HFBoards

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

Round 2, Vote 1 (HFNYR Top NYR Centers)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2013, 12:13 PM
  #51
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
Iíd like to thank you for the info youíve provided as well. Very illuminating stuff!

The funny thing is that in most of these types of conversations, I tend to be defending the players from hockey's earlier eras but, here, I find myself defending the modern day players more.

Anyway, as far as adjusted stats go, I think they are valuable to give someone with less knowledge of an era, an illustration of just how good that particular player was in his era. Itís like saying, this player was the Steven Stamkos of his day. I may be stating the obvious, but I think people need to remember that thatís different than saying the guyís production was the same as Stamkosí. Adjusted stats inflate playersí stats from earlier eras by virtue of calculations, which isnít the same as actually producing points on the ice.
One thing I actually do remember, was when Gretzky entered the league, there were comparisons with him to Boucher from older people calling him the new Boucher. The clean play, great passing, and dominant, highly creative thinking of the gamewere something they both shared. Even when Boucher coached the Rangers Cup win in 1940, another marker in his favor, I remembered reading that Boucher created the PK box and was the first coach to pull his goalie. Definite similarities with him in Gretzky in how they seemed to have saw and executed the game at a very high level, mixed with amazing skill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
As an example: If you look at Boucherís 1st 10 seasons with the Rangers, he played in 456 out of a possible 460 regular season games. If he played during Messierís 10 year Ranger career, he would have been looking at 788 regular season games and I donít think you can just assume that a player would play that many more games at a high level. And thatís not even taking into account modern day playoffs which are a marathon event unto themselves.

Not to mention forwards in Boucher's era accumulated virtually twice the icetime of modern-day players because there were only 2 forward lines on the rosters (I'm right about that, aren't I?). A player who gets twice as much icetime has an obvious great opportunity to score.
The longer modern season is definitely rough. But there are strong counter points too. The old school guys didn't have the same level of travel, medical, often played hurt because they made way less. In fact many of them had second jobs off season. I remember Gordie Howe talking about the differences and saying he'd won the scoring title one season and got a Red Wings team jacket as a bonus lol. The guys today have it way more plush, too.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 12:18 PM
  #52
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Did anyone else discover anything that they weren't aware of that surprised them? For me, when I read that Boucher won the Lady Byng so many times they actually gave him the original trophy and made a second one for the league, that made me laugh.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 12:24 PM
  #53
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
Did anyone else discover anything that they weren't aware of that surprised them? For me, when I read that Boucher won the Lady Byng so many times they actually gave him the original trophy and made a second one for the league, that made me laugh.
That was a good one.

I'm a bit embarassed to admit this but before this project started if you showed me a list of names that included some of these guys, I would not have been able to tell you who were Rangers. Raleigh, O'Connor, Smith. Didn't know a single iota about them before we started.

The biggest part of the project, for me, is not about the debate with other posters, but about educating myself about the history of the franchise and the history of the sport. It's been a very enjoyable process.

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 12:33 PM
  #54
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
That was a good one.

I'm a bit embarassed to admit this but before this project started if you showed me a list of names that included some of these guys, I would not have been able to tell you who were Rangers. Raleigh, O'Connor, Smith. Didn't know a single iota about them before we started.

The biggest part of the project, for me, is not about the debate with other posters, but about educating myself about the history of the franchise and the history of the sport. It's been a very enjoyable process.
Same exact boat. I'm plugging Clint Smith and Buddy O'Connor in my initial top 20, and had no clue who they were when we started this. Reading on the franchise history has been great, too. Almost feel like I'm paying more proper tribute to past greats of the sport. The debate is great, as well, and many folks have my points that I wouldn't have considered which really made me think and in some cases have actually changed my thinking. Heck, your tables were really eye opening. Thanks again for the time and effort spent!

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 12:44 PM
  #55
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg02 View Post
I think that the best thing that adjusted stats do is provide context. And when his stats are put into context, what Boucher did was put up some of the best seasons as a center in his generation. Ratelle was one tier down from the very best. Boucher was in it.

