HFBoards

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

San Jose Sharks have little to show from 2009 NHL Draft

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-10-2014, 08:23 PM
  #26
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
For me, the Bernier selection is the "one". The Sharks could have gone with Getzlaf or Perry, as well as Parise. Bernier had obvious potential, but so did the other three, with more fixable issues. Many players have overcome size and skating; not too many have overcome conditioning and laziness.

With the rest, there is a degree of reasonability. With Michalek, you can say that he had injury problems, the Sharks needed a productive player right away, Suter took for-ev-er to develop (and then depearted), and that quite frankly, Michalek had some incredibly productive early years while Suter has looked quite overrated away from Weber.

With Bergeron vs. Hennessey...well, the Sharks got decent value for Hennessey, and how many other teams passed on Bergeron? Hell, Boston took Mark Stuart in the first, IIRC.

Carle vs. Weber...for me, it is unquestionable that Carle was the more talented guy. He had a world of potential, and was built for the "new" NHL; Weber looked like a relic of the old one. Had the Sharks been able to develop defencemen...heck, if Carle had developed under TMac instead of Ron Wilson, the Sharks might have had a Norris candidate on their team.
We were as set up as anyone in that draft having the 6 and 16th pick I'm the draft. Havlat is all we have to show for anything in that first round. It would have been nice to hit big on one of those first rounds. We were lucky to hit on pavelski that year to soften the blow. If we were to do that draft over pavs would likely be in the top 20.

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2014, 08:59 PM
  #27
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,302
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
yes, because we need more Lucas Kaspars, Nick Petreckis, Ty Wisharts, Mike Morrises, and Marcel Goc's, right?
If they were drafting and developing properly during those times, those players could have made a good impact on this team rather than having to go out and spend a lot to get those types of players.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-10-2014, 10:26 PM
  #28
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
yes, because we need more Lucas Kaspars, Nick Petreckis, Ty Wisharts, Mike Morrises, and Marcel Goc's, right?
Goc didn't live up to where he was drafted but he was alright. Morris never got the chance did to injuries and had to retire early. Wishart was used to get Boyle. Things are not looking good for petrecki. Kaspar bring the big disappointment out of those players. But that is because of more reasons then just him as a player

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 12:24 AM
  #29
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bizz06 View Post
yes, because we need more Lucas Kaspars, Nick Petreckis, Ty Wisharts, Mike Morrises, and Marcel Goc's, right?
Well...yes and no. Look, when you examine it in close, you can give many excuses. Goc was a victim of depth; I don't expect any competent GM or coach to sit a youngster over a better-performing player on a winning team. Goc needed ice time to blossom, and he couldn't get it. Talent was obviously present.

In some ways, I think that players like Tomas Plihal, Miroslav Zalesak, and Lukas Kaspar are victims. On a team like the Sharks now, running three offensive lines, they might have had a shot cracking the third-line.

I am getting off the point. Overall, you wish the Sharks did better from the 20-50 draft position. You hope that over a 10+ year span, they get more than one or two very good players from those positions, and a couple of legit NHLers. Its been changed by the fact that the Sharks have traded so many of their picks, and mollified by the fact that the Sharks got great value for some of those players before they busted (Wishart, Hennessey, possibly Coyle). And, of course, every team has a Morris here-and-there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
If they were drafting and developing properly during those times, those players could have made a good impact on this team rather than having to go out and spend a lot to get those types of players.
Yes. It isn't like they have screwed up the job terribly, but they need to do better to be a SC-worthy team, year-in, year-out...then again, that is exactly what DW had managed!

For me the burden comes down to development.

Drafting...this is where I kind of don't see it. Everyone saw the talent of guys like Bernier, Morris, Kaspar...even sub-optimal picks like Michalek or Carle, the talent was clear-as-day. Of course, you can then question the Mueller (my bias aside) pick or the Petrecki pick (though given the time he was picked, there was some sense in that selection)), the Hennessey pick, the Wrenn pick...the number of picks where the talent is not apparent (where the Sharks are almost always going for size or defensive prowess vs. speed or skill) is so small that I think it perfectly acceptable for even the best-drafting team in the league.

