HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Jean Ratelle

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-07-2014, 07:23 PM
  #26
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
His era's Pierre Turgeon, who history has treated very differently.

One of the worst post-season performers of all time.
Pretty much this, one guy sure gets treated better here than the other guy, the weakness of the 70's really gets overlooked at times.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-07-2014, 09:20 PM
  #27
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 15,607
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Pretty much this, one guy sure gets treated better here than the other guy, the weakness of the 70's really gets overlooked at times.
It's interesting. In the last 25 years or so, we have all kinds of top players with major 'negative narratives' about their careers. Turgeon, Lindros, Housley, Mogilny, and the like. These were great players for an extended period of time but at the end of their careers they're viewed with almost a sense of negativity for their character/defensive play or whatever, and these flaws are viewed almost at par with their achievements.

Before 1980, this phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Amongst players who played 10 or so years at a pretty high level (much less at a great level), they're viewed pretty much to a man in a universally positive fashion. There's no such thing as a Pierre Turgeon who produced elite numbers but is viewed as something a of a bum in spite of it.

A few things probably changed - the tone of media reporting has changed completely, more games and information are available to the public, and understanding of the game has grown. Plus things probably just get romanticized in a positive way over time.

But can you imagine the reaction today if a superstar center scored 9 goals in 65 playoff games (while being a perennial 35-45 goal scorer) for a permanently contending team, as Ratelle did? This guy would get torn to shreds a la Joe Thornton in todays NHL.

MS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 01:44 AM
  #28
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
His era's Pierre Turgeon, who history has treated very differently.

One of the worst post-season performers of all time.
I wouldn't quite go that far either. I would say he was his generation's "Joe Thornton" in the postseason as a Ranger but he eventually came together later in his career with the Bruins. Sort of like Selanne's playoff career curve but without a Cup, yet awfully close. Also, Pierre Turgeon never won a Pearson Award directly against Phil Esposito or Bobby Orr (even if that win in 1972 is a bit controversial). He also has a pretty good Hart record, or at least noticeably better than Turgeon's:

Hart - 4, 6, 6, 6, 8, 14

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's hard to quantify how major and to what degree these surgeries affected Jean, he played full seasons or close to it until 1967 when he plays in 41 games and suddenly breaks out the next year, expansion year at the age of 27.

he does age well but the league grows rapidly in the 70's with little or no influx of new talent streams an competition from the WHA actually weakens the NHL product and level of competition greatly as well, making a rather ideal context for those players who aged on the top teams, like Montreal and Boston and even the NYR to a degree.
Could have been a lot to do with his injuries in 1967. He has what you would think were break out type of years the two years earlier, or at least established years. It isn't as if he couldn't produce in the Original 6 days because he did fine despite being younger. A lot of HHOFers had a coincidental (or not) breakout around expansion. Gerry Cheevers, Rod Gilbert, to an extent Phil Esposito. The difference being starting in 1967-'68 the NHL was still the NHL and everyone was competing against each other still. But heck, the original 6 was hard, I don't understand how people can't see that. 120 players, that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's easy to see how Jean could get close to 50 goals with the goalies, their equipment and flopping stand up style back in the 70's.

Heck Henrik Sedin would be a consistent 30 goal scorer back then as well and maybe even take 150 plus SOG a year.
Ratelle had 46 goals one year and then 41. Other than that never 40 again. I don't know what you mean, despite 491 career goals he was more like a Francis-type with the goal scoring, more like 30+ goals a year. Still can't see Henrik Sedin doing any better. But if he is going against those so-called easy goalies make sure he doesn't have a helmet and has the proper 1970s skates and sticks to go with it. Then we'll talk.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 01:55 AM
  #29
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
It's interesting. In the last 25 years or so, we have all kinds of top players with major 'negative narratives' about their careers. Turgeon, Lindros, Housley, Mogilny, and the like. These were great players for an extended period of time but at the end of their careers they're viewed with almost a sense of negativity for their character/defensive play or whatever, and these flaws are viewed almost at par with their achievements.

Before 1980, this phenomenon simply doesn't exist. Amongst players who played 10 or so years at a pretty high level (much less at a great level), they're viewed pretty much to a man in a universally positive fashion. There's no such thing as a Pierre Turgeon who produced elite numbers but is viewed as something a of a bum in spite of it.

A few things probably changed - the tone of media reporting has changed completely, more games and information are available to the public, and understanding of the game has grown. Plus things probably just get romanticized in a positive way over time.

But can you imagine the reaction today if a superstar center scored 9 goals in 65 playoff games (while being a perennial 35-45 goal scorer) for a permanently contending team, as Ratelle did? This guy would get torn to shreds a la Joe Thornton in todays NHL.
But he is criticized for that around here. However, as is always mentioned he was a big part of the Bruins runs later in his career and he did well then. He made up for it to an extent. But there certainly are some names that come up such as Dionne when it comes to players who put up big numbers but have some negative vibes about them. Before that, Flash Hollett.

But I think the difference being in the original 6 there wasn't a players' union then either. The players knew they had to perform day in and day out. When the league consists of 120 of the best in the world and guys in the minors just waiting for you to screw up so that they take your place, you tend to not get many Pierre Turgeon-like players.

