Prospect Info: Tom Willander: 11th Overall 2023 Draft (Rogle BK J20) - Part 02

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
55,875
92,298
Vancouver, BC
i don't think "top 60" is the right way to measure things. it's like you set the tiers criteria and however many players qualify for it qualifies for it. if the talent pool in the NHL is crap and there are only like 10 #1, 10#2 and 10#3, it is what it is. We don't need to squeeze more people into those categories based on some other criteria.

it's like saying oh the top10 restaurants in a city has to have michelin 3 star. it doesn't work that way does it.


#2 are like Hamhuis, Hanafin. Definitely 1st paring guys that is not Norris level.

This is exactly how it works. There are a set number of jobs in the NHL. It isn’t like the open-ended and arbitrary number of Michelin stars.

The top 32 defenders in the NHL are #1 defenders. 33-64 are #2 defenders.

It’s absurd to say that Hronek is, like, the 35th-best defender in the NHL but is somehow a #3 defender when he’d be either the best or 2nd best defender for basically every NHL team.

Fans do this thing where the top-10 ‘Norris’ guys are ‘#1 defenders’, guys from 11-30 are ‘solid #2s’ and so on … and it’s dumb and it makes no sense.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
19,512
6,399
If you want to talk about a top-5 or top-10 player in a position just say that. I've never understood why a #1 isn't just the top 32 D-men in the league, #2 33-64, #3... etc. There will be some debate who these players are but that's healthy.

because 32 is a pretty arbitrary number. It’s like there is an assumption every team has a #1 guy. Is that going to be 34 when we add 2 more expansion teams? 40 when we expand like crazy?
The number of top defenders are not tied to number of franchises

I side more with arttk here. I'm a bit old school. Back in the day, the #1 Dman is more of the offensive guy where the #2 Dman is the shutdown guy. Both are "top pairing" guys. Of course there are a select few absolutely dominant defensive defenseman where offense wasn't needed but those were rare. The same goes for offensive Dman. If you suck defensively you have to be so dominant offensively to be considered a #1.

Later on, the expectation of a #1 Dman is a guy who logs over 25+ minutes who you want on the ice as much as possible but the expectation of offense is still there IMO.

If you go back to contemporaneous discussions, discussing who were #1 defenseman on the Canucks actually is a thing. Like Reinhart had many supporters as a #1 Dman. Few thought Lumme was one. Even Ohlund, because his offensive production didn't rank among the elite, he was considered more of a #2. Jovo kind of was but wasn't for a sustained long period. Edler for years was considered the closest thing the Canucks had to a #1 Dman. Mitchell and Hamhuis didn't quite get the #1 status even though they were top shutdown Dmen. Same goes for Tanev.

If you think about it, #1 defensemen don't come along every year. Like Hughes is our #1 and if he sustains his play we're not likely to have anybody remotely comparable through Hughes for the 10-15 years he (hopefully) is here for. Like Doughty is 34. Kings haven't had anyone remotely close to Doughty in his time as a King.
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,769
4,686
Vancouver, BC
you really need to stop making up hypotheticals that has zero basis with reality. There are no teams with 6 #1 and no we are not going to have a crazy draft to redistribute all talent in the NHL. And no we are not going back yo a 6 team league.

When I bring up expansion it’s because the stadium are literally being built right now and it will happen. It’s not a hypothetical, it’s a forecasted event.
Yes and...? I prefer to frame things in buckets based on how many teams there are in the league, you don't. I think it's clearer to all potential listeners if #1 D means top-32, #2 means 33-64, etc. so I prefer it to have a fixed meaning. If #1 D means the best handful of a specific type of D that's very fuzzy and can lead to arguments born of misunderstanding rather than due to any actual difference in position. Something like top-5 D is clear to more people and top-5 offensive D is even clearer.

Like I said, I can't enforce anything or force people to use my preferred terms, but this is how I prefer to sort players in the league. Stuff like Franchise, Super Star, Star, 1C, can vary so much in usage as to be near meaningless without further discussion so I'd rather avoid them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indiana

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
19,309
11,216
Los Angeles
This is exactly how it works. There are a set number of jobs in the NHL. It isn’t like the open-ended and arbitrary number of Michelin stars.

