Like many people during the lockout, I searched for answers. How did we end up with 2-1 games and neither team eclipsing 22 shots? What happened to the high-scoring play of the 1980’s? It was the fault of the Devils of 1994 and 1995, led by Jacques Lemaire and Lou Lamoriello. I will not approach this dogmatically and rant about how the “Devils suck!”
This is not an outlandish claim. To begin with, Barry Melrose blames the Devils for the decline of offense in the NHL, and has said so on ESPN (the highlight was played several times when it was announced he was returning to coaching).
To answer those who equate the Devils’ original trap with others: traps are rarely the same, and each has its own quirks. The most important distinction is between “trapping” and “countering.” The words themselves explain the crucial distinction. “Trap” implies only a defensive act, whereas “countering’ implies an attack following the defense.
The first team to use countering with great success was the Toronto Maple Leafs of the mid 1990’s. They used a high-pressure style not unlike Detroit today. However, they did not “trap.” They were aggressive defensively, but when the famous line of Gilmour, Borchevsky and Andreychuk was on the ice (or the second line with Wendel Clark), defenses shook in their skates.
The same can be said for the Red Wings today, when they use Datsyuk and Zetterberg against the other team’s top line. This is the distinction used by Gary Bettman, though he does not fully explain. When Bettman says, “we want our best players to be our best players,” he means that late in a close game, the best players should be the ones entrusted with the outcome. This seems self-evident, but it was certainly not the case in the late nineties and early 2000’s.
Conversely, trapping is a purely defensive act. Besides, how can a team counter a neutral-zone breakdwon with a rush if the players doing high-pressure checking are usually unskilled? Therein lies the damage caused by Jacques Lemaire, Lou Lamoriello and the New Jersey Devils.
Ask yourself this: what are the 1994-95 Stanley Cup Champion Devils remembered for? I’d say that people most remember the goaltending of Martin Brodeur and the “Crash Line” (fitting for a trapping team). Disagree? Check the Wikipedia entry for “Mike Peluso.”
An upset is one thing, but it is hard to rationalize how a team with so little talent could sweep a team like Detroit. The Devils’ best offensive players were Scott Niedermayer (before he was fully developed), Stephane Richer, Neal Broten (who was aging fast) and Claude Lemieux (who scored only 19 points in 45 games during the season). On the other hand, they had a deep corps of defensive specialists led by Scott Stevens and Randy McKay. In net, they had Brodeur.
The Red Wings finished that season with a record of 33-11-4 and were coached by Scotty Bowman. They sported Paul Coffey, Sergei Federov, Steve Yzerman, Dino Ciccarelli, Keith Primeau, Vyacheslav Kozlov, Nicklas Lidstrom, Viacheslav Fetisov, and Vladimir Konstantinov, of whom six were hall-of-fame players at the peak of their careers. The goaltending tandem of Chris Osgood and Mike Vernon was one of the best in the league.
Today's Must Reads
My explanation for the result is as follows: one team understood something about the game itself the other did not: that teaching untalented players to perform a simple task repeatedly could beat a team that did not employ a strategy tailored to respond in kind.
It should therefore not be surprising that people best remember the “Crash Line”: Mike Peluso, Bobby Holik and Randy McKay. Peluso recorded only 90 points in 9 NHL seasons. McKay had more offensive success than Peluso, but was far from a finesse player.
The same can be said for Holik. However one wants to disagree about their careers, the playoff stat lines are damning, to say the least. McKay led the group with a goal and two assists in twenty games. Holik came next with no goals and three assists in twenty games. Peluso had one goal and no assists.
There had been a drastic and disturbing mutation of the culture of the NHL. And, it was lauded as “good defensive hockey.” Nobody understood its magnitude at the time.
The major adjustment actually came in 1994. The Devils were without a doubt the first team to use a defense-first, second and third style despite having a talented team.
Technically, the 1994 Devils were better than the 1995 Devils. They had much more scoring power, but, in tie-game situations, coach Lemaire would send out Crash Line-caliber players rather than try to score. If he sent out Stephane Richer in a 4-on-4 situation late in a game, he would be paired with a defensive forward. Watch the Rangers-Devils series from 1994, and try to contradict me. You won’t have an easy time.
When the Devils discovered that they could employ this strategy and cut down on their pricey scoring forwards, keeping only three or four, they scored a mighty blow against the league, which had to deal with teams emulating the 1995 Devils for a decade. When teams noticed the Devils winning without much offensive finesse – and that it could only be fought with a similar strategy -- they copied what they saw. It was “countering” without the counter-attack. It saved money and yielded victory.
As you might have seen in a game this past season between the Canucks and Blue Jackets, skilled players often seemed secondary contributors, only truly making an impact if put on the power-play. In the years leading up to the lockout, teams even more devoid of offensive skill than anything we imagine today would experience success by coupling a good goaltender with a well-executed neutral zone trap and win, no matter how little talent they had.
The 1995-96 Panthers made it to the finals, and their best player was Scott Mellanby (hardly a sniper), with 70 points. Behind him, Florida’s best forwards were Rob Niedermayer, Ray Sheppard, Robert Svehla, Johan Garpenlov and Stu Barnes. What business had such a team in the Stanley Cup Finals?
Three years later, little had changed as the Buffalo Sabres lost in game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals. Their best scorer was Miroslav Satan (he missed nine playoff games, but it didn’t affect the Sabres’ ability to trap). Their second best scorers were pathetic: Michael Peca (56 points) followed by Michal Grosek (50 points) and Curtis Brown (47 points).
