HFBoards

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

2013 NHL Draft Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2013, 10:06 PM
  #276
Sore Loser
HF Partner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
Well I was just saying its possible to move up. How often do teams have 3 first round picks and a decent amount of defensive prospects. Its going to depend on draft day what the depth of the draft looks like.


Not that it matters at this point though since at this rate the jackets are poised for the 1st and 2nd overall picks with the kings and rangers being winless


At any rate, I mentioned something on Morgan Klimchuk a bit ago:

http://www.thescoutingreport.org/reg...der-the-radar/

Really like this kid, hearing him speak somewhat personally was a real treat; he's well-spoken, and would much rather dish credit to his teammates than keep it himself. His offensive upside is that of a second line forward in the NHL - maybe better, if he continues to develop at the pace he's on. Could be a very nice find in the 25-50 range of the draft.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 10:32 PM
  #277
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post


"Late draft picks"? You were talking about Barkov, Drouin, and Lindholm. That's basically, like, every top-5 pick not named MacKinnon or Jones. Given that the average drafting position of the Blue Jackets is around 5 or 6, those would qualify by historic CBJ organization standards as "high".




The objection was about moving up, with mid-round draft picks, to the top three. To the TOP THREE.

Do you also think it ludicrous that folks might get mocked for suggesting we trade Jared Boll and Derek Dorsett for Sidney Crosby?

NUANCE, ************, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Literally look at my last 5 posts and you'll see me mentioning Hartman, Domi, and Furcale. But hey let's dissect my posts again.

Also who the hell are you to say three first rounders wouldn't land a top 3 pick? Once again no one proposed a trade. Chill out you sound mad.

Gagnefan924 is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 10:36 PM
  #278
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,983
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Also who the hell are you to say three first rounders wouldn't land a top 3 pick? Once again no one proposed a trade. Chill out you sound mad.
Colorado had four first-rounders (12, 17, 19, and 20) and tried to move up to #1 (Lecavalier) in 1998. No dice.

Mayor Bee is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 10:39 PM
  #279
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mayor Bee View Post
Colorado had four first-rounders (12, 17, 19, and 20) and tried to move up to #1 (Lecavalier) in 1998. No dice.
I said top three not 1 st overall. Some teams are set on not giving up their pick but three picks and a player would make most teams think about it.

Gagnefan924 is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 10:48 PM
  #280
Sore Loser
HF Partner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Literally look at my last 5 posts and you'll see me mentioning Hartman, Domi, and Furcale. But hey let's dissect my posts again.

Also who the hell are you to say three first rounders wouldn't land a top 3 pick? Once again no one proposed a trade. Chill out you sound mad.
The New York Islanders offered 7 picks to move up two spots last year. That didn't even work.

Recent history, as has been mentioned above, suggests that, the talent at the top end of the drafts has been so good that moving up has been next to impossible.

You're a team in a position to draft Nathan MacKinnon or Seth Jones. both guys have franchise making potential. Columbus comes along and offers you their three lower picks (for argument's sake, a #8/9 overall, a #20ish, and a #25ish) for your spot. Do you deal away a guy that could be the face of your franchise for the next 10 years for three lower-end prospects? Really think about it.

For comparison's sake, let's go back to 2008, when Tampa Bay found their franchise player, Steven Stamkos, first overall; and the LA Kings drafted Drew Doughty at #2, who was on their top defense pair in a Stanley Cup run. The players picked 9th, 20th, and 25th that year? Josh Bailey, Michael del Zotto, and Greg Nemisz.

This year, there is MacKinnon and Jones, and then a slight drop off to 3/4 more guys (depending on who you ask), followed by another slight drop to 5/6 guys, and then there is a huge list of guys that could go anywhere from 15-45 in the draft. Somewhat similar to that draft, in that respect, but I think this one will be better. There is a ton of depth in this draft, but the guys at the top end are so good, that no GM in his right mind will be willing to deal out of a spot where they may select them.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 10:50 PM
  #281
Fred Glover
Chief of Sinners
 
Fred Glover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Ohio
Country: Scotland
Posts: 4,142
vCash: 1542
For the record, I would rather make the playoffs this year than have a high draft pick. Let the Kings and Rangers fold. I am tired of losing. Let's start winning, now.