The top 32 defenders in the NHL are #1 defenders. 33-64 are #2 defenders.

It’s absurd to say that Hronek is, like, the 35th-best defender in the NHL but is somehow a #3 defender when he’d be either the best or 2nd best defender for basically every NHL team.

Fans do this thing where the top-10 ‘Norris’ guys are ‘#1 defenders’, guys from 11-30 are ‘solid #2s’ and so on … and it’s dumb and it makes no sense.
Majority of the people in hockey has adopted this taxonomy. You thinking it’s stupid doesn’t mean you can change the way how people use it and talk about it.

Like turn on hockey talk so the Sat and he talks about how Hronek is a 3 asking for 2 money. If you and a couple of folks don’t like it, that’s fine but it fundamentally doesn’t change how everybody else talks about it.

Like if i look at D points, Gothishbere is 16, ok so is he a 1D now by your standard?
Like 32 is Krug and 33 is Burns. So is Burns automatically not a 1D because he is just 1 slot past your arbitrary 32 number?

Btw I also picked an arbitrary metric but regardless of what metric you pick, setting the cut off at 32 will also be jank because you can have multiple guys tied at the 32 spot or you end up with a giant drop even before you hit 32 and you end up with like Ghost as a 1D in how you classify it.

You want to do it properly, just see the metric for every tier and let that do the work instead of setting random thresholds.
 
Last edited:

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
19,309
11,216
Los Angeles
Yes and...? I prefer to frame things in buckets based on how many teams there are in the league, you don't. I think it's clearer to all potential listeners if #1 D means top-32, #2 means 33-64, etc. so I prefer it to have a fixed meaning. If #1 D means the best handful of a specific type of D that's very fuzzy and can lead to arguments born of misunderstanding rather than due to any actual difference in position. Something like top-5 D is clear to more people and top-5 offensive D is even clearer.

Like I said, I can't enforce anything or force people to use my preferred terms, but this is how I prefer to sort players in the league. Stuff like Franchise, Super Star, Star, 1C, can vary so much in usage as to be near meaningless without further discussion so I'd rather avoid them.
if you don’t care for terms like franchise, Star and whatever then don’t partake in that convo.

Its like there are already a ton of people using that language and you just waltz in and want to argue, hey that language you guys use, f***ing useless, don’t use it, listen to how I define it instead. Like I don’t even know what’s the point.

We are here to talk hockey, not talk about how to talk hockey if that makes sense.

And no you made up a weird hypothetical where a team has 6 #1D which I don’t think has ever happened. And you ended up with hypothetical about going back to a 6 team league which also is not possible.

Edit: you know what, this is f***ing stupid. I am just going to stfu and stop talking about it.
 
Last edited:

ChilliBilly

Registered User
Aug 22, 2007
7,298
4,607
chilliwacki
Tryamkin would never have been/ never was an NHL top 4 d man.

Would have likely topped out as a Zadorov without the offense.

He had zero intention of being an NHL player.
1 - No he was not a top 4 d man. At the time he left.

2 - Never would have? What do you base this on? He had the skating ability, seemed to have the smarts, and was a beast. Just what you need for the grind of the playoffs. (now 6'7" 265 lbs)

3 - re - Zadorov. sorry, this statement really has no foundation or sense.

4 - NHL Player? He basically was, he just wasn't prepared to go down to the AHL and get paid a fraction of what he would get in the KHL. Do you not remember the general whining on here when we found he was leaving. Face it, the Canucks org. handled his situation terribly.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Nucklehead Supreme

Hodgy

Registered User
Feb 23, 2012
4,823
5,041
Any definition of “number 1” defensemen where there isn’t 32 of them in the league is absurd to me. Like, the very name “number 1 defensemen” implies there are 32 of them. You can then reference, average, below average, elite, etc., by means of differentiating among the various number 1 defensemen.
 

arttk

Registered User
Feb 16, 2006
19,309
11,216
Los Angeles
Any definition of “number 1” defensemen where there isn’t 32 of them in the league is absurd to me. Like, the very name “number 1 defensemen” implies there are 32 of them. You can then reference, average, below average, elite, etc., by means of differentiating among the various number 1 defensemen.
Simple exercise, just list 33 D and rank them based on what you think a D should be ranked by.
there is 3 outcomes, you get 32 and the 33rd is obviously not a 1D, you get less than 32 or you get more than 32.
 

