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.

Better player from 1995 to 1999 - Jaromir Jagr or Eric Lindros?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-11-2012, 12:18 PM
  #26
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,242
vCash: 500
Jagr, easily.

per-game it is closer (Lindros is 10% behind but with much better linemates helping him) and the physical dominance bridges some of the gap but not all of it.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 01:19 PM
  #27
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,308
vCash: 500
Reality: Jagr
If healthy: Jagr

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 02:35 PM
  #28
EastCoastNiner
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,849
vCash: 500
In comparisons like these when there are two great players, with one having injury problems, I think it's a cop out answer when people will says that they would rather have Jagr, but would take Lindros if guaranteed health. It's an easy way to play both sides.

I'm not saying there aren't situations where there are arguments in similar situations, but I definitely think it's a cop out and playing both sides when picking each player for different circumstances,

EastCoastNiner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 02:45 PM
  #29
NYR94
Registered User
 
NYR94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 5,949
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to NYR94
Jagr takes this one.

NYR94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 02:55 PM
  #30
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RECsGuy View Post
Ever seen Jagr with the puck? Doesn't get knocked off it and kept defenders at bay with just one hand on his stick. Not as physically imposing? Nothing scarier than a guy who physically keeps you from having the puck..

I'll take the guy who didn't have to look directly at the puck while stickhandling.
I agree, Jagr did that almost as well as Mario did. He could hang onto the puck for so long. And it was sheer strength too. Leg strength, arm strength, staying on your feet, having the skill to hang onto the puck. He was so, so powerful and it was not in the way Lindros was where he hammered you in the open ice, but it was almost like a weightlifters strength if that makes any sense

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 02:59 PM
  #31
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RECsGuy View Post
Ever seen Jagr with the puck? Doesn't get knocked off it and kept defenders at bay with just one hand on his stick. Not as physically imposing? Nothing scarier than a guy who physically keeps you from having the puck..

I'll take the guy who didn't have to look directly at the puck while stickhandling.
Agreed, Jagr gets almost no credit from most people for being a physical player, because he's not initiating the contact (i.e. not running around and hitting anything that moves like Lindros or Ovechkin often did/do). However, not only was he a tremendous at possessing and protecting the puck, but he could forecheck and win battles for the buck along the boards.

He has the size and strength to play an even more physical game, but I don't think he has the temperament and/or need to do so. His game is not to intimidate/injure the opposition, it's getting the puck, controlling it and making plays to either set up teammates for goals or score them himself. While he didn't dish out dangerous hits, he took about as much punishment as a hockey player could possibly take. Why put himself at further risk when he was being targeted every game and carrying mediocre-weak teams on his back? Unlike Forsberg (and often Lindros), if Jagr missed 1/3-1/2 the season with injuries, many of his teams may have missed the playoffs. He couldn't take a season off and then say "OK, I'm ready for the playoffs now!" Also, Euros (with some exceptions, notably the Russians among the stars) tend to play a less physically aggressive game. If compared to players like Kurri, Stastny, Selanne, Lidstrom, etc., Jagr actually seems one of the more physical stars from Europe.

Per-game stats are useful and not totally irrelevant, but they are often used to try to favor players like Lindros that couldn't stay healthy. It's brought up in this thread that Lindros' injuries actually hurt his PPG (and I'm sure some say the same about Forsberg, etc.). While I'm sure Lindros and Forsberg played some games hurt, they also frequently took games off until they were at/near 100%. On the flip side, it seems like it's assumed Jagr was always 100% or something. If you've watched much of his career, it's obvious that wasn't the case. Just some of the more obvious examples:

