HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Delvecchio vs. Keon

View Poll Results: Delvecchio vs. Keon
Delvecchio 4 33.33%
Keon 6 50.00%
It's a wash 2 16.67%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-06-2010, 01:39 PM
  #1
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,521
vCash: 500
Delvecchio vs. Keon

I'm loving these recent player debates on HOH. Here's another one that will have supporters on both sides.

Alex Delvecchio vs. Dave Keon

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 01:48 PM
  #2
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
What, is this a Dave Keon forum nowadays?

It's ridiculosly little what I've seen of both players and thus refuse to vote, but somehow I've got a feeling that Keon will win this easily(?). Despite the respectable numbers, I've never heard anyone truly rave about Delvecchio.

VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:01 PM
  #3
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
I say Keon. Too many question marks about how Delvecchio would have fared playing his entire career without Howe.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:08 PM
  #4
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post
What, is this a Dave Keon forum nowadays?

It's ridiculosly little what I've seen of both players and thus refuse to vote, but somehow I've got a feeling that Keon will win this easily(?). Despite the respectable numbers, I've never heard anyone truly rave about Delvecchio.
Delvecchio was more along the lines of a player that was overshadowed by stars on his teams and is probably more appreciated by the players who played against him. Like Keon, his value went past the scoresheet too.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:20 PM
  #5
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Delvecchio was more along the lines of a player that was overshadowed by stars on his teams and is probably more appreciated by the players who played against him. Like Keon, his value went past the scoresheet too.
Although, people rave up and down about Keon's defensive ability, to the point where you get the idea he was one of the 2-3 best defensive forwards in the NHL, if not the best.

Finding information that supports Delvecchio being good defensively is much more difficult. My impression is that he was your usual "two-way center" but far from special in that regard.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:24 PM
  #6
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,521
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Although, people rave up and down about Keon's defensive ability, to the point where you get the idea he was one of the 2-3 best defensive forwards in the NHL, if not the best.

Finding information that supports Delvecchio being good defensively is much more difficult. My impression is that he was your usual "two-way center" but far from special in that regard.
I've always likened Delvecchio to a guy like Ron Francis if that helps anyone. Certainly comparable

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 02:31 PM
  #7
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I've always likened Delvecchio to a guy like Ron Francis if that helps anyone. Certainly comparable
Offensively, yes. But even 10% better or so.

Defensively, I don't think he compares very well to Francis.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 03:16 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
I think it's Keon. Guys like Keon and (and Sid Abel) were star players in their own right. Delvecchio is one of those guys who is a candidate for "best complimentary player of all time," but I question whether he was a gamebreaking talent on his own.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 03:44 PM
  #9
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,897
vCash: 500
I'm giving Keon this one.

On the topic of Delvecchio... He is one of my "litmus test" players (along with teammate Gordie Howe) when it comes to discussions of the impact of expansion on the level of competition in the league at the time. Without having watched play live (my parents weren't even married at the time, lol) it's easy for me to imagine that him putting up his best numbers at ages 35+ (despite number of games not increasing that much), on a Red Wings team that had very little team success compared to the previous 2 decades, was very much influenced by dilution of talent.

For the purposes of this poll, I decided not to give Delvecchio too much "credit" for career value points such as being team captain for 12 years, being second to Howe in just about every team stat until Stevie Y came along, and playing 24 bloody seasons. I agree with Phil that he reminds me of Francis in that he is one of those high-level accumulaters who were integral to team success for a long time without really ever being considered a "superstar". The defensive styles/strengths are obviously different between them (as 70s points out), but their impact on team success arguably is.

Keon, on the other hand (and despite the lengths I've gone through arguing against him recently), was a pretty legit superstar; a slightly, but markedly higher level than Delvecchio from all I've been able to see and read throughout the years.

So yeah, I guess I have to put Fedorov above Delvecchio on any of my all-time lists, with Keon somewhere in between them... which is weird to think of like that.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 09:27 PM
  #10
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Great Poll

Big Phil you have come up with a great poll especially beyond the usual and the intended reasons.