Pastor Of Muppetz

Registered User
Oct 1, 2017
26,371
16,350
1 - No he was not a top 4 d man. At the time he left.

2 - Never would have? What do you base this on? He had the skating ability, seemed to have the smarts, and was a beast. Just what you need for the grind of the playoffs. (now 6'7" 265 lbs)

3 - re - Zadorov. sorry, this statement really has no foundation or sense.

4 - NHL Player? He basically was, he just wasn't prepared to go down to the AHL and get paid a fraction of what he would get in the KHL. Do you not remember the general whining on here when we found he was leaving. Face it, the Canucks org. handled his situation terribly.
1. Was he even a top 4 guy in the KHL ..?

2.He didn’t play on any Special teams,and had literally zero offensive talent..and you could call into question his defensive game as well..There was mostly potential.

3.Zadorov has offense (scored 14 goals for the Flames last season).is an all round better player than Tryamkin..and even he isn’t a top 4 d man

4. No argument from me he was mishandled here..but he didn’t have the drive or desire to be an NHL player anyway...He knew WD was getting fired,but still bolted back to the motherland…He could have have been a decent NHL 3rd pairing D man,but that ship sailed years ago.
 
Last edited:

Hodgy

Registered User
Feb 23, 2012
4,823
5,041
Simple exercise, just list 33 D and rank them based on what you think a D should be ranked by.
there is 3 outcomes, you get 32 and the 33rd is obviously not a 1D, you get less than 32 or you get more than 32.
What’s your point? That it’s hard to rank 33 defensemen? Or that the 33rd might be slightly worse, only, than 32nd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chiripa20 and MS

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
55,875
92,298
Vancouver, BC
Majority of the people in hockey has adopted this taxonomy. You thinking it’s stupid doesn’t mean you can change the way how people use it and talk about it.

Like turn on hockey talk so the Sat and he talks about how Hronek is a 3 asking for 2 money. If you and a couple of folks don’t like it, that’s fine but it fundamentally doesn’t change how everybody else talks about it.

Like if i look at D points, Gothishbere is 16, ok so is he a 1D now by your standard?
Like 32 is Krug and 33 is Burns. So is Burns automatically not a 1D because he is just 1 slot past your arbitrary 32 number?

Btw I also picked an arbitrary metric but regardless of what metric you pick, setting the cut off at 32 will also be jank because you can have multiple guys tied at the 32 spot or you end up with a giant drop even before you hit 32 and you end up with like Ghost as a 1D in how you classify it.

You want to do it properly, just see the metric for every tier and let that do the work instead of setting random thresholds.

Nobody is advocating for point-counting as a means to evaluate defenders. Gostisbehere is a guy who plays 3rd pairing minutes and gets lots of PP points.

Personally I don’t even think PP minutes are ‘playing D’ and I don’t put a lot of value in results from those minutes.

Hronek is a massive-minute, all-situations defender playing on the top pairing of one of the best teams in the NHL. He’s very clearly well inside the top 50 defenders in the NHL and calling him a 3D is ridiculous and Sat doing so is embarrassing.

Obviously there is no consensus ranking and in any ranking the guys in the 25-35 region would be able to be described as ‘fringe #1s’ or ‘great #2s’. And nothing is ever going to be perfect. But in a league with 32 teams, using that is a metric makes sense.
 

mriswith

Registered User
Oct 12, 2011
4,484
8,156
Any definition of “number 1” defensemen where there isn’t 32 of them in the league is absurd to me. Like, the very name “number 1 defensemen” implies there are 32 of them. You can then reference, average, below average, elite, etc., by means of differentiating among the various number 1 defensemen.
TOI is a bad standalone metric. It's how you draw conclusions like Myers is a #3. We've had too many years of players playing roles they drowned in, like Gudbranson has played top pairing minutes at times but he doesn't even belong in the league, to believe in TOI as a good enough metric for ranking dmen.

