WEBVTT - Mac & Bone Show - Sam Brucchaus Interview 

0:00:00.050 --> 0:00:03.770
<v Speaker 1>Let's talk some football with Sam Bruckhaus from Sumer Sports.

0:00:03.850 --> 0:00:09.220
<v Speaker 1>Just an absolutely amazing sports stats, advanced stats site. It

0:00:09.280 --> 0:00:12.139
<v Speaker 1>is a tremendous resource. And Sam joins us here on

0:00:12.180 --> 0:00:14.080
<v Speaker 1>the Mac and Bone Show. Hey, Sam, what's happening, man?

0:00:14.120 --> 0:00:14.620
<v Speaker 1>How you doing?

0:00:15.590 --> 0:00:19.050
<v Speaker 2>Doing well. How are y'all? We're doing all right.

0:00:19.090 --> 0:00:21.460
<v Speaker 3>We're healing, Sam, in the process.

0:00:22.260 --> 0:00:25.140
<v Speaker 1>Sam, what did you think of that game? We were

0:00:25.200 --> 0:00:28.380
<v Speaker 1>saying we kind of thought in our growth under Canales

0:00:28.420 --> 0:00:32.550
<v Speaker 1>and company, we'd like to think we're past games like that,

0:00:32.610 --> 0:00:34.949
<v Speaker 1>but clearly we're not. What did you think about that?

0:00:35.979 --> 0:00:38.770
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. Number one, I think you got out of hand

0:00:39.090 --> 0:00:42.050
<v Speaker 2>and I think there's an interesting element when you look

0:00:42.550 --> 0:00:47.450
<v Speaker 2>at the most predictive metrics to predict the rest of

0:00:47.490 --> 0:00:50.870
<v Speaker 2>the season for teams. You always want to look at

0:00:51.090 --> 0:00:54.570
<v Speaker 2>point differential rather than stuff like when loss record and

0:00:55.230 --> 0:00:58.430
<v Speaker 2>even better, you want to look at like advanced stats, differentials,

0:00:58.490 --> 0:01:03.010
<v Speaker 2>like expected points added, which is basically putting all types

0:01:03.050 --> 0:01:07.730
<v Speaker 2>of yards in context. This is now two games that

0:01:07.750 --> 0:01:11.390
<v Speaker 2>the Panthers have let basically spiral completely out of control,

0:01:11.850 --> 0:01:15.310
<v Speaker 2>especially from the defensive perspective. And we knew this was

0:01:15.330 --> 0:01:17.869
<v Speaker 2>going to be a young defense. We thought that with

0:01:17.930 --> 0:01:20.950
<v Speaker 2>another year of growth after last year, that it could

0:01:20.990 --> 0:01:25.039
<v Speaker 2>potentially look substantially better. But with this and the Bears

0:01:25.100 --> 0:01:28.360
<v Speaker 2>game giving up 40 plus points, or in the Bears case,

0:01:28.360 --> 0:01:32.520
<v Speaker 2>60 plus points, it just begs the question of how

0:01:32.600 --> 0:01:36.420
<v Speaker 2>mature this defense is right now. And so I think

0:01:36.600 --> 0:01:40.330
<v Speaker 2>really from a, a analytical perspective, when we're trying to

0:01:40.390 --> 0:01:45.790
<v Speaker 2>figure out the strength of the Panthers, you have to

0:01:45.850 --> 0:01:49.610
<v Speaker 2>think about these two basically blow out games and what

0:01:49.650 --> 0:01:53.050
<v Speaker 2>they mean, especially given that one came against what seems

0:01:53.070 --> 0:01:55.830
<v Speaker 2>to be a very functional offense. And the other one

0:01:56.050 --> 0:01:59.330
<v Speaker 2>came against what seems to be a very dysfunctional offense.

0:01:59.350 --> 0:02:00.670
<v Speaker 2>So a lot to break down there.

