HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
National Hockey League Talk Discuss NHL players, teams, games, and the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

2013 HHOF Inductees

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 01:17 AM
  #76
ricky0034
Registered User
 
ricky0034's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,283
vCash: 500
ITT: dozens of people who are apparently unaware that there isn't a coaches section in the HHOF

Quote:
Originally Posted by vippe View Post
Makarov
Makarov
Makarov
Makarov
this

once again he's the best eligible player(and no offense to Chelios here who's pretty damn good himself and very easily worthy of being in the HHOF) but once again he will get passed over completely

but hey maybe we can see Andreychuk get in!

ricky0034 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:33 AM
  #77
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
The fact that Nieuwendyk is in the Hall is enough on it own to warrant Fleury in the Hall; Fleury peaked higher and had a longer and better prime, despite having a shorter career.

Makarov not being in is just a travesty.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:36 AM
  #78
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,328
vCash: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
LeClair was the best LW in the NHL for a period of a few years. Brind'Amour was a pretty good player at C and LW. He was never anywhere near the best at either.
But for a period Brind'Amour was the best two-way forward in hockey, with a career of strong two-way play, and he has some damn impressive stats to back up his play (something a lot of two-way guys don't have).

Basically, despite Joe having better offensive stats (PPG speaking) Rod was the better overall player by a fair margin.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:37 AM
  #79
iamjs
Unregistered User
 
iamjs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 8,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus3007 View Post
None of the guys you mentioned had near the level of notoriety as Fleury. He was kicked out of the league for crying out loud. He won't make it.
and probably would have been reinstated had he applied sooner. When he received his 2nd substance-related suspension, Fleury had no intentions of returning to the NHL and was content playing senior league hockey with a few former NHL players. Fast forward to 2009 when Fleury was several years sober, and the league reinstated him four weeks after his request. They could have very easily said "look at your history. No deal."

I'm sure the multiple years of sobriety helped his case versus if he would have requested reinstatement after 3-4 months, but being "kicked out of the league" is more of a result of Fleury putting the suspension on a backburner. Had he not attempted a comeback, I'm convinced he'd still be "suspended" (using quotes on this because of Fleury's now-finished NHL career.)

Would I put Fleury in the HHOF? It might be a few years because of a number of players now retiring, but I would have no issue with him going in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I Hate Jay Feaster
These are the same people who set arbitrary and imagined criteria for players to make it in, like "1000 is HOF worthy" and argue for guys like Andreychuk, Recchi, and Verbeek.
I think the imaginary line was set when NHL seasons were only 70 games and your average Art Ross winner was only scoring 80-90 points per season.

iamjs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:01 PM
  #80
Merchant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 462
vCash: 500
Chelios, Niedermayer, Lindros, Shanahan. Again Fred Shero will be snubbed from even being considered.

Merchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:16 PM
  #81
McArthur
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hockey Heart Land
Country: Canada
Posts: 978
vCash: 500
To follow the going trend, this year shouldn't have players that were ever involved with a lockout. Pick the little guys people missed through baby steps of the NHL

McArthur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:13 PM
  #82
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by McArthur View Post
To follow the going trend, this year shouldn't have players that were ever involved with a lockout. Pick the little guys people missed through baby steps of the NHL
Do you mean players from the 20s or 30s and so? I find that those players are overrepresented if anything. The HOF when it began wasn't as exclusive as it is now and they were inducting quite a few players so several got in when it started who were maybe a bit iffy and it eventually led to the the extreme we have now where being a star for 5 or 10 yrs sometimes isn't enough. There's a few like Chabot who maybe should be in here but far more guys from the 90s and 00s who are absent.

People on here find it shocking that someone would want Fleury or Lindros or Leclair or Amonte in the HOF....I doubt that some of the players inducted from that old time period (some obviously not all) were exactly superstars stars for a long period of time.

I also think that the HOF should be representative of recent times and who was famous. Obviously Lindros or Fleury were household hockey names for being stars in the 90s, most fans have no idea who some of those pre-1942 names are.


