Bryan Trottier

[BraveCanadian]

Why does it seem like Trots so underrated on here?

I see he is rated 26 overall on the HOH list and obviously moving up from there is a very tall order.. but even though that is a very good standing for him on that particular list, in general on here he doesn't seem to get a lot of respect.

The guy is probably the most all around and complete player center in the history of the game. Right up there as an overall skillset type player with Gordie and Bobby in my opinion.

There is quite simply no facet of the game in which he was not outstanding.

People accuse Al Arbour of bias when he says if he could pick any player to build a team around (circa 1980 if I remember correctly) it would have been Trottier. I think it makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter what type of team you have or what style of play you are trying to build towards.. Trottier could do it all in any fashion. And you always build down the middle first (goal and center) first if you can.

This is a guy with 6 x 100 point seasons including 5 seasons of 40 or more goals who peaked at the magical 50. He won a Hart and came in 2nd one other time before Wayne Gretzky took over the awards for a decade.

He also had 4 absolutely monstrous playoffs in a row for the Isle dynasty and was still producing when the Isles were declining in their 5th straight run to the finals. He's a Conn Smythe winner.

Is it because people credit Bossy for a lot of his offense? He was a 95 point main as a 19 year old rookie and with no Bossy.

Possibly because of his money problems and very inappropriately asking for an appearance fee for his jersey retirement in Long Island?

Or is it just because he hung around long enough for people to see him as a role player in Pittsburgh?

I can't get over how solid he was on his skates while decking these guys.



Anyone have any thoughts or anecdotes to share about Trottier?

As I said, him moving up from 26 on the HOH is a tall order (maybe impossible looking at the guys ahead of him) but if nothing else I just want to rekindle some appreciation of this guy.

Click to read more...

 

[Canadiens1958]

I have Bryan Trottier as 15th but I tend to evaluate centers differently especially when weighing their defensive contributions.

The single aspect that stands out about Bryan Trottier was his ability to impose his game on the opposition, game after game, which is a very significant part of the battle.

 

[Dissonance]

People accuse Al Arbour of bias when he says if he could pick any player to build a team around (circa 1980 if I remember correctly) it would have been Trottier. I think it makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter what type of team you have or what style of play you are trying to build towards.. Trottier could do it all in any fashion. And you always build down the middle first (goal and center) first if you can.

That's not a bad way of thinking about it. Looking at the HOH list, I get why people ranked Jagr and Lafleur and Esposito higher, but if I was building a team from scratch, I'd probably take Trottier before any of those three.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

A couple of reasons he's ranked "low:"

1) His longevity is significantly worse than other comparable centers (Mikita, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman).

2) He was at best the 2nd most important player on the Isles dynasty (after Potvin), and he was usually outscored by Bossy in the playoffs.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Why does it seem like Trots so underrated on here?

I see he is rated 26 overall on the HOH list and obviously moving up from there is a very tall order.. but even though that is a very good standing for him on that particular list, in general on here he doesn't seem to get a lot of respect.

The guy is probably the most all around and complete player center in the history of the game. Right up there as an overall skillset type player with Gordie and Bobby in my opinion.

There is quite simply no facet of the game in which he was not outstanding.

People accuse Al Arbour of bias when he says if he could pick any player to build a team around (circa 1980 if I remember correctly) it would have been Trottier. I think it makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter what type of team you have or what style of play you are trying to build towards.. Trottier could do it all in any fashion. And you always build down the middle first (goal and center) first if you can.

This is a guy with 6 x 100 point seasons including 5 seasons of 40 or more goals who peaked at the magical 50. He won a Hart and came in 2nd one other time before Wayne Gretzky took over the awards for a decade.

He also had 4 absolutely monstrous playoffs in a row for the Isle dynasty and was still producing when the Isles were declining in their 5th straight run to the finals. He's a Conn Smythe winner.

Is it because people credit Bossy for a lot of his offense? He was a 95 point main as a 19 year old rookie and with no Bossy.

Possibly because of his money problems and very inappropriately asking for an appearance fee for his jersey retirement in Long Island?

Or is it just because he hung around long enough for people to see him as a role player in Pittsburgh?

I can't get over how solid he was on his skates while decking these guys.



Anyone have any thoughts or anecdotes to share about Trottier?

As I said, him moving up from 26 on the HOH is a tall order (maybe impossible looking at the guys ahead of him) but if nothing else I just want to rekindle some appreciation of this guy.

