HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Are You Happy With The Drafting of Trevor Timmins?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-17-2011, 04:06 PM
  #126
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rise from the Ashes View Post
The Giroux miss is the one that really bites my tail. Right in your backyard big guy! Plus doing the draft interviews almost everyteam thought Fischer was an immature bonehead.
Fischer was captain of his HS team, not sure where you get this stuff from. I know not every team had him as a 1st rounder, but Giroux was rated 2nd round by most teams. I would venture to say Fischer was ranked higher on average by teams than Giroux.

Giroux's own coach Benoit Groulx was pretty harsh with him, he took a lot of dumb penalities in the Q. He was rated lower than where Phillie took him I seem to recall.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 04:15 PM
  #127
DekeLikeYouMeanIt
Ohhhh you mad
 
DekeLikeYouMeanIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In space..with goats
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,312
vCash: 500
The Q was still considered a run & gun league where high scoring forwards would be taken with a grain of salt and added to their "bust potential." Giroux was obviously talented and fast, but he was a risky pick so he slid. Fischer on the other hand was marked as a no-draft by multiple reputable scouts. As bad as Columbus is with developing, their scouts labelled him as an absolute no-draft. We did really badly on that one.

DekeLikeYouMeanIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:07 PM
  #128
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Habsolument90 View Post
The Q was still considered a run & gun league where high scoring forwards would be taken with a grain of salt and added to their "bust potential." Giroux was obviously talented and fast, but he was a risky pick so he slid. Fischer on the other hand was marked as a no-draft by multiple reputable scouts. As bad as Columbus is with developing, their scouts labelled him as an absolute no-draft. We did really badly on that one.
Using the Columbus scouting staff as a guide is not a good idea.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:39 PM
  #129
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Fischer was captain of his HS team, not sure where you get this stuff from. I know not every team had him as a 1st rounder, but Giroux was rated 2nd round by most teams. I would venture to say Fischer was ranked higher on average by teams than Giroux.

Giroux's own coach Benoit Groulx was pretty harsh with him, he took a lot of dumb penalities in the Q. He was rated lower than where Phillie took him I seem to recall.
So the Habs were right when they selected Fischer? Good to know...

No need to explain the context of the pick; Fischer was a bad pick and Giroux a great one. Results is the only thing that matter here.

It's like when people say "We should've drafted Getzlaf instead of Kostitsyn", there's always someone coming back with "but Kostitsyn was seen as one of the best prospects in the draft". Who cares? The final result is one team has a top line center scoring 90 points, the other has an inconsistent winger that scored 53 some years ago.

You win some, you lose some, and we lost in 2006 and 2003 (well we didn't loose completely in 2003, Akost is a good player).

And this is not a knock on Timmins, who has done a great job overall I think. It's a knock on people who think that explaining the context of a draft pick/trade/signing justifies the draft pick/trade/signing. It doesn't, only results matter.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:48 PM
  #130
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
So the Habs were right when they selected Fischer? Good to know...

No need to explain the context of the pick; Fischer was a bad pick and Giroux a great one. Results is the only thing that matter here.

It's like when people say "We should've drafted Getzlaf instead of Kostitsyn", there's always someone coming back with "but Kostitsyn was seen as one of the best prospects in the draft". Who cares? The final result is one team has a top line center scoring 90 points, the other has an inconsistent winger that scored 53 some years ago.

You win some, you lose some, and we lost in 2006 and 2003 (well we didn't loose completely in 2003, Akost is a good player).

And this is not a knock on Timmins, who has done a great job overall I think. It's a knock on people who think that explaining the context of a draft pick/trade/signing justifies the draft pick/trade/signing. It doesn't, only results matter.
Okay, the context does matter. If player A is the better prospect but suffers a major injury and ends up worse than player B, is player B the better pick judging by results? I mean, results aren't everything. As a scouting staff your job is to select the best probable combination of a prospect to succeed in the NHL. Probability is a special thing though. If player C is deemed as a 99.9% chance to reach his potential as a star, and doesn't, while player D is deemed as a 0.01% chance to succeed and does, does it make it wrong to select player C? Of course not. You play the odds and over the long term, you'll get results like timmins have, but not everything will be perfect. The only real blemish is Fischer, Ak is what he is.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:52 PM
  #131
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
So the Habs were right when they selected Fischer? Good to know...

