HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Draft Thread V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 04:13 PM
  #26
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
"Points" already include assists.
You're starting to sound like 99% of the posters on the Prospect board who base their entire "Draft rankings" purely from points.

Surely you can understand there is more to evaluating a players offense then strictly points....do you?

A lot of the times a player doesn't get credited with a "point" but his playmaking, vision, hustle etc.. is the reason the goal was scored.

To be honest, I guess that would be my major issue with Turgeon. He seems like that the exact opposite type of player who although he didn't received a point, he was the reason the goal was scored.

Again back to the simple concept (so I thought) a players ability to make those around him better, has a lot of value when comparing a players "offensive abilities."

Ask any Vancouver fan, or NHL fan even and there is no denying Henrik made those around him better.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:15 PM
  #27
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
You're starting to sound like 99% of the posters on the Prospect board who base their entire "Draft rankings" purely from points.

Surely you can understand there is more to evaluating a players offense then strictly points....do you?

A lot of the times a player doesn't get credited with a "point" but his playmaking, vision, hustle etc.. is the reason the goal was scored.

To be honest, I guess that would be my major issue with Turgeon. He seems like that the exact opposite type of player who although he didn't received a point, he was the reason the goal was scored.

Again back to the simple concept (so I thought) a players ability to make those around him better, has a lot of value when comparing a players "offensive abilities."

Ask any Vancouver fan, or NHL fan even and there is no denying Henrik made those around him better.
If his playmaking and vision is why the goal was scored, wouldn't he almost always get an assist? I agree that there are guys who can create goals for their team with "hustle" (often by battling in front of the net), but neither Turgeon or Sedin is that type of player.

I do agree with you that Sedin isn't as soft as Turgeon though.

Edit: Sedin probably was better at making his linemates better than Turgeon.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-26-2013 at 04:24 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:20 PM
  #28
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,222
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Much better when you get beyond the best 5 seasons. Turgeon was a much better producer than Roenick.
Nobody in their right mind would pick Turgeon over Roenick.Turgeon was the king of compiling useless points , and while I don't have numbers to back that up , any habs fans I know remember how Turgeon's real impact wasn't as great as his numbers indicated.

I appreciate the effort you put to defend Turgeon 2 years ago , but there's a reason Turgeon is mostly forgotten , and the reason isn't that he wasn't THE PLAYER of any team (meaning he would supposely lack any true fanbase that emotionnally backs him).Nobody is backing him because he didn't leave an impression on anybody despite putting good numbers.There's an overwhelming amount of players that switched teams regularly that left great impressions on those fanbases , why isn't Turgeon one of them?

I am not criticizing the pick per say , but when you start to compare Turgeon to guys like Roenick it just doesn't make sense at all in the real world.Roenick was a much more impactful players on a hockey team.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:25 PM
  #29
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If his playmaking and vision is why the goal was scored, wouldn't he almost always get an assist? I agree that there are guys who can create goals for their team with "hustle" (often by battling in front of the net), but neither Turgeon or Sedin is that type of player.

I do agree with you that Sedin isn't as soft as Turgeon though.
A lot of the times no....

To the average fan, this may not make sense but while watching the 15-30 seconds before a goal was scored a lot of the time a cross seem pass, quick transitional pass etc.. is often what causes a defensive breakdown for the team getting scored on.

The puck can get touched again numerous times before this happens and the guy who caused the defensive zone breakdown doesnt get credited with a "point" but is the main reason the goal was scored.

Example:

The puck is turned over at Vancouvers blueline, Henrik makes a quick one touch pass to a streaking Burrows which results in a 3 on 2. Burrows gains the line and drops to Hamhuis. Hamhuis shot creats a rebound and Daniel scores.

D. Sedin from Hamhuis and Burrows


No point for Henrik and yet his quick transitional pass is what started the entire goal.


I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, i'm just explaing my opinion that there is more then pure point toals when loooking at players like "playmaking centres" like Henrik.

I had a good laugh at the "one dimensional" comments.


Am I ok to assume Hamhuis and Burrows will not be drafted?

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:27 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
A lot of the times no....

To the average fan, this may not make sense but while watching the 15-30 seconds before a goal was scored a lot of the time a cross seem pass, quick transitional pass etc.. is often what causes a defensive breakdown for the team getting scored on.

The puck can get touched again numerous times before this happens and the guy who caused the defensive zone breakdown doesnt get credited with a "point" but is the main reason the goal was scored.

Example:

The puck is turned over at Vancouvers blueline, Henrik makes a quick one touch pass to a streaking Burrows. Burrows gains the line and drops to Hamhuis. Hamhuis shot creats a rebound and Daniel scores.

D. sedin from Hamhuis and Burrows


No point for Henrik and yet his quick transitional pass is what started the entire goal.