I hope it's not the bolded. He had every right to do that. He can basically do no wrong in my eyes.
I think a lot of players came kind of off the farm and weren't prepared to deal with the business side of hockey.
He's my favorite player of all time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

A couple of reasons he's ranked "low:"

1) His longevity is significantly worse than other comparable centers (Mikita, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman).

If we are talking offense, Trottier had 11 years of a ppg+ .. I don't think that is too shabby at all.

Messier clocks in with 15, Mikita with 13 (obviously different era as far as numbers though), Sakic with 14, Yzerman with 13.

Despite Trottier's quick drop off offensively after his peak we're not talking about a gulf of difference here.

2) He was at best the 2nd most important player on the Isles dynasty (after Potvin), and he was usually outscored by Bossy in the playoffs.

I agree Potvin was kind of the glue for the Isles but:

Mikita, Messier, Sakic and Yzerman all had help too.

In fact all of them won their cups with teammates that are rated higher than them on the HOH list. Of course excepting Messier's 1 cup in New York but Brian Leetch was arguably the most important player for them that year.

So you could make the argument that they were all the 2nd most important players. I'm not saying they were for sure just that I don't understand why Trottier suffers for it when they don't.

 

[reckoning]

Possibly because of his money problems and very inappropriately asking for an appearance fee for his jersey retirement in Long Island?

There was nothing wrong with that at all. His retirement ceremony would likely draw more fans (therefore more money) than the Isles might usually get, so why shouldn't he be entitled to get paid?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In fact all of them won their cups with teammates that are rated higher than them on the HOH list. Of course excepting Messier's 1 cup in New York but Brian Leetch was arguably the most important player for them that year.

So you could make the argument that they were all the 2nd most important players. I'm not saying they were for sure just that I don't understand why Trottier suffers for it when they don't.

Minor point, but Messier was the best player in Edmonton in 1990, too. So that's 2 Cups as the "highest ranked" player on his team, and 4 playing 2nd fiddle to Gretzky.

 

[Trottier]

Why does it seem like Trots so underrated on here?

I don't think he is underappreciated here (HOH board). I could quibble with how a few rank him relative to contemporaries like Clarke, Sakic, Messier and Yzerman, but it's a matter of opinion. And, I'm yet to find a single HOH poster who does not include him among the best of the very best.

A couple of reasons he's ranked "low:"

1) His longevity is significantly worse than other comparable centers (Mikita, Messier, Sakic, Yzerman).

When viewed strictly in offensive statistical terms, you are correct. Which, of course, is ironic, because the unique greatness of his game was his extremely high ability in the non-obvious, non-sexy (and thus under-appreciated by some) aspects that require more than simply reciting numbers...oh, while by the way, accumulating 500+ goals and 1,200+ points. Case in point: his important role on the Pens' Cup winners at the end of his career. Trottier was taking the top defensive assignments (and contributing modest offense) while Mario and Francis went to town on the other team's lines. Of the guys you mention above, Sakic and Messier certainly never contributed like that at the end of their careers.

2) He was at best the 2nd most important player on the Isles dynasty (after Potvin), and he was usually outscored by Bossy in the playoffs.

His own coach disagrees with you.

And "at best"?

But alas, offensive stats win the day on HF. Hence Bossy is viewed more favorably by some today, when such was NEVER the case in their time.

I thank God Trottier and Bobby Clarke played when they did. Were they skating today, Generation Nuu NHL (not directed at you) would likely be mocking them for "being overrated for intangibles".

 

[jiboy]

I thank God Trottier and Bobby Clarke played when they did. Were they skating today, Generation Nuu NHL (not directed at you) would likely be mocking them for "being overrated for intangibles".

more about being overpaid

sad reality of our time we cannot evaluate players for what they bring on the ice now..always the money factor that hurt more those kind of players who bring more to the game than goals and assists..

people look at stats column and complain that they are overpaid.. they are not able to just watch the game and enjoy the good work overall of the player...always have the money factor on the back of your head "this player is good but he has to, gosh, he's paid 6 millions $!"

and yet you see a bunch of these "overpaid" player going deep in the playoffs years after years

 

[Dissonance]

Case in point: his important role on the Pens' Cup winners at the end of his career. Trottier was taking the top defensive assignments (and contributing modest offense) while Mario and Francis went to town on the other team's lines. Of the guys you mention above, Sakic and Messier certainly never contributed like that at the end of their careers.