No need to explain the context of the pick; Fischer was a bad pick and Giroux a great one. Results is the only thing that matter here.

It's like when people say "We should've drafted Getzlaf instead of Kostitsyn", there's always someone coming back with "but Kostitsyn was seen as one of the best prospects in the draft". Who cares? The final result is one team has a top line center scoring 90 points, the other has an inconsistent winger that scored 53 some years ago.

You win some, you lose some, and we lost in 2006 and 2003 (well we didn't loose completely in 2003, Akost is a good player).

And this is not a knock on Timmins, who has done a great job overall I think. It's a knock on people who think that explaining the context of a draft pick/trade/signing justifies the draft pick/trade/signing. It doesn't, only results matter.
going by that logic, Habs were right to trade Tender for Pool since one barely plays (injuries) since being traded while the other is top shape... and Habs were also right to trade Ribeiro for next to nothing since Habs made the PO more often than the Stars since that trade... just like they were right to trade Grabovski since TO havent made the PO since and we did...

see, that's results...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:55 PM
  #132
Protest the Hero
Registered User
 
Protest the Hero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,383
vCash: 500
Claude Giroux thread 998...

Spoil:
I'm not defending the 2006 draft

Protest the Hero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 05:59 PM
  #133
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
So the Habs were right when they selected Fischer? Good to know...

No need to explain the context of the pick; Fischer was a bad pick and Giroux a great one. Results is the only thing that matter here.

It's like when people say "We should've drafted Getzlaf instead of Kostitsyn", there's always someone coming back with "but Kostitsyn was seen as one of the best prospects in the draft". Who cares? The final result is one team has a top line center scoring 90 points, the other has an inconsistent winger that scored 53 some years ago.

You win some, you lose some, and we lost in 2006 and 2003 (well we didn't loose completely in 2003, Akost is a good player).

And this is not a knock on Timmins, who has done a great job overall I think. It's a knock on people who think that explaining the context of a draft pick/trade/signing justifies the draft pick/trade/signing. It doesn't, only results matter.
It's not like shopping at Wal mart where you know exactly what you're getting, there is a lot of unknown drafting 17/18 year olds.

Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 07:00 PM
  #134
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
Okay, the context does matter. If player A is the better prospect but suffers a major injury and ends up worse than player B, is player B the better pick judging by results? I mean, results aren't everything. As a scouting staff your job is to select the best probable combination of a prospect to succeed in the NHL. Probability is a special thing though. If player C is deemed as a 99.9% chance to reach his potential as a star, and doesn't, while player D is deemed as a 0.01% chance to succeed and does, does it make it wrong to select player C? Of course not. You play the odds and over the long term, you'll get results like timmins have, but not everything will be perfect. The only real blemish is Fischer, Ak is what he is.
Of there are exceptions, for example you can't criticize the Rangers for drafting Bourdon.

And again my post was not a knock on Trevor Timmins, who is doing a great job in my opinion. You have to analyse the overall job of a head scout to give an opinion. But in your example, yes selecting player C was wrong. That's it.

We praise Timmins based on the results, don't we? Should he have drafted Brule in 05 because he was a better prospect than Price? Well he didn't, and the results show he was right. It goes both ways.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 07:07 PM
  #135
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
It's not like shopping at Wal mart where you know exactly what you're getting, there is a lot of unknown drafting 17/18 year olds.
You are only explaining to me why it is hard to be a scout. I know it is. That's not the point. The point is to get results.

The best scout is the one that gets the better players, not the one who better explains why his picks x and y should have been awesome but in the end suck.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 07:52 PM
  #136
Lucky Luke
Registered User
 
Lucky Luke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,206
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rise from the Ashes View Post
The Giroux miss is the one that really bites my tail. Right in your backyard big guy! Plus doing the draft interviews almost everyteam thought Fischer was an immature bonehead.
Timmins saw Giroux perform live more than a dozen times before the draft.
He was strongly advised by his entourage to select him but it went in one ear and out the other.