0:02:01.270 --> 0:02:03.810
<v Speaker 3>Sam, when it comes to the areas that are ailing

0:02:03.850 --> 0:02:07.090
<v Speaker 3>the Panthers' defense, do you view it as something that

0:02:07.170 --> 0:02:10.590
<v Speaker 3>is fixable within the season that they can do with

0:02:10.630 --> 0:02:13.380
<v Speaker 3>what they have? Or do they need to maybe look

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:15.880
<v Speaker 3>outside for more help to try to fix this right now?

0:02:17.419 --> 0:02:21.540
<v Speaker 2>Well, I think when you really break it down, there's

0:02:21.580 --> 0:02:24.160
<v Speaker 2>a couple elements that you want to look at. So

0:02:24.200 --> 0:02:28.590
<v Speaker 2>right now they're about 20th in expected points added per play.

0:02:29.660 --> 0:02:33.000
<v Speaker 2>And they're about the same in success rate. So basically

0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:35.780
<v Speaker 2>what that means is they're allowing explosive plays, but they're

0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:40.780
<v Speaker 2>also allowing down-to-down success. Now, a lot of that comes

0:02:40.860 --> 0:02:45.380
<v Speaker 2>from things like turnovers. And right now they have three interceptions,

0:02:45.460 --> 0:02:47.359
<v Speaker 2>so kind of in the middle of the league there.

0:02:47.940 --> 0:02:50.620
<v Speaker 2>And those things are not necessarily things that you can

0:02:50.740 --> 0:02:55.280
<v Speaker 2>really plan for. So I think basically what's going to

0:02:55.300 --> 0:02:58.440
<v Speaker 2>have to happen is Either they're going to have to

0:02:58.520 --> 0:03:02.670
<v Speaker 2>try some different things schematically, or they're going to have

0:03:02.710 --> 0:03:06.160
<v Speaker 2>to look into potentially adding some new personnel on the

0:03:06.200 --> 0:03:09.620
<v Speaker 2>defensive side of the ball. In particular, what the bread

0:03:09.660 --> 0:03:13.670
<v Speaker 2>and butter of this team has been. over the last

0:03:13.770 --> 0:03:17.340
<v Speaker 2>couple of years has been trying to play one high coverage.

0:03:17.740 --> 0:03:22.060
<v Speaker 2>They're currently third in utilizing one high coverage. Basically that

0:03:22.100 --> 0:03:25.040
<v Speaker 2>means that they have one player in the middle. Typically

0:03:25.080 --> 0:03:28.160
<v Speaker 2>someone will be rolled down the court, the cornerbacks on

0:03:28.210 --> 0:03:30.549
<v Speaker 2>the outside will be on the islands. And they've been

0:03:30.590 --> 0:03:33.330
<v Speaker 2>able to do that because, you know, they have cornerbacks

0:03:33.350 --> 0:03:35.630
<v Speaker 2>that they've trusted despite them being in and out the

0:03:35.670 --> 0:03:39.070
<v Speaker 2>lineup this year. I'd like to see that number come down.

0:03:39.110 --> 0:03:40.780
<v Speaker 2>And I think if you want to look at a

0:03:40.850 --> 0:03:44.300
<v Speaker 2>team who has done that pretty successfully, at least from

0:03:44.320 --> 0:03:47.820
<v Speaker 2>a game plan perspective, it's the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Tampa

0:03:47.840 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 2>Bay Buccaneers currently sit at fifth in utilizing one high

0:03:52.460 --> 0:03:57.080
<v Speaker 2>coverage looks, but against the Cowboys and Panthers, they switched

0:03:57.120 --> 0:03:59.430
<v Speaker 2>it up, played a lot of too high and also

0:03:59.560 --> 0:04:02.430
<v Speaker 2>utilized a lot of blitz. So from a schematic perspective,

0:04:02.450 --> 0:04:03.610
<v Speaker 2>I think that's what I would like to see.

0:04:05.620 --> 0:04:10.450
<v Speaker 1>We're talking with Sam Bruckhaus from Summersports, Summersports.com. I can't

0:04:10.490 --> 0:04:13.310
<v Speaker 1>give them enough praise in terms of all the different

0:04:13.710 --> 0:04:16.290
<v Speaker 1>stats that it provides you with, give you more context.

