Trottier vs. Crosby

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Lindros was more than just hype. He was a monster of a man at 18. He played for Canada in the Olympics in 1992 as an 18 year-old. Canada went to the finals and Lindros tied Selanne for 4th in scoring for the tourney.

As a rookie he was the bowling ball and veteran NHL players were the pins. 41 goals in just 61 games. Two years later at 21 he wins the Hart trophy.

I was watching the NHL back then. There was no point in Lindros career where I ever thought of him as the best player in the league, or even the best center. Gretzky? Absolutely. Lemieux? Sure. Lindros? No way.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I was watching the NHL back then. There was no point in Lindros career where I ever thought of him as the best player in the league, or even the best center. Gretzky? Absolutely. Lemieux? Sure. Lindros? No way.

And this is relavent to my post, how?

I didn't mention best player, best center, Gretzky or Lemieux.

MOD

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

And this is relavent to my post, how?

I didn't mention best player, best center, Gretzky or Lemieux.

When you talk about a player being a "monster" you're comparing him to the best players in the league whether you like it or not. I watched Lindros' career from start to finish and he never at any point justified the "monster" label by being the best player at his position.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I don't know, I watched both of those years always cheering for Pittsburgh and hating both teams they lost to. I never thought Crosby played his best and always felt he should have just left the yapping to a minimum. It almost got in his head and these are two hostile visiting rinks as well. You have to remember too, Pittsburgh lost that game you are talking about. They went down to an impossible 3-0 in the series and that pretty much cooked them. I am just saying, he should have let his play do the talking, he gets sucked into these verbal battles way too easily and the opponents know it.

But Phil, those things don't frustrate him when everything's clicking for him and the Pens.

What bothers Crosby is losing and underperforming. When that happens, he gets angry and looks for an edge elsewhere. That isn't being "taken off his game", because clearly, he didn't have his game to begin with.

I fail to see what the Pens losing the game against the Flyers when Sid fought has to do with anything, too. They were down 3-1 when he decided to fight, and fared better in the series on the whole afterward. And again, as I pointed out, Crosby can't be faulted for not stopping pucks.

I never said he did, I just said he wouldn't have fared well against those all-time greats in a fight and they were more inclined to be able to deal with an issue on their own. Crosby isn't those players from the intimidation standpoint.

So what? Why would that matter?

Do you think Crosby's goal is intimidation? It's not. It's a willingness to engage.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

When you talk about a player being a "monster" you're comparing him to the best players in the league whether you like it or not. I watched Lindros' career from start to finish and he never at any point justified the "monster" label by being the best player at his position.

Really?

That's news to me.
MOD

 

[redbull]

When Potvin was injured Bossys production dropped by 34 pts. Is he also a production of Denis? That same season Trottier led Isles in point scoring. Now how does that work for your theory?

I think too much emphasis is put on regular season scoring stats when talking about players in general, and especially with these two superstars who's on-ice value goes FAR BEYOND that single item.

Of course Bossy helped Trottier's scoring stats, and Potvin, and they all helped one another. Bossy helped B.Sutter and Tonelli when Trotts was hurt, Trotts proved he could score without Bossy as well. Same for Crosby, he could put up points with anyone. Do any of them have success without the support of teammates? no. But that's the point. Team success is defined by its leadership and their legendary status is a result of being able to deliver results, often on the shoulders of other great players. Be it Potvin, Bossy, Smith or Malkin, Fleury, and others.

They are/were BOTH great offensive talents, leaders on their team, successful in both playoffs and regular season, playing very well-rounded games. I voted Trottier but it's close and before it's over, I wouldn't be surprised if I voted Sid - he's that talented. But Lindros has shown us that being super-skilled and having all the tools doesn't always mean success.

Well its really hard to show that considering they played on the same line. Trottier's sophmore year was well below crosbys standards. Either way Crosby is the better talent. Which seasons do u want me to show the proof? The year his point totals dropped by 30 points when Potvin got injured. Or the years following, when Bossy outscored him every year?

Crosby doesnt match his vision, is this a joke. Thats why he blows him away based on adjusted stats because he doesnt see the ice the way trottier does. Regardless, whenever you bring up trottier`s success, you will ALWAYS have to mention bossy and potvin with him. He didnt accomplish anything without those two. Trottier really isnt a longevity king either, top 10 in scoring 6 times in a 19 year career.

