simply accumulating additional completions.
4.2 Kyle Monangai’s Rushing Performance
Kyle Monangai led Chicago’s rushing production with 48 yards on 12 attempts.
| Rushing statistic | Kyle Monangai |
| Carries | 12 |
| Rushing yards | 48 |
| Average | 4.0 |
| Rushing touchdowns | 1 |
| Longest run | 12 yards |
Monangai’s contribution was built around steady gains rather than one exceptionally long run.
His four-yard average helped Chicago maintain a balanced offensive approach. He also recorded a rushing touchdown, adding another scoring dimension to the Bears’ attack.
A running back does not always need to produce a 50-yard play to make a meaningful difference. Short gains can help an offense manage down-and-distance situations and create manageable opportunities near the goal line.
Monangai’s touchdown was particularly valuable because it helped Chicago maintain its advantage during the fourth quarter.
4.3 Other Chicago Rushing Contributions
The Bears received additional rushing yardage from their quarterback and other offensive players.
| Player | Carries | Rushing yards | Average | Touchdowns |
| Kyle Monangai | 12 | 48 | 4.0 | 1 |
| Caleb Williams | 4 | 21 | 5.3 | 0 |
| Luther Burden III | 1 | 15 | 15.0 | 0 |
| D’Andre Swift | 8 | 15 | 1.9 | 0 |
Williams’ 21 rushing yards provided another element to the Bears’ offensive game plan.
Quarterback mobility can create problems for defensive players because it forces them to account for an additional potential ball carrier. Even when a quarterback is not producing huge rushing totals, the threat of a scramble can influence defensive positioning.
Luther Burden III also contributed 15 yards on a single rushing attempt. His 15-yard average demonstrated the value of using different offensive players in designed rushing situations.
Swift recorded eight carries for 15 yards in the supplied statistics. His contribution was smaller on the ground, but he also recorded a reception for 14 yards.
4.4 Chicago Receiving Statistics
Chicago’s receiving unit was led by DJ Moore, who recorded 64 yards and two touchdowns.
The Bears also received useful contributions from Rome Odunze, Colston Loveland, and Luther Burden III.
| Receiver | Receptions | Targets | Receiving yards | Touchdowns |
| DJ Moore | 5 | 7 | 64 | 2 |
| Rome Odunze | 3 | 9 | 53 | Not supplied |
| Colston Loveland | 4 | Not supplied | 49 | 1 |
| Luther Burden III | 3 | 5 | 46 | Not supplied |
| D’Andre Swift | 1 | Not supplied | 14 | 0 |
| Olamide Zaccheaus | 1 | Not supplied | 6 | 0 |
| Durham Smythe | 1 | Not supplied | 4 | 0 |
| Cole Kmet | 1 | Not supplied | 3 | 0 |
The table illustrates how Chicago distributed its passing production across multiple players.
Rather than depending on one receiver for all its yardage, the Bears had several options who contributed meaningful gains.
DJ Moore’s Two-Touchdown Performance
DJ Moore was Chicago’s leading receiver.
He finished with five receptions for 64 yards and two touchdowns on seven targets.
| DJ Moore statistic | Total |
| Targets | 7 |
| Receptions | 5 |
| Receiving yards | 64 |
| Average yards per reception | 12.8 |
| Receiving touchdowns | 2 |
| Longest reception | 25 yards |
Moore’s two touchdowns were a major part of Chicago’s scoring production.
His 64 receiving yards were also the highest individual total among the Bears’ receivers in the supplied statistics.
The importance of Moore’s performance goes beyond his yardage. Touchdowns are high-value plays, and a receiver who converts opportunities into scores can influence the result even without recording 100 receiving yards.
Rome Odunze’s Contribution
Rome Odunze recorded three receptions for 53 yards on nine targets.
His average of approximately 17.7 yards per reception indicates that his completed catches generated useful yardage.
Odunze’s nine targets were also the highest listed target total among Chicago’s receivers.
Although not every opportunity became a reception, his involvement gave Williams another option when the Bears needed to advance the ball.
Colston Loveland’s Touchdown Contribution
Colston Loveland recorded four receptions for 49 yards and one receiving touchdown.
His performance was important because it provided another scoring option beyond Moore.
A tight end who can contribute as both a receiver and a red-zone target creates a difficult assignment for opposing defenses. Linebackers and defensive backs must account for different routes and receiving angles.
Loveland’s touchdown demonstrated the value of having multiple players capable of finishing scoring drives.