I'm a huge Trottier fan, and the rest of your post is absolutely right, but I'd quibble with this a bit. Trottier was 34-35 when he was playing that (important) defensive/leadership role with the Pens. At that age, Messier was still a Hart finalist and Sakic was still considered the best center in the league. So there is something to the longevity critique. (Part of that is probably due to the fact that Trottier put a lot more wear and tear on his body over the years--and who would want it any other way?)

I do agree, though, that it was impressive (and spoke volumes about how he'd do anything to win) how Trottier adjusted his game after he was no longer scoring the way he used to. Not many stars can do that. Messier certainly never did. Sakic… well, it's hard to say. He was basically an elite first-line player right up until the day his back gave out (and the snowblower got him), so who knows how his game might've evolved further.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Minor point, but Messier was the best player in Edmonton in 1990, too. So that's 2 Cups as the "highest ranked" player on his team, and 4 playing 2nd fiddle to Gretzky.

Oh you're right of course.. there goes my memory again.

In any case you understand the point I was trying to make.

 

[Big Phil]

His own coach disagrees with you.

And "at best"?

Is that Al Arbour you are quoting? Did he make mention that Trottier was the most important cog on the Isles dynasty?

But alas, offensive stats win the day on HF. Hence Bossy is viewed more favorably by some today, when such was NEVER the case in their time.

Personally I could stay up nights figuring out who was the most important player on that Isles dynasty and I might pick a different one out of the three. I can't see how you could go wrong with Potvin though. He was the glue of that team and he just might be the best playoff performer ever to never win the Smythe (something he could have done easily). While I value Smith a lot, I always tend to rate him 4th out of that group and fight it out between Bossy and Trottier on who's #2. I really don't think there is a wrong answer either.

Out of the 4 Cups Trottier outscored him twice and vice versa. Both Bossy and Trottier underperformed (to their standards in the Cup final trip in 1984 so it's a wash). So if you add the physical play and defense to the equation of Trottier and then add the goal scoring prowess of Bossy (17 goals three straight playoffs) not to mention the clutch goals he scored, I think it's pretty even when it comes to importance. Flip a coin for either one of them to be #2. Both won a Conn Smythe deservingly. Heck, you could even have Potvin in that coin flip he certainly wasn't a clear cut more valuable either.

 

[redbull]

I'm a huge Trottier fan, and the rest of your post is absolutely right, but I'd quibble with this a bit. Trottier was 34-35 when he was playing that (important) defensive/leadership role with the Pens. At that age, Messier was still a Hart finalist and Sakic was still considered the best center in the league. So there is something to the longevity critique. (Part of that is probably due to the fact that Trottier put a lot more wear and tear on his body over the years--and who would want it any other way?)

I do agree, though, that it was impressive (and spoke volumes about how he'd do anything to win) how Trottier adjusted his game after he was no longer scoring the way he used to. Not many stars can do that. Messier certainly never did. Sakic… well, it's hard to say. He was basically an elite first-line player right up until the day his back gave out (and the snowblower got him), so who knows how his game might've evolved further.

Those cup runs hurt trottier physically, and many of those isles players - none of whom had long careers. They earned every cup by sacrificing their bodies. Trottier was more physical, especially in the playoffs, than any other top center (clarke?), didn't skate like the wind like mess and earned every puck battle with his fierce battle level and hard work.

Potvin and bossy and smith did 'their jobs' as well as anyone - that should take nothing away from trotts role. And as I said in another thread, trotts had to line up opposite 99 and mess and that powerhouse offense, and walked away with a ring.

At his peak, he was right up there with the best ever.

Bang-on about how he did everything at an elite level. Goals assists points +/- but more importantly, lead, battle, win.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm a huge Trottier fan, and the rest of your post is absolutely right, but I'd quibble with this a bit. Trottier was 34-35 when he was playing that (important) defensive/leadership role with the Pens. At that age, Messier was still a Hart finalist and Sakic was still considered the best center in the league. So there is something to the longevity critique. (Part of that is probably due to the fact that Trottier put a lot more wear and tear on his body over the years--and who would want it any other way?)