Fred Glover is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 11:05 PM
  #282
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Literally look at my last 5 posts and you'll see me mentioning Hartman, Domi, and Furcale. But hey let's dissect my posts again.
Hold on a sec...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
I agree with you Id like to get one of Lindholm, Drouin, or Barkov. Trade up, I'm tired of so-so talent that isn't quite elite.
Yes, I believe that was the post I was responding to. The one in which you talk about top-5 prospects and insist that we really ought to trade up because you're so tired of "so-so guys" like, oh, Hartman, Domi, and Furcale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Also who the hell are you to say three first rounders wouldn't land a top 3 pick? Once again no one proposed a trade.
Oh? No trade proposals?

Wait a moment...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
You also hav to consider that the jackets can trade the picks to move up. So say the jackets do better than expected and get the 9th overall. Kings make playoffs but lose first rd and get 18th overall. Jackets could trade 9th and 18th to try to move up to a top 3.
Gosh, that sure looks like a proposed trade to me.

And I suggest that it's not going to happen because it has been tried repeatedly and it has failed repeatedly over the past fifteen years or more. I don't think that pattern is about to change just because this time the fans of the team that wants to make the trade want it really, really bad.

__________________
Remember - when you're a hockey fan, it's not "reckless driving", it's "good forechecking".
"Viqsi, you are our sweet humanist..." --mt-svk on the CBJ boards

Thanks, Howson, for cleaning up MacLean's toxic waste. Welcome, Kekalainen; let's get good things built!
Viqsi is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 11:10 PM
  #283
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
I said top three not 1 st overall. Some teams are set on not giving up their pick but three picks and a player would make most teams think about it.
Ah, and now we're adding players. (Or a player.) So now, instead of going with spread out depth and ability (you know, the model that most successful teams use), we're going to go with the Savior Player model (y'know, like what we tried with Nash as "savior" for the longest time).

I don't think I like the potential cost of that arguably highly dubious drafting strategy.

Viqsi is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 11:26 PM
  #284
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,065
vCash: 500
Missed this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Fucale looked great in the Top Prospects game idk if he'd be a second rounder but worth a look. As for late picks, I like Domi, Hartman, and other guys that fit our new idea to building this organization.
And this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
If we don't land one of the big 4, I'll be glad to get one of Lindholm, Monahan and hopefully Domi and Hartman later on in the first round. Hartman reminds me of Jenner with less offense.
My point being if we trade up and land a top 5 talent so be it. I think it'd be a smart idea because this actually makes our depth more talented. Thats why teams that have all depth and little talent dont win cups. You need talent AND depth. Now that we actually have some depth, time to get some talent. However I find that Davidson actually making a trade that involves all of our picks, somewhat unlikely. Thus my opinions on late round guys such as Hartman, Domi, and Furcale even though I'd much prefer a more elite talent like Barkov, Drouin, Lindholm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
Ah, and now we're adding players. (Or a player.) So now, instead of going with spread out depth and ability (you know, the model that most successful teams use), we're going to go with the Savior Player model (y'know, like what we tried with Nash as "savior" for the longest time).

I don't think I like the potential cost of that arguably highly dubious drafting strategy.
Tell me how adding A player "kills our depth and makes us a Savior Player Model." If we traded all 3 picks and Savard for example for Nathan Mackinnon, how does that not make us a better team? Oh wait that kills our depth. But not really...

Gagnefan924 is offline  
Old
01-20-2013, 11:32 PM
  #285
Fro
Yes Cbus has hockey
 
Fro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Drinking With Carts
Country: United States
Posts: 15,232
vCash: 500
it all comes down to what a team needs and what the other wants to give up...we definitely have the assets to move up...if necessary...but it depends if we have the assets what the other team wants...

Fro is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 12:04 AM
  #286
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Missed this.


And this.


