Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats
The Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers match player stats from January 4, 2026, tell a much more detailed story than the final score alone. Minnesota defeated Green Bay 16-3, but the decisive factors were not simply points on the scoreboard. The Vikings controlled the rushing battle, produced more consistent offensive production, generated four sacks, and converted their scoring opportunities into points. Green Bay, meanwhile, struggled to move the ball through the air and could not turn its rushing production into touchdowns.
This matchup is especially useful for understanding how individual player performances combine to create a team result. Minnesota did not need a huge passing performance from J.J. McCarthy because its running game, defense, kicking game, and overall efficiency provided enough support. Green Bay gained 128 rushing yards, but 34 passing yards from Clayton Tune made sustained offensive drives extremely difficult.
The game was played on January 4, 2026, and ended with Minnesota ahead 16-3. The Vikings scored in three different quarters, while Green Bay’s only points came in the fourth quarter.
Game Overview
| Category | Minnesota Vikings | Green Bay Packers |
| Final Score | 16 | 3 |
| Record | 9-8 | 9-7-1 |
| Home/Away Record | 4-4 Home | 4-4-1 Away |
| Q1 | 3 | 0 |
| Q2 | 10 | 0 |
| Q3 | 0 | 0 |
| Q4 | 3 | 3 |
| Total First Downs | Not provided | Not provided |
| Team Passing | 226 yards | 34 yards |
| Team Rushing | 137 yards | 128 yards |
| Sacks | 4 | 2 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Fumbles Lost | 1 | 1 |
| Field Goals | 3/3 | 1/1 |
The most important statistical difference was offensive balance. Minnesota produced 226 passing yards and 137 rushing yards, giving the Vikings multiple ways to sustain possession and create scoring opportunities.
Green Bay’s 128 rushing yards were respectable, but the passing game produced only 34 yards. That imbalance placed significant pressure on the Packers’ rushing attack and defense.
Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers Match Player Stats: Passing
The passing statistics are among the clearest indicators of why this game developed the way it did.
Minnesota used two quarterbacks. J.J. McCarthy completed 14 of 23 passes for 182 yards, while Max Brosmer completed 7 of 8 attempts for 57 yards.
Together, the Vikings completed 21 of 31 passes for 226 yards.
J.J. McCarthy’s Performance
J.J. McCarthy finished with:
- 14 completions
- 23 attempts
- 182 passing yards
- 0 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 85.8 passer rating
McCarthy’s numbers were not built around touchdown passes. Instead, his value came from maintaining a functional passing attack and consistently moving the offense forward.
His 182 yards represented the majority of Minnesota’s passing production. More importantly, he avoided turnovers through the air.
That matters in a game where Minnesota’s defense was already controlling the Packers’ offense.
McCarthy did not need to throw multiple touchdowns because Minnesota’s rushing attack and field-goal production supplied points.
Max Brosmer’s Efficient Contribution
Max Brosmer completed 7 of 8 passes for 57 yards.
His numbers were particularly efficient:
- 7 completions
- 8 attempts
- 57 yards
- 0 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 96.4 rating
An 87.5 percent completion rate is an impressive statistical contribution, although the relatively small number of attempts means it should not be interpreted in the same way as a full-game starting quarterback performance.
Still, his contribution helped Minnesota finish with 226 team passing yards.
Clayton Tune’s Difficult Afternoon
Green Bay’s passing production was dramatically lower.
Clayton Tune completed only 6 of 11 passes for 34 yards.
His final line was:
- 6 completions
- 11 attempts
- 34 yards
- 0 touchdowns
- 0 interceptions
- 4 sacks
- 60.4 rating
The most striking number is the 34 passing yards.
Tune averaged only 5.7 yards per completion, and the four sacks added another layer of pressure to an already limited passing attack.
Green Bay’s receivers also struggled to generate significant production. The Packers finished with only six receptions for 34 receiving yards.
That means Green Bay’s entire passing game generated the same number of yards as Tune’s individual passing total.
