HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Notices

Puck Never Seems To Stop In Philly

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2011, 03:00 PM
  #101
Bob Clarke Fan Club
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,984
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Kurt Warner was a game winning drive by Big Ben (a guy on a HoF trajectory) away from doing pretty much that.

The Colts would have been TERRIBLE last year if you removed Peyton Manning.

Your argument concerning the value of QBs is remarkably bad. The very rules of the sport have been augmented to emphasize QB play more (pass interference, etc.), and that is on top of the fact that offensive schemes have come to rely heavily on QB play at the expense of other positions. RBs are far less important today than they were 20 years ago (if you don't believe me, then I'm assuming you don't play fantasy football).

The only comparable value to an organization is an elite defense, but that is truly a teamwork enterprise... whereas QBs have a great deal of individual control over the fate of their offense. An elite QB can make a mediocre WR into a good WR, but an elite WR isn't going to fix your problem at QB if the QB sucks.

When Brees came to the Saints he made a 3-13 team a 10-6 team in ONE year. 31st in the NFL in pts, to 5th in the NFL. 20th in the NFL in yards, to 1st.




Colts are the worst team in the NFL when you remove Manning.

Bob Clarke Fan Club is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:01 PM
  #102
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Clarke Fan Club View Post
Colts are the worst team in the NFL when you remove Manning.
Yep, but in fairness to ShotScore he is a unique case given how much of their offense is handed over to him. They literally cannot function as a team (at least, as they normally do) if you remove Manning and put someone else in there.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:09 PM
  #103
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,400
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Having just gotten back from NO... it's really clear people need to slow down with applying sports teams' fate to the larger picture.
Eh, if it motivated them to win a Super Bowl "for the city," I'll buy whatever they sell. Someone I used to work with for a short time had been displaced by Katrina talked about it like that, but I haven't been there for myself (plan to go in 2012). To a degree, when one signs there, it's part of what they sign up for, but I when I talk about the team I don't talk about hurricanes.

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:11 PM
  #104
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
If you want to have an economic conversation about how much one should spend on goalie, that's an area where it's quite interesting. But Shafer's argument is that goalies are the product of their team more than themselves, and therefore THAT is why you shouldn't invest in 'em.

That argument is crap.
My argument has actually always been both and always involved both:

A) That goaltending production is largely a team based stat (as evidenced by Leighton last year with plenty of other examples).

B) That because of (A), goaltending is a position that you are able to forgo some chunk of talent at (obviously not all as I have stated many times) in order to spend more money on skaters who both impact the goaltending production (see A) and skating production.

*C) Theoretically this implies that skaters, since they both effect the on-ice play and the goaltender's ability to do his job, are inherently more important to the overall game of hockey than goaltenders.

*Granted that does not imply that all individual skaters are more important to a team than goaltenders, though it does certainly imply that, through (B), there are examples (and possibly many examples) in which skaters are more valuable, especially for their cap hits, than goaltenders.


Since you have displayed on countless occasions that you do not understand my argument or even know what my argument is, I ask that you no longer bring up my name or my argument as something that you fully understand. It gives people the wrong impression that you know what you're talking about.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:20 PM
  #105
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
My argument has actually always been both and always involved both:

A) That goaltending production is largely a team based stat (as evidenced by Leighton last year with plenty of other examples).
Holy terrible statistical argument Batman! Using a 25 game sample to make any sort of statistical argument doesn't even REMOTELY begin to pass the smell test. If you want to make that argument, start talking about Chris Osgood or something.

Of course, then you'd have the problem that Osgood put up numbers eerily similar to his Detroit numbers when he was outside the bubble. Funny, huh?

Quote:
B) That because of (A), goaltending is a position that you are able to forgo some chunk of talent at (obviously not all as I have stated many times) in order to spend more money on skaters who both impact the goaltending production (see A) and skating production.
Skating production goes to complete and utter **** at the speed of light when your goalie sucks. It doesn't work the other way around, and you need to think about that.

A goalie, entirely on his own, can improve the fate of the rest of his team regardless of what they do... nothing any skater can do will save you if your goalie sucks.

Inductively, the goalie position is the ONLY position on the roster that can improve the value you get out of the rest of your roster. A good goalie makes EACH forward on your team better. A good goalie makes EACH defenseman on your team better.

Chris Pronger is a fantastic defenseman when he's healthy, but he only really improves your team for 25 minutes a night and whoever happens to be out there on the ice with him. Is the goalie "better" with Pronger out there? Yes... is Pronger much improved if you put a better goalie behind him? Yep. However, Pronger goes and sits on the bench for more than half the game. He only tangentially improves your roster at that point due to "depth" and limiting the QUALCOMP that other players have to be put up against.

