HFBoards

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

Prospect Thread XIII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-01-2013, 11:19 PM
  #676
BerSTUzzi
Registered User
 
BerSTUzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck 6 View Post
Can you imagine the wolves without Tanev, Kassian, and Schroeder though? They'd lose their best defenseman and 2 of their 3 leading scorers.

I guess all you can hope for is some people step up given more opportunity.
How about OKC without Eberle, Hall, the Nudge and Schultz.

BerSTUzzi is offline  
Old
01-01-2013, 11:54 PM
  #677
StrictlyCommercial
Registered User
 
StrictlyCommercial's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,831
vCash: 500
Players like haydar and sterling are going to be more effective when the quality of competition drops

StrictlyCommercial is offline  
Old
01-02-2013, 03:25 AM
  #678
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 20,975
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrictlyCommercial View Post
Players like haydar and sterling are going to be more effective when the quality of competition drops
Completely agree. The games are much faster than they were last year and there's far less space. Last year's 1st liners are now 2nd liners, some starting goalies have become backup goalies, etc.

Tiranis is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:08 AM
  #679
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
A point about drafting I think needs more discussion: Is it a good idea to target bigger players over smaller players in rounds 2-7 in the draft?



I know the directive is to get bigger up front, but if draft trends are an indication, it is reported that smaller players drafted in depth rounds have a greater chance for success... so why draft bigger players? Why not draft smaller players and trade for bigger players? If you get more conversion from the smaller players, turn them into pros and trade for what you need.



I guess this is exactly what they did with Hodgson, but why not apply this to the latter rounds as well?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:42 AM
  #680
Wisp
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,017
vCash: 500
Because you all bromantically attached to the Hodgsons?

Wisp is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 09:46 AM
  #681
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post


I guess this is exactly what they did with Hodgson, but why not apply this to the latter rounds as well?
Actually, it has been well documented that Gillis went against the scouts to draft Hodgson. Scouts wanted Beach.

It was also Gillis's first month on the job, so I wouldn't read too much into his draft tendencies from that particular selection.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:45 AM
  #682
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ItsAllPartOfThePlan View Post
Actually, it has been well documented that Gillis went against the scouts to draft Hodgson. Scouts wanted Beach.

It was also Gillis's first month on the job, so I wouldn't read too much into his draft tendencies from that particular selection.

Not from that selection alone, but from Targeting Schroeder and Rodin in 2009 as well. Clearly, Gillis didn't put a premium on size. Only recently has it become a concern. With Grenier, Labate and Mallet, the call now seems to be for size at forward. I'm saying that perhaps that's the wrong course given historical evidence. That perhaps he should go back to that same motif of not making size a priority... Incorrect assertion?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 10:54 AM
  #683
ItsAllPartOfThePlan
Registered User
 
ItsAllPartOfThePlan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,184
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Not from that selection alone, but from Targeting Schroeder and Rodin in 2009 as well. Clearly, Gillis didn't put a premium on size. Only recently has it become a concern. With Grenier, Labate and Mallet, the call now seems to be for size at forward. I'm saying that perhaps that's the wrong course given historical evidence. That perhaps he should go back to that same motif of not making size a priority... Incorrect assertion?
Well, we are doing pretty well with Jensen and Labate for where he was drafted isn't doing too badly. Mallet, the jury is still out and Grenier was in the later rounds as well. I think it is too early to analyze, but it is looking pretty good.

ItsAllPartOfThePlan is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:20 PM
  #684
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Not from that selection alone, but from Targeting Schroeder and Rodin in 2009 as well. Clearly, Gillis didn't put a premium on size. Only recently has it become a concern. With Grenier, Labate and Mallet, the call now seems to be for size at forward. I'm saying that perhaps that's the wrong course given historical evidence. That perhaps he should go back to that same motif of not making size a priority... Incorrect assertion?
I don't think there's enough evidence to say that the Canucks have been targeting size at the draft. If the Canucks are drafting their BPA regardless of size, you'd expect to randomly have stretches where bigger or smaller players are taken in bunches (just as flipping a coin will lead to stretches of consecutive heads or tails).

