HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Edmonton Oilers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Craig MacTavish Appreciation Thread

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-21-2004, 06:14 PM
  #26
oil slick
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 7,478
vCash: 500
I don't know about any kind of MacT love in. I think he's managed the players very well recently, but I look up and down the lineup and I'm not sure we should be in the situation that we are in now. I think the talent level on the Oilers is higher than teams that are ahead of us (LA with injuries, Preds, Flames), and yet we are on the outside looking in.

The team played very badly under him up until the all star break. There are two excuses I heared, injuries and goaltending. I don't buy the injury argument at all since every team goes through injuries to key players. I do think goaltending is a valid point.

However, the main reason I am not so high on the job MacT has done this year, is because I think two of the main problems that contributed to our poor results in the first half of the year were under the control of MacT. The power play and penalty kill were terrible through the first chunk of the season, and are IMO one of the major reasons we are having to put together a miraculouse comeback just to get into the playoffs. I know that Simpson is technically in charge of this (at least the pp), and MacT has to take responsibility for the coaching, including special teams.

I'm not a huge MacT hater... sometimes I think he goes overboard playing his type of player, but I certainly don't think he's that bad for talented players. At the same time, if you were to ask me where this team should be based on potential, I would say higher than where they stand now. Sure, he has turned the team around recently, but to me, a great coach has this team sitting in 6th place right now, not 10th.

All in all I think he's done an OK job this year.

oil slick is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 06:15 PM
  #27
Oi'll say!
Go Flames
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gretzky2kurri
Well enough about you.............lets talk about you for a while.

So tell us all Nostradamus, will the Oilers make the playoffs?
I'm probably one of the worst offenders for starting up "Ethan for..." crap and I really don't make a lot of trade proposals. Just Smith, Smyth, and Ethan. He's right, I'm wrong, and I don't mind hearing about it, if the day ever comes that I'm right it'll be here in big bolded italicized flashing neon letters with 5 smilies. Stay tuned .............. for a really long time.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 06:23 PM
  #28
Oi'll say!
Go Flames
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
but seeing as how I don't regard Keenan as being incompetant, I would look to pull Ty after that 2-1 goal because he looked so very bad on it that I'd play a hunch he was gonna be shaky for the rest of the night.

And that being said I would've been right. And I also would've been right to pull Jussi after the Rucinsky goal a couple of Friday's ago.

I don't think you could get off with doing that stuff to vets but neither Ty nor Jussi are vets and they are just happy to be here and I'd like to see all avenues and methods explored.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Would it be radical? Sure, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful
Sorry Matts, I disagree. As a coach you have to show confidence in your goalies because that's about 90% of their game.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that if the Muckler didn't go right back with Billy Ranford in game two against the Jets after his awful 7-1 shellacking the Oil would be sitting with 4 Stanleys right now. What Ranford did after that was imo the single most dominant playoff season by any Oiler player ever including the obvious greats.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 06:29 PM
  #29
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
It was probably just a throwaway line

and I didn't give any creedence to it seeing as how MacT has a three year pact and Lowe is absolutely in mad passionate love with a coaching staff that features WAC's, guys who won a Cup with the team, or GAB's, Good Albertan Boys which explains why Moores still draws a cheque despite the dismal ST performance, BUT in today's Ott Sun Garrioch said MacT could be canned if the Oilers don't make the dance.

The ST this year were an absolute joke and MacT has to take some of the blame for that. How much? Well we don't know because the Oilers haven't exactly been the most forthcoming when disccussing which guy handles which duties.

But then outside of the recent Hemsky and Semi playing time thing, the biggest problem for MacT this season was 1. that fact that he played Salo too much and 2. the fact that Lowe was daft enough to bring Tommy back in the first place.

Your starter with a .896 PCT? In the year 2004? And still expect to get in the playoffs?

Absolutely mind blowing.

Matts is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 06:41 PM
  #30
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
but seeing as how I don't regard Keenan as being incompetant, I would look to pull Ty after that 2-1 goal because he looked so very bad on it that I'd play a hunch he was gonna be shaky for the rest of the night.

