HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

4th liners the Rangers should now target

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2011, 04:01 PM
  #276
JeffMangum
Registered Ab-user
 
JeffMangum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Listening to music
Country: United States
Posts: 57,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
Fair enough, St.Louis is the only mite on Tampa.

If we draft Grimaldi, we could possiby have him, Zucc, Bourque and Thomas, granted if half of them make it because the math says that only 1 of the 4 would make it, right.
It wouldn't kill to have 2 guys that are fairly small, as long as they make up for it on the scoresheet and in the game. Size is a state of mind.

I highly doubt Bourque ever makes it to the NHL. He's way too injury prone, and he seems like one of those players where his size will affect his game. Thomas is akin to Cammalleri - he gets lost in the coverage, and snaps a shot back by the glove of the goaltender and in. You don't need size to do that.

__________________
Everything about you is bringing me misery.
JeffMangum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 04:47 PM
  #277
Trxjw
Retired.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Land of no calls..
Country: United States
Posts: 16,570
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
Grimaldi would not be a smart pick for us....we can't hide his 5'6 165 frame in our current lineup.

He would be a great pick for the Bruins, San Jose or a team that could put him on a line with some beef.

Grimaldi would be another Zucc on our team.
Why do we need to "hide" him? For that matter, he's not likely to make the team out of camp, so who knows what the lineup will look like when he's ready for the NHL?

Gionta, Cammalleri, Ennis, St. Louis, Kane, Gerbe, Fleury, Kariya, Derek Roy, Ray Whitney, etc, etc. It doesn't have to do with size alone. It comes down to ability, tenacity, and compete level. Put all the size you want on a line with Corey Locke and that doesn't mean he'll succeed.

I can tell you this: You'll win a lot more games based on your skill with the puck than you will based on size.

Trxjw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:13 PM
  #278
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
So, we are giving contracts to guys who are just taking up space?
Do you really need a lesson on how bringing up prospects works int he NHL? All ~50 guys under contract are NHL caliber or will be NHL caliber. Sometimes if a prospect is playing somewhat promising at the time you give them a deal and hope they'll continue to progress. Some do, some don't. That's how it works. Are you new?

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:17 PM
  #279
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
I think McNeill has plenty of talent.

He also provides intangibles.

I don't want to draft a guy with a wicked wrist shot but doesn't show up to the rink every night....how is that for a perspective.

Let's draft Tomas Jurco:

His puckhandling skills border on the obscene. If there was some kind of unearthly substance that had a magnetic effect on rubber, we'd think that Jurco was the one who discovered it. He can dangle with the absolute best of them....He has a quick burst and some deceptive speed with the agility to turn defenders and make opponents look silly.....Jurco's defensive game is subpar and his compete levels uneven. He scored 31 goals on a stacked team, but was streaky with long stretches of unproductive play......Medium risk player but high reward if he can raise the consistency. He's going to go higher than where we have him because of the sick hands and upside.

I like to stay away from guys like that...i don't care how much talent they have.

I have read time and time again how the Rangers have to go for the most talented guy regardless of their desire. I didn't know the Rangers could afford that kind of luxury.

But that's just me...I like guys who give it their all...not skate around and float...alla Kovy, Zherdev
Who said anything about bringing in one dimensional guys? Most of the guys that have been mentioned for the top 6 are guys that play two-way games. Richards and Gagne are the most popular I think. As far as our in-house talent, I can't name one prospect we have that's Filatov esque where his motives and his effort and ability in his own zone are questioned despite great talent. You're grasping at straws.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:18 PM
  #280
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Mastrosimone View Post
McNeil is a fine pick for where the Rangers are picking in this draft, because at that point, most of the highly talented players are question marks.

But, you don't take Couturier over RNH because of his size. Skill trumps size every time. You have to get the right mix, or a player with skill that has the heart of a 6'5 player. Like Grimaldi.
Exactly. Thank god our staff has learned fromt he Hugh Jessiman instance.

Orr Nightmare, Hugh Jessiman had 6 inches on Zach Parise, remember how that worked out?

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:24 PM
  #281
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
The 99-2000 devils had: Scott Gomez, Petr Sykrora, Brian Rafalski, Alexander Moginly, and Scott Neidermeyer.

Players over 6'1? They had 2 major ones and that's all I can count, Arnott and Holik. I see their value, but both never struck me as the type of physical presences we're talking about in this thread. No, guys like Daneyko and Stevens were the guys that "hid" the smaller guys. Claude Lemeuix. And those guys weren't all that big at all in terms of frame and size. They were just guys who were fairly filled out that could play a great physical game.

Size and toughness are not synonymous, especially in today's NHL, post-lockout.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:48 PM
  #282
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
Exactly. Thank god our staff has learned fromt he Hugh Jessiman instance.

