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

Red Fishers Top 10 Habs ......

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-23-2005, 12:53 PM
  #26
Bruin_Ron
Registered User
 
Bruin_Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,008
vCash: 500
I met Fisher at work not Friday that just passed but the Friday before. Talking to him you get the sense that he's got a whole library about hockey up there. He's "getting" old, though. He wasn't in the best mood but I'm glad to have met him and chatted for a bit.



- Ron

Bruin_Ron is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:08 PM
  #27
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,662
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Well, as Sunday, he's got Savard,Moore Gainey and Geoffrion from 10-7. You have to know that the top 5 will include Thr Rocket,Beliveau,Lafleur,Harvey and Robinson.

I guess 6 can be debated though I think the smart money is on Henri Richard. I won't argue with his picks though I'm curious as to why Savard over Lapointe. Mainly because I hate when Bill's right.
If you don't want to know the rest of the top ten, skip the rest of this post




According to Saturday's article, the ten players have 71 Cups, 9 Norris' and 5 Conn Smythe's between them. Doing the math, with the 4 already revealed and consering the top 5 are locks, Henri Richard's stats add up. Now that we know who the top ten are, let's speculate on the order. My thoughts (with those already revealed staying in their spots)

10 - Savard
9 - Moore
8 - Gainey
7 - Geoffrion
6 - H. Richard
5 - Robinson
4 - Lafleur
3 - Beliveau
2 - Harvey
1 - M. Richard

It would have been interesting to see a list including goalies. One would have to think Plante and Roy would be there, and most likely Dryden too. It's hard to figure out where they fit though. I'm also a bit surprised Howie Morenz won't be on the list (well, most likely). Perhaps even before Red's time?

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 01:08 PM
  #28
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by awesome`
Well, I know my dad, who is pretty damn good at analyzing hockey, is always telling me that Serge Savard was the best out of the Big three talent-wise. Not arguing that Robinson had a better career though.
I think that I'd agree talent wise, keeping in mind that Savard lost a lot of mobility at a young age with the 2 leg injuries. He had to re-think his game when he came back. That's the why these lists are fun but meaningless. If Robinson doesn't make his debut when he did, does Savard play a more aggressive offensive game ? Players on great teams like that played the role that suited the team needs. If the needs were different, maybe his career is different and he's judged differently.

mcphee is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 09:48 PM
  #29
HABitude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Laprairie, dans la belle Province
Posts: 2,561
vCash: 500
No Cournoyer on that list?

HABitude is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 10:02 PM
  #30
HABitude
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Laprairie, dans la belle Province
Posts: 2,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
Guess we'll have to arm wrestle then. Remember when Lemaire came up ? He was going to be the nxt Bobby Hull with that big shot of his and he never got comfortable as the go to guy. He became such a complete player by the late 70's that it was hard to believe he was the same guy as the earlier Lemaire. Gainey sacrificed hi soffense because it wasn't what the team needed from him. I remember reading in 'The Game' how Gainey considered his best stat year as one of his worst years. I think Lapointe gots lost in the shuffle a bit historically, though honestly, how do you even start to compare he and Savard. Lapointe usually had to play with the rookie, while Robinson was able to excel partly because of Savard's support. Flip a coin, I guess. I'd love to hear Scotty Bowman making choices like this.
I was a big fan of Lemaire. I remember his slap-shot but he never really used it, like you said, he didn't fill in that role of “go to guy. I was older when in the late seventies I saw those (4) Stanley Cups won in a row with Lemaire as our first center man. What a complete player he was. More efficient than Clarke and Middleton. He had much better wingers (Shutt & Lafleur) I have to mention. He never missed an open net, made some fabulous plays, while keeping his positioning perfectly. I think at this time he mastered as a player what he had teach after as a coach. He became the second best coach after Bowman.

Does Lemaire deserves to be in the top ten? Maybe not, he should be around 11th to 14th but I'll never forget him, he was one of my favorites.

Now to answer Gros Bill, it depends what angle you look at the game: Lemaire can be > Gainey.

