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

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Arizona Cardinals

The defense this roster faces, what it allowed by position, every covered pass catcher with the market's number on him, and the evidence under each grade.

Board generated
Aug 28, 12:12 PM EDT
Line captured
2026-09-09
Dated to the day. One capture, so no movement.
Coverage table
2025 season
Prior season. Not a 2026 measurement of anything.

This week: away at Los Angeles Chargers. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.

Covered players
10
With a posted line
3
Strongest grade
A+
Ungraded
0
WR
5
RB
3
TE
2

The defense opposite

The defense opposite

2025 season

Los Angeles Chargers on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 589 dropbacks, and each one prints the count it came from so it can be checked against the number beside it. The rank is against the other thirty-one teams. None of this is 2026: a coordinator change or a personnel change is not in it.

Coverage and personnel rates
RateShare of dropbacks
Man19.2%113 of 589 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Zone76.1%448 of 589 dropbacksrank 9 of 32
Press14.1%83 of 589 dropbacksrank 31 of 32
Disguised33.4%197 of 589 dropbacksrank 14 of 32
Middle of field closed41.8%246 of 589 dropbacksrank 31 of 32
Middle of field open58.2%343 of 589 dropbacksrank 2 of 32
Nickel personnel60.8%358 of 589 dropbacksrank 25 of 32
Base personnel8.8%52 of 589 dropbacksrank 30 of 32
DB heavy personnel29.7%175 of 589 dropbacksrank 3 of 32
Rotates to single high27.2%160 of 589 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Rotates to two high6.3%37 of 589 dropbacksrank 26 of 32
Splits the safetiesnot reported
Coverage shells
ShellShare of dropbacks
Cover 04.2%25 of 589 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Cover 19.8%58 of 589 dropbacksrank 30 of 32
Cover 213.8%81 of 589 dropbacksrank 16 of 32
Cover 2 man2.7%16 of 589 dropbacksrank 9 of 32
Cover 331.9%188 of 589 dropbacksrank 14 of 32
Cover 422.2%131 of 589 dropbacksrank 4 of 32
Cover 5not reported
Cover 68.1%48 of 589 dropbacksrank 17 of 32

Cover 5 is reported by neither coverage source for any team, and the split-safety rate arrives as an identical zero for all thirty-two with no count behind it. Both are shown as unreported. Neither is a defence that never plays them.

What that defense allowed, by position

prior season

The allowed totals are a completed prior season: the game counts of 17 to 21 describe a regular season plus playoffs. PFF does not label the season in this export. captured 2026-09-08, before any 2026 game, so the completed season behind these totals is 2025. Recorded as an inference, not as something the file says.

Allowed to pass catchers, prior season
PositionRank allowedPointsPer gameTargetsCatchesYardsTDYards per targetCatch rate
WR3 of 32291.416.2over 18 games3131872279107.28on 313 targets59.7%of 313 targets
TE9 of 32120.16.7over 18 games1027378177.66on 102 targets71.6%of 102 targets
RB6 of 32276.615.4over 18 games916452205.74on 91 targets70.3%of 91 targets
Allowed to the quarterback, prior season
Rank allowedPointsPer gameCompletionsYardsTDInterceptionsYards per attempt
4 of 32308.917.2over 18 games323of 533 attempts357417206.71on 533 attempts

Rank 32 allowed the most fantasy points to the position and rank 1 allowed the least. A T prefix is a tie. The game counts run past seventeen because they include the playoffs.

Covered players

Grade mix on this roster: A+ 1A 1B 2C 2D 2F 2. The grade and the score are prior-season evidence; the receiving-yards line and its two prices are this week’s capture. 3 of 10 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.

Arizona Cardinals at Los Angeles Chargers
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Bam KnightRBA+1.38no 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
Emari DemercadoRBA0.91player 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
Michael CarterRBB0.59player 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
Trey McBrideTEB0.5656.5-114-1154
  • mildly unfavorable TE funnel vs Los Angeles Chargers
  • 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
Elijah HigginsTEC0.25no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • mildly unfavorable TE funnel vs Los Angeles Chargers
  • 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
Zay JonesWRC-0.16player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • 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
Marvin Harrison Jr.WRD-0.7248.5-114-1172
  • 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
Michael WilsonWRD-0.7341.5-115-1154
  • 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
Xavier WeaverWRF-0.73player 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
Greg DortchWRF-1.72player not matchedno priceno pricenone
  • unfavorable slot funnel vs Los Angeles Chargers
  • 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

The evidence under the grades

Receiver evidence

2025 season

The board asserts a coverage lean. This is what it is asserting from: FantasyPoints’s own receiving splits, yards per route run against man and against zone with the routes behind each, the win rate in each, and the share of the offence the receiver held. Prior season, published under a 2026 board, and a rookie or a player who moved has no history to show.

Man and zone production, separation, and share of the offence
PlayerYards per route, manYards per route, zoneWin rate, manWin rate, zoneTarget shareRoute share
Bam Knight0.2on 25 routes1.72on 90 routes4%on 25 routes0%on 89 routesnot reportednot reported
Emari Demercadono source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Michael Carterno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Trey McBride1.38on 128 routes2.05on 508 routes21.9%on 128 routes6%on 500 routes25.4%over 17 games89.4%over 17 games
Elijah Higgins0.39on 46 routes1.24on 225 routes8.9%on 45 routes2.2%on 224 routes5.4%over 17 games37.4%over 17 games
Zay Jonesno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Marvin Harrison Jr.2.22on 63 routes1.68on 278 routes22.2%on 63 routes13%on 276 routes17.1%over 12 games72.2%over 12 games
Michael Wilson2.4on 117 routes1.55on 455 routes33.6%on 116 routes9.7%on 453 routes19.1%over 17 games80.6%over 17 games
Xavier Weaverno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Greg Dortchno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached

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.