HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Kings and Sharks - Scoring Chances in the Playoffs ...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-01-2011, 03:19 AM
  #26
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,486
vCash: 500
He and Kopitar both get played too much IMO.

I thought Johnson played very well in game 5. He only had 18:17 minutes of ice time, I think that may have been a contributing factor.

Certainly he's not good enough to be getting 23:11 per game, which is what he averaged during the regular season.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 12:54 PM
  #27
Reaper45
Registered User
 
Reaper45's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: South Bay
Country: United States
Posts: 30,760
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Reaper45
I'm firmly in the convert him to a LW or trade him camp. He's a valuable piece and he could return some nice pieces before the rest of the league realizes he stinks as a defender.

Doesn't this look better?

Penner-Kopitar-Williams
Johnson-Stoll-Brown
Smyth-Schenn-Simmonds
Clifford-Richardson-Lewis

Doughty-Mitchell
Scuderi-Martinez
Greene-Voynov
Drewiske

Reaper45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 02:26 PM
  #28
The Tikkanen
Pest
 
The Tikkanen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Yorba Linda
Country: United States
Posts: 6,425
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to The Tikkanen
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... The Kings were 3-2-1 without Doughty and 33-32-11 with him. The Kings had won three in a row when Doughty got hurt, and promptly won four in a row upon his return. So, were they really that much better without Drew, or was it simply a case of the team getting pretty good offense and excellent goaltending in the early part of the season?

The Kings were 10-3-2 for the first 15 games, and 26-31-10 thereafter.



... Just because Johnson happened to get bailed out on many of the scoring chances he was on the ice for does not mean he played well defensively. And, the numbers for the series aren't a new thing with Jack, at all. His career defensive numbers are, frankly, atrocious.



... Indeed. At the beginning of this season, it seemed like he was going to pull out of it. But - yeah he didn't close things out so well.

First 37 games - 4 goals, 26 points, -1, 24.6 minutes per game
Last 51 games - 2 goals, 21 points, -22, 22.1 minutes per game

Maybe he's playing too often? Would holding his minutes down to about 20 per game early in the season keep him fresh later on? Was he hiding an injury? I really like him and want him to succeed, but I'm not sure what the Kings should do with him at this point.
Your last stat leads me to believe he's probably a great #3 dman and an OK #2. Less minutes, not playing against the other teams top line, no PK time, lots of PP time.

The Tikkanen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 04:12 PM
  #29
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
Going back to the tracking of scoring chances, I'd look further as to why or how those chances are generated. Knowing that the Sharks won a majority of their faceoffs and were ranked 2nd overall in the NHL in faceoff wins, I would think that their puck possession time in the offensive zone was significantly higher than LA's puck possession time.

Just look at the discrepancy in shots on goal throughout the series.

Game 1: 45-35 (Sharks)
Game 2: 34-23 (Sharks)
Game 3: 36-22 (Sharks)
Game 4: 38-27 (Kings)
Game 5: 52-22 (Sharks)
Game 6: 35-29 (Sharks)

Naturally, the Kings are going to get out chanced when they are getting badly out shot, they fail to gain possession of the puck with critical faceoff wins, and they spent most of the game inside their own blueline.

Objectively watching the second round of games between the Sharks and Wings, it is even more evident that the Sharks had too much depth for the Kings to match up against. LA had four lines that are as good as San Jose's third line.

Ziggy Stardust is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 04:40 PM
  #30
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
Going back to the tracking of scoring chances, I'd look further as to why or how those chances are generated. Knowing that the Sharks won a majority of their faceoffs and were ranked 2nd overall in the NHL in faceoff wins, I would think that their puck possession time in the offensive zone was significantly higher than LA's puck possession time.

Just look at the discrepancy in shots on goal throughout the series.

Game 1: 45-35 (Sharks)
Game 2: 34-23 (Sharks)
Game 3: 36-22 (Sharks)
Game 4: 38-27 (Kings)
Game 5: 52-22 (Sharks)
Game 6: 35-29 (Sharks)

Naturally, the Kings are going to get out chanced when they are getting badly out shot, they fail to gain possession of the puck with critical faceoff wins, and they spent most of the game inside their own blueline.

