Battle of the 16s-Marcel Dionne vs. Bobby Clarke

Professor What

Registered User
Sep 16, 2020
2,257
1,926
Gallifrey
I think that Dionne is underrated and far too often ignored in discussions of hockey history. He was an elite goalscorer, and he flirted with 60 goals on a handful of occasions. If I need a guy to finish the play, he's it, but everywhere else, I take Clarke. I take him as a setup guy, I take him on defense, and I certainly take him for physicality. He's easily the more complete player in my book, and the several advantages that he has outweigh Dionne's, so he's my pick.
 

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,130
6,428
Do you want a goal? Ice Dionne.

Do you want to prevent a goal? Ice Clarke.

Do you want to ice a center who can play 20 minutes a game at both ends of the ice? Ice Clarke.

No one has yet mentioned Clarke's multiple impressive performances on Team Canada against the Soviets. (Do you want to break an opposition's ankle? Ice Clarke.)
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
When Clarke was winning trophies he was among 5 hall of famers.

Dionne played with two, a friggin' goalie (not gonna help score) and a defenseman who left town quickly as a youth.

i only count parent (also a goalie) and barber for clarke, and only vachon for dionne. who am i missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDX Flyer

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,980
137,344
Bojangles Parking Lot
???

he was 4th in scoring on the 1980 and 1981 teams

i.e., an excellent second line contributor. again, responding to this idea that dionne never had anyone to help him share the scoring load

My impression is that it was never really about support scoring. Aside from Goring, Dionne was also skating with Charlie Simmer and Dave Taylor. Guys who were certainly boosted by playing with Dionne, but who were still pretty O.K. players in their own right.

To me the issue is the Kings as a whole were just not a well constructed team. While Dionne was at his Hart-contending peak, who was their best defenseman? Gary Sargent? Jerry Korab? Doug Halward? The simply irresistible Robert Palmer? That's not exactly a murderer's row. And in net, he got a taste of late Rogie Vachon, but his peak coincided with the Mario Lessard years. And after that, the living nightmare that was playing in front of Gary Laskoski.

If one game sums up the Dionne-era Kings: in 1981, LA was a 99-point team which was by far their best record with Dionne. They get matched up with a 74-point Rangers team and you have to think this is Dionne's window to do something in the playoffs. They narrowly drop the first game of a 5-game series. Game 2, Dionne has a goal and an assist in a win. So the spotlight is on the crucial third game.

First period, Dionne picks up an assist 1:13 into the game for a 1-0 lead. Lessard almost immediately lets in a softie from behind the net to make it 1-1. Dionne picked up a second assist at 2:48 to make it 2-1. Clearly you've got a guy out there generating points at a pace that should get his team over the hump, right?

Five minutes later, the Rangers score the first of NINE straight goals. Final score 10-3. Now, I freely admit I have not watched this game and cannot say the blame wasn't on Dionne. But nine straight goals. It's inconceivable to me that the guy who had just reeled off 4 points in under 60 minutes was suddenly so ineffective that he caused his team to surrender nine straight goals. Jay Wells and Rick Chartraw were on the ice for eight of those, which has to be some sort of record.

So you turn your attention to the start of the next game, right?



This video is handy because it starts with Game 3 highlights, so you can see what a hot burning mess the Kings were defensively and the kind of performance they were carrying into the elimination game. Then you pick up in the first minute of Game 4, at 1:20, and it just speaks for itself.

Rangers goalie Steve Baker was quoted the next day: "We tried to exploit their defensemen. Except for (Dave) Lewis, none of their guys has any mobility whatsoever. ... Maybe [Korab] was tired, but a couple of times it looked like he was kind of cruising."

And you'd think that would be the most painful quote of the postgame. But that's before you hear from a Marcel Dionne who is so pissed off that the frustration is still clear as a bell nearly 40 years later:

"When I don't have the puck, we're not going to win. We don't move the puck the way they do. They have defensemen like Greschner and Vadnais who can come right up the middle and move the puck. All we do is move it along the boards. I never had the puck once all night where I got a pass from a defenseman and could just go. Everybody is going to say, 'Dionne didn't score,' but how do they expect me to when I don't have the puck? I'd be standing there, waiting for it, ready to give it to my wingers. What am I going to do, when 30 or 40 seconds would go by? You've got to have it flowing."