0:04:16.310 --> 0:04:18.950
<v Speaker 1>You're hearing a lot of them from Sam here. Sam,

0:04:19.029 --> 0:04:24.230
<v Speaker 1>on offense, it was a disappointment in all three phases, obviously.

0:04:24.730 --> 0:04:28.630
<v Speaker 1>But on offense, it was the first game where Bryce

0:04:28.990 --> 0:04:31.700
<v Speaker 1>really looked bad. And a lot of people said, man,

0:04:31.720 --> 0:04:33.520
<v Speaker 1>that looked like Bryce from a couple years ago.

0:04:34.380 --> 0:04:34.840
<v Speaker 3>Would you.

0:04:35.660 --> 0:04:38.880
<v Speaker 1>Would you tell us to be a little concerned that

0:04:38.920 --> 0:04:41.500
<v Speaker 1>there could be more of that? Green Bay's got a

0:04:41.520 --> 0:04:44.600
<v Speaker 1>good defense. Denver's got a talented defense. Or do you

0:04:44.640 --> 0:04:46.940
<v Speaker 1>think that was more of an aberration in this offense

0:04:47.000 --> 0:04:48.820
<v Speaker 1>and Bryce will get back on track soon?

0:04:49.820 --> 0:04:50.060
<v Speaker 3>Yeah.

0:04:50.300 --> 0:04:53.100
<v Speaker 2>I think this upcoming week against green Bay will be

0:04:53.260 --> 0:04:56.370
<v Speaker 2>the true test of that because I don't necessarily trust

0:04:56.550 --> 0:04:59.850
<v Speaker 2>green Bay's defense all that much. It looks like a

0:04:59.890 --> 0:05:04.170
<v Speaker 2>close game that they played with Detroit last week. In reality,

0:05:04.330 --> 0:05:07.679
<v Speaker 2>it was one of the biggest spreads between success rate

0:05:08.080 --> 0:05:11.080
<v Speaker 2>and the actual point scored going back to 2016. They

0:05:11.839 --> 0:05:13.880
<v Speaker 2>really did not do a good job of stopping the

0:05:13.900 --> 0:05:17.260
<v Speaker 2>Detroit lions. What they, what they did a okay job of,

0:05:17.320 --> 0:05:20.260
<v Speaker 2>I guess, was generating turnovers. I'll be at one was

0:05:20.339 --> 0:05:24.000
<v Speaker 2>on a messed up snap and the lions missed out

0:05:24.120 --> 0:05:27.960
<v Speaker 2>on a fourth down conversion deep in their own territory.

0:05:28.490 --> 0:05:31.910
<v Speaker 2>So basically when you try to break those things down,

0:05:32.290 --> 0:05:34.690
<v Speaker 2>you start to realize this, this Packers defense could be

0:05:34.710 --> 0:05:36.750
<v Speaker 2>pretty shaky. So I think this could be a very,

0:05:36.810 --> 0:05:40.590
<v Speaker 2>very good test. What it comes down to is Bryce

0:05:40.630 --> 0:05:43.790
<v Speaker 2>is a smaller quarterback and smaller quarterbacks really struggle when

0:05:43.830 --> 0:05:47.630
<v Speaker 2>they get pressure. In particular, Rasheed Walker last week really

0:05:47.710 --> 0:05:51.960
<v Speaker 2>struggled with pressure. And the Packers don't necessarily have a

0:05:52.100 --> 0:05:55.380
<v Speaker 2>go-to edge rusher right now. And so I don't think

0:05:55.440 --> 0:05:58.300
<v Speaker 2>that's going to be that big of a problem this week.

0:05:58.339 --> 0:06:01.760
<v Speaker 2>They're going to try to mix up looks, get different matchups.