HABitude is offline  
Old
01-23-2005, 11:24 PM
  #31
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Albino
If you don't want to know the rest of the top ten, skip the rest of this post




According to Saturday's article, the ten players have 71 Cups, 9 Norris' and 5 Conn Smythe's between them. Doing the math, with the 4 already revealed and consering the top 5 are locks, Henri Richard's stats add up. Now that we know who the top ten are, let's speculate on the order. My thoughts (with those already revealed staying in their spots)

10 - Savard
9 - Moore
8 - Gainey
7 - Geoffrion
6 - H. Richard
5 - Robinson
4 - Lafleur
3 - Beliveau
2 - Harvey
1 - M. Richard

It would have been interesting to see a list including goalies. One would have to think Plante and Roy would be there, and most likely Dryden too. It's hard to figure out where they fit though. I'm also a bit surprised Howie Morenz won't be on the list (well, most likely). Perhaps even before Red's time?

You're probably right and just for the record here are the number of cups each of these players have won.

1 - M. Richard- 42-43 until 59-60= 8
2 – Harvey- 47-48 until 60-61= 6
3 – Beliveau- 52-53 until 70-71= 10
4 – Lafleur- 71-72 until 84-85= 5
5 – Robinson- 72-73 until 88-89= 6
6 - H. Richard- 55-56 until 74-75= 11
7 – Geoffrion- 50-51 until 63-64= 6
8 – Gainey- 74-75 until 88-89= 5
9 – Moore- 51-52 until 62-63= 6
10 – Savard- 1966-67 until 80-81= 8

Conn Smythe Trophy winners:

Serge Savard
Bob Gainey
Guy Lafleur
Jean Beliveau
Larry Robinson

Man 4 of these 5 conn smythe trophie winners actually were apart of the last habs dinasty of the late 70-s!

The Norris trophie winners are obviously Doug Harvey (7 times!!!) and Larry Robinson (2 times)

So yeah the list is probably right although I would replace Harvey with Lafleur and that's pretty much it. Boy just looking at the history of the habs I stand in awe

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
01-24-2005, 08:11 AM
  #32
Mike The Wall
Registered User
 
Mike The Wall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Montreal Hockey Capital of The World
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,600
vCash: 500
Here is the updated version enjoy the read

Mike The Wall is offline  
Old
01-26-2005, 11:12 PM
  #33
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,662
vCash: 50
Keeping this alive...

#5 Henri Richard

#4 Doug Harvey

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
01-27-2005, 05:11 PM
  #34
goalchenyuk
Registered User
 
goalchenyuk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: montreal
Country: Vatican City State
Posts: 8,461
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HABitude
No Cournoyer on that list?
i would put Lemaire and Shutt ahead Cournoyer, in the List.The road runer was fast and spectaculor , but The two others were better .

goalchenyuk is offline  
Old
01-27-2005, 07:31 PM
  #35
Habs Icing
Formerly Onice
 
Habs Icing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark0v
i would put Lemaire and Shutt ahead Cournoyer, in the List.The road runer was fast and spectaculor , but The two others were better .

Jeeze, I loved Lemaire and Shutt but no way, no way, are they better than Cournoyer.

Habs Icing is offline  
Old
01-27-2005, 07:33 PM
  #36
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,662
vCash: 50
#3 Guy Lafleur

Kind of easy to guess the next two

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
01-27-2005, 10:11 PM
  #37
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Imagine if he puts Beliveau ahead of Richard..

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
01-28-2005, 06:21 AM
  #38
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,662
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Imagine if he puts Beliveau ahead of Richard..
Imagine no longer...


#2 Maurice Richard

I must say I'm a bit shocked, but Red's explanation made sense. I hadn't realized it was the best Habs he'd covered, and by the time he started his career Maurice was in the twilight of his. Another good read.

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
01-29-2005, 07:05 AM
  #39
AH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Woodbridge, ON
Country: Pakistan
Posts: 4,879
vCash: 500
Off the top of my head I can think of three greats at each position that Red has covered and who did not make the list (all are HOFamers).

Defense: Lapointe, Laperriere, JC Tremblay.
Forwards: Shutt, Lemaire, Cournoyer.

Any more?

AH is offline  
Old
01-29-2005, 10:20 AM
  #40
Bill McNeal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,662
vCash: 50
And finally...

#1 Jean Beliveau

Bill McNeal is offline  
Old
01-29-2005, 01:34 PM
  #41
Jeffrey
Registered User
 
Jeffrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,815
vCash: 50
Send a message via MSN to Jeffrey
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Albino
And finally...

#1 Jean Beliveau
Fischers is the man !!!
Beliveau deserves this rank !!
he's the best habs player ever period.

