HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Where do we go wrong with our 1st Rounders??????

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-16-2006, 05:08 PM
  #76
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Necessary? I'm not sure. I can tell you that it would be difficult for the GM of any team in any sport to give out such an ambiguous quote regarding his top selection, especially when it's 7th overall. These are the kinds of quote the media is willing to accept for 3rd round picks and lower, but we both know that Brooks, Brown, Everson, et al would not allow things to be left like this.
Those quotes were paraphrased from statements taken from Sather and a scout about Marc Staal after the 2005 draft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Apples and oranges. Unlike skaters there are no "types" of goalies. There are no "checking" goalies or "playmaking" goalies. There are only starters and backups. Of course it goes without saying that Montoya is going to be a starter; that's the only type of goalie anyone would take in the first round. Defensemen and forwards are different, and one can target one of these positions with the understanding that he's not there to put up 30 goals a season.
I realized as soon as I submitted the post that using him as an example would be a mistake. I should know better than to give you any ammunition to go off on me with. How about if we had won the lottery and taken Barker instead? You think people would not expect at least a #2 D-man from a top 5 pick, regardless of what Sather had said? Or if we took Stafford, would people not have expected a top 6 forward?

My point is/was that it doesnt matter what the reality of the player is, nor is it necessarily dependant on what the GM says. Unless a GM comes right out and puts limits on what a player will be, which I can never remember ever happening with a top 10 pick, people expect big things from high draft picks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
We are on the same page here. It is to those few that I am writing.
I didnt realize there were so many people from that camp. There are always people on every possible side of an argument, especially on this site, but I'm surprised there are enough people to actually call them out on it.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 07:05 PM
  #77
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Those quotes were paraphrased from statements taken from Sather and a scout about Marc Staal after the 2005 draft.
Fine. And is that ALL that was said of Staal after he was drafted? For instance, what did Ranger management post on its website about Staal the day he was drafted? What went out in press packets the following few days? Come now, don't try to tell me that those four sentences were the only statements Ranger management made about Staal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
How about if we had won the lottery and taken Barker instead? You think people would not expect at least a #2 D-man from a top 5 pick, regardless of what Sather had said? Or if we took Stafford, would people not have expected a top 6 forward?
I think New Yorkers would've said, ""Barker? Stafford? What does Sather say about them? What's in today's Post about them."

New Yorkers don't know hockey; you've said this yourself. They will accept what they're told because the great majority of them are wise enough to know what they don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
I didnt realize there were so many people from that camp.
I don't recall writing that there were many people from that camp. In fact I specifically wrote in my last post that it was "few."

dedalus is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 07:38 PM
  #78
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Fine. And is that ALL that was said of Staal after he was drafted? For instance, what did Ranger management post on its website about Staal the day he was drafted? What went out in press packets the following few days? Come now, don't try to tell me that those four sentences were the only statements Ranger management made about Staal.
http://newyorkrangers.com/pressbox/p...es.asp?id=1668

Maybe I'm missing it, but I dont see where they proclaiming him to be a top pair defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I think New Yorkers would've said, ""Barker? Stafford? What does Sather say about them? What's in today's Post about them."

New Yorkers don't know hockey; you've said this yourself. They will accept what they're told because the great majority of them are wise enough to know what they don't know.
Fine, draft postion means nothing in terms of the hyping of prospects. Everyone only cares about what the GM says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I don't recall writing that there were many people from that camp. In fact I specifically wrote in my last post that it was "few."
Easy killer, I wasnt arguing with you.

I'll be honest I think the entire eating crow thing was nonsense. Talking **** to people because a kid has succeeded as a role player on one of the worst teams in the league, is so ridiculous its actually funny. You want to talk about eating crow, it should be to all those people who ran up pages of threads ripping Muckler for calling him a 3rd line player, or for all those people that ripped Sather for trading him because it would end up being so determintal to the team. There were ALOT more of those people than there are people who didnt think Manny would at least be a role player.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 08:13 PM
  #79
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
For as good as the Rangers have done there are just some guys I wish we'd have gotten in the last few drafts who I really wanted and who have progressed nicely.

in 2002 I really wish this team would've come away with Stoll and not Falardeau.

In 03 I wanted Getzlaf and Fritsche as our top two picks.