0:06:02.260 --> 0:06:05.020
<v Speaker 2>blitz and stunt quite a little bit and try to

0:06:05.300 --> 0:06:07.700
<v Speaker 2>manufacture pressure that way. So I actually think this could

0:06:07.740 --> 0:06:10.250
<v Speaker 2>be a good bounce back week for the offense. The

0:06:10.290 --> 0:06:11.930
<v Speaker 2>big problem is going to do Broncos who have an

0:06:11.970 --> 0:06:14.510
<v Speaker 2>immense amount of talent and also an immense amount of

0:06:14.570 --> 0:06:17.450
<v Speaker 2>scheme advantage. That's going to be the true test of

0:06:17.490 --> 0:06:17.990
<v Speaker 2>this offense.

0:06:18.620 --> 0:06:21.460
<v Speaker 3>Bryce did not have a performance the other day that

0:06:21.520 --> 0:06:24.760
<v Speaker 3>was typical of what he was doing to start the season.

0:06:25.220 --> 0:06:28.360
<v Speaker 3>Are you concerned that there could be a trend down

0:06:28.400 --> 0:06:31.760
<v Speaker 3>because of the offensive line, or are you expecting Bryce

0:06:31.800 --> 0:06:34.690
<v Speaker 3>to bounce back? Where do you think the truth is

0:06:34.750 --> 0:06:37.670
<v Speaker 3>right now with Bryce Young and really the offensive line

0:06:37.690 --> 0:06:38.230
<v Speaker 3>in front of Bryce?

0:06:39.380 --> 0:06:43.420
<v Speaker 2>So an interesting element, particularly when it comes to things

0:06:43.480 --> 0:06:47.650
<v Speaker 2>like getting sacked shows up and it's that typically it

0:06:47.830 --> 0:06:50.930
<v Speaker 2>sticks with quarterbacks. It sticks game to game. It sticks

0:06:51.130 --> 0:06:54.470
<v Speaker 2>if you switch teams. And so I do think to

0:06:54.510 --> 0:06:58.380
<v Speaker 2>a certain degree, this is within Bryce Young's control. I

0:06:58.420 --> 0:07:01.480
<v Speaker 2>think basically what happened was there was very little access

0:07:01.500 --> 0:07:04.630
<v Speaker 2>to the middle of the field that was available for

0:07:04.710 --> 0:07:07.510
<v Speaker 2>him in that Buccaneers game. And we've seen the Buccaneers

0:07:07.550 --> 0:07:11.950
<v Speaker 2>be able to do that to all fences that pride

0:07:11.990 --> 0:07:14.130
<v Speaker 2>themselves on accessing the middle of the field. In particular,

0:07:14.150 --> 0:07:16.560
<v Speaker 2>I'm talking about the Cowboys game where for the better

0:07:16.600 --> 0:07:19.500
<v Speaker 2>part of three quarters, they really shut the Cowboys down.

0:07:19.520 --> 0:07:24.790
<v Speaker 2>I think basically it's kinda up to Bryce on how

0:07:24.850 --> 0:07:29.000
<v Speaker 2>this goes. I think you know, accepting the checkdowns a

0:07:29.000 --> 0:07:30.900
<v Speaker 2>little bit more, trying not to force it. I think

0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:33.240
<v Speaker 2>as the game kind of spiraled out of control, he

0:07:33.260 --> 0:07:37.310
<v Speaker 2>was really trying to force it. And moreover, just ignoring

0:07:37.350 --> 0:07:40.830
<v Speaker 2>those big, those big negative plays or avoiding those big

0:07:41.170 --> 0:07:43.970
<v Speaker 2>negative plays rather is the key for him upcoming this week.

0:07:45.360 --> 0:07:50.260
<v Speaker 1>Yeah, his ability, he, through the first five games, he

0:07:50.310 --> 0:07:52.770
<v Speaker 1>had seemed to be able to avoid the sacks, right?

0:07:52.810 --> 0:07:55.710
<v Speaker 1>That pressure to sack number was very good. It was

0:07:55.770 --> 0:07:57.830
<v Speaker 1>not on Sunday. He could not, it was on him

0:07:57.870 --> 0:08:00.170
<v Speaker 1>so quick, I don't think he could get away from it.