Luther Burden III’s Receiving Production
Burden recorded three receptions for 46 yards on five targets.
He also contributed 15 rushing yards on one attempt according to the supplied figures.
This gave him 61 combined rushing and receiving yards.
His involvement across different offensive roles added flexibility to Chicago’s game plan.
4.5 Chicago’s Offensive Strengths
Chicago’s offensive performance featured several important advantages:
- Williams produced 239 passing yards.
- The quarterback recorded three passing touchdowns.
- DJ Moore scored twice through the air.
- Loveland added another receiving touchdown.
- Monangai contributed a rushing touchdown.
- Four different players recorded at least 46 receiving yards or more.
The Bears demonstrated that a balanced group of offensive contributors can be more valuable than relying on one player to produce every important play.
Their receiving unit helped create scoring opportunities, while Monangai provided a complementary rushing threat.
5. Defensive Player Statistics
Defense played an important role in this matchup. Both teams generated pressure, recorded sacks, and made tackles that influenced offensive possessions.
Chicago finished with two team sacks, while Pittsburgh recorded one according to the supplied defensive totals. The Bears also recorded an interception through Nahshon Wright.
5.1 Pittsburgh Steelers Defensive Statistics
Jalen Ramsey led Pittsburgh’s defenders in total tackles with nine. T.J. Watt also made an important contribution by recording a sack.
| Defensive player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks |
| Jalen Ramsey | 9 | 3 | Not supplied |
| Kyle Dugger | 6 | 2 | Not supplied |
| Payton Wilson | 5 | 4 | Not supplied |
| T.J. Watt | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| Patrick Queen | 5 | 1 | Not supplied |
| Keeanu Benton | 4 | 2 | Not supplied |
| Cameron Heyward | 3 | 2 | Not supplied |
Pittsburgh’s defensive team statistics were:
| Defensive category | Steelers |
| Total tackles | 64 |
| Solo tackles | 29 |
| Sacks | 1 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 |
| Passes defended | 3 |
| Quarterback hits | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 |
Jalen Ramsey’s Defensive Contribution
Ramsey led the Steelers with nine total tackles.
His involvement in nine defensive stops indicates that he was regularly involved in the action. His three solo tackles also show that several of his contributions came without assistance from another defender.
Ramsey’s role was important in a game where Chicago spread the ball among several receiving options.
When a defense faces a passing attack with multiple productive receivers, its secondary must maintain coverage discipline while also supporting the overall tackling effort.
T.J. Watt’s Pass-Rushing Impact
T.J. Watt recorded five tackles and one sack.
His sack was an important defensive contribution because it interrupted an offensive play and created a loss of yardage.
Pass rushers can influence a quarterback even when they do not record a sack. Pressure can force quicker throws, disrupt timing, and reduce the time available for receivers to complete their routes.
Watt’s presence was therefore an important part of Pittsburgh’s defensive performance.
Payton Wilson and Patrick Queen
Wilson finished with five tackles, including four solo tackles.
Queen recorded five total tackles and one solo tackle.
Both linebackers contributed to Pittsburgh’s defensive workload. Their involvement was especially relevant against Chicago’s combination of running plays, short passes, and quarterback movement.
5.2 Chicago Bears Defensive Statistics
Chicago recorded more total tackles than Pittsburgh in the supplied figures.
D’Marco Jackson led the Bears with 15 total tackles, while Amen Ogbongbemiga contributed 14.
Montez Sweat recorded two sacks and was one of Chicago’s most important pass-rushing contributors.
| Defensive player | Total tackles | Solo tackles | Sacks |
| D’Marco Jackson | 15 | 5 | Not supplied |
| Amen Ogbongbemiga | 14 | 2 | Not supplied |
| Jaquan Brisker | 7 | 4 | Not supplied |
| Nick McCloud | 7 | 2 | Not supplied |
| Kevin Byard | 6 | 4 | Not supplied |
| Nahshon Wright | 6 | 3 | Not supplied |
| Montez Sweat | 3 | 3 | 2 |
Chicago’s supplied team defensive figures were:
| Defensive category | Bears |
| Total tackles | 88 |
| Solo tackles | 40 |
| Sacks | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 5 |
| Passes defended | 4 |
| Quarterback hits | 4 |
| Interceptions | 1 |
D’Marco Jackson Leads the Bears
D’Marco Jackson recorded 15 total tackles, making him Chicago’s leading tackler.