Those were guys I wanted then and would still take now. Part of me has just never been able to shake that this team was painfully close to really having done something on a higher level in the draft.

In fairness I can name you a list of guys I was wrong about as well, but those were three names I was VERY confident in and the Rangers had a shot at all of them.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 08:24 PM
  #80
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
so if I came out and said Dupont looks like a future first line power winger capable of 30 goals and 50 points
Wow, you really think so....I'm holding you to that...in fact, I'm declaring Dupont our future franchise PF, solely based upon your opinion.

jas is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 08:31 PM
  #81
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
Wow, you really think so....I'm holding you to that...in fact, I'm declaring Dupont our future franchise PF, solely based upon your opinion.
LOL. oh lord don't start

You know you joke but someone out there on this board has already misread that and is going to bring it up a few years from now and it's gonna be a 10 page thread.

Give me my peace until that time.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 08:34 PM
  #82
jas
Unsatisfied
 
jas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ
Posts: 13,213
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
LOL. oh lord don't start

You know you joke but someone out there on this board has already misread that and is going to bring it up a few years from now and it's gonna be a 10 page thread.

Give me my peace until that time.

C'mon, you know I PERSONALLY hold you responsible for the Lundmark failure. It was your fault he never developed here.

jas is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 08:53 PM
  #83
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sin City
Country: United States
Posts: 13,196
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas
C'mon, you know I PERSONALLY hold you responsible for the Lundmark failure. It was your fault he never developed here.
Lundmark is on my shortlist of personal disappointments. Watching him at 17 years old, I really saw something. And for a long time I defended him and then finally there was little left to defend.

Lundmark, Heerema, Henry all disappointed me. Lundmark really hurt though.

Then there are some I knew were gonna be good who make me sick because we could've had them: Gagne, Jackman, Stoll come to mind.

Those who I wanted, knew were gonna be good and are proving me right (much to my dismay because they aren't here) and we had chances to get: Getzlaf, Fritsche and to some extent Phaneuf (it would've taken a trade, but one I know was out there to be made with two teams).

Those who have surprised me: Bell, Havlat, Zajac

It's funny I look at prospects totally different than I did when I started writing about them. I see things clearly now and more even keeled. It's kinda funny but over time you do learn better how to balance a report with both good and bad.

Edge is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 10:17 PM
  #84
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Maybe I'm missing it, but I dont see where they proclaiming him to be a top pair defenseman.
Wow! I really do think you are missing it:

"He is considered a mobile and competitive blueliner who logs a ton of icetime, especially when the opposing team has its top line on the ice.

As a young player in the Ontario Hockey League, which is a tough league to play defense in, for a 17-year old he stepped in and played extremely well in all critical situations, Brown said. At critical times in all games he was their go-to guy, which says something for such a young player. We were very excited about the possibilities of him as a pro.


And:
The Rangers cant wait to get the young two-way player in their lineup, as hes very smart player on both sides of the puck. Staal has the ability to do whatever needs to be done on the ice to help his team. If you need him to clear the front of your net so your goaltender can see, he can do that. If you need him to clear the front of your net for your goaltender, he can do that. If you need him to start the play the other way with one quick pass, he can also help you out there. The Rangers consider him the complete blueline package.

I don't know. I look at that and see top pairing defenseman. It certainly isn't some vague statement that the Rangers "just felt lucky to get him" and they'd "have to see how he develops."

The team has to sell tickets; the team has to maintain a media profile. To suggest that the team could put out a blurb full of cliches on Malhotra just doesn't work. Smith/management had to discuss his game - just as Staal's is discussed above - and in doing so they created a public perception of his game that did not reflect what the kid actually was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Fine, draft postion means nothing in terms of the hyping of prospects. Everyone only cares about what the GM says.
Easy, killer. We disagree on where people place the most value. No need to wet yourself over it that disagreement. The conversation has been civil and intelligent until now, but if you're down to trying to rebut with the most simplistic sarcasm, I can't imagine it remaining worthwhile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
I'll be honest I think the entire eating crow thing was nonsense. Talking **** to people because a kid has succeeded as a role player on one of the worst teams in the league, is so ridiculous its actually funny.
So why write this?
If your whole point was calling out the few people that doubted he would at least be a role player on a terrible team, my apologies, they should all suck it up and admit they were wrong.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I see a contradiction between labeling it nonsense while also calling for the same action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
You want to talk about eating crow, it should be to all those people who ran up pages of threads ripping Muckler for calling him a 3rd line player, or for all those people that ripped Sather for trading him because it would end up being so determintal to the team. There were ALOT more of those people than there are people who didnt think Manny would at least be a role player.
Well ... I couldn't care less about numbers of people who are wrong. The point is the point whether we're talking 5 people or 50. But it looks like you'd like to go crusading, so be my guest.