When the Devils met the Mighty Ducks in the 02-03 finals, a “final showdown” of sorts occurred. Consider a simple analogy: two kung fu masters face one another. (I understand that the general idea of kung fu is to use one’s opponent’s aggression against them.) In such a hypothetical situation, both fighters would simply wait for the other to make a move, and neither would do so. Perhaps that’s why I can’t remember the series at all.
In 03-04, the problem was getting worse as the Calgary Flames made the finals featuring what can only be described as Jarome Iginla, Miika Kiprusoff and a bunch of grinders. The second-leading scorer behind Iginla was Craig Conroy, with 47 points. He was followed by Shean Donovan, with 42 points.
Because of the emergence of teams that could win without much talent, brutish scoring tactics appeared. Again, the Devils provide us with a sterling example: In 1997-98, the Rangers were playing the Devils, who were on the power play and had their 2nd unit on the ice.
Because the Devils did not have as many skilled forwards as needed two full PP units, they had to act “creatively.” They stationed Polish coal miner (and you think I’m joking) turned NHL enforcer Krzysztof Oliwa in front of the net to cause a distraction.
After a few seconds, he was called for a blatant slashing penalty and the power play came to an end. Oliwa finished his NHL career with 45 points in over 400 games.
Fast-forward six seasons to game 5 of the 03-04 finals for an example of cause and effect. The aforementioned grinding Flames faced the Lightning. Calgary was having trouble scoring on Nikolai Khabibulin, so Ville Niemenen abandoned pretense and charged him for no apparent reason (the puck was nowhere near the goal, or to being shot). He was only suspended for one game.
People who try to defend the Devils’ tactics usually use one of two arguments. One: “The Devils were trend setters, they were just playing good defensive hockey” etc. This gets us nowhere because it implies that the future of the NHL lies in a sort of Dark Age of defensive hockey, impending financial doom and declining fan interest.
The other argument hinges on finance: “The Devils had no choice, they were being outspent, and had to find a way to compete.” First of all, they began the whole strategy when they had a talented team, and many of their successful teams of the 1990’s had enough scoring to compete on a normal basis.
Also, if the long-term goal of trapping was winning (without much spending) and financial success for the Devils, it was counter-productive because it drove the NHL to a point where hockey was so unpopular that only six teams could turn a profit (as explained in the Levitt Report).
You can credit the Devils for their success, but that avoids the crux of the matter: what they did was selfish.
comments (105) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 month ago
Yes. I think the Devils said,Lets see how we can ruin the game of hockey while benefiting ourselves?
from about 1 month ago
Bernie is a loser Ranger's fan who has no life and lives in his mother's basement. He bemoans the fact that the Devils success over the past 15 season greatly outweighs every team in the NHL, besides the Red Wings. He conveniently leaves out the 2000 Stanley Cup year where the Devils scored over 300 goals, and were 2nd in the league in offense while still employing a "trap." Bernie is a plain idiot who rants like a little child without doing any research or knowing any facts.
Hey Bernie, let me school you for a second son. The "trap: in a counter-attacking system designed to force a team and/or player breaking out of his own zone to one side of the ice. By doing so, the defending team clogs the passing lanes forcing the attacking player to turn the puck over.
Bernie obviuously never played a minute of organized hockey in his life. Instead, he watches his Rangers continually underachieve and then plays Halo on XBox. You're a loser Bernie. Go F yourself.
about 1 month ago
ps: look how many teams use the same style now...including the Rangers :)
from about 1 month ago
Countering vs. trapping. Martin Straka vs. Jay Pandolfo. There's a difference. One can score, one can't.
from about 1 month ago
So if Straka is a bigger offensive threat than Pando, which he is, and that's why the Rangers were countering and not trapping then why did the Rangers and Devils score almost the same amount of goals last season?
Was the Devils offensive talent so vastly greater that it trumped their offensive-less style or were the Rangers playing a similar passive style? Which seems more likely?
about 1 month ago
I dunno they that can truly be blamed, but I will say they're the reason I learned the trap in Bantams, and it was the reason I'm a 3rd line grinder. I may hate the trap, but lord knows it was the basis of my hockey career.
about 1 month ago
Blame the Devils all you want, but the fact is that they won three Stanley Cups. Maybe the Devils were the first team to start this trend, but winning the Cup is not a selfish act. They found a different way to do it than other teams, and it was successful for them. Sorry if it made it less exciting, but it was a move they made and it had to be successful for them.
from about 1 month ago
I agree with you except for one thing. No, winning the Cup unto is not a selfish act, of course. However, changing the game so it's easier for you to win IS, which was my point.
about 1 month ago
It's cute how you made no mention to the 1999-2000 Devils Stanley Cup team, the one that led the Eastern Conference in goals scored, and second only to the Red Wings in the entire league.
from about 1 month ago
This isn't about the 1999-2000 Devils team, Lemaire was no longer the coach.
from about 1 month ago
So, the decline of the league, as you put it, occurred long after Lemaire left the team. You imply that the mid-90s Devils started a chain reaction that caused all other teams to be boring? Are you serious?
about 1 month ago
It's tough to be a good team. Somebody's always going to be envious and jealous. Suggesting that a team like the Devils is SO influential that they changed the ENTIRE game is well... an honor, I guess. Thank you.
from about 1 month ago
Don't forget to thank everybody else, too, including Barry Melrose and all the other people who agree.
from about 1 month ago
the fact that you take barry melrose seriously speaks volumes about how little you know about hockey. the guy hired admitted-gambling felon rick tocchet as his assistant coach, but yeah, he's a credible source. he was (and will be) an average NHL coach. if it weren't for gretzky, he never would've even gotten a whiff of the stanley cup
about 1 month ago
i don't think they singlehandedly took down hockey, but they are part of the reason for the decline.
about 1 month ago
Yes, the Devils' brand of hockey is defensive, and does not feature much offense. But did they intend to "bring down the league?" You must be joking. The Devils are devillish only in name. You can't seriously believe that they sat down and schemed new ways to screw over everyone else.
