HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Minnesota Wild
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

A Look Ahead: 2012 NHL Entry Draft

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2012, 11:57 AM
  #251
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
We just need to pick the best available player and go from there.

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 12:01 PM
  #252
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
We just need to pick the best available player and go from there.
As has already been hashed out (in this thread even) the concept of BPA is so incredibly worthless, it's not even funny anymore.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 12:06 PM
  #253
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
As has already been hashed out (in this thread even) the concept of BPA is so incredibly worthless, it's not even funny anymore.
Not necessarily. Especially for a young organization. You don't reach for a prospect that grades lower just because you need it.

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 12:11 PM
  #254
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
Not necessarily. Especially for a young organization. You don't reach for a prospect that grades lower just because you need it.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

The phrase "Best Player Available" is completely meaningless. It has absolutely no value, and probably should be stricken from the language because it quite literally means nothing.

Saying "we should pick the BPA" is akin to me answering the question "What do you want to eat?" with "Food."

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 01:09 PM
  #255
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,441
vCash: 500
BPA can only be judged in hindsight. Way too many examples of "sure things" that busted and guys "out of nowhere" with great careers.

I REALLY doubt that, where the Wild will pick (~10-12) there's going to be a player so clearly head and shoulders above the next that it's an issue beyond subjectivity.

Jarick is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 01:16 PM
  #256
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.

The phrase "Best Player Available" is completely meaningless. It has absolutely no value, and probably should be stricken from the language because it quite literally means nothing.

Saying "we should pick the BPA" is akin to me answering the question "What do you want to eat?" with "Food."
No, it's more like answering "I want to eat the food that I want to eat."

llamapalooza is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 01:18 PM
  #257
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,441
vCash: 500
"What food should we eat?"

"The best food."

"That's your opinion."

"No, it's a fact. I want to eat the best food."

Jarick is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 03:47 PM
  #258
keppel146
We love Bacon
 
keppel146's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: MinneSOta
Country: United States
Posts: 1,243
vCash: 500
how can you not take the best player avail? you have to. 2008 draft, "oh idk if we should take doughty b/c we need offense more. so im gonna take filatov instead"...

keppel146 is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:01 PM
  #259
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
to me the bpa always meant the best player available for us, not who the best is right now but who we feel will be best for our franchise down the road and who will help us the most.

i do agree its one of those stupid general phrases to answer a tough question with out saying anything of value.

to me in this draft we need to take the guy who'll have the most impact for our team.

we also have to remember that WJC u18 is still to be played and that there is the combine. last year at this time we would have been reaching for Brodin and Hubby would have been seen as a huge reach.

the biggest story will be written in the playoffs, it can really skyrocket a guy up the charts too.

forthewild is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:08 PM
  #260
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Apparently Derrick Pouliot had a good showing at the CHL Prospects game last night. Griffen Reinhart seems to have done wonders for opinions about him. Apparently he's really advanced his offensive game.

It seems like Murray is starting to tumble. Dumba's stock has taken a couple hits as well.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:12 PM
  #261
llamapalooza
Hockey State Expat
 
llamapalooza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 7,535
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
to me the bpa always meant the best player available for us, not who the best is right now but who we feel will be best for our franchise down the road and who will help us the most.

i do agree its one of those stupid general phrases to answer a tough question with out saying anything of value.

to me in this draft we need to take the guy who'll have the most impact for our team.

we also have to remember that WJC u18 is still to be played and that there is the combine. last year at this time we would have been reaching for Brodin and Hubby would have been seen as a huge reach.

the biggest story will be written in the playoffs, it can really skyrocket a guy up the charts too.
Huh, that's almost the exact opposite of what I always took it to mean. I thought it was shorthand for "we're going to draft the player with the most overall talent and potential, not the one that fills a specific need in the organization or fits a particular timeline."

llamapalooza is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:32 PM
  #262
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,441
vCash: 500
The concept of BPA is bunk because it's based on one of two false assumptions:

1. That there exists some kind of magical prospect ranking which foretells the careers of the prospects to be drafted and is available to all GM's

OR

2. That GM's would confer with their scouts who would unanimously decree one prospect to be clearly better than another, yet the GM would go against all recommendations and draft the inferior prospect to fill an immediate organizational need

Actually considering Risebrough, maybe some GM's are that stupid.