It isn't as if there aren't some good things about Turgeon, but to compare him to Ratelle one thing stands out, Ratelle's top 10 finishes in points and Hart trophy voting history trumps Turgeon's without a doubt. So you may think there is some romanticizing going on about a player (Ratelle) who did have some faults to him, but it is clear during that time he was more revered in his playing days than Turgeon was, and that's what matters most. That is the clearest thing you can look at and Ratelle wins this contest.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 09:43 AM
  #30
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 9,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But he is criticized for that around here. However, as is always mentioned he was a big part of the Bruins runs later in his career and he did well then. He made up for it to an extent. But there certainly are some names that come up such as Dionne when it comes to players who put up big numbers but have some negative vibes about them. Before that, Flash Hollett.

But I think the difference being in the original 6 there wasn't a players' union then either. The players knew they had to perform day in and day out. When the league consists of 120 of the best in the world and guys in the minors just waiting for you to screw up so that they take your place, you tend to not get many Pierre Turgeon-like players.

It isn't as if there aren't some good things about Turgeon, but to compare him to Ratelle one thing stands out, Ratelle's top 10 finishes in points and Hart trophy voting history trumps Turgeon's without a doubt. So you may think there is some romanticizing going on about a player (Ratelle) who did have some faults to him, but it is clear during that time he was more revered in his playing days than Turgeon was, and that's what matters most. That is the clearest thing you can look at and Ratelle wins this contest.
Good point about the original 6 era.

In the 70's, the Turgeon types were in the WHA. Anyone doubt that Turgeon wouldn't have jumped there if it existed during his career?

Dennis Bonvie is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 10:32 AM
  #31
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,175
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Pretty much this, one guy sure gets treated better here than the other guy, the weakness of the 70's really gets overlooked at times.
I agree that at times the 70's was weaker than other eras, but aren't you one of the posters arguing that the 80's was weak as well? By the 79-80 season, the WHA was gone and professional hockey at its highest level had contracted from a high of 34? teams in the mid-70's to 21 teams. Add in the influx of more Europeans and the NHL hadn't been this strong since the 06 era. Of course 99 enters the NHL in the season mentioned above and scoring stays pretty much the same sans seasons from Orr and Espo until Gretzky starts to separate himself from the pack...significantly.

LeBlondeDemon10 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 12:15 PM
  #32
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
I agree that at times the 70's was weaker than other eras, but aren't you one of the posters arguing that the 80's was weak as well? By the 79-80 season, the WHA was gone and professional hockey at its highest level had contracted from a high of 34? teams in the mid-70's to 21 teams. Add in the influx of more Europeans and the NHL hadn't been this strong since the 06 era. Of course 99 enters the NHL in the season mentioned above and scoring stays pretty much the same sans seasons from Orr and Espo until Gretzky starts to separate himself from the pack...significantly.
It goes in phases and isn't exactly linear as talent is always the same.

the thing is that the real influx from Europe didn't hit full stride until Turgeon was in the NHL and even talent from Canada wasn't as diverse in the 60's and 70's like it would be when Turgeon was playing.

Ratelle was a part time NHL' er, even when he broke out he barley made top 20 in a 6 team league, not overly impressive.

sure he hit stride after expansion and then did well in the playoffs when he hit Boston but there are a lot of red flags to his career and greatness as well. top 10 finishes in the all Canadian 70's and smaller NHL is alot different than an all world inclusive better NHL in the 90's for Turgeon but it gets overlooked or downplayed in despite the obvious numbers and top 20 scoring inclusion of many non Canadians later on.

but instead a guy like Turgeon and Ratelle get compared on their top 10 finishes like they played in the same years or something, really boggles the mind sometimes.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 06-08-2014 at 12:55 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 01:31 PM
  #33
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
The vast majority of those points were in opening-round series against hopelessly overmatched Pittsburgh Penguin and LA King squads.

His playoff performances with NYR are probably the worst ever from any single elite player playing for a contending team - just utterly abysmal. His 1972 Summit Series performance (coming off his best season in 1971-72) was very mediocre and he ended up being a healthy scratch at points when it would have been expected he'd be a core cog.

Scoring a pile of points early in the playoffs against bottom feeders doesn't redeem him. Yeah, he was a little bit better later in the playoffs as a Bruin, but not a hell of a lot.
First of all, the claim that he scored the "vast majority" of his points against L.A. and Pittsburgh is false. Of the 56 playoff points he had with the Bruins, 26 were against L.A. and Pittsburgh. The other 30 were against Montreal and Philadelphia- the two top defensive teams in the league. He scored at a higher rate per game against the weaker teams, but everybody did so I don't see what the argument is. He was still producing against the top teams. And the "hopelessly overmatched" Kings took the Bruins to 7 games in '76. Ratelle had two goals and an assist in the 3-0 Game 7 victory. Does Boston even win that series without him? I think scoring against Rogie Vachon in '76 is a bit more impressive than scoring against Beaupre and Tabaracci in '93.

Secondly his time with the Rangers: the numbers are disappointing, but calling it the worst ever is a ridiculous exaggeration. In '67 and '72 he was playing off major injuries and obviously not at full strength. He had good years in '71 and '73. So that leaves just a few subpar years, just like every player has had. And while the low goal totals with New York are cited repeatedly, he was always a playmaker more than a goalscorer. He still had more assists in the playoffs from '67 to '75 than any other Ranger, so what does that say about the rest of the team?

He was a "little bit better" in Boston? He had more playoff points from '76 to '79 than any other non-Montreal player. How much better would he need to be to impress you? And are you being this critical towards other players? For example, did Daniel Alfredsson's big year in '07 not come close to redeeming his weak playoff performances in the years leading up to that? It seems that only Ratelle needs to have more than four years as a top scorer to overcome any weak ones.


