HFBoards

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

Willie Mitchell's Concussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2010, 02:46 AM
  #101
Outside99*
Sedins off Kas
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bucky Katt View Post
Botchford was on Team 1040 last night and had this to say about Mitchell:

"They are 17-7-2 without Mitchell. Their goals are up without Mitchell. There's a big faction in the scouting community who watch the Canucks who believe that Mitchell may slow down their offense, having him out there for 23 or 24 minutes may not be the best thing for the team. They are a team that wants to attack, that wants to score goals and I have definitely come across people around the league who think the Canucks can be a better team without Mitchell in the lineup."

http://www.team1040.ca/podcast/kurte...h_25_2010~.mp3 (Botchford is on about 60% of the way through the show)

I checked the stats and Botchford is correct:

After Penguins game:

28-18-2 | 0.604 Win% | 155GF 3.23GF/Game | 122GA 2.54GA/Game

Since Penguins game:

17-7-2 | 0.692 Win% | 87GF 3.35GF/Game | 69GA 2.65GA/Game

So the offense is up but so are the goals against and the goal differential is about the same at 0.7 goals per game. These stats don't tell the whole story as earlier in the season when Mitchell was playing Daniel was hurt thus hurting the offense while Luongo's much discussed struggles late in the season have hurt the defense in the latter part of the year. Also, there were 6 additional home games played while Mitchell was in the lineup while there has been 6 additional road games played since Mitchell was hurt thus further skewing the data.

Stepping back from the numbers, doesn't it seem that Mitchell strengths don't mesh with this version of the Canucks compared to his first season here in 2006-07? For a team that seems to be built on quick puck movement, forechecking and constant offensive pressure is Mitchell just not the right fit for the team? I'm not suggesting that he be benched if/when he returns this year but I am really apprehensive about signing him to an expensive multi-year contract this summer.
Rumour has it Mitchell's long stick was getting caught in Wellwood's jersey, thus slowing down his offense.

Outside99* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 03:25 AM
  #102
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
The Canucks played 26 games after Daniel returned before Mitchell went out after the Penguins game.

16-8-2 | 0.654 Win% | 88GF 3.39GF/Game | 58GA 2.23GA/Game

Luongo played in 25 of those 26 games going 16-7-2 with a 2.09GAA, .927SV%, and 2 shutouts. He was only hooked once and that was for the final 10 minutes of the Minnesota game where Wellwood fed Mitchell that suicide pass. In those 25 games that Luongo played, the Canucks scored 85 goals for a 3.4 GF/G.

Someone might want to forward those numbers to Willie's agent and Luongo.

This also flies in the face of those "Luongo has been inconsistent all year" claims. There's a 25 game segment where he put up Vezina numbers. That's actually 41% of his starts this year. He also had very good #'s in the 9 games before that and the five in a row he won after Willie went down. That's about 2/3's of the season where he's had numbers as good or better than Ryan Miller.


Last edited by VanEric: 03-27-2010 at 03:30 AM.
VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 06:07 AM
  #103
orcatown
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,712
vCash: 500
I think that Bucky raises an interesting discussion.

The decision on Mitchell is absolutely fundamental to the Canucks moving forward

The suggestion here seems that Mitchell importance is tied to the basic way the team intends to play. If you want to go defensive and keep the goals down then Mitchell is needed but if you want to employ an offensive style and produce goals then Mitchell may be seen as a drag on the team.

Some evidence does indicate that the League and hockey is changing. The increased restrictions on interference, the allowance of passing over two lines (leading to more stretch passes), the increasing emphasis on speed are all making offenses more dynamic. Moreover, if there is any increased reductions in the size of goal tender equipment, the ability to score will become critical.
This will increase the need for two way defensemen.

You could also say that some teams like Calgary, who stressed defense surrounding a top end goal tender, have fallen back. Also, it seems that teams like Toronto are re-building around speed and offense.

If this is so then there are implications for Mitchell and the Canucks. I think Mitchell has been an excellent player for the team as is hugely important on the PK. However, it seemed obvious in the playoffs last year that our defense was badly outplayed by the speedier Black Hawk defense.