They employed a strategy. It worked. How is this any more selfish than spending money on great scorers? Everyone wants to win. You can't blame the Devils for being successful.
from about 1 month ago
You're misconstruing my essay, Jersey. I'm not saying that they conspired to do anything but win, but the way they settled on had a HUGE impact. How can you tell me I'm being ridiculous when Barry Melrose can say the same thing on ESPN?
from about 1 month ago
pardon? if Berry Melrose said it, it must be true?
about 1 month ago
The neutral zone trap was developed by the Swedes to go up against the Russians back in the 1960's... before the Devils even existed...
I really do not see what is so bad about it anyway... it isnt some amazingly complex system... 5 guys in a position in the neutral zone... how does that destroy hockey?
Why don't you get on someone's case for inventing the box system for penalty killing... it decreased scoring... its basically a defensive zone trap with one less guy.
Hell while we're at it just eliminate the goalies and d-men... they decrease scoring...
Just a word of advice... people may not take you seriously if you quote what Barry Melrose said on ESPN... any good hockey fan knows anything on ESPN is a joke when it comes to hockey.
from about 1 month ago
"Just a word of advice... people may not take you seriously if you quote what Barry Melrose said on ESPN... any good hockey fan knows anything on ESPN is a joke when it comes to hockey."
Agreed.
from about 1 month ago
My point about Barry Melrose -- whatever you think of it -- was to establish that my claim was not out of left field. You're right, I would never trust ESPN for hockey coverage. On the other hand, I could probably find something on TSN of the same ilk if I was able to watch it with regularity.
If you don't think there's anything wrong with the trap, I don't know what to tell you. I agree that it isn't "some amazingly complex system," but that is part of the reason it's so detrimental. The trap is easy to finance because it doesn't require much talent and is successful against most non-trapping strategies.
While I understand your where you're going by equating the trap with box penalty killing, it doesn't make sense. It's self evident that box penalty killing has never hurt the game of hockey like the trap has. The last three seasons has seen playoffs in which the neutral zone trap has been infrequent. Compare any of the last three finals to the 02-03 or 03-04 finals. The evidence is endless as to why the neutral zone trap is "bad." It makes hockey less exciting and appealing.
from about 1 month ago
"Compare any of the last three finals to the 02-03 or 03-04 finals."
OK I will... in the '02-'03 season there were 31 goals scored in 7 games and '03-'04 had 27 goals in 7 games... '06-'07 there were 27 goals in 5 games and '07-'08 had 27 goals in 6 games... 4.1 goals per game compared to 4.9 goals per game... there you have it... 0.8 goals per game is the destruction that the Devils have brought upon the league... we are doomed!!! run for the hills!!!
"It makes hockey less exciting and appealing."
So true... I mean it is foolish of us to think people could like a sport where there aren't 100 points scored and we must be so stupid to think that the most popular sport in the world (soccer) has 2 goals scored in the entire game... if you're lucky... billions of people are wrong because offense is the only way a sport can be popular! we must spread the word!
I really do not think you get my point about the box on PK… it is in fact the trap in the defensive zone minus one man… it is in fact revolutionary and has changed scoring… people have just come to accept it because it has been around so long... could you imagine playing man-to-man on a PK? or just make a line of players from dot to dot? Without the box there would be so much more scoring on PPs... so if you want to go on this crusade against defense you should include taking out the box for PKs
And where is the hate for the Swedes who created the system? They took our 0.8 goals per game before the lockout! Fellow fans it is not enough to win 3-1... we must win 4-1! I will not rest until our 0.8 goals have been avenged! Vote David in '08
about 1 month ago
I love how people bash the Devils and call them insignificant, say they should be relocated (as stated on the comment board of a B/R article), yet turn around and blame them for the downfall of the pre-lockout NHL...I thought people were of the opinion that they were inconsequential to the league...I agree with you 100% David
from about 1 month ago
What? I never wrote that? I joined this website days ago... show me a quote
from about 1 month ago
No, I didnt mean you said that, sorry for any confusion. There was an article about NHL contraction and one of the suggested alternate actions was to relocate, and people said that the Devils should be relocated. That's what I was referencing
from about 1 month ago
Oh, well from an attendance standpoint, the Devils are fine now that they've moved to downtown Newark. I would never suggest that they be contracted. It would be ridiculously partisan for me to say that they haven't been influential. Unfortunately, I think that their influence was damaging, as I wrote.
