HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Verbeek or Gilmour in the HHOF?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-03-2005, 03:18 PM
  #26
Heavy Fuel
 
Heavy Fuel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Canuckistan
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,614
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geese_Howard
will you ****, the leaf connection will guarantee it

why isnt clark in the hall of fame?

god i hate fans like you who blame everything on the leafs
You mean you hate fans like me who know how to think, don't you?

I am typing slowly so hopefully you will understand. I am not bashing the Leafs - Toronto does that enough to them already.

I said "better than average chance strictly on merit" - this statement says that I think Gilmour belongs in the HOF based on his career.

I added "the Leaf connection guarantees it" - this addition was pointing out that as a Maple Leaf a player gets pretty much the maximum exposure a player can get in Canada. You can take that any way you want, but you can't deny that performing well in the media center of Canada will help him get in.

Get over yourself, not all of us are fixated on the Leafs...

Heavy Fuel is offline  
Old
11-03-2005, 04:00 PM
  #27
Transported Upstater
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Take care, all. :)
Country: United States
Posts: 22,984
vCash: 500
This is just an observation, and tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems that many(maybe most) of Canadian hockey fans are indeed obsessed with the Leafs, whether it be hate or worship.

Almost like how many American baseball fans either LIVE New York Yankees or want to urinate on Yankee stadium proudly, while extending both middle fingers in a "Strong Bad" style "Double Deuce."

Transported Upstater is offline  
Old
11-03-2005, 07:47 PM
  #28
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
what about what happened in St Louis?

That could keep him out.

chooch* is offline  
Old
11-04-2005, 06:03 AM
  #29
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,202
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
what about what happened in St Louis?

That could keep him out.
What about what happened in Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Quinn in the hotel room? Shouldn`t that be enough to keep Lemieux out? What about the wife-beating allegations against Denis Potvin and Patrick Roy? Let me guess; you`re going to say that they were never convicted of anything. Well, neither was Gilmour. Hasn`t this already been discussed in another one of your threads. I hate Gilmour, I think he`s a gutless wimp, but even I have to admit he belongs in the Hall.

reckoning is online now  
Old
11-04-2005, 12:58 PM
  #30
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 29,657
vCash: 500
Hockey Draft Central has the story
Quote:
The Baby-Sitter Incident: Early in his NHL career, as he was emerging as a bona fide star in St. Louis, Gilmour was sued by a St. Louis couple, who claimed he had sexually abused their daughter over a period of months, beginning when she was 13. The couple's daughter had been working as a baby-sitter for the Gilmours, often spending entire nights at the house while she cared for the couple's baby girl, Maddison, who was born in 1985. The couple demanded $1 million in damages, charging that Gilmour repeatedly had sex with their daughter while she was staying in his home. In their lawsuit, the couple alleged that Gilmour's wife and Blues team officials were aware of the incident but chose to do nothing. The suit, filed Aug. 30, 1988, was entirely civil in nature, since police never filed criminal charges against Gilmour. In fact, St. Louis County prosecutor George Westfall said the girl's family had never come to the authorities requesting a criminal investigation and said he saw the accusation as a blatant attempt at extortion. Westfall said the family had begun its endeavor by asking the Blues for more than $200,000 in order not to go public with their allegations, and that prosecutors might investigate the family to see if criminal charges were in order. Despite all of this, negative publicity surrounding the case hurt Gilmour's popularity with fans and made it difficult for him to continue playing in the city. Gilmour initially refused to comment on the lawsuit, but his first wife, Robyne, was quick to deny the allegations and said her husband was not guilty in any way. But the damage had been done. Gilmour, who later joined his wife in denying the charges, was plagued by prank phone calls to his home, while Blues officials were unhappy at being asked by the media to comment on the issue. The firestorm ended in early September 1988, when the Blues traded Gilmour to Calgary. Due to the controversy, St. Louis was unable to deal Gilmour for fair value and had to settle for a seven-player deal that clearly favored Calgary. After the trade, Gilmour reiterated that the accusations were an extortion effort and had done nothing but humiliate his entire family. He said he had not asked to be traded but recognized he would be better off in another city. "This has jeopardized my career," he said at a press conference after the trade. On Oct. 4, 1988, Gilmour and his first wife countersued the girl's family for $4 million, charging them with slander and libel. On Oct. 22, 1988, the attorney for the girl's family was charged with trying to extort hush money from the Blues organization. Despite his efforts to clear his name and the obvious flaws in the girl's family's case, the 1988-89 season was a nightmare for Gilmour, as he was subjected to taunts from fans everywhere. In the long run he didn't need to worry about his hockey career. He went on to greater heights in the NHL, while the case against him never made it to court. On Dec. 27, 1988, a St. Louis County grand jury ruled there was insufficient evidence to press sexual assault charges against Gilmour, and the case was promptly dismissed. Gilmour, who sat for two hours of grand jury questioning, expressed great relief at the ruling and turned his focus back to the Flames, who went on to win the 1989 Stanley Cup.