Plus Mallet is hardly big (he's basically Daniel Sedin's size, though he's tough) and Grenier is big but does nothing with his size.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:33 PM
  #685
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I don't think there's enough evidence to say that the Canucks have been targeting size at the draft. If the Canucks are drafting their BPA regardless of size, you'd expect to randomly have stretches where bigger or smaller players are taken in bunches (just as flipping a coin will lead to stretches of consecutive heads or tails).

Plus Mallet is hardly big (he's basically Daniel Sedin's size, though he's tough) and Grenier is big but does nothing with his size.




Of course the sample is limited. But when you only pick 7~ players a year, you have to infer what you can. I think that going after Jensen + Gaunce, with bigger players in the depth rounds, is a contrast from 2009 forwards + Hodgson picks.


I thought Mallet was listed at 203lbs and growing? It would give him a 15lb advantage over Daniel. It's not massive, but coupled with everything else...?


Sure, let's say it is a random occurrence, do you agree with the underlying premise that smaller players tend to make it over their bigger counterparts? If that holds true for you, then do you advocate taking the smaller player more often than not?

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 12:53 PM
  #686
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
Of course the sample is limited. But when you only pick 7~ players a year, you have to infer what you can. I think that going after Jensen + Gaunce, with bigger players in the depth rounds, is a contrast from 2009 forwards + Hodgson picks.
Well, with Jensen and Gaunce, the story is different because they were both consensus BPAs at the time they were picked (based on pre-draft rankings). A more common thread between all of the Canucks's first round picks under Gillis is that in all cases they've gone with the highest ranked player by public scouting services.


Quote:
I thought Mallet was listed at 203lbs and growing? It would give him a 15lb advantage over Daniel. It's not massive, but coupled with everything else...?
Depends on what number you're using. Hockeydb has him at 194, Canucks.com at 195, and the AHL at 203. At best though he's in Chris Higgins's ballpark, which I still don't think constitutes a 'big' player.

Quote:
Sure, let's say it is a random occurrence, do you agree with the underlying premise that smaller players tend to make it over their bigger counterparts? If that holds true for you, then do you advocate taking the smaller player more often than not?
I think that holds true historically but that's relative to draft position, not as an absolute rule (i.e. if you looked at the success rates of picks by round, you'd expect the smaller players to have become more productive than the bit players). That's mostly because teams placed way too much emphasis on size when drafting and so the relative skill level of small players drafted in the same range as other big players was substantially higher. I don't think there's any hard and fast rule that a small player is more likely to make the NHL than a roughly equivalent big player.

With some obvious exceptions (i.e. the Edmonton Oilers's second/third round draft strategy), I think teams have become much better at valuing size in the draft and so those disparities aren't there as much now.

pitseleh is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 01:07 PM
  #687
ZenMaster*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pitseleh View Post
I don't think there's enough evidence to say that the Canucks have been targeting size at the draft. If the Canucks are drafting their BPA regardless of size, you'd expect to randomly have stretches where bigger or smaller players are taken in bunches (just as flipping a coin will lead to stretches of consecutive heads or tails).

Plus Mallet is hardly big (he's basically Daniel Sedin's size, though he's tough) and Grenier is big but does nothing with his size.
I think the evidence can be seen what type of a player Gillis is looking for, he has been on the hunt for powerforwards. Gaunce, Jensen, Kassian, Booth...

ZenMaster* is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 03:04 PM
  #688
vanuck
Griffiths Way Goons
 
vanuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: Hong Kong
Posts: 10,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZenMaster View Post
I think the evidence can be seen what type of a player Gillis is looking for, he has been on the hunt for powerforwards. Gaunce, Jensen, Kassian, Booth...
Again, though, Jensen and Gaunce were both consensus BPA, so they shouldn't be used as part of the argument. Bleach is questioning whether or not the strategy should be to go with smaller or bigger players in later rounds based on research, I'm assuming.