Alex Delvecchio joined the Red Wings during the 1951-52 season as a center and a left winger, continuing the Red Wing tradition going back to Syd Howe and others, of center / LW hybrid players. Players who were able and willing to play both positions as required.

During his career Delvecchio made the NHL All-Star team as a center - once and as a LW - once. This may seem sparse but changing positions during a game or the course of a season splits votes, so during his career he made fewer All-Star teams than his play merited.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...delveal01.html

Defensively he had the size and skating to play against the bigger centers of his era - Beliveau, Litzenberger amongst others he also had the ability to play left wing against the elite RWers of his era - M.Richard, Geoffrion amongst others. Delvecchio won a few Lady Byngs as did Dave Keon. The fact that O6 players won the Lady Byng is more often than not misinterpreted as a sign that a player was not physical. This is far from the truth. The O6 era tolerated scrums along the boards and freezing of the puck along the boards. Players like Keon and Delvecchio never shied away and battled physically, just as they did for positioning defensively and offensively BUT because of their superior skating they were able to obtain or maintain position without resorting to the various lazy or obstruction gestures that generated damaging penalties.

Offensively Alex Delvecchio had near elite playmaking skills - one of the quicker centers at moving the puck in an era where centers tended to hold the puck longer. His left wing experience made him more effective from the corners while his center background made him a valuable playmaker from the LW. His shooting was high average with a sneaky backhand.

Overall Alex Delvecchio mirrored the Red Wing tradition. Similar to Gordie Howe in many regards - shift after shift, game after game consistency, extreme efficiency with virtually no wasted movement on the ice. In addition Delvecchio was very strong on faceoffs. He was an elite penaty killer. He was also a very strong leader.

The point was raised that perhaps Alex Delvecchio was a product of Gordie Howe. Far from accurate. While they were linemates at various stages of their career, the Red Wings used to split them for significant lengths of time since by doing so they would have two efficient lines while insuring that one of their best players was on the ice for approximately 50-55 minutes.Big advantage for a team that after the mid 1950's lacked third line depth.During the early mid 1960's the Red Wings were able to upset the Black Hawks mainly because they were able to juggle match-ups around Delvecchio and Howe plus Ullman

The idea that Delvecchio is a product of Gordie Howe is preposterous since he was a stand alone HHOF for reasons outlined above.

The comparison of Alex Delvecchio with Dave Keon is interesting.Into the late 1950's Delvecchio was supported with excellent defensive forwards, Pavelich, Prystai, Skov,Wilson.Once these players left the Red Wings, Howe and Delvecchio as linemates or apart had to compensate defensively for the third linemate or other two linemates when separated.

Keon was never required to play left wing within the Maple Leaf system since the Leafs like the Canadiens tended to stockpile left wingers so Keon concentrated on being a pure center. Have posted about Keon's strengths elsewhere.

Let the readers choose.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 09:33 PM
  #11
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
True

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Offensively, yes. But even 10% better or so.

Defensively, I don't think he compares very well to Francis.
True, Delvecchio was much better defensively and at two positions.Another seventieslord classic

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 10:50 PM
  #12
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
True, Delvecchio was much better defensively and at two positions.Another seventieslord classic
Delvecchio would not have been a Selke winner. Francis was, and he came close a few times too.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 11:36 PM
  #13
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Based on..............

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Delvecchio would not have been a Selke winner. Francis was, and he came close a few times too.
Based on what erudite analysis? After Schmidt and Kennedy retired and before Henri Richard learned the league - 1958 who was a better defensive center or lw than Alex Delvecchio? Fleming Mackell had a few moments but lacked consistency,Provost had yet to find his niche - which he finally did when on a line with Henri Richard, 1961-62.

Claude Provost became a defensive force in 1961-62 after bouncing back from an ankle injury during the 1960-61 season.The same time frame that saw Keon arrive in the league.