#1 dman to me is someone who carry the 1st pairing on a cup calibre team. There aren't 32 of them in the league who can do this. I don't think other definitions are useful, you're pretty much just ranking players by TOI at that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arttk

credulous

Registered User
Nov 18, 2021
3,981
5,247
this is a pointless and silly argument

if your question is 'how many dmen play the most minutes on their team?' the answer is quite obviously 32. that's just axiomatic though; it doesn't inform any kind of debate

if your question is 'how many dmen in the league are good enough to be the top minute dman on a good team' then the answer might be 5, might be 60, might be anywhere in between. it depends what you consider 'good enough' and 'good team'

regardless, when people talk about #1 dmen they definitely aren't answering that first question
 

MS

1%er
Mar 18, 2002
55,875
92,298
Vancouver, BC
TOI is a bad standalone metric. It's how you draw conclusions like Myers is a #3. We've had too many years of players playing roles they drowned in, like Gudbranson has played top pairing minutes at times but he doesn't even belong in the league, to believe in TOI as a good enough metric for ranking dmen.

#1 dman to me is someone who carry the 1st pairing on a cup calibre team. There aren't 32 of them in the league who can do this. I don't think other definitions are useful, you're pretty much just ranking players by TOI at that point.

That’s a superstar, Norris-level D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hodgy

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,769
4,686
Vancouver, BC
if you don’t care for terms like franchise, Star and whatever then don’t partake in that convo.

Its like there are already a ton of people using that language and you just waltz in and want to argue, hey that language you guys use, f***ing useless, don’t use it, listen to how I define it instead. Like I don’t even know what’s the point.

We are here to talk hockey, not talk about how to talk hockey if that makes sense.

And no you made up a weird hypothetical where a team has 6 #1D which I don’t think has ever happened. And you ended up with hypothetical about going back to a 6 team league which also is not possible.
My issue is that those terms are vague. You don't think a career top-32 scoring winger is a star and it caused us to have to hash out what was meant by the term because we weren't on the same page. He's not a top-10 player at his position, but 64 guys are being played as their team's top wingers and he's closer to the top of that list than the bottom in career PPG. If you want to talk hockey, you should start by ensuring people understand what you're trying to talk about.
 

biturbo19

Registered User
Jul 13, 2010
27,228
12,375
Any definition of “number 1” defensemen where there isn’t 32 of them in the league is absurd to me. Like, the very name “number 1 defensemen” implies there are 32 of them. You can then reference, average, below average, elite, etc., by means of differentiating among the various number 1 defensemen.

To me, this is the absurd way of looking at things. It assumes a steady and even distribution of talent that simply does not exist. But moreover, at it's core, it defines a threshold for that label by a largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity that isn't based on the actual quality of play on the ice.

I always put it this way...

Today, there are 32 Teams in the league and thus you are assuming 32 #1 Caliber Defencemen.

Tomorrow, a butterfly flaps it's wings, that car dealership guy in Atlanta plunks down his billion dollars and suddenly the Atlanta Thrashers are back baby! The league is now 33 teams! Does the guy who is 33rd on that list and was previously not a #1D yesterday by this definition, suddenly become a #1D overnight? Without a single thing whatsoever changing about their actual quality of play? At which exact moment does this grand metamorphoses ascending to #1D Status occur? When the 33rd Team is announced? When the the expansion draft is held? When they play their first game? Whichever moment you select...it is completely detached and unrelated to the actual caliber of play you're getting from that player, who is the exact same quality of player throughout. The constant factor.

That to me, is the truly absurd notion. But it's the very direct implication of following through rigidly on this threshold or cutoff that is tied to the number of billionaires who are allowed to own NHL Franchises...rather than categorizing constructively by the observable quality of play and traits of the actual hockey players themselves.



It makes far more sense to me to define a defenceman by their capability and particularly, by what sort of role, partner, and pairing they can carry or "anchor". That way, your threshold is fixed and directly prescribed by quality of play. Not a floating point defined by financial decisions in a boardroom somewhere.


To loop this back around to Willander...

