HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Notices

Question regarding how fans feel regarding Oiler size?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-08-2010, 11:46 PM
  #26
misfit
Moderator
 
misfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: just north of...everything
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffler's Mom View Post
They suck because they are one of the softest teams in the NHL. You can't win championships without imparting some kind of physicality on the opposition. In addition, on many nights too many of the Oilers disappear because they can't handle the oppositions physicality. This is an issue that I don't see resolved for quite awhile. Not a single team in the NHL is worried about the Oiler's physicality, that's for sure.
Are any teams worried they're going to go into Joe Louis Arena and get beat up? Any coaches out there who say "We're playing the Kings tonight, we'd better dress some muscle!"?

misfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:17 AM
  #27
Stiffler's Mom
Registered User
 
Stiffler's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misfit View Post
Are any teams worried they're going to go into Joe Louis Arena and get beat up? Any coaches out there who say "We're playing the Kings tonight, we'd better dress some muscle!"?
First of all the Detroit Red Wings are not soft. They are one of the most resilient group of athletes the NHL has seen in the past 20 years. The Oilers are soft not for lack of muscle but more for lack of will power and mental toughness to do what it takes to win. It means taking a hit to make a good play or to hit someone to separate them from the puck, or to go into the corner first to get the puck, or kill penalties efficiently, or win an important faceoff etc. The Oilers don't do many of the things that require will power and attitude.

The Oilers need to bring the mental toughness to be physical and tenacious in all areas of the ice to be successful.

Stiffler's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:21 AM
  #28
misfit
Moderator
 
misfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: just north of...everything
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffler's Mom View Post
First of all the Detroit Red Wings are not soft. They are one of the most resilient group of athletes the NHL has seen in the past 20 years. The Oilers are soft not for lack of muscle but more for lack of will power and mental toughness to do what it takes to win. It means taking a hit to make a good play or to hit someone to separate them from the puck, or to go into the corner first to get the puck, or kill penalties efficiently, or win an important faceoff etc. The Oilers don't do many of the things that require will power and attitude.

The Oilers need to bring the mental toughness to be physical and tenacious in all areas of the ice to be successful.
So it has nothing to do with size? In other words, exactly what I was saying?

misfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:30 AM
  #29
Stiffler's Mom
Registered User
 
Stiffler's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by misfit View Post
So it has nothing to do with size? In other words, exactly what I was saying?
Not exactly but similar. I really don't care how big a team is. It doesn't win you hockey games. Attitude and hockey sense are more important than size.

Stiffler's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:36 AM
  #30
misfit
Moderator
 
misfit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: just north of...everything
Posts: 15,562
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffler's Mom View Post
Not exactly but similar. I really don't care how big a team is. It doesn't win you hockey games. Attitude and hockey sense are more important than size.
Exactly.

I'm not saying being big isn't an advantage, because it is. But so is being fast, and so is being able to shoot the puck 100mph, but neither are anywhere near as important as smarts and hockey sense. Look at a guy like St.Louis. He's one of the smallest guys in the league, but when he goes into the corner with another player to get the puck, he's more often than not the one coming out with it. Andrew Brunette wins more battles along the boards than any player I can think of, and while he's not small, he's no brute.

misfit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:46 AM
  #31
Spawn
Registered User
 
Spawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
ahhhh got the Pouliots wrong
heh, I blame it on old age!!!!

Still, I said this in a different thread and ill say it in this one.

People can find a million "ONE OFF " examples to say it disproves a logic or genralization. Its the exception to rule. It doesnt prove anything.

OK, So MARK Pouliot was drafted for size (first I ever heard about it, I always heard Pouliot (either of them) were drafted for their skill and "potential") and didnt work out! BIG WHOOP! So what?

One name, Gretzky, What a Bleeping stupid responce!
Heres a name back at you MESSIER!

What have either of us proved? NOT A DAMN THING!

There will always be a good small player and a good big player for the negative nanies to single out.

Here is what I know, the Oilers up front are beat up game in and game out because THEY ARE ALL SMALL!