Anyways, #1 is clearly false because otherwise there would be no draft busts. #2 is incredibly difficult to believe. Again, the fate of many multi-million dollar executives and several-hundred-million dollar franchises hang in the balance of these decisions.

When people say "we need to take BPA", it means they have their own personal prospect ranking, and if there's any deviation from that ranking, the GM made a bad move. And considering most people are relying on second or third-hand accounts of players and other scouts' rankings, the opinions really should be taken with a grain of salt.

No GM goes into a draft and tells all the scouts to immediately cross all defensemen, or centers, or left wingers, or goalies off the drat board. It's ludicrous.

Conclusion: any competent GM will take the best player they deem is available at that time, unless they either trade down or up.

Jarick is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:33 PM
  #263
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamapalooza View Post
Huh, that's almost the exact opposite of what I always took it to mean. I thought it was shorthand for "we're going to draft the player with the most overall talent and potential, not the one that fills a specific need in the organization or fits a particular timeline."
I think the way you think of it is how most HF posters try to use it. The way that ftw uses it is more likely what a GM means if they use it.

My position about "BPA" has always been, players are grouped into tiers of approximately equivalent talent/value. When it's your pick, you select the player from that tier who best fits team need/skills preference/risk level/other considerations. When your team has a surplus of a certain type of prospect, you won't select that sort of prospect unless one "falls" to you, or they're the only option left on the highest tier.

To take current 2012 draft projections for example: Yakupov and Grigorenko are on a different tier from Murray, Rielly, Dumba, Trouba, Forsberg, and Galchenyuk. If you're picking 1 or 2, you have to pick one of those two, even if you're Edmonton who has a surplus of high end forward prospects, but almost nothing on the blue line. However, if Edmonton is picking 3rd, they'll pick the defenseman they like best. Galchenyuk and Forsberg are on about the same level as those defensemen, and Edmonton desperately needs blue line talent. Even though Edmonton's scouts might think Galchenyuk is the highest end player remaining, they would select Rielly, Dumba, or a different d-man because those players are more valuable to their team.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:48 PM
  #264
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
What I am saying is we shouldn't have a preconceived notation about what should be focused on during the draft. If they like a forward better than a defenseman, they should take that player. They should not be doing what fans are doing and think solely on any aspect of the team in the 1st round.

The only type of player that shouldn't be taken in the 1st round is a goaltender, but anything and everything should be on the board.

The fact fans are already penciling in this player for that is also a bit premature.

We should be looking at we have, not what we are projected to have.

We do not have a 1st line center on this current roster. We have two projected 1st line centers in the waiting.

We have a few marginal top 6 forwards on this current roster, with two more being out with injuries. We have maybe two or three that we can project as top six forward material.

We projected Voloshenko, Fiala, O'Sullivan and Pouliot would turn out to be top 6 forwards but all of them turned into busts.

If this organization likes a left winger more than a defenseman, they should go for it but as fans we shouldn't limit ourselves in thinking we are going to take a defenseman, nor should they limit themselves to be thinking defense in the first round.

More than likely, we'll move down as well to recover a 2nd round pick or even a 3rd round pick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
Even though Edmonton's scouts might think Galchenyuk is the highest end player remaining, they would select Rielly, Dumba, or a different d-man because those players are more valuable to their team.
That's the type of thinking that gets teams in trouble.

They might be running projects thinking all of their top end forwards are going to turn out but if one or two busts, then they are going to be kicking themselves for not taking the top line forward over the top 6 defenseman.

Projecting value is extremely tough in sports because you are trying to keep hopeful that all your players are going to end up as great players but in reality maybe half will and you'll be scrambling to fill in those other spots.

If Edmonton likes Galchenyuk and believe he has a safer upside, they should take him over a defenseman and then fill in defense through other means.

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 04:58 PM
  #265
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
What I am saying is we shouldn't have a preconceived notation about what should be focused on during the draft. If they like a forward better than a defenseman, they should take that player. They should not be doing what fans are doing and think solely on any aspect of the team in the 1st round.