Orr Nightmare, Hugh Jessiman had 6 inches on Zach Parise, remember how that worked out?
where are you going with this logic? Jessiman didn't work out, we get it, but that now means that we should avoid pursuing sizable players because they'll be busts like jessiman? Small players are now the rage? I'm sure nyr staff were pursuing jessiman for more than just his size at the time.

Bet the weight! Go after bigger talented players over smaller talented players any day.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:57 PM
  #283
NikC
Registered User
 
NikC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 3,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
I think McNeill has plenty of talent.

He also provides intangibles.

I don't want to draft a guy with a wicked wrist shot but doesn't show up to the rink every night....how is that for a perspective.

because of the sick hands and upside.

I like to stay away from guys like that...i don't care how much talent they have.

I have read time and time again how the Rangers have to go for the most talented guy regardless of their desire. I didn't know the Rangers could afford that kind of luxury.

But that's just me...I like guys who give it their all...not skate around and float...alla Kovy, Zherdev
I'm partial to PF-type players myself, but you have to have a variety of player types on a team in order to succeed. You need your skill players and your grinders to give it their all.

you have to be realistic here though. you can't every top line player to score goals, throw massive hip checks, drop the gloves, etc.
you have to have some "specialists" on the team that can do things no one else can.

NikC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 06:25 PM
  #284
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
Someone referred to Lapierre as barely an NHL'er yesterday when I said he brings havoc to the oppossing team
Who the hell said that!? They obviously don't watch him play. He is effective in his role for sure.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 08:26 PM
  #285
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
Do you really need a lesson on how bringing up prospects works int he NHL? All ~50 guys under contract are NHL caliber or will be NHL caliber. Sometimes if a prospect is playing somewhat promising at the time you give them a deal and hope they'll continue to progress. Some do, some don't. That's how it works. Are you new?
Yes, what is hockey?

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 08:28 PM
  #286
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
Who said anything about bringing in one dimensional guys? Most of the guys that have been mentioned for the top 6 are guys that play two-way games. Richards and Gagne are the most popular I think. As far as our in-house talent, I can't name one prospect we have that's Filatov esque where his motives and his effort and ability in his own zone are questioned despite great talent. You're grasping at straws.
You got me...

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 08:30 PM
  #287
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
Exactly. Thank god our staff has learned fromt he Hugh Jessiman instance.

Orr Nightmare, Hugh Jessiman had 6 inches on Zach Parise, remember how that worked out?
Sather is fool...he wanted size which was the smart move..he just picked the wrong guy.

Getzlaf or Parise, I am more inclined to take Getzlaf but I am not even sure what hockey is so, can you lecture me again.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 08:36 PM
  #288
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerFan10 View Post
The 99-2000 devils had: Scott Gomez, Petr Sykrora, Brian Rafalski, Alexander Moginly, and Scott Neidermeyer.

Players over 6'1? They had 2 major ones and that's all I can count, Arnott and Holik. I see their value, but both never struck me as the type of physical presences we're talking about in this thread. No, guys like Daneyko and Stevens were the guys that "hid" the smaller guys. Claude Lemeuix. And those guys weren't all that big at all in terms of frame and size. They were just guys who were fairly filled out that could play a great physical game.

Size and toughness are not synonymous, especially in today's NHL, post-lockout.
Are you talking about the 99-00 Devils...that had Oliwa, Mckay, Stevens, Daneyko, Colin White, Sheldon Souray, Lyle Odelein and Willie Mitchell...guys that would rip your arms out of your socket and beat you with it...

I will let you retract that if you want.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 08:40 PM
  #289
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
I'm partial to PF-type players myself, but you have to have a variety of player types on a team in order to succeed. You need your skill players and your grinders to give it their all.

you have to be realistic here though. you can't every top line player to score goals, throw massive hip checks, drop the gloves, etc.
you have to have some "specialists" on the team that can do things no one else can.
I know dude, we have Stepan, Gabby, MZA, MDZ, AA, Gilroy and Cally.

I think Gabby would do wonders with someone like a Clowe/Lucic type on his line

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:11 PM
  #290
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NikC View Post
where are you going with this logic? Jessiman didn't work out, we get it, but that now means that we should avoid pursuing sizable players because they'll be busts like jessiman? Small players are now the rage? I'm sure nyr staff were pursuing jessiman for more than just his size at the time.

Bet the weight! Go after bigger talented players over smaller talented players any day.
We're talking about the draft going forward and going with size over skill because of nitpicky things in a scouting report of a 17 year old

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:12 PM
  #291
RangerFan10
Registered User
 
RangerFan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Long Island/Plattsbu
Country: United States
Posts: 5,327
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to RangerFan10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
Are you talking about the 99-00 Devils...that had Oliwa, Mckay, Stevens, Daneyko, Colin White, Sheldon Souray, Lyle Odelein and Willie Mitchell...guys that would rip your arms out of your socket and beat you with it...