Adjusted stats aside, Crosby absolutely matches Trottier in vision. Offensively, they BOTH are elite, among the best in the game, among their peers. Obviously playing in an era when 99 dwarfs all your numbers does hurt disproportionately to the Sedins of today, and Trottier went up against Gretzky in two straight finals, two of the best teams ever. Just the fact that MANY in hockey put Trottier ahead of Gretzky (mostly after the 1983 finals) means a lot. That's why I went with Trottier.

 

[canucks4ever]

No it isnt hard, you just have to do some actual research instead of basically just stating the same thing over and over again.

When Potvin was injured Bossys production dropped by 34 pts. Is he also a production of Denis? That same season Trottier led Isles in point scoring. Now how does that work for your theory?

Why would it matter if he lead the team in scoring in 1980? He was nowhere near Gretzky, Dionne and Lafluer in the scoring race. Further proof that the big 3 of the Isles boosted each other. Im not going to sit here and believe all 3 are superior talents individually to crosby, they're not.

Crosby is easily a better playmaker than Trottier on a per game basis. Bryan doesnt have his speed, skating and passing ability, Crosby offensively is on another level.

 

[jkrx]

I think too much emphasis is put on regular season scoring stats when talking about players in general, and especially with these two superstars who's on-ice value goes FAR BEYOND that single item.

Of course Bossy helped Trottier's scoring stats, and Potvin, and they all helped one another. Bossy helped B.Sutter and Tonelli when Trotts was hurt, Trotts proved he could score without Bossy as well. Same for Crosby, he could put up points with anyone. Do any of them have success without the support of teammates? no. But that's the point. Team success is defined by its leadership and their legendary status is a result of being able to deliver results, often on the shoulders of other great players. Be it Potvin, Bossy, Smith or Malkin, Fleury, and others.

They are/were BOTH great offensive talents, leaders on their team, successful in both playoffs and regular season, playing very well-rounded games. I voted Trottier but it's close and before it's over, I wouldn't be surprised if I voted Sid - he's that talented. But Lindros has shown us that being super-skilled and having all the tools doesn't always mean success.



Adjusted stats aside, Crosby absolutely matches Trottier in vision. Offensively, they BOTH are elite, among the best in the game, among their peers. Obviously playing in an era when 99 dwarfs all your numbers does hurt disproportionately to the Sedins of today, and Trottier went up against Gretzky in two straight finals, two of the best teams ever. Just the fact that MANY in hockey put Trottier ahead of Gretzky (mostly after the 1983 finals) means a lot. That's why I went with Trottier.

Yes, I never said they didn't help eachother. I even posted a quote from Bossy stating it but Ushvinder was pointing at that Bossy and Potvin helping Trottier was a one-way street which is nuts. I'm glad more people remember how Trottier was actually viewed in the early 80's and how he really played.

 

[redbull]

Yes, I never said they didn't help eachother. I even posted a quote from Bossy stating it but Ushvinder was pointing at that Bossy and Potvin helping Trottier was a one-way street which is nuts. I'm glad more people remember how Trottier was actually viewed in the early 80's and how he really played.

I find a general bias against Trottier I believe because of his post-Islanders play and revised role. For the first nine years he was spectacular, including back-to-back 30 goals seasons before Bossy showed up at all. Then four cups, 7 100+ pt seasons and utter dominance on the ice both offensively and defensively while playing a very physical game. Great skater and passer in those years as well.

After than, he tailed off, his body wasn't the same, he reinvented himself. Other great, former offensive players, have done the same - like Pierre Turgeon, Mike Modano, Brett Hull to a lesser extent, later in their careers.

We've only seen the best of Sid so far, injuries notwithstanding. Crosby is the best in the game, has been since he was 19 (arguably) and is pretty flawless as a player. Leaving pts/game aside, his on-ice play, what the eyes see, Trottier was not very far behind in speed, skill, passing and overall offensive play but was far ahead of Crosby with his physical play and ability to win battles against much bigger players.

 

[Plural]

I just spent few hours on watching and memorizing old plays by Crosby from YouTube. Now, i have to admit that when he is on his game(which he often is if not injured) he is better than Trottier. Admitted that I have not seen a lot of Trottier play but Crosby SEEMS to have a quite clear difference in offensive awareness. Better shot and skating. Playmaking is close of being a wash, maybe Trottier has an advantage here. But somehow Crosby just seems more dynamic offensive player.

Not sure if Trottier's all-around play is enough to close the gap and pull ahead.

Originally voted for Trottier tough but that is mainly cause I hate Crosby.

