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

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Cincinnati Bengals

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: hosting Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.

Covered players
10
With a posted line
5
Strongest grade
A+
Ungraded
0
TE
4
WR
4
RB
2

The defense opposite

The defense opposite

2025 season

Tampa Bay Buccaneers on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 645 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
Man24%155 of 645 dropbacksrank 16 of 32
Zone72.7%469 of 645 dropbacksrank 17 of 32
Press25.7%166 of 645 dropbacksrank 12 of 32
Disguised28.2%182 of 645 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Middle of field closed49.8%321 of 645 dropbacksrank 18 of 32
Middle of field open50.2%324 of 645 dropbacksrank 14 of 32
Nickel personnel72.1%465 of 645 dropbacksrank 15 of 32
Base personnel25.7%166 of 645 dropbacksrank 5 of 32
DB heavy personnel1.7%11 of 645 dropbacksrank 27 of 32
Rotates to single high10.2%66 of 645 dropbacksrank 31 of 32
Rotates to two high17.7%114 of 645 dropbacksrank 3 of 32
Splits the safetiesnot reported
Coverage shells
ShellShare of dropbacks
Cover 04.3%28 of 645 dropbacksrank 9 of 32
Cover 114.6%94 of 645 dropbacksrank 26 of 32
Cover 216.4%106 of 645 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Cover 2 man3.4%22 of 645 dropbacksrank 6 of 32
Cover 334.6%223 of 645 dropbacksrank 6 of 32
Cover 417.4%112 of 645 dropbacksrank 12 of 32
Cover 5not reported
Cover 64.3%28 of 645 dropbacksrank 27 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
WRT18 of 32337.919.9over 17 games3201992509147.84on 320 targets62.2%of 320 targets
TE27 of 32168.79.9over 17 games131100969127.4on 131 targets76.3%of 131 targets
RB16 of 3230417.9over 17 games937986049.25on 93 targets84.9%of 93 targets
Allowed to the quarterback, prior season
Rank allowedPointsPer gameCompletionsYardsTDInterceptionsYards per attempt
31 of 3240723.9over 17 games379of 568 attempts433230137.63on 568 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 2B 2C 2D 1F 2. The grade and the score are prior-season evidence; the receiving-yards line and its two prices are this week’s capture. 5 of 10 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.

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

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
Noah Fantno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Mike Gesicki0.73on 67 routes1.55on 166 routes11.9%on 67 routes1.8%on 163 routes8.9%over 13 games46.3%over 13 games
Ja'Marr Chase1.57on 176 routes2.63on 416 routes26.4%on 174 routes9.2%on 412 routes30.2%over 16 games94.2%over 16 games
Samaje Perinenot reported0.8on 109 routes0%on 54 routes0%on 108 routesnot reportednot reported
Tanner Hudsonno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Chase Brown1.08on 90 routes1.24on 270 routes7.8%on 90 routes1.1%on 269 routesnot reportednot reported
Andrei Iosivas1.16on 155 routes0.74on 334 routes23.4%on 154 routes3%on 331 routes9.1%over 17 games73.2%over 17 games
Drew Sample0.87on 47 routes0.44on 139 routes2.1%on 47 routes0%on 138 routes2.7%over 17 games27.7%over 17 games
Mitchell Tinsleyno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Tee Higgins2.33on 140 routes1.52on 343 routes22.9%on 140 routes6.5%on 341 routes17.1%over 15 games82.6%over 15 games

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.