This was a substantial workload. His involvement helped Chicago respond to Pittsburgh’s productive ground attack.
Pittsburgh recorded 186 rushing yards in the supplied totals, meaning Chicago’s defenders had to deal with a running game capable of producing both short gains and explosive plays.
Jackson’s tackle total reflects his involvement in that defensive challenge.
Amen Ogbongbemiga’s Contribution
Ogbongbemiga finished with 14 total tackles.
His performance placed him second among Chicago’s leading tacklers in the supplied statistics.
Linebackers are often involved in multiple defensive responsibilities, including stopping running backs, covering short passing routes, and reacting to quarterback movement.
Ogbongbemiga’s high tackle total highlights the amount of defensive work required to contain Pittsburgh.
Montez Sweat’s Two Sacks
Montez Sweat recorded three tackles, all listed as solo tackles, and two sacks.
His pass-rushing performance was particularly important because pressure can change an offense’s ability to sustain long drives.
The Steelers had a productive rushing attack, but Chicago’s pass rush still managed to disrupt Rudolph’s passing opportunities.
Sweat’s two sacks represented the highest individual sack total in the supplied defensive figures.
5.3 Nahshon Wright’s Interception
Nahshon Wright recorded the interception credited to Chicago’s defense.
The supplied statistics list one interception with no return yardage and no defensive touchdown.
An interception is valuable because it ends the opposing offense’s possession and gives the defense’s team another opportunity to control the ball.
The play-by-play account also records Wright intercepting a Rudolph pass intended for DK Metcalf during the opening quarter.
That early turnover was an important defensive moment because it interrupted Pittsburgh’s offensive possession.
5.4 Defensive Comparison
| Defensive statistic | Pittsburgh | Chicago |
| Total tackles | 64 | 88 |
| Solo tackles | 29 | 40 |
| Sacks | 1 | 2 |
| Tackles for loss | 2 | 5 |
| Passes defended | 3 | 4 |
| Quarterback hits | 1 | 4 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 1 |
| Defensive touchdowns | 1 | Not supplied |
The supplied defensive figures show Chicago with advantages in tackles, sacks, tackles for loss, passes defended, and quarterback hits.
Pittsburgh’s listed defensive touchdown is also notable. According to the ESPN play-by-play, Nick Herbig recovered a Caleb Williams fumble in the end zone for a Steelers touchdown.
That play illustrates why defensive scoring should be considered separately from ordinary defensive statistics. A defense can contribute directly to the scoreboard without an interception or a conventional offensive scoring drive.
6. Turnovers and Game-Changing Plays
Turnovers can have a greater effect on a close NFL game than many individual statistical categories.
In a three-point result, a fumble recovery or interception can change the outcome by affecting possession, field position, and scoring opportunities.
The supplied figures record two team fumbles for each side.
| Turnover category | Pittsburgh Steelers | Chicago Bears |
| Total fumbles | 2 | 2 |
| Fumbles lost | 1 | 2 |
| Fumble recoveries | 2 | 1 |
| Interceptions thrown | 1 | 0 |
| Defensive interceptions | 0 | 1 |
These figures should be treated cautiously because the supplied turnover summary and play-by-play details do not fully reconcile.
6.1 Pittsburgh’s Defensive Touchdown
One of the biggest moments came when T.J. Watt sacked Caleb Williams and forced a fumble.
Nick Herbig recovered the loose football in Chicago’s end zone for a Pittsburgh touchdown.
This was a major momentum-changing play.
Instead of merely stopping a Bears possession, Pittsburgh’s defense converted the opportunity directly into seven points.
Defensive touchdowns can be especially valuable because they allow a team to score without requiring its offense to move the ball downfield.
6.2 Chicago’s Interception
Nahshon Wright’s interception was another important defensive event.
By taking the ball away from Rudolph, Chicago stopped Pittsburgh from continuing its offensive possession.
The play demonstrated the importance of defensive awareness and positioning.
An interception does not always lead directly to points, but it removes an opportunity from the opposing offense and creates a new possession.
6.3 Pittsburgh’s Late Scoring Drive
Pittsburgh remained within striking distance during the fourth quarter.
Rudolph connected with Pat Freiermuth for a touchdown, bringing the Steelers to 28 points.
The scoring drive helped keep the game competitive, but Chicago retained its 31-28 advantage.
Pittsburgh’s late effort showed that the offense could still produce when the game situation demanded a response.
However, the Steelers could not generate another scoring possession before the final whistle.