Chris Pronger cannot make a **** goalie a good goalie. The Blackhawks proved that with merciless efficiency.

Quote:
*C) Theoretically this implies that skaters, since they both effect the on-ice play and the goaltender's ability to do his job, are inherently more important to the overall game of hockey than goaltenders.

*Granted that does not imply that all individual skaters are more important to a team than goaltenders, though it does certainly imply that, through (B), there are examples (and possibly many examples) in which skaters are more valuable, especially for their cap hits, than goaltenders.
Look dude, we have a few problems here. The first is that you should clearly avoid using statistical and inductive arguments to make your point... because you routinely mess those up. You have NO answer to the problem I just posed to your argument, which I will now reiterate to be explicit.

1) A goalie, on his own, can make a crappy team competitive.

2) A goalie, on his own, can make a competitive team crappy.

3) #1 and #2 cannot be said about ANY skater that has ever played the sport of hockey.

EDIT: And the economics of the goalie position (and any position) are completely independent from an evaluation of the on-ice value of a player/position. Economics are driven by supply/demand, not the production level of a position. If everyone absolutely sucked at winning faceoffs, then then some dude who could barely play but was AWESOME at winning draws would have real value.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:31 PM
  #106
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
1) A goalie, on his own, can make a crappy team competitive.

2) A goalie, on his own, can make a competitive team crappy.

3) #1 and #2 cannot be said about ANY skater that has ever played the sport of hockey.
The Philadelphia Flyers are in the business of winning championships (being the best team), not just finishing the season at 0.500.

A goalie can win games on his own, but a goalie cannot win a championship on his own.

Therefore spending money on a goalie and forsaking depth (something that does help win championships) is inherently counter-productive to team building.

Sure, if your business model is to make the playoffs every year before bowing out one to two rounds in just because you keep your fanbase buying gear/tickets, then sure, spend all the money you want on that all-star goalie.

In the end, you're just playing with yourself; not really getting anything done.

Thus, in the end, goaltending is important in the sense that you need someone qualified for the position. Having someone overqualified and expensive could actually hurt more than help. Don't many companies follow that same exact principle when hiring employees to fill specific roles? Hell, it's even like paying Gagne 5.00m to play on your 4th line. It's stupid.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:39 PM
  #107
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
The Philadelphia Flyers are in the business of winning championships (being the best team), not just finishing the season at 0.500.
How's that been working out for them?

You need team depth to win a championship... but you don't need a 5M third pairing. We win the SC last year if we have a legitimate starter between the pipes against Chicago, no matter what Parent/Krajicek go out there and do.

You don't need a 3rd scoring line... so on and so forth.

This idea that getting a goalie involves gutting your roster is pure hogwash.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:44 PM
  #108
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
How's that been working out for them?

You need team depth to win a championship... but you don't need a 5M third pairing. We win the SC last year if we have a legitimate starter between the pipes against Chicago, no matter what Parent/Krajicek go out there and do.

You don't need a 3rd scoring line... so on and so forth.

This idea that getting a goalie involves gutting your roster is pure hogwash.
Getting a starting goalie does not and should not involve gutting your roster. That is correct.

Getting an strong/elite goalie certainly does. Supply and demand.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:49 PM
  #109
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Getting a starting goalie does not and should not involve gutting your roster. That is correct.

Getting an strong/elite goalie certainly does. Supply and demand.
...I don't think you understand supply and demand as a phrase if you're using it in reference to restructuring the roster. Also, if you look around, it isn't like anyone is getting huge cap hit contracts anymore.

We can certainly afford a starting goalie in the current climate without giving up much on our roster. Of course, it woud also be nice if we hadn't gutted our farm system over the last few years... but c'est la vie.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:52 PM
  #110
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...I don't think you understand supply and demand as a phrase if you're using it in reference to restructuring the roster. Also, if you look around, it isn't like anyone is getting huge cap hit contracts anymore.
But unless you draft an elite/strong goalie, where are you getting him? So you pay twice: once to the team you acquire him from, and again to have him on your roster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
We can certainly afford a starting goalie in the current climate without giving up much on our roster. Of course, it woud also be nice if we hadn't gutted our farm system over the last few years... but c'est la vie.
This offseason? Hopefully.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm praying we throw Versteeg and Carle to the wolves. Then throw 4.00m at Bryzgalov and Vokoun to see which sticks assuming they hit the market.

That said, I would not throw more than 4.00m at either. Even 4.00m is pricey.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 03:59 PM
  #111
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
But unless you draft an elite/strong goalie, where are you getting him? So you pay twice: once to the team you acquire him from, and again to have him on your roster.
Yeah, that isn't really supply/demand in action... that's just cost. You're still dealing with supply/demand to pay for a goalie you draft.