Last edited by Elever: 11-09-2012 at 09:19 PM.
Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:40 PM
  #83
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 13,717
vCash: 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
The HHOF said Gretzky would be the last player to have the waiting period waived for him.
and even if he wasn't, Lidstrom's career wasn't good enough to have the waiting period waived. Hasek or Roy, maybe, but not Lidstrom

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:20 PM
  #84
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
and even if he wasn't, Lidstrom's career wasn't good enough to have the waiting period waived. Hasek or Roy, maybe, but not Lidstrom
Lidstrom dominated his position at least as much as Hasek or Roy dominated theirs.

7 Norrises in ten years. Ten first-team selections and two second-team selections in a span of thirteen years.

Seriously. Hasek had six first-teams in eight years, but zero second teams. Lidstrom was 1st team six consecutive seasons and nine of ten. And Roy? He was great, one of the best in any given year. But he wasn't the best every year. Otherwise he'd have won a whole lot more Vezinas.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:27 PM
  #85
Merchant
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 462
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Lidstrom dominated his position at least as much as Hasek or Roy dominated theirs.

7 Norrises in ten years. Ten first-team selections and two second-team selections in a span of thirteen years.

Seriously. Hasek had six first-teams in eight years, but zero second teams. Lidstrom was 1st team six consecutive seasons and nine of ten. And Roy? He was great, one of the best in any given year. But he wasn't the best every year. Otherwise he'd have won a whole lot more Vezinas.
Well, none of them were good enough to have the waiting period waived, so the argument comparing them is moot.

Merchant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:44 PM
  #86
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
But for a period Brind'Amour was the best two-way forward in hockey, with a career of strong two-way play, and he has some damn impressive stats to back up his play (something a lot of two-way guys don't have).
What period was this? The "1993-94 but we're not counting the Western Conference because that's where Fedorov, Gilmour, and Yzerman are" period? Still doesn't work; Ron Francis is around. Damn that Ron Francis, always screwing things up.

The only possible argument is the 2005-06 season, when Brind'Amour scored a surprising 70 points and was gifted the Selke over the more deserving Jere Lehtinen and John Madden, who had 33-19-52 and 16-20-36. Mike Fisher, a finalist with Brind'Amour and Lehtinen, posted 22-22-44 in 68 GP. But really, the best two-way forwards in hockey that season were Henrik Zetterberg (9th Selke, 68 points in 63 games) and Marian Hossa (100 points, 14th Selke). IMO, Rod largely won the Selke on reputation; many voters felt he "deserved" to have won it by that point in his career. I feel the same about Scott Niedermayer's sudden rise to Norris prominence. Niedermayer was never once the best defenseman in the league, yet he has a Norris. He finished ahead of Pronger in 2007 Norris voting, when Pronger is the guy who deserved the Norris. It's like there's this legend built around him that you're not allowed to object to; almost Gretzky-esque.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:57 PM
  #87
Falconator
Registered User
 
Falconator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Vancouver Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,074
vCash: 500
Shanahan, Lindros, Chelios, Niedermayer...

Falconator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 12:18 AM
  #88
kaiser matias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,881
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindamoursNose View Post
Recchi is getting in the Hall.

3 Cups, 7 All-star game appearances, and over 1500 points makes it a guarantee. Plus his point totals on a yearly basis were generally higher than those fellows you mentioned.
All-Star Game appearances literally mean nothing when looking at the Hockey Hall of Fame.

If you considered end of year All-Star Team nominations, of which Recchi has one Second team nomination (1992), then it means something. But All-Star Games are nothing in the grand scheme of things.

kaiser matias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 04:49 PM
  #89
BrindamoursNose
Registered User
 
BrindamoursNose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,786
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaiser matias View Post
All-Star Game appearances literally mean nothing when looking at the Hockey Hall of Fame.

If you considered end of year All-Star Team nominations, of which Recchi has one Second team nomination (1992), then it means something. But All-Star Games are nothing in the grand scheme of things.
When you've compiled that many, it usually is a good indicator that the player was pretty good.

Did you comment on the post just to say All-Star games are a stupid indicator or are you trying to say Recchi isn't getting in still? Because if it's the former...okay?

