Though there are still a couple of forwards left to cover on our “Expected Development” list, let’s spice things up with a defenseman, shall we? Last season, Jacob Bryson put together a bit of an up-and-down rookie campaign.

At 23 years old, he’ll look to fortify his standing on the left side of the Buffalo Sabres’ blue line. With young up-and-comers like Owen Power, Mattias Samuelsson, and Ryan Johnson hot on his heels, he will likely need to show significant growth to maintain his place in the defensive top-six next season.

Before we get too far ahead of ourselves, let’s take a look at Bryson’s performance in 2020-21, and examine specifically which areas of his game need to be addressed this year.

STRENGTHS

Of the Expected Development feature players to date, I found Bryson’s metrics to be perhaps the most interesting in context. Similar to our profile on Rasmus Asplund, there are a lot of extenuating factors to consider. Like Asplund, we see some dramatic data variations following the Sabres’ mid-season coaching change (but perhaps not in ways you would expect).

As we’ve seen in the other profiles so far, most players experienced substantial hits to their xGA metrics once Don Granato took over behind the bench (as well as modest xGF increases). Bryson was a rare case of a player who served as an exception to that rule.

In the 11 games he spent under Ralph Krueger, Bryson put up some of the worst raw defensive impacts on the Sabres blue line. Only Matt Irwin had a higher xGA/60 rate than Bryson’s mark of 2.88 during that stretch.

When Granato took over, however, his xGA/60 rate improved drastically, down to 2.47 over a 27-game sample. Part of the reason for this has to do with his most common defensive partners under his respective coaches.

Krueger deployed Bryson almost exclusively alongside Rasmus Ristolainen. Granato recognized that a player of Bryson’s skill set would be better complemented by a strong defensive entity, and instead played him primarily alongside Colin Miller and Will Borgen to close out the season. 

Coming up from the AHL ranks, Bryson was widely regarded as an above-average transition defenseman. In my tracking of his games with the Rochester Americans, he reminded me of a smaller-framed Brandon Montour in this respect.

While there wasn’t enough of a sample for Corey Sznajder to track his zone-exit rates, he did manage to compile data on how Bryson fared as a back-end contributor on the Sabres’ offensive rush.

No other Buffalo blueliner did a better job producing shot opportunities off the back end. His productivity in that area was far and away the most impressive among his contemporaries. He was also the only Sabres defenseman not named Rasmus Dahlin who managed to produce an above-average rate of high-danger passes from the point.

To summarize, Bryson seemed to do his best work as a complementary offensive transition entity. To maximize that skill, the data (and the use of our eyes) indicates that he requires a defensively competent partner beside him (i.e. the opposite of Ristolainen).

WEAKNESSES

At the risk of overcomplicating this process, we’re going to have a quick conversation about RAPM here, because this is a teachable moment. Upon first glance at his RAPM illustrations, Bryson looks like a highly competent offensive defenseman who gives a little bit back on defense.

Because RAPM charts are too often taken at face value, I’m going to use this opportunity to explain how the “ingredients” could throw off the visuals. RAPM has been known to disproportionately reward or punish players depending on their linemates/defensive partners, particularly when the models are being made based on small samples.

Bryson spent nearly half of his five-on-five minutes alongside Rasmus Ristolainen last season (292 minutes deployed together in total). There is a high likelihood that he received a RAPM boost (at both ends of the ice) for time spent with a historically bad impact player.

Due to Ristolainen’s storied track record of poor play, the model likely assumed that anything good that they produced was because of Bryson, and despite his partner. Conversely, the model would probably blame any downfalls on Ristolainen.

With so few NHL games under his belt, Bryson’s numbers would conceivably shift more dramatically based on his teammates. This issue levels out and tends to resolve itself when the sample grows over time, and further individual data can be collected.

To compound on this point is the fact that Bryson’s second-most common pairing-mate at five-on-five was Miller (119 minutes), another player who put up dreadful offensive RAPM impacts.

Again, this gives a pretty strong indication that, as a result of sample size, Bryson was perhaps disproportionately rewarded for his offensive contributions, and to a lesser extent, not punished enough for his defensive shortcomings.

To be clear, none of this is to say that Bryson wasn’t a positive offensive presence, because his tracking metrics (referenced in the last section) indicate that he was. There is, however, a good chance that his RAPM illustrations at both ends are being exaggerated positively. Just how much, remains unclear.

The on-ice heatmaps go the other way. These charts provide no QoC or QoT adjustment and look solely at raw concentrations. The truth probably lies somewhere between the heatmaps and RAPM. In Bryson’s case, they paint very different pictures.

Enough grandstanding about the necessity of reading RAPM charts in the proper context. Circling back to actual identifiable “weaknesses” in Bryson’s game, net-front presence is perhaps the most glaring.

When he is hemmed in the defensive zone, he struggles to clear the puck away from the slot, which results in a lot of second and third opportunities in high-danger areas. This problem is mitigated alongside a true “defensive defenseman”.

The contrast between his heatmaps with Ristolainen, Miller, and Borgen respectively serves as a good illustration in support of this claim. These players are puck retrievers who tend to facilitate opportunities for their partners in transition.

So, while he might do a good job of producing controlled zone exits, Bryson’s ability to retrieve possession in his own end is very poor. This is another similarity he shares with Montour, a player with a historically high proportion of “control” in his exits, but a low number of total exits.

2021-22 Objective

Bryson’s individual goal for 2021-22 is pretty simple – get better in the defensive end. That’s a big ask for a player of his skillset and stature. The Sabres coaching staff needs to hold up their end of the bargain and help “shelter” his inefficiencies.

This would not only mitigate his defensive struggles but also better empower his ability to carry the puck on the offensive rush, an area of his game that yielded very positive results, as we know. Highlighting his strengths this season is not only good for on-ice productivity but also the Sabres’ roster scope moving forward.

As I alluded to in the introduction, Buffalo has an organizational surplus of left-shot defensemen. If they can shelter Bryson and highlight his strengths this year, he is an ideal piece to leverage via trade to address an area of greater need.

Charts Courtesy of Evolving Hockey, Hockeyviz, JFresh Hockey, and Corey Sznajder

Advanced Metrics and TOI Data courtesy of Evolving Hockey, and Natural Stat Trick

Photo Credit: Rich Graessle/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images