Personally I think they should still be trying to target hockey sense first like MG advocated when he first came here - just smart guys who can play, no matter their size or other physical attributes. It's always been a question I've wondered - whether you can really teach smarts or not, but if not then it should be the priority as it may well be what helps players with holes in their game make it through other ways.

vanuck is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 05:49 PM
  #689
Verviticus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanuck View Post
Again, though, Jensen and Gaunce were both consensus BPA, so they shouldn't be used as part of the argument. Bleach is questioning whether or not the strategy should be to go with smaller or bigger players in later rounds based on research, I'm assuming.

Personally I think they should still be trying to target hockey sense first like MG advocated when he first came here - just smart guys who can play, no matter their size or other physical attributes. It's always been a question I've wondered - whether you can really teach smarts or not, but if not then it should be the priority as it may well be what helps players with holes in their game make it through other ways.
all of these attributes are mostly justified through their performance already, though. by the time these kids are 18 their IQ and a bunch of their physical tools have already manifested their effects through how well they've done in juniors to date.

there's nothing to suggest that an athlete with high end physical tools can't outskill/work his lack of smarts in the same way that people expect the opposite, and in fact there are plenty of examples in all sports of exactly that. the only reason people think one way or another is because it's far easier for us to empathize with someone who is a thinker over a doer because none of us are athletically talented on the same level as them

gillis should ultimately be targetting whoever, to his criteria, he thinks is going to be able to create the most positive change in the nhl. if they do it through scoring, defence or hitting or goaltending or whatever it doesn't really matter. the only argument i could see for aiming for specifics are

A: it seems forwards are much easier to pick in the earlier rounds as they are usually closest to peak ability (and thus further in their development) at a young age
B: picking small and hoping that they hit a growth spurt is literally the only characteristic growth of "you cant teach x" ultimately being acquired after draft. this is obviously unreliable and often when people gain a lot of height they turn into uncoordinated husks

Verviticus is offline  
Old
01-03-2013, 07:50 PM
  #690
Bgav
We Stylin'
 
Bgav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,376
vCash: 500
what ever happened to matson?

Bgav is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 01:04 AM
  #691
ZenMaster*
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 555
vCash: 500
Patrick McNally

This may be a bit of a reach, but does anyone have some sort of information on his future plans? I was expecting to hear something after the holidays on what he is going to do with his future. The longer this drags on, then it means he is likely to sit out for the year and return Harvard which is detrimental to his development.

ZenMaster* is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 04:36 AM
  #692
Spectrefire
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 464
vCash: 500
After a slow start with 3 points in his first 14 games, Evan McEneny has really picked it up with 12 points in his last 20 games.

He's 5th in scoring on the Rangers, 2nd in dman scoring.

Not a bad FA pick-up at all by Gillis.


Last edited by Spectrefire: 01-04-2013 at 04:43 AM.
Spectrefire is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 05:06 AM
  #693
me2
Seahawks 43
 
me2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Broncos 8
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 19,124
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
After a slow start with 3 points in his first 14 games, Evan McEneny has really picked it up with 12 points in his last 20 games.

He's 5th in scoring on the Rangers, 2nd in dman scoring.

Not a bad FA pick-up at all by Gillis.
about all we can get from drafting/signings is all round dmen. At least we are good at something.

me2 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 05:57 AM
  #694
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spectrefire View Post
After a slow start with 3 points in his first 14 games, Evan McEneny has really picked it up with 12 points in his last 20 games.

He's 5th in scoring on the Rangers, 2nd in dman scoring.

Not a bad FA pick-up at all by Gillis.

I agree, Alot of people brushed this signing off when it happened but I really liked it, maybe he could be a 4/5 one day, might be a project but he certainly has the tools if he keeps developing at a good pace.

Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 05:58 AM
  #695
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,147
vCash: 500
I wrote this in the "Your teams prospect pool thread" in the Prospects Forum, but I wanted to get more reaction, So I'm gunna post it here too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Vancouver Canucks

1. RW/LW - Nicklas Jensen - Our best IMO, 1st/2nd line potential with size.

2. RW - Zack Kassian - I think he will have a similar career to Scott Hartnell with a bit different playing style.

3. D - Chris Tanev - Very reliable player, makes great plays, very calm and consistent.

4. G - Eddie Lack - Has put up better numbers in the AHL than Markstrom, I see him as a slightly above average starter but not elite

5. C/LW - Brendan Gaunce - Similar to Brooks Laich IMO, I don't think skating isn't the issue people originally thought, then add Size, a good shot & decent offensive ability, a good two way game, and leadership. In addition to a great work ethic. and I think he could be a useful 2nd line center, can also play LW. Lots to like.