About the Summit Series: Ratelle only missed two games. Sinden did a lot of shuffling and tinkering with the roster until he found the lineup that would work best. When he settled on his choices for the last three games, which Canada won, Ratelle was on it. That should show how highly he was thought of, considering that centres the calibre of Mikita and Perreault were left off. And his performance was better than mediocre. Had a poor Game 1 (not the only Canadian guilty of that), but was very good in the other five games. 60% wins on faceoffs, 37-18 scoring chances ratio at even-strength. You can't ask for much better.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 01:40 PM
  #34
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's easy to see how Jean could get close to 50 goals with the goalies, their equipment and flopping stand up style back in the 70's.

Heck Henrik Sedin would be a consistent 30 goal scorer back then as well and maybe even take 150 plus SOG a year.
Except that if Sedin played in the 70s and scored 30 goals a year, you'd be saying that he's overrated because he played in the 70s, and everyone who played in the 70s was overrated.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-08-2014, 10:32 PM
  #35
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Except that if Sedin played in the 70s and scored 30 goals a year, you'd be saying that he's overrated because he played in the 70s, and everyone who played in the 70s was overrated.
Not sure about everyone from the 70's being over rated but if we don't take into account the era differences then yes many are and will be as evidenced by some of the major projects done on here.

The fact of the matter is that the NHL expanded really rapidly and without new talent streams to keep up with that expansion.

I have gone over this in other threads and just the basic amount of research will inform people as to the dilution of talent in the NHL from the late 06 era to the mid 70's NHL.

Jean was basically a part time NHL player until expansion, minus the 1 year were he place tied for 18th in league scoring, which sounds way more impressive than it is when one really looks at it.

MS hit the nail on the head (post 27 in this thread) when guys from the 70's previous sure get treated on a different level around here in many cases.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2014, 03:02 AM
  #36
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
First of all, the claim that he scored the "vast majority" of his points against L.A. and Pittsburgh is false. Of the 56 playoff points he had with the Bruins, 26 were against L.A. and Pittsburgh. The other 30 were against Montreal and Philadelphia- the two top defensive teams in the league. He scored at a higher rate per game against the weaker teams, but everybody did so I don't see what the argument is. He was still producing against the top teams. And the "hopelessly overmatched" Kings took the Bruins to 7 games in '76. Ratelle had two goals and an assist in the 3-0 Game 7 victory. Does Boston even win that series without him? I think scoring against Rogie Vachon in '76 is a bit more impressive than scoring against Beaupre and Tabaracci in '93.

Secondly his time with the Rangers: the numbers are disappointing, but calling it the worst ever is a ridiculous exaggeration. In '67 and '72 he was playing off major injuries and obviously not at full strength. He had good years in '71 and '73. So that leaves just a few subpar years, just like every player has had. And while the low goal totals with New York are cited repeatedly, he was always a playmaker more than a goalscorer. He still had more assists in the playoffs from '67 to '75 than any other Ranger, so what does that say about the rest of the team?

He was a "little bit better" in Boston? He had more playoff points from '76 to '79 than any other non-Montreal player. How much better would he need to be to impress you? And are you being this critical towards other players? For example, did Daniel Alfredsson's big year in '07 not come close to redeeming his weak playoff performances in the years leading up to that? It seems that only Ratelle needs to have more than four years as a top scorer to overcome any weak ones.


About the Summit Series: Ratelle only missed two games. Sinden did a lot of shuffling and tinkering with the roster until he found the lineup that would work best. When he settled on his choices for the last three games, which Canada won, Ratelle was on it. That should show how highly he was thought of, considering that centres the calibre of Mikita and Perreault were left off. And his performance was better than mediocre. Had a poor Game 1 (not the only Canadian guilty of that), but was very good in the other five games. 60% wins on faceoffs, 37-18 scoring chances ratio at even-strength. You can't ask for much better.
Ok, I've seen only a few of Boston's playoff games vs. Montreal 1977-79, but at least in those games Ratelle performed very well - doing so many things out there both offensively and defensively*. I'm not really buying that he was a weak/mediocre playoff performer in Boston.

In the 1972 Summit Series, IMO his performance could be called slightly disappointing. I think that Ratelle should've been one of the scoring stars in the series rather than 'a defensive role player' (although he performed his duties pretty well). Much of that resulted from the G-A-G line not clicking in the first game, I guess. However, a nice goal in the 3rd game & nifty play with Park in the final game which resulted to Canada's 2nd goal.

Winning faceoffs against the Soviets in 1972 was something that could've been expected from a Canadian centre

edit:
* points-wise, though, Ratelle's only big series vs. Montreal (1977-79) was the '79 semifinals


Last edited by VMBM: 06-09-2014 at 04:07 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2014, 09:07 AM
  #37
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VMBM View Post

Winning faceoffs against the Soviets in 1972 was something that could've been expected from a Canadian centre
True, but Ratelle and Espo were a significant step higher than the rest of the Canadians at it.

Faceoff stats from the Richard Bendell book on the series:

Canada
Esposito 61%
Ratelle 60%
Berenson 55%
Mahovlich 54%
Perreault 53%
Mikita 53%
Clarke 52%

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-09-2014, 09:45 AM
  #38
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Jean was basically a part time NHL player until expansion, minus the 1 year were he place tied for 18th in league scoring, which sounds way more impressive than it is when one really looks at it.
No, I don't see how that sounds more impressive than it is. Please explain.