Jeffrey is offline  
Old
01-30-2005, 04:33 AM
  #42
VirginiaMtlExpat
Going thru customs
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,748
vCash: 500
Frankly, his decision not to include goalies strikes me as bizarre and arbitrary, as well as a cop-out. I also didn't find his argument for Beliveau at #1 particularly compelling. I don't find him a compelling writer, come to think of it. He likes to make a point of how chummy he was with players, as if that gives him particular credibility (actually much of his writing elevates him as a narrator, a trait I find irritating). It doesn't, not to me anyway. He just happened to hang in there long enough, as the de facto anglo journalist who automatically had access to many of the players, and he parlayed that into a trip to the Hall of Fame. To me, he was at the right place at the right time, and hung in long enough.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
01-30-2005, 07:14 AM
  #43
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanMontrealExpat
Frankly, his decision not to include goalies strikes me as bizarre and arbitrary, as well as a cop-out. I also didn't find his argument for Beliveau at #1 particularly compelling. I don't find him a compelling writer, come to think of it. He likes to make a point of how chummy he was with players, as if that gives him particular credibility (actually much of his writing elevates him as a narrator, a trait I find irritating). It doesn't, not to me anyway. He just happened to hang in there long enough, as the de facto anglo journalist who automatically had access to many of the players, and he parlayed that into a trip to the Hall of Fame. To me, he was at the right place at the right time, and hung in long enough.
I agree that the way he trades heavily on his contacts and enjoys putting them into his column for whatever reason. I think though that his longevity has bought him the right. If his ego requires him to mention that a Gainey or a Moore may give him inside info., it doesn't change the fact that he has it. I think it would be fair to say that Red may have lost his passion for th eday to day operations some time ago, but no one puts the game into better perspective than he does. You mention how he doesn't justify his selections. I don't know if you have heard much of his radio or TV work over the years, but he doesn't feel the need to justify anything. He gives his opinion then tells a story. He has always sort of portrayed an arrogant detachment, and he's always done it well. Keep in mind that his whole series was about what he had seen in his time, he made no effort to classify anything that came before him. If you talk to enough old timers, you find a lot who could never stand Fisher and a lot who love him. To me, he's a part of the story of the team that I've followed all these years, just like the Asian lady who had the ushertte position behind the bench all those years and that grey haired guy who was the eqmt. man for th evisiting team. Some of Fisher's series or articles have over the years elevated him to a special status, I can think of the one about Toe Blake's battle with Alzeimer's in particular. I can see how it can seem like cronyism now though. Don't discount longevity though, a lot of writers have come and gone in his 50 years, it's gotta be more than luck.

mcphee is offline  
Old
01-30-2005, 08:00 PM
  #44
VirginiaMtlExpat
Going thru customs
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,748
vCash: 500
Well, I maintain that he got where he was due to a special set of circumstances: there wasn't much competition for him as an English sports writer in Montreal, except for Michael Farber, who then went on to bigger and better things. Who else was there really? Tim Burke? Contrast that with the number of papers in Toronto: if the Toronto Globe and Mail was actually the Montreal Globe and Mail, and he had to go head-to-head with the Brunts and the Duhatcheks, or their equivalents, especially if he were starting out, his niche would be a lot tighter to live in. So without any competition to speak of, having access at least to the English-speaking segment of the most winning hockey team in history, he really didn't have to do much but show up long enough and pontificate.

I wonder if he disliked Roy, who probably was in tighter with Brunet and Tremblay of La Presse, and for that reason decided to exclude goalies from his list. Let's face it, Roy is responsible for giving the Habs 2 Stanley Cups, not single-handedly, but as close to it as you can get in a team sport.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
01-31-2005, 08:38 AM
  #45
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanMontrealExpat
Well, I maintain that he got where he was due to a special set of circumstances: there wasn't much competition for him as an English sports writer in Montreal, except for Michael Farber, who then went on to bigger and better things. Who else was there really? Tim Burke? Contrast that with the number of papers in Toronto: if the Toronto Globe and Mail was actually the Montreal Globe and Mail, and he had to go head-to-head with the Brunts and the Duhatcheks, or their equivalents, especially if he were starting out, his niche would be a lot tighter to live in. So without any competition to speak of, having access at least to the English-speaking segment of the most winning hockey team in history, he really didn't have to do much but show up long enough and pontificate.