7. Special Teams Player Statistics
Special teams are sometimes overlooked when people examine football box scores. However, kicking, punting, and return production can influence field position and scoring opportunities.
Both teams received contributions from their kickers and return specialists.
7.1 Pittsburgh Steelers Kicking Statistics
Chris Boswell handled Pittsburgh’s kicking responsibilities.
| Kicking statistic | Chris Boswell |
| Field goals | 0/0 |
| Extra points | 4/4 |
| Points scored | 4 |
Boswell successfully converted all four extra-point attempts listed in the supplied statistics.
The absence of a field-goal attempt suggests that Pittsburgh’s listed scoring came through touchdowns and successful extra points.
7.2 Chicago Bears Kicking Statistics
Cairo Santos contributed seven points through kicking.
| Kicking statistic | Cairo Santos |
| Field goals | 1/1 |
| Field-goal percentage | 100% |
| Longest field goal | 47 yards |
| Extra points | 4/4 |
| Total points | 7 |
Santos converted his only field-goal attempt, a 47-yard kick.
He also made all four extra-point attempts.
His contribution gave Chicago another scoring option beyond offensive touchdowns.
In a game decided by three points, a successful field goal can become particularly important.
7.3 Pittsburgh Punting Statistics
Corliss Waitman handled Pittsburgh’s punts.
| Punting statistic | Corliss Waitman |
| Punts | 3 |
| Total punt yards | 106 |
| Average | 35.3 |
| Touchbacks | 0 |
| Inside the 20 | 0 |
| Longest punt | 39 yards |
Waitman averaged 35.3 yards per punt according to the supplied data.
His longest punt traveled 39 yards.
7.4 Chicago Punting Statistics
Tory Taylor handled Chicago’s punting duties.
| Punting statistic | Tory Taylor |
| Punts | 4 |
| Total punt yards | 202 |
| Average | 50.5 |
| Touchbacks | 1 |
| Inside the 20 | 1 |
| Longest punt | 58 yards |
Taylor averaged 50.5 yards per punt, which was higher than Waitman’s listed average.
He also recorded a 58-yard longest punt.
Punting performance is not simply about distance. Placement, hang time, return opportunities, and the ability to pin an opponent deep in its own territory all matter.
7.5 Kick Return Statistics
| Team | Kick returns | Return yards | Average | Longest return |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 4 | 63 | 15.8 | 26 |
| Chicago Bears | 5 | 134 | 26.8 | 31 |
Chicago produced more kick-return yardage in the supplied statistics.
Josh Blackwell recorded three returns for 89 yards, averaging approximately 29.7 yards per return.
Devin Duvernay added two returns for 45 yards.
For Pittsburgh, Ke’Shawn Williams recorded two returns for 45 yards, while Kenny Gainwell added two returns for 18 yards.
7.6 Punt Return Statistics
| Team | Punt returns | Return yards |
| Pittsburgh Steelers | 2 | 24 |
| Chicago Bears | 0 | 0 |
Calvin Austin III recorded both of Pittsburgh’s punt returns, producing 24 total yards.
Chicago did not record a punt return in the supplied figures.
8. What the Statistics Reveal About the Game
The most interesting part of this matchup is the difference between statistical production and the final result.
Pittsburgh produced more rushing yards, but Chicago won the game.
That difference shows why individual statistical categories should not be evaluated in isolation.
8.1 Pittsburgh Won the Rushing-Yardage Battle
The Steelers recorded 186 rushing yards compared with Chicago’s 99.
This was a substantial difference.
Pittsburgh averaged 5.2 yards per carry, while Chicago averaged 4.0.
Gainwell’s explosive 55-yard run played a major role in that advantage.
However, producing more rushing yards does not automatically result in more points. A team must also convert drives into touchdowns and avoid costly turnovers.
8.2 Chicago Had the Better Passing Production
The Bears recorded 239 passing yards, compared with Pittsburgh’s 171.
Williams also recorded three passing touchdowns, while Rudolph recorded one.
This was one of the clearest differences between the offenses.
Chicago generated more passing yardage and converted more of its passing production into touchdowns.
That advantage helped offset Pittsburgh’s superior rushing numbers.
8.3 Touchdowns Were More Important Than Completion Percentage
Rudolph completed 77.4% of his passes, while Williams completed approximately 54.3%.
At first glance, Rudolph appears to have been more accurate.
However, Williams generated three passing touchdowns and 239 yards.