dedalus is offline  
Old
01-16-2006, 10:35 PM
  #85
Trottier
Very Random
 
Trottier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 28,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrenTurcotte8
The guy ended his career because he was lifting weights.......Are you kidding me?...

Key words in said statement: "not in NHL" and "could never recover"

...Bust.
Degrading an athlete [Blackburn] based on the fact that his career ended prematurely due of injury? And making light of the way it ended?

Congratulations on reaching a new level of low.

Trottier is offline  
Old
01-17-2006, 12:15 AM
  #86
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Wow! I really do think you are missing it:

"He is considered a mobile and competitive blueliner who logs a ton of icetime, especially when the opposing team has its top line on the ice.

“As a young player in the Ontario Hockey League, which is a tough league to play defense in, for a 17-year old he stepped in and played extremely well in all critical situations,” Brown said. “At critical times in all games he was their go-to guy, which says something for such a young player. We were very excited about the possibilities of him as a pro.”


And:
The Rangers can’t wait to get the young two-way player in their lineup, as he’s very smart player on both sides of the puck. Staal has the ability to do whatever needs to be done on the ice to help his team. If you need him to clear the front of your net so your goaltender can see, he can do that. If you need him to clear the front of your net for your goaltender, he can do that. If you need him to start the play the other way with one quick pass, he can also help you out there. The Rangers consider him the complete blueline package.

I don't know. I look at that and see top pairing defenseman. It certainly isn't some vague statement that the Rangers "just felt lucky to get him" and they'd "have to see how he develops."

The team has to sell tickets; the team has to maintain a media profile. To suggest that the team could put out a blurb full of cliches on Malhotra just doesn't work. Smith/management had to discuss his game - just as Staal's is discussed above - and in doing so they created a public perception of his game that did not reflect what the kid actually was.
There is an enormous difference between pointing our what the organization likes about a player and stating what role they expect to fill in the future. The Rangers organization could have put a 25 page press release rambling on about Manny's size, speed, heart, leadership, defensive prowness, face-off ability, his performance in the WJCs, his performance in the Memorial cup, how great he was in his interview, how highly regarded he was by his coaches and by Rangers scouts... what they didnt have to do is was put a label on him or put specific expectations on production.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Easy, killer. We disagree on where people place the most value. No need to wet yourself over it that disagreement. The conversation has been civil and intelligent until now, but if you're down to trying to rebut with the most simplistic sarcasm, I can't imagine it remaining worthwhile.
Apologies. I wasnt trying to rebut anything, just put an end to what seemed to be going in circles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
So why write this?
If your whole point was calling out the few people that doubted he would at least be a role player on a terrible team, my apologies, they should all suck it up and admit they were wrong.

Maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but I see a contradiction between labeling it nonsense while also calling for the same action.
Well there I was being mostly sarcastic. Since it didnt translate, I figured there was no reason to go on, and was just trying to end the discussion civily. Then it seemed like you jumped on me when I made a legit query about there being alot of people who you were referring to, and that was what i responded to, and well, it annoyed me. Wasnt trying to drag this down to the levels of some of the other disscusions on this board, so again you are going to have to accept my apology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Well ... I couldn't care less about numbers of people who are wrong. The point is the point whether we're talking 5 people or 50. But it looks like you'd like to go crusading, so be my guest.
Nope, I cant go crusading without my trusty crusading boots, and I dont know where the hell I put them.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-17-2006, 12:16 AM
  #87
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier
Degrading an athlete [Blackburn] based on the fact that his career ended prematurely due of injury? And making light of the way it ended?