In my article, I tried to make it clear I wasn't going to write four pages of unsubstantiated trash talk. Unfortunately, some people seem to be taking it that way regardless. That was specifically the reason that I didn't put the New York Rangers tag on my article. The back and forth of "Rangers Suck" - "Devils Suck" is something I wanted to avoid.
from about 1 month ago
I completely agree. .8 goals a game is a travesty and I for one was very bored watching the Devils own the wings in 95.
from about 1 month ago
But thats whats happened, you wound up with an article that trashed the Devils. I agree with the person below me who said that they prefer games where goals have meaning...its better hockey, and most hockey fans would see that...at least that my opinion
about 1 month ago
I think it's a dirty and cheap way of playing the game of hockey. I guess thats how you play when all you have is Martin Brodeur (The poor guy), without him they would be an awful team. The only way they can score is by running the goalie. The did to Leafs and from what I hear from other fans of other teams they did it to them as well. The Devils should be looked at, they play a gross game.
from about 1 month ago
jeff you can't really say anything about a team being awful if you're a leafs fan
from about 1 month ago
Leafs weren't terrible they missed the 3 years in a row two of them being nail biters. That does not make them bad and atleas they play hockey. And not to mention last year pretty well every key player on the Leafs were injured for an extended period of time. And they can't do anything about bad media and everyone down their back at all times. Also the only damn reason why Toronto lost to 3-2 two different times to the Devils was because of them running the goalie like morons and luckily not getting called even though Vesa was thrown into the net. Devils are going no where once Marty is gone they are toast.
about 1 month ago
first of all claude lemieux won the conn smythe in '95 so what he did during the regular season really doesn't matter. secondly, you don't remember anything about the series of the 02-03 finals? because as I recall, one of the most memorable moments in Stanley Cup history occurred when scott stevens practically killed paul kariya, who then came back and ripped a slapshot on brodeur from the blueline.
what they did was selfish? get over it. they, just like every other team in any professional sport, play to win. competition is inherently selfish. deal with it.
The devils were trend setters who were playing good defensive hockey. do you think they intended to have multiple teams around the league mimic their trap? how can you blame a trend setter for a bunch of followers' actions?
i also noticed you "forgot" to mention how the devils happened to lead the entire NHL in scoring when they won the cup in 2000.
you can blame the devils for the pre-lockout decline, but if it weren't for big-market teams like the rangers, toronto, dallas, etc., THERE NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN A LOCKOUT.
from about 1 month ago
lol, without big market teams, there would be NO NHL (as we know it), let alone a lockout, that's ridiculous.
from about 1 month ago
duh, no shit bernie. but as much as i hate gary bettman, he actually had ONE good idea in his overly-extended tenure as commissioner that would've prevented the lockout called revenue sharing. when teams make fiscally moronic moves (for example, as someone aforementioned, the rangers signing bobby holik to a ridiculously large contract), obviously other players who are more talented skill-wise are going to want to see a significant increase in salary as well. so what happens? the lockout and a salary cap. i guess you could make the argument that it's not the big-market teams' responsibility to worry about small-market teams, but then again would you rather have another year of no hockey at all?
from about 1 month ago
Timothy, I don't think there was a correlation between most of the teams losing money and the fact that there were big-market teams that were over-spending. If they always won, that's a different story, of course, but that's not the case.
from about 1 month ago
needless to say, following the '03-'04 season, the NHL was struggling, and what made it worse was how greedy players had suddenly become after seeing teams like the rangers offer players highly lucrative contracts. when players under contract with small-market teams saw this they thought "i'm producing more than him, but not making nearly as much." greed played a HUGE role in the lockout. small-market teams couldn't compete financially with the big names because they simply didn't have the money to do so. if the NHL could generate half of the $21 billion dollars a year the NFL generates, this would never have been a problem, but unfortunately, hockey isn't (and never will be) as popular as football in the US. bettman knew this and tried to suck off all the big-market owners so he could propose to them the idea of revenue sharing, but they weren't having it, so a lockout resulted.
about 1 month ago
Another typical Devils stereotype article, why don't you bring up the 2000 and 2001 versions of the Devils who made the finals while finishing in the Top 5 in the league in GOALS SCORED??????
about 1 month ago
Also another point you failed to mention is that once Lemaire stopped coaching the devils, the trap as you called it changed and adapted to the players on the team. Not just in 2000 but the 1997 Devils were extremely talented as well. If circumstances were different, they would have won another cup then.
But back to the trendsetting. The Montreal Canadiens were one of the first teams to use the trap, as Lemaire was their coach before he was a coach of the Devils. Why don't you blame the Canadiens as the real culprits?
from about 1 month ago
There's a legitimate response to that: because during Lemaire's tenure on the Canadiens, there wasn't a league-wide dramatic drop in scoring. I have stats to back that up (though not at hand at the moment) they're in a book called "The Death of Hockey" written in the early 2000's, which lists the average goals per game for every year since the thirties. There's a dramatic drop in the nineties, but not during Lemaire's career with the Canadiens, as a coach or player.
about 1 month ago
This is one of the most uninformed articles I have ever read.
Did the writer even research the fact that the Devils lead the league in scoring in 2000??????
about 1 month ago
This piece by Bernie is why bleacher report should rarely be taken seriously.
about 1 month ago
If we use the same logic of being selfish and trying to win - otherwise known as having a pulse while playing professional sports - any player (or coach, for that matter) who attempts to perform to the best of his ability by trying something new could be faulted for future developments that built off of their success.
So in addition to casting scorn on "the trap" for, as you infer, ruining hockey, we surely need to petition the HHoF to revoke the membership of Glenn Hall and Tony Esposito, because they revolutionized goaltending in the NHL. Prior to them, goalies knew to stand up and stay square to the shooter. Once these two knuckleheads came along, goalies are covering more of the ice, blocking more of the nets, and making it just plain difficult for shooters to put the puck in the net. Then Hasek had to come along and flop all over the place, what a selfish bastard - just stay there and let the puck go in already, will ya?
Heck, we could lobby to get Larry Robinson yanked out, too. I mean, the guy put someone else through the boards during a game. To create such an imposing presence and physical element that would be copied by future players, well gee, that's got an adverse impact on hockey. It's hard for attacking players to make it to the net and score if they're afraid to get hit. I guess that means Scott Stevens was a selfish so-and-so, hm?