Hasbro is offline  
Old
11-04-2005, 10:41 PM
  #31
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,707
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
thansk for the back ground


ialways thoguht it was douggy who was found naked out in his yard

but now i think that was dino cicarelli

Leaf Lander is offline  
Old
11-05-2005, 12:59 AM
  #32
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Of the list, I didn't see ANYONE who should make it. Glenn Anderson was the only one close, but he didn't make it to 500 goals, so...

Of course, his 5 Cups might make up for that! And having scored the most playoff game-winners ever!

I really liked Doug Gilmour, but I don't see it as a first year inductee. Of course, now that the HOF has been turned into a joke with the elections of Gillies, Federko, and Neely, he will probably get in. I guess it's no longer for the very best of all-time, just the very good of a short time!

As for the rest? They were never among the best ever, except for Pavel Bure. And he didn't last long enough. Scored more than Neely, though. And was a better hockey player. In a lot less time. Maybe he will get after all.

jiggs 10 is offline  
Old
11-09-2005, 02:39 PM
  #33
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
Yeah, I think that's how it works. That's why there's been so many Leafs inducted in the past decade or so. Larry Murphy, Grant Fuhr, Mike Gartner...clearly in the hall because of their status as Maple Leafs. And is it any coincidence that Ron Francis will make it in? I think not.
Wow where have you been for the last 20 years? Murphy, Francis, Gartner and Fuhr not Hall of Famers? First off neither one of them spent their prime as a Leaf. Muprhy was a three time all-star and four time Cup winner. Francis is generally talked about as one of the most underrated ever despite being 4th all-time in scoring. Fuhr won four Cups one Vezina and was a two time post season all-star. Gartner never won a Cup but he did something that made them HAVE to put him in. 15 straight seaosns of 30 or more goals. Over 700 in his career. What stopped him? Well, the lockout or else he would have had 18 straight seasons.

As for Verbeek, no way. He's in the same class as Damphousse. Good career but not great. That's right highlight that word GOOD. Verbeek was never once considered the top 10 players in the game maybe not even top 25.

Gilmour is on the fence with me. He'll probably get in, but it can go either way for me. You can't argue his post season success, though. And there was a time for a couple years that Gilmour was a top 10 player in the game, that counts too.

Big Phil is offline  
Old
11-09-2005, 02:41 PM
  #34
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil
Wow where have you been for the last 20 years? Murphy, Francis, Gartner and Fuhr not Hall of Famers? First off neither one of them spent their prime as a Leaf. Muprhy was a three time all-star and four time Cup winner. Francis is generally talked about as one of the most underrated ever despite being 4th all-time in scoring. Fuhr won four Cups one Vezina and was a two time post season all-star. Gartner never won a Cup but he did something that made them HAVE to put him in. 15 straight seaosns of 30 or more goals. Over 700 in his career. What stopped him? Well, the lockout or else he would have had 18 straight seasons.
lol, i was being sarcasmal

arrbez is offline  
Old
11-09-2005, 04:10 PM
  #35
Rather Gingerly 1*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Gilmour way before verbeek

Rather Gingerly 1* is offline  
Old
11-11-2005, 09:40 PM
  #36
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,419
vCash: 500
Not like the Leafs had ANY recent or future HOF in their prime in their lineup, after all.