Objectively watching the second round of games between the Sharks and Wings, it is even more evident that the Sharks had too much depth for the Kings to match up against. LA had four lines that are as good as San Jose's third line.
The Sharks got 46 shots on goal against Detroit in game 1.

Many of the games in the LA/SJ series went to overtime, which will result in higher shot totals.

The Kings outscored the Sharks in the series (21 to 19), thus LA spent a significant amount of time holding the lead. Teams give up more shots when they're holding the lead, it's the nature of the beast.

San Jose also led the entire league in shots per game during the regular season, so getting a lot of shots on goal is part of their identity.

So with all that being said, I don't really think the Sharks high shot totals are that much of an indictment of the Kings play. As an example, the 52 shots given up in game 5 were, for the most part, of very low quality.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 05:04 PM
  #31
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
The Sharks got 46 shots on goal against Detroit in game 1.

Many of the games in the LA/SJ series went to overtime, which will result in higher shot totals.

The Kings outscored the Sharks in the series (21 to 19), thus LA spent a significant amount of time holding the lead. Teams give up more shots when they're holding the lead, it's the nature of the beast.

San Jose also led the entire league in shots per game during the regular season, so getting a lot of shots on goal is part of their identity.

So with all that being said, I don't really think the Sharks high shot totals are that much of an indictment of the Kings play. As an example, the 52 shots given up in game 5 were, for the most part, of very low quality.
The Kings also finished 3rd overall in the NHL with 27.9 shots against average during the regular season. The number of shots they allowed in the series was uncharacteristic of the team. The Kings blowing further adds to the critique that the team fell apart defensively, as they had opportunities to win games but turned out to be their own worst enemy.

I think the shot totals allowed by the Kings reveals a lot about their lack of puck possession and how much time the game was spent in LA's zone. The Kings were opportunistic of the chances they did have to score, however, they were not as strong in defending a lead or keeping the puck out of their zone for an extended period of time.

Ziggy Stardust is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 06:02 PM
  #32
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The Kings also finished 3rd overall in the NHL with 27.9 shots against average during the regular season. The number of shots they allowed in the series was uncharacteristic of the team. The Kings blowing further adds to the critique that the team fell apart defensively, as they had opportunities to win games but turned out to be their own worst enemy.

I think the shot totals allowed by the Kings reveals a lot about their lack of puck possession and how much time the game was spent in LA's zone. The Kings were opportunistic of the chances they did have to score, however, they were not as strong in defending a lead or keeping the puck out of their zone for an extended period of time.
I don't disagree, just pointing out that the shots against stats aren't as bad as they look. Detroit gave up 37 shots to SJ today.

As much as everyone likes to complain about the offense, it's been the Kings defense that has cost them lately. It was defense that killed them against Vancouver last year. It was defense that triggered the Kings losing streaks this year. It's been defense that's cost them at home, and it was defense that cost us against the Sharks.

I suppose this is the real indictment of TM as a coach, not the offense. Terry's is a defense 1st coach, with a team that's not good at defense (when it counts). What good are you at something if you can get it done when it matters?

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 06:36 PM
  #33
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,547
vCash: 500
There's also a saying that a good defense is a good offense, meaning that controlling the puck more means that you are less likely to spend time in your own end. The Sharks defense was considered a weak point for their organization, but it doesn't appear to be that way judging from the success they have had thus far in the post season.

Ziggy Stardust is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 08:51 PM
  #34
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
As much as everyone likes to complain about the offense, it's been the Kings defense that has cost them lately. It was defense that killed them against Vancouver last year. It was defense that triggered the Kings losing streaks this year. It's been defense that's cost them at home, and it was defense that cost us against the Sharks.
... I don't believe that it was so much the defense as it was the fact that the Kings' offense was lacking. And, I'm not talking about goals, either. I'm talking about maintaining some semblance of offensive pressure in the Sharks' zone in order to take pressure OFF of their defense. The Kings were able to score some goals in the series, yes. But - they had soooo many shifts where they were unable to sustain possession in the offensive zone, so many shifts where the Sharks were able to break out of the zone easily and with little to no resistance by the Kings, and so many shifts where the Kings had to forsake offense because the players on the ice had spent their entire shift in the defensive zone and it was all they could do to get the puck over the red line so they could change up.

