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

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Los Angeles Rams

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 San Francisco 49ers. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.

Covered players
12
With a posted line
6
Strongest grade
A+
Ungraded
0
WR
6
TE
4
RB
2

The defense opposite

The defense opposite

2025 season

San Francisco 49ers on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 634 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
Man19.4%123 of 634 dropbacksrank 23 of 32
Zone76.3%484 of 634 dropbacksrank 8 of 32
Press21.3%135 of 634 dropbacksrank 22 of 32
Disguised41%260 of 634 dropbacksrank 4 of 32
Middle of field closed55.4%351 of 634 dropbacksrank 9 of 32
Middle of field open44.6%283 of 634 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Nickel personnel85.8%544 of 634 dropbacksrank 1 of 32
Base personnel11%70 of 634 dropbacksrank 28 of 32
DB heavy personnel2.5%16 of 634 dropbacksrank 24 of 32
Rotates to single high38.6%245 of 634 dropbacksrank 2 of 32
Rotates to two high2.2%14 of 634 dropbacksrank 31 of 32
Splits the safetiesnot reported
Coverage shells
ShellShare of dropbacks
Cover 02.1%13 of 634 dropbacksrank 28 of 32
Cover 116.9%107 of 634 dropbacksrank 17 of 32
Cover 25.4%34 of 634 dropbacksrank 30 of 32
Cover 2 man0.2%1 of 634 dropbacksrank 27 of 32
Cover 338.3%243 of 634 dropbacksrank 5 of 32
Cover 421%133 of 634 dropbacksrank 6 of 32
Cover 5not reported
Cover 611.7%74 of 634 dropbacksrank 10 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
WR17 of 32374.519.7over 19 games3352252733168.16on 335 targets67.2%of 335 targets
TET24 of 32172.69.1over 19 games1531031001116.54on 153 targets67.3%of 153 targets
RBT21 of 3236018.9over 19 games12410166735.38on 124 targets81.5%of 124 targets
Allowed to the quarterback, prior season
Rank allowedPointsPer gameCompletionsYardsTDInterceptionsYards per attempt
14 of 32373.919.7over 19 games430of 636 attempts44023166.92on 636 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 4C 4D 1. The grade and the score are prior-season evidence; the receiving-yards line and its two prices are this week’s capture. 6 of 12 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.

Los Angeles Rams hosting San Francisco 49ers
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Tyler HigbeeTEA+1.4614.5-115-1144
  • favorable TE funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Davis AllenTEA1.13no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • favorable TE funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Terrance FergusonTEA0.9024.5-114-1125
  • favorable TE funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Puka NacuaWRB0.7290.5-114-1153
  • 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
Colby ParkinsonTEB0.6219.5-118-1144
  • favorable TE funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Jordan WhittingtonWRB0.61no 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
Blake CorumRBB0.54no 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
Xavier SmithWRC0.15no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • favorable slot funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Davante AdamsWRC0.1251.5-114-1153
  • 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
Kyren WilliamsRBC-0.0710.5-114-1145
  • 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
Tutu AtwellWRC-0.18no line quotedno priceno pricenone
  • favorable slot funnel vs San Francisco 49ers
  • 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
Konata MumpfieldWRD-0.40no line quotedno 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

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
Tyler Higbee0.92on 59 routes2.06on 110 routes9.1%on 55 routes2.8%on 107 routes10.8%over 10 games49.4%over 10 games
Davis Allen0.91on 43 routes1.29on 131 routes4.7%on 43 routes0.8%on 131 routes5.5%over 17 games28.5%over 17 games
Terrance Ferguson1.9on 51 routes1.22on 107 routes17.6%on 51 routes3.8%on 104 routes5.5%over 13 games34.2%over 13 games
Puka Nacua3.48on 118 routes4.18on 309 routes24.8%on 117 routes13.4%on 307 routes28.8%over 16 games75.1%over 16 games
Colby Parkinson2.28on 39 routes1.74on 184 routes21.1%on 38 routes3.3%on 182 routes10.2%over 15 games41.2%over 15 games
Jordan Whittington0.34on 58 routes1.18on 128 routes13.8%on 58 routes4.7%on 127 routes4%over 17 games30.9%over 17 games
Blake Corumnot reported0.5on 72 routes0%on 23 routes1.4%on 72 routesnot reportednot reported
Xavier Smith3.54on 35 routes1.97on 91 routes26.5%on 34 routes6.7%on 90 routes4.1%over 16 games22%over 16 games
Davante Adams1.43on 135 routes2.52on 231 routes36.3%on 135 routes15.6%on 231 routes23.6%over 14 games76.9%over 14 games
Kyren Williams1.03on 68 routes0.89on 219 routes4.4%on 68 routes0.5%on 217 routesnot reportednot reported
Tutu Atwell2.14on 43 routes1.12on 89 routes14%on 43 routes1.1%on 87 routes3.9%over 10 games33%over 10 games
Konata Mumpfield0.36on 45 routes0.68on 111 routes33.3%on 45 routes9.1%on 110 routes3.7%over 17 games26.4%over 17 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.