0:08:00.510 --> 0:08:02.990
<v Speaker 1>I do want to ask you, Sam, about Green Bay's offense,

0:08:03.490 --> 0:08:06.000
<v Speaker 1>because my lord, they like to, Love likes to throw

0:08:06.020 --> 0:08:08.340
<v Speaker 1>it downfield, and I don't know if Golden's going to play,

0:08:08.820 --> 0:08:11.400
<v Speaker 1>but he and Watson have been taking the top off

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:14.930
<v Speaker 1>defenses recently. But, man, their run game and run blocking

0:08:15.070 --> 0:08:18.120
<v Speaker 1>has been brutal. What do you think about this Green

0:08:18.140 --> 0:08:18.739
<v Speaker 1>Bay offense?

0:08:19.790 --> 0:08:22.490
<v Speaker 2>So I want to put in context how brutal their

0:08:22.970 --> 0:08:27.170
<v Speaker 2>rushing game has been. Whenever we look at offenses and

0:08:27.210 --> 0:08:29.310
<v Speaker 2>are trying to project them out the rest of the season,

0:08:29.650 --> 0:08:33.580
<v Speaker 2>this is actually the most anomalous offense that we've really

0:08:33.700 --> 0:08:37.839
<v Speaker 2>seen in regard to the deviation between their passing game,

0:08:38.220 --> 0:08:40.640
<v Speaker 2>which has been pretty good this year, all things considered,

0:08:41.000 --> 0:08:43.000
<v Speaker 2>and their rushing game, which has been one of the

0:08:43.040 --> 0:08:47.170
<v Speaker 2>worst going back to 2016. It's actually so bad that

0:08:47.710 --> 0:08:50.650
<v Speaker 2>it would be an anomaly. If the rushing defense doesn't

0:08:50.710 --> 0:08:54.730
<v Speaker 2>get better as the season continues, just because of the

0:08:54.830 --> 0:08:58.630
<v Speaker 2>strength of their passing offense. And basically what we figured

0:08:58.730 --> 0:09:02.630
<v Speaker 2>out is if defenses don't start to respect their passing offense,

0:09:04.630 --> 0:09:07.830
<v Speaker 2>the rushing game could just magically get better because you know,

0:09:08.150 --> 0:09:11.540
<v Speaker 2>this is a passing league. But basically, like you said,

0:09:11.640 --> 0:09:14.459
<v Speaker 2>I think the biggest problem with this Packers offense right

0:09:14.520 --> 0:09:17.939
<v Speaker 2>now is they lack an identity and they lack a

0:09:17.960 --> 0:09:21.500
<v Speaker 2>real grounding in the play action game. When you watch

0:09:21.580 --> 0:09:24.920
<v Speaker 2>teams like the bears or teams like the lions or

0:09:24.950 --> 0:09:28.329
<v Speaker 2>the 49ers, or the Rams just got back to this

0:09:28.390 --> 0:09:30.990
<v Speaker 2>in a, in a massive win last week, they're really

0:09:31.070 --> 0:09:35.319
<v Speaker 2>grounded in play action even if the running game really

0:09:35.380 --> 0:09:38.780
<v Speaker 2>isn't working, allowing them to create explosives, allowing them to

0:09:38.840 --> 0:09:43.020
<v Speaker 2>disrupt the linebacker and cores, which thus actually leads to

0:09:43.040 --> 0:09:46.830
<v Speaker 2>the pass, setting up the run rather than vice versa.

0:09:47.140 --> 0:09:49.609
<v Speaker 2>That's typically what the most successful teams in the league

0:09:49.650 --> 0:09:52.610
<v Speaker 2>like to do in past years. The Packers have been

0:09:53.030 --> 0:09:55.969
<v Speaker 2>one of the best and most consistent play action teams.