And NO, MATS SUNDIN IS NO FUTURE HOF'er, btw.

This said, Doug Gilmour totally deserves to be in HOF. And there's no "Leaf Connection" with this.

Of the three induced guys mentionned (Fuhr, Murphy and Gartner), being former Leafs would be the only reason to NOT get them in.

MXD is offline  
Old
11-15-2005, 12:27 AM
  #37
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD
Not like the Leafs had ANY recent or future HOF in their prime in their lineup, after all.

And NO, MATS SUNDIN IS NO FUTURE HOF'er, btw.

This said, Doug Gilmour totally deserves to be in HOF. And there's no "Leaf Connection" with this.

Of the three induced guys mentionned (Fuhr, Murphy and Gartner), being former Leafs would be the only reason to NOT get them in.
Actually, Sundin should get in ahead of Gilmour if you go by statistics (which is what the HOF is SUPPOSED to be about). I am a big "Killer" fan, but Sundin was at least as good, and has better stats, so he should get in easy. If Camshaft Neely can make it because of his movie career, Sundin is in easily. Sundin is far ahead of Neely in every catagory, and in less games played, plus he wasn't easily injuried like Neely. It took actual INJURIES to knock Sundin out of games!

Verbeek? NOT!
Gilmour? Maybe.

jiggs 10 is offline  
Old
11-15-2005, 10:19 AM
  #38
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD
And NO, MATS SUNDIN IS NO FUTURE HOF'er, btw.
Man, look at some of the guys that are already in the hall (*cough* Gartner, Gillies *cough*). How is Sundin not a HOFer?

When all's said and done (by my estimates) he'll have around 1400 points and 600 goals (most a low scoring era)

Add to that his good playoff play, and spectacular international play, and he should make it easily

arrbez is offline  
Old
11-15-2005, 10:47 AM
  #39
Squiddy*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 816
vCash: 500
LOL Sundin not in the Hall of fame? Yeah right... Next your going to tell me Todd Bertuzzi belongs in the HOF?

Squiddy* is offline  
Old
11-15-2005, 01:48 PM
  #40
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,372
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiggs 10
Actually, Sundin should get in ahead of Gilmour if you go by statistics (which is what the HOF is SUPPOSED to be about)
Actually, only people only message boards (and some media members) think that it's only about stats

Here is the actual induction criteria:
Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indelection.htm

For my vote: Gilmour in, Sundin in, Verbeek out.

jamiebez is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 10:53 AM
  #41
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
Man, look at some of the guys that are already in the hall (*cough* Gartner, Gillies *cough*). How is Sundin not a HOFer?

When all's said and done (by my estimates) he'll have around 1400 points and 600 goals (most a low scoring era)

Add to that his good playoff play, and spectacular international play, and he should make it easily
But it's not about how many goals or points a player puts up now. It's about how he puts them up. Dino Ciccarelli has proven that. He scored 600 goals over the course of a long period of time. He's been eligible for a few years now, and it'll likely be a long time before he gets inducted, if ever.

A player who plays for a long time and averages 70-80 points a season is not going to get in the Hall. Yes, Sundin has two second team all-star births, but those are likely going to go down as the two most forgetable second team all-star seasons in league history. He's rarely been ranked as a top-10 player in the league. (Only time I can think of is 1996-97). Guys like Sundin, Turgeon, Modano, Recchi, Mogilny, Damphousse and Roenick, who had long careers, put up points, but were not considered top 10 guys for lengthy periods and never strung several great playoffs together, will not get in, at least not right away. (Modano, Recchi, Damphousse and Mogilny do have rings. But only one. And Mogilny was a secondary player on NJ's Cup team in 2000).

I'm not impressed with Sundin's playoff record. He's had a penchant for disappearing, especially at key times. He's never had that dominant, career-defining playoff. He had a few strong games in 1999, but when Toronto needed him against Buffalo, he was getting owned by Mike Peca.

International record is only a factor when dealing with players who spent the majority of their career overseas. Sergei Makarov has one of the finest international portfolios ever, and he's been turned down five times.