...yeesh.
from about 1 month ago
your point is noted, but you'll notice that we never saw a lockout during the careers of Glenn Hall, Tony Esposito, or Larry Robinson. You seem (like a lot of people) to think that my suggestion of the far-reaching impact the trap had on hockey in the late nineties and early 2000's is ridiculous. I disagree, and so would many other people.
about 1 month ago
Bernie.
You could write an essay on how Wayne Gretzky and the Oilers ruined hockey in the 80's by totally devaluing the goal scored. You want 9-5 games, great. I have no problem with a well played 2-1 game where a goal actually has meaning. If you take notice, the Devils were the ONLY one of these so called "Trap Teams" that actually WON. Maybe they had a little talent to go along with it to? Just perhaps? And the trap can be beaten by speed and by a quick and accurate first pass out of the zone. The Devils have won 3 Cups in 13 years. Not exactly "ruining" hockey in my book. Do you think that perhaps the goalies are just a bit better these days? They're bigger, stronger and better positioned. The D-man is also bigger, stronger and faster and guess what--the ice surface is smaller as a result.
Take away the clutch and grab. Take away interference. But also take away the trapazoid (targeted SPECIFICALLY for Marty Brodeur, who is the best ever at handling the puck). Like the "46" defense was going to ruin football, skilled teams and smart coaches learn how to beat it and so the game evolves.
from about 1 month ago
I never said the Devils didn't have talent, just that they didn't use it. Again, I consider them trend-setters because they were the first team to use a heavily slanted defensive system DESPITE HAVING A TALENTED TEAM.
I never said I wanted 9-5 games, but there's a middle ground between 9-5 and 2-1, which is what we have now in many cases, much better. I think the 05-06 finals are a good example of what hockey we should hope for.
about 1 month ago
hahah what a bunch of trash. typical philly fan
about 1 month ago
The "Trap-ezoid" was instituted also because of the play of Brodeur. He was the perfect complement to a defensive system.
The Devils are trend setters and should be respected for that and not made to be the cause of the decline of hockey...
about 1 month ago
The true decline of the Pre-lockout NHL came when the RANGERS signed a certain "unskilled" (as you claim them all to be) Devils forward named Holik to one of the largest and most lucrative contracts in the history of sports. Please write an article about how the RANGERS destroyed the NHL. And while you're at it, get a hair cut.
from about 1 month ago
heh, that picture is 3 years old, I only use it for sentimental value. You can say what you want about the Rangers signing all those Kasparaitises and Holiks, but that's hardly what led to the lockout if you think about it. The problem was that so few teams were profiting, as you read in the Levitt Report.
from about 1 month ago
Are you completely delusional? The outrageous player contracts had nothing to do with the lockout? Maybe you should be taking some Econ 101 classes in college because you have no clue how things work in the real world. Teams weren't making money because most of their earnings were going to player contracts. Your team, the RANGERS, helped increase the percentage going into player pockets by setting precedents with Holik-like contracts.
You're absolutely clueless.
about 1 month ago
Glen Sather caused the lockout by giving third rate players insanely enormous contracts. I mean seriously, $9.5M for Bobby Holik? What a retard.
from about 1 month ago
yeah, I agree that was an awful contract.
about 1 month ago
Notice how this supposed downfall of hockey began when the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 95, but NOT when they lost to the Rangers the year before employing the same style. Amazing how they can go from playing in, what many believe, was the greatest seven game series in hockey history to ruining the sport in less than 12 months. Unbelievable.
from about 1 month ago
No, i said it began in 1994, as you'll see if you re-read what I wrote. You're exaggerating, obviously. The problem isn't that the Devils ruined the cup in one year, it's what happened over the next decade because of it.
about 1 month ago
Isnt the NHL in a era of record breaking attendance and monetary success?
I find it funny how its always a Rangers fan blaming the Devils, since Glen Sather is actually the one responsible for the lockout. I am so sorry that the Devils 2000 cup winning team that scored 5 goals a game had to ruin the league, I mean who wanted to see "boring" games like this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu6Vcj2FKbY
Stupid ass Rangers fans, I mean come on, these are the same people who think the Rangers 2 more total goals than us last season made them a dynamic powerhouse. Here is a wake up check, the Rangers trap more than any other team in the league now, but they can get away with it since they hide behind Dolans fake sellouts.
Glen Sather ruined the league, Crosby and Ovechkin saved it.
about 1 month ago
"...what they did was selfish."
LOL...what they did you dumbass is win without buying a team (like the Rangers or the Red Wings) Nor were they a paltry team that obtained superstars with high draft picks & become a media-darling team of the future. (Washington, Pittsburgh, San Jose)
Players were drafted & put into a system that worked & made them successful. Ironically, now that the Devils are moving into another direction with their style of play, many teams are now trying to copy that "trap" formula.
I'm sure that while you're reading this, your mommy is making you a grilled cheese sandwich & baking some peanut butter cookies. All whilst you sit in your room, playing D&D with some other crybaby Ranger fans. What's up after dinner tonight? Pairing your colored socks & pulling ear hair out with some tweezers.
I guess I should write the article on how the Rangers were the cause of exorbitant salaries; paying average players...3 to 5 times their actual worth. Hence, causing the demiss of affordable ticket prices.
about 1 month ago
Bernie.
You didn't respond that the Devils were the only trap team to actually win. That's not USING their talent? Others have tried to copy NJ, and have come close, but if the "trap" has ruined hockey, how come trapping teams--other than NJ--don't win?