Lucky Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 08:07 PM
  #137
DekeLikeYouMeanIt
Ohhhh you mad
 
DekeLikeYouMeanIt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: In space..with goats
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,312
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
Using the Columbus scouting staff as a guide is not a good idea.
I wouldn't say the drafting is bad but rather the development. Nonetheless you ignored my points.

DekeLikeYouMeanIt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 08:32 PM
  #138
habsjunkie2*
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
You are only explaining to me why it is hard to be a scout. I know it is. That's not the point. The point is to get results.

The best scout is the one that gets the better players, not the one who better explains why his picks x and y should have been awesome but in the end suck.
Take a look around the league of who has drafted the most NHL talent, I can't imagine Trevor Timmins not topping the list. You pick who you think is the best player at the time. No one knows 5, 6 years down the road who will turn out better, it's a game of percentages and his percentage is higher than the rest.

If you closely scrutinize every pick made by every team, you'll see every scout of every team gets plenty wrong, Trevor Timmins is consistently one of the best.

habsjunkie2* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 08:52 PM
  #139
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
Of there are exceptions, for example you can't criticize the Rangers for drafting Bourdon.

And again my post was not a knock on Trevor Timmins, who is doing a great job in my opinion. You have to analyse the overall job of a head scout to give an opinion. But in your example, yes selecting player C was wrong. That's it.

We praise Timmins based on the results, don't we? Should he have drafted Brule in 05 because he was a better prospect than Price? Well he didn't, and the results show he was right. It goes both ways.
lol, based on my example choosing player C was not wrong. Let's make a new example. There's a dice, someone says if 1 comes out, they win, if 2,3,4,5,6 comes out, you win. 1 comes out. Were you wrong to agree to it?

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 08:58 PM
  #140
ECWHSWI
5M? insulting!!!
 
ECWHSWI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 15,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
You are only explaining to me why it is hard to be a scout. I know it is. That's not the point. The point is to get results.

The best scout is the one that gets the better players, not the one who better explains why his picks x and y should have been awesome but in the end suck.
pretty much every scout miss on a player or two every single draft...

ECWHSWI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 09:19 PM
  #141
yianik
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,889
vCash: 500
Timmins has done a great job for us. Id love for him to have a veto whenever JM goes to PG and tells him..this guy isnt working out, I wont play him... so PG trades the guy. TT hits the veto button. Better yet, TT hits the eject button and JM goes.

yianik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 09:50 PM
  #142
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hototogisu View Post
Ah, no. I believe the deal was Plekanec, Higgins and Gorges, and Gainey balked when the Bolts pressed him to include Subban. Price was never a part of the deal as far as anything I've heard.
You've confused the initial rumours and initial proposed trade around the all star break with what transpired at the entry draft, as the other poster mentioned was reported by the Hockey News.

Gainey didn't balk, and was indeed offering Plekanec and Price at the very least, rather the infighting between Tampa's owners scuttled the deal. Sure it sounds absurd now...but keep in mind the context. A humiliating centennial, a boatload of undesired UFAs per Gainey, immense pressure to land that mythical superstar big centre to anchor the club for years to come. And I'll be honest, the fanbase's dreams of Lecavalier meant people would have rejoiced if that went through.

That it didn't work is why Gomez ended up a Hab.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 11:26 PM
  #143
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LyricalLyricist View Post
lol, based on my example choosing player C was not wrong. Let's make a new example. There's a dice, someone says if 1 comes out, they win, if 2,3,4,5,6 comes out, you win. 1 comes out. Were you wrong to agree to it?
Ok. Here's the thing : scouting is not a total crapshoot. You meet kids, watch them play, test their physical abilities and then you try to make predict how their talent will develop.

In one case (Columbus), the scouting staff met David Fischer and then put him in the category "Do not draft".

In another (Montreal), the scouting staff thought he was worth picking at 20.

In the end, I think Columbus was right in their evaluation, since he is now in the ECHL after not being signed by the Habs. No matter what the odds were or how Timmins saw them, he was wrong.