I will let you retract that if you want.
You clearly, CLEARLY, did not read the rest of my post. You'll find that none of those players are all that big in terms of size, something you seem fixated on.

RangerFan10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:19 PM
  #292
ocarina
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,415
vCash: 500
Look at Vancouver right now. They aren't exactly loaded with physical players (Raffi Torres, Kevin Bieksa and Keith Ballard are the only ones that stand out), but they are in the finals.

The reason for that? They have both high-end talent and depth, as well as players that know their roles. And their overall skill level with the puck allows them to dominate teams in the offensive zone, especially when the Sedin twins are out there.

ocarina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:31 PM
  #293
Lion Hound
@JoeTucc26
 
Lion Hound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NY
Country: United States
Posts: 3,701
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocarina View Post
Look at Vancouver right now. They aren't exactly loaded with physical players (Raffi Torres, Kevin Bieksa and Keith Ballard are the only ones that stand out), but they are in the finals.

The reason for that? They have both high-end talent and depth, as well as players that know their roles. And their overall skill level with the puck allows them to dominate teams in the offensive zone, especially when the Sedin twins are out there.
Tanner glass and Rypien before he was out. But, they also have Kesler who playes a physical game as a top 6 player and Burrows as well...Don't forget Malhotra.

Lion Hound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:38 PM
  #294
NYR Viper
Moderator
 
NYR Viper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocarina View Post
Look at Vancouver right now. They aren't exactly loaded with physical players (Raffi Torres, Kevin Bieksa and Keith Ballard are the only ones that stand out), but they are in the finals.

The reason for that? They have both high-end talent and depth, as well as players that know their roles. And their overall skill level with the puck allows them to dominate teams in the offensive zone, especially when the Sedin twins are out there.
Uhh, does anyone here watch the Canucks on a regular basis? They are a VERY physical team. They have out-muscled EVERY team they have played in the playoffs BY FAR.

Their entire defense is full of heavy-hitters:
Edler
Bieksa
Rome
Ballard
Hamhuis
Ehrhoff

There forwards are big, strong and abrasive:
Burrows
Kesler
Lapierre
Torres
Glass
Hansen

And even there "skill" players like Samuelsson and the Twins are chippy and annoying to play against.

NYR Viper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:21 PM
  #295
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYR Boyler87 View Post
Uhh, does anyone here watch the Canucks on a regular basis? They are a VERY physical team. They have out-muscled EVERY team they have played in the playoffs BY FAR.

Their entire defense is full of heavy-hitters:
Edler
Bieksa
Rome
Ballard
Hamhuis
Ehrhoff

There forwards are big, strong and abrasive:
Burrows
Kesler
Lapierre
Torres
Glass
Hansen

And even there "skill" players like Samuelsson and the Twins are chippy and annoying to play against.
OK, good! I thought I was the only one who understood hockey.

I have watched almost every playoff game and after the 1st round every remaining team was bigger, more skilled and much more physical than the Rangers...I am not sure why that is so difficult for the majority of the people on this board to understand.

Also, I have stated in almost everyone of my post that the Rangers lack skill and they also lack size...I will favor a guy like Kesler over a guy like Gionta...I would even go as far to say that I would prefer Kesler over St. Louis and just so I am clear, I think St. Louis is an extremely talented player.

I will get labeled as a goon lover or just focusing on size....I would take St. Louis any day on my team...he is a special talent but he is also playing with guys who carry size and nasty desposition, whether it be Malone or Downie.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:31 PM
  #296
hockeyman001
Registered User
 
hockeyman001's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
Are you talking about the 99-00 Devils...that had Oliwa, Mckay, Stevens, Daneyko, Colin White, Sheldon Souray, Lyle Odelein and Willie Mitchell...guys that would rip your arms out of your socket and beat you with it...

I will let you retract that if you want.
Oliwa was big and a fighter, but not used AT ALL in the playoffs due to injury. Obviously that's not his fault, but it stands to reason therefore that he's not the reason they won the Cup.

McKay (6-2, 210, also not huge) was much more than a fighter, he could score too. Zenon Konopka and a lot of the names being bandied about can't score for anything.

Daneyko only 6-1 215, not huge.

Stevens only 6-2 215, not huge. It was how these two guys played that mattered.

Odelein (6-0, 210) was traded midseason and Mitchell played 2 games that season, they don't really count towards the argument.

Souray, also traded midseason was big, but he wasn't a very good player at the time which is why the Devils traded him for Malakhov.

Malakhov had size, but he wasn't very physical.