Who cares if the defence is big, its Hemsky and Gagner and Eberle and Brule and Coglianno and even Hall that are trying to crash into the opponents end against 6'5" monsters. Besides, you cant beat up every player that touchs your small players or you will be in the penalty box for the entire game. So you leave the small guys to their devices and we see game after game of Regher CLEANER demolishing Hemsky and Hemsky eventually getting injured cause hes to small to take the continued beating.

I mean the commentators on HNiC and on the TSN desk make running jokes about Edmontons size. They do that FOR A REASON.

Edmonton has to get bigger or its going to continue to have years like last years injury plagued season.

Do any of you computer GMs even realize that the small player is hurt more often on like a 3-1 ratio over the big player?

SIZE matters and Oilers are to small.

Tell you what, you find 12 gretzkys and make a team of them, ill find 6 Scott Stevens and 6 Mark Messiers (to keep it local) and by the 3rd game you will not be able to ice a healthy team and I will win the remaining 79 games in the season by default!

But dang it, you will look amazingly good and talented for 3 games! I bet for those 3 games you get play of the night on TSN, congrats!

Size does matter in hockey. Penner was offered crazy money because he was a POWER FORWARD. Many players can get 30/30 in a season, its not a earth shattering amount of points. Bur Penner gets more then them because HES BIG and can single handedly take over a game with his size. Same goes for Rick Nash, Shane Doan, Horton, other Boston guy. Size is in demand in this league and is rewarded.

Listen, we have a core of medium (Hall & Paajarvi) to small (Eberle, Hemsky, Gagner, & maybe OMark). What im suggesting is we draft, trade for, and fill the remaining spots with size being one of the important aspects involved.

You know who tells you size doesnt matter? Small people! Thats who. Well I watch a ton of MMA and I dont see the 170 lbs fighting the 265 lbs. There is a reason for that, so why would we expect a group of 175 -200 lbs will stand up (long term) to groups of 220+ lbs?

Common sense answer is YOU DONT! You take a mix of all. Well folks, we already have a wealth of small players! What we missing is the long term large players.

Gretzky rarely stepped on the ice with out good ol cement head in Edmonton. There was a reason for that people.
Size =/= toughness.

You bring up Stevens and Messier, but those guys were killers not because of their size, but because of their mean streak.

Ryan Whitney 6'4 220 pounds
Tom Gilbert 6'3 205 pounds
Kurtis Foster 6'5 225

These guys are all really big fellas. Is there a single team/player in the league who is afraid to play against them?

Cal Clutterbuck on the other hand is under 6 feet tall yet throws big checks every game. So did a player like Mike Peca.

I don't disagree with the suggestion that the Oilers could use some more toughness. But drafting guys just because they are bigger is a mistake. All things being equal you obviously take the bigger player. All things are rarely equal when picking players.

Spawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:53 AM
  #32
Grod
The New Era Lives On
 
Grod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,426
vCash: 500
The size and mean streak argument has validity. But what people need to acknowledge is the most consistently solid and contending team every year for the last decade and a half. The Detroit Red Wings who draft primarily with skill. They have a little bit of edge on the back end but most of their mean edge up front comes when attacking the net. Very fluid possession team. When the other team attempts to take liberties they hit them where it hurts in response, on the scoreboard. This is Ken Hollands philosophy and the basis for the Red Wings being a Cup threat year in and year out.

Grod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 12:55 AM
  #33
Street Hawk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
So im just wondering how many fans agree with me that Edmonton Oilers REALLY need to add "size" to the equation when drafting a player from now on?
I would say that the Oilers should try NOT to add too many more smaller forwards to their prospect group unless they are able to trade some of their current smaller young forwards. Don't add much more unless they can move some of them away for dmen or gritty 3rd liners. Basically, you trade skill for grit.

So, say the Oilers have the #3 pick and the best player available is Nugent-hopkins who is sub 6 feet. Oilers can still draft him, but they should then be actively trying to move one or two of their smaller guys like Cogs, Gagner, Brule.

Oilers already have Cogs, Gagner, Brule, Eberle who are all sub 6 feet. Hemsky is not physical. Hall and MPS have decent size, not overly physical, but when they fill out they should be able to handle themselves. Penner is the only physical presence. Horcoff, decent size, but not overly physical.

They also have Omark, again another non physical skilled player.

Plus, so many trade proposals on the Trade Board of posters wanting Penner for their team. Like they don't realize the lack of size on the Oilers forwards, top 6-9 guys.