Development though, that is a bigger issue. Of course, we've heard the negative things about Kaspar, Bernier, Viedensky, Petrecki, Doherty...but you have to think that players that were so prolific in juniors, that you could just squeeze more out of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockfan1991 View Post
Goc didn't live up to where he was drafted but he was alright. Morris never got the chance did to injuries and had to retire early. Wishart was used to get Boyle. Things are not looking good for petrecki. Kaspar bring the big disappointment out of those players. But that is because of more reasons then just him as a player
It has definitely been helped by the fact that DW has gotten great return for declining players. The only players I can remember DW "selling low" on were Gorges, Carle, Ehrhoff, Bonino, and possibly Coyle. Well, and Kipprusoff, of course.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 12:49 AM
  #30
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Well...yes and no. Look, when you examine it in close, you can give many excuses. Goc was a victim of depth; I don't expect any competent GM or coach to sit a youngster over a better-performing player on a winning team. Goc needed ice time to blossom, and he couldn't get it. Talent was obviously present.

In some ways, I think that players like Tomas Plihal, Miroslav Zalesak, and Lukas Kaspar are victims. On a team like the Sharks now, running three offensive lines, they might have had a shot cracking the third-line.

I am getting off the point. Overall, you wish the Sharks did better from the 20-50 draft position. You hope that over a 10+ year span, they get more than one or two very good players from those positions, and a couple of legit NHLers. Its been changed by the fact that the Sharks have traded so many of their picks, and mollified by the fact that the Sharks got great value for some of those players before they busted (Wishart, Hennessey, possibly Coyle). And, of course, every team has a Morris here-and-there.



Yes. It isn't like they have screwed up the job terribly, but they need to do better to be a SC-worthy team, year-in, year-out...then again, that is exactly what DW had managed!

For me the burden comes down to development.

Drafting...this is where I kind of don't see it. Everyone saw the talent of guys like Bernier, Morris, Kaspar...even sub-optimal picks like Michalek or Carle, the talent was clear-as-day. Of course, you can then question the Mueller (my bias aside) pick or the Petrecki pick (though given the time he was picked, there was some sense in that selection)), the Hennessey pick, the Wrenn pick...the number of picks where the talent is not apparent (where the Sharks are almost always going for size or defensive prowess vs. speed or skill) is so small that I think it perfectly acceptable for even the best-drafting team in the league.

Development though, that is a bigger issue. Of course, we've heard the negative things about Kaspar, Bernier, Viedensky, Petrecki, Doherty...but you have to think that players that were so prolific in juniors, that you could just squeeze more out of them.



It has definitely been helped by the fact that DW has gotten great return for declining players. The only players I can remember DW "selling low" on were Gorges, Carle, Ehrhoff, Bonino, and possibly Coyle. Well, and Kipprusoff, of course.
Erhoff and bonino hurt the worst as they were pretty much given awY for free. I can live with kipprusoff due to the fact that turned out to be Vlasic. We were fortunate there as well a 2nd?

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 01:18 AM
  #31
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockfan1991 View Post
Erhoff and bonino hurt the worst as they were pretty much given awY for free. I can live with kipprusoff due to the fact that turned out to be Vlasic. We were fortunate there as well a 2nd?
Kiprusoff was not traded for a stud prospect. He was traded for a second-round-pick. That is horrific value, considering. Contextually, of course I agree 100% with DW making that trade...Nabakov and Toskala had soundly outplayed a pouting Kiprusoff. At some point you have to reward performance over potential.

Ehrhoff was a cap dump. It is hard to fault DW for that move specifically; however, he got into the cap trouble. I'd have preferred Ehrhoff over Blake, for example. Had he managed to dump Cheechoo (a big IF) somewhere, I'd have preferred Ehrhoff + Michalek over Heatley. Not like DW had to move Ehrhoff to make room for Dan Boyle or JT/PM's contract extension.

Plus, Ehrhoff's biggest issue here was his playoff play; I still don't think he has answered those questions. In any case, DW could have gotten more.

Bonino...no complaints because of SJ's forward depth. I don't see how he gets the opportunities in SJ, that he's been getting in Anaheim. It is probably between him and Wingels for a roster spot, and Wingels plays the game Tmac prefers...