Last edited by Franked: 11-17-2011 at 11:39 PM. Reason: wrong pick number
Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2011, 11:37 PM
  #144
Franked
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 258
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by habsjunkie2 View Post
Take a look around the league of who has drafted the most NHL talent, I can't imagine Trevor Timmins not topping the list. You pick who you think is the best player at the time. No one knows 5, 6 years down the road who will turn out better, it's a game of percentages and his percentage is higher than the rest.

If you closely scrutinize every pick made by every team, you'll see every scout of every team gets plenty wrong, Trevor Timmins is consistently one of the best.
I agree with you BTW and my post was not a knock on Timmins.

Franked is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:00 AM
  #145
LyricalLyricist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,282
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
Ok. Here's the thing : scouting is not a total crapshoot. You meet kids, watch them play, test their physical abilities and then you try to make predict how their talent will develop.

In one case (Columbus), the scouting staff met David Fischer and then put him in the category "Do not draft".

In another (Montreal), the scouting staff thought he was worth picking at 20.

In the end, I think Columbus was right in their evaluation, since he is now in the ECHL after not being signed by the Habs. No matter what the odds were or how Timmins saw them, he was wrong.
I'm not arguing that, but based on a scouting team's evaluations, if they do their homework and choose a player with the highest reasonable probability of succeeding and it doesn't work out, it happens, and it's not necessarily the wrong choice is all I'm saying. As i suggested by post you quoted, you take Best prospect available. If it were best player available, i'd agree with you, but it isn't. They chose who they felt had highest chance to succeed and if you play those odds more often than not you'll win on the deal, but you may sometimes lose. I can't explain Fischer as I left that was a weird pick, but the rest seem just fine to me.

LyricalLyricist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:03 AM
  #146
FlyingKostitsyn
Registered User
 
FlyingKostitsyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Quebec
Country: Australia
Posts: 8,031
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
Ok. Here's the thing : scouting is not a total crapshoot. You meet kids, watch them play, test their physical abilities and then you try to make predict how their talent will develop.
Even in the first round you have a fairly big chance of the player not even sticking to the NHL. The percentage of players truly hitting their potential is fairly low.

Sure there are exceptional years like 2003 but look at 2004 or 2005 for instance. In these two years barely half of the players chosen have truly made their way to the NHL. Only 9 or 10 players in 2005 have develloped according to the potential they seemed to have at draft. Just select a random draft before 2006 or 2007 and look at the names, its surprising how many busts there are in the first round every year and it helps cope with the Fischers and Chipchuras.

Every year theres a chance a player gets injured, doesn't get proper coaching or simply stops develloping as fast as he should have because they reached their (lower) ceiling sooner. Many unpredictable things can turn wrong in a players career. Sure there are character interviews and sure the scouts see them play but even with the best or worst scout chance comes into play.

FlyingKostitsyn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 12:10 AM
  #147
Miller Time
Registered User
 
Miller Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 8,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
Ok. Here's the thing : scouting is not a total crapshoot. You meet kids, watch them play, test their physical abilities and then you try to make predict how their talent will develop.

In one case (Columbus), the scouting staff met David Fischer and then put him in the category "Do not draft".

In another (Montreal), the scouting staff thought he was worth picking at 20.

In the end, I think Columbus was right in their evaluation, since he is now in the ECHL after not being signed by the Habs. No matter what the odds were or how Timmins saw them, he was wrong.
sure, but that same scouting team then selected Filatov 6th overall 2 years later...

passing over:
Carlson
Karlsson
Myers
Eberle
Ennis
DelZotto
Sbisa
Hodgson
Boedcker



Timmins was wrong with Fisher at 20, and because Giroux, a franco-ontarian, got picked 2 spots later and has turned into an absolute star, he gets a lot of flack about it...

he made a mistake, sure, but so did about 15-16 other teams, INCLUDING Columbus, who picked Brassard 6th overall.

were the CBJ scouts so much more astute, they'd have convinced the GM to trade down ~10 spots, get extra picks/players, and still end up with Giroux.

so really, Timmins was no more "wrong" than they were in that draft.