Overall, it's not about size as much as it is about the compete level of the players and which ones can bring a physical presence. Dustin Brown is only about 6 feet in height, but hits everything in sight. Oilers could use a couple of guys like that in their 2nd - 3rd lines to help out the physical play and a bit of scoring.


Last edited by Street Hawk: 11-09-2010 at 01:05 AM.
Street Hawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 01:07 AM
  #34
Grod
The New Era Lives On
 
Grod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Street Hawk View Post
I would say that the Oilers should try NOT to add too many more smaller forwards to their prospect group unless they are able to trade some of their current smaller young forwards. Don't add much more unless they can move some of them away for dmen or gritty 3rd liners. Basically, you trade skill for grit.

So, say the Oilers have the #3 pick and the best player available is Nugent-hopkins who is sub 6 feet. Oilers can still draft him, but they should then be actively trying to move one or two of their smaller guys like Cogs, Gagner, Brule.

Oilers already have Cogs, Gagner, Brule, Eberle who are all sub 6 feet. Hemsky is not physical. Hall and MPS have decent size, not overly physical, but when they fill out they should be able to handle themselves. Penner is the only physical presence. Horcoff, decent size, but not overly physical.

They also have Omark, again another non physical skilled player.

Plus, so many trade proposals on the Trade Board of posters wanting Penner for their team. Like they don't realize the lack of size on the Oilers forwards, top 6-9 guys.
Omark uses his body a lot more effectively than someone like Cogliano. His skill level is leaps and bounds and his hockeysense seems superior. Plays harder and has a ton of creativity.

You are right we should not be adding smaller players as a priority but we shouldn't avoid talent like RNH to accomplish such. He is and will be 6'0 if not more on draft day. He is just a little thin like Turris was on draft day.

Skilled players don't have to be physical if they use puck management and hockey sense to their advantage. Eberle does this very well. Outwits his opponents with position and quickness. Comes out of the corners with the puck a lot more than people would expect.

The main thing is that our scouting and management addressed our lack of size up the middle. All of our draft picks other than Pelss were 6' plus at last years draft. Pitlick, Martindale both well over 6 feet and play center. Hall, Marincin, Hamilton, Davidson all boast big frames.

Grod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:08 AM
  #35
Stiffler's Mom
Registered User
 
Stiffler's Mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spawn View Post
Size =/= toughness.

You bring up Stevens and Messier, but those guys were killers not because of their size, but because of their mean streak.

Ryan Whitney 6'4 220 pounds
Tom Gilbert 6'3 205 pounds
Kurtis Foster 6'5 225

These guys are all really big fellas. Is there a single team/player in the league who is afraid to play against them?

Cal Clutterbuck on the other hand is under 6 feet tall yet throws big checks every game. So did a player like Mike Peca.

I don't disagree with the suggestion that the Oilers could use some more toughness. But drafting guys just because they are bigger is a mistake. All things being equal you obviously take the bigger player. All things are rarely equal when picking players.
Don't you mean Size ≠ Toughness?

Stiffler's Mom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 03:19 AM
  #36
Grod
The New Era Lives On
 
Grod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,426
vCash: 500
Dino Ciccarelli was inducted in the HHOF today. 5'10 and approximately 167 pounds on draft day. The difference between him and a lot of players his size that aren't effective that he always went to the dirty areas and payed the price to pot a goal. Considering the NHL rules have changed to favour a player of this stature there is room for smaller players like Brule and Gagner. Omark most definitely.

Dino always scored his goals from ten feet in. He was small, tough to coach and went undrafted. But had a tireless work ethic, fast hands and a diehard approach to the game. All small players can be utilized with the right mindset, skillset and proper coaching to help them define their role on the ice.

Grod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 09:28 AM
  #37
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,881
vCash: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tavaresmagicalplay View Post
Thats what they did this summer. At the draft and in free agency. That said if you only worry about getting big guys your going to pass on some talented players in the later round. Kind of a toss up. You draft by need but you also have to draft by skill. You can't take a big guy over a smaller player who is head and shoulder better even later in the draft.
I have to agree, do people forget the years where we spent top picks on size and ended up with Winchester, Lynch, Macdonald, Jacques, Paukovich etc...