I think the term that's fitting for his projection is still right on target for a "Top-3D". The sort of guy can either play as a second fiddle on a Top Pairing complementary role, or probably even carry a decent Top Pairing in tandem with another "Top-3D" with good chemistry...Or should be able to be counted on to anchor a good Second Pairing. Anything trying to break down to #2 vs #3 is kind of overly nitpicky in a murky grey area anyway. That's typically more just down to chemistry and roster composition in how they're deployed. It's the capability to do either that defines a Top-3D. And that is still what i think the expectation for Willander should be, and seems to be tracking toward.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: arttk

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
29,727
17,900
i think when people say number one, they mean a guy who if he was your number one you’d be a credible good team

like doug lidster might have literally been our number one dman in the late 80s, and in his best year he might very well have cracked the top 21 dmen in the league, but we can all agree that doug lidster was never a true number one dman right?

or even ohlund. easily one of the best 12-20 dmen in the league in his peak but he really felt more like an absolutely elite number two than a number one. the ideal place for a guy like ohlund is as the number two on a real contender behind someone like... hughes.

and so hronek, he literally is a two but i can see how to some his type feels like a kickass three. like salo used to be for us behind jovo and ohlund.
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,769
4,686
Vancouver, BC
i think when people say number one, they mean a guy who if he was your number one you’d be a credible good team

like doug lidster might have literally been our number one dman in the late 80s, and in his best year he might very well have cracked the top 21 dmen in the league, but we can all agree that doug lidster was never a true number one dman right?

or even ohlund. easily one of the best 12-20 dmen in the league in his peak but he really felt more like an absolutely elite number two than a number one. the ideal place for a guy like ohlund is as the number two on a real contender behind someone like... hughes.

and so hronek, he literally is a two but i can see how to some his type feels like a kickass three. like salo used to be for us behind jovo and ohlund.
Not all teams need to have a number 1 defenseman, and some teams may have more than one. A very good team could well have 3 defensemen that are ranked in the top 32. There's no contradiction here. It's consistent, even if different people will probably start to diverge in who makes their mid-20 and lower slots.

How do you define a #2 defenseman? What do that do that a #3 cannot do?
 

Tables of Stats

Registered User
Nov 1, 2011
4,769
4,686
Vancouver, BC
To me, this is the absurd way of looking at things. It assumes a steady and even distribution of talent that simply does not exist. But moreover, at it's core, it defines a threshold for that label by a largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity that isn't based on the actual quality of play on the ice.

I always put it this way...

Today, there are 32 Teams in the league and thus you are assuming 32 #1 Caliber Defencemen.

Tomorrow, a butterfly flaps it's wings, that car dealership guy in Atlanta plunks down his billion dollars and suddenly the Atlanta Thrashers are back baby! The league is now 33 teams! Does the guy who is 33rd on that list and was previously not a #1D yesterday by this definition, suddenly become a #1D overnight? Without a single thing whatsoever changing about their actual quality of play? At which exact moment does this grand metamorphoses ascending to #1D Status occur? When the 33rd Team is announced? When the the expansion draft is held? When they play their first game? Whichever moment you select...it is completely detached and unrelated to the actual caliber of play you're getting from that player, who is the exact same quality of player throughout. The constant factor.

That to me, is the truly absurd notion. But it's the very direct implication of following through rigidly on this threshold or cutoff that is tied to the number of billionaires who are allowed to own NHL Franchises...rather than categorizing constructively by the observable quality of play and traits of the actual hockey players themselves.
League size does change our perception of how we rank players. It's extreme, but picture a league contraction down to 6 teams with the remaining teams drafting from the other 26 now-defunct teams. Legitimately world-class players will suddenly become busts because they're fighting for a smaller number of roster spots. It doesn't change their skill, but it does change how we define them and their careers. That's why I don't see any issue with a guy who was already a borderline #1 D-man being bumped up if a new team gets added.

The thing to think of is that being 1 #1 D-man doesn't change the player receiving the label. It's merely a classification. It also isn't rigid, the bottom half of the 32 will likely see player ranks move and players rise and fall on different people's lists. That's fine, if there was a science to all this the person who discovered it would be a very wealthy person and the game would be fundamentally changed.

Also, it's no different than any other quick way of labelling a player. If I call a player a star, or a 1B goaltender there's no exactness there, there will be debates about if a player meets those qualifications. The top 32 system is just to give a common framework for discussions that current terms lack.
 

