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.

Lidstrom the first top-20 (skaters) to retire since Bourque?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-01-2012, 06:15 PM
  #51
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
But did Lidstrom ever run into anyone like Gretzky/Messier's Oilers or Mario's Penguins? Bourque likely has multiple Cups if not for those two teams.
Yet North Stars managed to beat the Oilers and the Stars was definitly not as good as Bruins. Flyers forced them to seven games.

During the Lidströms years there were the Avs, Stars and the Devils (after the lock out it was impossible to even guess who would be in the finals yet Lidström got their twice)

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 06:53 PM
  #52
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Yet North Stars managed to beat the Oilers and the Stars was definitly not as good as Bruins. Flyers forced them to seven games.

During the Lidströms years there were the Avs, Stars and the Devils (after the lock out it was impossible to even guess who would be in the finals yet Lidström got their twice)
There were some roster differences between the 1990 Oilers team the Bruins lost to and the 1991 team the North Stars beat. Most notably, Jari Kurri was not on the team in 91'. Their defense also lost Reijo Ruotsalainen and Randy Gregg.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 07:05 PM
  #53
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
There were some roster differences between the 1990 Oilers team the Bruins lost to and the 1991 team the North Stars beat. Most notably, Jari Kurri was not on the team in 91'. Their defense also lost Reijo Ruotsalainen and Randy Gregg.
I'm not saying there wasn't, I'm saying upsets do happen.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 07:57 PM
  #54
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I'm not saying there wasn't, I'm saying upsets do happen.
So what is the point of that? Bourque isn't as good as Lidstrom because his Bruins never upset their way to a Cup?

Lidstrom's teams had to beat some tough teams to get the Cup for sure (like the ones you mentioned), but they never beat a team that was as far ahead of them as those Oilers and Penguins teams were ahead of Bourque's Bruins. They were never big underdogs like that when they won, so you can't fault Bourque for not doing something Lidstrom never did himself.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:02 PM
  #55
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by newfy View Post
LOL at dreamkur putting Forsberg on alist over Yzerman.

For the Yzermna Lidstrom thing I will say this. Lidstrom from an all time stand point is the higher player on the list for sure. The hardware and everything is too hard to ignore, but from a greatest redwing stand point, Yzerman is higher.

Also, Rhieesan I know youre not a huge Lidstrom fan, but to say a guy second all time in Norris trophies cant match another guys 4-7 best seasons is borderline retarded.

If Bourque was so great to be clearly ahead of Lidstrom (who has a legit argument for second best all time), he would have won more norrises plain and simple. Yeah the guys he played against might have had better careers as well, but to be undisputed better tha Lidstrom he plain and simple should have won more.

I'm not a huge fan of the better competition in the 80s when there were no defensive systems at all argument, and that seems to be your leg to stand on, maybe Lidstroms competition is more inconsistent because its much harder to stay at the top of the league in a time where players actually train all off season and have the most diverse (nation wise) league the NHL has seen up to this point.

I know youll disagree but Lidstrom winning 7 norrises and you to say he cant touch 7 of Bourques seasons is retarded
You really need to carefully re-read what I said.

Either way, I agree with Pluppe. Let's get back on topic.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:40 PM
  #56
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Conventional wisdom? Maybe my people on the history board, but not in general.

The thing with Orr, is that people that watched hockey during the days of Shore, think Orr was better. People who worshipped Harvey surrender to Orr's superiority. Those who watched the ones that came after Orr, Potvin, Coffey, Bourque, and Lidstrom still put Orr at the top.

Even Gretzky doesn't get that treatment.
what you say is true but people don't stop and think about the two perfect storms that Bobby had

1) expansion from 6 to 12 to 14 (WHA) to 16 teams
2) the Boston Bruins and style they played

To be sure on both points Bobby was the greatest player of his generation and probably would ahve been even in a 6 team league and on another team as well.

Chances are though that his stats and greatness would not have been as epic as they are viewed.

Also being 2nd in statistical dominance, and offensive wizardry, like Wayne was to Orr's efforts 10 years earlier, lessens the wow factor slightly to some perhaps.

Either way what Orr did in 657 games in 12 seasons is less great IMO than what Lidstrom did in his 20 seasons or Bourque and Harvey as well IMO but you ahve to remember that I'm a career guy 1st and foremost.