Rudolph produced one passing touchdown and 171 yards.
This demonstrates why completion percentage should always be considered alongside passing yards, touchdowns, turnovers, and yards per attempt.
A quarterback’s performance cannot be judged accurately by one statistic.
8.4 Chicago Had More Defensive Pressure
Chicago recorded two sacks and four quarterback hits in the supplied totals.
Pittsburgh recorded one sack and one quarterback hit.
The Bears’ ability to create pressure was important against an offense that relied heavily on its rushing attack.
Pressure can disrupt timing, force hurried decisions, and reduce the effectiveness of passing plays.
Montez Sweat’s two sacks were particularly valuable in this respect.
8.5 Chicago Received More Return Yardage
The Bears produced 134 kick-return yards, while Pittsburgh recorded 63.
The difference was 71 yards.
Return production can affect where an offense begins its next possession.
Better starting field position can reduce the distance a team needs to travel before reaching scoring range.
Although return yardage does not always translate directly into points, it can provide an important advantage over the course of a game.
9. Key Players Who Influenced the Final Result
Several players deserve attention when evaluating this matchup.
| Player | Team | Important contribution |
| Caleb Williams | Bears | 239 passing yards and 3 passing TDs |
| DJ Moore | Bears | 64 receiving yards and 2 TDs |
| Colston Loveland | Bears | 49 receiving yards and 1 TD |
| Kyle Monangai | Bears | 48 rushing yards and 1 TD |
| Kenny Gainwell | Steelers | 92 rushing yards and 30 receiving yards |
| Jaylen Warren | Steelers | 68 rushing yards and 1 TD |
| Mason Rudolph | Steelers | 171 passing yards and 1 passing TD |
| T.J. Watt | Steelers | 5 tackles and 1 sack |
| Montez Sweat | Bears | 3 tackles and 2 sacks |
| Nahshon Wright | Bears | 1 interception |
Caleb Williams: The Offensive Difference-Maker
Williams’ three passing touchdowns were central to Chicago’s scoring advantage.
His ability to connect with multiple receivers made it harder for Pittsburgh to focus exclusively on one offensive threat.
DJ Moore: The Leading Scoring Receiver
Moore’s two touchdowns gave Chicago an important advantage in the receiving department.
His 64 yards also made him the Bears’ leading receiver in the supplied statistics.
Kenny Gainwell: Pittsburgh’s Explosive Weapon
Gainwell’s 92 rushing yards and 30 receiving yards made him one of the Steelers’ most productive offensive players.
His 55-yard run was particularly important.
Montez Sweat: Chicago’s Defensive Leader in Sacks
Sweat’s two sacks helped Chicago disrupt Pittsburgh’s passing opportunities.
His performance was a strong example of how defensive pressure can influence a close game.
D’Marco Jackson: Chicago’s Leading Tackler
Jackson’s 15 tackles reflected his extensive involvement in Chicago’s defensive effort.
He was particularly important against Pittsburgh’s productive ground attack.
10. Statistical Accuracy: Important Box Score Details to Check
A detailed statistical article should distinguish between verified game events and figures that may need correction.
The supplied transcription contains several areas that should be checked before treating every figure as an official final total.
| Item | Supplied information | Verification consideration |
| Game date | November 23, 2025 | Confirm against the official game record |
| Competition week | Week 8 | Check the schedule listing |
| Chicago passing touchdowns | 3 | Compare quarterback and receiving touchdown totals |
| Pittsburgh defensive touchdowns | 1 | Play-by-play identifies a fumble recovery touchdown |
| Team receiving yards | 171 and 239 | Reconcile with individual receiving totals |
| Team rushing yards | 186 and 99 | Reconcile individual attempts and yardage |
| Defensive tackles | 64 and 88 | Check the official defensive box score |
| Fumbles and recoveries | Multiple entries | Compare individual and team turnover records |
There is also an important distinction between the supplied match statistics and the actual sequence of events.
The ESPN play-by-play account identifies several notable moments:
- Nahshon Wright intercepted Mason Rudolph in the first quarter.
- T.J. Watt forced a Caleb Williams fumble that Nick Herbig recovered for a touchdown.
- Jaylen Warren scored a rushing touchdown.
- Pat Freiermuth caught a late touchdown pass.
- Chicago maintained its 31-28 lead through the end of the game.
These events help explain the scoring sequence and provide useful context beyond a basic statistical table.
The original game record can be consulted through the ESPN Steelers vs Bears play-by-play and game record.