And that being said I would've been right. And I also would've been right to pull Jussi after the Rucinsky goal a couple of Friday's ago.

I don't think you could get off with doing that stuff to vets but neither Ty nor Jussi are vets and they are just happy to be here and I'd like to see all avenues and methods explored.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Would it be radical? Sure, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful
Good stuff, Matts. And I'm pretty sure that you're right.

I always think that is more than possible that people who work in the NHL and have had success (coaches, scouts, gms, whatever) are smarter than we fans

I wrote a tiny script to do a quick scan and to scrape up the games in which goalies were pulled this season ... and then I randomly looked at a couple dozen games. Some are mercy pulls ... but in others there seemed to be an overwhelming link to momentum shift (scoring the next goal) and pulling the goalie. At a glance it looks like pulling the goalie is a good strategic move ... but that it is usually done too late in the game.

A guy has to bear in mind the psyche of the players too. After the post-game comments from Friday ... I'd think Vokuon is too frail of an ego to be doing that stuff too. And Conklin could cope well. Jussi seems to have a pretty solid temperament as well.

I'm sure I could prove the 'goalie pulling' thing is really effective ... but I couldn't quite figure out how to write a script to do it, or even exactly what to look for. And, quite frankly, I don't have the motivation. But if you do ... here are the NHL game #s for the hockey games in which a goaltender has been pulled so far this year. (BTW: I would not have even bothered to post this if not for your comments).

1112
1110
1105
1102
1094
1092
1077
1067
1062
1052
1047
1045
1038
1028
1016
1007
1001
1001
988
979
970
955
943
936
913
910
909
906
899
891
890
888
887
874
870
858
857
854
852
849
847
845
837
835
834
814
812
806
805
804
797
795
794
792
791
783
773
764
738
736
731
719
717
715
709
670
663
644
629
626
624
609
608
603
594
591
580
572
569
566
552
549
547
539
524
520
510
510
506
489
488
486
482
465
462
446
438
427
419
417
394
383
381
366
360
357
343
340
334
317
310
304
300
285
285
274
265
264
241
237
236
223
222
209
206
205
203
201
195
175
174
173
169
165
160
148
144
133
132
129
93
91
79
79
75
72
61
58
33
30
27
14


Last edited by igor*: 03-21-2004 at 06:45 PM.
igor* is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 06:42 PM
  #31
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
I don't want to sound too prickly here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oi'll say!
Sorry Matts, I disagree. As a coach you have to show confidence in your goalies because that's about 90% of their game.

I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that if the Muckler didn't go right back with Billy Ranford in game two against the Jets after his awful 7-1 shellacking the Oil would be sitting with 4 Stanleys right now. What Ranford did after that was imo the single most dominant playoff season by any Oiler player ever including the obvious greats.
II don't think those situations are even remotely comparable.

What were Ranford's numbers that season and what were the league averages? You're comparing replacing a starter from a whole year in the playoffs with yanking a young guy still earning his stripes in a playoff race

Matts is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 07:15 PM
  #32
Oi'll say!
Go Flames
 
Oi'll say!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oil in 9
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
II don't think those situations are even remotely comparable.

What were Ranford's numbers that season and what were the league averages? You're comparing replacing a starter from a whole year in the playoffs with yanking a young guy still earning his stripes in a playoff race
Actually Grant Fuhr was still a part of that team, he just had some major work done on his shoulder in and around that season so he wasn't ready at the start of the playoffs. I think he was healthy enough to be a backup during the latter stages of that playoff run but I could be wrong.

Anyways, Ranford had a night to forget at the start of the playoffs and the coach never even flinched. He stood behind Billy 100% in his first season as a starter and the rest is history.

The Oilers are in just as important a situation right now with two goalies who are untested in this critical situation at this level, if the coach starts yanking them around a-la Iron Mike I think the team and the goalies may start to lack confidence.

If there's one thing that the Oilers have almost always done right it's how they've handled their goalies, this org has almost always had an elite goalie and the ones that have left here have never really enjoyed the same level of success anywhere else. I don't know where to find this stat but I wouldn't be surprised to see that the Oilers pull their goalies less frequently than almost any other team.