The only type of player that shouldn't be taken in the 1st round is a goaltender, but anything and everything should be on the board.

The fact fans are already penciling in this player for that is also a bit premature.

We should be looking at we have, not what we are projected to have.

We do not have a 1st line center on this current roster. We have two projected 1st line centers in the waiting.

We have a few marginal top 6 forwards on this current roster, with two more being out with injuries. We have maybe two or three that we can project as top six forward material.

We projected Voloshenko, Fiala, O'Sullivan and Pouliot would turn out to be top 6 forwards but all of them turned into busts.

If this organization likes a left winger more than a defenseman, they should go for it but as fans we shouldn't limit ourselves in thinking we are going to take a defenseman, nor should they limit themselves to be thinking defense in the first round.

More than likely, we'll move down as well to recover a 2nd round pick or even a 3rd round pick.
The problem you seem to have with this is the (far too common) misconception that there's a huge difference between the guy who gets drafted 9th and the guy who gets drafted 10th. In reality, that difference is usually extremely small, especially after you get outside of the top 5 or so picks. Given that there is minimal difference between a forward and a defenseman, the team will pick the defenseman. Obviously, if Yakupov somehow dropped to us, we wouldn't pass on him because we need defensemen. However, we're not going to pick Frk over Ceci because while they're pretty close in terms of talent (at least right now) Ceci is far more valuable to the organization.

You keep parroting "Volchenkov, O'Sullivan, and Pouliot" but completely ignore the fact that, while we might not get any first liners out of Coyle, Granlund, and Larsson, we're almost guaranteed not to get any top pairing defensemen out of Cuma, Genoway, and Fredheim.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 05:01 PM
  #266
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
That's the type of thinking that gets teams in trouble.

They might be running projects thinking all of their top end forwards are going to turn out but if one or two busts, then they are going to be kicking themselves for not taking the top line forward over the top 6 defenseman.

Projecting value is extremely tough in sports because you are trying to keep hopeful that all your players are going to end up as great players but in reality maybe half will and you'll be scrambling to fill in those other spots.

If Edmonton likes Galchenyuk and believe he has a safer upside, they should take him over a defenseman and then fill in defense through other means.
No.

The type of thing that gets teams in trouble is running with a blue line that consists of Barker, Gilbert, Peckham, Smid, Petry, and Potter because you were afraid you might only get 3 top six forwards out of your 8 quality prospects.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 05:04 PM
  #267
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,441
vCash: 500
I'm sure they do their due diligence and take all things into consideration.

Still, let's say you draft 6 forwards per year for 5 years in a row because at every draft position your scouts thought the forward was the superior player. Would you consider that smart drafting?

At some point you do have to take position into consideration. Obviously you can trade players and prospects to fill needs, but you will have a better idea of the player at the time of the draft.

Jarick is online now  
Old
02-02-2012, 06:57 PM
  #268
saywut
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,084
vCash: 500
There isn't a team that doesn't draft "best player available". Teams build their board and take the highest ranked player. That board might not contain certain players if they dislike something(though that's more apparent in football), might value a certain skill-set higher but that's because of their projection for said player. What we've seen from Fletcher and Flahr supports this throughout, perhaps most noticeable in 2 consecutive trades up into the end of the 2nd round where they've taken kids(Zucker, Lucia) who had been known to been projected higher. You got a top-40/50 player there at 59/60 you're going to want to try to snag him, especially if he's on an island, say ranked #45 but the 2nd guy on your board is #54. Another good point is 13 forwards to 3 d-men to 4 goalies in the last 3 drafts.

saywut is offline  
Old
02-02-2012, 07:41 PM
  #269
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by saywut View Post
There isn't a team that doesn't draft "best player available". Teams build their board and take the highest ranked player. That board might not contain certain players if they dislike something(though that's more apparent in football), might value a certain skill-set higher but that's because of their projection for said player. What we've seen from Fletcher and Flahr supports this throughout, perhaps most noticeable in 2 consecutive trades up into the end of the 2nd round where they've taken kids(Zucker, Lucia) who had been known to been projected higher. You got a top-40/50 player there at 59/60 you're going to want to try to snag him, especially if he's on an island, say ranked #45 but the 2nd guy on your board is #54. Another good point is 13 forwards to 3 d-men to 4 goalies in the last 3 drafts.
you make some good points,

on BPA, every team has their own version of BPA, they don't go by other rankings to get their BPA, thats why they have their owns scouts so when saying BPA its the BPA for that team and their qualities.

on the drafting x amount of dman vs forwards, when GMCF took over Wild had no high end forwards in the system none, not a lick of one so they addressed the need.