It's too bad that the NHL doesn't keep track of "zone times" any longer, because that along with the scoring chances would really tell the story of why the Kings gave up the amount of chances that they did. They didn't forget how to play defense. They just didn't force the Sharks to expend much energy to stop them; therefore, the Sharks could spend their energy creating chances on offense, they could change out defensemen/forwards easier and more seamlessly, and they were better able to take advantage of matchup issues (i.e. matching up the Thornton line against the Richardson line).

It wasn't really about the way the Kings were losing faceoffs left and right, either. I mean, that didn't help, but look at where the draws were occurring in the first place. 144 in the Kings' zone, just 115 in the Sharks' zone, and 132 in the neutral zone. If you take out the neutral zone faceoffs, then you find that 144 of the remaining 259 took place in the Kings' zone - that's 55.6%. Now, look at scoring chances. 110 for the Sharks out of 184 total - that's 59.8%. The Kings just weren't able to earn much of a territorial advantage.

In game 2, the Kings had just as many draws (25) in their own zone as they had in the Sharks' zone. The chances were tied, 9-9. The Kings won, 4-0.

In game 4, the Kings had more draws in the Sharks' zone (23) than in their own (18). They had more chances than the Sharks, 20-15. Unfortunately, Niemi played his best game of the series, and the Kings lost.

In game 6, the Kings had more draws (23) in the Sharks' end than they had in theirs (20). The chances were about even, 17-14 for the Sharks. The Sharks won in OT.

In games 1, 3, and 5 combined - the Kings had 81 draws in their zone compared to just 44 in the Sharks' zone. The scoring chances for the three games combined were 69-31 in favor of San Jose. The Kings won one of those three because Quick played his best game of the series in game 5, and stole it.

In the end, the Sharks won because they had one thing the Kings generally didn't: territorial advantage.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-01-2011, 11:03 PM
  #35
Taylor18
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 74
vCash: 500
A player is awarded a scoring chance anytime he is on the ice and someone from either team has a chance to score. He is awarded a "chance for" if someone on his team has a chance to score and a "chance against" if the opposing team has a chance to score.


Sounds like +/- stat...... so why does a player(s) get a minus when the goalie can't make a routine save? Why does a player(s) get a minus/chance against when the goal/chance is a result of someone elses mistake? Sometimes the opposition makes good plays that result in goals/chances, it doesn't necessarly mean the line out there for the goal or chance sucked.

IMO, Derek should stick to analysis of the oilers. I would love to give him my statistical analysis of just how bad the the Oilers sucked this year and that would still hold true with or without Humpsky.

WOWY... What does this all mean?
http://www.coppernblue.com/2010/1/11...lysis-part-two

He has 5 year charts with a total of 59 games and he finds this interesting??? LOL

Next year Derek plans to have Goalie +/- stats.... i can't wait

Taylor18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:12 AM
  #36
Nex06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
The Kings also finished 3rd overall in the NHL with 27.9 shots against average during the regular season. The number of shots they allowed in the series was uncharacteristic of the team. The Kings blowing further adds to the critique that the team fell apart defensively, as they had opportunities to win games but turned out to be their own worst enemy.

I think the shot totals allowed by the Kings reveals a lot about their lack of puck possession and how much time the game was spent in LA's zone. The Kings were opportunistic of the chances they did have to score, however, they were not as strong in defending a lead or keeping the puck out of their zone for an extended period of time.
I disagree with a big part of it. Sharks are a very special team. They will heavily outshoot any team in the league, it is just the way they play. That doesn't mean that they are the best team in the league. I am willing to bet you that Sharks will have more shots in every series in the playoffs they will still play.

There was nothing very special with Kings allowing that many shots.

Nex06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 09:58 AM
  #37
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
In game 6, the Kings had more draws (23) in the Sharks' end than they had in theirs (20). The chances were about even, 17-14 for the Sharks. The Sharks won in OT.