Obviously it would be great to have Mitchell back for the playoffs. However, if the team is considering some basic change in philosophy and is concerned about the long range implications of retaining Mitchell then re-signing him becomes a more difficult issue.

orcatown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 06:51 AM
  #104
JuniorNelson
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: E.Vancouver
Country: Australia-Aboriginal
Posts: 4,911
vCash: 894
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
I think that Bucky raises an interesting discussion.

The decision on Mitchell is absolutely fundamental to the Canucks moving forward

The suggestion here seems that Mitchell importance is tied to the basic way the team intends to play. If you want to go defensive and keep the goals down then Mitchell is needed but if you want to employ an offensive style and produce goals then Mitchell may be seen as a drag on the team.

Some evidence does indicate that the League and hockey is changing. The increased restrictions on interference, the allowance of passing over two lines (leading to more stretch passes), the increasing emphasis on speed are all making offenses more dynamic. Moreover, if there is any increased reductions in the size of goal tender equipment, the ability to score will become critical.
This will increase the need for two way defensemen.

You could also say that some teams like Calgary, who stressed defense surrounding a top end goal tender, have fallen back. Also, it seems that teams like Toronto are re-building around speed and offense.

If this is so then there are implications for Mitchell and the Canucks. I think Mitchell has been an excellent player for the team as is hugely important on the PK. However, it seemed obvious in the playoffs last year that our defense was badly outplayed by the speedier Black Hawk defense.

Obviously it would be great to have Mitchell back for the playoffs. However, if the team is considering some basic change in philosophy and is concerned about the long range implications of retaining Mitchell then re-signing him becomes a more difficult issue.
The team faced a similar issue last year with Ohlund. Imagine, if you will, a Canucks defence with a younger, speedier top pairing. This should compliment a speedier top six offence, no?
There are some FA options in the off-season,too.
As far as the play-offs go, I think this team benefits from a healthy Mitchell, but what are the chances of that? He has to play his way back into shape. If he hasn't even been on the bike yet, that is two months of rust. He won't be able to shake that off, it will show. Also, Willie would have a great big target on his back. Guys finish thier checks in the play-offs. I think you are asking too much of Willie Mitchell to withstand that kind of pounding as he recovers from a serious head injury. Even if he gets back for the second round, I doubt he can just step in and make a difference.

JuniorNelson is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 07:20 AM
  #105
Lowkey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniorNelson View Post
The team faced a similar issue last year with Ohlund. Imagine, if you will, a Canucks defence with a younger, speedier top pairing. This should compliment a speedier top six offence, no?
There are some FA options in the off-season,too.
As far as the play-offs go, I think this team benefits from a healthy Mitchell, but what are the chances of that? He has to play his way back into shape. If he hasn't even been on the bike yet, that is two months of rust. He won't be able to shake that off, it will show. Also, Willie would have a great big target on his back. Guys finish thier checks in the play-offs. I think you are asking too much of Willie Mitchell to withstand that kind of pounding as he recovers from a serious head injury. Even if he gets back for the second round, I doubt he can just step in and make a difference.
Mitchell's "simple" style of play may actually be easier to come back and play right away than someone who plays a flashier more skilled game. No doubt he will be feeling rust of some sort but it wouldn't surprise me at all for Mitchell to be a major contributor almost immediately.

Lowkey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 07:33 AM
  #106
NuxFan09
Registered User
 
NuxFan09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,640
vCash: 500
This whole situation must be extremely disheartening for Mitchell. Not only might he miss the playoffs because of the injury (which is bad enough) but he also knows that the injury might have robbed him of the chance of a contract extension with the Canucks, thus possibly making his last game this season before injury the last he'll play as a Canuck. Mitchell is probably praying that Gillis re-signs him based on his existing body of work with the Canucks.

That said, the above stats with/without Mitchell in the lineup are compelling. I never figured that Mitchell would be anywhere close to a hindrance to the team but you know what they say, stats don't lie. However, the important stat line to note is the one VanEric mentioned re: the Canucks' performance post-Daniel Sedin injury up until Mitchell got injured. It's no coincidence that with EVERYONE healthy the Canucks played at their best.