I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here, i'm just explaing my opinion that there is more then pure point toals when loooking at players like "playmaking centres" like Henrik.

I had a good laugh at "one dimensional" comments.
But what makes Henrik Sedin more likely to lose out on an assist this way than any other player?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:32 PM
  #31
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But what makes Henrik Sedin more likely to lose out on an assist this way than any other player?
I see what Mark is saying, there's more to these players than just simply goals and points on paper. Henrik is pretty much Diet Adam Oates at this stage with better size.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:36 PM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,876
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
But he was posting falsehoods. Or can you explain how he got those numbers?

Please excuse my manners, but I consider posting blatantly false information rather impolite. It undermines the integrity of everything we do here.
*
I will leave that to him. Without associated years it’s tough to determine exactly where he went wrong, if he did. I am extremely neutered at work now, without hfboards access and with a new phone without the USB mass storage option (how I access all my files)
*
Regardless, to his knowledge he was using your method. His results came out different so your assumption was that he must have been using mine, and you lambasted him as though one way is “right” and one is “wrong”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I'm surprised people take the time to skim through that block of text.
*
Sorry for multi-quoting, Mark. I hope you will find a way to deal with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
You know exactly what I mean.

When the game is on the line do you want Gilmour or do you want Turgeon?

Turgeon is the more purely talented of the two for sure. His production is probably better too.

I know which one I would pick and it isn't close.
*
They are about even in regular season offense, and obviously I would take Gilmour first and it’s not close. No one would disagree with that. What’s your point?

Quote:
It is accounted for in Turgeon never going anywhere because when the intensity goes up, he took his game down a notch.
*
His playoff production doesn’t seem to indicate that he did.
The playoff sv% of his goalies in the playoffs tells a different story about why he never “went anywhere”. I doubt he had a way to turn his goalies into sieves by being soft, but if you think that was possible, you’re free to explain why.

Quote:
I'll have to remember that longevity actually *does* count when the obvious and expected attacks on Francis come up later.

I know one of the arguments you have used against him in the past is "who cares what he did past x years?"
*
I respect longevity more than most people. In the case of Francis, his longevity is often used to put him ahead of players who were clearly better players at their best (and I don’t just mean guys like Lafontaine with one outstanding season and poor longevity).

Quote:
Yeah sure, it is much worse exposing the fact that we seem to be hopelessly inconsistent in our evaluations than to continue contradicting ourselves at every turn.

Linemates don't matter one day. Stars get their points. The next comparison: lets take these guys out of our comparisons or discount them because they played with so and so.
*
Wow, a lot of frustration bottled up, apparently.* Couldn’t keep it all in anymore, I guess, after years of veiled hostility:
*
yeah, I agree, but “some people” here think that linemates don’t matter!!! OMG LOL
*
I’ve never claimed linemates don’t matter. They do matter, very much, when we’re talking about support players who weren’t close to the best player on their line. They do matter, however, to a more negligible degree, when we are talking about all time greats. (guys like Gretzky and Lemieux proved they will always get their points and take whoever along for the ride)
*
You used to claim that certain players had overstated offense simply due to playing on a higher scoring team, regardless of who their actual linemates were, and that is what I disagreed with. It is YOU who turned that into “linemates don’t matter”, which I absolutely do not believe.
*
And all of that (the concept of generational linemates affecting production) is in no way a contradiction to the concept of removing outliers, and if you truly think it does, then I don’t think you have a very good grasp of numbers.

Quote:
This guy has a great record in [whatever] voting. The next comparison: Obviously these writers were completely wrong and we know better so those votes don't mean much to me.
*
You’ll have to show me an example of this; otherwise I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Quote:
His great longevity has to be recognized. The next comparison: compiler.
I don’t call anyone a compiler anymore in a bad way. Goals win hockey games. The way I used to use the term (many years ago by now) was to describle players like Gartner who always had 60-70 points but were never among the leaders, but compiled their way to a high career total. The old me might have dismissed Turgeon’s (for example) 96, 95, 94, 88, 85, and 82 point seasons as compiling because they were “not top-10”… thank goodness that way of thinking has gone extinct for the most part.

Quote:
I admit it. I laughed.
*
Why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I'm still amazed that he doesn't grasp this point. Lemieux is the outlier. Lafontaine is barely above Oates, and is the first non-outlier. The system works...nothing to see here folks...move along.
*
OK, then the onus is now on you guys to show me that this makes more sense than using 142 (or even a lower number). For starters, only 72 players reaching a measly 50% score sure doesn’t look right for a season where scoring skyrocketed among top players and a huge number of young stars and established superstars in their prime all had career or breakout seasons. Just 5 years later in 1998, 79 players had a score of at least 60%. You can’t seriously tell me that looks right to you at all.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:37 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
I see what Mark is saying, there's more to these players than just simply goals and points on paper. Henrik is pretty much Diet Adam Oates at this stage with better size.
I don't disagree with anything mark said in the post about how some passes that lead to goals don't end up as assists, but I still don't understand why it makes it better to look at "assist finishes" than "point finishes" when assessing a player.

