As the Rangers start their offseason 2 months earlier than they hoped, the first domino to fall was firing Peter Laviolette. We all knew this was coming, and it made sense to do it both before the holiday and before breakup day. Laviolette was essentially confirmed a goner once it became clear he lost the room, and Housley–who ran the defense–was almost assuredly going with him given the trainwreck the Rangers were on defense. As per usual, I have some thoughts.
Firing Peter Laviolette was mostly due to the defense issues
1. Firing Peter Laviolette and Phil Housley was needed. I don’t think anyone will disagree. However, it’s unfair to put the lion’s share of the blame on them. This is the exact same system they ran last season to great success. They ran it back with mostly the same roster as well. Locker room issues stemming from offseason and midseason moves certainly impacted the room and I think played a larger role in the Rangers’ demise, and that’s not on Laviolette or Housley. We’ve beaten that horse to death though.
2. The Rangers were one of the worst defensive teams in the NHL. It doesn’t take any kind of stat to see that. Igor Shesterkin faced 188 expected-goals-against at 5v5 this season, per MoneyPuck. Only Sam Montembeault saw more.
For a team returning their entire blue line from the prior season, save for a Zac Jones/Erik Gustafsson swap and Victor Mancini starting over an injured Ryan Lindgren, this is inexcusable. The players remained the same. It’s a hill I die on, that the Rangers players are at the center of this trainwreck of a season.
But.
At some point both Housley and Laviolette should have altered course. Suit wrote this morning that a Box+1 system is best for this group, to simplify things. All pro athletes can flip a system midstream. For some reason, coaches refuse to do so. Firing Peter Laviolette is centered around this decision.
3. Per Natural Stat Trick, the Rangers surrendered the 9th most shot attempts, the 4th most shots, the 5th most expected goals, and the 3rd most high-danger chances in the NHL, all per-60-minutes. This is simply inexcusable and a failure across the board. As the head coach (Laviolette) and the associate in charge of defense (Housley), they had to go, even if just for optics reasons.
Only Igor Shesterkin kept them from being worse than the 10th most goals allowed per 60 minutes.
Ice time, roster decisions, and losing the room
4. Ice time frustrations and roster decisions were also an issue, though really centered around a few baffling decisions. First and foremost, shoehorning Ryan Lindgren back into the lineup was one of the main catalysts for the Blueshirts’ eventual downfall. The Rangers started the season 4-0-1 before he was forced back into the lineup. They’d go 8-4-0 before the wheels fell off and the infamous trade memo was sent.
It’s not fair to put everything on Lindgren, but as soon as he came back into the lineup, the Rangers were no longer looking like the team that started 4-0-1. They certainly won games, but we could see the wheels starting to come off. Bad losses to bad teams, unable to move the puck out of their own end, far too many slot line passes allowed, and terrible 2-on-1 defending all contributed to terrible defense.
5. It’s not so much that Ryan Lindgren caused all of this, it’s that both Housley and Laviolette forced him back as the 1LD despite absolute dominance from K’Andre Miller and Adam Fox. Per Natural Stat Trick, Miller-Fox was the best Rangers defense pair in terms of shot share at 62.05%. Funny enough, Jacob Trouba-Braden Schneider (51.49%) and Zac Jones-Victor Mancini (48.33%) were numbers 4 and 5, respectively.
While Will Borgen and Urho Vaakanainen were fine and certainly deserving of contract extensions, the Rangers didn’t need to make moves. They were fine. They were performing well. Firing Peter Laviolette and Phil Housley only became necessary because of this one inflexion point of the season. Lindgren was not the answer, and certainly not at 1LD.
A hill I die on is forcing Lindgren back into the lineup was what led to the season going down the tubes. That’s not on Lindgren, who was clearly not 100% when he came back, that’s on Laviolette and Housley.
Aside: Numbers 2 and 3 were Soucy-Fox and Lindgren-Fox. Worth noting.
6. Once Lindgren was back, Jones came out. Mancini was returned to the minors for good once the Will Borgen trade happened, though he spent some time bouncing around the NHL and AHL. Acquiring Vaakanainen played a role as well, but the Rangers also surrendered Trouba in the deal, so it was a wash from a roster space perspective.
Both Laviolette and Housley were complicit in allowing the Rangers defense, which was playing well, to turn into a pumpkin because of stubbornness. The system is at the heart of their dismissal, but this played a major role as well.
Accountability was non-existent
7. Accountability was truly the final straw in firing Peter Laviolette in particular. Aside from the defense, there were questionable decisions made across the board. Chris Kreider was obviously playing hurt–and we will get to breakup day quotes tomorrow–and Mika Zibanejad looked lost. Only Kreider was scratched for a game. Alexis Lafreniere disappeared after signing his contract. He was never scratched.
You know who was scratched? Arguably on of their best forwards on easily their best line. Kaapo Kakko was scratched because of course he was. The Cuylle-Chytil-Kakko line should never have been broken up early in the season. Once Kakko was scratched for legitimately no reason, the writing was on the wall.
8. It’s not just limited to Kakko either. Jones was scratched once Lindgren returned, and we all know that was dumb at best. Calvin de Haan was solid for the Rangers before he was scratched for the rest of the season. Carson Soucy was forced into the lineup despite looking lost out there for most of his time with the Rangers.
The only player who voiced ice time concerns that didn’t necessarily have a leg to stand on was Jimmy Vesey, and that’s mostly because both Adam Edstrom and Matt Rempe were playing well enough that the Rangers didn’t need Vesey. It’s by no fault of his own, as he was playing well. But when you have kids playing at the same level as the veteran, you choose the kids.
Unless that’s on defense, of course.
9. Firing Peter Laviolette and Phil Housley was the obvious first domino. Chris Drury will now have his third coach in five years, presumably his last coach. Something stinks in this organization, and it starts at the top.