ESPN
For publication-quality accuracy, the final player tables should be reconciled with the official box score rather than assuming every copied team total is correct.
11. How to Analyze NFL Player Statistics More Effectively
A box score contains many numbers, but not all statistics have equal value.
Readers can understand a game more accurately by examining the relationship between individual performances and team results.
Here are five useful approaches.
11.1 Compare Passing Yards With Passing Touchdowns
Passing yards measure how much ground a quarterback covers through the air.
Touchdowns show how effectively that passing production contributes to scoring.
A quarterback with fewer passing yards can still have a stronger performance if he produces more touchdowns and avoids turnovers.
The comparison between Williams and Rudolph illustrates this difference.
11.2 Examine Rushing Efficiency
Total rushing yards are useful, but average yards per carry provide additional context.
Gainwell averaged 9.2 yards per carry, while Warren averaged 3.8.
This difference shows why individual running-back performances should not be combined into a single team total without considering each player’s contribution.
11.3 Evaluate Receiver Production Beyond Catches
Receptions alone do not explain a receiver’s complete contribution.
Consider:
- Targets
- Receptions
- Receiving yards
- Yards per reception
- Touchdowns
- Longest reception
DJ Moore’s two touchdowns were especially valuable, even though his receiving yardage remained below 100.
11.4 Consider Defensive Pressure and Turnovers Together
Sacks, quarterback hits, interceptions, forced fumbles, and fumble recoveries help explain how defenses influence a game.
Chicago’s two sacks and Pittsburgh’s defensive touchdown demonstrate that defensive contributions can affect the scoreboard in different ways.
11.5 Connect Player Statistics to the Final Score
The final step is to connect individual statistics to the actual outcome.
For example:
- Williams’ passing touchdowns helped Chicago score 31 points.
- Gainwell’s rushing production helped Pittsburgh remain competitive.
- Sweat’s sacks disrupted the Steelers’ passing attack.
- Chicago’s receiving production gave the Bears a more effective scoring balance.
This approach creates a more useful game analysis than simply repeating player names and numbers.
12. Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Pittsburgh Steelers vs Chicago Bears game?
The Chicago Bears defeated the Pittsburgh Steelers 31-28 on November 23, 2025, according to the supplied game record.
2. How many passing yards did Caleb Williams record?
Caleb Williams recorded 239 passing yards, completing 19 of 35 attempts. The supplied statistics credit him with three passing touchdowns and zero interceptions.
3. How many passing yards did Mason Rudolph record?
Mason Rudolph recorded 171 passing yards on 24 completions from 31 attempts. He threw one touchdown and one interception in the supplied statistics.
4. Who was Pittsburgh’s leading rusher?
Kenny Gainwell led Pittsburgh with 92 rushing yards on 10 carries. He averaged 9.2 yards per carry and recorded a longest run of 55 yards.
5. Who led Chicago in receiving yards?
DJ Moore led Chicago with 64 receiving yards on five receptions. He also recorded two receiving touchdowns.
6. Which defensive player recorded the most sacks?
Montez Sweat led the supplied individual sack statistics with two sacks for Chicago. T.J. Watt recorded one sack for Pittsburgh.
13. Conclusion
The Pittsburgh Steelers and Chicago Bears produced a competitive NFL matchup that ended with Chicago securing a 31-28 victory. Both teams demonstrated different offensive strengths, with Pittsburgh generating more rushing yards and Chicago producing greater passing yardage and more passing touchdowns.
Caleb Williams delivered an important performance with 239 passing yards and three touchdowns. DJ Moore led the Bears’ receivers with 64 yards and two touchdowns, while Colston Loveland added another receiving score. Kyle Monangai also contributed a rushing touchdown.
Pittsburgh received an impressive rushing performance from Kenny Gainwell, who recorded 92 yards on 10 carries. Jaylen Warren added 68 rushing yards and a touchdown, while Mason Rudolph completed 24 passes for 171 yards.
Defensively, Chicago benefited from Montez Sweat’s two sacks, Nahshon Wright’s interception, and a strong tackling performance from D’Marco Jackson. Pittsburgh also created a major scoring moment through its defensive fumble recovery touchdown.
Ultimately, the difference came from Chicago’s ability to turn its passing opportunities into points and maintain a narrow advantage. The matchup demonstrates why quarterback efficiency, red-zone production, turnovers, defensive pressure, and individual player contributions must all be considered when evaluating an NFL result.