 

[redbull]

I just spent few hours on watching and memorizing old plays by Crosby from YouTube. Now, i have to admit that when he is on his game(which he often is if not injured) he is better than Trottier. Admitted that I have not seen a lot of Trottier play but Crosby SEEMS to have a quite clear difference in offensive awareness. Better shot and skating. Playmaking is close of being a wash, maybe Trottier has an advantage here. But somehow Crosby just seems more dynamic offensive player.

Not sure if Trottier's all-around play is enough to close the gap and pull ahead.

Originally voted for Trottier tough but that is mainly cause I hate Crosby.

Careful, "dynamic" and "YouTube" might lead you to thinking Linus Omark is better than Bryan Trottier too.

Crosby is a more dynamic and "exciting" player, plays the game at higher speed with immense skill and desire. He's one of my favourite players of all time and so is Trottier.

I think comparing players across eras is incredibly difficult, subjective and pretty futile, except it makes for good dialog (not much else, especially during a lockout) and these guys are two of the best players I've ever seen, with a lot of similarities.

 

[jkrx]

I just spent few hours on watching and memorizing old plays by Crosby from YouTube. Now, i have to admit that when he is on his game(which he often is if not injured) he is better than Trottier. Admitted that I have not seen a lot of Trottier play but Crosby SEEMS to have a quite clear difference in offensive awareness. Better shot and skating. Playmaking is close of being a wash, maybe Trottier has an advantage here. But somehow Crosby just seems more dynamic offensive player.

Not sure if Trottier's all-around play is enough to close the gap and pull ahead.

Originally voted for Trottier tough but that is mainly cause I hate Crosby.

Thats the thing though. At the time Trottier were in his prime people thought of him as the best in the league his problem was that he wasnt a highlight reel player. Flash is always remembered, it doesnt make the player better or worse. Loads of guys could be seen a more "dynamic" offensively than Trottier.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Thats the thing though. At the time Trottier were in his prime people thought of him as the best in the league his problem was that he wasnt a highlight reel player. Flash is always remembered, it doesnt make the player better or worse. Loads of guys could be seen a more "dynamic" offensively than Trottier.

Pavel Bure anyone? But who would you rather build your team around? The "dynamic" Bure or the "boring" Trottier? Trottier for me 7 days a week and twice Sunday.

 

[Thesensation19*]

Bryan Trottier or Mark Messier?

 

[tarheelhockey]

Careful, "dynamic" and "YouTube" might lead you to thinking Linus Omark is better than Bryan Trottier too.

The difference being that Omark is empty flash, with no results.

Crosby is the highest PPG player in the league. The fact that he gets those points with dynamic play is not a neutral factor in determining his level of skill. It clearly differentiates him from the legion of compilers like Francis, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli who just do the simple things very well and consistently.

The appropriate response here isn't to diminish the relevance of dynamic skill -- it's to show that Trottier was equally skilled. Which shouldn't be hard to do given the amount of game film out there.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

The difference being that Omark is empty flash, with no results.

Crosby is the highest PPG player in the league. The fact that he gets those points with dynamic play is not a neutral factor in determining his level of skill. It clearly differentiates him from the legion of compilers like Francis, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli who just do the simple things very well and consistently.

The appropriate response here isn't to diminish the relevance of dynamic skill -- it's to show that Trottier was equally skilled. Which shouldn't be hard to do given the amount of game film out there.

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread, but I think it's worth noting that Crosby's been flanked by the likes of Kunitz and Dupuis at even-strength, and I don't think either is talked about very often in the conversation of the best pure goal-scorer of all-time.

 

[redbull]

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread, but I think it's worth noting that Crosby's been flanked by the likes of Kunitz and Dupuis at even-strength, and I don't think either is talked about very often in the conversation of the best pure goal-scorer of all-time.

Sid makes those around him better, more than anyone else in the NHL. Tavares is the next best in my opinion.

The difference being that Omark is empty flash, with no results.

Crosby is the highest PPG player in the league. The fact that he gets those points with dynamic play is not a neutral factor in determining his level of skill. It clearly differentiates him from the legion of compilers like Francis, Andreychuk, Ciccarelli who just do the simple things very well and consistently.

The appropriate response here isn't to diminish the relevance of dynamic skill -- it's to show that Trottier was equally skilled. Which shouldn't be hard to do given the amount of game film out there.

Omark and Schremp would dazzle people on shootouts and in practice.