And using the same argument, has zone defense "ruined" college basketball?
from about 1 month ago
i don't profess to know much about basketball, so let's stick to hockey. I thought my point about the "Crash Line" being one of the main legacies of the 94-95 Devils was pretty strong. I wanted to note the change in culture, as I said. Certainly, it would be an exaggeration to say the Devils didn't use their talent AT ALL (because they did, obviously), but I find it really disturbing that the Crash Line is so prominent in the memories of that series.
I'd also say that the Dallas Stars won a cup by trapping, NJ isn't the only team to do it, and you can't discount my examples of Florida, Buffalo and Calgary. The fact that those teams made the finals still speaks volumes.
Lastly, yes, if that's what you're getting at, the Devils do deserve credit for using the trap to win Stanley Cups, what they did was undeniably successful.
about 1 month ago
Bernie, here is your next article title.
"WHY HENRIK LUNDQVISTS PADS SHOULDNT BE ALLOWED ON AN AIRPLANE"
Oh I forgot, its just a coincidence that Henrik's pads go up to his chin.
from about 1 month ago
good idea.
about 1 month ago
Rangers fans are the most pompous people on earth, they have to finger point and create this revisionist history that their team actually means something to the sports world because in reality the Rangers have won 1 cup in the modern era (borrowed it from Edmonton) and because they cant beat a Hawks/Celtics NBA game in TV ratings in New York City.
Say what you want about my team, I have SEEN 3 cup victories, you were 7 when that bald choad Messier took his convoy of Oilers to Manhattan and leased the cup.
about 1 month ago
You FAIL TO MENTION that the Devils, their so-called ruining of offensive hockey, managed to finish FIRST in the League in 2001 - the year after they won the cup with roughly the same team (And were the EASTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPs).
They had almost 300 goals scored (295), which is more than this year's leader (Ottawa with 258)... you know, the "new" NHL. 295 goals playing miserable, defensive hockey...
in 2001 Patrik Elias had 40 goals (96 points - 3rd most in the LEAGUE) and Petr Sykora had 35 goals (in only 73 games), and Alexander Mogilny put up 43 goals (in 75 games).
maybe you shouldn't be so quick to omit the seasons that COMPLETELY DESTROY your argument.
from about 1 month ago
Hes a Rangers fan, the only seasons that matter are the ones that help his argument.
Damn those "boring" Devils, how dare they score 300 goals in a season, what a bunch of cheaters!
Its a shame the 2007-2008 Devils couldn't get two more regular season goals so they could have set the NHL on fire like the Rangers did.
Ugh this kid is one of the reasons the internet should be destroyed.
from about 1 month ago
My argument hinged on 94-95, if you read it.
from about 1 month ago
If your argument hinged on 94-95, why did you bring up 2002-2003 and the final series against the Ducks? I thought that was irrelevant.
about 1 month ago
You FAIL TO MENTION that the Devils, their so-called ruining of offensive hockey, managed to finish FIRST in the League in 2001 in goals scored - the year after they won the cup with roughly the same team (And were the EASTERN CONFERENCE CHAMPs).
They had almost 300 goals scored (295), which is more than this year's leader (Ottawa with 258)... you know, the "new" NHL. 295 goals playing miserable, defensive hockey...
in 2001 Patrik Elias had 40 goals (96 points - 3rd most in the LEAGUE) and Petr Sykora had 35 goals (in only 73 games), and Alexander Mogilny put up 43 goals (in 75 games).
maybe you shouldn't be so quick to omit the seasons that COMPLETELY DESTROY your argument.
from about 1 month ago
Even if it does, your whole premise that "the trap" ruined hockey is shown to be completely false when you look at the 2001 team. They not all only played the trap, but also lead the league in scoring. Proving that the trap itself did not cause the lockout. It was mediocre teams trying to copy the trap that caused the problems. The trap requires a good amount of talent to take advantage of the other teams mistakes. and most teams that emulated it did not have the talent required.
about 1 month ago
I've heard this argument made my so many people in the past that I'm not even going to attempt to argue with you. Instead I'm going to ask the following question: so what?
Even if everything you say is true, and while I don't believe it is I'm choosing not to contest your essay at this time, and the Devils did intentionally go out and do what they could to essentially cripple the NHL's style of play, there remains the question as to whether or not anyone should care.
Yes, fans of other hockey teams undoubtedly will be bitter over these developments, especially fans of teams like the late-90s early-00s New York Rangers, who were the poster boys for signing insanely talented forwards to high priced contracts and failing miserably with them.
The Devils, on the other hand, did indeed put low-priced forwards to great effect, winning three stanley cups with them. I like to say that each hockey team has one player on their team that exemplifies their style of play. In 1995 on the Devils, it was Claude Lemieux. In 2000 on the Devils, it was Jason Arnott. And in 2003 on the Devils, it was Jay Pandolfo. Pandolfo is the perfect example of the kind of low-priced player you name who ended up becoming the kind of clutch and key cog in the NHL team's championship-grade machine. Moreover, it spread as the teams will less ability to bring in the Rangers-style high-flying offensive powerhouses realized that they could use the Jay Pandolfos of the NHL to compete.
And compete the Devils did, winning three Stanley Cups. Here's the rub - isn't winning the point? So what if they did it with lower-priced, less skilled, defensive minded forwards? So what if they reduced the teams they played against to playing shufflepuck in the neutral zone? So what if their style of play resulted in a new era of lesser goal scoring as more teams went out and tried to compete with the teams who could afford the big talents. The point is to win. Period.