What it comes down to is let's hope for a completely healthy team come playoff time.

NuxFan09 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 12:50 PM
  #107
East Van Canuck Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 27
vCash: 500
This is a bad news good news situation

First my sources tell me that Willie will not play again this year. he has the worst type of concusion you can get. but this also means that no team will sign him as a free agent, I can see him assuming that he healthy signing a 1 year $1.5 million deal with the Canucks. which is a extra year for Vancouver as he would not have been back if here were playing now.

East Van Canuck Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:02 PM
  #108
FuzzyTitus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 387
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Van Canuck Fan View Post
This is a bad news good news situation

First my sources tell me that Willie will not play again this year. he has the worst type of concusion you can get. but this also means that no team will sign him as a free agent, I can see him assuming that he healthy signing a 1 year $1.5 million deal with the Canucks. which is a extra year for Vancouver as he would not have been back if here were playing now.
Worst concussion you can get.....

People have spent months in dark rooms, where they can't watch TV because of concussions. Willie Mitchell has started hiking. Sounds awful to me.

FuzzyTitus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:10 PM
  #109
Peter Griffin
Registered User
 
Peter Griffin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by East Van Canuck Fan View Post
This is a bad news good news situation

First my sources tell me that Willie will not play again this year. he has the worst type of concusion you can get. but this also means that no team will sign him as a free agent, I can see him assuming that he healthy signing a 1 year $1.5 million deal with the Canucks. which is a extra year for Vancouver as he would not have been back if here were playing now.
Even if Mitchell is out for the rest of the season, you underestimate the stupidity of many GM's. No way "no team will sign him", he'd definitely get more than a one year $1.5M deal.

Peter Griffin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:23 PM
  #110
pitseleh
Registered User
 
pitseleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,645
vCash: 500
Goal differential is misleading because obviously Mitchell had no impact on the PP which has a big effect on the GF. At 5v5:

With Mitchell: 100 GF/74 GA (+.54 GD/game)
Without Mitchell: 58 GF/49 GA (+.35 GD/game)

We can also look at the numbers just when the score is close (within one goal in the first/second periods or tied in the third):

With Mitchell in the lineup: 56 GF/37 GA. (+.40 GD/game)
Without Mitchell in the lineup: 29 GF/31 GA. (-.08 GD/game)

Mitchell himself was on the ice for 40 GF/30 GA. While that number isn't staggering, I think Mitchell has such a substantial impact on the team's goal differential because when he's in the lineup because he takes on the toughest assignments which cascades down the lineup allowing other defencemen to play matchups they are more comfortable with. He also takes a ton of defensive zone faceoffs which allows other players to start in the offensive zone more often.

Mitchell's numbers also include that stretch where the team was missing significant players due to injury.


Last edited by pitseleh: 03-27-2010 at 01:55 PM. Reason: fixed number
pitseleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 01:52 PM
  #111
AndyPipkin
PSN: Lord_Of_War
 
AndyPipkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Victoria, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,785
vCash: 500
Mitchell's Vancouver Career:

With Mitchell: 103W 65L 13OTL = .569win%

Without Mitchell: 30W 19L 8OTL = .526win%

AndyPipkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:25 PM
  #112
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by orcatown View Post
I think that Bucky raises an interesting discussion.

The decision on Mitchell is absolutely fundamental to the Canucks moving forward

The suggestion here seems that Mitchell importance is tied to the basic way the team intends to play. If you want to go defensive and keep the goals down then Mitchell is needed but if you want to employ an offensive style and produce goals then Mitchell may be seen as a drag on the team.

Some evidence does indicate that the League and hockey is changing. The increased restrictions on interference, the allowance of passing over two lines (leading to more stretch passes), the increasing emphasis on speed are all making offenses more dynamic. Moreover, if there is any increased reductions in the size of goal tender equipment, the ability to score will become critical.
This will increase the need for two way defensemen.