With regards to round two voting, I think I'm going to be pushing Edgar Laprade pretty hard. He's one of those players who the more I read about him, the more I like him. Compare that to Clint Smith, where I get the opposite effect.
Feel free to make his case.
My second 5 is very fluid so far.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 03:29 PM
  #56
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,837
vCash: 500
Two factors that I think are important are being on one of the rare Ranger Cup teams and being inducted into the HHOF.

So help me out here, why shouldn't I have Tkaczuk and Raleigh at #'s 9 and 10 on my list?

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 03:47 PM
  #57
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
One thing I actually do remember, was when Gretzky entered the league, there were comparisons with him to Boucher from older people calling him the new Boucher. The clean play, great passing, and dominant, highly creative thinking of the gamewere something they both shared. Even when Boucher coached the Rangers Cup win in 1940, another marker in his favor, I remembered reading that Boucher created the PK box and was the first coach to pull his goalie. Definite similarities with him in Gretzky in how they seemed to have saw and executed the game at a very high level, mixed with amazing skill. ....
Woah!
I did not know THAT.
Kudos, indeed.

Thanks.

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 03:48 PM
  #58
bernmeister
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 8,199
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
Two factors that I think are important are being on one of the rare Ranger Cup teams and being inducted into the HHOF.

So help me out here, why shouldn't I have Tkaczuk and Raleigh at #'s 9 and 10 on my list?
IMO, there's no question they make the list, the question we have is the ranking...

bernmeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 04:37 PM
  #59
mike14
Registered User
 
mike14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia
Posts: 4,303
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crease View Post
To mike14 and bernmeister:

Messier is 2nd in goals (Ratelle), 3rd in assists (Ratelle, Tkaczuk), and 2nd in points (Ratelle) in terms of NYR franchise centermen. Ratelle compiled an impressive regular season resume. I tend to be swayed by the fact that Messier's playoff resume is so much stronger.

Ratelle managed 9 goals in 65 playoff games, well below his regular season pace. His assists per game also dropped in the playoffs. Messier increased GPG and APG in the playoffs during his tenure as a Ranger. I know playoff success is a function of the team itself but some of those 70's Rangers teams were just as strong as the '94 Rangers. Ratelle had the support of Park, Gilbert, not to mention Tkaczuk.
I went to bed thinking about this last night (which is kind of sad...) and realised that Messier gets the rated down in my list simply because he's my favourite ever player and I give him the 'reverse bias' treatment. Without Messier I probably wouldn't be a hockey fan, and even if I was, most likely not a Ranger fan. There's also the fact his Rangers career is broken up into 6 out of 6 excellent seasons and then the 'return' where he had 1 good season, then got injured and finished his career as a 40pt player (although 40pts as 40+ year old on those Ranger teams wasn't horrible).

Lastly, longevity has to count for something IMO (and it's why I have Howe over Orr for #2 all time) and 6 seasons (7 if you want to include his 67 pt season), means it's not quite there compared to some others.

I find it hard to work out how much weight to give playoff performance. At the end of the day, it's what the game is all about, and the true greats will most likely rise to the top, but our opposition, and the team around you make such a difference. Outside of a Conn Smyth, whether or not a player was part of a cup winning team shouldn't hold too much weight IMO.

Also, loving all the info that's being posted, especially that tidbit about Gretz being compared to Boucher!

mike14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 05:55 PM
  #60
Chief
Registered User
 
Chief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NY, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 1,837
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bernmeister View Post
IMO, there's no question they make the list, the question we have is the ranking...
I should have been more clear...I meant that I currently have them at #9 and 10. Some people have them higher and I wanted to know why. Maybe I'm overlooking something.

Chief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 06:55 PM
  #61
Greg02
Registered User
 
Greg02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
I have Raleigh at 10 as well, but Tkaczuk between 5 and 6.

It really depends on how you weigh things. Obviously, any ranking has to weigh career, prime, and peak. You take someone like Buddy O'Connor, who's almost all peak. How do you compare Tkaczuk's bunch of very good years to O'Connor's one amazing one and one very good one? You balance it out.

In my opinion, Tkaczuk's long career outweighs O'Connor's Hart. O'Connor's Hart outweighs Esposito's ~4 great years, because it's that awkward in between of too short to get longevity points and not good enough to get peak points. And Tkaczuk is clearly ahead of Clint Smith to me, who was viewed as a playoff choker, didn't consistently lead Rangers centers in points, and didn't add in anything defensively. Tkaczuk won a pair of team MVPs, outscored a prime Ratelle two years, was considered to be very good defensively, and was considered underrated.