Winning, in that way, is an inherently selfish act. If you win, then everybody else loses. The Devils did what they needed to do to win. Again, so what if the rest of the NHL suffered? The Devils thrived. Isn't that the point?
about 1 month ago
"Compare any of the last three finals to the 02-03 or 03-04 finals."
OK I will... in the '02-'03 season there were 31 goals scored in 7 games and '03-'04 had 27 goals in 7 games... '06-'07 there were 27 goals in 5 games and '07-'08 had 27 goals in 6 games... 4.1 goals per game compared to 4.9 goals per game... there you have it... 0.8 goals per game is the destruction that the Devils have brought upon the league... we are doomed!!! run for the hills!!!
"It makes hockey less exciting and appealing."
So true... I mean it is foolish of us to think people could like a sport where there aren't 100 points scored and we must be so stupid to think that the most popular sport in the world (soccer) has 2 goals scored in the entire game... if you're lucky... billions of people are wrong because offense is the only way a sport can be popular! we must spread the word!
I really do not think you get my point about the box on PK… it is in fact the trap in the defensive zone minus one man… it is in fact revolutionary and has changed scoring… people have just come to accept it because it has been around so long... could you imagine playing man-to-man on a PK? or just make a line of players from dot to dot? Without the box there would be so much more scoring on PPs... so if you want to go on this crusade against defense you should include taking out the box for PKs
And where is the hate for the Swedes who created the system in the 1960's? They took our 0.8 goals per game before the lockout! Fellow fans it is not enough to win 3-1... we must win 4-1! I will not rest until our 0.8 goals have been avenged! Vote David in '08
about 1 month ago
This is a completely flawed analysis. The writer discusses how Florida should not have made it as far as they did in '96, because their stop scorer was Mellenby with only 70 points. Completely downplaying how good a goalie John Beezer was.
Let us talk about 2001, the year following a Devils' Stanley Cup win and a year the Devils went to the Stanley Cup Finals as the Eastern Conference champions.
In 2001, with a team largely similar to the cup champions of 2000, the Devils finished FIRST in the LEAGUE with GOALS SCORED (295). That's almost 300 goals! This past year's winner for most goals scored is Ottawa, with 258. Imagine that 295 goals in 2001... on a defensive, hockey-killing team compared to 258 goals scored by the High-Powered offense that is Ottawa... in the "new" NHL no less.
That year, in 2001, Patrik Elias scored 40 goals and finished THIRD in the LEAGUE with 96 points. Alexander Mogilny scored 43 goals in just 75 games... and Petr Sykora scored 35 goals in just 73 games.
Its easy to make a case when you omit the season that COMPLETELY DESTROYS your argument.
about 1 month ago
Hey Bernie you suck. Do you really watch hockey? Just about Every team plays the trap. rangers. red Wings. Penguins. they all play some sort of trap. or thats right when they do it its called the "left wing lock".... LMFAO!
the Devils had and still have the best goaltender in the modern era. Marty and Patrick Roy are 2 of the best ALL TIME goalies in the history of the NHL. maybe thats why we had low goals against most years? not too mention the best hall of fame defenseman the franchise has ever seen in Scott Stevens? Oh what about Scott Niedermayer? Do you think the great hall of fame talents of these players had anything to do with our cups and defensive style?
Please think before making stupid articles. moron. Watch a hockey game once in a while. and you will see the trap has been played by all teams since the early 90s..... Maybe the Devils just perfected it better because they had a better goaltender and players, and coaching staff? Is that a possibility? No of course not, no one ever gives the Devils credit. We could sign Gaborik, Crosby, Malkin, Niedermayer, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, etc and "analysts" would still never give the Devils credit.... Its a shame people like you cant See the Devils for their success and Dynasty of the 90s. Instead you have to find fault in their success....
about 1 month ago
what a moron this guy is. way to leave out the 2000 devils. id like to hear your take on them. so the devils should have bought players like the rangers did in 1994? go watch basketball if you want to see high scoring games. there is more to hockey then just scoring. quit crying, you too bernie
about 1 month ago
My argument hinged on 94-95, if you read it.
Your argument hinges on the one season where it works. What about 2001? You can make a generalization based on one season.
If you're going to pick apart 94-95... you need to be an unbiased journalist and mention the seasons where the Devils played a similar style and still scored the most goals in the league
about 1 month ago
Also you mention how Detroit had 6 hall of famers in 94-95... the Devils had 3 (although Nieds and Broduer aren't official, they will be... you have to admit that). Plus you had guys like John MacLean, Claude Lemieux "can't miss kid" and other solid players. They might not have been the best team in the league, but to only reference guys like Peluso and Holik is bad journalism.
about 1 month ago
need a box of tissues? your tears could flood the ice at MSG many times over. GET OVER IT ALREADY. 2048 buddy.
about 1 month ago
what about Rolston on that 94-95 team? and a Young Bill Guerin on the cusp of back to back 35+goal seasons?
Try a little research first before putting this stuff out there then you wouldn;t get blasted
about 1 month ago
Let us take a second to analyze the final argument you pose here:
Claim: The Devils playing the trap in 1995 was selfish.
Grounds: The Devils teams of the Lemaire era had sufficient scoring ability to win games with a more offensive style, without the extensive use of the neutral zone trap.
Now, obviously the relationship between your claim and your grounds leads to the following conclusion: if the Devils played the trap when they were talented enough to win games without the trap, then the Devils were selfish.