Maybe in time with Lidstrom retiring his greatness will become more evident but I imagine that Bobby will be #1 in almost everyones list mainly because they consider peak or prime as more important and/or don't take into account the ever expanding NHL and special circumstance that Orr was in with his years in Boston.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 08:52 PM
  #57
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
what you say is true but people don't stop and think about the two perfect storms that Bobby had

1) expansion from 6 to 12 to 14 (WHA) to 16 teams
2) the Boston Bruins and style they played

To be sure on both points Bobby was the greatest player of his generation and probably would ahve been even in a 6 team league and on another team as well.

Chances are though that his stats and greatness would not have been as epic as they are viewed.

Also being 2nd in statistical dominance, and offensive wizardry, like Wayne was to Orr's efforts 10 years earlier, lessens the wow factor slightly to some perhaps.

Either way what Orr did in 657 games in 12 seasons is less great IMO than what Lidstrom did in his 20 seasons or Bourque and Harvey as well IMO but you ahve to remember that I'm a career guy 1st and foremost.

Maybe in time with Lidstrom retiring his greatness will become more evident but I imagine that Bobby will be #1 in almost everyones list mainly because they consider peak or prime as more important and/or don't take into account the ever expanding NHL and special circumstance that Orr was in with his years in Boston.
Did you watch Orr? he is about the same age as I am. As a 14 year old in Junior playing against 20 year olds he was other worldy. then he came into the NHL at 18 and was dominant. I agree that it was a weaker league because of expansion & the WHA. Unfortunate because it gives detractors like you a sliver of hope to downgrade the man. Watching Orr! And ranking players ahead of him. Just can't see it. I know you are a career guy but.....

pappyline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 09:27 PM
  #58
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,264
vCash: 500
Just the fact that Orr is Gretzky's greatest competition for the title of greatest PLAYER to ever play the game should be all that needs to be said on the matter of who's the greatest D-man.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 09:33 PM
  #59
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
So what is the point of that? Bourque isn't as good as Lidstrom because his Bruins never upset their way to a Cup?

Lidstrom's teams had to beat some tough teams to get the Cup for sure (like the ones you mentioned), but they never beat a team that was as far ahead of them as those Oilers and Penguins teams were ahead of Bourque's Bruins. They were never big underdogs like that when they won, so you can't fault Bourque for not doing something Lidstrom never did himself.
You can't fault Bourque, but you can't hold him in the same regard as Lidstrom, either, as far as the playoffs go.

Sort of like you can't fault Hasek for not winning until he was with the Wings, but you simply can't hold him in the same regard as Roy, at least in the playoffs.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 09:39 PM
  #60
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Just the fact that Orr is Gretzky's greatest competition for the title of greatest PLAYER to ever play the game should be all that needs to be said on the matter of who's the greatest D-man.
Howe has just as much of a case as Orr, if not better. Lemieux, IMO, is clearly a step behind both of them.

Since Bourque - Hasek, Lidstrom and Jagr are the only arguable Top 20 players.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:00 PM
  #61
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Since Bourque - Hasek, Lidstrom and Jagr are the only arguable Top 20 players.
First of all, Messier is VERY arguable. Two Harts, a Hart runner-up to Lemieux, a four-time 1st Team All-Star at two positions, a Conn Smythe, four* better/equal runs (87, 88, 90, 94), being placed 12th by the THN vote for his work up until 1996, being considered the 1B to Beliveau's 1A in terms of leadership, and doing all of this against the two best centers in the history of the game? I'd say that it's at least a case.

And second, if you're going to bring a goalie into it, you're missing an important one that you, yourself, referenced six minutes before this post...


* I forgot how good he was in 1988. My apologies, Moose! :p

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:15 PM
  #62
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
First of all, Messier is VERY arguable. Two Harts, a Hart runner-up to Lemieux, a four-time 1st Team All-Star at two positions, a Conn Smythe, four* better/equal runs (87, 88, 90, 94), being placed 12th by the THN vote for his work up until 1996, being considered the 1B to Beliveau's 1A in terms of leadership, and doing all of this against the two best centers in the history of the game? I'd say that it's at least a case.

And second, if you're going to bring a goalie into it, you're missing an important one that you, yourself, referenced six minutes before this post...