My point being if we trade up and land a top 5 talent so be it. I think it'd be a smart idea because this actually makes our depth more talented. Thats why teams that have all depth and little talent dont win cups. You need talent AND depth. Now that we actually have some depth, time to get some talent. However I find that Davidson actually making a trade that involves all of our picks, somewhat unlikely. Thus my opinions on late round guys such as Hartman, Domi, and Furcale even though I'd much prefer a more elite talent like Barkov, Drouin, Lindholm.
The only problem I see is that trading up to one of the major guys is pretty much not going to be feasible - about the only way we get one is if we end up in the top-5 or 6, or if some folks take a reach or two and we get a fortunate drop. It's like saying "I'd like to trade for another depth top-6 scorer, but I'd really prefer being able to trade for Claude Giroux." Of course one would prefer Claude Giroux. But some concept of realism and common sense has to come into play, and for some reason around here it is not yet common sense that trading up from the middle of the 1st round to the top of the 1st round is not a thing that happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Tell me how adding A player "kills our depth and makes us a Savior Player Model." If we traded all 3 picks and Savard for example for Nathan Mackinnon, how does that not make us a better team? Oh wait that kills our depth. But not really...
Assuming that someone in the top-3 would even accept that (highly debatable), prospect depth isn't exactly something that you achieve once and then lean on for the rest of your days. It's a continually built thing. Taking shortcuts with it generally only makes sense when your roster is set and you're about to charge after a championship - not because you want to disclaim all faith in your ability to scout the middle of the first round in a deep draft and instead go after the new hotness everybody's talking about. That excites fans, but it doesn't necessarily make your team any better - or any more likely to be better.

I would much rather trust our newly revamped scouts to get a hit with three quality chances, rather than toss all those chances for an attempt at The Popular One (and thus an opportunity for the scouts to be lazy). Higher profile is not a guarantee, but trying to get it it when you're not already in position to have it fall into your lap is a pretty good way to end up on a wild goose chase. I would also vastly prefer that we have more quality prospects that can come together and develop side-by-side in Springfield - which can help everybody in the system rather than just our One Single Superstar and thus lead to better team cohesion. (And maybe a Calder Cup chance for the farm team... )

Viqsi is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 12:25 AM
  #287
Gagnefan924
Need Moar AmericanZ
 
Gagnefan924's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 8,065
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viqsi View Post
The only problem I see is that trading up to one of the major guys is pretty much not going to be feasible - about the only way we get one is if we end up in the top-5 or 6, or if some folks take a reach or two and we get a fortunate drop. It's like saying "I'd like to trade for another depth top-6 scorer, but I'd really prefer being able to trade for Claude Giroux." Of course one would prefer Claude Giroux. But some concept of realism and common sense has to come into play, and for some reason around here it is not yet common sense that trading up from the middle of the 1st round to the top of the 1st round is not a thing that happens.



Assuming that someone in the top-3 would even accept that (highly debatable), prospect depth isn't exactly something that you achieve once and then lean on for the rest of your days. It's a continually built thing. Taking shortcuts with it generally only makes sense when your roster is set and you're about to charge after a championship - not because you want to disclaim all faith in your ability to scout the middle of the first round in a deep draft and instead go after the new hotness everybody's talking about. That excites fans, but it doesn't necessarily make your team any better - or any more likely to be better.

I would much rather trust our newly revamped scouts to get a hit with three quality chances, rather than toss all those chances for an attempt at The Popular One (and thus an opportunity for the scouts to be lazy). Higher profile is not a guarantee, but trying to get it it when you're not already in position to have it fall into your lap is a pretty good way to end up on a wild goose chase. I would also vastly prefer that we have more quality prospects that can come together and develop side-by-side in Springfield - which can help everybody in the system rather than just our One Single Superstar and thus lead to better team cohesion. (And maybe a Calder Cup chance for the farm team... )
Fair enough. However I dont necessarily think we'll be in the middle of the draft, I'll hope to be. Yes I know you said so for the sake of the argument but just saying we have a chance if were in 6-10 range with our pick.