Gilmour won a Cup, and had at least three other dominant playoffs. (1986, 1993 and 1994). He was a much better leader and a much better defensive player than Sundin, and a far better player in the clutch. That's why he goes in next year, and Sundin, whenever his time is up, will wait, just like Dino.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 11:11 AM
  #42
BlueAndWhite
Registered User
 
BlueAndWhite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Yes, Sundin has two second team all-star births, but those are likely going to go down as the two most forgetable second team all-star seasons in league history. He's rarely been ranked as a top-10 player in the league. (Only time I can think of is 1996-97).
I can think of a few other times when Sundin would be ranked as a top ten player in the league.

One of those that immediately comes to mind is 2001-2002. He finished second in the league in goals and fourth in points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I'm not impressed with Sundin's playoff record. He's had a penchant for disappearing, especially at key times. He's never had that dominant, career-defining playoff. He had a few strong games in 1999, but when Toronto needed him against Buffalo, he was getting owned by Mike Peca. .
The only time Sundin's "disappeared" in the playoffs is when he had an injury. Sundin's average near a point per game or more in the playoffs in every single year as a Leaf. The only year he had a poor playoff was in 2002-2003.

As for the Peca comment, Sundin had a strong series against Buffalo. He finished those playoffs with 16 pts in 17 games. It was the lack of secondary scoring that foiled the Leafs, not Sundin's play against Peca.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Gilmour won a Cup, and had at least three other dominant playoffs. (1986, 1993 and 1994). He was a much better leader and a much better defensive player than Sundin, and a far better player in the clutch. That's why he goes in next year, and Sundin, whenever his time is up, will wait, just like Dino.
I think "leadership" is a very subjective area and so I won't discuss Gilmour's leadership versus Sundin's.

However, Mats Sundin isn't clutch ? You may want to rethink that statement.

BlueAndWhite is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 11:32 AM
  #43
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueAndWhite
I can think of a few other times when Sundin would be ranked as a top ten player in the league.

One of those that immediately comes to mind is 2001-2002. He finished second in the league in goals and fourth in points.


The only time Sundin's "disappeared" in the playoffs is when he had an injury. Sundin's average near a point per game or more in the playoffs in every single year as a Leaf. The only year he had a poor playoff was in 2002-2003.

As for the Peca comment, Sundin had a strong series against Buffalo. He finished those playoffs with 16 pts in 17 games. It was the lack of secondary scoring that foiled the Leafs, not Sundin's play against Peca.


I think "leadership" is a very subjective area and so I won't discuss Gilmour's leadership versus Sundin's.

However, Mats Sundin isn't clutch ? You may want to rethink that statement.
Most of his points in 1999 came in the Pittsburgh series. I believe he had one game in the Buffalo series (Game 2, I believe) when he did a lot of damage. The rest of the time, Peca shut him down.

A player of Sundin's calibre should be at least a point-per-game in the playoffs. He is not. 74 points in 83 games? The last time he scored at that clip in the regular season was in 1997-98. He was invisible in 1993. He was criticized for his play in 1996, 2000 and 2003, and was not much of a factor for much of 1999. The Leafs did better without him in 2002 than with him.

The bottom line is that Sundin has never had that career-defining playoff (think Gilmour in 1993 and 1994, Neely in 1991, Nieuwendyk in 1999, Yzerman in 1996 or Forsberg in 2002). It's not just about winning a Cup, it's about carrying the team on your back, taking your play to another level and playing better than anyone ever thought possible.

Sundin's one of many players who put up big numbers over the course of a long period of time, but won't get into the Hall, because he was really good for a long period of time, but not a top-10 player for an extended period of time, and never took his play to the next level in the playoffs.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 11:53 AM
  #44
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Whether you believe he should or not is one thing, but I'll guarantee Sundin gets in the hall.

1. He's better than some guys who are already there.

2. Number do still matter, just not to the extent they used to. The numbers Sundin will finish with will be worthy of consideration

3. International-ism does matter. Being one of the greatest (if not the greatest) Swedish captain will count for something

4. And finally, The HHOF criteria, as posted above:

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

On top of being one of the top players of his generation, Sundin is a class act, a good leader, and an icon in Toronto and Sweden

arrbez is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 12:29 PM
  #45
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
Whether you believe he should or not is one thing, but I'll guarantee Sundin gets in the hall.