I'm not sure what "skilled" exactly means. I mean, Alex Ovechkin is more "skilled" than Mike Bossy but not the better player in terms of effectiveness.

Crosby is a better skater, stickhandler more exciting player than Trottier was, not debating that. But in his prime, Trottier wasn't exactly Jason Allison. He could skate deceptively well, was a GREAT passer and he scored a lot of goals too.

Crosby would also beat Gretzky in a foot race and probably out stickhandle him (yes, some will disagree with this because 99 was deceptively quick as well), he'd have a harder shot too - but that's not how I'd evaluate the two.

Crosby IS the best player in the NHL, offensively or otherwise. Not debating that at all. But Trottier, at HIS PRIME, was arguably better than GRETZKY in some people's eyes. (Not mine) There's no amount of YouTube highlights and footage to give that kind of perspective which is pretty valid, whether you agree or not. This was at its peak after the sweep of the Oilers in '83, when 99 was seen as a fringe compiler who couldn't lead or win important games. Well, hindsight now tells us otherwise.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'm not sure what "skilled" exactly means.

I was trying to get back on track from the red herring argument that some flashy players aren't very effective (or that some "ugly" players are very effective).

Crosby is flashy AND effective. TAnnala's point, essentially, was that he passes the "eye test" on the basis of dynamism and creativity rather than just compiling points with simple plays. I'm trying to generate a direct response to that point on Trottier's behalf, to show that he was in fact dynamic and creative enough to carry a line himself. Otherwise, as noted a couple of posts above, it's kind of hard to imagine him succeeding with the kind of poor linemates that Crosby has carried in the past, and that would in fact score a point for Crosby.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I was trying to get back on track from the red herring argument that some flashy players aren't very effective (or that some "ugly" players are very effective).

Crosby is flashy AND effective. TAnnala's point, essentially, was that he passes the "eye test" on the basis of dynamism and creativity rather than just compiling points with simple plays. I'm trying to generate a direct response to that point on Trottier's behalf, to show that he was in fact dynamic and creative enough to carry a line himself. Otherwise, as noted a couple of posts above, it's kind of hard to imagine him succeeding with the kind of poor linemates that Crosby has carried in the past, and that would in fact score a point for Crosby.

Who has Crosby carried though?
All the guys I look up had equal and sometimes even better seasons before or after the Pens.
Dupuis, Malone, Talbot, Ouellet, Fedotenko?
Did he carry Recchi, Satan, LeClair, Plaffy, Roberts or Guerin?

I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Plural]

I was trying to get back on track from the red herring argument that some flashy players aren't very effective (or that some "ugly" players are very effective).

Crosby is flashy AND effective. TAnnala's point, essentially, was that he passes the "eye test" on the basis of dynamism and creativity rather than just compiling points with simple plays. I'm trying to generate a direct response to that point on Trottier's behalf, to show that he was in fact dynamic and creative enough to carry a line himself. Otherwise, as noted a couple of posts above, it's kind of hard to imagine him succeeding with the kind of poor linemates that Crosby has carried in the past, and that would in fact score a point for Crosby.

This is what i was going for. I don't want to claim myself as a all-knowing hockey expert, but i would like to think that i am capable of recognizing effective player.

After all, a lot of the information we have about players is when we actually see them play.

I have seen Trottier very little and my opinions on him rely heavily on stats/other people's opinion's. (if knowledgeable hockey people are actually lifting Trottier above Gretzky, it means something. Hence, my vote went to Trottier)

What i was going for in my post, was that Crosby actually seems better offensive player and i wonder if Trottier's all-around game has enough to pull him over Crosby. I was sure about it at first. Not so much anymore.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Who has Crosby carried though?

The first example I looked up - Pascal Dupuis in 2011-12

With Crosby - 22 games, 11-13-24
Without Crosby - 60 games, 14-21-35

In his 32-year-old season, Dupuis set career highs in every scoring category due to the influence of only a quarter-season on Crosby's wing. We know enough about the guy to know he wasn't the reason for all those points.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The first example I looked up - Pascal Dupuis in 2011-12

With Crosby - 22 games, 11-13-24
Without Crosby - 60 games, 14-21-35

In his 32-year-old season, Dupuis set career highs in every scoring category due to the influence of only a quarter-season on Crosby's wing. We know enough about the guy to know he wasn't the reason for all those points.