That sequence of events, which are the closest thing Dionne ever had to a "chance" for playoff success, kind of sums it all up.
 

BigBadBruins7708

Registered User
Dec 11, 2017
13,578
18,344
Las Vegas
???

he was 4th in scoring on the 1980 and 1981 teams

i.e., an excellent second line contributor. again, responding to this idea that dionne never had anyone to help him share the scoring load

In the playoffs. I gave you his regular season finishes.

Goring was a passenger that got elevated by being surround by HOF players.

You think it's a coincidence he had 18 total playoff points in 30 games in LA across 6 appearances, yet magically gets 19 in his 1st playoff appearance in NY?

People talk about Dionne shrinking, yet it's Goring who went from .90 PPG regular season to .60 in the playoffs in LA.

Again, 1 other good player on a team of trash <> support
 

The Panther

Registered User
Mar 25, 2014
19,110
15,573
Tokyo, Japan
"When I don't have the puck, we're not going to win."
It's so refreshing to hear hockey players say something honest for a change. (I wish McDavid had been saying this a few years ago.)

That 1980-81 Kings' season was such an outlier, with the 99 points. They followed it with a .393 season in 1981-82! (Only a 36-point drop in the standings)


This is where I point out that rookie Larry Murphy was +1 in that 10-3 loss to the Rangers.
 

Dennis Bonvie

Registered User
Dec 29, 2007
29,206
17,561
Connecticut
It's so refreshing to hear hockey players say something honest for a change. (I wish McDavid had been saying this a few years ago.)

That 1980-81 Kings' season was such an outlier, with the 99 points. They followed it with a .393 season in 1981-82! (Only a 36-point drop in the standings)


This is where I point out that rookie Larry Murphy was +1 in that 10-3 loss to the Rangers.

Coach Bob Berry left after the 1980-81 season for Montreal. Sometimes coaching changes end badly. Charlie Simmer was hurt in 1982, also.
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
Which one do people consider the better playmaker?

It may be close, but I prefer Clarke, even though the statistics (assists per game or whatever) might not support it. I just recently quickly rewatched game 3 of the 1972 Summit Series and the young Clarke centering Paul Henderson and Ron Ellis and just thought to myself, "Damn, that guy was simply a natural playmaker!"... brilliant hockey vision and passing skills; also thus his truly nasty qualities really p*ss me off.

Yeah! Clarke won by 1 vote to 0. :sarcasm:
 

decma

Registered User
Feb 6, 2013
743
375
Coach Bob Berry left after the 1980-81 season for Montreal. Sometimes coaching changes end badly. Charlie Simmer was hurt in 1982, also.

Fox's big imrovement and Nicholls' performance in his 22 games helped make up for Simmer's missed 30 games.

The big difference was on the defensive end. They went from a respectable 290 GA (8th best in the league) to 369 GA (20th - ahead of only the Leafs). Their GF only dropped by 23 while their GA ballooned by 79.

If Lessard had replicated his 80/81 sv % (0.893) instead of the .858 he posted in 81/82, the team would have allowed 52 fewer goals. (and that assumes the same playing time distribution as actually took place. If he had rocked an .893 again he probably would have played close to 90% of the time (as in 80/81), rather than Keans getting so much time).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,516
3,352
I think that a case could be made either way, but most people will go with the "winner".

Dionne was never in a position to win much of anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wetcoast

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,584
15,946
My impression is that it was never really about support scoring. Aside from Goring, Dionne was also skating with Charlie Simmer and Dave Taylor. Guys who were certainly boosted by playing with Dionne, but who were still pretty O.K. players in their own right.

To me the issue is the Kings as a whole were just not a well constructed team. While Dionne was at his Hart-contending peak, who was their best defenseman? Gary Sargent? Jerry Korab? Doug Halward? The simply irresistible Robert Palmer? That's not exactly a murderer's row. And in net, he got a taste of late Rogie Vachon, but his peak coincided with the Mario Lessard years. And after that, the living nightmare that was playing in front of Gary Laskoski.