It's already been mentioned in this thread that he had two back surgeries before expansion. It's not like he was a healthy scratch who wasn't good enough to play. He'd made the team permanently by the time he was 24, and had put in several NHL games in the years prior. Not uncommon in a 6 team league for a player to not become a regular until that age, but I fail to see what it has to do with accomplishments later in his career. Are you seriously trying to imply that he wouldn't have become a great player if not for expansion? The best players are the best players regardless of how many teams are in the league. I don't see how adding teams makes a top 10 finish less impressive.

What about Tim Thomas? He didn't become a starter in the NHL until he was 31. Does that somehow diminish the Vezinas he won after that? Since he wasn't a starter before the lockout, should we assume he wouldn't be good enough to play had there never been a lockout? Replace lockout with expansion, and that's the type of logic you're using.

And what about the KHL? There's a lot of players over there who are good enough to be first-liners in the NHL. There's less Russians in the NHL now than 10 years ago. Should todays NHL be considered inferior because of that?

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2014, 10:30 PM
  #39
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
True, but Ratelle and Espo were a significant step higher than the rest of the Canadians at it.

Faceoff stats from the Richard Bendell book on the series:

Canada
Esposito 61%
Ratelle 60%
Berenson 55%
Mahovlich 54%
Perreault 53%
Mikita 53%
Clarke 52%
Soviets were historically poor in the dot and it's such a small sample.

Clarke has a reputation as a very good FO guy, for instance.

Even if a guy wins 6 face offs for every 4 he loses, how important is that in the big scheme of things?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-10-2014, 10:50 PM
  #40
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
No, I don't see how that sounds more impressive than it is. Please explain.
this can be explained many ways.

1) In a 6 team league there are 2 top lines per team so 6 guys per team or basically 36 scoring forwards in the league..a all Canadian league.

2) We have a guy like Sundin, for example, who actually has more consistent and impressive scoring finishes among Canadian players but it gets lost in all the non Canadian guys scoring in the 90's.

3) 6 teams is 6 teams less chance of variance in any given season affecting scoring finishes, in a 21 or 30 team league variance becomes much more of a factor, especially outside of absolute elite top end talent, which Ratelle never was.

Quote:
It's already been mentioned in this thread that he had two back surgeries before expansion. It's not like he was a healthy scratch who wasn't good enough to play. He'd made the team permanently by the time he was 24, and had put in several NHL games in the years prior. Not uncommon in a 6 team league for a player to not become a regular until that age, but I fail to see what it has to do with accomplishments later in his career.
I went over that earlier Ratelle was playing full seasons for the most part and much of it in the AHL, it's not like the NYR were a dynasty in the 60's like the Habs either cracking that team wouldn't have been hard for an elite talent, guys like Mikita did in Chicago


Quote:
Are you seriously trying to imply that he wouldn't have become a great player if not for expansion? The best players are the best players regardless of how many teams are in the league. I don't see how adding teams makes a top 10 finish less impressive.
See above for top 10 finishes and there is lot's of evidence that yes expansion did benefit Ratelle, maybe it was coincidence but like MS posts upthread, the benefit of the doubt is almost always given to players pre 80's in this forum by many posters here. Marcel Dionne is an exception though.

Quote:
What about Tim Thomas? He didn't become a starter in the NHL until he was 31. Does that somehow diminish the Vezinas he won after that? Since he wasn't a starter before the lockout, should we assume he wouldn't be good enough to play had there never been a lockout? Replace lockout with expansion, and that's the type of logic you're using.
Tim Thomas has a short great peak on that metric he does quite well, on the career metric much less so. Goalies are a whole different animal to position players and very apples to oranges in comparison.

Quote:
And what about the KHL? There's a lot of players over there who are good enough to be first-liners in the NHL. There's less Russians in the NHL now than 10 years ago. Should todays NHL be considered inferior because of that?
Lots of guys in the KHL who could be first liners in todays NHL? Radulov? Great individual skill but being an NHL first liner means even those players have to play defense, no doubt in a 70's or 80's type of environment guys like Radulov could have excelled in the NHL.

Which ones exactly, certainly it's a ton less than in the 70's right?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 07:30 PM
  #41
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It goes in phases and isn't exactly linear as talent is always the same.

the thing is that the real influx from Europe didn't hit full stride until Turgeon was in the NHL and even talent from Canada wasn't as diverse in the 60's and 70's like it would be when Turgeon was playing.

Ratelle was a part time NHL' er, even when he broke out he barley made top 20 in a 6 team league, not overly impressive.

sure he hit stride after expansion and then did well in the playoffs when he hit Boston but there are a lot of red flags to his career and greatness as well. top 10 finishes in the all Canadian 70's and smaller NHL is alot different than an all world inclusive better NHL in the 90's for Turgeon but it gets overlooked or downplayed in despite the obvious numbers and top 20 scoring inclusion of many non Canadians later on.

but instead a guy like Turgeon and Ratelle get compared on their top 10 finishes like they played in the same years or something, really boggles the mind sometimes.
I think this is nitpicking here. Do we ignore a guy's entire career just because when he was in his early to mid 20s he didn't stand out in a 6 team league? Was he not competing against NHL talent after 1967 as well? Somewhere along the lines the players thought he had a season above Orr and Esposito in 1972 going by his Pearson award. I don't think Ratelle had better seasons than them, but 109 points in 63 games is right on par PPG with Esposito that year. That's awfully impressive don't you think? Even in Turgeon's best year he never was close to a major award like that.

Instead of obsessing about the era they played in which you always seems to favour the most recent, I think you should ask yourself who you'd want on your team in a tight situation between Ratelle and Turgeon? Who would you want your best players to be?