6. C - Jordan Schroeder - I preach patience with him. he has been probably the best/most consistent forward on the Wolves this year, he is a very dangerous offensive a player, he has great playmaking ability but he also has a lethal shot, He goes to the tough areas, he is very strong for his size and quite strong on his skates, and he's also a responsable defensive player. 2nd Liner IMO, just gotta give him some time.

7. D - Frank Corrado - A solid all round game, sorta like Tanev but with more physical skills. 2nd pair D-man.

8. D - Kevin Connaution - When he is on his game, he is good defensively (Which is his biggest knock) When he isn't he is brutal. Offensively he has all the tools, a bomb for a shot, good passer, good skater, and his defensive game has improved alot, he just has to work on consistentcy mainly defensively. 2nd/3rd pair + top PP specialist.

9. LW - Anton Rodin - He has all the skills, good skater, great at protecting the puck, good shot, good defensive game, goes to tough areas. I think he just needs more opportunity, he has been treated terribly by Scott Arniel (Wolves Head Coach) If he bulks up I think he could be a good 3rd liner, similar to Sean Bergeinheim.

10. D - Yann Sauve - Skates quite well for a big guy, and is a great shut down option, I am always impressed with him whenever I see him play at any level but he has been treated poorly by Arniel aswell (For no reason IMO, he's a + player in an only defensive role) He could be a Solid Bottom pairing option, with better mobility than the average bottom pair defensive player.


Other notable mentions:

D - Peter Andersson - A big defensive D-man who makes good plays, can skate, and has impressed in his 1st year in NA with the Wolves.

D - Henrik Tommernes - Good two way D-man with decent size and solid skating ability. has had peaks and valleys in the SEL but could become something eventually

C - Joe Labate - Don't know a ton about him but alot of Vancouver Fans like this guy. From what I know he's a big guy with a good offensive skillset, 2nd/3rd line potential.

C/LW - Alex Mallet - 2012 2nd Rounder, has size, grit, physicality and skating ability, also showed he has considerable offensive ability with Rimouski in the Q.

G - Joe Cannata - Former Hobey Baker nominee, and a star at Merrimack Collage, impressed our organization big time late last year when he suited up and played well for the Wolves. has struggled a bit this year, but is getting better.

D - Partick McNally - Has great offensive and skating ability, he has all the offensive tools he just has to bulk up and work on his allround game, seems like a bit more of a projection pick in that he will need longer than others to develop, and after leaving Harvard his future seems cloudy but I still have some faith in him.

D - Evan McEneny - Missed last year with an injury (His draft year), went undrafted and we signed him, likely would have been a 3rd or 4th round pick. Has size and is an offensive minded defensemen who skates well and is good defensively, good on the PP and PK. has looked good along side Murphy on Kitchener's 1st pair.


I think our prospects are better than people give us credit for, our top 8 are quite good prospects and could matchup with alot of other teams, there is just a drop off after that though, and a lack of top end prospects aside from Jensen and Kassian.

Just my 2 cents on the prospects, and who I think our best are.

Anyone agree? Disagree? Thoughts?


Last edited by Sergei Shirokov: 01-05-2013 at 09:01 AM.
Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 08:02 AM
  #696
Bleach Clean
Registered User
 
Bleach Clean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,580
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
I wrote this in the "Your teams prospect pool thread" in the Prospects Forum, but I wanted to get more reaction, So I'm gunna post it here too.




Just my 2 cents on the prospects, and who I think our best are.

Anyone agree? Disagree? Thoughts?





1. If Kassian hits his ceiling, his worth will be immense. More so than Jensen's own IMO.


2. We completely disagree on Sauve. He would not touch my top10 list. Rodin, maybe.


3. Never been enamoured with the Grenier pick.


4. McEneny seems like a 2nd round equivalent pick, not 3rd/4th round. He has a lot of tools, good IQ and not a lot of holes in his game... Maybe reason to be more optimistic here.