1. He's better than some guys who are already there.

2. Number do still matter, just not to the extent they used to. The numbers Sundin will finish with will be worthy of consideration

3. International-ism does matter. Being one of the greatest (if not the greatest) Swedish captain will count for something

4. And finally, The HHOF criteria, as posted above:

"Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general."

On top of being one of the top players of his generation, Sundin is a class act, a good leader, and an icon in Toronto and Sweden
Dino Ciccarelli is better than some players already in there. So are Glenn Anderson, Mark Howe, Rogie Vachon and Sergei Makarov. But they've been waiting for years, and in the case of Rogie, decades, for that call from Hall voters.

Dino finished with over 600 goals. He brought a physical dimension and an intensity that few others with 600 had. He was a career PPG player until his last three years. He had that career-defining playoff that Sundin doesn't. (Dino set a league record for points by a rookie in 1981 while leading his team to the Stanley Cup final). But he's not in. Why is Sundin a HHOFer while Dino Ciccarelli is not. (And I'm not advocating Dino for the Hall. I think he falls just short. I'm just asking why Sundin will get in, while Dino will not).

If all of these Soviet greats like Makarov and Yakushev can't get in the Hall, then why are people convinced that international play will make one iota of a difference for Sundin? Sundin has an impressive international resume, but I don't think it's any better than, say, Adam Foote, who has always excelled for Canada. For the last time, international play only counts FOR THOSE WHO PLAYED THE MAJORITY OF THEIR CAREER OVERSEAS. Name me one player who played the bulk of his career in the NHL who got into the HHOF with international play making a big difference. You can't? Thought so.

I can think of lots of players not in the Hall, or who won't make it into the Hall, who fit No. 4. Mark Recchi and Mike Modano, IMO, have done more in their careers than Sundin. (Key role in a Cup victory, better playoff performance, better numbers, better all-round play, etc). Sundin has done a lot in his career, but there's just too much lacking in his portfolio to get inducted.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
11-16-2005, 09:20 PM
  #46
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeffyuhTJRest
Ok, I watched my first game on OLN last night (Nov 1st - CHI vs DET). I didn't mind the camera work so much, why they have the game details on the bottom of the screen that large i will never know.
Anyway, between periods they had a piece on Cam Neely, afterwards they had a poll for the 2006 HHOF. Among the candidates were Pat Verbeek and Doug Gilmour (for some reason they listed Bure who is not even close to being elligible). Both Bill Clement and Keith Jones immediately picked Verbeek with PJ Stock was the voice of reason and chose Dougie G.
Is it just PJ and I who are seeing straight on this one? I think Pat Verbeek was a great versatile player, but I would rather have Gilmour in a heartbeat. He was by far a more complete player. Put it this way, would you rather have the "Next Doug Gilmour" or the "Next Pat Verbeek"? Here are their career stats if you'd like to compare.


http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p...pid%5B%5D=5565 - Verbeek

http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/p....php3?pid=1915 - Gilmour
They were both good players but, neither Verbeek nor Gilmour deserve to be enshrined.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
11-19-2005, 05:06 AM
  #47
Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
 
Fish on The Sand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Nanaimo
Country: Canada
Posts: 48,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning
What about what happened in Pittsburgh with Lemieux and Quinn in the hotel room? Shouldn`t that be enough to keep Lemieux out? What about the wife-beating allegations against Denis Potvin and Patrick Roy? Let me guess; you`re going to say that they were never convicted of anything. Well, neither was Gilmour. Hasn`t this already been discussed in another one of your threads. I hate Gilmour, I think he`s a gutless wimp, but even I have to admit he belongs in the Hall.
Roy was never accused of beating his wife.

Fish on The Sand is offline  
Old
11-19-2005, 08:53 AM
  #48
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fish on The Sand
Roy was never accused of beating his wife.
Just a door, but it refused to press charges.

chooch* 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 07:52 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.