I want size on my team no doubt, but I don't want to be passing on a guy like Eberle and taking a guy like Nemisz.

Also how many prospects are really 220lbs?

If we end up with too many small players then we have to make some trades.

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 09:35 AM
  #38
joestevens29
Registered User
 
joestevens29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 24,881
vCash: 0
I ask this if we end up with the third overall pick and Larsson and Coutrier are gone, do we pass on RNH because he has no mass at this point?

joestevens29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:40 AM
  #39
Speedyturtle
Registered User
 
Speedyturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 658
vCash: 500
I agree, skill should trump size when drafting but when you can get both in a player, then you take that guy of course. That being said, I think grit and size don't always mean the same thing. Gilbert Brule for example. The problem when drafting is that there is such a high premium placed on players with size and skill. Getting good players that are big isn't the easiest thing to do.

By the way, is it just me or did Jordan Eberle grow a few inches since the summer. I seem to remember seeing his height as 5'10" but now on Oilers' website it says he's 6'0". He must be getting some good nutrition whereever he's living.

Speedyturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 10:43 AM
  #40
GMofOilers
Registered User
 
GMofOilers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Mountains
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,804
vCash: 500
Size doesnt mean much this year after watching a player like Eberle come out of a corner with a puck just as much as a player the size of Penner

GMofOilers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 11:02 AM
  #41
Seedling
Fan level 7?
 
Seedling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,476
vCash: 50
Joe Hulbig. Enough said.

Seedling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 01:44 PM
  #42
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 6,631
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
People can find a million "ONE OFF " examples to say it disproves a logic or genralization. Its the exception to rule. It doesnt prove anything.
Wrong. I've read some of your other posts. When there's enough examples skewing your generalization - it's your generalization that's wrong, not the exceptions. And I've ready your posts about Horcoff - and put it plainly - if you think Horcoff is a poor hockey player, you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a reason why he was selected captain on a team with talented players like Hemsky, Penner, Whitney, Gilbert, Gagner - and it isn't just because of his loyalty or longevity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
OK, So MARK Pouliot was drafted for size (first I ever heard about it, I always heard Pouliot (either of them) were drafted for their skill and "potential") and didnt work out! BIG WHOOP! So what?
It's Marc. Not Mark. Every draftee was selected for their "potential", that goes without saying. If you didn't know that Pouliot was selected over Parise partially based on size, then clearly you were not following the Oiler draft, AT ALL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
One name, Gretzky, What a Bleeping stupid responce!
Heres a name back at you MESSIER!
What about Messier? I've watched Messier since his first NHL season, clearly you haven't - he is not a good example of your size argument. He wasn't the towering goliath in the league, there were many players just as big or bigger than him - but he was strong as a bull and mean as Gordie Howe. It wasn't his size that allowed him to intimidate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
What have either of us proved? NOT A DAMN THING!
You certainly haven't. You make these wild generalizations and then anyone who makes counterpoints, you wave off as "exceptions" to YOUR rule. Hilarious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
Here is what I know, the Oilers up front are beat up game in and game out because THEY ARE ALL SMALL!
You mean like Detroit's top 9 with six guys 6' tall and under (Cleary, Datsyuk, Filpula, Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Hudler)? Or St. Louis Blues (currently leading the West) top 9 with six guys 6' tall and under (Boyes, D'agostini, McDonald, Oshie, Perron, Sobotka)? How about the Pittsburgh Penguin forwards 6' tall and under (Crosby, Kunitz, Talbot, Comrie, Kennedy, Cooke, Letestu)?

These teams aren't exceptions to YOUR rule. These teams are succeeding with smaller players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
Do any of you computer GMs even realize that the small player is hurt more often on like a 3-1 ratio over the big player?
You mean like JF Jacques has been immune to damage? or MA Pouliot injury history? Or Ladislav Smid hasn't suffered concussions?