I wonder if he disliked Roy, who probably was in tighter with Brunet and Tremblay of La Presse, and for that reason decided to exclude goalies from his list. Let's face it, Roy is responsible for giving the Habs 2 Stanley Cups, not single-handedly, but as close to it as you can get in a team sport.
I'll agree that the anglo media in Mtl. has been a bit lame in Mtl. probably for th elast 15-20 years and they haven't really broken in any talent esp. in hockey coverage in print in a long time. Having 1 paper creates this obviously. Keep in mind that though that this wasn't always the case. When the Montreal Star existed, competition was fiercer. Also, Fisher didn't start in the Farber/Burke/era. When you get right to it, wasn't Strachan on the Mtl. hockey beat then ? A guy named Glen Cole covered hockey daily around then too. I'm guessing that was the early to mid 70's when the old guard that was around when Fisher began had retired. Since then however, I can think of very few hockey writers in Mtl. that I've paid much att. to. Hickey's been around and knows sports in general, but he's a columnist more than a beat guy. I agree that reporting is divided linguistically in Mtl. Fisher would relate the funny comments of a Odelin or a Rivet but seldom painted much of a picture of a Daigneault or a Brisebois. It's the same on both sides, I guess, like it or not. I don't know why he excluded goalies. Frankly, I'm not sure how to relate goalies to position players in comparisons. A goalie's value is so high in hockey that the best goalies wil always be of the highest value, but how do you argue Roy vs. Moore ? I'd rather argue Roy vs. Dryden vs. Plante. Fisher does his schtick like a lot do in the media, he does this arrogant, I've been here before you and I'll be here after you, act that some don't like. I remember when he did pre-game on CJAD for a few years and can say that he could make me laugh, which is pretty rare for media types. It comes down to taste though in the end. Of course he's had an oppurtunistic career, few successful people haven't. The hof media members are basically rewarded for longevity, I agree with that, but I do respect coverage he's provided over the years.

mcphee is offline  
Old
01-31-2005, 08:17 PM
  #46
VirginiaMtlExpat
Going thru customs
 
VirginiaMtlExpat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,748
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcphee
I'll agree that the anglo media in Mtl. has been a bit lame in Mtl. probably for th elast 15-20 years and they haven't really broken in any talent esp. in hockey coverage in print in a long time. Having 1 paper creates this obviously. Keep in mind that though that this wasn't always the case. When the Montreal Star existed, competition was fiercer. Also, Fisher didn't start in the Farber/Burke/era. When you get right to it, wasn't Strachan on the Mtl. hockey beat then ? A guy named Glen Cole covered hockey daily around then too. I'm guessing that was the early to mid 70's when the old guard that was around when Fisher began had retired. Since then however, I can think of very few hockey writers in Mtl. that I've paid much att. to. Hickey's been around and knows sports in general, but he's a columnist more than a beat guy. I agree that reporting is divided linguistically in Mtl. Fisher would relate the funny comments of a Odelin or a Rivet but seldom painted much of a picture of a Daigneault or a Brisebois. It's the same on both sides, I guess, like it or not. I don't know why he excluded goalies. Frankly, I'm not sure how to relate goalies to position players in comparisons. A goalie's value is so high in hockey that the best goalies wil always be of the highest value, but how do you argue Roy vs. Moore ? I'd rather argue Roy vs. Dryden vs. Plante. Fisher does his schtick like a lot do in the media, he does this arrogant, I've been here before you and I'll be here after you, act that some don't like. I remember when he did pre-game on CJAD for a few years and can say that he could make me laugh, which is pretty rare for media types. It comes down to taste though in the end. Of course he's had an oppurtunistic career, few successful people haven't. The hof media members are basically rewarded for longevity, I agree with that, but I do respect coverage he's provided over the years.
Interesting read, McPhee. I would say that the issue of relating skating players to goalies is largely irrelevant to me, because we're not including all of those players exclusively on the basis of statistics anyway. Not Gainey for example, and Beliveau arguably is higher than he might be otherwise, from a strictly statistical standpoint. They were put there based on their impact on the team and whatever mythical proportions they might have in Habs lore. From that standpoint then, there is reason to consider at least 2 goalies, possibly 3. So what if it's a top 15? A top 15 that includes goalies strikes me as less arbitrary than a top 10 that excludes them.

Nothing wrong with opportunism. In my own research, I am extremely opportunistic in that I managed to get some state-of-the-art source code from others, that I'm integrating into a surgery simulator that I believe will have a big impact, both clinically for surgery and financially for me. But with that comes a sense of humility and gratefulness. Moreover, I like to think that I can interact with others who have nothing to do with my area of expertise or with what contributes to my self-esteem, a perspective that people often have in graduate school. Red Fisher looks like he could use precisely that: a fresh perspective.