The Passing Efficiency Gap
The passing comparison shows a major advantage for Minnesota.
The Vikings completed 21 of 31 attempts for 226 yards. Green Bay completed 6 of 11 for 34 yards.
| Passing Category | Vikings | Packers |
| Completions | 21 | 6 |
| Attempts | 31 | 11 |
| Completion Rate | 67.7% | 54.5% |
| Passing Yards | 226 | 34 |
| Passing TDs | 0 | 0 |
| Interceptions | 0 | 0 |
| Sacks | 2 | 4 |
Minnesota attempted nearly three times as many passes and gained more than six times as many passing yards.
Neither team threw an interception, so the passing advantage was primarily about volume, completion efficiency, and yardage rather than turnover creation.
Minnesota’s Rushing Attack Was a Major Difference
Minnesota’s rushing attack produced 137 yards on 31 carries.
That works out to an average of 4.4 yards per carry.
The Vikings also recorded one rushing touchdown.
Jordan Mason was the standout runner.
Jordan Mason’s Impact
Mason carried the ball 14 times for 94 yards.
His statistical line included:
- 14 carries
- 94 rushing yards
- 6.7 yards per carry
- 24-yard long
- 1 rushing touchdown for the team
The 6.7-yard average is particularly notable.
Mason was responsible for a large portion of Minnesota’s rushing production, and his 24-yard longest run shows that the Vikings were capable of generating explosive gains on the ground.
His 94 yards represented roughly 69 percent of Minnesota’s 137 rushing yards.
That makes Mason one of the most important individual players when evaluating the game.
The Vikings did not need to rely entirely on their passing attack because Mason provided efficient rushing production.
Green Bay’s Rushing Game Was Better Than the Final Score Suggests
Green Bay rushed 35 times for 128 yards.
That produced an average of 3.7 yards per carry.
Chris Brooks led the Packers with:
- 13 carries
- 61 yards
- 4.7 yards per carry
- 12-yard long
Brooks provided the most consistent rushing production for Green Bay.
However, the key problem was that the Packers could not complement that rushing performance with an effective passing attack.
A team can gain more than 100 rushing yards and still struggle offensively when the passing game produces only 34 yards.
That is exactly what happened here.
Comparing the Two Leading Rushers
The rushing battle was relatively close in total team yardage, but Minnesota had the more explosive individual performance.
| Player | Carries | Yards | Average | Long |
| Jordan Mason, Minnesota | 14 | 94 | 6.7 | 24 |
| Chris Brooks, Green Bay | 13 | 61 | 4.7 | 12 |
Mason averaged two yards more per carry than Brooks.
That difference matters because explosive rushing gains can change field position quickly and create shorter scoring opportunities.
Mason also accounted for a much larger percentage of his team’s rushing output.
Receiving Statistics
The receiving statistics provide another major indication of the difference between the offenses.
Minnesota recorded:
- 21 receptions
- 239 receiving yards
- 11.4 yards per reception
- 30 targets
- 0 receiving touchdowns
- 26-yard longest reception
Green Bay recorded:
- 6 receptions
- 34 receiving yards
- 5.7 yards per reception
- 10 targets
- 0 receiving touchdowns
- 8-yard longest reception
The difference is enormous.
Minnesota produced 239 receiving yards, while Green Bay produced only 34.
Justin Jefferson Leads Minnesota
Justin Jefferson was the clear receiving standout.
He finished with:
- 8 receptions
- 101 yards
- 12.6 yards per reception
- 18-yard long
- 11 targets
Jefferson’s 101 yards represented more than 42 percent of Minnesota’s 239 receiving yards.
His 11 targets were also the highest individual target total listed in the supplied statistics.
The most important feature of his performance was not simply the 100-yard threshold. It was his combination of volume and efficiency.
Eight receptions from 11 targets means Jefferson converted a substantial portion of the opportunities directed toward him.