Greg02 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 07:43 PM
  #62
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
Two factors that I think are important are being on one of the rare Ranger Cup teams and being inducted into the HHOF.

So help me out here, why shouldn't I have Tkaczuk and Raleigh at #'s 9 and 10 on my list?
I have Raleigh at 10, so I can't help much on that one. But I had Tkaczuk at like 5 or 6. While Tkaczuk's viewed as a very solid offensive player, he was considered a fairly elite defensive player. Where a lot of these guys have top 10 scoring resumes, Tkaczuk had a pair of top ten finishes in SHG. Excellent penalty killer, shadowed the other team's top players, and was damn good at it. You'll read things like this:

Quote:
Tkaczuk took that lesson to good use in the 1971-72 season. His 24-42-66 season led the Rangers to another strong finish. The Rangers, thanks largely to Tkaczuk, were able to get by Montreal and Chicago in the playoffs before meeting the powerful Boston Bruins in the Stanley Cup finals.

The Bruins were of course led by Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito. Tkaczuk drew the responsibility of trying to stop the mammoth Esposito - the Bruins goal scoring machine. While the Bruins captured the Stanley Cup, Tkaczuk certainly captured the respect of Esposito and entire league in that series.

"I've never run into anyone tougher. Ever," said Espo of Tkaczuk. "Bobby Clarke of Philadelphia gives me fits because he's so fast and persistent. Jim Harrison in Toronto was as strong as a horse. But Tkaczuk had a combination of those qualities."
And this:

Quote:
From the 1971 Official Hockey Annual, published before the 1970-1971 season. The goaltenders were asked which NHL players have the best shot.

1. Bobby Hull
2. Bobby Orr
3. Jean Beliveau
4. Gordie Howe
5. Frank Mahovlich
6. Phil Esposito
7. Jacques Lemaire
8. Dennis Hull
9. Danny Grant
10. Red Berenson/Ken Hodge

Honorable Mentions:

Bill Goldsworthy
Stan Mikita
Eddie Joyal
Rod Gilbert
Vic Hadfield
Walt Tkaczuk
Yvan Cournoyer
Ab McDonald
Ron Ellis
Wayne Connelly
Garry Unger
Just a really excellent two way player, with a killer work ethic. And a long tenure with the team. If you watched him play, which I did, you loved the guy. And as a kid, I thought he had a cool name lol

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 07:48 PM
  #63
Greg02
Registered User
 
Greg02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Anyone have a first hand comparison of Tkaczuk against Camille the Eel?

Greg02 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 09:22 PM
  #64
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg02 View Post
Anyone have a first hand comparison of Tkaczuk against Camille the Eel?
No firsthand knowledge here, but I had Henry in my preliminary top 10, and slightly above Tkaczuk. I'll expand later.

Edit: Probably a discussion better suited for next round.


Last edited by Crease: 05-17-2013 at 02:56 PM.
Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 02:57 PM
  #65
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
**ADMIN NOTE**

Just a friendly reminder that Round 2 Vote 1 ballots are due in just over 24 hours. If you haven't done so already, please PM me your ballot by Saturday 5/18 at 5PM EST. A valid ballot contains a ranking of 1-10 of the 10 centermen listed in post #2 of this thread. Thank you!

Crease is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 05:59 PM
  #66
Richter Scale
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 899
vCash: 500
Thanks for putting all of this together, Crease. Looking great so far.

Apologies I'm coming to this party late. Been a busy week at work. After reading through parts of the discussion, here are my thoughts so far:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cake or Death View Post
I had the same issue Chief mentioned. I mean, right off the bat, if a guy wins a Cup now it is a lot harder to win it against 1 in 30 odds than 1 in 6 odds. Same is true of winning awards, AS selections, top 10 finishes, etc - the larger the pool the more people vying for things.
I think you're right in that it is true that in a lot of ways it is harder to win a Cup now than it was when guys like Boucher played the game - primarily because of how much more grueling the playoffs have become with 4 rounds, 7 game series, and the physical attrition that the players go through. But I don't think you can really think about it as 1 in 30 odds now vs. 1 in 6 odds then. All teams are not and were not created equal – and they do not all have the same "chance" at winning the cup in today's NHL - nor did they in the days long past. I think it is certainly a bigger challenge in today’s NHL – but I don’t think it is 5 times harder because there are 5 times more teams in the league.