Lastly, it isn't as if there weren't great players Ratelle was directly competing with for those major awards. It isn't as if Turgeon would have magically done better, because even in certain NHL seasons in his career when the forwards had a bit of a lull to them, he didn't stand out quite like Ratelle.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:48 PM
  #42
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I think this is nitpicking here. Do we ignore a guy's entire career just because when he was in his early to mid 20s he didn't stand out in a 6 team league? Was he not competing against NHL talent after 1967 as well? Somewhere along the lines the players thought he had a season above Orr and Esposito in 1972 going by his Pearson award. I don't think Ratelle had better seasons than them, but 109 points in 63 games is right on par PPG with Esposito that year. That's awfully impressive don't you think? Even in Turgeon's best year he never was close to a major award like that.
No we look at his entire career and the circumstances around it not just the parts that prop him up.

Well at least we should but like mentioned up thread by MS this happens a lot more with more recent guys than pre 80's guys with many posters in this section..

Seriously people hold up stuff like this and Clarke and his 3 Harts like bobby Orr wasn't the right guy that year or something.

Given Orr's unwavering status as the number 1 Dmen of all time by almost everyone on here, one really has to question on why people want to have it both ways and say that Ratelle in 63 games that year had anything near the same impact as Orr did.

Jean did have a great season but it's a huge outlier on his career as his 1.73 PPG average is better than his 2nd best 1.34 and 1.31 by quite a bit.

Perhaps that peak season is better than Turgeon at his peak but Pierre had much more consistent success so he would win in that metric over Ratelle.

the thing is that they are probably prety clsoe but Turgeon doesn't get a sniff because of the era he plays in and Ratelle does better than he should for his peak which isn't great and even less so when considering Candian finishes standard.

Quote:
Instead of obsessing about the era they played in which you always seems to favour the most recent,
Always?

I had Jean 2 and Mikita 4th on my all time center list (going off memory here with Stan), that reputation is a cop out.

You might be surprised with 2 of my top 5 wingers (at least being from the 06 as well)

The bottom line is that I actually try to compare apples with apples and there is a continuum of a Canadian standard through all the NHL history

Quote:
I think you should ask yourself who you'd want on your team in a tight situation between Ratelle and Turgeon? Who would you want your best players to be?
At their peaks it's probably Ratelle but over their entire careers there are some years and periods were I would want Pierre.

I think the thing is that some people treat this metric, and how they measure players as a 100% winner take all type of situation which is ridiculous IMO.

Jean has a horrible playoff resume pre Bruins and consistency should be part of the evaluation.

For instance I might prefer Holik over Ratelle at their absolute peaks in the playoffs but I certainly wouldn't take Holik over Jean.

That's off the top of my head but goes to show that Jean was hardly Foppa like in the playoffs.

Quote:
Lastly, it isn't as if there weren't great players Ratelle was directly competing with for those major awards. It isn't as if Turgeon would have magically done better, because even in certain NHL seasons in his career when the forwards had a bit of a lull to them, he didn't stand out quite like Ratelle.
Sure but in Turgeon's career there was a huge influx of goal scorers especially from Europe, and other top players as well from the US.

Even before the big push of players in the 90's that Turgeon competes against Ratelle doesn't have to compete with the best Czechs or Russians (the 2 main nations providing top not talent besides Canada in the 70's).

One can talk all about the top talent Ratelle had to face but 2 things are quite clear in the difference of the eras between Jean and Pierre

1) Jean only really competed against Candian talent in a 6,12,14 and up to 17 team league

2)Turgeon comes into the league in 88 only 4 or 5 years before the league is fully integrated and still even in a 21 team league for his first couple of years they is a large amount of non Canadian talent in the league, much more so than even in the last season for Jean in the early 80's.

Turgeon also plays half his career in the low scoring clutch and grab era which probably hurts his standing when people look at raw stats while Ratelle is helped with expansion greatly definitely not hurt by it at all.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 06-11-2014 at 11:53 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 12:20 AM
  #43
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
No we look at his entire career and the circumstances around it not just the parts that prop him up.

Well at least we should but like mentioned up thread by MS this happens a lot more with more recent guys than pre 80's guys with many posters in this section..

Seriously people hold up stuff like this and Clarke and his 3 Harts like bobby Orr wasn't the right guy that year or something.

Given Orr's unwavering status as the number 1 Dmen of all time by almost everyone on here, one really has to question on why people want to have it both ways and say that Ratelle in 63 games that year had anything near the same impact as Orr did.

Jean did have a great season but it's a huge outlier on his career as his 1.73 PPG average is better than his 2nd best 1.34 and 1.31 by quite a bit.

Perhaps that peak season is better than Turgeon at his peak but Pierre had much more consistent success so he would win in that metric over Ratelle.

the thing is that they are probably prety clsoe but Turgeon doesn't get a sniff because of the era he plays in and Ratelle does better than he should for his peak which isn't great and even less so when considering Candian finishes standard.
It doesn't matter if Ratelle's 1972 season was an outlier or not. Sure it was, but it still happened. Turgeon's 1993 season is an outlier in his career but it still counts doesn't it? As for forgetting about Orr during that time, I certainly didn't forget about Orr. I wouldn't take Ratelle on my team in 1972 over Orr, and as I said I can't say I agree with the Pearson Award either over Orr and Esposito, but I will say this, I'd have ranked him third that year. The thing I am saying is that wrong or right the fact that the players picked him has at least a little bit of weight to it.