I would take issue with this. First of all, let's take a look at the Devils lineup in 1995 - you were kind enough to provide some of the players on their team, but I believe I remember the roster well enough to give you the usual lineup:
Tom Chorske - Neal Broten - Claude Lemieux
Stephane Richer - Bob Carpenter - John MacLean
Mike Peluso - Bobby Holik - Randy McKay
Brian Rolston - Valeri Zelepukin - Bill Guerin
Sergei Brylin, Jim Dowd
Scott Stevens - Scott Niedermayer
Shawn Chambers - Bruce Driver
Ken Daneyko - Tommy Albelin
Kevin Dean
Martin Brodeur
Chris Terreri
This lineup is, obviously, pretty talented, especially when you consider the presence of the then-young Brian Rolston and Bill Guerin on the fourth line and the Devils greats Claude Lemieux and John MacLean on the top two lines alongside Stephane Richer and the midseason pickup Neal Broten.
The question, however, is whether or not this lineup is talented enough to win hockey games, as you claim. The answer seems obviously to be yes - combine that quality defensive corps with Stevens, Niedermayer, Driver, and Daneyko, and the offensive players that have already been named and Martin Brodeur and you have a quality hockey team, one that I believe has been underrated by hockey historians in the past.
But from this question arises another question - had the 1995 Devils not played the trap, would they have been able to defeat the monster-talented Detroit Red Wings, a team that stormed through the regular season in a fashion not altogether unlike the most recent 2008 Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings?
This is a matter for obvious debate, but the fact of the matter is that most pundits in 1995 picked the Devils to falter early in the playoffs and expected the Red Wings to sweep them in the finals, which suggests that while people were aware that the young Devils squad was talented, their talent did not match that of the almighty Red Wings.
So, if you are the New Jersey Devils, attempting to perhaps accomplish the single most selfish thing in all of sports - winning a championship - what is the choice that you make? Do you go up against the more talented Red Wings, playing their style of hockey and effectively playing into their hands, or do you give your team the best chance to win?
The Devils of 1995 played the trap not because they wanted to be selfish and do what they could to damage the rest of the NHL, but because without the trap their team was likely insufficient to be worthy of a championship - just look at how quickly it all fell apart after Claude Lemieux was traded after the victory. The loss of one talented player and the team went from winning it all to missing the playoffs. The trap, while it did not necessarily get the Devils into the playoffs, is certainly what put them over the Red Wings (in such fantastic fashion) and led them to an almost two-decade span of dominance in the NHL alongside the almightly Red Wings.
Is this selfish? Even if it is, so what? In a world where two teams clash and only one can move on, being selfish is all that keeps teams competitive. You don't see the Red Wings of 2008 trading Henrik Zetterberg to the Florida Panthers for the sake of competitve fairness and a level playing field. Such a thing is unconscionable - teams play not to be fair, but to win. Selfishness is a fundamental part of competition and simply cannot be avoided.
The fact of the matter is talent is insufficient for teams to be fully competitive. The best example of this is the early years of Glen Sather's New York Rangers, who accumulated talented forwards like coin collectors accumulate decades old pennies, and consistantly failed to perform. The reason for this is a lack of a player system and other teams which recognized, perhaps as a result of the success of the 95' Devils, perhaps not - that it was possible to level the playing field and give their teams a chance to win by focusing not on the talent of their teams alone, but also on how they played the game.
The Devils may, as you say, have been responsible for this revelation (although somehow I doubt other teams were as blind to this possibility before 1995 as you seem to think that they were, seeing as despite popular belief the Devils did not invent the defense-first style of hockey). Even if they were, calling them selfish for giving themselves the best chance to win a championship is pure folly, as that, above all else, is the goal of professional sports.
You say: "Also, if the long-term goal of trapping was winning (without much spending) and financial success for the Devils, it was counter-productive because it drove the NHL to a point where hockey was so unpopular that only six teams could turn a profit (as explained in the Levitt Report)."
And how, dare I ask, was trapping couner-productive if the long term goal of the Devils was winning? After all, the Devils do have three stanley cups in the last thirteen years - as, argued above, a direct result of their style of play, not of their talent (but talent always helps, obviously). The Devils goal was not financial stability of the NHL, nor is that the goal of any professional sports team (unless you're the woeful Wirtz-era Chicago Blackhawks, and as a current Chicago resident I cannot pity Blackhawks fans of that era any more than I already do). The Devils goal, as you say, was winning. Period.
Is that selfish? Hell yes. Believe me, I'd rather have a league of teams striving for victory than a league of teams striving for financial stability. Wouldn't you?
about 1 month ago
The Rangers and teams like them who pay 3x market value for middling talent. How is a team like Boston supposed to keep Joe Thornton who is a 100 point a season guy, when Bobby Holik who scores 50 points in a season if he is on fire, gets 9.5 million. Shouldnt a guy like Thornton on that scale make 15 million a season
about 1 month ago
How could the Devils score over 300 goals in a season without "countering" as opposed to the much more evil "trapping"? How can a team sweep another in a best of seven series if its only "memorable" line scored one goal combined in the 20 games you "researched"? What does a 7 year old remember about hockey in 1995? These are all questions that one may ask had he wasted a few minutes taking your "article" seriously.
about 1 month ago
Where's the article of the New York Rangers at fault for the lockout itself?!?! Buying old, washed up players for 3x's what they were worth, hoping to buy the cup.... unsuccessfully might I add :).
from about 1 month ago
WHAT? Holik was worth the 9million!!!!!!
about 1 month ago
Bettman + expansion and ridiculous contracts were the reason for NHL decline, not just the Devils' trap. I find the article to be smarter than others are giving you credit for, though. It's interesting at least.