Congratulations on reaching a new level of low.
Go back to the Islanders board, I'm still not over the fact that you got to be at the garden game 7 when the Rangers won the cup.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-17-2006, 07:43 AM
  #88
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
There is an enormous difference between pointing our what the organization likes about a player and stating what role they expect to fill in the future.
The organization isn't merely pointing out what they like about Staal in that release: they're pointing out what his game is in juniors. They're talking about his skill set and what they expect to see: a crease-clearing, smart defensman who will eat up loads of ice time and put up some points with his outlet passes. I think implicit in all this is what they expect to see. "We drafted him because this is what he is and this is what we want."

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
The Rangers organization could have put a 25 page press release rambling on about Manny's size, speed, heart, leadership, defensive prowness, face-off ability, his performance in the WJCs, his performance in the Memorial cup
And if you put together their various press releases and public quotes, the Rangers did effectively that, and they had to. This aspect of the thread comes from your statement, "I just think had Smith never said anything about what he expected from Manny, people still would have been dissapointed."

I wrote that Smith could not say nothing, and I don't think you've countered that except to say that he might have offered ambiguous quotes. It seems to me that the Staal article you've posted shows pretty clearly that the team would never be content with putting out milquetoast comments about their #1 picks. Nor should they. They're trying to sell tickets.

Now WHAT is said in those releases is a different thing which leads us to ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
what they didnt have to do is was put a label on him or put specific expectations on production.
Oh I agree that management need not have set specific productions numbers on him; in fact they were terribly unwise to do so because in doing so they set public expectations about those offensive stats. That was the entire point about "overselling" in my first post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
it seemed like you jumped on me when I made a legit query about there being alot of people who you were referring to, and that was what i responded to, and well, it annoyed me. Wasnt trying to drag this down to the levels of some of the other disscusions on this board, so again you are going to have to accept my apology.
That's fair enough. You didn't phrase it as a query and so I didn't read it as one, but that's just a stylistic thing. I don't see where apologies are necessary on that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Nope, I cant go crusading without my trusty crusading boots, and I dont know where the hell I put them.
Tsk. A good crusader is ALWAYS prepared.

dedalus is offline  
Old
01-18-2006, 03:16 PM
  #89
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
The organization isn't merely pointing out what they like about Staal in that release: they're pointing out what his game is in juniors. They're talking about his skill set and what they expect to see: a crease-clearing, smart defensman who will eat up loads of ice time and put up some points with his outlet passes. I think implicit in all this is what they expect to see. "We drafted him because this is what he is and this is what we want."

And if you put together their various press releases and public quotes, the Rangers did effectively that, and they had to. This aspect of the thread comes from your statement, "I just think had Smith never said anything about what he expected from Manny, people still would have been dissapointed."

I wrote that Smith could not say nothing, and I don't think you've countered that except to say that he might have offered ambiguous quotes. It seems to me that the Staal article you've posted shows pretty clearly that the team would never be content with putting out milquetoast comments about their #1 picks. Nor should they. They're trying to sell tickets.
I didnt actually mean that literally, of course Smith couldnt have just said "I have no comment on Manny Malhotra." As interesting as that would have been, I doubt it would have gone over well.

As you agree, they could have gone about it without saying:

"In the peak of his career, I envision him as this 35-goal scorer on the second line. He will be impeccably responsible defensively and a leader on the ice and in the dressing room." that Smith said after drafting Manny. (I got this quote from SI, so I'm not sure if its 100% exact)

As for the organizational comments vs. draft position discussion, I can guess we can agree to disagree, but let me just pose one scenario: Lets say Neil Smith actually drafted Manny in a later round, say 3rd or 4th, or even 2nd. Neil Smith thought getting Manny there was actually a steal, not a stock dropper but just someone who Smith thought had huge potential. After the draft Smith made the above comments. Would the same pressure and expectations have been put on his shoulders, as they were being a #7 overall pick, and not only that but the first pick in what Smith pretty much decreed as a new era for the Rangers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
Tsk. A good crusader is ALWAYS prepared.
Right now I'm only a mediocre crusader, though Neil Smith once projected me to be a good one, whatever thats worth.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-18-2006, 05:41 PM
  #90
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
As for the organizational comments vs. draft position discussion, I can guess we can agree to disagree, but let me just pose one scenario: Lets say Neil Smith actually drafted Manny in a later round, say 3rd or 4th, or even 2nd. Neil Smith thought getting Manny there was actually a steal, not a stock dropper but just someone who Smith thought had huge potential. After the draft Smith made the above comments. Would the same pressure and expectations have been put on his shoulders, as they were being a #7 overall pick, and not only that but the first pick in what Smith pretty much decreed as a new era for the Rangers?
I see what you're driving at here but this is where we must agree to disagree. I don't see these two things as being separable. The mindset that
selected Malhotra with the #7 pick is the same mindset that produced those statements about him. In other words, Smith's thinking about Malhotra wouldn't allow Malhotra to slip to the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round. Likewise, if Malhotra had slipped that far, it's because Smith didn't think as highly of him as those quotes indicate.