He also averaged 12.6 yards per reception, giving Minnesota both reliable completions and meaningful yardage.
Green Bay’s Receiving Production
Jakobie Keeney-James led Green Bay’s receiving statistics with:
- 2 receptions
- 15 yards
- 7.5 yards per reception
- 8-yard long
Those numbers highlight how difficult it was for the Packers to generate passing offense.
Green Bay’s entire receiving group combined for just 34 yards.
That is fewer receiving yards than Minnesota gained on its top receiver alone.
Why Justin Jefferson’s Performance Mattered
A 101-yard receiving performance does not automatically mean a player dominated every aspect of a game.
In this matchup, however, Jefferson’s production helped provide Minnesota with an offensive outlet that Green Bay could not match.
The Vikings could move the ball through the air while also running effectively.
That creates a difficult defensive problem.
If Green Bay focused heavily on stopping the run, Minnesota had Jefferson and the passing game available. If the Packers concentrated on the passing game, Mason’s rushing efficiency provided another route to offensive success.
This balance is one of the most important insights from the statistics.
Defensive Player Statistics
Minnesota’s defense produced four sacks, eight tackles for loss, three pass defenses, and five quarterback hits.
Green Bay recorded two sacks, four tackles for loss, two pass defenses, and seven quarterback hits.
Minnesota’s Defensive Leaders
Eric Wilson led Minnesota with nine total tackles, including three solo tackles.
Dallas Turner led the Vikings in sacks with two.
The Vikings finished with:
- 63 total tackles
- 35 solo tackles
- 4 sacks
- 8 tackles for loss
- 3 pass defenses
- 5 quarterback hits
The four sacks were especially important because Green Bay’s passing attack was already struggling to generate yardage.
Dallas Turner’s Two-Sack Performance
Dallas Turner recorded two sacks.
That was the highest sack total by an individual player in the supplied game statistics.
Two sacks can have a meaningful effect beyond the raw yardage lost.
A sack can eliminate a potential positive play, create a longer down-and-distance situation, disrupt timing, and make a drive much harder to sustain.
With Green Bay already producing only 34 passing yards, the Vikings’ four sacks further restricted the Packers’ ability to recover through the air.
Green Bay’s Defensive Leaders
Jamon Johnson led Green Bay with 10 total tackles and three solo tackles.
Barryn Sorrell recorded one sack, making him Green Bay’s leading individual sack producer.
The Packers finished with:
- 69 total tackles
- 39 solo tackles
- 2 sacks
- 4 tackles for loss
- 2 pass defenses
- 7 quarterback hits
Green Bay actually recorded more total tackles than Minnesota.
That is an important reminder that total tackles alone do not determine defensive success.
A defense can accumulate tackles because the opposing offense runs many plays or completes many passes.
The more useful question is what those tackles accomplish.
Minnesota’s defense produced more sacks and tackles for loss while limiting Green Bay to three points.
Minnesota’s Defensive Pressure Changed the Game
The defensive statistics suggest that Minnesota consistently disrupted Green Bay’s offensive rhythm.
The Vikings produced twice as many sacks as the Packers.
They also doubled Green Bay’s tackles for loss, with eight compared with four.
That combination indicates that Minnesota was not merely tackling plays after they developed. The defense was making disruptive plays behind or near the line of scrimmage.
This is particularly relevant because Green Bay’s passing offense was already limited.
A passing game that produces 34 yards has very little margin for error. Sacks and tackles for loss can quickly eliminate the small gains needed to maintain drives.
Field Goals Were More Important Than They Look
Minnesota’s kicking game produced 10 points.
Will Reichard converted all three of his field-goal attempts.
His line was:
- 3 field goals
- 3 attempts
- 100 percent
- 43-yard long
- 10 points
Green Bay’s Brandon McManus also made his only attempt.
He finished 1 of 1, with a 24-yard long and three points.
This means Minnesota’s kickers accounted for 10 of the team’s 16 points.
That is a significant part of the final result.