I do agree, though, that it was impressive (and spoke volumes about how he'd do anything to win) how Trottier adjusted his game after he was no longer scoring the way he used to. Not many stars can do that. Messier certainly never did. Sakic… well, it's hard to say. He was basically an elite first-line player right up until the day his back gave out (and the snowblower got him), so who knows how his game might've evolved further.

How unusual was it for players of his class to be winding down offensively by their mid 30s though? I know Lafleur did, Bobby Clarke did, Perreault did, Sittler did. My point is that most guys who got started in the early to mid-70s were done as offensive stars by 33-35 just like Trottier.

Guys being productive past that age is only becoming more common recently. There were exceptions in the past obviously but I do think it is more common due to the better off season training and nutrition players devote themselves to now. Not to mention better medical fixes for injury etc.

I'm actually trying to think of someone who started between 70-75 who was still putting up big numbers by the late 80s. Trots was still a ppg by the mid-late 80s and no one else is coming to mind.

Compared to most of his high scoring contemporaries, Trottier actually maintained his play quite well offensively.

And with a style of play like Trottier and going to 5 straight finals.. that has to take a toll.

You're right though.. Trottier did adapt after his offense started to dry up and came away with 2 more rings as a reward.

Sakic never had to because he was a 100 point threat at 20 and a 100 point threat at 38. Quite remarkable in itself.

 

[Big Phil]

How unusual was it for players of his class to be winding down offensively by their mid 30s though? I know Lafleur did, Bobby Clarke did, Perreault did, Sittler did. My point is that most guys who got started in the early to mid-70s were done as offensive stars by 33-35 just like Trottier.

Trottier was done by 31-32 years old offensively at the most. Was that rare? No, not among the normal player. But the elite? Well it is a noticeable drop off for Trottier, but like someone said those long springs took a toll on his body and I don't think he should get penalized all that badly for not sustaining his offense longer considering he adjusted his game to his environment.

Lafleur was slowing down but that was injuries as well and he still had a pretty good PPG in his 30s. Perreault is a rare case, he had a 90 and 83 point season late in his career and was a PPG guy up until retirement. Dionne, well we all know what he did and how LONG he did it. It could have been the non-existant or early playoff exits that preserved his career though. Clarke, Barber, McDonald and Shutt are other guys who's offense dried up once they hit their 30s. So I guess in closing, you can't really penalize Trottier too much considering he adjusted his game and he wasn't the only star to lose his offense even if it did fade away rather fast.

 

[Trottier]

I'm a huge Trottier fan, and the rest of your post is absolutely right, but I'd quibble with this a bit. Trottier was 34-35 when he was playing that (important) defensive/leadership role with the Pens. At that age, Messier was still a Hart finalist and Sakic was still considered the best center in the league. So there is something to the longevity critique.

Very fair point. And I should know - when Messier was 34 and leading NYR to its only Cup in the last 70 years , I was a season ticket holder at MSG.

It's not intended as an excuse (because I do not believe in excuses), but you are correct: Trottier took the body constantly, frankly, unlike any first line center I've seen, aside from perhaps Peter Forsberg. And players who hit that often through their 30s are often spent earlier (see: Mike Peca, Adam Graves, not to mention Forsberg, among countless others). Plus, as mentioned above, five straight trips to the Finals is a LOT of extra games.

Is that Al Arbour you are quoting? Did he make mention that Trottier was the most important cog on the Isles dynasty?

He said he was the best player in the game. Not precisely the same thing, but you get the point.

Personally I could stay up nights figuring out who was the most important player on that Isles dynasty and I might pick a different one out of the three.

Not me. It's Potvin and Trottier. Isles happened to have possessed at one time arguably the greatest trio-core in the history of the game. (I said "arguably"). And Mike Bossy is arguably the greatest natural goal scorer ever. But Potvin and Trottier were superior players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

At Their Prime

Very fair point. And I should know - when Messier was 34 and leading NYR to its only Cup in the last 70 years , I was a season ticket holder at MSG.

It's not intended as an excuse (because I do not believe in excuses), but you are correct: Trottier took the body constantly, frankly, unlike any first line center I've seen, aside from perhaps Peter Forsberg. And players who hit that often through their 30s are often spent earlier (see: Mike Peca, Adam Graves, not to mention Forsberg, among countless others). Plus, as mentioned above, five straight trips to the Finals is a LOT of extra games.



He said he was the best player in the game. Not precisely the same thing, but you get the point.