However, yes, it's far cheaper to internally develop players... which is why NOT trading away all of your picks is smart management, and trading away all of your picks is risky management in the long run.

Quote:
This offseason? Hopefully.

Contrary to popular belief, I'm praying we throw Versteeg and Carle to the wolves. Then throw 4.00m at Bryzgalov and Vokoun to see which sticks assuming they hit the market.

That said, I would not throw more than 4.00m at either. Even 4.00m is pricey.
4M really isn't pricey if your concern is on ice production... we're spending 4M on Meszaros to be 5th on our depth chart, which you think is brilliant. Hell, I was the crazy person for being open to the idea of Giroux for Price and Price had a more productive year than Giroux even with Giroux's breakout season (he'll also be cheaper next year).

That being said, I would expect Bryz to sign for a bit more than $4M for a few years if he can get some fish biting fast and avoid getting the market nuked by someone jumping on Vokoun early. Vokoun should be a shorter deal, and not too expensive if he stays in the NHL.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:07 PM
  #112
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
4M really isn't pricey if your concern is on ice production... we're spending 4M on Meszaros to be 5th on our depth chart, which you think is brilliant. Hell, I was the crazy person for being open to the idea of Giroux for Price and Price had a more productive year than Giroux even with Giroux's breakout season (he'll also be cheaper next year).
You were that guy?

Not only was Giroux for Price/Halak insane, but JVR for Price/Halak was beyond stupid as well.

As always, an elite forward is more important than an elite goaltender.

Once again...

Bobrovsky/Boucher + Giroux/JVR > Price - Giroux/JVR

Therefore...

(Legitimate Starter) + Giroux/JVR >>> Price - Giroux/JVR

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
That being said, I would expect Bryz to sign for a bit more than $4M for a few years if he can get some fish biting fast and avoid getting the market nuked by someone jumping on Vokoun early. Vokoun should be a shorter deal, and not too expensive if he stays in the NHL.
I want a part in whichever one is cheaper. Exactly who is in our net really does not matter to me as long as they are a STARTER. Back-ups and young, untested rookies do not make a STARTER.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:22 PM
  #113
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
You were that guy?

Not only was Giroux for Price/Halak insane, but JVR for Price/Halak was beyond stupid as well.

As always, an elite forward is more important than an elite goaltender.

Once again...

Bobrovsky/Boucher + Giroux/JVR > Price - Giroux/JVR

Therefore...

(Legitimate Starter) + Giroux/JVR >>> Price - Giroux/JVR



I want a part in whichever one is cheaper. Exactly who is in our net really does not matter to me as long as they are a STARTER. Back-ups and young, untested rookies do not make a STARTER.
If an elite forward is so much more important than an elite goaltender, why is Boston dominating us without any truly elite forwards, and a generally weaker group of forwards as a whole?

I mean, a top-level goalie just doesn't matter, right?

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:26 PM
  #114
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
If an elite forward is so much more important than an elite goaltender, why is Boston dominating us without any truly elite forwards, and a generally weaker group of forwards as a whole?

I mean, a top-level goalie just doesn't matter, right?
A) Let's not act as if Boston has some completely hopeless group of skaters and is only being held together by a goalie like Montreal and Halak last year.

and...

B) I never said a goalie couldn't steal a series or two. See Halak and Montreal last year.

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:30 PM
  #115
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
A) Let's not act as if Boston has some completely hopeless group of skaters and is only being held together by a goalie like Montreal and Halak last year.

and...

B) I never said a goalie couldn't steal a series or two. See Halak and Montreal last year.
So a goalie can steal a series or two, but as an individual cannot alter your chance of winning a championship?


Last edited by Beef Invictus: 05-05-2011 at 04:32 PM. Reason: cleanup
infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:42 PM
  #116
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
You were that guy?

Not only was Giroux for Price/Halak insane, but JVR for Price/Halak was beyond stupid as well.

As always, an elite forward is more important than an elite goaltender.

Once again...

Bobrovsky/Boucher + Giroux/JVR > Price - Giroux/JVR

Therefore...

(Legitimate Starter) + Giroux/JVR >>> Price - Giroux/JVR
It's actually not true... at all. Even Crosby when he was going bat*** insane early in the year was competitive as far as value with the goalies that were playing well if you pay attention to GVT.

Now, I know you don't particularly care for advanced statistics... but I don't really care that you don't care about advanced statistics. Baseball folks didn't care about advanced stats for a long time, and now all the people that didn't care about them are out of a job.

Not only are goalies significantly more valuable to their team when they have strong years (for example, last year Ovechkin had the best GVT at 26.9 for a skater and 4 goalies were superior to that... with a few close), it's also true that they plummet with a quickness after a certain threshold. Not so true of skaters. Ryan Miller was, by far, the most valuable player in hockey last year.