The Vikings did not need a high-scoring passing performance because their offense consistently created enough opportunities for Reichard to convert field goals.
Scoring Breakdown by Quarter
The scoring pattern shows how Minnesota gradually established control.
| Quarter | Minnesota | Green Bay |
| First | 3 | 0 |
| Second | 10 | 0 |
| Third | 0 | 0 |
| Fourth | 3 | 3 |
| Total | 16 | 3 |
Minnesota scored 13 unanswered points across the first two quarters.
The Vikings then added three points in the fourth quarter.
Green Bay did not score until the fourth quarter.
That means the Packers spent most of the game playing from behind without the offensive production needed to generate a comeback.
Field Position and Punting
The punting statistics also provide useful context.
Green Bay punter Daniel Whelan recorded:
- 8 punts
- 431 yards
- 53.9-yard average
- 1 touchback
- 5 inside the 20
- 68-yard long
Minnesota’s Ryan Wright recorded:
- 4 punts
- 196 yards
- 49.0-yard average
- 0 touchbacks
- 2 inside the 20
- 55-yard long
Green Bay punted twice as often as Minnesota.
That is consistent with the broader offensive picture.
The Packers were unable to sustain enough drives to produce points, leading to repeated fourth-down situations and punts.
Whelan’s 53.9-yard average was strong, and five punts inside the 20 show useful directional field-position production.
But strong punting cannot replace offensive scoring.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Neither team recorded an interception.
However, each team lost one fumble.
Green Bay had two fumbles and lost one.
Minnesota had one fumble and lost one.
That creates a balanced comparison in terms of turnovers lost.
The Vikings therefore did not win because they completely eliminated mistakes.
Instead, their advantage came from what they did between turnovers.
They produced more passing yards, slightly more rushing yards, more sacks, more tackles for loss, and substantially more points.
This distinction matters when analyzing the game.
The Real Statistical Story Behind the 16-3 Score
The final score can look straightforward, but the underlying statistics reveal several different layers.
1. Minnesota Won the Passing Yardage Battle
The Vikings gained 226 passing yards compared with 34 for Green Bay.
That is a 192-yard advantage.
2. Minnesota Also Won the Rushing Yardage Battle
The Vikings rushed for 137 yards.
Green Bay rushed for 128.
The nine-yard difference was relatively small, but Minnesota’s 4.4 yards per carry was better than Green Bay’s 3.7.
3. Minnesota Generated More Defensive Disruption
Minnesota recorded four sacks and eight tackles for loss.
Green Bay recorded two sacks and four tackles for loss.
4. Minnesota Had a Major Receiving Advantage
The Vikings produced 239 receiving yards.
The Packers produced only 34.
That is a 205-yard difference.
5. Minnesota’s Kicking Was Perfect
Reichard made all three field-goal attempts.
Green Bay also made its only field-goal attempt, but Minnesota generated more opportunities.
A Closer Look at Offensive Balance
Minnesota’s offense was unusually balanced in one important sense.
The Vikings produced:
- 226 passing yards
- 137 rushing yards
Green Bay produced:
- 34 passing yards
- 128 rushing yards
Minnesota therefore had 363 combined passing and rushing yards based on the supplied team statistics.
Green Bay had 162.
That creates a 201-yard difference in combined passing and rushing production.
This is arguably the clearest numerical explanation for the 13-point margin.
The Vikings were able to move the ball in multiple ways, while Green Bay’s offense became heavily dependent on rushing.
Why Green Bay’s 128 Rushing Yards Were Not Enough
It would be easy to look at 128 rushing yards and conclude that Green Bay’s running game was successful.
The number itself was respectable.
The problem was how the rushing production interacted with the passing game.
A modern offense generally needs multiple avenues for moving the ball.
Green Bay’s 128 rushing yards were accompanied by only 34 passing yards.
That means the Packers produced 162 combined rushing and passing yards.
Minnesota’s offense produced 363.
So although Green Bay’s rushing numbers were not disastrous by themselves, they were not enough to compensate for the passing deficiency.
Why Minnesota Did Not Need Passing Touchdowns
One of the interesting aspects of this game is that Minnesota’s quarterbacks combined for zero passing touchdowns.
Yet Minnesota still scored 16 points.
That happened because the Vikings combined rushing production with field goals.
The offense moved the ball through the air, established the run, and then converted scoring opportunities through Reichard.
This is an important lesson when reading player statistics.
A quarterback can have zero touchdown passes and still be part of an effective offensive performance.
The same is true for receivers.
Jefferson produced 101 yards but did not score a receiving touchdown.
His production still helped Minnesota sustain offensive pressure.
Player Statistics That Deserve the Most Attention
When evaluating the game, several players stand out.
Justin Jefferson
Jefferson’s 8 catches for 101 yards made him Minnesota’s leading receiver.
His 11 targets demonstrate that he was a major part of the passing plan.
Jordan Mason
Mason’s 94 yards on 14 carries and 6.7-yard average gave Minnesota an efficient rushing threat.
J.J. McCarthy
McCarthy produced 182 yards on 14 completions and avoided interceptions.
His performance supported an offense that did not need to rely on passing touchdowns.
Max Brosmer
Brosmer completed 7 of 8 passes for 57 yards and posted a 96.4 rating.
His limited but efficient contribution helped Minnesota reach 226 team passing yards.
Dallas Turner
Turner’s two sacks led the Vikings.
His pressure contributed to a defensive performance that limited Green Bay’s passing production.
Eric Wilson
Wilson led Minnesota with nine total tackles.
Chris Brooks
Brooks led Green Bay’s rushing attack with 61 yards on 13 carries.
Jamon Johnson
Johnson recorded 10 total tackles, leading the Packers in that category.
Clayton Tune
Tune’s 34 passing yards and four sacks summarize one of the biggest challenges facing Green Bay’s offense.
What the Matchup Says About Team Construction
The statistics also offer a broader football lesson.
Minnesota did not dominate in every individual category.
Green Bay actually had more total tackles and produced 128 rushing yards.
But Minnesota won the categories that most directly affected scoring.
The Vikings moved the ball through both passing and rushing.
They created explosive plays.
They generated pressure.
They converted field goals.
They limited Green Bay’s passing game.
This is why statistical analysis should not focus on one category.
A team can win the tackle count and still lose comfortably.
A team can rush for more than 100 yards and still struggle to score.
The most meaningful analysis connects individual statistics to the way the game actually unfolded.
Understanding the Receiving Yardage Difference
Minnesota’s 239 receiving yards compared with Green Bay’s 34 are perhaps the most striking numbers in the entire matchup.
The difference was 205 yards.
Jefferson alone accounted for 101 of Minnesota’s receiving yards.
That means his individual production exceeded Green Bay’s entire team receiving output by 67 yards.
This does not mean Jefferson single-handedly determined the game.
Rather, it shows how much more functional Minnesota’s passing structure was.
The Vikings had multiple completed passes, more targets, significantly more yardage, and a quarterback rotation that collectively produced 226 yards.
Green Bay simply did not generate a comparable passing threat.
What the Defensive Statistics Tell Us
Defensive statistics need to be interpreted in context.
Minnesota’s 63 total tackles were fewer than Green Bay’s 69.
At first glance, that might appear to favor the Packers.
But Minnesota produced:
- 4 sacks
- 8 tackles for loss
- 3 pass defenses
Green Bay produced:
- 2 sacks
- 4 tackles for loss
- 2 pass defenses
The Vikings therefore generated more disruptive defensive plays despite recording fewer total tackles.
That is an important distinction.
Tackles measure involvement.
Sacks and tackles for loss more directly demonstrate disruption.
A Statistical Framework for Analyzing This Game
For readers comparing player performances, a useful approach is to examine five areas.
Offensive Production
Start with passing and rushing yards.
