HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Forsberg vs. Clarke

View Poll Results: Peter Forsberg or Bobby Clarke
Clarke 72 79.12%
Forsberg 19 20.88%
Voters: 91. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-23-2010, 02:06 PM
  #101
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Two, increasing the size of the base of the pyramid does not change the size of the top. Lowering admission standards does not make it easier to be elite or increase the size of the elite. It just gives NHL credentials to more players.Using an academic analogy, allowing 10,000 previously academically unqualified students into a university does not increase the chances of one of the university's student's getting a Rhodes Scholarship but it does produce some more graduates along the way.
In reality though both the base of the pyramid and the size of the top increased over time. Obviously, there were hiccups along the way. For example, in my opinion, the parity in the 70s was really quite bad throughout the NHL until eventually more European players and eventually Russian players entered the league in the late 70s, 80s, and 90s.

I don't see how it can be argued that the whole world produces more top level players now than when 90% of them came from Canada only.

As far as the academic argument.. hell.. Einstein was a very poor student.

Yes, there would most likely be many more mediocre graduates but you're also going to get an occasional scholar out of the people who make the most of the opportunity given to them.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 02:06 PM
  #102
DutchLeafsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DutchLeafsfan Send a message via MSN to DutchLeafsfan
Regarding the actual main topic of this discussion btw, I recall reading a thread a few months ago which was trying to discuss the impact of defensive forwards on their teams' fortunes, guys like Bob Gainey and Bobby Clarke. From what I remember some pretty mind blowing statistics were brought up in that thread about just how few goals were scored against the Flyers when Clarke was on the ice.

Tried to find the thread with the search, but couldn't seem to find it myself. Might be interesting material though when trying to differentiate between forwards who are elite defensively and those who are defensively responsible, which is one thing which has been a point of discussion between the two.

DutchLeafsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 04:47 PM
  #103
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,406
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchLeafsfan View Post
Regarding the actual main topic of this discussion btw, I recall reading a thread a few months ago which was trying to discuss the impact of defensive forwards on their teams' fortunes, guys like Bob Gainey and Bobby Clarke. From what I remember some pretty mind blowing statistics were brought up in that thread about just how few goals were scored against the Flyers when Clarke was on the ice.

Tried to find the thread with the search, but couldn't seem to find it myself. Might be interesting material though when trying to differentiate between forwards who are elite defensively and those who are defensively responsible, which is one thing which has been a point of discussion between the two.
I think it's in the discussion for the HOH Top 100 list. I'll try to find it later if you don't. It's really mindblowing how few goals were scored when Clarke was on the ice in his prime, and confirms what the coach's polls and general perceptions say about him.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 05:44 PM
  #104
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Considering Forsberg is equal at best offensively, and miles behind defensively (like 99% of all players are when compared to Clarke), I have to say I am shocked that he has 19% of the votes.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 06:04 PM
  #105
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,778
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DutchLeafsfan View Post
Regarding the actual main topic of this discussion btw, I recall reading a thread a few months ago which was trying to discuss the impact of defensive forwards on their teams' fortunes, guys like Bob Gainey and Bobby Clarke. From what I remember some pretty mind blowing statistics were brought up in that thread about just how few goals were scored against the Flyers when Clarke was on the ice.

Tried to find the thread with the search, but couldn't seem to find it myself. Might be interesting material though when trying to differentiate between forwards who are elite defensively and those who are defensively responsible, which is one thing which has been a point of discussion between the two.

This may not be the thread you are looking for
, but it nicely summarizes the highlights of Clarke's defensive and plus minus stats.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 02:21 AM
  #106
DutchLeafsfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Rotterdam, NL
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 5,104
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to DutchLeafsfan Send a message via MSN to DutchLeafsfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post

This may not be the thread you are looking for
, but it nicely summarizes the highlights of Clarke's defensive and plus minus stats.
Not sure if it was the exact same thread, but those were the stats I was looking for, thanks.

Recalled that thread since I found it ridiculous too see those statistics of especially the 75 and 76 seasons, when he was on the ice for a total of 203 even strength goals for, and only 41 against. Those numbers were significantly higher than the rest of his career; however even taken over the entire career Clarke was on the ice for nearly double the even strength goals for compared to the even strength goals against.

Looking at this post, those seasons by Clarke are also by far the greatest differential we've seen at least in the post-67 era.


Last edited by DutchLeafsfan: 08-24-2010 at 02:27 AM.
DutchLeafsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 02:42 AM
  #107
Chimp
Registered User
 
Chimp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The average consumer
Country: Sweden
Posts: 11,440
vCash: 500
I've never understood how you can compare two players from completely different eras. Different game, different competition, different basic conditions.