Total hogwash. Prove it. Show us the numbers that small players are hurt more on a 3-1 basis. Otherwise, this is an outright lie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
Tell you what, you find 12 gretzkys and make a team of them, ill find 6 Scott Stevens and 6 Mark Messiers (to keep it local) and by the 3rd game you will not be able to ice a healthy team and I will win the remaining 79 games in the season by default!
I'll be impressed if you can find even one gretzky. Why do you bring this clearly hypothetical situation up - it will never happen and you can't back it up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
You know who tells you size doesnt matter? Small people! Thats who. Well I watch a ton of MMA and I dont see the 170 lbs fighting the 265 lbs. There is a reason for that, so why would we expect a group of 175 -200 lbs will stand up (long term) to groups of 220+ lbs?
You know that MMA has nothing to do with hockey. neither does basketball. But apparently you're not a small person, so you must be right. wow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oilfan66 View Post
Gretzky rarely stepped on the ice with out good ol cement head in Edmonton. There was a reason for that people.
Wow. Were you even alive when Gretzky played with Semenko? Did you ever see them play? Contrary to your total mythology, Gretzky didn't play with Semenko for many years and for many lines. Ever hear of Esa Tikkanen? The Gretzky-Kurri-Tikkanen line was a dominant line and Semenko was not part of it. Gretzky also had many other linemates that didn't include Semenko.


The Oilers have tried drafting for size and it failed miserably. Names like "Ed Caron", "Brock Radunske", "Troy Bodie". Lowetide has written extensively on the Oilers "Coke Machine" era, here's an article. http://oilersnation.com/2010/10/9/ru...k-to-saskatoon Try reading it, and learn something about the Oilers and hockey.

I'm not saying that size doesn't matter in hockey - it clearly does. But it is not the be-all and end-all, and never should be in determining the Best Player Available.

Master Lok is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 01:49 PM
  #43
Grod
The New Era Lives On
 
Grod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,426
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master Lok View Post
Wrong. I've read some of your other posts. When there's enough examples skewing your generalization - it's your generalization that's wrong, not the exceptions. And I've ready your posts about Horcoff - and put it plainly - if you think Horcoff is a poor hockey player, you have no idea what you're talking about. There's a reason why he was selected captain on a team with talented players like Hemsky, Penner, Whitney, Gilbert, Gagner - and it isn't just because of his loyalty or longevity.



It's Marc. Not Mark. Every draftee was selected for their "potential", that goes without saying. If you didn't know that Pouliot was selected over Parise partially based on size, then clearly you were not following the Oiler draft, AT ALL.




You certainly haven't. You make these wild generalizations and then anyone who makes counterpoints, you wave off as "exceptions" to YOUR rule. Hilarious.



You mean like Detroit's top 9 with six guys 6' tall and under (Cleary, Datsyuk, Filpula, Zetterberg, Holmstrom, Hudler)? Or St. Louis Blues (currently leading the West) top 9 with six guys 6' tall and under (Boyes, D'agostini, McDonald, Oshie, Perron, Sobotka)? How about the Pittsburgh Penguin forwards 6' tall and under (Crosby, Kunitz, Talbot, Comrie, Kennedy, Cooke, Letestu)?

These teams aren't exceptions to YOUR rule. These teams are succeeding with smaller players.





You know that MMA has nothing to do with hockey. neither does basketball. But apparently you're not a small person, so you must be right. wow.





.
Impressive. Somehow you managed to make a post even longer than Oilfans. And to top it off, I zealously agreed with all of it. Great stuff.

Grod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2010, 01:54 PM
  #44
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiffler's Mom View Post
They suck because they are one of the softest teams in the NHL. You can't win championships without imparting some kind of physicality on the opposition. In addition, on many nights too many of the Oilers disappear because they can't handle the oppositions physicality. This is an issue that I don't see resolved for quite awhile. Not a single team in the NHL is worried about the Oiler's physicality, that's for sure.
They suck because they aren't a very good hockey team.

__________________
TheSpecialist - MacT thinks he was that good of a hockey player when in actuality he was no better then a Louie Debrusk.
dawgbone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 02:42 AM
  #45
Oiler Lover
 
Oiler Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 262
vCash: 500
The Oilers need to think Penner and bigger size wise.

Oiler Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2010, 04:34 AM
  #46
nullterm
Registered User
 
nullterm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Port Moody, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiler Lover View Post
The Oilers need to think Penner and bigger size wise.
Penner size, but hopefully doesn't think like Penner. Hopefully someone who plays a big physical game every game.

nullterm 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 01:30 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.