Granlund,Zucker,Phillips,Bulmer,Lucia,Coyle,Larsso n each is unique but each has that high end upside

our d didn't look so shabby tho, we had burns, we had scandella and cuma.

now the story is flipped, we need blue liners and i have a feeling we're going to be taking a lot of them this year.

also i love the way GMCF has been with goalies i have a hunch we might take a sweede or a fin in the 6th round this year.

forthewild is offline  
Old
02-03-2012, 01:11 AM
  #270
thestonedkoala
Everyone! PANIC!
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 18,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidz View Post
The problem you seem to have with this is the (far too common) misconception that there's a huge difference between the guy who gets drafted 9th and the guy who gets drafted 10th.
There actually might be a huge difference between who goes 9th and who goes 10th, especially in this draft.

Tuomo Ruutu or Dan Blackburn? (or even one further, Fredrik Sjorstrom)

Eric Nystrom or Keith Ballard

Dion Phaneuf or Andrei Kostitsyn?

Smid or Valabik?

Lee or Bourdan (RIP)?

Sheppard or Frolik?

The thing is, one draft pick can make all the difference in the world.

Quote:
In reality, that difference is usually extremely small, especially after you get outside of the top 5 or so picks.
Not necessarily. I would think there is a difference between Shawn Belle (30th) and Dion Phaneuf (9th) is significant. Or even a Dustin Brown vs a Steve Bernier.

Quote:
Given that there is minimal difference between a forward and a defenseman, the team will pick the defenseman.
Unless you get that gifted defenseman that is ready to step in right away, they take a lot longer to season and position. Shea Weber took 5 years to develop.

Forwards are easier to translate to the NHL than defensemen. Hence why guys like Scandella is still bouncing between the NHL and the AHL 4 years after he was drafted and he still is having a steep learning curve.

Quote:
Obviously, if Yakupov somehow dropped to us, we wouldn't pass on him because we need defensemen. However, we're not going to pick Frk over Ceci because while they're pretty close in terms of talent (at least right now) Ceci is far more valuable to the organization.
Not necessarily. Depends on multiple factors and what the organization is more important down the road.

Quote:
You keep parroting "Volchenkov, O'Sullivan, and Pouliot" but completely ignore the fact that, while we might not get any first liners out of Coyle, Granlund, and Larsson, we're almost guaranteed not to get any top pairing defensemen out of Cuma, Genoway, and Fredheim.
And yet we still have Scandella, Spurgeon (his first season) and Brodin to fill in 3 of the 7 spots while Coyle, Granlund and Larsson fill 3 of 18 spots.

Furthermore we are in need of defensemen NOW not 3-4 years down the road, which given our current projection, we'll be drafting in the mid teens, which means a development project that won't be ready until a few years.

Not to mention, we have some dark horses like Lorenz, Medvec still in the minors that can fill in. As well, we could flip a prospect or two for a defenseman.

thestonedkoala is offline  
Old
02-03-2012, 08:44 AM
  #271
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the8bandarmadillo View Post
There actually might be a huge difference between who goes 9th and who goes 10th, especially in this draft.

Tuomo Ruutu or Dan Blackburn? (or even one further, Fredrik Sjorstrom)

Eric Nystrom or Keith Ballard

Dion Phaneuf or Andrei Kostitsyn?

Smid or Valabik?

Lee or Bourdan (RIP)?

Sheppard or Frolik?

The thing is, one draft pick can make all the difference in the world.



Not necessarily. I would think there is a difference between Shawn Belle (30th) and Dion Phaneuf (9th) is significant. Or even a Dustin Brown vs a Steve Bernier.
Either you're being disengenious to troll, or you're just incapable of understanding.