From 1954 - 60 it was basically Delvecchio and Henri Richard 1958-60, then thru 1967 you could throw Mikita, Keon and Provost into the mix. You had a few 10th man forwards - Earl Belfour, Charlie Burns, Don Marshall who could play defense but who lacked playing time for any award consideration.

Ron Francis - seriously. One of the rare HHOFers with a career negative plus/minus when looking a full plus /minus data - not a handful of seasons. Not hard to find better defensive given such a pedigree. True he did have some good seasons late into his career, getting some Selke recognition but nothing to match the defensive longevity of a Delvecchio or some of the others listed above.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2010, 11:43 PM
  #14
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Based on what erudite analysis? After Schmidt and Kennedy retired and before Henri Richard learned the league - 1958 who was a better defensive center or lw than Alex Delvecchio? Fleming Mackell had a few moments but lacked consistency,Provost had yet to find his niche - which he finally did when on a line with Henri Richard, 1961-62.

Claude Provost became a defensive force in 1961-62 after bouncing back from an ankle injury during the 1960-61 season.The same time frame that saw Keon arrive in the league.

From 1954 - 60 it was basically Delvecchio and Henri Richard 1958-60, then thru 1967 you could throw Mikita, Keon and Provost into the mix. You had a few 10th man forwards - Earl Belfour, Charlie Burns, Don Marshall who could play defense but who lacked playing time for any award consideration.

Ron Francis - seriously. One of the rare HHOFers with a career negative plus/minus when looking a full plus /minus data - not a handful of seasons. Not hard to find better defensive given such a pedigree. True he did have some good seasons late into his career, getting some Selke recognition but nothing to match the defensive longevity of a Delvecchio or some of the others listed above.
The book Ultimate Hockey awarded Retroactive Selke trophies. I assume it's based off newspaper clippings and PK time:

1950-51 Joe Klukay
1951-52 Joe Klukay
1952-53 Marty Pavelich
1953-54 Marty Pavelich
1954-55 Marty Pavelich
1955-56 Marty Pavelich
1956-57 Marty Pavelich
1957-58 Claude Provost
1958-59 Don Marshall
1959-60 Don Marshall
1960-61 George Armstrong
1961-62 Dave Keon
1962-63 Dave Keon
1963-64 Claude Provost
1964-65 Claude Provost
1965-66 Claude Provost
1966-67 Dave Keon
1967-68 Stan Mikita
1968-69 Ed Westfall

From: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=409927

What do you think about Don Marshall? I assume you watched him play.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 03:20 AM
  #15
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Based on what erudite analysis? After Schmidt and Kennedy retired and before Henri Richard learned the league - 1958 who was a better defensive center or lw than Alex Delvecchio? Fleming Mackell had a few moments but lacked consistency,Provost had yet to find his niche - which he finally did when on a line with Henri Richard, 1961-62.

Claude Provost became a defensive force in 1961-62 after bouncing back from an ankle injury during the 1960-61 season.The same time frame that saw Keon arrive in the league.

From 1954 - 60 it was basically Delvecchio and Henri Richard 1958-60, then thru 1967 you could throw Mikita, Keon and Provost into the mix. You had a few 10th man forwards - Earl Belfour, Charlie Burns, Don Marshall who could play defense but who lacked playing time for any award consideration.

Ron Francis - seriously. One of the rare HHOFers with a career negative plus/minus when looking a full plus /minus data - not a handful of seasons. Not hard to find better defensive given such a pedigree. True he did have some good seasons late into his career, getting some Selke recognition but nothing to match the defensive longevity of a Delvecchio or some of the others listed above.
I'm basing this on how often the defensive ability of a player is mentioned, what wording is used to describe it, and how in-depth it goes.

I would assume that at least Pavelich, Keon, Marshall, Provost, Richard and Burns would prevent Delvecchio from winning a Selke if the award existed.