- '99 series against Devils when he could barely walk, but came back for games 6/7 to help upset NJ
- '00 he had points in 25/28 games... then pointless 3 straight games before missing a month
- '01 he mentioned hurting his shoulder in the off-season and was having a bit of an "off" season... he re-injured it in the second round, missed a couple games, then only played in the ECF with essentially one arm because it was "the ECF"
- '06 he played the entire season with a broken finger, took the hit from Ruutu in the Olympics, and never missed a game... until the playoffs when he again played a couple games with basically one arm (major surgery after season)
- '12 was hindered with a groin injury for much of the season, including playoffs

These are only the more prominent examples that are known about, I'm sure there were many other more minor injuries that he played through (like most players do). As someone else pointed out, contrary to many people's image, he's actually a very tough player. He's taken countless hits to the head and just keeps going. I would guess Jagr didn't play as overtly physical of a game and played through injury for good reasons:

- not how he learned the game
- not a dirty player
- helps him stay healthy
- staying healthy increases games/season and total seasons, as well as his production each season
- more games/season helps his team make playoffs
- more games/season and more seasons means more total games doing what he loves
- more games/season helps his value/season ($) and more seasons is more $

He took tremendous punishment, game in and game out, every season. I don't think being more physical would have significantly helped his game or his team. I just don't see how Lindros gets credit for trying to injure his opponents and looking down at the puck. Lindros had a great deal of skill, but he wasn't at the same level of offensive skill as Jagr. Perhaps his physical game allowed him to bridge the gap for brief stretches, but he never really could for even a full season.

Lindros was an incredible force though, no doubt. When you realize how many marginal HOF forwards have been inducted from the 70's and 80's, it's crazy if players like Lindros and Bure have to wait more than a year or two for induction.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 06-11-2012 at 03:05 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 07:12 PM
  #32
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jigglysquishy View Post
The real question is, assuming Lindros' PPG is indicative of his final point totals, how do those seasons end?
Actually, I submit that the real question is: how much of Lindros' impact (pun intended) is actually "measured" in PPG statistics? I mean, I personally would totally "deal" with Lindros finishing 10-20 points behind those guys every year - if I got him for 80 games per year in exchange. I'd be surprised if most wouldn't. That's how good he was, and how much of a difference it made having a guy like him at centre. Accumulation (testament to durability) does matter at a point, though, admittedly.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2012, 11:12 PM
  #33
blogofmike
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Actually, I submit that the real question is: how much of Lindros' impact (pun intended) is actually "measured" in PPG statistics? I mean, I personally would totally "deal" with Lindros finishing 10-20 points behind those guys every year - if I got him for 80 games per year in exchange. I'd be surprised if most wouldn't. That's how good he was, and how much of a difference it made having a guy like him at centre. Accumulation (testament to durability) does matter at a point, though, admittedly.
Defensively Lindros was more valuable. In the only two years with faceoff stats in this period, Lindros won 60% in each season. He was also used to kill penalties more often in this span.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Playoffs: When you take into account Lindros' physical play, I think he and Jagr were close in the playoffs during the time frame. Both were capable of dominating series, but both had a tendency to disappoint at times. Jagr was never completely embarrassed like Lindros was in the 1997 finals though.
1996 ECF. Didn't have Lidstrom checking him, but Jagr played like it. Flyers also beat a Lemieux-Jagr Pens team convincingly. Overall neither one really stands out based on the post-season though.

In the end I go with Jagr. Health is part of it. Through 1997 they're very close and Lindros is edging him out, but the strength of Jagr's next two seasons lets him pull away.

blogofmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:10 AM
  #34
VanIslander
An All-Time Drafter
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 19,759
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Playoff points 1995-1999

1. Fedorov (DET) 93
2. Sakic (COL) 88
3. Yzerman (DET) 82
4. Forsberg (COL) 79
5. Lemieux (COL) 71
6. Lidstrom (DET) 68
7. Jagr 67
8. Kozlov (DET) 62
9. Ozolinsh (COL) 60
10. Kamensky (COL) 59
The Avs and Wings dominated the playoffs for several years. Jagr is the only player not in that Western conference rivalry to crack the top 10, though Lindros at 11th isn't so far behind.