That kind of thinking may work when looking at the limited competition for awards / top-10 scoring finishes / etc; but I'm not so sure it accurately represents the varying difficulty / degree of competition between then and now for winning a championship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
We’ll start with simple numbers. 3rd all time for Rangers in points, 2nd all time in goals, 3rd in assists and 6th all time in games played. Just those stats put you near the top. Now, numbers don’t mean anything, Messier has the 2nd most all time and he’s not the 2nd best player, but what they show is that in a Rangers sweater he played for a long time and played at a very high level.

5 ppg seasons (and another 2 where he was 1pt under) 2 seasons with 40+ goals and another 4 with 30+. His 100+ points season earned him the Pearson and his career Ranger ppg is below only Mess and Espo from this top 10 list (and then only barely). Yeah he isn’t right at the top of point scorers every season, but can you take points of him for playing in an era that saw the likes of Orr, Mikita, Clarke and Lemaire dominate the competition? Even with those greats he was top 10 in league scoring 5 times (6 if you include the trade year).

This certainly makes his resume look impressive. But just looking at the surface #s isn’t a convincing argument for me. In my mind, you have to consider the eras the players played in as well (not to mention in my overall ratings, I’m heavily weighting playoff performance, which is just going to knock Ratelle down a few pegs, despite his great overall career).

To expand some more on what Greg was saying in response to these #s – and provide specifics – the reason these aren’t convincing to me are two fold:

1. The players played in very different eras in which the competition was different, the game was played differently, and scoring rates (for many reasons) were higher or lower. Of the three players, Ratelle played during the highest scoring era of the NHL. During his time with the Rangers, the average number of goals scored per game hovered between 5.75 gpg and 6.75 gpg. Boucher played in one of the lowest scoring eras of the NHL – with goals per game hovering between 2.9 gpg and 5 gpg. In Messier’s first stint with the Rangers, average scoring hovered between 5.75 gpg and 7 gpg; in his second stint it was around 5.25 gpg. This info can be found here: http://www.quanthockey.com/TS/TS_GoalsPerGame.php

2. Ratelle put up these numbers and set these franchise records in about 15 seasons with the Rangers. Boucher had 13 seasons with the Rangers (and seasons almost half the length of Ratelle’s era). Messier had 10 seasons with the Rangers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mike14 View Post
His playoffs aren't great, but a PPG of 0.64 isn't terrible, especially when that period was dominated by the Habs and Bruins running over the Rangers on their way to multiple cups.
While those Habs and Bruins were certainly dominant teams, I don’t know that I’m convinced that this is enough to look past his teams’ disappointing inability to get over the hump and win it all.

Not to mention that Boucher’s Rangers weren’t exactly competing against bad teams - or dominating the league. They faced some absolutely dominant Habs, Bruins, Leafs, Hawks, and even toward the end of his career – Red Wings – teams.

Messier’s Rangers faced very good Penguins and Devils teams. And toward the end of his first stint, Flyers.


---

One thing to consider, that I don’t think has been discussed, when trying to determine how to rank Colville and Watson – who had very similar careers – is their linemates.

As best I can tell, Watson’s linemates for a good portion of his time with the Rangers were Lynn Patrick and Bryan Hextall. Colville’s were his brother, Mac Colville, and Alex Shibicky. Both of Watson’s linemates are hall of famers who were big scorers for their eras (around 0.75 ppg for both of them). Neither of Colville’s were hall of famers and hovered between 0.5 and 0.6 ppg. The fact that Colville was able to put up the #s he did with what seems like significantly weaker linemates says something to me.

Of course, you could make the argument that Watson made his linemates better (in which case, it would be travesty that he isn’t in the HHOF and Colville is); but based on what I’ve read, it seems like Colville was considered the heart of his line. This is just one reason why I’ve got Colville ahead of Watson.