Francis spent a lot of time on bad teams. His +/- throughout his career was much above the team average. overpass' adjusted +/- has him at a career +263 which is much more representative of his contributions.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 06:50 AM
  #16
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Joke

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The book Ultimate Hockey awarded Retroactive Selke trophies. I assume it's based off newspaper clippings and PK time:

1950-51 Joe Klukay
1951-52 Joe Klukay
1952-53 Marty Pavelich
1953-54 Marty Pavelich
1954-55 Marty Pavelich
1955-56 Marty Pavelich
1956-57 Marty Pavelich
1957-58 Claude Provost
1958-59 Don Marshall
1959-60 Don Marshall
1960-61 George Armstrong
1961-62 Dave Keon
1962-63 Dave Keon
1963-64 Claude Provost
1964-65 Claude Provost
1965-66 Claude Provost
1966-67 Dave Keon
1967-68 Stan Mikita
1968-69 Ed Westfall

From: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=409927

What do you think about Don Marshall? I assume you watched him play.
For the most part the retro Selke's listed above are a joke. Klukay over Ted Kennedy or Milt Schmidt is simply unsupportable. Marty Pavelich was strictly a left winger and the Red Wings would shift Delvecchio over to LW for defensive purposes at times, in situations where the other teams centers were non-factors. Claude Provost in 1957-58 is premature since he did not step-up defensively until he played on a line with Henri Richard.The choice of Provost for 1957-58 is funny because it represents his best offensive season pre 1961-62.

Don Marshall - great penalty killer who lacked the game to game stamina required during the O6 era - one of the few forwards who could play LW/C/RW at any given time yet lacked the overall skills to play a specific position. Toe Blake made excellent use of his talents by spotting him where he would be most effective.Never had specific defensive responsibilities in the playoffs.

The George Armstrong choice for 1960-61 is the ultimate in hilarity.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...armstge01.html

Armstrong missed 23 regular season games that year. Ultimate Hockey really did their homework on this choice. In an era where missing a few games would cause a player to lose points for All-Star or award consideration this is not realistic. George Armstrong was an excellent defensive player but he required the presence of an excellent defensive center to make him effective. Just like Claude Provost required Henri Richard's forechecking / backchecking which limited the ability of Pierre Pilote and the various Hawk centers to get the puck to Bobby Hull in a timely fashion.

Again papering history rarely works as evidenced by the above.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 07:10 AM
  #17
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,283
vCash: 500
As hard it is for me to say it... Keon>Delvecchio... But I dont buy in to crap like "What ifs" and other predictions. I just think they were about on par offensively and Keon were a bit better defensively.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 07:27 AM
  #18
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,506
vCash: 500
Sad

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm basing this on how often the defensive ability of a player is mentioned, what wording is used to describe it, and how in-depth it goes.

I would assume that at least Pavelich, Keon, Marshall, Provost, Richard and Burns would prevent Delvecchio from winning a Selke if the award existed.

Francis spent a lot of time on bad teams. His +/- throughout his career was much above the team average. overpass' adjusted +/- has him at a career +263 which is much more representative of his contributions.
In other words non-hockey criteria and non-supported assumptions.

Have briefly discussed Pavelich, Marshall, Richard, Provost for the relevent years. Could throw in Ken Mosdell 1953-56 who Maurice Richard championed for the HHOF for his defensive skills and who was assigned the key defensive roles in 1955-56. Mosdell finished his career in the minors since he did not want to play away from Montreal and was an emergency defensive forward call-up a few times including the 1959 playoffs.

Charlie Burns. Pretty good defensively but your reasoning has significant flaws. Charlie Burns was not good enough to play in the NHL for four consecutive seasons during the O6 era at a time that would have covered his perceived prime, age 27-30, 1963-64 thru 1966-67.

While I do find the work that overpass produces interesting and well researched it still comes down to a paper presentation of a facet of the game that does not reflect very well what happened on the ice.