Hodgy

Registered User
Feb 23, 2012
4,823
5,041
TOI is a bad standalone metric. It's how you draw conclusions like Myers is a #3. We've had too many years of players playing roles they drowned in, like Gudbranson has played top pairing minutes at times but he doesn't even belong in the league, to believe in TOI as a good enough metric for ranking dmen.
I never advocated using time on ice to determine the best 32 defensemen.

#1 dman to me is someone who carry the 1st pairing on a cup calibre team. There aren't 32 of them in the league who can do this. I don't think other definitions are useful, you're pretty much just ranking players by TOI at that point.

Your definition is bizarre and counter intuitive to the basic description of “number 1” Defenseman” that implies there are 32 of them in the nhl since “number 1 Defenseman” references the number 1 Defenseman in a team. Now there is some nuance since obviously some teams are way better than others, and trades are made, so clearly the 32 number one defensemen need not be evenly distributed.

But to abandon the notion that there are 32 number 1 defensemen, but still reference that term, makes no sense. You should just use a new term since your description doesn’t accord with the obvious interpretation of the term. What you actually mean is an elite number one Defenseman.

this is a pointless and silly argument

if your question is 'how many dmen play the most minutes on their team?' the answer is quite obviously 32. that's just axiomatic though; it doesn't inform any kind of debate
That isn’t the question though. No one is simply using time on ice as the metric.

if your question is 'how many dmen in the league are good enough to be the top minute dman on a good team' then the answer might be 5, might be 60, might be anywhere in between. it depends what you consider 'good enough' and 'good team'
For sure, but if you are describing the top five nhl defensemen in the league you shouldn’t shoe horn in the definition of number one defensemen.

regardless, when people talk about #1 dmen they definitely aren't answering that first question
Right, although no one here, I think, is proposing to simply use time on ice as the metric.
To me, this is the absurd way of looking at things. It assumes a steady and even distribution of talent that simply does not exist. But moreover, at its core, it defines a threshold for that label by a largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity that isn't based on the actual quality of play on the ice.
I never said that the 32 defensemen needed to be equally distributed.

The “largely arbitrary, peripheral quantity” isn’t arbitrary at all since it comes from the name of the term that is being used. It’s like arguing that the term “top 32 centre” has an arbitrary quantity.

I always put it this way...

Today, there are 32 Teams in the league and thus you are assuming 32 #1 Caliber Defencemen.

Tomorrow, a butterfly flaps it's wings, that car dealership guy in Atlanta plunks down his billion dollars and suddenly the Atlanta Thrashers are back baby! The league is now 33 teams! Does the guy who is 33rd on that list and was previously not a #1D yesterday by this definition, suddenly become a #1D overnight? Without a single thing whatsoever changing about their actual quality of play? At which exact moment does this grand metamorphoses ascending to #1D Status occur? When the 33rd Team is announced? When the the expansion draft is held? When they play their first game? Whichever moment you select...it is completely detached and unrelated to the actual caliber of play you're getting from that player, who is the exact same quality of player throughout. The constant factor.

Yes, the quantity of number 1 defensemen in the nhl changes with the addition of teams. It’s really not that complicated and results from using a term that obviously is tied to the number of teams in the nhl.
That to me, is the truly absurd notion. But it's the very direct implication of following through rigidly on this threshold or cutoff that is tied to the number of billionaires who are allowed to own NHL Franchises...rather than categorizing constructively by the observable quality of play and traits of the actual hockey players themselves.
It’s not absurd. It’s just the obvious outcome of using a definition tied to the number of teams in the nhl. You can just use a different term if you don’t want it tied to the number of nhl teams line “elite number one defenceman”.
It makes far more sense to me to define a defenceman by their capability and particularly, by what sort of role, partner, and pairing they can carry or "anchor". That way, your threshold is fixed and directly prescribed by quality of play. Not a floating point defined by financial decisions in a boardroom somewhere.
That’s fine, but then don’t use a term that obviously is tied to the number of teams in the nhl.

At the end of the day, it’s all semantics. But when we interpret terms we should try to give them their plain meaning. When you start to interpret terms in a manner that does not accord with their plain meaning you are just reducing the effectiveness of using that term.
 

Lindgren

Registered User
Jun 30, 2005
6,339
4,394
One of the NCAA experts should talk us through what's upcoming for Willander as the NCAA heads into post season.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad