Skip to content
Scheme Scoreby Nothing But Bet
GlossaryPlayer prop gambling research. Not advice.

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Cincinnati Bengals

What the market posted on this game, what the public did with it, which concepts decide it, and who is covered on each side.

Board generated
Aug 28, 12:12 PM EDT
Line captured
2026-09-09
Dated to the day. One capture, so no movement.
Matchup card captured
2026-09-08
Prior-season concept ranks, not a 2026 measurement.
Covered players
17
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
7
Cincinnati Bengals
10

The market on this game

The line

2026 week 1

One dated capture, so there is no movement and no closing number here. Prices are American odds as published. No operator is named.

Spread and moneyline, by side
SideSpreadSpread priceMoneyline
Tampa Bay BuccaneersTB+3.5no price+164
Cincinnati BengalsCIN-3.5no price-198
Total, and the team totals it implies
MarketNumberOverUnder
Game total50.5no priceno price
Tampa Bay Buccaneers implied23.5derived here, not posted
Cincinnati Bengals implied27.5derived here, not posted

No implied team totals. They need both a posted total and a posted spread, and this game is missing one of them.

Kickoff: Sun, Sep 13, 1:00 PM EDT. Venue is carried by no source on this desk, so none is shown.

The public split

2026 week 1

Cash is the share of money on a side. Tickets is the share of bets. The two sides of each market are printed together because that is what makes the denominator visible: each pair sums to one hundred. The vendor publishes shares only, so no dollar amount and no ticket count stands behind them.

No public split was published for this game.

What decides it

What decides this game

Season 2025 (default)

Ranked by FantasyPoints’s own leverage figure: how far apart the two units rank, weighted by how often the concept is on the field. Ranks are out of thirty-two. Usage is that unit’s own share of its plays, published as a share with no snap count behind it. A concept appears once per offense, so a label you see twice is two different mismatches, not a repeat.

Top concepts by leverage, both offenses
ConceptOffenseOffense rankDefense rankUsageFavoursLeverage
MotionOffensive IdentityTampa Bay Buccaneers9 of 3228 of 3267.6%Tampa Bay BuccaneersTampa Bay Buccaneers12.84
Pass gameSummaryTampa Bay Buccaneers16 of 3228 of 32every playTampa Bay Buccaneers12
Explosive playsSummaryCincinnati Bengals26 of 3215 of 32every playTampa Bay Buccaneers11
Explosive playsSummaryTampa Bay Buccaneers18 of 3229 of 32every playTampa Bay Buccaneers11
Short passingPass DepthCincinnati Bengals27 of 326 of 3248.3%Cincinnati BengalsTampa Bay Buccaneers10.14
Two-high coveragePassing SplitsTampa Bay Buccaneers10 of 3232 of 3243.3%Cincinnati BengalsTampa Bay Buccaneers9.53
Overall EPA/playSummaryTampa Bay Buccaneers20 of 3229 of 32every playTampa Bay Buccaneers9
Run gameSummaryTampa Bay Buccaneers22 of 3230 of 32every playTampa Bay Buccaneers8
Under pressureBlitz & PressureTampa Bay Buccaneers6 of 3223 of 3237%Cincinnati BengalsTampa Bay Buccaneers6.29
3-WR sets (11 personnel)Personnel UsageTampa Bay Buccaneers19 of 3228 of 3269.1%Tampa Bay BuccaneersTampa Bay Buccaneers6.22

Who is covered

The grade and the score are prior-season evidence. The line and the two prices beside them are this week’s capture. They are different years and the column heads say so; nothing here reconciles one to the other.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Grade mix: A+ 1B 4C 2

Tampa Bay Buccaneers at Cincinnati Bengals
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Cade OttonTEA+3.0428.5-114-1156
  • strongly favorable TE funnel vs Cincinnati Bengals
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Bucky IrvingRBB0.5513.5-117-1135
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Emeka EgbukaWRB0.4453.5-115-1153
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Rachaad WhiteRBB0.40player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Tez JohnsonWRB0.31no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Chris GodwinWRC-0.1441.5-115-1155
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Sterling ShepardWRC-0.17player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix

Cincinnati Bengals

Grade mix: A+ 1A 2B 2C 2D 1F 2

Cincinnati Bengals hosting Tampa Bay Buccaneers
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Noah FantTEA+1.94player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • mildly favorable TE funnel vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Mike GesickiTEA1.0020.5-113-1143
  • mildly favorable TE funnel vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Ja'Marr ChaseWRA0.9985.5-115-1143
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Samaje PerineRBB0.676.5-120-1106
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Tanner HudsonTEB0.58player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • mildly favorable TE funnel vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Chase BrownRBC0.2923.5-115-1156
  • favorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Andrei IosivasWRC-0.18no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • favorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Drew SampleTED-0.19no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • mildly favorable TE funnel vs Tampa Bay Buccaneers
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Mitchell TinsleyWRF-1.18player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix
Tee HigginsWRF-1.3461.5-115-1154
  • unfavorable man/zone fit from the receiver's man-vs-zone production split
  • unfavorable usage fit: target share tilts with this defense's coverage mix

Where the fixture comes from. Who hosts is not in the Scheme Score export. It is read from the prop capture, which marks an away team, and cross-checked against the FantasyPoints matchup cards, which title themselves the same way. The two agree on 16 of 16 games. Neither source carries a venue, so none is shown.

Where the price comes from. From one dated prop capture, the same one the Scheme Score export now carries on its own priced rows, so the feed and this page state one answer rather than two. A line here is the consensus across independent sources in that capture, joined to the board by player name and team, and the two prices are the median quote at that line. A row with no line was quoted by nobody in the capture under the name and team the board uses; that is unpriced, not a line of zero. The Sources column says how many sources stood behind a number; it never says which ones, and no operator is named anywhere on this site. The capture is dated 2026-09-09 and is recorded to the day, not to a clock time, so no reader may date it more finely. One capture, so there is no line movement and no closing line.

Availability is not stated here. The 2026 week 1 practice report on this desk carries eleven rows across two of the thirty-two teams, and not one of them states a report status. Official inactives are published in no source here. So these pages say nothing about who plays, and a player appearing on them is not evidence that he will.

Scheme Score is a matchup feature built for player-prop gambling research. It is one input to a betting decision, not a standalone player projection, hit probability, expected value estimate, or stake size. Most rows on this board now carry a grade. The man and zone coverage signal is live: both the man/zone fit and the usage fit legs contribute to a grade, reflecting whether a receiver's style and usage lean toward the coverage this defense plays most. The slot coverage funnel is a direct measurement from PFF's slot coverage report, not an estimate. Some inputs are still missing. Direct TE and RB receiving funnels are not available: tight ends run through the linebacker coverage proxy, and running backs get no receiving funnel signal at all. Defender coverage grades still do not contribute to any grade, because that leg needs each defense's 2026 returning-share data, which does not exist here. The defensive coordinator table is an unfilled stub, so no coordinator discount is applied to any row. A small number of rows stay ungraded because the player name on that row is ambiguous and the grader skips rather than guesses. This board is two tiers. 134 of 290 rows are priced: they carry a posted receiving-yards line from one dated prop capture, joined to the board by player name and team, plus the median over and under price quoted at that line and a count of how many independent sources stood behind it. The other 156 rows carry no line, which means no source in that capture quoted them under the name and team this board uses; that is unpriced, not a line of zero, and it is not a claim that the player will not play. Which operator quoted a number is withheld everywhere in this feed; how many stood behind it is published instead. The capture is recorded to the day and not to a clock time, so no reader may date it more finely, and it is a single capture, so there is no line movement and no closing line here. The line does not enter Scheme Score: the grade is computed from prior-season scheme and usage evidence alone, so a grade is never a projection of the line beside it.