Oi'll say! is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 07:38 PM
  #33
Lowetide
Registered User
 
Lowetide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,281
vCash: 500
Fuhr had shoulder problems and then an appendectomy that season. Pokey was the backup I believe, but if he played in the post season it wasn't much.

Ranford was as bad as I've ever seen a goalie play in that first game, and then he was Bernie fricking Parent the rest of the way.

Lowetide is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 08:02 PM
  #34
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
but seeing as how I don't regard Keenan as being incompetant, I would look to pull Ty after that 2-1 goal because he looked so very bad on it that I'd play a hunch he was gonna be shaky for the rest of the night.

And that being said I would've been right. And I also would've been right to pull

I don't think you could get off with doing that stuff to vets but neither Ty nor Jussi are vets and they are just happy to be here and I'd like to see all avenues and methods explored.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Would it be radical? Sure, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be successful
More successful than 3 out of 4 possible points?

I don't know about that. <b>Maybe</b> you could have gotten 4 out of 4, but maybe you would have gotten 2 or 1 or 0.

The team may or may not have responded to that... heck they might have lost last nights game 2-1. Teams respond differently to different situations. They really opened it up the other night and might not have done so if there was a goalie change.

Sorry I'll take 3 out of 4 points rather than "guess what's behind door #2".

And anyone who follows the Mike Keenan book of handling goaltenders really needs to buy a new book. He does a lot of good things, but goaltender management isn't one of them.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 08:50 PM
  #35
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
No need to be be sorry about anything

Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
More successful than 3 out of 4 possible points?

I don't know about that. <b>Maybe</b> you could have gotten 4 out of 4, but maybe you would have gotten 2 or 1 or 0.

The team may or may not have responded to that... heck they might have lost last nights game 2-1. Teams respond differently to different situations. They really opened it up the other night and might not have done so if there was a goalie change.

Sorry I'll take 3 out of 4 points rather than "guess what's behind door #2".

And anyone who follows the Mike Keenan book of handling goaltenders really needs to buy a new book. He does a lot of good things, but goaltender management isn't one of them.

like you so begrudingly admitted, there was the possibility of four points being hauled out of those scnarios.

Matts is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 09:03 PM
  #36
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
like you so begrudingly admitted, there was the possibility of four points being hauled out of those scnarios.
or 0 or 1 or 2...

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 09:41 PM
  #37
Matts
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
That's your schtick

sometimes I'll argue with you, sometimes I won't Depends on what kind of a mood I'm in I see others here get frustrated with you at times but I saw what you resort to when you yourself feel all jammed up and I don't want a repeat of that if I can help it

Matts is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 09:49 PM
  #38
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
sometimes I'll argue with you, sometimes I won't Depends on what kind of a mood I'm in I see others here get frustrated with you at times but I saw what you resort to when you yourself feel all jammed up and I don't want a repeat of that if I can help it
This coming from the guy so insecure about his opinions and his need to be front in centre that when a <b>Tribute</b> or <b>Appreciation</b> thread comes up, he <b>Can't Help</b> but trash whoever the thread is about, just so he gets noticed...

Either that or you have no idea what either of those words mean...

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 09:51 PM
  #39
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matts
sometimes I'll argue with you, sometimes I won't Depends on what kind of a mood I'm in I see others here get frustrated with you at times but I saw what you resort to when you yourself feel all jammed up and I don't want a repeat of that if I can help it
Well this is a public forum. And often the best discussions are derived from the most foolish propositions. The sheer madness of 'OilManFan' on OilFans inspired a ton of great discussion ... it motivated people to really make an effort to slam him down.