* I forgot how good he was in 1988. My apologies, Moose! :p
Oops - good call on Roy.
If we are just talking skaters Messier has an argument, but a very flimsy one if we include goalies. His Harts are amongst the weakest since expansion.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:32 PM
  #63
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
His Harts are amongst the weakest since expansion.
His Harts (and again, we're talking about someone with two head-to-head against Gretzky and Lemieux) were accompanied by Pearsons, and 1992 was close to unanimous. It's not an Art Ross Trophy; it's a Hart Trophy.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:34 PM
  #64
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
Howe has just as much of a case as Orr, if not better.
Maybe in your opinion but that's not how it usually plays out.
Either way, whether you have Orr at #1, #2, #3 or even #4 all-time, no other D-man comes close to cracking that top 4.
Hence why Orr is the greatest D-man ever and it's not even cl....well you know the rest

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:37 PM
  #65
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
His Harts (and again, we're talking about someone with two head-to-head against Gretzky and Lemieux) were accompanied by Pearsons, and 1992 was close to unanimous. It's not an Art Ross Trophy; it's a Hart Trophy.
I do not weigh Hart trophies all equally is all. There were much better seasons from players who did not win Harts during that era.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:39 PM
  #66
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I do not weigh Hart trophies all equally is all.
Neither do I; the unanimous ones get special attention.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:45 PM
  #67
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Neither do I; the unanimous ones get special attention.
His win over Bourque was certainly not unanimous, and unanimous or not, 107 pts in 1992 is far from an upper echelon performance for the era.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 10:57 PM
  #68
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
His win over Bourque was certainly not unanimous, and unanimous or not, 107 pts in 1992 is far from an upper echelon performance for the era.
No shame in winning a Hart/Pearson over Bourque - a Top 10 all-time player - at his absolute best, even in a close vote. And 1992? Until you learn the difference between the Hart and the Art Ross, you'll never understand why it was unanimous. I mean, I can't imagine you would enjoy any one of us giving the Norris to Leetch in 2001, Gonchar in 2002, MacInnis in 2003, Niedermayer in 2007, or Visnovsky in 2011.

Hart is Hart. Art Ross is Art Ross.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:23 PM
  #69
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,736
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
No shame in winning a Hart/Pearson over Bourque - a Top 10 all-time player - at his absolute best, even in a close vote. And 1992? Until you learn the difference between the Hart and the Art Ross, you'll never understand why it was unanimous. I mean, I can't imagine you would enjoy any one of us giving the Norris to Leetch in 2001, Gonchar in 2002, MacInnis in 2003, Niedermayer in 2007, or Visnovsky in 2011.

Hart is Hart. Art Ross is Art Ross.
107 pts+ strong physical play + above average defense is still a lot behind many non-hart winning seasons in that era. I'm far from a points-only person. It's just not that impressive of a Hart - both seasons. His runner-up is spectacularly unimpressive, in the scheme of things.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:23 PM
  #70
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pappyline View Post
Did you watch Orr? he is about the same age as I am. As a 14 year old in Junior playing against 20 year olds he was other worldy. then he came into the NHL at 18 and was dominant. I agree that it was a weaker league because of expansion & the WHA. Unfortunate because it gives detractors like you a sliver of hope to downgrade the man. Watching Orr! And ranking players ahead of him. Just can't see it. I know you are a career guy but.....
Yes I saw him play, although I'm a bit younger than you and the NHL was very weak in terms of competition at the bottom.

The fact of the matter was that it was easier for a stud like Orr to dominate then under those circumstances.

He was the best player in his era to be sure but Lidstrom was the best player of the 1st decade in the 21st Century (as named by SI, and it would be hard to disagree on it) and has 10 excellent seasons on top of that decade as well (including some Norris contention ones and all of it was in a more to fully integrated and stable (teamwise) NHL.

To me that counts for something and needs to be taken into account.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately and the bottom line is that if I could have the careers of Dmen for any team (post 67 which is the time period I can directly measure with my eye test to some degree) Orr would not be #1 and I would have Lidstrom, Bourque and Potvin for their body of work and availability on my fictional team.

If Orr had better health it might be another thing but he didn't and any way you slice it those Boston teams under performed in the playoffs compared to their expectations.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:36 PM
  #71
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Maybe in your opinion but that's not how it usually plays out.
Either way, whether you have Orr at #1, #2, #3 or even #4 all-time, no other D-man comes close to cracking that top 4.
Hence why Orr is the greatest D-man ever and it's not even cl....well you know the rest
Well yes it is the way it usually plays out as most people grow up hearing these things and over time people accept them as truths and don't even really look at the arguments that might say different.