Ron Francis - until he played two seasons in Pittsburgh for Scotty Bowman was very ordinary defensively. Playing for Bowman, Francis learned a lot about defense and the improvement carried over. Francis was somewhat typical of what is known as a "bad team" star. Basically such a player is the best player on a weak or bad team, has an exceptional work ethic but because he has never had good coaching there are weaknesses in his game especially on the defensive or strategic side. To systematically adjust for a "bad team" while overlooking these flaws is a very incomplete effort. To use such a result to try and influence a discussion involving players whose careers are not included in a study that generously would be considered a "work in progress" is not acceptable.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 03:00 PM
  #19
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Ron Francis - until he played two seasons in Pittsburgh for Scotty Bowman was very ordinary defensively. Playing for Bowman, Francis learned a lot about defense and the improvement carried over. Francis was somewhat typical of what is known as a "bad team" star. Basically such a player is the best player on a weak or bad team, has an exceptional work ethic but because he has never had good coaching there are weaknesses in his game especially on the defensive or strategic side. To systematically adjust for a "bad team" while overlooking these flaws is a very incomplete effort. To use such a result to try and influence a discussion involving players whose careers are not included in a study that generously would be considered a "work in progress" is not acceptable.
Francis' high adjusted +/- is a result of both his Hartford and Pittsburgh years. He always had a positive influence on his team's goal differential while on the ice. That's all one can ask.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 03:30 PM
  #20
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Francis' high adjusted +/- is a result of both his Hartford and Pittsburgh years. He always had a positive influence on his team's goal differential while on the ice. That's all one can ask.
But in reference to his Hartford years, I do think he brings up a good point. Obviously raw +/- numbers are greatly affected by team success, and imo, are almost useless on their own. However, if adjusted +/- factors in the strength/weaknesses of the team, is it not also somewhat influenced by those around you? If someone was the best defensive player on bad teams, it does not necessarily mean he's a good defensive player. He could just be standing out against horrible defensive players (hence why the team is bad). Similarly, good defensive players might not be able to stand out against other good defensive players on a great defensive team.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head though, I'm not fully versed with exactly how overpass calculates his adjusted +/-, if these factors are included.

Regal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2010, 04:27 PM
  #21
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
But in reference to his Hartford years, I do think he brings up a good point. Obviously raw +/- numbers are greatly affected by team success, and imo, are almost useless on their own. However, if adjusted +/- factors in the strength/weaknesses of the team, is it not also somewhat influenced by those around you? If someone was the best defensive player on bad teams, it does not necessarily mean he's a good defensive player. He could just be standing out against horrible defensive players (hence why the team is bad). Similarly, good defensive players might not be able to stand out against other good defensive players on a great defensive team.

These are just some thoughts off the top of my head though, I'm not fully versed with exactly how overpass calculates his adjusted +/-, if these factors are included.
The adjusted +/- numbers are calculated by comparing the team's GF/GA ratio with the player on the ice vs the player off the ice.

Your concerns are fair, and indeed it would be easier to stand out on a bad team. As a result, the off-ice baseline I use in my calculations is regressed toward 1 somewhat. For example, a player with a (team) off-ice GF/GA ratio of 0.80 is expected to have a GF/GA ratio of 0.87 on the ice. A player with a (team) off-ice GF/GA ratio of 1.30 is expected to have GF/GA ratio of 1.19 on the ice.

This is at the heart of the calculation, so I've tried to get it right. It's based on empirical data - players whose teams are 0.80 with them off the ice tend to be 0.87 on the ice, and so on. However, it is a simple adjustment, and doesn't take into account the relative strength of a team's forwards, defencemen, goalies, etc. Also, as with unadjusted plus-minus, other factors are not adjusted for, such as strength of linemates.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2010, 02:01 PM
  #22
SealsFan
Registered User
 
SealsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 874
vCash: 500
I was a big admirer of both so had to vote for It's a Wash...

SealsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:12 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.