Chimp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 03:14 AM
  #108
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Considering Forsberg is equal at best offensively, and miles behind defensively (like 99% of all players are when compared to Clarke), I have to say I am shocked that he has 19% of the votes.
I don't see how it's much of a debate either. Even if you use PPG for Forsberg and compare it to Clarke's actual top 10 point finishes, the difference isn't that great, and that's being very favourable to Forsberg and before defense is factored in.

I think the only advantage with Forsberg is the playoffs, where he was certainly great, but Clarke was no slouch either, and the fact he seemed like injuries were the only thing that prevented him from continuing at similar scoring paces, whereas Clarke's scoring wasn't as good outside his 7 year peak. But that's still a game of what ifs.

Regal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 04:16 AM
  #109
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Points ranking among forwards in 2006, 2007:

Lecavalier- tied for 38th, 3rd
St. Louis- tied for 70th, 5th
Iginla- tied for 51st, 11th
Briere- tied for 80th, 10th

Briere only played 48 games, but the other played a full season.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 04:20 AM
  #110
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
As far as the academic argument.. hell.. Einstein was a very poor student.
Yes, and on the other end, there is the only President with degrees from Harvard and Yale.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:41 AM
  #111
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Regal View Post
I don't see how it's much of a debate either. Even if you use PPG for Forsberg and compare it to Clarke's actual top 10 point finishes, the difference isn't that great, and that's being very favourable to Forsberg and before defense is factored in.

I think the only advantage with Forsberg is the playoffs, where he was certainly great, but Clarke was no slouch either, and the fact he seemed like injuries were the only thing that prevented him from continuing at similar scoring paces, whereas Clarke's scoring wasn't as good outside his 7 year peak. But that's still a game of what ifs.
You guys think Forsberg is equal at best offensively? His ppg was significantly higher in a lower scoring era. Thinking his ppg would have slowed down to where Clarke's is had he played as many games as Clarke, (even if it would have he still played in a lower scoring era) is borderline idiotic imo. He missed a fair amount of games in his prime, as well as 2 entire seasons including the lockout. His ppg would have decreased minimally if at all. Remember he played not close to 100% a fair bit as well. Not suggesting Clarke never did either. Still to say Forsberg is at best equal offensively is one of the most far fetched things I've heard.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:52 AM
  #112
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
You guys think Forsberg is equal at best offensively? His ppg was significantly higher in a lower scoring era. Thinking his ppg would have slowed down to where Clarke's is had he played as many games as Clarke, (even if it would have he still played in a lower scoring era) is borderline idiotic imo. He missed a fair amount of games in his prime, as well as 2 entire seasons including the lockout. His ppg would have decreased minimally if at all. Remember he played not close to 100% a fair bit as well. Not suggesting Clarke never did either. Still to say Forsberg is at best equal offensively is one of the most far fetched things I've heard.
What is "borderline idiotic" is thinking that players don't decline offensively when they get older. Forsberg definitely would have a lower PPG if he actually played a reasonable amount of games after 30.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:55 AM
  #113
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
You guys think Forsberg is equal at best offensively? His ppg was significantly higher in a lower scoring era. Thinking his ppg would have slowed down to where Clarke's is had he played as many games as Clarke, (even if it would have he still played in a lower scoring era) is borderline idiotic imo. He missed a fair amount of games in his prime, as well as 2 entire seasons including the lockout. His ppg would have decreased minimally if at all. Remember he played not close to 100% a fair bit as well. Not suggesting Clarke never did either. Still to say Forsberg is at best equal offensively is one of the most far fetched things I've heard.
Already said as a "per game level" that his offense was greater, however, on a full season note, his offense was not as good. His injuries were largely a result of the style he played. His game was almost tailor made for that era, but it cost him.

Also, as previously mention, I doubt Forsberg would have survived the earlier days of the NHL. Without Modern medical advances prolonging his glass ankle and overall fragility, in an much rougher era.....Modern medical advances are also what allowed him to remain effective longer. As already stated, his PPG would have declined like any other.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:09 AM
  #114
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
You guys think Forsberg is equal at best offensively? His ppg was significantly higher in a lower scoring era. Thinking his ppg would have slowed down to where Clarke's is had he played as many games as Clarke, (even if it would have he still played in a lower scoring era) is borderline idiotic imo. He missed a fair amount of games in his prime, as well as 2 entire seasons including the lockout. His ppg would have decreased minimally if at all. Remember he played not close to 100% a fair bit as well. Not suggesting Clarke never did either. Still to say Forsberg is at best equal offensively is one of the most far fetched things I've heard.
You can speculate all you want about what would have happened if Forsberg had played more games in his career, or more in this year or that year, but he didn't. Maybe his style of play was bound to get him injured, and if he didn't play that way he could stay healthy but be less effective overall. You don't know. Fact is, Clarke was able to play over 400 more games (at a time when longevity wasn't cool yet)

During Clarke's best 7-season stretch, he was 3rd in the NHL in points, behind Esposito and Lafleur. He was also 4th in PPG behind Orr, Esposito and Lafleur.