---

Unfortunately, I have to run now, so I can’t get into this as much as I’d like. Apologies if I missed this - and if I did, disregard this (I skimmed the last page) - but I’m curious what peoples’ rationales are for placing Tkaczuk ahead of guys like Espo/O’Connor/Raleigh/Smith.

---

My preliminary top 5 is:

Boucher
Messier
Ratelle
Colville
Watson

Richter Scale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 07:37 PM
  #67
Greg02
Registered User
 
Greg02's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,834
vCash: 500
Here's my concern. As of now, I'm leaning towards Watson over Tkaczuk. However, I'm also currently with Laprade over Watson, and Henry just below Tkaczuk. So essentially I'm not sure which of Watson or Tkaczuk I'm more comfortable with ranking too high.

Greg02 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 08:56 PM
  #68
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
I think you're right in that it is true that in a lot of ways it is harder to win a Cup now than it was when guys like Boucher played the game - primarily because of how much more grueling the playoffs have become with 4 rounds, 7 game series, and the physical attrition that the players go through. But I don't think you can really think about it as 1 in 30 odds now vs. 1 in 6 odds then. All teams are not and were not created equal – and they do not all have the same "chance" at winning the cup in today's NHL - nor did they in the days long past. I think it is certainly a bigger challenge in today’s NHL – but I don’t think it is 5 times harder because there are 5 times more teams in the league.

That kind of thinking may work when looking at the limited competition for awards / top-10 scoring finishes / etc; but I'm not so sure it accurately represents the varying difficulty / degree of competition between then and now for winning a championship.
My apologies, I wasn't saying those were etched in stone odds, really just making a generalization that more teams and more players does make it more difficult. I wouldn't even begin to try to quantify how difficult. I actually did all this off a point system. The most common thing was that there were 105 instances of players finishing top 10 in assists, goals, or points. That was my base line, so it scored 1 point. Four instances of a 1St AST, so I divided 105 by 4 and 1st AST was 26 points. 18 instances of top 3 in playoff gls, ass, or pts, so 105 divided by 18 was 6 points. Etc etc.

I took all this and applied a 15% point bonus to anything won post-expansion. That was the best ball park estimate I could derive in terms of it being more difficult to do things post expansion. That gave me my rough top 20 and a decent start point. Then I started reading up on the guys, because being reliant on numbers and stats alone is a disservice to these players. My readings/investigations also shifted things and I ended with a final 10 list that I like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
My preliminary top 5 is:

Boucher
Messier
Ratelle
Colville
Watson
In fact, that is my exact top 5 I submitted. And your point about Watson's and Colville's linemates was excellent.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 09:03 PM
  #69
mike14
Registered User
 
mike14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Melbourne
Country: Australia
Posts: 4,303
vCash: 500
Just to confirm, am i submitting a list of just a top 5, or the whole top 10?

Edit - disregard, just read crease's post. Top 10 incoming


Last edited by mike14: 05-17-2013 at 09:05 PM. Reason: i should learn to read
mike14 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2013, 09:05 PM
  #70
Cake or Death
.
 
Cake or Death's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 2,081
vCash: 500
I believe it's top 10.

Cake or Death is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 08:21 AM
  #71
Crease
Registered User
 
Crease's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,833
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richter Scale View Post
One thing to consider, that I donít think has been discussed, when trying to determine how to rank Colville and Watson Ė who had very similar careers Ė is their linemates.

As best I can tell, Watsonís linemates for a good portion of his time with the Rangers were Lynn Patrick and Bryan Hextall. Colvilleís were his brother, Mac Colville, and Alex Shibicky. Both of Watsonís linemates are hall of famers who were big scorers for their eras (around 0.75 ppg for both of them). Neither of Colvilleís were hall of famers and hovered between 0.5 and 0.6 ppg. The fact that Colville was able to put up the #s he did with what seems like significantly weaker linemates says something to me.

Of course, you could make the argument that Watson made his linemates better (in which case, it would be travesty that he isnít in the HHOF and Colville is); but based on what Iíve read, it seems like Colville was considered the heart of his line. This is just one reason why Iíve got Colville ahead of Watson.
Great stuff! I had Colville ahead of Watson but this solidifies it.

Crease is offline   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 01:32 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.