BrindamoursNose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 06:33 PM
  #90
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrindamoursNose View Post
When you've compiled that many, it usually is a good indicator that the player was pretty good.

Did you comment on the post just to say All-Star games are a stupid indicator or are you trying to say Recchi isn't getting in still? Because if it's the former...okay?
Regardless of whether Recchi deserves to be in the Hall, mid-season all star games count for next to nothing.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 07:02 PM
  #91
Elever
Hth
 
Elever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,459
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
Regardless of whether Recchi deserves to be in the Hall, mid-season all star games count for next to nothing.
What are you talking about? If a guy is constantly being named into the all-star game then chances are that he's held in high regard and that he's a household hockey name for that time period. In other words, he's "famous."

Elever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 10:45 PM
  #92
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
It still astounds me that Shanahan isn't going in as a first-ballot guy. There is absolutely no argument for not inducting him this year. You want it? He has it. Elite player status. Longevity. Team success. Multi-faceted contributions. Numbers. Leadership. Character. Impact. It's the most astounding first ballot snub since Dale Hawerchuk in 2000. For one year, Shanahan will unfortunately be the best eligible NHL player not in the HHOF.

So hopefully he'll get in 2013. And you can be certain that he'll be joined by Niedermayer and Chelios. I don't think there needs to be any discussion on their credentials. And I wouldn't be surprised if it's just Shanahan, Niedermayer and Chelios.

Some interesting names are on the ballot for the first time:

*Rob Blake: I think Blake gets in eventually, but not on the first ballot. He won't be the best eligible defenceman not in the HHOF (that honour belongs to JC Tremblay), but Blake will likely get in before Tremblay. The reason I think Blake gets in is the regard with which he's held by hockey people. Coaches and executives gush about Blake, and they all want the next Blake. He's not a role-defining defenceman like Pronger or Lidstrom, and he's not a unique proposition like Chara, but it's hard to find guys like Blake.

*Brind'Amour: Few have done more after their 34th birthday. He captained a Cup champion, was a strong playoff MVP finalist in 2006, scored at about a 75-point clip for three years, and won two Selkes. (Although even Brind'Amour will admit the second one was faulty voting by the media, that Sami Pahlsson should have won it). You can make a very good case for him when you consider he has 1,295 points (including playoffs) while playing the ultra-consistent game that he did. The drawback, and it will keep him out, is the perception by coaches and executives that he was the protoypical, ideal second line centre. A second line centre not based on circumstance, but based on ability. Top teams wouldn't have wanted him as a first line centre, but every one of them would have paid a great expense to have him as their second line centre.

*Keith Tkachuk: He'll never get in. If you would have asked me a decade ago about Tkachuk's chances, I would have said "he'll get in eventually." The big power winger that every team covets. There weren't many guys who were over a point-per-game from 1993 to 2004; even fewer brought Tkachuk's goal-scoring ability or imposing physical game. Hhis post-season resume - which could have been what elevated him to HHOFer - is very underwhelming: he scored at under a 30-goal clip from 1993 to 2004 - not impressive for a guy who was a perennial threat to score at least 40 during that time.

*Paul Kariya: Another one of those guys who at one point looked to be a shoo-in. From a skill, instincts and creativity perspective, he was the ultimate offensive weapon. The only thing he lacked was an extra four inches and 25 pounds. It's too bad the injuries hit; it robbed us the joy of watching one of the best LWs to enter the game in the last 40 years. He's another guy who could have used a strong playoff resume to firm up his case. It's not a farce like Tkachuk's, but it's still lacking. Kariya likely won't ever get in. The small committee size for the HHOF hurts guys like Kariya the most; you only need four of 18 guys to say "no" to keep him out.

It's nice to finally hear people in the mainstream talking about Makarov's candidacy. I would have inducted him in 2008 alongside Larionov. It's a little ironic that Larionov got in on the second ballot, while Makarov's been waiting for about a decade, since most overseas observers will tell you that Makarov was the better player. But Larionov was, for the most part, a better player in the NHL, and won three Cups, while Makarov's playoff performances in Calgary nearly punched his ticket out of the NHL after the 1991 post-season.