But, again, you don't believe in advanced metrics... so, whatever. Can assure you, though, Price blew Giroux away in value to his team this year. Wasn't even close.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 04:43 PM
  #117
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by infidelappel View Post
So a goalie can steal a series or two, but as an individual cannot alter your chance of winning a championship?
Yeah, it's an obviously faulty argument.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 05:00 PM
  #118
Yoshimitsu
Registered User
 
Yoshimitsu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 4,990
vCash: 500
Chris Shafer's arguments are a mess. They're all over the place.

Even if you don't put any value into the advanced stats that Jester mentioned, the value of goaltending is evident if you look at the situation logically.

What have the Flyers ever accomplished with their on the cheap, nickel-and-dime goalie carousel? Nothing. Diddly-squat.

Yoshimitsu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 05:18 PM
  #119
CS
Bryzgalov's Blueline
 
CS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Lumberton, NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 13,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshimitsu View Post
Chris Shafer's arguments are a mess. They're all over the place.

Even if you don't put any value into the advanced stats that Jester mentioned, the value of goaltending is evident if you look at the situation logically.

What have the Flyers ever accomplished with their on the cheap, nickel-and-dime goalie carousel? Nothing. Diddly-squat.
Except one of the winningest organizations in NHL history?

A team that historically makes the postseason more than all but two other teams?

One of the largest, most knowledgeable fanbases in America?

CS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 05:20 PM
  #120
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Except one of the winningest organizations in NHL history?

A team that historically makes the postseason more than all but two other teams?

One of the largest, most knowledgeable fanbases in America?
Known for the traumatizing disappointment they inflict on their fanbase every spring?

I mean, seriously? If goaltending didn't matter you'd think one of those winning teams would have pulled off a Cup.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 05:21 PM
  #121
infidelappel*
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Except one of the winningest organizations in NHL history?

A team that historically makes the postseason more than all but two other teams?

One of the largest, most knowledgeable fanbases in America?
But a good goalie won't win championships; the superb team in front of them will, right? We've been REALLY good at that goal, haven't we?

After all, wasn't that your argument not long ago? We're in the business of winning championships, not just being a team that makes the postseason and sells merchandise off our star goalie, right?

infidelappel* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 08:14 PM
  #122
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Shafer View Post
Getting a starting goalie does not and should not involve gutting your roster. That is correct.

Getting an strong/elite goalie certainly does. Supply and demand.
Vancouver and Boston managed to put together strong rosters while having elite goaltending.

Haute Couturier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 08:16 PM
  #123
GKJ
Global Moderator
Entertainment
 
GKJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Do not trade plz
Country: United States
Posts: 109,400
vCash: 5700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libertine View Post
Vancouver and Boston managed to put together strong rosters while having elite goaltending.
Not only did Vancouver put together a good roster (their 4th line has been a merry-go-round), but they've had everyone under the sun get hurt on defense and never really missed a beat. What would happen if we had 4 of our top 6 defensemen out with injuries?

GKJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 08:52 PM
  #124
ShotScore*
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Philadelphia,Pa.
Country: Italy
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
So, your argument is that Brees didn't immensely improve the NO Saints? The reason their record wasn't great was because the Saints defense was putrid. It improved to merely bottom of the mediocre group (20th in the NFL) and they won a SB.

Look dude, your evaluation of the QB position is one of the worst sports arguments I've ever read.

First of all, when they won the Super Bowl they had all the pieces in place.

A great defense, a terrific offensive line, top notch coaching, awesome receivers, two quality running backs, and a great tight end.

They lacked literally nothing. Even their special teams play was very good.

To make a statement that it was Drew Brees who is solely responsible for the Saints winning the Super Bowl is one of the most absurd, incorrect, flawed, and ill-conceived notions I've ever come across.

Brees by himself, couldn't make the Chargers a contender but that just conveniently slipped your mind.

You can say my evaluation of the QB position is one of the worst sports arguments you've ever seen all you want. Fact is, I am not the one who has offered nothing of substance in this debate. You are.

ShotScore* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2011, 09:00 PM
  #125
Haute Couturier
Registered User
 
Haute Couturier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Philadelphia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,972
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by go kim johnsson 514 View Post
Not only did Vancouver put together a good roster (their 4th line has been a merry-go-round), but they've had everyone under the sun get hurt on defense and never really missed a beat. What would happen if we had 4 of our top 6 defensemen out with injuries?
They would have tumbled down the standings. It was frustrating watching teams like Vancouver and Pittsburgh battling adversity and finding a way to remain near the top with their injuries while the Flyers kept beating themselves.

Haute Couturier 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 12:30 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.