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 02:02 AM
  #32
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Kiprusoff was not traded for a stud prospect. He was traded for a second-round-pick. That is horrific value, considering. Contextually, of course I agree 100% with DW making that trade...Nabakov and Toskala had soundly outplayed a pouting Kiprusoff. At some point you have to reward performance over potential.

Ehrhoff was a cap dump. It is hard to fault DW for that move specifically; however, he got into the cap trouble. I'd have preferred Ehrhoff over Blake, for example. Had he managed to dump Cheechoo (a big IF) somewhere, I'd have preferred Ehrhoff + Michalek over Heatley. Not like DW had to move Ehrhoff to make room for Dan Boyle or JT/PM's contract extension.

Plus, Ehrhoff's biggest issue here was his playoff play; I still don't think he has answered those questions. In any case, DW could have gotten more.

Bonino...no complaints because of SJ's forward depth. I don't see how he gets the opportunities in SJ, that he's been getting in Anaheim. It is probably between him and Wingels for a roster spot, and Wingels plays the game Tmac prefers...
Yes I agree the second is terrible value. I'm saying because that big if turned to Vlasic I don't worry about it much. They were fortunate. As for Christian I believe he was coming off a 40 pt plus season and you move him? What is even worse is he still had a year or 2 left on the contract. Even if you hang on to him and he walks and you get another year or out if him to contend. That is better then a second. At the same time i don't believe ernhoff would of ever put up those numbers he did with the Canucks in sj. Boyle was in his prime and he was gonna get the bulk of the time.

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 03:21 AM
  #33
matt trick
Registered User
 
matt trick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: United States
Posts: 7,837
vCash: 500
The biggest issue with the Ehrhoff trade was that he went to one of the top 5 teams in the conference (Det, Van, Chi, SJ, Ana). It was hardly surprisingly the Nucks and Sharks met in the playoffs.

I would be that Lukowich kept people from taking on Ehrhoff, but I'd have rather traded Ehrhoff for a 7th then to Vancouver for a 2nd. Bad asset management, but you can't give a major rival a top pairing d-man for a late 2nd (I think it was also expected to be a poor draft, but can't recall).

Also, I remember reading Minnesota was somewhat interested in Cheechoo. I'd have rather given them a 2nd to take him and kept Ehrhoff and Michalek, and I believe this at the time. I thought Wilson got Heatley cheap, but preferred their speed for a lesser cap hit.

The key question is, would Minnesota have been willing to take Cheech even if they weren't 100% confident in his abilities?

matt trick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 04:51 AM
  #34
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,410
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
Ehrhoff was a cap dump. It is hard to fault DW for that move specifically; however, he got into the cap trouble. I'd have preferred Ehrhoff over Blake, for example. Had he managed to dump Cheechoo (a big IF) somewhere, I'd have preferred Ehrhoff + Michalek over Heatley. Not like DW had to move Ehrhoff to make room for Dan Boyle or JT/PM's contract extension.
While I too would have preferred to keep Ehrhoff over Blake, you have to consider than Blake came off a very strong 08-09 season. He was much more of our #1 than Boyle that season (who was playing very sheltered minutes). Now, I think it's fair to say that DW should have foreseen Blake's decline (although not to the extent that he did in 09-10), but during the 08-09 season Blake was clearly superior to Ehrhoff and for a team trying to contend I can understand the decision to keep Blake over Ehrhoff, although I disagreed with it then and do now.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 07:45 AM
  #35
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,302
vCash: 2283
Kiprusoff for a 2nd was not poor value at the time. They had very little choice there. It was either waive him and lose him for nothing, keep three goalies, or trade him for what you could which was that.

The Ehrhoff trade was easily the worst trade DW made. It was unnecessary and it was self-inflicted that helped a direct competitor get to one game from the Cup. Being a cap dump is no excuse for that trade when he was better than most of the guys they kept. I disagree that his playoff play was in question. He was a good two-way d-man in San Jose for the playoffs while he was carrying Murray or playing injured.

And Orr, to say it's between him and Wingels for a spot is sort of ridiculous. He would've went the route Couture and Pavelski took. He would've gotten a chance on the 3rd or 4th lines at some point and proven his worth there. There were spots there over the years and there still is.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 11:40 AM
  #36
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 18,233
vCash: 50
Kipper never played well in SJ. I was surprised they got a 2nd for him at the time.

Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 11:57 AM
  #37
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clowe Me View Post
Kipper never played well in SJ. I was surprised they got a 2nd for him at the time.
As the years progressed and cslgary got a vezina caliber goalie for ten years is what I meant by bad value the first few years. Thruth is your right. When that trade began it was really still an unknown vs a second unknown which seemed to workout for both parties . I gave to say in the beginning looked like flames hosed us .

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 12:04 PM
  #38
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,302
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockfan1991 View Post
As the years progressed and cslgary got a vezina caliber goalie for ten years is what I meant by bad value the first few years. Thruth is your right. When that trade began it was really still an unknown vs a second unknown which seemed to workout for both parties . I gave to say in the beginning looked like flames hosed us .
The Sharks were in a bad spot with having three waiver-eligible goalies that all deserved playing time. The bottom line was Kipper was #3 at the time and it wasn't really close. Plenty of people will say he was the most talented which probably was the truth but he hadn't earned the spot. A 2nd round pick for an unproven goalie is a lot better than losing him for nothing. That was their choice.

The only reason why it looked bad was because Kipper ended up beating the Sharks that same year. But if he doesn't get traded, he probably doesn't get that opportunity. They made the best of that situation and did the right thing...luckily for them, they picked up a quality shutdown d-man with what they received from it.

If they had the motivated Kipper when he was competing for the job, maybe the Sharks win it all in 2004. But the trade helped him flip the switch.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 02:21 PM
  #39
Clowe Me
Registered User
 
Clowe Me's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: 530
Country: Uzbekistan
Posts: 18,233
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockfan1991 View Post
As the years progressed and cslgary got a vezina caliber goalie for ten years is what I meant by bad value the first few years. Thruth is your right. When that trade began it was really still an unknown vs a second unknown which seemed to workout for both parties . I gave to say in the beginning looked like flames hosed us .
It was horrible in the 03-04 season. He went from giving up softies on the regular with the Sharks to ending their season. Something just clicked when he changed jerseys, not sure if it was confidence from being the undisputed #1 or what, but he had the chance multiple times in San Jose to be the guy and he couldn't do it.


Last edited by Clowe Me: 02-11-2014 at 02:45 PM.
Clowe Me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 09:15 PM
  #40
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Kiprusoff for a 2nd was not poor value at the time. They had very little choice there. It was either waive him and lose him for nothing, keep three goalies, or trade him for what you could which was that.

The Ehrhoff trade was easily the worst trade DW made. It was unnecessary and it was self-inflicted that helped a direct competitor get to one game from the Cup. Being a cap dump is no excuse for that trade when he was better than most of the guys they kept. I disagree that his playoff play was in question. He was a good two-way d-man in San Jose for the playoffs while he was carrying Murray or playing injured.

And Orr, to say it's between him and Wingels for a spot is sort of ridiculous. He would've went the route Couture and Pavelski took. He would've gotten a chance on the 3rd or 4th lines at some point and proven his worth there. There were spots there over the years and there still is.
There was some speculation, which I had forgotten about, that Lukowich was a really toxic asset...that is why DW had to go to Vancouver. Especially if you say that Blake > Ehrhoff and Cheechoo was similarly toxic.

I don't think Bonino would have gotten that kind of chance here. San Jose has been running three much better centers for two years now. Does he topple Desi in a fourth-line role? His best chance to crack the roster would have been in 2011-2012...and he almost definitely wouldn't have made it. In other years...I doubt he plays over Gomez/Clowe/Mcginn...maybe that is an issue with the team philosophy, but that is what it is. Considering his lack of speed, I can easily imagine him being the odd man out on a roster that is trying to become faster.

I've heard from Anaheim fans that Bonino also gets ridiculously sheltered minutes. I am 90% sure he gets no PP time on the SJ roster.

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 11:02 PM
  #41
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 32,302
vCash: 2283
Quote:
Originally Posted by OrrNumber4 View Post
There was some speculation, which I had forgotten about, that Lukowich was a really toxic asset...that is why DW had to go to Vancouver. Especially if you say that Blake > Ehrhoff and Cheechoo was similarly toxic.