Oh no doubt over the last 2 seasons. That's the only time Crosby has looked like he truly belongs among the all-time greats albeit in a very limited fashion.
Dupuis was 20/20 guy long before he came to the Pens and that's exactly what he was on Sid's wing in 09/10.
I think Sid has been playing at a higher level in the last 63 games over 2 seasons than Trots did but the previous five go to Trots easily IMO. Slight edge offensively to Trots coupled with a much more superior defensive game in those 5 years.

A few full seasons of Crosby at the level he has recently displayed and this conversation become moot. ATM though, edge Trots.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Who has Crosby carried though?
All the guys I look up had equal and sometimes even better seasons before or after the Pens.
Dupuis, Malone, Talbot, Ouellet, Fedotenko?
Did he carry Recchi, Satan, LeClair, Plaffy, Roberts or Guerin?

I'm just not seeing it.

Let's pretend for a second you didn't try to cite Michel Ouellet as a productive linemate for anyone at the NHL level, Crosby didn't really play with any of these guys that long.

Malone and Sykora were Malkin's guys. Satan and Fedotenko were brought in as their replacements and failed miserably as Penguins despite having their center win the Art Ross. Talbot got time with Malkin that year because Satan and Fedotenko were so bad and kept the spot during the '09 playoffs. Talbot always produced in the playoffs, but the other two were utterly useless.

You listed a lot of clearly washed up players as well - Recchi, Guerin, LeClair, Palffy, Roberts. Which of them had better seasons after leaving Pittsburgh? Recchi is the exception not the rule, and he was a serviceable player for a few years, but Pittsburgh waived him despite having **** for wings.

I'd argue Crosby very clearly made Pascal Dupuis a scorer, this shouldn't be controversial. Kunitz, he's about all I'll give you as he's a proven top 6 winger. That said, he's a gritty complementary player with underrated skills, no more no less.

Nothing here comes a little close to a Hall of Famer like Bossy.

 

[redbull]

What i was going for in my post, was that Crosby actually seems better offensive player and i wonder if Trottier's all-around game has enough to pull him over Crosby. I was sure about it at first. Not so much anymore.

I see your point and I also voted Trottier but I'm not sure either. My eyes see Crosby as a superb player who clearly stands out as the best player on the ice in the vast majority of cases. Trottier never lifted people out of their seats the way Crosby does (can?) today and it's NOT all flash. I've made the case many times before that Crosby is the best player in hockey today, a flawless player who excels at all parts of the game.

I think Trottier's offense gets underrated by many because "the 80s was high scoring" or "he had Bossy" which is true, but he was still an elite offensive player. He wasn't Rob Brown or Bernie Nicholls. If Trottier didn't play well defensively and didn't hit as hard as he did or have as much team success - he'd still be right there with Crosby on offense alone. Albeit NOT as flashy.

I was trying to get back on track from the red herring argument that some flashy players aren't very effective (or that some "ugly" players are very effective).

Crosby is flashy AND effective. TAnnala's point, essentially, was that he passes the "eye test" on the basis of dynamism and creativity rather than just compiling points with simple plays. I'm trying to generate a direct response to that point on Trottier's behalf, to show that he was in fact dynamic and creative enough to carry a line himself. Otherwise, as noted a couple of posts above, it's kind of hard to imagine him succeeding with the kind of poor linemates that Crosby has carried in the past, and that would in fact score a point for Crosby.

Agree with this.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Let's pretend for a second you didn't try to cite Michel Ouellet as a productive linemate for anyone at the NHL level, Crosby didn't really play with any of these guys that long.

Malone and Sykora were Malkin's guys. Satan and Fedotenko were brought in as their replacements and failed miserably as Penguins despite having their center win the Art Ross. Talbot got time with Malkin that year because Satan and Fedotenko were so bad and kept the spot during the '09 playoffs. Talbot always produced in the playoffs, but the other two were utterly useless.

You listed a lot of clearly washed up players as well - Recchi, Guerin, LeClair, Palffy, Roberts. Which of them had better seasons after leaving Pittsburgh? Recchi is the exception not the rule, and he was a serviceable player for a few years, but Pittsburgh waived him despite having **** for wings.

I'd argue Crosby very clearly made Pascal Dupuis a scorer, this shouldn't be controversial. Kunitz, he's about all I'll give you as he's a proven top 6 winger. That said, he's a gritty complementary player with underrated skills, no more no less.

Nothing here comes a little close to a Hall of Famer like Bossy.

Except of course playing with Malkin on the PP, which is where 40% of his points come from.