Gagnefan924 is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 12:55 AM
  #288
Viqsi
carrying the flag
 
Viqsi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Scary Internet
Country: United States
Posts: 20,825
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Viqsi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gagnefan924 View Post
Fair enough. However I dont necessarily think we'll be in the middle of the draft, I'll hope to be. Yes I know you said so for the sake of the argument but just saying we have a chance if were in 6-10 range with our pick.
'kay. I still don't think that makes it any more probable under the circumstances, but, well... at that point, at least, it's actually happened before. So that can be filed under "simple disagreement" rather than "common sense failure".

Viqsi is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 01:17 AM
  #289
Gulvorn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ohio St/Cincy/Dayton
Country: United States
Posts: 4,578
vCash: 500
Jackets finish 1 point from making the playoffs....and win the lottery draft to get the 1st overall pick.

Then use the Rangers 2nd overall and Kings 3rd overall to make a sweep of MacKinnon, Jones, and Drouin.


Gulvorn is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 08:25 AM
  #290
pete goegan
HFBoards Sponsor
 
pete goegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,961
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Glover View Post
For the record, I would rather make the playoffs this year than have a high draft pick. Let the Kings and Rangers fold. I am tired of losing. Let's start winning, now.
Yes. If a team is good enough to make the playoffs, theoretically it can be argued that they need the help of a #1 pick less than had they finished last. That's the theory behind the draft, anyway, isn't it? If we stink, yet again, and get a top three pick, I'll welcome the added talent. If we improve enough, over the next two seasons, to make the playoffs, I'll be pleased by the progress of those already here and welcome the added talent that's earned through that improvement (lower draft choices, possibly more attractive to free agents, etc.).

pete goegan is offline  
Old
01-21-2013, 12:46 PM
  #291
LetsGOJackets!!
Registered User
 
LetsGOJackets!!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Columbus Ohio
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
The days of drafting the Sedin's back to back is

probably over.. and I don't know much about prospects other than the fact they say this draft has an extremely talented top 40 to 50 players. With that said the Flyers changed their fortunes drafting Richards and Carter who were both mid 1st rounders

That being said it really does come down to making good decisions. I think the smart money is to come away with 3 first rounders and a high 2nd, not to trade it all for one or two players.

From what little I saw of the WJC I do like Seth Jones, McKinnon and Barkov - if that is obvious to randoms like me, maybe they are that much better. Drouin, Monahan and a few Russians looked pretty good too. I defer to JD & Sore loser

LetsGOJackets!! is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 07:54 PM
  #292
CBJFan19*
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
2013 Draft

What positions should we be looking at drafting this year? we seem to be stacked with D prospects, and IMO have 2 good goalie prospects with Forsberg and Dansk, plus Bobrovsky.

Wings? Centers?
if we had the 1st, 27th,28th, and 31st picks like this one mock i saw who would you hope to take with those 4?

Any opinions on MacKinnon vs Barkov vs Lindholm?

CBJFan19* is offline  
Old
01-23-2013, 07:58 PM
  #293
Crede777
Deputized
 
Crede777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 7,681
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJFan19
if we had the 1st, 27th,28th, and 31st picks like this one mock i saw who would you hope to take with those 4?
BPA, BPA, BPA, and uh... BPA.

Crede777 is online now  
Old
01-23-2013, 09:49 PM
  #294
Sore Loser
HF Partner
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Spokane, WA.
Country: United States
Posts: 6,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crede777 View Post
BPA, BPA, BPA, and uh... BPA.
...

I agree.

Though, some people's version of BPA clearly differs from others. I think the Jackets are heading in the right direction as far as scouting though, and drafting more for character, grit, and determination, rather than pure skill with a dash of injury prone.

I really think we need to come away with at least two - preferably three - skilled forwards with our first four picks, which should all be in the top-50 or so. If we can do that, then I think the other pick can be spent for simply whoever the best player on the board is.

Whatever the case, this is a very good draft, and a great year to have three first round picks. So much versatility.

Sore Loser is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 12:58 AM
  #295
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gulvorn View Post
Then use the Rangers 2nd overall and Kings 3rd overall to make a sweep of MacKinnon, Jones, and Drouin.
Replace Drouin with Barkov though. Drouin is damn good, but Barkov is AMAZING!