The whole Jagr vs. Lindros is and was so Eastern biased. Colorado vs. Detroit was where it was at.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:14 PM
  #35
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Playoff points 1995-1999

1. Fedorov (DET) 93
2. Sakic (COL) 88
3. Yzerman (DET) 82
4. Forsberg (COL) 79
5. Lemieux (COL) 71
6. Lidstrom (DET) 68
7. Jagr 67
8. Kozlov (DET) 62
9. Ozolinsh (COL) 60
10. Kamensky (COL) 59
11. Lindros 56
12. Brind'amour 51
12. Zubov 51

Playoff PPG 1995-1999

1. Lemieux 1.43
2. Jagr 1.34
3. Gretzky 1.29
4. Sakic 1.26
5. Fleury 1.17
6. Lindros 1.17
7. Forsberg 1.16
8. Allison 1.06
9. Fedorov 1.06
10. Francis 1.03
At that age? Wow.
Anyways, it's Jagr without a doubt.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:16 PM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tazzy19 View Post
In his mid to late 30s. Wow.
Keep in mind that Gretzky's numbers are entirely from the 1996 and 1997 playoffs when he was 35-36 years old, the only times he made the playoffs after 1993. Still pretty impressive.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 12:21 PM
  #37
tazzy19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,855
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Keep in mind that Gretzky's numbers are entirely from the 1996 and 1997 playoffs when he was 35-36 years old, the only times he made the playoffs after 1993. Still pretty impressive.
That's true. It's a shame we didn't get to see more of Gretzky in the playoffs after 1993. It was in the playoffs when he always somehow turned back the clock, and was once again, The Great One. His 2nd period natural hat trick against Florida in 1996 will always be imprinted into my mind. He could have scored 5 goals that game, and was dangling like he was 23 years old again.

tazzy19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 02:06 PM
  #38
toob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 719
vCash: 500
Lindros and it is incredible how much these things are affected by reputation. Lindros was likely overhyped in the period of question and now hes underrated.

toob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 02:19 PM
  #39
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,200
vCash: 150
I'd say Lindros is STILL overrated if people are seriously trying to make a case that he was better than Jagr.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 09:17 PM
  #40
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,569
vCash: 500
I would take Jagr from what they actually did but it's alot closer in terms of their overall impact if we could get both guys healthy.

I'm kind of curious on what the flyers record was with and without Lindros during that time period. It's not the most important of factors as it could also depend on opponents and other team mates being out or as we saw in the 1st case of Sid being out, sometimes a team can over compensate for a while as well.

I'm just curious if anyone has the stats for it.

Personally I would take Foppa over both guys in terms of being the "best overall player in regular season and playoff peformance from 95-99 which is what the OP might have been trying to get at, I'm not sure.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 12:26 AM
  #41
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I would take Jagr from what they actually did but it's alot closer in terms of their overall impact if we could get both guys healthy.

I'm kind of curious on what the flyers record was with and without Lindros during that time period. It's not the most important of factors as it could also depend on opponents and other team mates being out or as we saw in the 1st case of Sid being out, sometimes a team can over compensate for a while as well.

I'm just curious if anyone has the stats for it.

Personally I would take Foppa over both guys in terms of being the "best overall player in regular season and playoff peformance from 95-99 which is what the OP might have been trying to get at, I'm not sure.
This is record with and without each player. The "with" is weighted by games missed to create "expected win %". IOW if a player missed 10 games in a year when team had .500 win % and 20 games in a year when team was .600, then expected win % would be (10*.500 + 20*.600) / (10 + 20) = 17/30 = .567.