During Forsberg's best 7-season stretch (which happened over 8 years), he was 4th in the NHL in points, behind Jagr, Sakic, and Selanne. (remove the 2002 season and Sakic/Selanne are just a hair behind him) - He is 3rd in PPG during this time, beind Lemieux and Jagr, with Sakic and Lindros as close to him, as he was to Jagr.

You really think you can award an offensive edge to any player here?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:11 AM
  #115
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 13,774
vCash: 500
Speculative but Fascinating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Already said as a "per game level" that his offense was greater, however, on a full season note, his offense was not as good. His injuries were largely a result of the style he played. His game was almost tailor made for that era, but it cost him.

Also, as previously mention, I doubt Forsberg would have survived the earlier days of the NHL. Without Modern medical advances prolonging his glass ankle and overall fragility, in an much rougher era.....Modern medical advances are also what allowed him to remain effective longer. As already stated, his PPG would have declined like any other.
Speculative in a fascinating sense. Maurice Richard survived at least three leg/ankle injuries to enjoy a very productive 18 season career in an era which was much rougher and without the benefit of modern medical advances or equipment technology(rather flimsy skates compared to the 1990's).

Likewise Eric Lindros was concussed out of hockey in an era where helmets were the norm.

Perhaps the medical advances and equipment technology were enablers that encouraged high risk styles of play whereas previously the players would have had to adapt and eliminate the dangerous aspects of their game long before reaching the NHL.

Just an observation - no intent at derailing the thread.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:16 AM
  #116
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Speculative in a fascinating sense. Maurice Richard survived at least three leg/ankle injuries to enjoy a very productive 18 season career in an era which was much rougher and without the benefit of modern medical advances or equipment technology(rather flimsy skates compared to the 1990's).

Likewise Eric Lindros was concussed out of hockey in an era where helmets were the norm.

Perhaps the medical advances and equipment technology were enablers that encouraged high risk styles of play whereas previously the players would have had to adapt and eliminate the dangerous aspects of their game long before reaching the NHL.

Just an observation - no intent at derailing the thread.
Oh certainly. Some players are tougher than others and more easily able to shake off injuries. Richard is a prime example. Others simply cannot. Lindros getting concussed was not really all that surprising given that he skated with his head down all the time.

Forsberg was very fragile despite all the pampering.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:22 AM
  #117
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Guys he wouldn't have declined nearly as much as you think. Even if you take each of their best 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, it doesn't make a difference. Forsberg was better offensively by more than just a bit. Throw in the playoffs yes there's a significant edge there. Of course Clarke had the defensive edge. So if Forsberg wouldn't have survived in the 70's (joke imo), I could easily say that much of what made Clarke effective defensively was his dirty play, which would have contributed to far more penalties in the 90's/2000's. On the other hand, maybe he realizes he can't get away with it at all and becomes less effective?

Anyways, the difference between the two overall is not very big at all. I still think Forsberg was better though. I just judge players based on how good they were when they played, don't put nearly as much stock into health as most here do. Like overpass said, we're fans not gm's, why wouldn't we want to rate players based on their on ice ability? Forsberg and Lindros take too much of a beating on their all-time rankings for their health/longevity whereas there are players who get way too much credit for it. There are IMO, too many players who are clearly worse than an other one, but just piled on more seasons or played a bit more in their prime who get ranked unjustifiably higher.

This observation of mine doesn't apply to Clarke btw, just sorta throwing it out there. I can very well understand people ranking him better than Forsberg in the games they played, I just won't neccessarily agree with it and believe it's a lot closer than most think.