You could also say that some teams like Calgary, who stressed defense surrounding a top end goal tender, have fallen back. Also, it seems that teams like Toronto are re-building around speed and offense.

If this is so then there are implications for Mitchell and the Canucks. I think Mitchell has been an excellent player for the team as is hugely important on the PK. However, it seemed obvious in the playoffs last year that our defense was badly outplayed by the speedier Black Hawk defense.

Obviously it would be great to have Mitchell back for the playoffs. However, if the team is considering some basic change in philosophy and is concerned about the long range implications of retaining Mitchell then re-signing him becomes a more difficult issue.
really? I thought the more compelling information was provided by VanEric, who posted the numbers for Mitchell when Daniel was also in the lineup.

those numbers are ignored by Bucky, and he gives as much weight to the Canuck offense and GF numbers with Daniel out of the lineup vs when he was in, which IMO skews the actual results.

When we have a healthy lineup, with Daniel and Luongo, and Mitchell, the numbers clearly show that we have a higher GF and lower GA than when the lineup is missing Mitchell but have the other players available.

Aren't those more relevant to this discussion - Mitchell's impact when he's in and out of the lineup vs. Mitchell's impact when he and Daniel/Luongo are in and out of the lineup?

Maybe all this talk about Mitchell holding the offense back is misleading, when the Canucks had their best stretch of the season with them all in the lineup - including Mitchell. And this makes a lot of sense to me as well - not only is it a given that your defense will be better (and by extension your goaltender) having your top defensive guy available, but maybe your offense is better as well, having more freedom to work knowing you have a strong shutdown guy back there.

Either way though, I'm surprised that more people aren't commenting on VanEric's post and the numbers he put forward as it flies against the conclusions that Bucky, Botchford, and others seem to be holding on to.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:29 PM
  #113
Bobby Lou
Moustache Power
 
Bobby Lou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: The Crease
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,379
vCash: 894
Well we need someone of Mitchell's player type that's for sure. If we can improve in the foot speed area all the better, but we do need that #1 shut-down style guy. We have the offensive side of the blue line pretty covered (even down to the prospect level) but don't really have a 23+ minutes a night PK/shut down defenseman. So regardless, we'll need to either grab one of the oft mentioned UFA defensemen (Hamhuis, Volchenkov, Kubina) or retain Mitchell.

Bobby Lou is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:38 PM
  #114
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post

Someone might want to forward those numbers to Willie's agent and Luongo.
Can't wait to watch all those numbers fly out the window in round 1.

Without a true shut down we are in trouble.

Mitchell's holding back our number 2 offence!

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:44 PM
  #115
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Can't wait to watch all those numbers fly out the window in round 1.

Without a true shut down we are in trouble.

Mitchell's holding back our number 2 offence!
uhh? VanEric's numbers seem to show that Mitchell is more important to this team than he's being given credit for here... not the other way around.

The team's best numbers seem to be when he's in the lineup, along with everyone else. Their GF were at its highest with Mitchell (and Daniel) in the lineup... their GA were at its lowest with Mitchell (and Luongo) in the lineup.

Clearly this is a better representation of what this team is missing without Mitchell than evaluating numbers when he's out along with other key players?

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:44 PM
  #116
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,436
vCash: 500
I can understand the notion that the team may be better if Mitchell was replaced next season with a younger, more mobile, and less injury prone shut down defenseman. But that the team as it stands is better with him not in the lineup and having Bieksa, O'Brien, and Rome getting more minutes than they're capable of? Ridiculous.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:46 PM
  #117
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nuckfan in TO View Post
uhh? VanEric's numbers
Did you see the ?

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:48 PM
  #118
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
I can understand the notion that the team may be better if Mitchell was replaced next season with a younger, more mobile, and less injury prone shut down defenseman. But that the team as it stands is better with him not in the lineup and having Bieksa, O'Brien, and Rome getting more minutes than they're capable of? Ridiculous.
Yes, I think anyone would take a younger, more mobile, less injury prone shut down guy, but those guys don't grow on tree's. And they aren't traded for small wingers and unproven goalie prospects.

But, there was a poster, perhaps it was you, that was arguing these types of players are easy to get, sign, trade for, etc. Maybe he's right, maybe Volchenkov will hit FA and sign for under Komisarek money

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:48 PM
  #119
NFITO
hockeyinsanity*****
 
NFITO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Did you see the ?
yes I did... I thought it was just in reference to the last line, while you suggested that the original numbers showed he was some kind of liability, when in fact they don't... sorry, I misread your post.

NFITO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:49 PM
  #120
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Maybe there would be a point if we were replacing Mitchell with an offensive minded guy. We've just been replacing him with a combo platter of Baumgartner, Lukowich, Rome, and Alberts. Hardly offensive dynamos.

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:58 PM
  #121
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanEric View Post
Maybe there would be a point if we were replacing Mitchell with an offensive minded guy. We've just been replacing him with a combo platter of Baumgartner, Lukowich, Rome, and Alberts. Hardly offensive dynamos.
Would you be somewhat concerned about balance? I understand if you are talking about adding an "offensive guy" who can also play shutdown Defence, but those guys are rarer than rare and usually get paid 5.5 million +.

My concern is that moving forward we have two, top 2 offensive dmen who can also play reasonable defence in Ehrhoff and Edler, but no one to steady it.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 02:59 PM
  #122
opendoor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,436
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Yes, I think anyone would take a younger, more mobile, less injury prone shut down guy, but those guys don't grow on tree's. And they aren't traded for small wingers and unproven goalie prospects.

But, there was a poster, perhaps it was you, that was arguing these types of players are easy to get, sign, trade for, etc. Maybe he's right, maybe Volchenkov will hit FA and sign for under Komisarek money
Wasn't me who said that. Players like Mitchell are fairly rare.

At the same time though, does it make sense to re-sign an injury prone 33 year old guy with PCS to a multi year deal? I'd take a slight downgrade in Mitchell if his replacement could be counted on to play 90+% of the season, something Mitchell has done only twice in his 8 year career.

opendoor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 03:08 PM
  #123
VanEric
Registered User
 
VanEric's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LostMyGlasses View Post
Would you be somewhat concerned about balance? I understand if you are talking about adding an "offensive guy" who can also play shutdown Defence, but those guys are rarer than rare and usually get paid 5.5 million +.

My concern is that moving forward we have two, top 2 offensive dmen who can also play reasonable defence in Ehrhoff and Edler, but no one to steady it.
I'd rather have a shutdown guy like Mitchell or Michalek back there. I was just saying that the original theory presented about how Mitchell hampers the Canucks attack might hold more weight if his minutes were being filled by offensive guys. They've just been filled by varying degrees of simple defencemen.

Even then the research I did shows that with a healthy Daniel and healthy Willie, we score a lot and Luongo has Vezina calibre numbers so I support Willie!

VanEric is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 03:18 PM
  #124
Tiranis
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 21,020
vCash: 500
A guy like Michalek would be a perfect replacement -- even an upgrade -- for Willie, but I doubt that Phoenix will give him up.

Tiranis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-27-2010, 03:29 PM
  #125
LostMyGlasses*
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Simon Fraser
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,431
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by opendoor View Post
Wasn't me who said that. Players like Mitchell are fairly rare.

At the same time though, does it make sense to re-sign an injury prone 33 year old guy with PCS to a multi year deal? I'd take a slight downgrade in Mitchell if his replacement could be counted on to play 90+% of the season, something Mitchell has done only twice in his 8 year career.
No, I agree with you. My largest concern comes from the article written that stated Mitchell attempted to come back early from this bout of PCS but was told he couldn't participate in practice. This makes me wonder how many concussions Mitchell has suffered in the past and simply played through.

The problem is I see a few teams out there that could be looking to upgrade their defence through FA. That leaves the Canucks with a good deal of competition for the top notch shut down dmen available.

That leaves Gillis with a trade, and I have faith in Gillis' ability. But I don't know where the value is insofar as what we have to offer.

LostMyGlasses* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:56 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.