I'm not a Devils fan... at all, but every one says they're bad for hockey. Why is that?
2007-02-20 15:35:54 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Hockey
I think the people who have answered here severely underestimate the extent to which the Devils' utilization of the neutral zone trap changed the game in the early nineties.
New Jersey plays a sound defensive game. Fine.
But they were so successful with that style of play that they changed the way the rest of the league played. It's a common misconception that the lockout started in 2004. Wrong. It started in 1993 when Jacques Lemaire started locking down every ice surface in the league. The game slowed to a halt and started turning away U.S. fans in record numbers.
Some people complain about the "New NHL" and how it's not like it used to be, but really it was the Devils who revolutionized the game fifteen years ago and the latest set of rule changes were a reaction to that - an attempt to breath some life into the game.
Want proof? The Devils are winning like few teams out there and they can't give tickets away. There are a few reasons for this (and those reasons do not include the laughable assertion that some people are going to Islanders games instead.) One is the fact that their arena is disgusting - and the people who have already decided that I am an idiot couldn't possibly disagree with that.
First among the reasons is that they bore people to tears. Watching the Devils win hockey games is like watching a successful accountant work. Yeah, he's good. Who cares and why would I want to pay to see him?
"I guess some people think defense is boring" is a straw man. What we're talking about is something far more fundamental than that. People who deny this are just denying the obvious.
That's why the Devils are bad for the sport.
2007-02-20 20:52:46 · answer #1 · answered by Patrick 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Devils do not have as many fans as these other teams, so it's kinda boring to non-fans when they do win. They would have a LOT more fans, except:
1) The Rangers were there first, so a lot of North jersey fans are already loyal to them.
2) North Jersey is all about the New Jersey Giants and the New Jersey Jets and the Yankees and the Mets. Not a lot of room for much else.
3) They play to win, not to entertain. Naturally, this isn't always entertaining. But they have clearly suceeded in the former.
So their lack of fans means that people don't watch if they get deep into the playoffs.
Also, they are interpreted as a team who always wins, so people get tired of that. And the way they win isn't the most exciting style of hockey--they have good defense, great goaltending, and they score just enough goals. It can make for some rather slow hockey, and we Americans like high-scoring "action" so we get turned off by slow paced hockey. Also, the Devils annoy more fans than the Wings and the Oilers and the Preds because they are simply better at playing defense. (that happens when you have Marty between the pipes). The Devils have been the best defensive team since 1993-94.
The Devils are called "bad for hockey" because of the way they win and the frequency with which they win.
2007-02-20 16:20:39 · answer #2 · answered by JK Nation 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well, I'm a diehard Devils fan but even I can see why people say that. The Devils are boring to watch. If you check a scoreboard for a day's worth of hockey, every single game will have more goals scored than a Devils game. They don't put up tons of goals, they put up just enough to win.
And unfortunately they don't have the fan base that other teams have. People have poked fun at the entire state of New Jersey for as long as it has existed and that turns people away from rooting for the Devils. Hopefully moving to Newark will get more people to go to the games, and get more fans to the team.
But honestly, too bad for them I say, because the Devils just keep winning and everyone just keeps complaining.
2007-02-20 21:16:48 · answer #3 · answered by njdss4 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I don't know who is saying this, but the Devils are in the mold of a "Western Conference" team. Look at the Ducks, Flames, Oilers, Stars, or the Red Wings. All those teams are defensive-minded hockey clubs. The Devils have a backbone with Martin Brodeur in net and their defense is strong.
If the Devils were out West, they would face little criticism. But they play in the high-flying East with the Sabres, Senators, Thrashers, Penquins, Lightning, etc. All those teams are big offensive forces.
As for them being bad for hockey, I think if the WHOLE league was scoring 6 goals a game, it would get old. You could pay a goalie the minimum because goalies in a league like that would be worthless. I think teams adjust to the rules in different ways. Teams like the Sabres chose to become more offensive and teams like the Devils chose to be more defensive, even when the rules were against them. I think it's great to have teams go with different strategies. It's good for the league and makes for better matchups.
2007-02-20 15:43:45 · answer #4 · answered by robert.harding 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They're the Atlanta Braves of the NHL. Perennial playoff contenders. Stellar goaltending/defense. It kinda sucks that they can be reduced to single-phrase recognition ("The Devils are good": "Brodeur is the best goalie": "Not enough goals"), but they succeed anyway.
They're probably bad for the sport right now because of the NHL's own problems, but no way are they a bad team.
2007-02-20 17:48:12 · answer #5 · answered by 3dot3dash3dot 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
They play the trap which slows the game down, hockey is supposed to be a hard hitting fast game, and the Devils make it slow and boring with dump and chase and trap. Plus they have no attendance during the regular season, and a bunch of fans who buy season tickets, never go to a regular season game and go to the playoffs. Thats why if you watch a Devils game, there are no fans in the lower level seats. And they have a bunch of front runner fans.
2007-02-20 15:44:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
First of all, hockey is like the least popular sport in the USA. The devils just make it worse because of their boring style!!!
2007-02-21 02:27:38 · answer #7 · answered by Empty Spaces 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I just wanted to say that I was impressed with the amount of intelligent answers I saw posted; honesty both from Devils and non-Devils fans.
2007-02-21 03:00:56 · answer #8 · answered by RichMac82 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not about goals. It's about flow and tempo. The Devils' style of play suffocates the natural flow of a game to the point where the opponent strategy becomes 'don't f up at even strength and hope to win it on a ppg'.
Suddenly you've found yourself watching a soccer game, and a bad one at that.
2007-02-20 21:44:37 · answer #9 · answered by zapcity29 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i imagine that Dawson would win. human beings are forgetting how reliable Dawson truly is by using his lackluster performance adverse to Pascal. earlier that wrestle became once stopped on cuts notwithstanding, Dawson had rocked Pascal some circumstances and became on the verge of on the least knocking him down. persons also ignore that Dawson is the only individual to have defeated Tomasz Adamek decrease back at the same time as both were at 175lb. He has huge comprehend-how and expertise, and is likewise bodily larger than Ward. Ward is larger versatile because of the very truth he can field or wrestle on the interior with individuals, it really is a few thing that Dawson hasn't shown he's first-classification at. Dawson is a seriously extra appropriate organic boxer notwithstanding, and that i think that at the same time as Ward tries to get on the interior him that Dawson ought to confusing him up a touch. it really is a usual-classification wrestle, and could be a really close one too. In my mind i'm taking Dawson to area it out. BQ:] That undercard is particularly reliable. Kelly Pavlik is a fighter that i love a lot, and that i'm excited to look him out of rehab and getting lower back into the ring. Soto vs Antillon is a rematch of between the needed impressive fights very last year, and is particular to grant. Vazquez Jr vs Arce is a usual-classification scrap between the growing to be youthful fighter and the growing older yet nevertheless detrimental veterean. That being said notwithstanding, i am going to by and great develop into going to a bar in order to computer screen it. it really is the second one no longer worth opponent Manny will be dealing with, and Arum is clearly saying take it or depart it, understanding maximum individuals will grant in and purchase it. i'm no longer one in each of them, placed Manny in with Marquez, Berto, or Martinez and that i'd be particular to pay for the PPV.
2016-12-04 10:58:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