VirginiaMtlExpat is offline  
Old
01-31-2005, 08:51 PM
  #47
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Albino
Imagine no longer...


#2 Maurice Richard

I must say I'm a bit shocked, but Red's explanation made sense. I hadn't realized it was the best Habs he'd covered, and by the time he started his career Maurice was in the twilight of his. Another good read.
But if its the best habs he had covered then Lafleur should have been ahead of Rocket as well. Rocket only tallied 160 goals and 314 points in 320 games by the time Fischer started covering the habs. Lafleur scored 540 goals and over 1300 points. Although if we consider Rocket's whole career Rocket was better then both Jean and Guy.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
02-01-2005, 06:52 AM
  #48
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JapanMontrealExpat
Interesting read, McPhee. I would say that the issue of relating skating players to goalies is largely irrelevant to me, because we're not including all of those players exclusively on the basis of statistics anyway. Not Gainey for example, and Beliveau arguably is higher than he might be otherwise, from a strictly statistical standpoint. They were put there based on their impact on the team and whatever mythical proportions they might have in Habs lore. From that standpoint then, there is reason to consider at least 2 goalies, possibly 3. So what if it's a top 15? A top 15 that includes goalies strikes me as less arbitrary than a top 10 that excludes them.

Nothing wrong with opportunism. In my own research, I am extremely opportunistic in that I managed to get some state-of-the-art source code from others, that I'm integrating into a surgery simulator that I believe will have a big impact, both clinically for surgery and financially for me. But with that comes a sense of humility and gratefulness. Moreover, I like to think that I can interact with others who have nothing to do with my area of expertise or with what contributes to my self-esteem, a perspective that people often have in graduate school. Red Fisher looks like he could use precisely that: a fresh perspective.
I understand your point and agree to an extent. I couldn't imagine that anyone who has had the experience's that a writer like Fisher has had doesn't appreciate his good fortune. I also think that, like a gruff uncle or grandfather, he'll stay in character to the end. I remember as a kid, Fisher would annoy the hell out of my father, though I can't remember why.

On successful teams like the CH, rating players historically gets interesting. The numbers are less relevant than they are for 'middle of the pack' teams. On the History of Hockey board, we were discussing players who never got the recognition they deserved. Don Marcotte was mentionned as someone similar to Gainey who is never mentionned in the same breath. It was pointed out that Marcotte was the superior offensive player, and if you went by the numbers, you'd have to agree. Players on the great Mtl. teams seem to have one thing in common, it was about the team winning. Individual stats were nice but the prospect of losing was so unacceptable to them that the collective goal was what mattered. If Gainey or a few of the others found themselves on an offensively challenged team, they may have been different players. Often players are discounted because of the players around them, Dryden being an example, when the ability to be a part of a team and step up when needed was a quality in itself. I may have a point here and if it occurs to me, I'll get back to you.

Good luck with the source code you mentionned but if ther is a financial windfall, don't let Gros Bill hear about it, he'll want you to bankroll his Larry Hillman Bobble Head Doll.

mcphee is offline  
Old
02-01-2005, 07:56 AM
  #49
Gros Bill
Registered User
 
Gros Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Country: Rwanda
Posts: 5,903
vCash: 500
Holy Jeez, you guys are overanalyzing a bit. Red Fisher arrives at 50 years covering the habs, so he picks a top ten from those 50 years. He figures that goalies will "skew" the selection", so omits them (face it, 3 goalies would have made the top ten). He figures Rocket Richard was past his prime during those years, puts him at no. 2 if only because of his leadership and what he meant to the team and the whole province. What's the big deal ? (Apart from the fact I got 9 out of 10)

Gros Bill is offline  
Old
02-01-2005, 08:28 AM
  #50
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,105
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gros Bill
Holy Jeez, you guys are overanalyzing a bit. Red Fisher arrives at 50 years covering the habs, so he picks a top ten from those 50 years. He figures that goalies will "skew" the selection", so omits them (face it, 3 goalies would have made the top ten). He figures Rocket Richard was past his prime during those years, puts him at no. 2 if only because of his leadership and what he meant to the team and the whole province. What's the big deal ? (Apart from the fact I got 9 out of 10)
Yeah, so ? Snappy comeback eh ? Actually, I've got no problem with the list and I enjoyed the articles. I think we just veered off into media perception and stuff like that. That kind of interests me, where people get their info. and whose voice they trust, but we sort of jumped the track. Bill, it's him not me. That's what my brother used to do and it worked for him.

mcphee 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 03:10 AM.

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.