Bleach Clean is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 09:27 AM
  #697
Sergei Shirokov
Registered User
 
Sergei Shirokov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: British Columbia
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,147
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleach Clean View Post
1. If Kassian hits his ceiling, his worth will be immense. More so than Jensen's own IMO.


2. We completely disagree on Sauve. He would not touch my top10 list. Rodin, maybe.


3. Never been enamoured with the Grenier pick.


4. McEneny seems like a 2nd round equivalent pick, not 3rd/4th round. He has a lot of tools, good IQ and not a lot of holes in his game... Maybe reason to be more optimistic here.
1. I agree actually, if he does hit his ceiling I think he will be aswell, I'm just going with a more safe bet, I think a Hartnell career path (Points and role) Is something that is resonable to expect/hope for.

2A. (Sauve) I can understand why, hasn't done much, his game is simple and will be simple if he gets to the next level, but nothing wrong with that.

2B. (Rodin) I definetly think this is a guy with all the tools, just has to bulk up and put it together (looks like he already has gotten alot strong BTW) after watching the Wolves game on SN, I noticed he really does have all the tools, I thought he had a good game, was great down low, great against the boards, he isn't outstanding in any particular area but is solid all round & I think he is definetly in the top 10.

3. I was just interested when we drafted him, his size, skating ability and rounded game (that it seemed he had) intrigued me, but I admit he seems like a longshot now, I still haven given up on him but we will kinda have to wait to see if we sign him and bring him to the AHL to be able to make a good assumption for ourselves, so I will lean more toward your opino on him.

4. I actually agree with this, thats what I initially thought when I looked into the signing, had he been playing the way he is now last year he would definetely have gotten heavy 2nd round consideration.


Last edited by Sergei Shirokov: 01-05-2013 at 08:59 AM.
Sergei Shirokov is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 09:39 AM
  #698
thefeebster
Registered User
 
thefeebster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 5,589
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
I agree, Alot of people brushed this signing off when it happened but I really liked it, maybe he could be a 4/5 one day, might be a project but he certainly has the tools if he keeps developing at a good pace.
Not sure where you get the idea that people brushed off his signing here. Most ppl here at least saw the upside in this signing and most were excited as we've been discussing him since development camp with a high likelihood he would be signed by an NHL team.

---------------

Don't know how you can put Sauve in a top 10 list with a straight face. Even when he was steadier last season, he didn't deserve to be in our top 10. The last thing I'd say sauve's game is, is simple this year. He over complicates things for himself when he should play a simple game and that's why he is struggling.

Another big ? On Grenier. Are you seeing things? This guy hasn't even played in North America this year, much less on the Wolves. Are you thinking about Archibald? In any case, Grenier does not belong as an honorable mention at all until he proves something, anything.

No McNally is a bit of a head scratcher too. Maybe Ben Hutton deserves some conversation too.

thefeebster is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 09:55 AM
  #699
Luck 6
\\_______
 
Luck 6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 7,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
I agree, Alot of people brushed this signing off when it happened but I really liked it, maybe he could be a 4/5 one day, might be a project but he certainly has the tools if he keeps developing at a good pace.
I think many of us were excited with the signing, but that doesn't say much because we Canuck fans seem to get excited over any amount of potential we can extract from a prospect.

McEneny has the potential to be an NHLer, I won't comment further from there. I haven't seen a lot of him, afterall, but after losing a full year of development it's more likely that he'll bloom late. This is already quite conventional for defensemen, anyways.

Luck 6 is offline  
Old
01-04-2013, 10:54 AM
  #700
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
In the summer rankings, Connauton was 7th, ahead of Corrado. this summer's voting had Connauton, Rodin and Sauve 6th, 9th and 14th, tommernes was 17th and by vote count, Andersson was 23rd and Archibald 25th. Archibald has 6 goals in 11 AHL games this year. Rodin was 4th last year. Peter Andersson was 8th in 2010...

Outside99* 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 08:56 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.