But let me try one on you:

If we go out today and interview the average Ranger fan on the street - not one us HF geeks - what does he remember of Malhotra. I genuinely don't believe he remembers that Malhotra was the #7 pick in the draft. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they've forgotten he was even a 1st rounder. I suspect you'd get the answer "Yeah he was that kid who was supposed to be so good ..."

Brendl and Lundmark are much more recent, and I doubt people could tell you their draft position either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Right now I'm only a mediocre crusader, though Neil Smith once projected me to be a good one, whatever thats worth.
Well if Rockstrom scouted you I still gotta' like your chances.

dedalus is offline  
Old
01-18-2006, 06:58 PM
  #91
McRanger
Registered User
 
McRanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=dedalus]I see what you're driving at here but this is where we must agree to disagree. I don't see these two things as being separable. The mindset that
selected Malhotra with the #7 pick is the same mindset that produced those statements about him. In other words, Smith's thinking about Malhotra wouldn't allow Malhotra to slip to the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th round. Likewise, if Malhotra had slipped that far, it's because Smith didn't think as highly of him as those quotes indicate.

Ah, not seperable, but one stemming from the other. In order for comments to carry weight, Malhotra needed to be picked high, or be the top pick. The media may not know much about hockey, but they know enough about drafts to see the value in a 1st round or top pick, in any sport. Its compounded further when its a high 1st pick. GMs talk about all their picks, or alot of them anyway, but the only ones the media focuses on, and in turn the public, are the high ones. I cant even find quotes on Wes Jarvis or David Inman. Tyutin isnt even mentioned on the Rangers website till they agreed to terms with him, meanwhile Lee Falardeau has a whole article on him, because he was the top Rangers pick in 2002. Had the Rangers had the same amount of top 60 picks in 2002 than they had in 2004, would that still be? If Falardeau had been one of six guys taken in the first 2 rounds, would Sather still have said the things he did about him? Probably. Would they have been more than a blip on the media's radar? Probably not.

McRanger is offline  
Old
01-19-2006, 07:17 AM
  #92
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McRanger
Ah, not seperable, but one stemming from the other. In order for comments to carry weight, Malhotra needed to be picked high, or be the top pick. The media may not know much about hockey, but they know enough about drafts to see the value in a 1st round or top pick, in any sport. Its compounded further when its a high 1st pick. GMs talk about all their picks, or alot of them anyway, but the only ones the media focuses on, and in turn the public, are the high ones.
There seem to be two different but related issues on the table here:
1. The media's handling of what is said.
2. What is actually said.

On the first, I agree completely. The media will sell what they can best sell, and that is higher picks. That's why I specifically mentioned the media's role in my first post, but at the end of the day, they will sell what the GM gives them to sell. They will devote two full columns to the 1st round pick because he's the 1st round pick, but the organization's statements will make up the content of those two columns, and people will build their expectations on what is written in those columns not on how long the article is.

On the second point: What is actually said has nothing to do with the media, and the hype on a kid comes from what is said. Let's take your Falardeau example. His career is much further behind than Malhotra's was, yet he has nowhere near the "bust" tag that Malhotra did. The reason is simple: what we got from Sather when Falardeau was drafted was that he could be another Joel Otto. Now Otto was a fine player and even a necessary one, but I suspect that even in Calgary the team never built an ad campaign around the slogan "Come see Joel Otto play!" (Except when the Flames played the Oilers and they might hype the Otto/Messier war.)

Falardeau flys far lower on the radar than Malhotra because the organization never said of Falardeau what it said of Malhotra.

dedalus is offline  
Closed Thread

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 08:26 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.