A guy who scores 20 goals and 80 assists is not a better offensively player than a guy who scores 30 goals and 70 assists.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:40 PM
  #34
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But what makes Henrik Sedin more likely to lose out on an assist this way than any other player?
Because he is obviously biased to playmaking and has the puck on his stick a lot more then a goal scorer or even a more "balanced goals and assits" type player.

So to downplay the importance of a playmaker and discredit them purely from point totals is wrong is my opinion.


Would you say a player like Henrik has a better impact on his teammates and a more positive outcome on the game then Turgeon?

Yes I realize the gap in draft positions, but to refer to Turgeon as a "steal" because of point totals is just lazy. Did he have a positive impact on teammates? Is he the type of teammate who will make those around him better?

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:42 PM
  #35
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,576
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't disagree with anything mark said in the post about how some passes that lead to goals don't end up as assists, but I still don't understand why it makes it better to look at "assist finishes" than "point finishes" when assessing a player.

A guy who scores 20 goals and 80 assists is not a better offensively player than a guy who scores 30 goals and 70 assists.
So is a guy who scores 30 goals and 70 assists a better player offensively then a guy who scores 20 goals and 80 assists?

According to 70's he is, and by a large margin.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:45 PM
  #36
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,509
vCash: 500
A lot of people would take Forsberg at 25-75-100 over Iginla at 45-55, just as an example.

Although I agree with TDMM the more balanced scorer is more valuable, usually.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:47 PM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
So is a guy who scores 30 goals and 70 assists a better player offensively then a guy who scores 20 goals and 80 assists?
Everything else equal (defense, tougness, intangibles, etc), yes, I would take the 30-70-100 guy over the 20-80-100 guy, but everything is rarely equal.

Quote:
According to 70's he is, and by a large margin.
I don't remember 70s saying that, at least not the "large margin" part.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:47 PM
  #38
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK, then the onus is now on you guys to show me that this makes more sense than using 142 (or even a lower number). For starters, only 72 players reaching a measly 50% score sure doesn’t look right for a season where scoring skyrocketed among top players and a huge number of young stars and established superstars in their prime all had career or breakout seasons. Just 5 years later in 1998, 79 players had a score of at least 60%. You can’t seriously tell me that looks right to you at all.
Who do you want to evaluate? Star players, or all players?

If you want to evaluate star players, recognize that certain factors in 1992-93 made is easier for top players to score a higher % of points and use vs2 or vs5 or your metric of choice that uses the top scorers as a benchmark. If you want to evaluate everyone why not just use regular adjusted points with league scoring level as a benchmark?

overpass is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 04:49 PM
  #39
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,712
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post

Would you say a player like Henrik has a better impact on his teammates and a more positive outcome on the game then Turgeon?
At his peak, absolutely. Comparing them careerwise is more difficult.

But anyway, my impression is that Turgeon didn't really make his teammates better. But he did have a couple of decent playoff runs where he certainly seemed to help his team by doing his own thing.

Quote:
Yes I realize the gap in draft positions, but to refer to Turgeon as a "steal" because of point totals is just lazy. Did he have a positive impact on teammates? Is he the type of teammate who will make those around him better?
I don't think Turgeon is a particular steal, outside of the fact that there are always 2nd line centers who are steals due to the glut in supply. He was certainly good value if you can build a unit around him.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 05:49 PM
  #40
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
But anyway, my impression is that Turgeon didn't really make his teammates better. But he did have a couple of decent playoff runs where he certainly seemed to help his team by doing his own thing.
How, exactly, do you quantify that?

During his prime, he was almost always his team's best offensive forward - often by large margins. What, exactly, does he have to do to elevate the "make his teammates better"?

Quote:
I don't think Turgeon is a particular steal, outside of the fact that there are always 2nd line centers who are steals due to the glut in supply. He was certainly good value if you can build a unit around him.
In terms of how our team was put together, it absolutely was a steal. He's as good as many centers who have been long gone. He has issues, which is why he falls so far from guys who are no better than he is. It takes the right kind of line mates to insulate him, and I don't think there should be any question as to whether we have done that.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 05:58 PM
  #41
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
But he was posting falsehoods. Or can you explain how he got those numbers?
I was posting my interpretation of your system. I misunderstood your system...

Actually, now that I understand your system better, it makes less sense than I thought it did.

Quote:
Please excuse my manners, but I consider posting blatantly false information rather impolite. It undermines the integrity of everything we do here.
Yeah, I posted numbers that were different from yours. I must be a liar.