And did Pierre really have more consistent success? He never had a good season after 2001, the year he turns 32. This isn't the case for Ratelle. He has his best season when he was 31-32. Then several good ones after this. Heck, he had 105 points as a 35 year old. Turgeon was an afterthought in the NHL at this time. So I think that's a difference.




Quote:
That's off the top of my head but goes to show that Jean was hardly Foppa like in the playoffs.
He wasn't Forsberg in the postseason, no. But we are comparing him to Pierre Turgeon in the postseason here, which isn't a lot to get excited about. Zero appearances in the Cup final.


Quote:
Sure but in Turgeon's career there was a huge influx of goal scorers especially from Europe, and other top players as well from the US.

Even before the big push of players in the 90's that Turgeon competes against Ratelle doesn't have to compete with the best Czechs or Russians (the 2 main nations providing top not talent besides Canada in the 70's).

One can talk all about the top talent Ratelle had to face but 2 things are quite clear in the difference of the eras between Jean and Pierre

1) Jean only really competed against Candian talent in a 6,12,14 and up to 17 team league

2)Turgeon comes into the league in 88 only 4 or 5 years before the league is fully integrated and still even in a 21 team league for his first couple of years they is a large amount of non Canadian talent in the league, much more so than even in the last season for Jean in the early 80's.

Turgeon also plays half his career in the low scoring clutch and grab era which probably hurts his standing when people look at raw stats while Ratelle is helped with expansion greatly definitely not hurt by it at all.
It doesn't really matter. You can't penalize Ratelle just because it was still basically an all-Canadian team when he played. It has nothing to do with it. If you flip both of them does Turgeon stand out more in the 1970s than Ratelle did? No, I don't think he does. And Canadian or not, look at Ratelle in 1976 for instance. He's 35 years old this year. He racks up 105 points. Look at the players in front of him:

Lafleur - 125
Clarke - 119
Perreault - 113
Barber - 112
Larouche - 111
Ratelle - 105
P. Mahovlich - 105
Pronovost - 104
Sittler - 100

Or he has 91 points in 1975. Even better names ahead of him (throw many of those names and then Orr, Esposito and Dionne into the mix).

So I think it matters very little where a players' place of birth was. Ask how he did against the rest of the pack and look at the names while you do it. He'd be a more valuable #1 center over Turgeon 8 days of week regardless of era.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:09 AM
  #44
pbgoalie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 528
vCash: 500
In one of his best seasons as a Ranger, he broke his ankle(or foot?) late in the season.
Rangers had a great season going and Ratelle (as well as Neilson) got injured
very late in the season ( I was young, don't remember the specifics)
really impacting a playoff run

pbgoalie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 02:02 AM
  #45
VMBM
Registered User
 
VMBM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,082
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Even before the big push of players in the 90's that Turgeon competes against Ratelle doesn't have to compete with the best Czechs or Russians (the 2 main nations providing top not talent besides Canada in the 70's).
Yes, although Ratelle would've still arguably been the top center in the Rangers & in the Bruins, and it's hard to see his career looking much worse as a result. Heck, having, say, Kharlamov as his left wing might have even boosted his numbers.

Good to see, though, that you consider the '70s non-NHL Soviets & Czechoslovaks 'competition' (for Canadian players). Sometimes one might think otherwise, when looking at some of your other posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbgoalie View Post
In one of his best seasons as a Ranger, he broke his ankle(or foot?) late in the season.
Rangers had a great season going and Ratelle (as well as Neilson) got injured
very late in the season ( I was young, don't remember the specifics)
really impacting a playoff run
It was the 1971-72 season (when he had 109 pts in 63 games).


Last edited by VMBM: 06-13-2014 at 02:11 AM.
VMBM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 01:40 PM
  #46
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,012
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It doesn't matter if Ratelle's 1972 season was an outlier or not. Sure it was, but it still happened. Turgeon's 1993 season is an outlier in his career but it still counts doesn't it? As for forgetting about Orr during that time, I certainly didn't forget about Orr. I wouldn't take Ratelle on my team in 1972 over Orr, and as I said I can't say I agree with the Pearson Award either over Orr and Esposito, but I will say this, I'd have ranked him third that year. The thing I am saying is that wrong or right the fact that the players picked him has at least a little bit of weight to it.
Quote:
And did Pierre really have more consistent success? He never had a good season after 2001, the year he turns 32. This isn't the case for Ratelle. He has his best season when he was 31-32. Then several good ones after this. Heck, he had 105 points as a 35 year old. Turgeon was an afterthought in the NHL at this time. So I think that's a difference.
Well yes he did actually did have good to excellent scoring rates from age 19-32 in a pretty strong league as well (comparatively speaking to Ratelle and the NHL in his tenure).

consistency is a metric Turgeon wins hands down to Ratelle and although Ratelle did age better (not as great as the stats would indicate though) it was in a favorable team and league environment.






Quote:
He wasn't Forsberg in the postseason, no. But we are comparing him to Pierre Turgeon in the postseason here, which isn't a lot to get excited about.
Turgeon had good to very good performance as a top player on 4 playoff teams, Jean basically sucked during his time in New York.

The move to Boston, which was already a premier team helped his legacy a ton.

Ratelle breaks out in the post season at age 35 after having perhaps one of the worst postseason records of any top 100 center before the age of 30,31,32,33, and 34.

Me thinks it's more of a case of Boston helping Jean's legacy more than Jean suddenly getting it at 35. Just a guess but his previous resume raises a huge Red Flag.