Lindros
-----------
'93-00: expected .623 actual .541 (134 games missed)
'95-99: expected .621 actual .556 (71 games)

Jagr
-------
'95-01: expected .534 actual .389 (45 games)
'95-99: expected .556 actual .360 (25 games)

Forsberg
---------------
'95-04: expected .634 actual .533 (123 games)
'95-99: expected .617 actual .613 (31 games)

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 01:21 AM
  #42
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,444
vCash: 500
Wait a sec, why use weighted estimates when we actually know the results of the games each respective team played with/without these players in the past? I guess I'm assuming that Hardyvan was asking for a W-L-O/T record, which would call for a Google hunt or much manual tabulation.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 01:58 AM
  #43
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Wait a sec, why use weighted estimates when we actually know the results of the games each respective team played with/without these players in the past? I guess I'm assuming that Hardyvan was asking for a W-L-O/T record, which would call for a Google hunt or much manual tabulation.
There's really no "estimate" involved, I simply termed the weighted average of record with the player as "expected win %".

Here's an example of why this is necessary (using 25 game season)

Season 1: Team = 20-5 (8-1 with, 12-4 without)
Season 2: Team = 10-15 (7-9 with, 3-6 without)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Team = 30-20 (15-10 with, 15-10 without)

So there's no change in total record with or without the player. However, if you look at the individual seasons, the team was better with the player than without in each season.

When you calculate "expected win %", this isn't an issue. The formula is as follows:

Expected wins w/o player = (Games w/o Player) * (Win% w/ Player)

EW Season 1 = (12 + 4) * (8/9) = 16 * .888 = 14.22 wins
EW Season 2 = (3 + 6) * (7/16) = 9 * .4375 = 3.94 wins
Total Expected Wins = 18.16 wins (in 25 games)
Expected Win % = 18.16 / 25 = .726
Actual Win % = 15 / 25 = .600

This gives the true picture, the weighted win% with the player was .726, but the actual win% was .600, demonstrating the team was significantly worse without the player.

BTW, it doesn't take very long with the proper formulas and using player game logs from HR.com (sorted by outcome).


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 06-13-2012 at 02:04 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:39 AM
  #44
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
There's really no "estimate" involved, I simply termed the weighted average of record with the player as "expected win %".

Here's an example of why this is necessary (using 25 game season)

Season 1: Team = 20-5 (8-1 with, 12-4 without)
Season 2: Team = 10-15 (7-9 with, 3-6 without)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS: Team = 30-20 (15-10 with, 15-10 without)

So there's no change in total record with or without the player. However, if you look at the individual seasons, the team was better with the player than without in each season.

When you calculate "expected win %", this isn't an issue. The formula is as follows:

Expected wins w/o player = (Games w/o Player) * (Win% w/ Player)

EW Season 1 = (12 + 4) * (8/9) = 16 * .888 = 14.22 wins
EW Season 2 = (3 + 6) * (7/16) = 9 * .4375 = 3.94 wins
Total Expected Wins = 18.16 wins (in 25 games)
Expected Win % = 18.16 / 25 = .726
Actual Win % = 15 / 25 = .600

This gives the true picture, the weighted win% with the player was .726, but the actual win% was .600, demonstrating the team was significantly worse without the player.

BTW, it doesn't take very long with the proper formulas and using player game logs from HR.com (sorted by outcome).
That's all fine and good, but just using '96/97 as an example (because Lindros missed a lot of time, so there's a good sample size with/without him), and I get that they were 16-12-3 without him in the lineup versus 29-12-10 with him. That gives points% (not just "win%") of 0.564 without vs 0.667 with.

I think those are the kinds of numbers Hardyvan is looking for (the W-L-T specifically), that's all.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 12:58 PM
  #45
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,056
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
That's all fine and good, but just using '96/97 as an example (because Lindros missed a lot of time, so there's a good sample size with/without him), and I get that they were 16-12-3 without him in the lineup versus 29-12-10 with him. That gives points% (not just "win%") of 0.564 without vs 0.667 with.