Either way we have to leave it at this "BPA" is a worthless term, and anyone who uses it to "define" their draft "strategy" is either being deliberately obtuse, or doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-03-2012, 09:42 AM
  #272
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 24,441
vCash: 500
I'm sure the scouts take into account organizational (not just team) need when ranking the players on their board, but at the end of the day I believe there is a 1-200 ranking. They discuss all those things internally. I'm sure they talk about how quickly they'd develop, what their ceiling is, what the risks are, etc.

EDIT: to be clear, I meant an internal 1-200 ranking, not an external one.


Last edited by Jarick: 02-03-2012 at 10:43 AM.
Jarick is online now  
Old
02-03-2012, 10:07 AM
  #273
forthewild
Registered User
 
forthewild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
we took nick seeler in round 5 last year he was not ranked by CSS, I firmly believe that GMCF and Flahr have guys ranked on a list according to what they value in a player and how much potential they have.

to say BPA is to say that the best players available according to their rankings not CSS or ISS or TSN. remember in becoming wild they made a list of rankings, if you remember they had a **** tone of names on a white boards (censored) i believe at the draft they had a list and picked according.

how else is seeler round 5 when he was not ranked by ranking services.

and also i believe that positional need is a factor but not the only factor

forthewild is offline  
Old
02-03-2012, 11:09 AM
  #274
squidz*
dun worry he's cool
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: South of the Border
Country: United States
Posts: 11,897
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarick View Post
I'm sure the scouts take into account organizational (not just team) need when ranking the players on their board, but at the end of the day I believe there is a 1-200 ranking. They discuss all those things internally. I'm sure they talk about how quickly they'd develop, what their ceiling is, what the risks are, etc.

EDIT: to be clear, I meant an internal 1-200 ranking, not an external one.
More than just the internal ranking, they almost certainly have (at least for the first, and maybe second round) expected rankings for other teams, and have all their rankings tiered. That's how you know whether to try move up or down within a round.

Taking the known offer from last year (#32 + #41 for #28) as an example:St. Louis likely had a player remaining as the last one or two in a tier (or as a faller, such as their 15th ranked guy left but the next highest is ranked 25th) and knew he was unlikely to last another 4 picks when they could grab him. Similarly, the Wild likely had Phillips ranked fairly highly on their draft board, with no one else in the same tier as him, otherwise they would have moved back 4 spots and gladly picked up the 41st overall (and perhaps MiG's brother).

Simply ranking players 1-200 isn't nearly enough. Chicago might have had Brandon Saad ranked more highly than Adam Clendening but at 36, wanting both players, were reasonably certain that Saad would still be there in 7 picks because there were quite a few forwards expected to be pick, but Clendening wouldn't last that long because there had been a mini-run on defensemen. Therefore, they might have picked a the lower ranked player first, assuming they'd still be able to grab "their man" 7 picks later. (caveat, I just made that scenario up as an example, without being at their draft table it's impossible to say whether any of that ranking were true)

squidz* is offline  
Old
02-03-2012, 05:45 PM
  #275
firstroundbust
lacks explosiveness
 
firstroundbust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Parts Unknown
Country: United States
Posts: 5,641
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by forthewild View Post
we took nick seeler in round 5 last year he was not ranked by CSS, I firmly believe that GMCF and Flahr have guys ranked on a list according to what they value in a player and how much potential they have.

to say BPA is to say that the best players available according to their rankings not CSS or ISS or TSN. remember in becoming wild they made a list of rankings, if you remember they had a **** tone of names on a white boards (censored) i believe at the draft they had a list and picked according.

how else is seeler round 5 when he was not ranked by ranking services.

and also i believe that positional need is a factor but not the only factor

all of these.

And they took Seeler in 5 because that was their next pick after they traded up for Lucia. I believe somewhere in Becoming Wild Flahr said that they couldn't believe Seeler was still there when they got to their pick in the 5th.

NHL lists are NOTHING like TSN, FC, ISS, Redline, etc- Columbus had Zherdev #1 in 2003, Minnesota had Sheppard 7 and I believe Fiala in the top 10 in 2006, and Boston had D. Hamilton #1 last year (was told this recently).

Remember that their rankings include more in-depth off-ice research on the kids too.

firstroundbust is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 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.