Pro football/Week 1/Research only
Jacksonville Jaguars
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 Cleveland Browns. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.
- Covered players
- 11
- With a posted line
- 4
- Strongest grade
- C
- Ungraded
- 1
- WR
- 6
- TE
- 3
- RB
- 2
The defense opposite
The defense opposite
2025 seasonCleveland Browns on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 564 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.
| Rate | Share of dropbacks |
|---|---|
| Man | 39.5%223 of 564 dropbacksrank 1 of 32 |
| Zone | 59%333 of 564 dropbacksrank 31 of 32 |
| Press | 32.3%182 of 564 dropbacksrank 4 of 32 |
| Disguised | 22.3%126 of 564 dropbacksrank 30 of 32 |
| Middle of field closed | 64.4%363 of 564 dropbacksrank 1 of 32 |
| Middle of field open | 35.6%201 of 564 dropbacksrank 32 of 32 |
| Nickel personnel | 55.7%314 of 564 dropbacksrank 27 of 32 |
| Base personnel | 24.8%140 of 564 dropbacksrank 6 of 32 |
| DB heavy personnel | 17.9%101 of 564 dropbacksrank 9 of 32 |
| Rotates to single high | 11.5%65 of 564 dropbacksrank 29 of 32 |
| Rotates to two high | 10.8%61 of 564 dropbacksrank 14 of 32 |
| Splits the safeties | not reported |
| Shell | Share of dropbacks |
|---|---|
| Cover 0 | 3%17 of 564 dropbacksrank 20 of 32 |
| Cover 1 | 35.5%200 of 564 dropbacksrank 1 of 32 |
| Cover 2 | 18.3%103 of 564 dropbacksrank 9 of 32 |
| Cover 2 man | 0.9%5 of 564 dropbacksrank 20 of 32 |
| Cover 3 | 28.7%162 of 564 dropbacksrank 19 of 32 |
| Cover 4 | 7.3%41 of 564 dropbacksrank 30 of 32 |
| Cover 5 | not reported |
| Cover 6 | 4.8%27 of 564 dropbacksrank 26 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 seasonThe 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.
| Position | Rank allowed | Points | Per game | Targets | Catches | Yards | TD | Yards per target | Catch rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WR | 9 of 32 | 293.5 | 17.3over 17 games | 252 | 152 | 1862 | 17 | 7.39on 252 targets | 60.3%of 252 targets |
| TE | T13 of 32 | 122.9 | 7.2over 17 games | 119 | 85 | 875 | 4 | 7.35on 119 targets | 71.4%of 119 targets |
| RB | 19 of 32 | 316.3 | 18.6over 17 games | 92 | 71 | 483 | 4 | 5.25on 92 targets | 77.2%of 92 targets |
| Rank allowed | Points | Per game | Completions | Yards | TD | Interceptions | Yards per attempt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 of 32 | 282.2 | 16.6over 17 games | 307of 485 attempts | 3188 | 24 | 11 | 6.57on 485 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: C 6F 4NG 1. The grade and the score are prior-season evidence; the receiving-yards line and its two prices are this week’s capture. 4 of 11 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.
| Player | Pos | Grade | Score | Rec yds line | Over | Under | Sources | Why the score reads this way |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LeQuint Allen | RB | C | 0.08 | no line quoted | no price | no price | none |
|
| Tim Patrick | WR | C | 0.03 | player not matched | no price | no price | none |
|
| Brian Thomas Jr. | WR | C | -0.05 | 36.5 | -117 | -114 | 4 |
|
| Dyami Brown | WR | C | -0.10 | player not matched | no price | no price | none |
|
| Parker Washington | WR | C | -0.10 | 53.5 | -120 | -111 | 2 |
|
| Travis Etienne Jr. | RB | C | -0.12 | player not matched | no price | no price | none |
|
| Travis Hunter | WR | F | -1.22 | no line quoted | no price | no price | none |
|
| Johnny Mundt | TE | F | -1.36 | player not matched | no price | no price | none |
|
| Brenton Strange | TE | F | -1.43 | 36.5 | -114 | -115 | 3 |
|
| Hunter Long | TE | F | -1.50 | player not matched | no price | no price | none |
|
| Jakobi Meyers | WR | NG | ungraded | 37.5 | -115 | -114 | 4 |
|
The evidence under the grades
Receiver evidence
2025 seasonThe 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.
| Player | Yards per route, man | Yards per route, zone | Win rate, man | Win rate, zone | Target share | Route share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LeQuint Allen | 0.08on 39 routes | 0.49on 95 routes | 0%on 38 routes | 0%on 94 routes | not reported | not reported |
| Tim Patrick | no source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached | |||||
| Brian Thomas Jr. | 2.03on 102 routes | 1.58on 316 routes | 21.8%on 101 routes | 7.6%on 314 routes | 18%over 14 games | 78.6%over 14 games |
| Dyami Brown | no source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached | |||||
| Parker Washington | 2.7on 92 routes | 2.17on 271 routes | 19.1%on 89 routes | 6.8%on 266 routes | 16.9%over 16 games | 62.2%over 16 games |
| Travis Etienne Jr. | no source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached | |||||
| Travis Hunter | 1.94on 35 routes | 1.38on 167 routes | 14.3%on 35 routes | 5.4%on 167 routes | 17%over 7 games | 72.4%over 7 games |
| Johnny Mundt | no source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached | |||||
| Brenton Strange | 2.1on 80 routes | 1.85on 195 routes | 16.7%on 78 routes | 2.6%on 191 routes | 15%over 12 games | 64.2%over 12 games |
| Hunter Long | no source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached | |||||
| Jakobi Meyers | 1.56on 157 routes | 1.75on 323 routes | 20%on 155 routes | 5.3%on 318 routes | 21.2%over 16 games | 88.2%over 16 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.