I think those are the kinds of numbers Hardyvan is looking for (the W-L-T specifically), that's all.
Lindros (with... without)
--------------
1995 27 16 3 0.620 1 0 1 0.750
1996 42 19 12 0.658 3 5 1 0.389
1997 29 12 11 0.663 16 12 2 0.567
1998 31 23 9 0.563 11 6 2 0.632
1999 33 22 16 0.577 4 4 3 0.500

Jagr
------
1997 34 24 5 0.579 4 12 3 0.289
1998 37 23 17 0.591 3 1 1 0.700
1999 38 29 14 0.556 0 1 0 0.000

Forsberg
-------------
1997 38 22 5 0.623 11 2 4 0.765
1998 36 19 17 0.618 3 7 0 0.300
1999 41 27 10 0.590 3 1 0 0.750

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 01:16 PM
  #46
11MilesPerJohan
@BeingAHumanBean
 
11MilesPerJohan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: McLean Hospital
Country: United States
Posts: 2,029
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I am assuming 1995 includes the lockout shortened year? Either way it is Jagr for me over those 5 seasons without thinking too hard. And when I do think hard it is Jagr much easier.

Lindros won the Hart over Jagr in 1995 and he deserved it. But in all honesty, they both had 70 points so it isn't as if Jagr wasn't in the mix.

In 1996 Lemieux was the best player in the world. Jagr clearly outpointed Lindros but if you take into account Lindros' physical play it drops it down a bit. Either way, both players were pretty close during that year.

In 1997 both missed time with injuries yet Jagr was still among the NHL leaders in points. Lindros played out of his mind in the first three rounds in the playoffs only to crumble like a cracker in the final when he was the best player on either team.

By 1998 it was still unclear who would be the best player in the NHL. However, Jagr wins the Art Ross by a decent margin, Lindros is injured for 20 games. Jagr wins a Gold medal at Lindros' expense and Lindros again gets criticized for not leading his team. Both players got bounced out in the first round of the playoffs though.

By 1999 it isn't even close anymore. Jagr is owning the NHL at this time. Lindros again suffers an injury - a collapsed lung - and ironically its Jagr who plays hurt in the postseason but leads his team to victory before losing in the second round. No doubt this was Jagr's NHL by now. He had seperated himself from the rest of the pack.

Overall I pick Jagr for that time frame. Put him on my team and they have a better chance than a constantly injury prone Lindros.
Good analysis. Seems pretty cut and dry.

11MilesPerJohan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 07:13 PM
  #47
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 25,444
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Lindros (with... without)
--------------
1995 27 16 3 0.620 1 0 1 0.750
1996 42 19 12 0.658 3 5 1 0.389
1997 29 12 11 0.663 16 12 2 0.567
1998 31 23 9 0.563 11 6 2 0.632
1999 33 22 16 0.577 4 4 3 0.500

Jagr
------
1997 34 24 5 0.579 4 12 3 0.289
1998 37 23 17 0.591 3 1 1 0.700
1999 38 29 14 0.556 0 1 0 0.000

Forsberg
-------------
1997 38 22 5 0.623 11 2 4 0.765
1998 36 19 17 0.618 3 7 0 0.300
1999 41 27 10 0.590 3 1 0 0.750
Ah, cheers. I started out myself, but didn't get to Forsberg.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 08:43 PM
  #48
newfy
Registered User
 
newfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tombombadil View Post
it's a pick 'em for me. I'm partial to guys who add more than points, so i lean towards Eric, but there is no denying that Jagr was a better franchise guy due to health. I dislike Lindros, but I think he is the greatest power forward of all time, and by a good bit, too.
I'm a guy who supports Lindros, but to say he is the greatest power forward of all time is a joke

newfy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #49
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,691
vCash: 500
Take away Lemieux, and he wins the Art Ross.

Take away Francis, and he wins the Art Ross by a bigger margin.

Give him the flu*, and he knocks out the #1 Seed.


* or was it his groin?


Last edited by quoipourquoi: 06-13-2012 at 09:09 PM.
quoipourquoi 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 10:36 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.