Who do you build around: Trottier or Yzerman?

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Both were good two-way centers, though it's often said that Yzerman played little defense early in his career. Trottier had the benefit of playing with one of the best snipers in history. I think it's safe to say Yzerman had a much better shot and was a better skater (correct me if I'm wrong), while Trottier was more physical.

Who do you build your team around?

(Sorry if it's been discussed before but the search function is not working for me)

Click to read more...

 

[tommygunn]

Factually speaking.. the Wings were built around Yzerman.. the Isles were built around D. Potvin.

 

[canucks4ever]

I feel yzerman is more proven, if trottier never played with bossy and potvin during his peak, how good would he have really been?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Yzerman just because of his longer career. If Trottier didn't decline as early I might go with him, because in their primes I think they are very even players, possibly slight edge to Trottier because he combined the defense with his prime offense.

 

[I Hate Blake Coleman]

I feel yzerman is more proven, if trottier never played with bossy and potvin during his peak, how good would he have really been?

Trottier was good enough to win a Hart, an Art Ross, and a Conn Smythe. How good would Potvin and Bossy have been without Trots?

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I think all three of them would have been just about as amazing regardless. Really there's a reason they won 4 Stanley Cups in a row, and won something ridiculous like 19 straight playoff series. You certainly have to have atleast 3 super-elite players on a team like that regardless of depth to be that good. It's like Detroit today and over the years, yeah they have the depth, but no other team has 3 players who are arguably top 5 in the game all at once which is the main reason Detroit is as good as they are IMO. Edmonton had 4 of them, which is why I think they may have been the best team ever, that's not to mention their top player was on a level of his own, and they still won a cup without him (and Coffey), which both further support that opinion.

 

[kmad]

Trottier was the better player during his prime, but given Yzerman's longevity, with the condition being "building a team around a player", you have to pick Stevie Y.

 

[canucks4ever]

Trottier was good enough to win a Hart, an Art Ross, and a Conn Smythe. How good would Potvin and Bossy have been without Trots?

Potvin was a norris runner up without trotts, bossy had an amazing season in 85 without trotts.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

Trottier was the better player during his prime, but given Yzerman's longevity, with the condition being "building a team around a player", you have to pick Stevie Y.

Trottier is my favorite player ever but I can't argue with this.

 

[tony d]

Bryan Trottier

 

[Dark Shadows]

I think all three of them would have been just about as amazing regardless. Really there's a reason they won 4 Stanley Cups in a row, and won something ridiculous like 19 straight playoff series. You certainly have to have atleast 3 super-elite players on a team like that regardless of depth to be that good. It's like Detroit today and over the years, yeah they have the depth, but no other team has 3 players who are arguably top 5 in the game all at once which is the main reason Detroit is as good as they are IMO. Edmonton had 4 of them, which is why I think they may have been the best team ever, that's not to mention their top player was on a level of his own, and they still won a cup without him (and Coffey), which both further support that opinion.

Exactly. Thank you. The elite superstars will be elite no matter who they play with

 

[hgo]

Enough with this "Trottier/Bossy/Potvin wouldn't have been as good without the others" crap. If you want to make that argument for Clark Gillies, fine, but the talent of those three would've been elite anywhere.

As for this argument, I think the point about longevity makes Yzerman the pick.

 

[newfy]

If Yzerman didnt play behind the 2 best forwards of all time, he would have won more awards. He is one of the most explosive offensive guys of all time who also has a Selke to his name.

I take Yzerman, especially with the longevity

 

[toob]

players humbly say that others are better than them all the time but Trottier has given some reasons on why he says Yzerman was better than him and like you mentioned his shot was big and another thing was puck control

from Hockeytown Hero by Shelley Lazarus:



from The Top 60 since 1967 from The Hockey News:

 

[BraveCanadian]

players humbly say that others are better than them all the time but Trottier has given some reasons on why he says Yzerman was better than him and like you mentioned his shot was big and another thing was puck control

Trottier's slapshot hit like a wet noodle so I think that is an easy thing for him to be humble about.

Puck control, I think Yzerman could make some flashier type moves than Trottier early in his career.. but Trottier was impossible to separate from the puck, and he was also voted one of the best stickhandlers in the league during his time in a coach's poll so I dunno about that one..

 

[BenchBrawl]

Trottier , he was a more complete player.Trottier is one of the easiest player to built around , he's like Bobby Clarke to me.You can put wingers of any sort besides him and the line will work.

 

[gramatanboy]

Both great players. Very close but in my opinion Trottier was the more complete player having been fortunate enough to watch both their entire careers.

 

[Bexlyspeed]

when the wings were "built around Yzerman" they didnt win a thing.
Both were great players and i dont think you can make a bad choice choosing one over the other, but i'd go for trottier, he was just as good skill wise, but had more of an edge.

 

[Brooklanders*]

Steve Yzerman was a great offensive player but he wasnt on Trottier level as an all around hockey player.