Quite frankly, if guys like Mizral didn't charge up guys like oilers_guy_eddie, this board would suffer. I just read oge's stuff on those threads, I have no idea what he is responding to specifically because I haven't read it ... but its good all the same

Now we just need to find guys that get under the skin of hillbillypriest the theoil

igor* is offline  
Old
03-21-2004, 11:10 PM
  #40
hillbillypriest
Registered User
 
hillbillypriest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by igor
Now we just need to find guys that get under the skin of hillbillypriest the theoil
Umm...I believe that would be people who use statistics and logic to refute perfectly valid sounding propositions. (Sound familiar Igor?)

hillbillypriest is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 12:47 PM
  #41
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillbillypriest
Umm...I believe that would be people who use statistics and logic to refute perfectly valid sounding propositions. (Sound familiar Igor?)
Or people who believe that if you can't count it, weigh it or measure it that it lacks the attributes of truth? I am honoured hillbillypriest to be included in the same slander with you.


Last edited by theoil: 03-22-2004 at 01:01 PM. Reason: add the little smiley guy
theoil is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 12:54 PM
  #42
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Well I was one of the guys that wrote about 4-6 weeks ago that I had reluctantly come to the conclusion that MacTavish had to go. The reason I gave was that, imo, he had lost the confidence of the players. Since I don't think that a team could have done what they have done over the last 4-6 weeks without having confidence in the coaching staff it is reduntant of me to admit that I was wrong but I am here to admit that I was wrong. I agree with whichever poster it was who said that this team should be higher in the standings than they are, however, and I am still waiting to find out why this team has not learned how to play desperate hockey in October or January but I was definitely wrong that MacTavish has lost the confidence of his team. After the season I am thinking of starting a thread to list all of my mistakes for the year. Comrie, Oates, Hemsky, Semenov etc.

theoil is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 01:10 PM
  #43
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Well I was one of the guys that wrote about 4-6 weeks ago that I had reluctantly come to the conclusion that MacTavish had to go. The reason I gave was that, imo, he had lost the confidence of the players. Since I don't think that a team could have done what they have done over the last 4-6 weeks without having confidence in the coaching staff it is reduntant of me to admit that I was wrong but I am here to admit that I was wrong. I agree with whichever poster it was who said that this team should be higher in the standings than they are, however, and I am still waiting to find out why this team has not learned how to play desperate hockey in October or January but I was definitely wrong that MacTavish has lost the confidence of his team. After the season I am thinking of starting a thread to list all of my mistakes for the year. Comrie, Oates, Hemsky, Semenov etc.
Could it have something to do with more or less completely abandoning the old philosophy of "MGM vs all, and hide our top line"?

I mean, the team lost their top minute eater on the backline and 3 of thier top scorers. They also went most of the season without either a 1st or 2nd line centre. Yes, there were guys there to take over, but it's one thing to have the talent (or work ethic...) to potentially fill that role, but it's a whole different animal trying to actually fill.

If we go through this season with little to no roster turnover (at least not in the major core of the team), we should be able to see a better focused group starting in September (or whenever hockey is played again).

It wasn't like Colorado or Detroit who added to the core... it was more a "Oh crap, someone's gotta do this job now" type of thing. Expecting these results this past September wasn't really plausible... too many guys trying to fill new roles, a new system and it does take time.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:25 PM
  #44
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
Could it have something to do with more or less completely abandoning the old philosophy of "MGM vs all, and hide our top line"?

I mean, the team lost their top minute eater on the backline and 3 of thier top scorers. They also went most of the season without either a 1st or 2nd line centre. Yes, there were guys there to take over, but it's one thing to have the talent (or work ethic...) to potentially fill that role, but it's a whole different animal trying to actually fill.

If we go through this season with little to no roster turnover (at least not in the major core of the team), we should be able to see a better focused group starting in September (or whenever hockey is played again).

It wasn't like Colorado or Detroit who added to the core... it was more a "Oh crap, someone's gotta do this job now" type of thing. Expecting these results this past September wasn't really plausible... too many guys trying to fill new roles, a new system and it does take time.
Sorry Dawgbone, don't understand 'MGM'. But for me the frustration finally boiled over with the collqapse in the LA game as I recall. I know that players sometimes decide that they have had enough of a coach and do things (or more often don't do things) that get coaches fired. It just seemed to me that we had reached that point where the room had turned on the coaching. I know we lost our 3 top centres for the season and Salo was an adventure in every game but there were a lot of other signs as well and I don't think very many on this board could truthfully say that they weren't having similiar doubts regardless of whether or not they were expressed. And I still don't understand why this team can play so well every March when it matters and can't when they think it doesn't. Or (same question, different content) why they play so well against upper echelon teams but can't beat the bottom feeders and this has gon on for years. But although I have no answer my suspicion still centres around the coaching in spite of everything else they do well.