If this was to happen(after I win the Mega Millions) I'd actually probably look at trading the #1(Jones) for a Lindros like trade package, making sure I got 2015 #1(McDavid) pick. Not that I don't like Jones(favorite player in this draft actually) but with our defensive depth we could stockpile picks/prospects for our dynasty. I mean what kind of package could we get from Edm. or NYI for Jones?

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 01:00 AM
  #296
georgiabluejacket
Registered User
 
georgiabluejacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sore Loser View Post
...

I agree.

Though, some people's version of BPA clearly differs from others. I think the Jackets are heading in the right direction as far as scouting though, and drafting more for character, grit, and determination, rather than pure skill with a dash of injury prone.

I really think we need to come away with at least two - preferably three - skilled forwards with our first four picks, which should all be in the top-50 or so. If we can do that, then I think the other pick can be spent for simply whoever the best player on the board is.

Whatever the case, this is a very good draft, and a great year to have three first round picks. So much versatility.
Couldn't agree more. I think this is Davidson's approach as well from the interviews he given so far. Might be 2-3 years for we see a couple of the players, but I have faith they'll be contributors

georgiabluejacket is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 03:00 AM
  #297
CBJFan19*
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
i think we need pure scorers bad. JAM, Atkinson, Jenner, Johansen seem to be the only scoring threat prospects i mean you have 5 great defensive prospects, plus Johnson, Niktin can both be pretty good and still have plenty of time ahead of them only being 26, in terms of experianced scorers you really dont have any real game changing threats untill Johansen or one of the younger guys step up.

i think if we picked say top 3 you have on you're board
MacKinnon
Barkov
Drouin

then hope to add Mantha and DuClair later IMO

CBJFan19* is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 06:58 AM
  #298
EspenK
Registered User
 
EspenK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBJFan19 View Post
i think we need pure scorers badly. JAM, Atkinson, Jenner, Johansen seem to be the only scoring threat prospects i mean you have 5 great defensive prospects, plus Johnson, Niktin can both be pretty good and still have plenty of time ahead of them only being 26, in terms of experianced scorers you really dont have any real game changing threats untill Johansen or one of the younger guys step up.

i think if we picked say top 3 you have on you're board
MacKinnon
Barkov
Drouin

then hope to add Mantha and DuClair later IMO
For someone who is just getting started on the board, you seem to be catching on quite quickly. In response to the best player available peeps, I am a big fan of the BO(ffensive)PA. While Seth Jones draws Pronger comparisons, MacKinnon has drawn Crosby comparisons most of his life. This team needs a Crosby much more than a Pronger in my opinion. Although in reality they probably could use both.

EspenK is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 09:09 AM
  #299
alphafox
Registered User
 
alphafox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 937
vCash: 500
I think at this point the camps are looking at the draft and team two different ways. On one side (myslef included) seez this draft as our opportunity to land elite talent that someday give us a legitimate scoring threat and top line (we literally have not looked dangerous offensively this year) this doesnt necessarily mean that we are looking to return to the savior model but more the traditional 4 line model or in my case the Pittsburgh model. On the otherside are the people who prefer the nashville model where you build a without stars on the forward side and use your depth to cause mismatches. These philosophies require different drafting styles. The traditional/Pittsburgh model requires dominant fowards to enforce your will on the other team and necessitates high ceiling draft picks where as the depth model requires drafting alot of guys that are defensively responsible with some offensive potential. The first type of prospect is found almost entirely at the top of the draft where the second type can be found all over the 1st and subsequent rounds.

alphafox is offline  
Old
01-24-2013, 12:10 PM
  #300
CBJFan19*
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 317
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EspenK View Post
For someone who is just getting started on the board, you seem to be catching on quite quickly. In response to the best player available peeps, I am a big fan of the BO(ffensive)PA. While Seth Jones draws Pronger comparisons, MacKinnon has drawn Crosby comparisons most of his life. This team needs a Crosby much more than a Pronger in my opinion. Although in reality they probably could use both.
i've just been doing alot of reading up on prospects while i've been sick at home trying to catch up theres stilll a good amount i dont understand about the game of hockey itself

CBJFan19* 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 05:32 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.