In games 1, 3, and 5 combined - the Kings had 81 draws in their zone compared to just 44 in the Sharks' zone. The scoring chances for the three games combined were 69-31 in favor of San Jose. The Kings won one of those three because Quick played his best game of the series in game 5, and stole it.

In the end, the Sharks won because they had one thing the Kings generally didn't: territorial advantage.
In games 3 and 5, the Kings scored early and went into "prevent mode." I think that's a large contributing factor for so much of the play being spent in the Kings zone in those games. That's just what happens when you're leading. Also, I didn't think Quick was that great in game 5, yes he made 50 saves, but those were mostly low quality shots as I recall.

I don't disagree with what you're saying though, the Sharks did carry the majority of play, and any defense that's under constant pressure will eventually break down.

I think the Kings break out/transition & neutral zone play, on attack, are big problems. Everyone complains about the dump and chase, but when you don't have speed built up coming through the neutral zone, you have no other option but to dump it in, because you can't get around defenders if you don't have a step on them. When you're forced to dump it in every time, puck recovery becomes increasingly difficult, because the defense is ready for it; it's predictable, thus sustained offensive pressure becomes less likely.

I don't know if they keep stats on it, but I'd like to know how many odd man rushes and break aways the Kings had this year. I bet they're right at the bottom of the league, and it's largely due to the fact that they can't transition out of their zone quickly once they regain possession.

This is why, if the Kings go after an up and coming young winger, it should be Grabner.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 05:37 PM
  #38
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
In games 3 and 5, the Kings scored early and went into "prevent mode." I think that's a large contributing factor for so much of the play being spent in the Kings zone in those games. That's just what happens when you're leading.
... Game 3 would certainly support this, at least early on as the Kings had 4 chances to San Jose's 3 in the first period. Once the Kings had a 4-0 lead, the Sharks out-chanced the Kings 14-2 from that point until the point that when the game was tied 5-5. But, after tying the game, the Sharks out-chanced the Kings 5-1 the rest of the way.

I doubt the Kings went into "prevent mode" at the beginning of game 5, but they were out-chanced 5-0 over the first ten minutes of that one. The Kings were out-chanced 10-3 in the first period, but all three of the Kings' chances ended up in the net. The Kings were out-chanced 13-5 the rest of the way, about the same ratio as in the first period. I don't think that "prevent mode" had too much to do with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
Also, I didn't think Quick was that great in game 5, yes he made 50 saves, but those were mostly low quality shots as I recall.
... Well, the Sharks had more chances in that game (23) than any other, so unless you want to say all or most of them were low quality - and I sure didn't see that when I watched the game - then Quick was exceptional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
I think the Kings break out/transition & neutral zone play, on attack, are big problems. Everyone complains about the dump and chase, but when you don't have speed built up coming through the neutral zone, you have no other option but to dump it in, because you can't get around defenders if you don't have a step on them.
... I think the Kings are able to break out pretty well when they haven't spent the entire duration of a shift in their own zone. The Sharks aren't really a good defensive team, but one thing they DO know how to do is keep the puck in the offensive zone; they're probably the best team in the league at doing this, and the Red Wings are getting an education right quick as to that ability. Dump and chase only works with reasonably fresh players, and that often wasn't the case with the Kings when they went to dump the puck in - they were dumping it in because they needed a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
I don't know if they keep stats on it, but I'd like to know how many odd man rushes and break aways the Kings had this year. I bet they're right at the bottom of the league, and it's largely due to the fact that they can't transition out of their zone quickly once they regain possession.
... They don't keep stats on those, but I can't see the Kings giving up more outnumbered attacks than the bottom-tier teams in the league. No way. The Kings were one of the best teams in the league in giving up the fewest shots, so unless you're also willing to say in this case that the shots the Kings gave up were of unusually high quality when compared to the other teams, I can't agree that they were victimized on the rush very often.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:01 PM
  #39
johnjm22
16,005
 
johnjm22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Barstow, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,486
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... They don't keep stats on those, but I can't see the Kings giving up more outnumbered attacks than the bottom-tier teams in the league. No way. The Kings were one of the best teams in the league in giving up the fewest shots, so unless you're also willing to say in this case that the shots the Kings gave up were of unusually high quality when compared to the other teams, I can't agree that they were victimized on the rush very often.
No I meant outnumbered rushes in favor of the Kings, not against.

