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

Pro footballWeek 1Research only

Seattle Seahawks

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 New England Patriots. Kickoff and venue are carried by no source on this desk.

Covered players
7
With a posted line
5
Strongest grade
A
Ungraded
1
WR
4
TE
2
RB
1

The defense opposite

The defense opposite

2025 season

New England Patriots on defence, over 17 games. Every percentage below is a share of the same denominator, this defence’s 591 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
Man27.9%165 of 591 dropbacksrank 12 of 32
Zone69.5%411 of 591 dropbacksrank 19 of 32
Press22%130 of 591 dropbacksrank 21 of 32
Disguised32.1%190 of 591 dropbacksrank 17 of 32
Middle of field closed51.8%306 of 591 dropbacksrank 14 of 32
Middle of field open48.2%285 of 591 dropbacksrank 19 of 32
Nickel personnel76.3%451 of 591 dropbacksrank 8 of 32
Base personnel15.1%89 of 591 dropbacksrank 23 of 32
DB heavy personnel7.4%44 of 591 dropbacksrank 20 of 32
Rotates to single high19.3%114 of 591 dropbacksrank 18 of 32
Rotates to two high12.4%73 of 591 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Splits the safetiesnot reported
Coverage shells
ShellShare of dropbacks
Cover 03.2%19 of 591 dropbacksrank 18 of 32
Cover 123.9%141 of 591 dropbacksrank 6 of 32
Cover 221.7%128 of 591 dropbacksrank 5 of 32
Cover 2 man0.7%4 of 591 dropbacksrank 23 of 32
Cover 327.9%165 of 591 dropbacksrank 23 of 32
Cover 417.6%104 of 591 dropbacksrank 10 of 32
Cover 5not reported
Cover 62.4%14 of 591 dropbacksrank 31 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
WR12 of 32378.418over 21 games3592132439196.79on 359 targets59.3%of 359 targets
TE17 of 32164.87.8over 21 games158115115677.32on 158 targets72.8%of 158 targets
RB1 of 32278.813.3over 21 games1229662025.08on 122 targets78.7%of 122 targets
Allowed to the quarterback, prior season
Rank allowedPointsPer gameCompletionsYardsTDInterceptionsYards per attempt
5 of 32365.9517.4over 21 games424of 672 attempts421528156.27on 672 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 1B 2C 1D 1F 1NG 1. The grade and the score are prior-season evidence; the receiving-yards line and its two prices are this week’s capture. 5 of 7 rows carry a line. A row without one was not quoted, which is not a line of zero.

Seattle Seahawks hosting New England Patriots
PlayerPosGradeScoreRec yds lineOverUnderSourcesWhy the score reads this way
Elijah ArroyoTEA1.067.5-118-1132
  • favorable TE funnel vs New England Patriots
  • 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
Zach CharbonnetRBB0.50no 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
AJ BarnerTEB0.3424.5-113-1134
  • favorable TE funnel vs New England Patriots
  • 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
Jaxon Smith-NjigbaWRC-0.0181.5-114-1133
  • 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
Cooper KuppWRD-0.3129.5-115-1135
  • 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
Tory HortonWRF-0.81no 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
Rashid ShaheedWRNGungraded31.5-113-1135
  • no scheme evidence for this matchup (no alignment record or opponent signal)
  • ungraded
  • receiver alignment: player name is ambiguous across multiple alignment rows
  • skipped rather than guessed

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
Elijah Arroyo1.2on 30 routes1.51on 94 routes23.3%on 30 routes3.4%on 89 routes7%over 13 games34.8%over 13 games
Zach Charbonnet0.03on 38 routes1.13on 127 routes0%on 37 routes0%on 127 routesnot reportednot reported
AJ Barner1.42on 76 routes1.62on 246 routes5.5%on 73 routes0.9%on 235 routes13.3%over 17 games65.5%over 17 games
Jaxon Smith-Njigba4.29on 105 routes3.76on 354 routes33.7%on 104 routes13.8%on 349 routes32.6%over 17 games91.8%over 17 games
Cooper Kupp1.78on 92 routes1.53on 276 routes22%on 91 routes4.8%on 269 routes14.9%over 16 games77.7%over 16 games
Tory Horton2.06on 36 routes0.99on 88 routes27.8%on 36 routes9.2%on 87 routes10%over 8 games54.1%over 8 games
Rashid Shaheed1.59on 107 routes1.48on 345 routes23.8%on 105 routes6.8%on 340 routes15.5%over 18 games72%over 18 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.