There's more to looking at how physical a team plays than just size. This Rangers team is very physical despite their size, and needs skill guys...not body bangers. There are plenty of body bangers in the league and they are easier to replace than top line skill players.

hockeyman001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:36 PM
  #297
hockeyman001
Registered User
 
hockeyman001's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: USA
Country: United States
Posts: 139
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orr Nightmare View Post
OK, good! I thought I was the only one who understood hockey.

I have watched almost every playoff game and after the 1st round every remaining team was bigger, more skilled and much more physical than the Rangers...I am not sure why that is so difficult for the majority of the people on this board to understand.

Also, I have stated in almost everyone of my post that the Rangers lack skill and they also lack size...I will favor a guy like Kesler over a guy like Gionta...I would even go as far to say that I would prefer Kesler over St. Louis and just so I am clear, I think St. Louis is an extremely talented player.

I will get labeled as a goon lover or just focusing on size....I would take St. Louis any day on my team...he is a special talent but he is also playing with guys who carry size and nasty desposition, whether it be Malone or Downie.
St. Louis > Kesler > Gionta.

Physical hockey only gets you so far. All the hype for the Flyers teams in the mid to late 90s and they never won a damn thing because they didn't have a goalie or a skill scorer. They had to bang bodies to win and inevitably they'd run into a team like the Red Wings that could skate circles around them or a team with a great goalie like a Brodeur or a Hasek that could handle the bodies and still stop the puck.

This team needs scorers with DECENT size to get by. Meaning going with Gionta's and Cammalleri's is a terrible strategy, but guys who are AVERAGE size are just fine.

hockeyman001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 08:56 AM
  #298
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyman001 View Post
St. Louis > Kesler > Gionta.

Physical hockey only gets you so far. All the hype for the Flyers teams in the mid to late 90s and they never won a damn thing because they didn't have a goalie or a skill scorer. They had to bang bodies to win and inevitably they'd run into a team like the Red Wings that could skate circles around them or a team with a great goalie like a Brodeur or a Hasek that could handle the bodies and still stop the puck.

This team needs scorers with DECENT size to get by. Meaning going with Gionta's and Cammalleri's is a terrible strategy, but guys who are AVERAGE size are just fine.
I am just looking for a blend....when you have Gabby, Stepan, MZA, MDZ and then possibly adding Thomas, Hagelin, Horak and a few others...I see a need for size...it is pretty simple. I do not want them drafting another 5'10 170 kid who needs to fill out his frame...I do not believe that will help us...unless he is special talent.

Cally is our best forechecker and he is 5'10 185 and is getting hurt because his frame cannot sustain what he is doing to it.

I watched Tampa-Bruins game last night and they were absolutely killing each other...the Rangers would have wilted under those conditions.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 09:03 AM
  #299
Orr Nightmare
Registered User
 
Orr Nightmare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,605
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyman001 View Post
Oliwa was big and a fighter, but not used AT ALL in the playoffs due to injury. Obviously that's not his fault, but it stands to reason therefore that he's not the reason they won the Cup.

McKay (6-2, 210, also not huge) was much more than a fighter, he could score too. Zenon Konopka and a lot of the names being bandied about can't score for anything.

Daneyko only 6-1 215, not huge.

Stevens only 6-2 215, not huge. It was how these two guys played that mattered.

Odelein (6-0, 210) was traded midseason and Mitchell played 2 games that season, they don't really count towards the argument.

Souray, also traded midseason was big, but he wasn't a very good player at the time which is why the Devils traded him for Malakhov.

Malakhov had size, but he wasn't very physical.

There's more to looking at how physical a team plays than just size. This Rangers team is very physical despite their size, and needs skill guys...not body bangers. There are plenty of body bangers in the league and they are easier to replace than top line skill players.
When I referr to size, I am not talking about how much a guy weighs or how tall he is.

Stevens was the most ferocious player I have ever watch.

Daneyko and McKay were two of the best pound for pound guys in the league.

Even though those guys Souray/Mitchell were traded or weren't that good at the time they were still guys who offered that element of playing a hard nose game.

I love Sauer and I want him to play here for the next 10 years but he is only one of a handful of those types of guys on our team or in the system.

Sauer - not a good fighter
Dubi - not a good fighter and you don't want him fighting anyway
Prust - very good light middleweight
Avery -not a good fighter
Cally - read Dubi
Boyle - I could take

Put these guys in a 7 game serious like the one that is being played right now and we would get eatin alive...it is really pretty simple to see.

Orr Nightmare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 09:54 AM
  #300
Vitto79
Registered User
 
Vitto79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sarnia
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,632
vCash: 500
Is Shane O'Brien a heavy weight? He may fit the physical 6th Dman role. I know Valentenko does'nt fight but he can hit

Vitto79 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 11:46 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.