If I wanted to pump up Turgeon, I would have just used 70s' system, they were more impressive than the ones I got.


Last edited by Dreakmur: 02-26-2013 at 06:23 PM.
Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:06 PM
  #42
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,182
vCash: 500
Here's something about longevity. I realize baseball and hockey are extremely different. Hitting is individual and a bad team doesn't lessen it. Hockey scoring is team driven and a bad team affects it.

Although I realize Mike Gartner is a HHoFer, if a baseball player hit 708 home runs and was 6th all time everyone would say he was one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. Compare the way we think and talk about Gartner to the way we do about the 6th biggest HR hitter ever, Ken Griffey Jr. Is it just the difference in the 2 sports or do we hold hockey players to a different (higher?) standard? Do hockey players have to be successful in a way we like (besides winning) and does style matter? Is style one of the reasons Denis Savard is more popular than Gartner imo?

Hawkman is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:21 PM
  #43
Johnny Engine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,310
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Here's something about longevity. I realize baseball and hockey are extremely different. Hitting is individual and a bad team doesn't lessen it. Hockey scoring is team driven and a bad team affects it.

Although I realize Mike Gartner is a HHoFer, if a baseball player hit 708 home runs and was 6th all time everyone would say he was one of the greatest home run hitters of all time. Compare the way we think and talk about Gartner to the way we do about the 6th biggest HR hitter ever, Ken Griffey Jr. Is it just the difference in the 2 sports or do we hold hockey players to a different (higher?) standard? Do hockey players have to be successful in a way we like (besides winning) and does style matter? Is style one of the reasons Denis Savard is more popular than Gartner imo?
It's funny, because Gartner's style is the thing I liked best about him. You could put an up-and-down, fast skating guy with a great shot and generally good hockey sense on literally any line and have it work. Crappy linemates, he'd use his speed to create his own chances. Great linemates, he'd find an opening quickly and wait for a pass. Defensive linemates, he'd have no trouble keeping up with the play.

Unfortunately, he just wasn't that great at putting up points. He did play well to a very old age in a high scoring era, so you have that total.

Johnny Engine is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:24 PM
  #44
King Forsberg
21 68 88 16 44 28
 
King Forsberg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Country: United States
Posts: 5,189
vCash: 300
Griffey finished top 10 in HRs 9x and led the league 4x despite dealing wih injuries over his career. Griffey was more of an elite home run hitter than Gartner was goal scorer.

King Forsberg is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:39 PM
  #45
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Halifax selects Dave Balon, LW to finish off our third line.

Balon-Tkaczuk-Ellis

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:40 PM
  #46
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Engine View Post
It's funny, because Gartner's style is the thing I liked best about him. You could put an up-and-down, fast skating guy with a great shot and generally good hockey sense on literally any line and have it work. Crappy linemates, he'd use his speed to create his own chances. Great linemates, he'd find an opening quickly and wait for a pass. Defensive linemates, he'd have no trouble keeping up with the play.

Unfortunately, he just wasn't that great at putting up points. He did play well to a very old age in a high scoring era, so you have that total.
I was looking at Gartner a bit and he was a real high-volume, low percentage shooter compared to other scoring wingers of his era. And unlike most of those wingers he never played with a star centre. You wonder what he would done if he ever got to play with a good centre - maybe some of those 12% seasons turn into 14% seasons if he has someone who can set him up around the net.

overpass is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:42 PM
  #47
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
We 're planning to spend our whole clock taking trade offers.

Just kidding....we're pleased.to select a St Louis great. The man who blazed the trail from Viking, Alberta to the NHL...LW Brian Sutter!

Brian Sutter-Phil Watson-Dave Taylor will be the toughest, hardest-working third line in the draft...and they can score a little too.

overpass is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:47 PM
  #48
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
We 're planning to spend our whole clock taking trade offers.

Just kidding....we're pleased.to select a St Louis great. The man who blazed the trail from Viking, Alberta to the NHL...LW Brian Sutter!

Brian Sutter-Phil Watson-Dave Taylor will be the toughest, hardest-working third line in the draft...and they can score a little too.
God damnit, just as I sent the offer.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:51 PM
  #49
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
God damnit, just as I sent the offer.
Sorry man, you were pretty quick with the offer.

overpass is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 06:53 PM
  #50
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
We 're planning to spend our whole clock taking trade offers.

Just kidding....we're pleased.to select a St Louis great. The man who blazed the trail from Viking, Alberta to the NHL...LW Brian Sutter!

Brian Sutter-Phil Watson-Dave Taylor will be the toughest, hardest-working third line in the draft...and they can score a little too.
Good pick. He was our top choice to finish off the Bowie-Stasiuk line.

Dreakmur 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 07:05 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.