johnjm22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:14 PM
  #40
Nex06
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,104
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
I don't know if they keep stats on it, but I'd like to know how many odd man rushes and break aways the Kings had this year. I bet they're right at the bottom of the league, and it's largely due to the fact that they can't transition out of their zone quickly once they regain possession.
Well this has been described at the beginning of the season as problem solved. Murray's theory is that most important part of these rushes is the first pass out of the defensive zone made by a puck moving dman. He had big hopes for JJ and DD dominating this area of the game.

Nex06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2011, 08:20 PM
  #41
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
No I meant outnumbered rushes in favor of the Kings, not against.
... Damn, I misread that. My fault. And yes, I would agree with you there.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 12:21 PM
  #42
Duc620
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnjm22 View Post
In games 3 and 5, the Kings scored early and went into "prevent mode."
That's funny. I had exactly the opposite reaction.

The Kings Kids started believing that Niemi's lousy starts were due to their superior offensive skills. The kids started playing the Sharks high speed transition game and then completely lost control of the game while the wily Sharks engaged them in silly scrums and other distractions ("pay no attention to the game behind the curtain - lets just trade face washes and stick work"). They NEVER went into "prevent mode".

They SHOULD have gone into a "defense first - shutdown" mode with about 8-10 minutes left in the second period.

Duc620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 12:26 PM
  #43
Duc620
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nex06 View Post
Well this has been described at the beginning of the season as problem solved. Murray's theory is that most important part of these rushes is the first pass out of the defensive zone made by a puck moving dman. He had big hopes for JJ and DD dominating this area of the game.
Not exactly Murray's theory. Kind of a fundamental.

This is a five man system. Players have to maintain certain position on ice and space between each other. The forwards have a responsibility to be available for the first pass. I can't remember all the times I see D looking up ice for a forward only to see them standing and waiting for puck one two lines away.

That said, I think the transitions were better in the playoffs. OTOH, that's exactly what kept the Kings playing the Sharks game.

Duc620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 03:49 PM
  #44
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc620 View Post
That's funny. I had exactly the opposite reaction.

The Kings Kids started believing that Niemi's lousy starts were due to their superior offensive skills. The kids started playing the Sharks high speed transition game and then completely lost control of the game while the wily Sharks engaged them in silly scrums and other distractions ("pay no attention to the game behind the curtain - lets just trade face washes and stick work"). They NEVER went into "prevent mode".

They SHOULD have gone into a "defense first - shutdown" mode with about 8-10 minutes left in the second period.
I agree 100%. I was at game 3 and I remember telling my newb hockey friend that the Kings need to settle it down because they were playing way too aggressive with a 4-0 lead. Hell, they don't usually even play like that when they are down a goal let alone doing it with a lead in the playoffs.

I distinctly remember Doughty skating the puck up the ice and throwing a pass through the middle that lead to a turnover and Sharks rush the other way. It was either then or soon after the Kings got scored on for the first time. The Kings were not playing 2-1 Terry Murray hockey, they were playing something entirely different.

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2011, 03:51 PM
  #45
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,780
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc620 View Post
Not exactly Murray's theory. Kind of a fundamental.

This is a five man system. Players have to maintain certain position on ice and space between each other. The forwards have a responsibility to be available for the first pass. I can't remember all the times I see D looking up ice for a forward only to see them standing and waiting for puck one two lines away.

That said, I think the transitions were better in the playoffs. OTOH, that's exactly what kept the Kings playing the Sharks game.
I think part of the reason the Kings were getting quite a few odd number rushes was due to the Sharks being so aggressive on the rush. They were constantly bringing a 4th guy and the handful of times they didn't get the puck to the net lead to a scoring opportunity going the other way.

Buddy The Elf 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 09:30 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.