If one game sums up the Dionne-era Kings: in 1981, LA was a 99-point team which was by far their best record with Dionne. They get matched up with a 74-point Rangers team and you have to think this is Dionne's window to do something in the playoffs. They narrowly drop the first game of a 5-game series. Game 2, Dionne has a goal and an assist in a win. So the spotlight is on the crucial third game.

First period, Dionne picks up an assist 1:13 into the game for a 1-0 lead. Lessard almost immediately lets in a softie from behind the net to make it 1-1. Dionne picked up a second assist at 2:48 to make it 2-1. Clearly you've got a guy out there generating points at a pace that should get his team over the hump, right?

Five minutes later, the Rangers score the first of NINE straight goals. Final score 10-3. Now, I freely admit I have not watched this game and cannot say the blame wasn't on Dionne. But nine straight goals. It's inconceivable to me that the guy who had just reeled off 4 points in under 60 minutes was suddenly so ineffective that he caused his team to surrender nine straight goals. Jay Wells and Rick Chartraw were on the ice for eight of those, which has to be some sort of record.

So you turn your attention to the start of the next game, right?



This video is handy because it starts with Game 3 highlights, so you can see what a hot burning mess the Kings were defensively and the kind of performance they were carrying into the elimination game. Then you pick up in the first minute of Game 4, at 1:20, and it just speaks for itself.

Rangers goalie Steve Baker was quoted the next day: "We tried to exploit their defensemen. Except for (Dave) Lewis, none of their guys has any mobility whatsoever. ... Maybe [Korab] was tired, but a couple of times it looked like he was kind of cruising."

And you'd think that would be the most painful quote of the postgame. But that's before you hear from a Marcel Dionne who is so pissed off that the frustration is still clear as a bell nearly 40 years later:

"When I don't have the puck, we're not going to win. We don't move the puck the way they do. They have defensemen like Greschner and Vadnais who can come right up the middle and move the puck. All we do is move it along the boards. I never had the puck once all night where I got a pass from a defenseman and could just go. Everybody is going to say, 'Dionne didn't score,' but how do they expect me to when I don't have the puck? I'd be standing there, waiting for it, ready to give it to my wingers. What am I going to do, when 30 or 40 seconds would go by? You've got to have it flowing."

That sequence of events, which are the closest thing Dionne ever had to a "chance" for playoff success, kind of sums it all up.


i haven't had a chance to watch the video yet but will find it eventually. but this sounds pretty reasonable, and a much better argument than the weak one line team and/or he played with nobody arguments.

but one thing is, dionne had his best sustained run of offensive seasons after vachon left, which also coincides with the first year of simmer/taylor, but isn't that just probably circumstance? he scored at less spectacular levels when he had a capable second line center behind him (goring) than when he was on a one line time with two all-star wingers? sounds pretty reasonable right?

and if we imagine that dionne was pretty much already the same dionne, pre-1979, which makes sense being that he finished 3rd in 1977 and 2nd in '75, i think it also makes more sense to imagine that his best window were his first three LA years, when he had vachon in vezina range and goring doing goring things.
 

tarheelhockey

Offside Review Specialist
Feb 12, 2010
84,980
137,344
Bojangles Parking Lot
i haven't had a chance to watch the video yet but will find it eventually. but this sounds pretty reasonable, and a much better argument than the weak one line team and/or he played with nobody arguments.

but one thing is, dionne had his best sustained run of offensive seasons after vachon left, which also coincides with the first year of simmer/taylor, but isn't that just probably circumstance? he scored at less spectacular levels when he had a capable second line center behind him (goring) than when he was on a one line time with two all-star wingers? sounds pretty reasonable right?

and if we imagine that dionne was pretty much already the same dionne, pre-1979, which makes sense being that he finished 3rd in 1977 and 2nd in '75, i think it also makes more sense to imagine that his best window were his first three LA years, when he had vachon in vezina range and goring doing goring things.

I think that's true at least of the 1976 and 1977 teams, when it seemed the Kings were on the ascendance. They had acquired Dionne to build around offensively, had Vachon in his prime, and in both years they won a playoff series before bowing out in a close series to the Cherry-era Bruins. In both of those runs, Dionne led them in the playoffs and in 1977 especially he was really very good in spite of being targeted.