At the end of the day people use their own metric and use it when they want and put it away at other times. If Orr isn't going to knocked off his perch of #1 (in spite of his small number of games % wise comapred to the rest of the greats) what's leaving one of the hands down best playoff performers of all time, and not a half bad regular season guy and international star like Forsberg out of the top 20?

Well the 1st thing out of everyone's mouth when it comes to Forsberg is that he was injured and didn't play enough ect..


Funny how arguments are only brought out selectively though eh?

I'm not taking a swipe at anyone here but it's part of human nature and all of us fall victim to it from time to time myself included.

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-01-2012, 11:44 PM
  #72
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
107 pts+ strong physical play + above average defense is still a lot behind many non-hart winning seasons in that era. I'm far from a points-only person. It's just not that impressive of a Hart - both seasons. His runner-up is spectacularly unimpressive, in the scheme of things.
It's kinda funny but in another era, like say when Pratt won his Hart, would those voters have picked a guy like Leetch perhaps?

Or Brett hull's 70 goals? the next best being 54

Heck if Mario plays 5 more games and has 140 points maybe he gets it.

I'm not arguing that Moose didn't deserve the MVP or not but we have to look at the circumstances and try to understand that at different periods of time voters have acted and voted quite differently and apparently with different standards than at other times.

Bobby Clarke winning when the years previous winner (who lead the NHL in points the year Clarke won it wasn't top 10)

Hardyvan123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 02:42 AM
  #73
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well yes it is the way it usually plays out as most people grow up hearing these things and over time people accept them as truths and don't even really look at the arguments that might say different.

At the end of the day people use their own metric and use it when they want and put it away at other times. If Orr isn't going to knocked off his perch of #1 (in spite of his small number of games % wise comapred to the rest of the greats) what's leaving one of the hands down best playoff performers of all time, and not a half bad regular season guy and international star like Forsberg out of the top 20?

Well the 1st thing out of everyone's mouth when it comes to Forsberg is that he was injured and didn't play enough ect..


Funny how arguments are only brought out selectively though eh?

I'm not taking a swipe at anyone here but it's part of human nature and all of us fall victim to it from time to time myself included.
Let me ask you this; if you can have an 18-year-old Lidstrom, Bourque, Orr, or Potvin today, who would you choose?

You don't know what will happen. Lidstrom may tear out his ACL tomorrow; modern advances may make it so Orr plays until he is 45.

For the sake of dismissing when they would develop, let us say you get they won't leave the team via free agency.
But who do you take?

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 09:58 AM
  #74
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by superroyain10 View Post
Let me ask you this; if you can have an 18-year-old Lidstrom, Bourque, Orr, or Potvin today, who would you choose?

You don't know what will happen. Lidstrom may tear out his ACL tomorrow; modern advances may make it so Orr plays until he is 45.

For the sake of dismissing when they would develop, let us say you get they won't leave the team via free agency.
But who do you take?
It's Orr, any other answer is wrong and someone not being honest.
Without knowing the future, Orr is far and away the BPA at 18 in that group.
You would have to throw Gretzky, Lemieux or both in the mix for Orr to not go first overall.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-02-2012, 10:24 AM
  #75
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,242
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
what you say is true but people don't stop and think about the two perfect storms that Bobby had

1) expansion from 6 to 12 to 14 (WHA) to 16 teams
2) the Boston Bruins and style they played

To be sure on both points Bobby was the greatest player of his generation and probably would ahve been even in a 6 team league and on another team as well.

Chances are though that his stats and greatness would not have been as epic as they are viewed.

Also being 2nd in statistical dominance, and offensive wizardry, like Wayne was to Orr's efforts 10 years earlier, lessens the wow factor slightly to some perhaps.

Either way what Orr did in 657 games in 12 seasons is less great IMO than what Lidstrom did in his 20 seasons or Bourque and Harvey as well IMO but you ahve to remember that I'm a career guy 1st and foremost.

Maybe in time with Lidstrom retiring his greatness will become more evident but I imagine that Bobby will be #1 in almost everyones list mainly because they consider peak or prime as more important and/or don't take into account the ever expanding NHL and special circumstance that Orr was in with his years in Boston.
Orr came into the league as an 18 year-old. It was still the original 6. The Bruins were the worst team in the league by far. He was a 2nd team all-star. A remarkable achievment.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:21 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.