View Single Post
08-25-2010, 04:04 PM
Join Date: Jun 2010
Originally Posted by
So despite the advantage Trottier had with defense, physical play etc. it just isn't right to suggest Trottier had a better prime. Lafleur was the toast of the NHL, he won scoring titles, he won MVPs, he won the Conn Smythe and could have won three to be honest. He was as clutch as they came in every darn Cup he played in on that dynasty. That makes up for the fact that he was nothing special defensively because the way I look at it,
This is the part that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
The reason that Lafleur was the toast of the NHL is because he was a top scorer, and he was flashy and exciting to watch. That doesn't necessarily mean he got better results in games than Trottier.
Trottier was close offensively to Lafleur at his best(Lafleurs best season in 76-77 is 136 points , Trottiers best season 78-79 134 points).
Lafleur brings nothing else to the table.
Trottier adds in a ton of other elements that Lafleur never even attempted let alone excelled at.
Trottier was as clutch as they come too. He scored a lot more than Lafleur during his 4 cup wins and added in all the physical and defensive play on top.
Damn it always seems like I am beating up on poor Guy.. I really don't mean to!
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by BraveCanadian