For an observer at the time, it might have seemed like a window was about to open. But that was still a team with a lot of holes. They had the Dionne/Vachon duo as core stars and a decent second-tier center in Goring, but after that the roster was largely filler. That especially applies to the defense, which in particular was missing a clear #1 who could run the power play. They were not a good team defensively (Vachon covered for a lot) and their special teams suffered. Also, they were pretty soft when we consider the era.

The 1978 team was just bad, probably connected to Jack Kent Cooke getting involved with the team from the owner's suite. Cooke had a plan to trade his way to contention rather than focusing on the draft, and started making player transactions on his own initiative. That chased away both the coach and GM (Bob Pulford and Jake Milford). Cooke hired Ron Stewart as the replacement coach, and then fired him after the disastrous 1978 season.

After that they were a sub-.500 team for the rest of Dionne's time there, with the exception of the aforementioned 1981 season (99 points + playoff flameout) and an 82-point blip in 1985. Most other seasons they weren't just bad, but bad. I've never really thought of it this way till just now, but I suppose you could draw a line between the pre-1978 Dionne/Vachon/Goring teams that were painfully creeping toward contention, and the post-1978 teams that were just hopeless, and the line is Jack Kent Cooke deciding that he knew hockey better than Bob Pulford.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
Based on experience--there tends to be some people who really dislike Bobby Clarke's game and think he was overrated--nothing more than a hatchet man for the Bullies. And Dionne did score double the amount of goals... and is 6th all-time in scoring.


Clarke does have a huge edge in defensive play on Dionne but he also got to play in an ideal situation for his talent level and type of game.

In a vacuum across time I think Dionne is the better player overall but he gets killed around these parts for his playoff resume and the lousy teams he played for that doesn't always come across in context.

People sometimes forget that Dionne has a 16 year run as a star to superstar type of player.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Pale King

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Clarke does have a huge edge in defensive play on Dionne but he also got to play in an ideal situation for his talent level and type of game.

In a vacuum across time I think Dionne is the better player overall but he gets killed around these parts for his playoff resume and the lousy teams he played for that doesn't always come across in context.

People sometimes forget that Dionne has a 16 year run as a star to superstar type of player.

Ideal situation? Flyers were a recent expansion team without a true #1D.

Yes, they had a great coach and great goalie.
 

Reaper45

Registered User
Jul 14, 2003
37,160
5,273
Los Angeles
I think that's true at least of the 1976 and 1977 teams, when it seemed the Kings were on the ascendance. They had acquired Dionne to build around offensively, had Vachon in his prime, and in both years they won a playoff series before bowing out in a close series to the Cherry-era Bruins. In both of those runs, Dionne led them in the playoffs and in 1977 especially he was really very good in spite of being targeted.

For an observer at the time, it might have seemed like a window was about to open. But that was still a team with a lot of holes. They had the Dionne/Vachon duo as core stars and a decent second-tier center in Goring, but after that the roster was largely filler. That especially applies to the defense, which in particular was missing a clear #1 who could run the power play. They were not a good team defensively (Vachon covered for a lot) and their special teams suffered. Also, they were pretty soft when we consider the era.

The 1978 team was just bad, probably connected to Jack Kent Cooke getting involved with the team from the owner's suite. Cooke had a plan to trade his way to contention rather than focusing on the draft, and started making player transactions on his own initiative. That chased away both the coach and GM (Bob Pulford and Jake Milford). Cooke hired Ron Stewart as the replacement coach, and then fired him after the disastrous 1978 season.

After that they were a sub-.500 team for the rest of Dionne's time there, with the exception of the aforementioned 1981 season (99 points + playoff flameout) and an 82-point blip in 1985. Most other seasons they weren't just bad, but bad. I've never really thought of it this way till just now, but I suppose you could draw a line between the pre-1978 Dionne/Vachon/Goring teams that were painfully creeping toward contention, and the post-1978 teams that were just hopeless, and the line is Jack Kent Cooke deciding that he knew hockey better than Bob Pulford.
I'm appreciative of JKC for getting us a team but good lord he was a terrible meddler. When he sold the Kings it was a godsend. Too bad it took us quite awhile to land a decent owner who let a hockey guy run the business.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
When Clarke was winning trophies he was among 5 hall of famers.

Dionne played with two, a friggin' goalie (not gonna help score) and a defenseman who left town quickly as a youth.