I don't think Bonino would have gotten that kind of chance here. San Jose has been running three much better centers for two years now. Does he topple Desi in a fourth-line role? His best chance to crack the roster would have been in 2011-2012...and he almost definitely wouldn't have made it. In other years...I doubt he plays over Gomez/Clowe/Mcginn...maybe that is an issue with the team philosophy, but that is what it is. Considering his lack of speed, I can easily imagine him being the odd man out on a roster that is trying to become faster.

I've heard from Anaheim fans that Bonino also gets ridiculously sheltered minutes. I am 90% sure he gets no PP time on the SJ roster.
Define a really toxic asset. If he managed his contracts and assets properly, he wouldn't have had to dump an impact player like Ehrhoff onto a rival. The Ehrhoff/Blake comparison isn't even relevant if he handles free agent negotiations better.

As for Bonino, I think it's hilarious that you think he wouldn't get a shot on this team. How many times has the team gone out and made a trade for a role player type over the past few years? How often has the team's second unit sucked and been mixed around with personnel due to ineffectiveness? Of course he would've gotten a shot. It's not as if Couture and Pavelski originally got their opportunities playing center when they came up. They frequently were moved to wing. Couture went to Malhotra's wing originally. Pavelski was originally on Marleau's wing. Just because they have some proven centers doesn't mean Bonino wouldn't have gotten a shot...it just may have been on someone's wing to start.

The sheltered argument doesn't hold much water. Generally, you will get one of your top three lines as the sheltered line depending on who is capable of handling the tougher minutes as a unit. I doubt you will hold it against Thornton that he has been sheltered recently when Marleau and Couture were put together against the other team's best.

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 11:09 PM
  #42
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinkfloyd View Post
Define a really toxic asset. If he managed his contracts and assets properly, he wouldn't have had to dump an impact player like Ehrhoff onto a rival. The Ehrhoff/Blake comparison isn't even relevant if he handles free agent negotiations better.

As for Bonino, I think it's hilarious that you think he wouldn't get a shot on this team. How many times has the team gone out and made a trade for a role player type over the past few years? How often has the team's second unit sucked and been mixed around with personnel due to ineffectiveness? Of course he would've gotten a shot. It's not as if Couture and Pavelski originally got their opportunities playing center when they came up. They frequently were moved to wing. Couture went to Malhotra's wing originally. Pavelski was originally on Marleau's wing. Just because they have some proven centers doesn't mean Bonino wouldn't have gotten a shot...it just may have been on someone's wing to start.

The sheltered argument doesn't hold much water. Generally, you will get one of your top three lines as the sheltered line depending on who is capable of handling the tougher minutes as a unit. I doubt you will hold it against Thornton that he has been sheltered recently when Marleau and Couture were put together against the other team's best.
As couture went down and pavs stopped scoring you can see how much thorntons pt production went down. Everyone's did but a big part of it has to do with couture not taking on that top comp. really show how valuable he is and how much it allows others to produce

hockfan1991 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-11-2014, 11:18 PM
  #43
WTFetus
Moderator
Most popular
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 11,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockfan1991 View Post
As couture went down and pavs stopped scoring you can see how much thorntons pt production went down. Everyone's did but a big part of it has to do with couture not taking on that top comp. really show how valuable he is and how much it allows others to produce
I think a bigger part had to do with what you said earlier: "pavs stopped scoring".
Thornton's point production didn't really stop until the end of January, a long time after Couture went down. And that was because he just sucked. I recall Thornton going against top-comp some games right when they put Pavelski on his line after Hertl went down (more often after Couture went down), and they still produced.

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-12-2014, 12:33 AM
  #44
hockfan1991
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,327
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
I think a bigger part had to do with what you said earlier: "pavs stopped scoring".
Thornton's point production didn't really stop until the end of January, a long time after Couture went down. And that was because he just sucked. I recall Thornton going against top-comp some games right when they put Pavelski on his line after Hertl went down (more often after Couture went down), and they still produced.
Haven't looked at all the numbers. Just feel that if pavs wouldn't have gone on such a tear thorntons struggles would have been a little more evident early. I have no doubt that ok after the Olympic break when we have couture back we will start to see Thornton look like he did the first. 3 months of the season. Whether that is a little bit of rest or taken on second tier comp. I don't care I will take it

hockfan1991 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 11:21 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.