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

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Los Angeles Chargers

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 Arizona Cardinals. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.

Covered players
7
With a posted line
4
Strongest grade
A+
Ungraded
0
WR
4
RB
2
TE
1

The defense opposite

The defense opposite

2025 season

Arizona Cardinals on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 626 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%119 of 626 dropbacksrank 25 of 32
Zone73.5%460 of 626 dropbacksrank 15 of 32
Press20.8%130 of 626 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Disguised36.7%230 of 626 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Middle of field closed43.5%272 of 626 dropbacksrank 28 of 32
Middle of field open56.5%354 of 626 dropbacksrank 5 of 32
Nickel personnel52.1%326 of 626 dropbacksrank 28 of 32
Base personnel26.7%167 of 626 dropbacksrank 4 of 32
DB heavy personnel19.6%123 of 626 dropbacksrank 7 of 32
Rotates to single high17.7%111 of 626 dropbacksrank 22 of 32
Rotates to two high18.5%116 of 626 dropbacksrank 2 of 32
Splits the safetiesnot reported
Coverage shells
ShellShare of dropbacks
Cover 03.4%21 of 626 dropbacksrank 17 of 32
Cover 114.7%92 of 626 dropbacksrank 25 of 32
Cover 213.1%82 of 626 dropbacksrank 17 of 32
Cover 2 man0.8%5 of 626 dropbacksrank 22 of 32
Cover 327.6%173 of 626 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Cover 426.4%165 of 626 dropbacksrank 1 of 32
Cover 5not reported
Cover 66.4%40 of 626 dropbacksrank 22 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
WRT15 of 32322.819over 17 games2981902330147.82on 298 targets63.8%of 298 targets
TE31 of 32182.910.8over 17 games1441071166118.1on 144 targets74.3%of 144 targets
RBT29 of 32385.522.7over 17 games967660956.34on 96 targets79.2%of 96 targets
Allowed to the quarterback, prior season
Rank allowedPointsPer gameCompletionsYardsTDInterceptionsYards per attempt
T18 of 32359.521.1over 17 games375of 572 attempts412831107.22on 572 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 1C 3F 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 7 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.

Los Angeles Chargers hosting Arizona Cardinals
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Oronde Gadsden IITEA+1.54no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • mildly favorable TE funnel vs Arizona Cardinals
  • 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
Omarion HamptonRBA1.1112.5-117-1146
  • 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
Kimani VidalRBB0.52no 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
Keenan AllenWRC0.25player 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
Quentin JohnstonWRC-0.0442.5-114-1153
  • 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
Tre HarrisWRC-0.0726.5-114-1144
  • 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
Ladd McConkeyWRF-1.1551.5-115-1152
  • mildly unfavorable slot funnel vs Arizona Cardinals
  • 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
Oronde Gadsden II0.74on 110 routes2.37on 243 routes15%on 107 routes6.4%on 235 routes13.4%over 15 games61.3%over 15 games
Omarion Hampton0.49on 55 routes1.53on 108 routes1.9%on 54 routes0%on 107 routesnot reportednot reported
Kimani Vidal0.35on 60 routes0.9on 128 routes1.8%on 57 routes0%on 123 routesnot reportednot reported
Keenan Allenno source matches this player by name and team, so nothing keyed on a player id is attached
Quentin Johnston1.94on 145 routes1.36on 305 routes21.5%on 144 routes11.7%on 300 routes17.2%over 14 games83.9%over 14 games
Tre Harris0.85on 78 routes1.36on 185 routes17.3%on 75 routes5.5%on 181 routes7.4%over 17 games39.9%over 17 games
Ladd McConkey1.88on 184 routes1.31on 331 routes25.4%on 181 routes9.3%on 324 routes19.8%over 16 games84.8%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.