Larry Murphy was never considered as being on a HHOF path until he lucked out playing with Mario then later after the Toronto disaster with the DYNASTY Red Wings.

Dionne was playing with Dave Taylor and made him into a great forward and then made Charlie Simmer into a double 56 goal guy in 64 and 65 game seasons.

Had Dionne had the fortune to play in Montreal and Lafleur gets drafted by the Dead Wings history would treat them much differently IMO.
 

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
No, that "19" is not a typo. In 1974-75, Clarke scored 116 points for his team, and was on the ice for 19 goals against (ES or SH) all season. That is insane.

Now, of course some of this is team contextual, and Dionne did play on considerably weaker teams (esp. defensively) than Clarke... But then again, Clarke joined an expansion team that had no identity in 1969, and led it towards multiple Cup wins.

Dionne had a higher offensive ceiling and had a notably longer offensive prime. (He had 126 points in 1985 when Clark was a year retired.) I predict Dionne will be under-rated in this thread.

It's close, but my *expert* opinion (not having really seen either guy play!) is Clarke.

This is a bit of a typo though as he was on the ice for 33 PPGA.

In fact all of the Flyers had great numbers in this regard due to the style of hockey they played and being SH much more than other NHL teams at the time.

Bernie Parent was also in superman mode for a couple of years as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Pale King

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
This reminds me of Andy Bathgate, who had a similar role with the Rangers and experienced similar playoff slumps.

Is it just the natural result of "isolated" stars being systematically targeted during a playoff series? I haven't looked too deeply into this.

Dionne was by means anything special in the playoffs but his reputation is worse than the actual performance and team situation.

75-76 Dionne leads the Kings with a 7-6-1-7 line against the Bruins and the Kings only scored 14 goals in the series. He had a doughnut is the first 2 round series but the Kings only scored 3 goals in the 2 games.

76-77 he leads the team against the flames with a 3-2-3-5 line (the team scored only 11 goals in the series) and in the second round, once again against the powerhouse Bruins he is 2nd in scoring with a 6-3-6-9 line.

In 77-78 the Kings get swept in a 2 games series to the Leafs who finishes 17 points ahead of them in the standing and Dionne has zero points but heck his team only scored 3 goals in total.

78-79 another 2 game series against the Rangers and has an assist once again the Kings only score 2 goals and have Mario Lessard in net not John Davidson.

79-80 he is tied for first in scoring along with his line mate and a Dman with 3 points in 4 games as they had the misfortune to play the SC champions that year in the NYI with new aquaired (from LA) forward Butch Goring.

80-81 he is once again tied for team scoring along with his line mate Dave Taylor against the deeper NYR team who would go onto the semis losing to the Dynasty NYI.

81-82 he is 2nd in points against the Oilers in that upset series win then 3rd in points in the second round against the Canucks who were simply locked in that year.

84-85 Dionne is now 33 and finishes 2nd in points behind line mate Dave Taylor is an expected 3 game sweep loss with the Oilers.

Then in a swan song series with the poorly constructed NYR and now 35 years old he has a 6-1-1-2 line against the Flyers with Mark Howe, Brad McCrimmon and Peak Ron Hextall.

So no he wasn't a great playoff performer but he wasn't as bad as his counting stats and reputation make him out to be either when some context is applied here.

His travel schedule and team support and opponents in the playoff made for just a poor recipe for success.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

wetcoast

Registered User
Nov 20, 2018
22,246
10,125
Ideal situation? Flyers were a recent expansion team without a true #1D.

Yes, they had a great coach and great goalie.

Clarke's offensive prime consists mainly with his line mate of Reggie Leach joining the team.

Yes he would still have been a good producer without him but if we are talking playoffs did Clarke perform head and shoulders better than Dionne offensively given team expectations and situations.

I would argue there isn't a ton of daylight between the 2 offensiveness in the playoffs given context.

Lets not forget that a road game for the Flyers might consist of playing the NYR, NYI and 2 hour plane ride to Atlanta while the Kings travel schedule on an extended road trip might exceed the Flyers road division games in distance traveled.


Look I get why most people are taking Clarke in this thread, it's just that the gap isn't really all that big overall given circumstances and context IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tarheelhockey

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->