Not me. It's Potvin and Trottier. Isles happened to have possessed at one time arguably the greatest trio-core in the history of the game. (I said "arguably"). And Mike Bossy is arguably the greatest natural goal scorer ever. But Potvin and Trottier were superior players.

Greatest core trio entering their prime together. Perhaps staggered like the 1950's Canadiens would have allowed the Islanders to have a longer run.

A comment about physical centers. The seventies saw the start of a decline in proper bodychecking technique. The old rub out along the boards and come away with the puck was replaced with football type hit, the smash, pin and hope that a teammate gets the puck first approach. Likewise in open ice. The idea of a clean hit and coming away with the puck faded away. All that mattered was the force of the hit. These changes produced much greater wear and tear on both players in the collision

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think he is underappreciated here (HOH board). I could quibble with how a few rank him relative to contemporaries like Clarke, Sakic, Messier and Yzerman, but it's a matter of opinion. And, I'm yet to find a single HOH poster who does not include him among the best of the very best.


When viewed strictly in offensive statistical terms, you are correct. Which, of course, is ironic, because the unique greatness of his game was his extremely high ability in the non-obvious, non-sexy (and thus under-appreciated by some) aspects that require more than simply reciting numbers...oh, while by the way, accumulating 500+ goals and 1,200+ points. Case in point: his important role on the Pens' Cup winners at the end of his career. Trottier was taking the top defensive assignments (and contributing modest offense) while Mario and Francis went to town on the other team's lines. Of the guys you mention above, Sakic and Messier certainly never contributed like that at the end of their careers.

I love that Trottier was able to adapt his game and contribute after his offensive skills faded. But still, as pointed out above, he was an excellent 3rd line center. Messier was 2nd in Hart voting to Mario Lemieux as a 35 year old.

His own coach disagrees with you.

And "at best"?

But alas, offensive stats win the day on HF. Hence Bossy is viewed more favorably by some today, when such was NEVER the case in their time.

I thank God Trottier and Bobby Clarke played when they did. Were they skating today, Generation Nuu NHL (not directed at you) would likely be mocking them for "being overrated for intangibles".

I'm going mostly by the consensus on the HOH board that Potvin was the straw that stirred the proverbial drink so to say. But it's also been shown on this board that when Potvin was injured, the Islanders had a significantly lower winning percentage and the scoring of all the Islanders forwards decreased by quite a bit. Whereas when Trottier was injured, basically for the whole season (though he played through much of it), Bossy maintained the same scoring level, and elevated the games of Sutter and Tonelli, giving them career seasons.

Also, you say Bossy was never viewed more favorably than Trottier at the time, but I know Dark Shadows thought Bossy was the better player and he, unlike me, was older than a toddler during the Isles dynasty. Was it really that rare to view Bossy as the better player?

Those cup runs hurt trottier physically, and many of those isles players - none of whom had long careers. They earned every cup by sacrificing their bodies. Trottier was more physical, especially in the playoffs, than any other top center (clarke?), didn't skate like the wind like mess and earned every puck battle with his fierce battle level and hard work.

Potvin and bossy and smith did 'their jobs' as well as anyone - that should take nothing away from trotts role. And as I said in another thread, trotts had to line up opposite 99 and mess and that powerhouse offense, and walked away with a ring.

At his peak, he was right up there with the best ever.

Bang-on about how he did everything at an elite level. Goals assists points +/- but more importantly, lead, battle, win.

Did Trottier really put more wear and tear on his body than Messier? I watched a lot of Messier and the guy was a freaking psychopath on the ice. I really can't believe that anyone played the game with more intensity than Messier.

To me, the crazy thing about Messier is that he played that way and was still able to be a superstar until 37 years old.

 

[Trottier]

But it's also been shown on this board that when Potvin was injured, the Islanders had a significantly lower winning percentage and the scoring of all the Islanders forwards decreased by quite a bit.

Potvin was injured much of the 1979-80 regular season. The team struggled. But that's a very narrow telling of the story. For that Isles team was coming off the hangover of two straight springs when they exited early, after superb regular seasons. (Some say they "choked".) Likewise, they were, until March of 1980 (enter Goring), a team with a huge hole at #2 center behind Trottier. Not to mention, when Potvin returned in February of that year, Ken Morrow joined the Isles (exact same game, a Saturday afternoon loss at NVMC to the then-lowly Wings) as well.