Minnesota clearly had the advantage because it generated 363 combined yards from those categories compared with Green Bay’s 162.
Efficiency
Next, examine averages.
Jordan Mason averaged 6.7 yards per carry.
Chris Brooks averaged 4.7.
Minnesota’s team rushing average was also higher.
Explosive Plays
Look at long gains.
Mason’s 24-yard run was the longest rushing play listed for either team.
Minnesota’s receiving group also produced a 26-yard longest reception.
Green Bay’s longest reception was only eight yards.
Defensive Disruption
Sacks and tackles for loss show whether a defense can interrupt offensive rhythm.
Minnesota doubled Green Bay’s sack and tackle-for-loss totals.
Scoring Conversion
Finally, determine whether yardage became points.
Minnesota went 3 of 3 on field goals.
That efficiency helped turn offensive opportunities into a 16-point total.
Common Mistakes When Reading Box Score Statistics
There are several ways to misread this matchup.
Mistake 1: Looking Only at the Final Score
A 16-3 score tells you who won but does not explain why.
The player statistics reveal the offensive and defensive differences.
Mistake 2: Assuming 128 Rushing Yards Means Green Bay Played Well Offensively
Green Bay’s rushing total was respectable, but its passing production was extremely limited.
Both components must be considered together.
Mistake 3: Judging McCarthy Only by Touchdown Passes
McCarthy threw zero touchdowns.
However, he completed 14 of 23 passes for 182 yards and avoided interceptions.
The overall team offense was effective enough to win comfortably.
Mistake 4: Ignoring Field Goals
Minnesota’s three field goals accounted for 10 points.
That is a major portion of a 16-point winning total.
Mistake 5: Treating Tackles as the Entire Defensive Picture
Green Bay had more total tackles, but Minnesota had twice as many sacks and tackles for loss.
Defensive disruption is often more informative than raw tackle volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Vikings vs Packers game on January 4, 2026?
The Minnesota Vikings defeated the Green Bay Packers 16-3 on January 4, 2026.
Who was Minnesota’s leading passer?
J.J. McCarthy led Minnesota in passing with 14 completions on 23 attempts for 182 yards, with no touchdowns or interceptions.
Who led the Vikings in rushing?
Jordan Mason led Minnesota with 14 carries for 94 yards, averaging 6.7 yards per carry.
Who led the Vikings in receiving?
Justin Jefferson led Minnesota with 8 receptions for 101 yards on 11 targets.
Who led Minnesota in sacks?
Dallas Turner led the Vikings with two sacks.
How many turnovers did each team lose?
Both teams lost one fumble. Neither team recorded an interception.
Conclusion
The Minnesota Vikings vs Green Bay Packers match player stats show that Minnesota’s 16-3 victory was built on a combination of offensive balance, defensive disruption, and reliable kicking.
The Vikings gained 226 passing yards and 137 rushing yards, compared with 34 passing yards and 128 rushing yards for Green Bay. That 201-yard difference in combined passing and rushing production provides a strong statistical explanation for the final score.
Jordan Mason was one of Minnesota’s most effective offensive players, rushing for 94 yards at 6.7 yards per carry. Justin Jefferson added 101 receiving yards on eight catches and 11 targets. J.J. McCarthy contributed 182 passing yards, while Max Brosmer completed seven of eight attempts for another 57 yards.
Defensively, Dallas Turner recorded two sacks, and Minnesota produced four sacks and eight tackles for loss. Green Bay managed two sacks and four tackles for loss, but the Packers could not generate enough offensive production to stay competitive.
The kicking game also mattered. Will Reichard converted all three field-goal attempts for 10 points, while Brandon McManus made Green Bay’s only field goal.
Ultimately, the statistics show a Minnesota team that had more ways to create offense and a defense that consistently disrupted Green Bay. The Packers’ rushing attack produced 128 yards, but the lack of passing production left too little room for offensive recovery. The result was a 16-3 Minnesota victory in which the individual numbers clearly supported the team outcome.