Miller Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 08:20 AM
  #148
Monctonscout
Monctonscout
 
Monctonscout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 30,516
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franked View Post
You are only explaining to me why it is hard to be a scout. I know it is. That's not the point. The point is to get results.

The best scout is the one that gets the better players, not the one who better explains why his picks x and y should have been awesome but in the end suck.
In terms of results Timmins is one of the top guys in the NHL, top 5 I'd say. I base this on both quality and quantity of players drafted. But people chose to nitpick about the players he DIDN'T get instead of being happy for the players he DID draft.

Short of hiring god as our head scout, whoever it is WILL miss some very good players at some point. The whole NHL missed the boat on St.Louis, Lidstrom, Datsyuk and Zetterberg, even Detroit's head scout as great as those picks were, if he knew they'd be great players he wouldn't have waited until the 3rd(Lidstrom), 6th(Datsyuk) or 7th(Zetterberg) round to draft those players.

In 1999 Detroit drafted Zetterberg 210th overall but drafted 3 guys in rounds 4, 5 and 6 taht played a grand total of 32 NHL games.

In 1998 they took Fischer in Rd 1(a good pick before he got the heart problem), but they drafted SIX other players in rounds 2-6 that never played a single NHL game before getting Datsyuk at #171.

Those are just examples to show that the draft is extremely hard to predict even for the best of the best.

I just find it annoying that whenever TT gets praise for getting Price, Subban, Gallagher or whoever, somebody always has to bring up Carter, Giroux etc


Last edited by Monctonscout: 11-18-2011 at 08:26 AM.
Monctonscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 08:53 AM
  #149
Agnostic
11 Stanley Cups
 
Agnostic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,115
vCash: 500
Trevor Timmins is a few french lessons away from being a GM.

Agnostic is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2011, 09:12 AM
  #150
Whitesnake
Habs of steel
 
Whitesnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Lorraine, QC
Country: Canada
Posts: 47,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey Price View Post
I just find it annoying that whenever TT gets praise for getting Price, Subban, Gallagher or whoever, somebody always has to bring up Carter, Giroux etc
Which in the end is what the reality is. Don't know why you'd have to bring solely the good moves. Or why you'd only bring the bad. Problem with the 2003 and 2006 draft is that it were team changing drafts. And that based on personal experiece with him, I hated his thought process for not going with Giroux then. Didn't like it then, still don't like it now.

Nobody says that 2007 might not go in the books as one of the best drafts ever. EVERYBODY recognize that. Yet, you should never mention the bad ones? It can't be a crapshoot only when it pleases people. I mean if it's always a crapshoot, well let's not praise Timmins for his good moves then.......I mean, great moves means the guy is a god, but the bad moves means the draft is a crapshoot?

Depending of the quality of the draft, nobody can convince me that the 1st round is a crapshoot. 'Cause when people based their evaluation of Timmins, the first stat they use is the NHL played games. Well look throughout history, and the 1st round has seen the most guys that has played an NHL game. And I'd go as far as to think the same for the 2nd round. From the 3rd round and the rest, then you can say that it's crapshoot. And frankly, Timmins RARELY will be based for his 3rd round and up drafting. Okay, I would do it sometimes but not based on hindsight but based on who I had in mind AT THAT TIME, and their though process behind picking a guy for the sake of picking him like Kishel, Johnson and Co. But usually Timmins will get some heat for "some" of his picks in the 1st round....a little less for the 2nd....and even less for the 3rd, where "crapshoot" is not exactly what this portion of the draft is all about. Yes, there will always be a part of it. But if it would FULLY be, they wouldn't spend the money or the time in their analysis, they'll just watch the game on TV and roll the dice which they don't.

They make good moves, they are praised for it. And honesetly, I DO NOT buy the Detroit made a mistake in the Zetterberg case 'cause he wasn't their 1st rounder or Habs made a mistake with Halak 'cause he wasn't a 1st round etc....They picked him. They have a good idea of which teams like which players, they take a risk. But they end up choosing them. And should be recognize for it. But I have no idea why they should be exempt from criticisms? Which other job has that?

Whitesnake is online now   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 04:13 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.