Other guys mentioned in this thread:

*Andreychuk: I wouldn't be surprised if Andreychuk eventually gets in. Our last real memories of Andreychuk are great: he was incredible as the captain of the 2004 Cup champs. His career numbers are impressive, but dig deeper. He played nearly 100 more games than any other LW in NHL history. There are career numbers you shouldn't say "no" to when it comes to enshrinement: 700 goals; 1,000 assists; 1,500 points. Andreychuk didn't reach those points. And he needed over 1,600 games to reach 640 goals and 1,338 points. (1,801 GP/1,435 P including playoffs). And his playoff numbers weren't sensational, either. A lot to like, but a lot of drawbacks. Too many "yeah, but" issues in his argument.

*Lindros: Lindros is going to have a really hard time getting in. It's really easy to find people in the game who don't think he should be in. The final four years of his career were a farce, even though he wasn't at an age in which he should be playing at a high level. If he would have retired after 2000, he'd have likely been a first or second ballot guy. And he was pretty good in 2001-02. But the last four years, combined with the off-ice drama, and the fact that he never learned from his mistakes, makes him one of the most polarizing players in league history, and his case much easier to argue against than many think.

*Theo Fleury: His enshrinement will come down to whether people give him a pass for the issues that are connected to the Graham James abuse. He was the small forward that everybody wanted, not just for his skill level, but for his tenacity, intensity and physical play. He was fantastic in the playoffs. He was also a handful off the ice, even before the off-ice boiled over in New York. Again, with only four people needed to say no to a candidate, Fleury's going to have a very hard time. I'd vote for him, but I put a premium on post-season, and some of Fleury's other attributes.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:21 PM
  #93
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
What are you talking about? If a guy is constantly being named into the all-star game then chances are that he's held in high regard and that he's a household hockey name for that time period. In other words, he's "famous."
You can't take the word "fame" literally when talking about the Hockey Hall of Fame. Especially when considering the all-star game. It's a popularity contest. It has featured players such as Filip Kuba, Mike Komisarek, Tony Hrkac, and almost had Rory Fitzpatrick. Players remove themselves from the all-star game so they can rest for the playoff stretch. It's a marketing gimmick and should not be considered whatsoever when judging a player's case for the Hall.

----

I have to think there's something we can do to get Sergei Makarov's name the media attention it deserves to build his case for the Hall.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:24 PM
  #94
kmad
Riot Survivor
 
kmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 32,048
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
(Although even Brind'Amour will admit the second one was faulty voting by the media, that Sami Pahlsson should have won it).
I believe you on this point, I'm not challenging it, but I'd love to see an article citing this. Not many people believe me when I say Sami Pahlsson was an elite checking forward at one point.

kmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:11 AM
  #95
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jagorim Jarg View Post
I believe you on this point, I'm not challenging it, but I'd love to see an article citing this. Not many people believe me when I say Sami Pahlsson was an elite checking forward at one point.
I'd have put Lehtinen first both years, and Brind'Amour 3rd/2nd respectively. Pahlsson 3rd in 2007.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:25 AM
  #96
Flamebolt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 13
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Guerin never had a 70 point season? My mistake but he for sure was one of the best American fwds of the 90s/00s (up there in that Amonte, Roenick, Weight, Modano, Tkachuk, Leclair group) and he was pretty dominant and also a good goal scorer. I wouldn't mind at all if he got in. Gary Roberts was never really a 1st liner unlike Guerin (and I guess you can say the same for Whitney excluding Phx). I don't see Andrechyuk as a star though his career totals are pretty damn good but he was never really a star unlike Guerin. Guerin had like twice as many All Star game appearances too not that that should ever be used as a criteria but just saying my point that the guy was an NHL star for a decent length of time which should be the main criteria for getting in.


Guerin had 85 points (40 goals I believe) in 85 games in 2000-01, the year he had a huge start and was traded from the Oilers to the Bruins. A year later he signs in Dallas for the same $9M a year contract Holik got. An absolutely crazy time for salaries in the Pre 04-05 lockout era. Shows the bidding war for him as an elite sniper then.