Quote:
Zero appearances in the Cup final.
Teams make finals not players, it's hardly a metric that is noticeable between the 2 players really.




Quote:
It doesn't really matter. You can't penalize Ratelle just because it was still basically an all-Canadian team when he played. It has nothing to do with it.
Yet you want to penalize Turgeon who does play in a league with many non Canadian stars.

Simply compare the common standard.

Quote:
If you flip both of them does Turgeon stand out more in the 1970s than Ratelle did? No, I don't think he does.
no idea and we can't flip them but we can compare them and consider factors of the league right?

Quote:
And Canadian or not, look at Ratelle in 1976 for instance. He's 35 years old this year. He racks up 105 points. Look at the players in front of him:

Lafleur - 125
Clarke - 119
Perreault - 113
Barber - 112
Larouche - 111[/B]
Ratelle - 105
[/B]P. Mahovlich - 105
Pronovost - 104[/B]
Sittler - 100

Or he has 91 points in 1975. Even better names ahead of him (throw many of those names and then Orr, Esposito and Dionne into the mix).
those 4 names highlighted really don't help your case here.

Barber is the best of the bunch and even he doesn't hit over 89 points again.

Larouche great talent, when he wanted to be and with thsoe 70's golaies he could exploit them...again when he wanted.

Pronovost see Barber and thanks to Larouche for that year.

Little M plays with Guy and has 2 peak seasons like this otherwise he is probably less of a scorer than Barber/Pronvost.

Looking at that year some weird stuff was going on the leaderboards, in terms of wild fluctuations for many guys on there.

Quote:
So I think it matters very little where a players' place of birth was. Ask how he did against the rest of the pack and look at the names while you do it. He'd be a more valuable #1 center over Turgeon 8 days of week regardless of era.
Place of birth doesn't matter, simply compare Jean with Pierre against Canadian talent in terms of finishes then, it's the constant standard.

Yet it is ignored and top 10, 20 ect... finishes from 1965 carry relatively the same weight as a top 10 finish in 96 which is absurd.

Context should matter right?


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 06-13-2014 at 01:47 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 06:59 PM
  #47
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well yes he did actually did have good to excellent scoring rates from age 19-32 in a pretty strong league as well (comparatively speaking to Ratelle and the NHL in his tenure).

consistency is a metric Turgeon wins hands down to Ratelle and although Ratelle did age better (not as great as the stats would indicate though) it was in a favorable team and league environment.

Ratelle was awfully consistent year after year as well starting in 1967 for the rest of his career. Not sure where you are going with this.

Look, whatever you want to say about downgrading players from past eras is your business, but if you really think Turgeon was revered more than Ratelle during his time in the NHL show me who it was who did this? Because right now Turgeon has one season where he got Hart votes. That was 1993. He finished 5th. If he has more years like this in a pretty competitive year like 1993 then we can talk. But he doesn't.

Furthermore, let's look at his all-star finishes at center. Ratelle blows him out of the water here that it shouldn't even be mentioned, but I will anyway. Turgeon finishes 6th in AS voting in 1990 and 1993. Other than that he's 8th a few other times. Even in the late 1990s/early 2000s which was a weak time for centers. He got lots of Byng votes year after year, but I'm not sure he even has that over Ratelle. Turgeon won the Byng once, Ratelle twice.

So where is it that Turgeon is in the same ballpark with him? You know, I tried this with a poster that will remain nameless about Denis Savard over Turgeon. It came down to the point where this poster was talking about how Savard had better goaltending in the postseason with the Hawks than Turgeon which explained the longer playoff runs. It didn't seem to matter that I repeatedly told him Murray Bannerman was in net for Savard's deepest and most prolific run as a Hawk.

So what gives? What is it with Turgeon that people obsess about? It reminds me of Housley. He was never very highly revered during his time, he was always that player that you'd have taken a dozen centers ahead of him. You can't say that about Ratelle.


Quote:
Turgeon had good to very good performance as a top player on 4 playoff teams, Jean basically sucked during his time in New York.

The move to Boston, which was already a premier team helped his legacy a ton.

Ratelle breaks out in the post season at age 35 after having perhaps one of the worst postseason records of any top 100 center before the age of 30,31,32,33, and 34.

Me thinks it's more of a case of Boston helping Jean's legacy more than Jean suddenly getting it at 35. Just a guess but his previous resume raises a huge Red Flag.
It isn't as if Turgeon didn't play on the best regular season team in the league at one time right? 2000 Blues ring a bell? 7 game series against the Sharks. 0 goals for Turgeon. 7 assists, but invisible during crunch time. Or the years with Buffalo earlier? He had opportunities. No one would have been surprised if St. Louis marched to the Cup final that year. The Hockey News picked them as their pre-playoff Cup winner.

Quote:
Teams make finals not players, it's hardly a metric that is noticeable between the 2 players really.
When one guy made three Cup finals and a bitter close semi-final that we still talk about 35 years later compared to the other guy who never got out of the semis then I think there is a difference here. You can't have it both ways Hardy. Either teams make the final and we acknowledge that certain individuals play a part in it or first round exits mean nothing.



Quote:
Yet you want to penalize Turgeon who does play in a league with many non Canadian stars.

Simply compare the common standard.
I don't though. Because the common standard is that there were still the same caliber of top-end players in the 1970s as there were in the 1990s. The fact that there were better third liners in the NHL during the 1990s means very little when talking about the elite of the league in any era. I mean, Ratelle racks up 105 points in 1976 and for whatever reason you don't like the players surrounding him in the scoring race. Fine. But it seems to me there was enough talent that the 1976 Canada Cup team couldn't find room for a 105 point player. Sounds like enough talent in the NHL don't you think?