In no way is that meant to suggest that Denis Potvin was not a critical - or even the most critical - piece of that team. (He certainly was the linchpin of NYI moving rapidly from bottom feeder expansion team its first two years to perennial contender through the '70s and dynasty come the '80s.)

But the "games missed" line, as recited here on occasion, is incomplete, per the explanation above.

Whereas when Trottier was injured, basically for the whole season (though he played through much of it), Bossy maintained the same scoring level, and elevated the games of Sutter and Tonelli, giving them career seasons.

This is another slanted (incomplete) story and I'll tell you why. Not disputing Bossy's output that season. But then what about Trottier's numbers pre-Bossy? As in: 1975-76 and 1976-77. Seem to recall he did quite well without him, too. (And he ALWAYS made those around him better; Bossy considers him the best passer of all-time.)

Also, you say Bossy was never viewed more favorably than Trottier at the time, but I know Dark Shadows thought Bossy was the better player and he, unlike me, was older than a toddler during the Isles dynasty. Was it really that rare to view Bossy as the better player?

I respct DS's opinion as much as anyone's here. But to respond to your last sentence, yes, it was rare at the time. Check out the Hart Trophy voting during those years, as just one example. Likewise, Trottier as late as 1981 (when Gretzky was already circling the competition in scoring) was still being voted by coaches as the most complete player in the game.

In today's Nuu NHL, where offensive stat totals alone often determine who's the "bestest" in the number-riddled minds of some reporters and fans, that label - "most complete" - likely does not have as much weight. (Just go to the main board and read pages worth of BS about how J. Toews is "overrrated!" )

But it did then, rest assured.

 

[canucks4ever]

26th seems fine for Trottier, ranking him in the top 25 would be overrating him. I'm not even sure if ranking him above Ted Lindsay and Bill Cook is accurate. He's below them for sure in terms of offensive ability, how far should intangibles take you in an all-time ranking?

 

[Trottier]

....how far should intangibles take you in an all-time ranking?

On what planet is punishing body checking, elite faceoff ability, defensive prowess, supreme strength on the puck - combined with 500+ goals and 1200+ points - "intangibles"?

Yep, just minor superficial parts of the game.

 

[canucks4ever]

On what planet is body checking, faceoff ability, defensive prowess, combined with 500+ goals and 1200+ points, "intangibles"?

Yep, just minor superficial parts of the game.

Why do you get offended, what i said is a fair assessment. Since when is Ted Lindsay a guy that brought nothing else to the table, he was as dirty as you can get. Trottier was a great player, but for a top 30 all timer, hes rather weak offensively.

Ted Lindsay top 10 points:
1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 9

Bryan Trottier:
1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

 

[Trottier]

Why do you get offended like a little child, what i said is a fair assessment. Since when is Ted Lindsay a guy that brought nothing else to the table, he was as dirty as you can get. Trottier was a great player, but for a top 30 all timer, hes rather weak offensively.

Ted Lindsay top 10 points:
1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 7, 9

Bryan Trottier:
1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10

I'm not arguing his alltime ranking. And forget about this particular player.

I remain amazed however, how you and a few others (though thankfully not on the HOH board) seemingly diminish the importance of anything that occurs on the ice outside of goals and assists. The traits I listed in my previous post are not "intangibles" (A pejorative word, apparently, among some fans.) They are important attributes of a hockey player! The things that lead up, and allow, all those shiny goals and assists to be produced.

If they were not that important, then Marcel Dionne, who tabulated more points than Trottier could be considered a superior player. No one possessing a single brain cell would make that argument, of course.

Look, use whatever metrics you wish to judge players, no one is stopping you. But the idea of viewing Bryan Trottier strictly through point totals and dismissing the rest of his game as "intangibles" MISSES ENTIRELY why he was great. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone else who watched him. Same thing would apply to Bobby Clarke, among several other unique greats - they put up GREAT numbers...but their games were so much more than that. That may not mean much to you and that's fine; it does to some of us.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This is another slanted (incomplete) story and I'll tell you why. Not disputing Bossy's output that season. But then what about Trottier's numbers pre-Bossy? As in: 1975-76 and 1976-77. Seem to recall he did quite well without him, too. (And he ALWAYS made those around him better; Bossy considers him the best passer of all-time.)

I apologize if it looked like I was trying to imply that Trottier was a product of Bossy; I meant nothing of the sort. I was implying that perhaps Potvin had a greater effect on the production of his teammates than Trottier did.