0:09:56.290 --> 0:09:58.210
<v Speaker 2>They just kind of stopped doing it last week. They

0:09:58.250 --> 0:10:02.800
<v Speaker 2>had a sub 20% playoff action rate. Typically, this year

0:10:02.900 --> 0:10:07.960
<v Speaker 2>in particular, we're seeing play action rates go above 25%

0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:11.040
<v Speaker 2>of all drop back passes. And so I'd really like

0:10:11.080 --> 0:10:14.410
<v Speaker 2>to see the Packers move utilize play action more because

0:10:14.429 --> 0:10:17.290
<v Speaker 2>they're really good at it. It signals a lack of identity.

0:10:17.450 --> 0:10:20.940
<v Speaker 2>It signals that they don't trust their running game. But

0:10:20.960 --> 0:10:23.300
<v Speaker 2>the issue is the data shows that they don't have

0:10:23.340 --> 0:10:26.459
<v Speaker 2>to trust their running game. So I think if you're

0:10:26.500 --> 0:10:28.140
<v Speaker 2>watching the game and they're running a lot of play

0:10:28.220 --> 0:10:30.640
<v Speaker 2>action and they're getting a lot of success, perhaps that

0:10:30.679 --> 0:10:32.849
<v Speaker 2>means the run game could come back. But if you're

0:10:32.890 --> 0:10:35.130
<v Speaker 2>just watching Jordan Love drop back and throw the ball

0:10:35.170 --> 0:10:37.290
<v Speaker 2>up in the air, I think this defense actually has

0:10:37.350 --> 0:10:38.190
<v Speaker 2>a chance to bounce back.

0:10:39.570 --> 0:10:41.650
<v Speaker 1>Sam, I got to ask you before we let you go.

0:10:41.670 --> 0:10:45.840
<v Speaker 1>My guy T-Bone here was singing a song with your

0:10:45.900 --> 0:10:49.540
<v Speaker 1>last name before you came on. To the tune of

0:10:49.559 --> 0:10:52.280
<v Speaker 1>Brick House, he was singing Bruck House. And I need

0:10:52.300 --> 0:10:55.060
<v Speaker 1>to know, has this ever happened to you before?

0:10:55.120 --> 0:10:59.400
<v Speaker 3>This was a private moment of the song got in

0:10:59.420 --> 0:11:00.020
<v Speaker 3>my head, Sam.

0:11:00.559 --> 0:11:01.830
<v Speaker 1>Do people do that to you?

0:11:02.770 --> 0:11:05.700
<v Speaker 2>So I come from a huge family. My mom is

0:11:05.740 --> 0:11:08.820
<v Speaker 2>the second youngest of nine. My dad's the youngest of six.

0:11:09.240 --> 0:11:13.020
<v Speaker 2>There's so many Brook houses that are out there. Every

0:11:13.160 --> 0:11:16.690
<v Speaker 2>single wedding that a Brook house man brings a new

0:11:16.750 --> 0:11:20.030
<v Speaker 2>Brook house woman into the family. When she walks into

0:11:20.050 --> 0:11:22.229
<v Speaker 2>the reception, they're playing the Commodores, baby.

0:11:22.550 --> 0:11:24.160
<v Speaker 1>Okay, there you go. I figured that had to be

0:11:24.179 --> 0:11:25.040
<v Speaker 1>involved in your life.

0:11:25.120 --> 0:11:26.040
<v Speaker 2>See, I knew.

0:11:26.080 --> 0:11:28.400
<v Speaker 3>I knew it. I figured that was the case. I

0:11:28.440 --> 0:11:29.179
<v Speaker 3>love it. I love it.

0:11:29.179 --> 0:11:31.870
<v Speaker 1>All right, brother, we appreciate it, man. Keep up the

0:11:31.910 --> 0:11:35.309
<v Speaker 1>good work. Summersports.com. Y'all definitely need to check it out.

0:11:35.350 --> 0:11:36.700
<v Speaker 1>Thank you, Sam. Appreciate you.

0:11:37.540 --> 0:11:38.220
<v Speaker 2>Thank y'all so much.