For me coaching has two distinct types of coach. The teacher and the bench are the short hand and we seem to have the teacher but Slats (who couldn't teach anybody very much at all) is still the master of the bench.

theoil is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:39 PM
  #45
dawgbone
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to dawgbone Send a message via MSN to dawgbone
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Sorry Dawgbone, don't understand 'MGM'.
MGM = the Marchant-Grier-Moreau line that the Oilers used to toss out for 18-20 minutes per game.

dawgbone is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 02:58 PM
  #46
theoil
Registered User
 
theoil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 9,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgbone
MGM = the Marchant-Grier-Moreau line that the Oilers used to toss out for 18-20 minutes per game.
Sorry. Braincramp.

theoil is offline  
Old
03-22-2004, 09:45 PM
  #47
hillbillypriest
Registered User
 
hillbillypriest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: there there
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,129
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
Or people who believe that if you can't count it, weigh it or measure it that it lacks the attributes of truth? I am honoured hillbillypriest to be included in the same slander with you.
I truly am inept. I actually meant to compliment Igor. I think all of his stuff rocks. Sorry.

hillbillypriest is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 12:18 PM
  #48
Master Lok
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 7,066
vCash: 500
Getting back to the original thread, I wish to add my appreciation to coach Mactavish. Despite an underperforming starting goalie, missing two of your starting centres from last year (Reasoner, Comrie), and having to start with more rookies (Torres, Stoll, Bergeron, Conklin, Bishai) and sophomores (Hemsky, Semenov, Chimera) than you can shake a stick at, somehow having the league's worst PP AND PK, he has still gotten our team above the playoff cutline (as of March 23).


Last edited by Master Lok: 03-23-2004 at 12:52 PM.
Master Lok is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 01:42 PM
  #49
IceDragoon
Registered User
 
IceDragoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: South of Sanity
Posts: 3,874
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theoil
... I know that players sometimes decide that they have had enough of a coach and do things (or more often don't do things) that get coaches fired. It just seemed to me that we had reached that point where the room had turned on the coaching...

... For me coaching has two distinct types of coach. The teacher and the bench are the short hand and we seem to have the teacher but Slats (who couldn't teach anybody very much at all) is still the master of the bench.
I mentioned in a thread, a little while back, that when players 'tune out' the coach/message;
good coaches 'adjust' the delivery of the message.

I think MacT has gained some confidence and learned to 'adjust'.
I also think he's starting to get a handle on the "bench".

IceDragoon is offline  
Old
03-23-2004, 04:20 PM
  #50
igor*
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by neogeo69
Getting back to the original thread, I wish to add my appreciation to coach Mactavish. Despite an underperforming starting goalie, missing two of your starting centres from last year (Reasoner, Comrie), and having to start with more rookies (Torres, Stoll, Bergeron, Conklin, Bishai) and sophomores (Hemsky, Semenov, Chimera) than you can shake a stick at, somehow having the league's worst PP AND PK, he has still gotten our team above the playoff cutline (as of March 23).
Brownlee asked a good question on The Team last week:

"Would the Oilers be in a different position in the standings right now if Scotty Bowman were the coach?"

Its a good question, I think.

Personally, I think that MacTavish is Bowman's equal as a bench coach (seriously ) . I think that MacTavish has shown much more patience with the young guys than Bowman would have. Bowman would have had a better powerplay though. And Bowman probably would have had Salo on a shorter leash early in the year.

On the other hand, I think Ron "vague strategy" Low would probably have gotten this team to about the same place too ... just via a different route. And emotional guys like Low have a much shorter shelf life on a team.

Anyhoo ... I thought it was an interesting question. What does everyone else think?

igor* 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 11:47 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.