Last edited by Infinite Vision*: 08-24-2010 at 11:32 AM.
Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:32 AM
  #118
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
Guys he wouldn't have declined nearly as much as you think. Even if you take each of their best 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, it doesn't make a difference. Forsberg was better offensively by more than just a bit. Throw in the playoffs yes there's a significant edge there. Of course Clarke had the defensive edge. So if Forsberg wouldn't have survived in the 70's (joke imo), I could easily say that much of what made Clarke effective defensively was his dirty play, which would have contributed to far more penalties in the 90's/2000's. On the other hand, maybe he realizes he can't get away with it at all and becomes less effective?
Ridiculous./ Clarke's dirty play was merely the agitator aspect of his game. His defensive tools would not be diminished in the least in any era.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:36 AM
  #119
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Ridiculous./ Clarke's dirty play was merely the agitator aspect of his game. His defensive tools would not be diminished in the least in any era.
Still he did it for a reason (maybe because it was effective, hence contributing to his defensive play). I could say the talent pool in the 70's was diluted more so than in Forsberg's era and he would have been even better offensively. The fact is, they played in the eras they did so lets just judge them that way.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:39 AM
  #120
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,842
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
Still he did it for a reason (maybe because it was effective, hence contributing to his defensive play). I could say the talent pool in the 70's was diluted more so than in Forsberg's era and he would have been even better offensively. The fact is, they played in the eras they did so lets just judge them that way.
The problem for your argument is that when you do so, Clarke pretty much keeps up offensively and is miles better defensively.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:40 AM
  #121
Lexus
OWN THE MOMENT.
 
Lexus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Country: Norway
Posts: 3,307
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
Guys he wouldn't have declined nearly as much as you think. Even if you take each of their best 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, it doesn't make a difference. Forsberg was better offensively by more than just a bit. Throw in the playoffs yes there's a significant edge there. Of course Clarke had the defensive edge. So if Forsberg wouldn't have survived in the 70's (joke imo), I could easily say that much of what made Clarke effective defensively was his dirty play, which would have contributed to far more penalties in the 90's/2000's. On the other hand, maybe he realizes he can't get away with it at all and becomes less effective?

Anyways, the difference between the two overall is not very big at all. I still think Forsberg was better though. I just judge players based on how good they were when they played, don't put nearly as much stock into health as most here do. Like overpass said, we're fans not gm's, why wouldn't we want to rate players based on their on ice ability? Forsberg and Lindros take too much of a beating on their all-time rankings for their health/longevity whereas there are players who get way too much credit for it. There are IMO, too many players who are clearly worse than an other one, but just piled on more seasons or played a bit more in their prime who get ranked unjustifiably higher.

This observation of mine doesn't apply to Clarke btw, just sorta throwing it out there. I can very well understand people ranking him better than Forsberg in the games they played, I just won't neccessarily agree with it and believe it's a lot closer than most think.
Good post, I agree on all accounts. (especially the bolded part)

Lexus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:47 AM
  #122
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
The problem for your argument is that when you do so, Clarke pretty much keeps up offensively and is miles better defensively.
If you don't consider Forsberg's injuries. Judging each of their offensive abilities, Forsberg has a clear edge. Judging top ten point finishes? maybe he doesn't. Which is why you say Clarke pretty much keeps up offensively. I can see what your saying, please tell me you can see what I'm saying.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:48 AM
  #123
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,861
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lexus View Post
Good post, I agree on all accounts. (especially the bolded part)
Appreciated.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 12:02 PM
  #124
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan87 View Post
Still he did it for a reason (maybe because it was effective, hence contributing to his defensive play). I could say the talent pool in the 70's was diluted more so than in Forsberg's era and he would have been even better offensively. The fact is, they played in the eras they did so lets just judge them that way.
No, he did it because he was an agitator. Losing his agitator parts of his game would not have impacted his Hockey sense, positioning, anticipation, stickwork and work ethic at all.

Okay then. Rank them based on their own era. Clarke has 3 Hart trophies, while being highly ranked multiple other years and was runner up for the scoring title twice, while placing highly several other times, beating multiple all time greats. A shoe in for several additional Selke's to the one he already has and was considered the greatest penalty killer and faceoff man in the league, as well as most complete 5 on 5 forward. THE guy you wanted going head to head with opposing teams best forwards. Praised by coaches in their polls as the guy they would want to build a team around from scratch.

Forsberg has one Hart, with almost no Hart presence outside of that year. His defensive game is miles behind.

Okay, if you say Forsberg takes too much of a beating in all time rankings. Explain to us who you think he is better than and deserves to be ahead of? He finished fairly high in the HOH top 100 despite his problems, and it was pretty much accepted that he would be ranked right alongside Sakic and Yzerman if not for his injuries.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 01:05 PM
  #125
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,662
vCash: 500
If forsberg had a healthy career, he would have won the art ross in 2004, crack the top 10 in 2006 and probably have had more top 10 finishes. I would comfortably say Forsberg was better than Yzerman on a 'per game basis'. He also missed out the 2004-05 season due to the lockout.

Like another poster said, Forsberg was ranked 1st by the hockey news two sraight years. I also remember back in 99 or 98 there was a debate in the hockey news magazine if Forsberg was better than Jagr.

ushvinder 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 04:27 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.