That said, I don't think he's quite HHOF worthy.


Last edited by spiny norman: 11-11-2012 at 11:49 AM. Reason: added [/QUOTE]
Flamebolt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:45 AM
  #97
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER
GO LEAFS GO
 
LEAFS FAN 4 EVER's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
*Lindros: Lindros is going to have a really hard time getting in. It's really easy to find people in the game who don't think he should be in. The final four years of his career were a farce, even though he wasn't at an age in which he should be playing at a high level. If he would have retired after 2000, he'd have likely been a first or second ballot guy. And he was pretty good in 2001-02. But the last four years, combined with the off-ice drama, and the fact that he never learned from his mistakes, makes him one of the most polarizing players in league history, and his case much easier to argue against than many think.
I'm not saying Lindros will get in next year, however I think one day he will for these reason. If Pavel Bure can make it after only playing a grand total of 702 games, when it comes to games played Lindros should get in because he played a grand total of 760 games. Now Bure has more career goals with 437, however Lindros had more career points with 865. As for NHL awards Bure has a Calder, and two Rocket Richard Trophys. Lindros has won a Hart and Lester B. Pearson Award. (Now known as the Ted Lindsay Award) So in my opinion both are both equal in their NHL careers and I think Bure set the mark for players like him him to one day be inducted.

LEAFS FAN 4 EVER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:57 AM
  #98
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEAFS FAN 4 EVER View Post
I'm not saying Lindros will get in next year, however I think one day he will for these reason. If Pavel Bure can make it after only playing a grand total of 702 games, when it comes to games played Lindros should get in because he played a grand total of 760 games. Now Bure has more career goals with 437, however Lindros had more career points with 865. As for NHL awards Bure has a Calder, and two Rocket Richard Trophys. Lindros has won a Hart and Lester B. Pearson Award. (Now known as the Ted Lindsay Award) So in my opinion both are both equal in their NHL careers and I think Bure set the mark for players like him him to one day be inducted.
Moreover; Lindros won a Hart and a Lester B., and had a 1st team and a 2nd team to his name.

He tied for the league lead in scoring in 1995, also. If you could that, he has more accomplishments than either Sedin, who are considered by this board as locks for the HHOF.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:28 PM
  #99
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,328
vCash: 2498
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
What period was this? The "1993-94 but we're not counting the Western Conference because that's where Fedorov, Gilmour, and Yzerman are" period? Still doesn't work; Ron Francis is around. Damn that Ron Francis, always screwing things up.

The only possible argument is the 2005-06 season, when Brind'Amour scored a surprising 70 points and was gifted the Selke over the more deserving Jere Lehtinen and John Madden, who had 33-19-52 and 16-20-36. Mike Fisher, a finalist with Brind'Amour and Lehtinen, posted 22-22-44 in 68 GP. But really, the best two-way forwards in hockey that season were Henrik Zetterberg (9th Selke, 68 points in 63 games) and Marian Hossa (100 points, 14th Selke). IMO, Rod largely won the Selke on reputation; many voters felt he "deserved" to have won it by that point in his career. I feel the same about Scott Niedermayer's sudden rise to Norris prominence. Niedermayer was never once the best defenseman in the league, yet he has a Norris. He finished ahead of Pronger in 2007 Norris voting, when Pronger is the guy who deserved the Norris. It's like there's this legend built around him that you're not allowed to object to; almost Gretzky-esque.
Basically the first two years post lockout. I can see an argument for the 06-07 Selke with Phalsson, but to say 05-06 wasn't deserving... sorry, you just don't win an award by 400 points when you're not deserving of it. Those two years, and especially 05-06, he was the best two-way forward in hockey.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 01:37 PM
  #100
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,422
vCash: 500
I find it hard to believe that any person saw enough of Brind'Amour, Lehtinen AND Pahlsson in a single season to have a definitive stance on where they ranked defensively. And I include the actual voters in that statement. Selke voting always comes down to scoring and reputation.

tarheelhockey is online now   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 02:42 AM.

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.