Besides, Ratelle played in the 1972 series. If they picked 20 players instead of 35 he'd of been there too. When did Turgeon ever get a sniff of the World Cup/Olympic teams? If that doesn't tell you who the better player was...............

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 08:18 PM
  #48
space1999
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Ratelle's '72 Series faceoff stats & Intrasquad game scoring stats

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Soviets were historically poor in the dot and it's such a small sample.

Clarke has a reputation as a very good FO guy, for instance.

Even if a guy wins 6 face offs for every 4 he loses, how important is that in the big scheme of things?
Glad my '72 Series faceoff stats could help show another aspect of Ratelle's fine play. Originally I thought that Jean's play in the series was a bit disappointing, but I came to see he actually played much, much better than I realized before I wrote my book.

Ratelle was very effective on faceoffs, but also was a key guy that helped kill off the USSR's 2-man power play in the 2nd Period of Gm 6 along filling in for Peter Mahovlich (who started and ended that kill) and did fine work as well. Interestingly, Ratelle never was asked to help kill any during his 2 games in Canada, and beyond Gm 6 only helped kill off one in Gm 7, yet he was unscored upon during the 4 penalties he helped kill off. Maybe Sinden should have used him a lot more.

Regarding the small faceoff sample size, it's bigger than you might think.


1972 SUMMIT SERIES TEAM CDA GM 1-8 DETAILED FACEOFF STATS
Number of Faceoffs Won and % Won by Player

Game 1-4 Game 5-8 Ttl Game 1-8
# Player Name # draws % Won # draws % Won # draws % Won

18 J Ratelle 30 63.3% 73 58.9% 103 60.2%

Hopefully this will look ok in the post. The key thing to take from these results is that Jean took 103 known faceoffs and won 62 of 103 attempts, or 60.2%, so that's a pretty good number to judge by.


Another little known fact that I was able to document in the book is when I was able to reconstruct the game summaries for all three of Team Canada's Intrasquad games. Ratelle played pretty well, and was fantastic in Gm 2 getting 3 goals in Gm 2 and apparently could have had 4 or 5 goals if not for Dryden. And, even more impressive he did that seemingly by himself as writer's noted that his linemates appeared to be riding his coattails.

As a comparison here are the top scorers in those 3 games where the numbers are a bit squished you can see that Brad Park was superb with 6 points, as was some guy named Henderson with 5 pts

TEAM CANADA - 3 INTRASQUAD GAMES - SCORING STATS


# Player Games G A Pts PIM
5 Brad Park (W) 3 0 6 6 0 1
19 Paul Henderson (W) 3 3 2 5 4 2
18 Jean Ratelle (W) 3 3 1 4 0 3
7 Phil Esposito (R) 3 2 2 4 4 4
8 Rod Gilbert (W) 3 2 2 4 0 5
28 Bobby Clarke (W) 3 2 2 4 6 6
15 Red Berenson (W) 3 2 2 4 2 7
24 Mickey Redmond*(W) 3 2 2 4 2 8
6 Ron Ellis (W) 3 1 3 4 0 9
9 Bill Goldsworthy (R) 2 2 1 3 4 10
34 Marcel Dionne (R) 3 1 2 3 2 11
37 Jocelyn Guevremont(W) 3 1 2 3 0 12
11 Vic Hadfield*(W) 3 1 2 3 0 13

(note: the final # on the right is where they ranked in player scoring)


Richard

Author; 1972 – THE SUMMIT SERIES: Canada vs. USSR, Stats, Lies & Videotape, The UNTOLD Story of Hockey's Series of the Century
thesummitseries1972@yahoo.com | Facebook: www.facebook.com/72series | Twitter: www.twitter.com/72seriesbendell


Last edited by space1999: 11-29-2014 at 03:22 PM.
space1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-14-2014, 12:29 AM
  #49
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,528
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by space1999

Richard

1972 THE SUMMIT SERIES: Canada vs. USSR, Stats, Lies & Videotape, The UNTOLD Story of Hockey's Series of the Century
thesummitseries1972@yahoo.com | Facebook: www.facebook.com/72series | Twitter: www.twitter.com/72seriesbendell
I thought your book was excellent! Ordered it after reading a positive review of it on Joe Pelletier's blog. Probably the best book about the series since Sinden's back in the 70s. Nice balance between the anecdotes and stories surrounding the series, and all the detailed statistics that were included.

reckoning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-18-2014, 11:19 AM
  #50
space1999
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 15
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
I thought your book was excellent! Ordered it after reading a positive review of it on Joe Pelletier's blog. Probably the best book about the series since Sinden's back in the 70s. Nice balance between the anecdotes and stories surrounding the series, and all the detailed statistics that were included.
Thanks reckoning! I always appreciate any feedback and am very gratified that you really enjoyed the book.

It was and still is the only book I've ever written and my two main thoughts as I were doing it were:
a) don't screw it up and;
b) write the book I always wished I could buy about the 1972 Summit Series.


Richard

Author; 1972 – THE SUMMIT SERIES: Canada vs. USSR, Stats, Lies & Videotape, The UNTOLD Story of Hockey's Series of the Century
thesummitseries1972@yahoo.com | Facebook: www.facebook.com/72series | Twitter: www.twitter.com/72seriesbendell


Last edited by space1999: 11-29-2014 at 03:26 PM.
space1999 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 05:56 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.