Sign in to follow this  
Patrick Jane

Guillaume Brisebois | D

Recommended Posts

While I agree with what you've said, I think what people also fail to see is on the other side. People like to act or seem like Benning was the GM of the Bruins. He was a talent evaluator working for Chiarelli. Chiarelli was still the one calling the shots and making the final decisions. Benning comes to him with guys he likes, and Chiarelli is the one that ultimately chooses who he is going to draft, and especially who he's going to trade. ie) Tyler Seguin.

Still, based on the fact that the entire league sees Benning as a great scout, I trust that he is. Now he is the head GM, so he does get to make the final shots. Now we get to see the scouting prowess for sure. Before he was putting in input, even if heavy input, but now he is the boss making the decision. So far, I've liked his scouting so far. I honestly think his job this year was better than what he did last year.

I also think Guilliame Brisebois has major steal potential. I don't know if you can consider character to be an elite skill, like that kid has an elite shot, or elite skating ability, but Brisebois is like Bo Horvat in the fact that he has elite character. I'm confident he's going to make it to the big club, and he's going to be an impact player.

You will get no quarrel from me...you're right in that Chiarelli had the final say, but it seemed to me that given the amount of time Benning was shown as part of the Neely-Chiarelli-Benning triad during the 2011 SCF, you gotta think that Benning had a lot of influence (and I am going to bet that Chiarelli deferred to Benning in areas that Benning had more knowledge and expertise than he, given that that's how most executive/management relations work in most enterprises). I'm sure Chiarelli and Neely set the vision and definition of players they wanted and it was Benning and his staff that went out and looked for players based on these parameters.

I agree that JB has a reputation as a tireless worker and elite evaluator of talent...I think we're all counting on these attributes to be the case so that we can have a contending team sooner than later.

I like how the last two drafts have gone and am hopeful that the players that have been picked form the foundation of a top tier team that can sustain their place atop of the league for many years to come.

But like I posted earlier, the drafting record of the Bruins (I'll stop saying Benning) hasn't been that stellar from 2006 to 2014 (2006 and 2014 don't count since Benning was not part of the Bruins staff at the entry draft).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's passive aggressiveness dialed in to eleven. It lets them voice their displeasure without having to actually argue anything and even if you try to call them on it, they can pretend they're being supporting. It's sad.

What's sad is you reaching to this conclusion.

It sounds like you have little faith in this assessment of Brisebois or in the reasoning of why the Canucks picked him up after trading Lack for the pick. Otherwise, why would there be any displeasure in it?

Clearly CSE knows better than you or I on what they wanted to do with the pick, so jumping to conclusions about one another or what they're plans are, or even if this prospect succeeds is kind of a waste of time.

Edited by BanTSN
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wtf is up with you these days?

I think he's had a brain transplant. Or maybe he's got a split personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get no quarrel from me...you're right in that Chiarelli had the final say, but it seemed to me that given the amount of time Benning was shown as part of the Neely-Chiarelli-Benning triad during the 2011 SCF, you gotta think that Benning had a lot of influence (and I am going to bet that Chiarelli deferred to Benning in areas that Benning had more knowledge and expertise than he, given that that's how most executive/management relations work in most enterprises). I'm sure Chiarelli and Neely set the vision and definition of players they wanted and it was Benning and his staff that went out and looked for players based on these parameters.

I agree that JB has a reputation as a tireless worker and elite evaluator of talent...I think we're all counting on these attributes to be the case so that we can have a contending team sooner than later.

I like how the last two drafts have gone and am hopeful that the players that have been picked form the foundation of a top tier team that can sustain their place atop of the league for many years to come.

But like I posted earlier, the drafting record of the Bruins (I'll stop saying Benning) hasn't been that stellar from 2006 to 2014 (2006 and 2014 don't count since Benning was not part of the Bruins staff at the entry draft).

I'm pretty sure there's at least one 'trash Benning' thread around here. Let's keep this a Brisebois thread ok?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there's at least one 'trash Benning' thread around here. Let's keep this a Brisebois thread ok?

Yeah, 'coz that's exactly what's being said. A little bit of reading comprehension will do you wonders in life. And yes. Let's keep this a Brisebois thread, there champ.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that Benning is a hard working, humble guy with strong roots in scouting. But IMO, his ability as a "talent" evaluator is over-rated.

We all agree that Benning was the de-facto head of scouting while wearing the AGM hat during his tenure with the Bruins. Do you know how many of those players drafted while Benning was with the Bruins have played over 50 NHL games? Six. Count 'em...six. That's six in the 6 years that he was fully engaged with the Bruins.

One was a no brainer (Tyler vs. Taylor).

The others are Dougie Hamilton (178 games), Jordan Caron (159 games), Joe Colborne (160 games), Ryan Spooner (60 games) and Craig Cunningham (59 games). It can be argued that there is a decent stable of young players playing in Providence (Camara, Ferlin, Khoklachev, Subban to name a few), but until they play in the NHL, all they are are promising prospects.

You know what else five of the guys that were drafted under Benning's watch have in common? They all ply their trade in a city other than Boston.

Though I'm optimistic about what Benning brings to the table as far as talent analysis and accumulation, let's be a little realistic about the man and the circumstances that dictate whether he is as good as you make him out to be.

Sorry to hijack this thread about Brisebois. But I had to respond.

As some people realize, it is hard to evaluate an individual scout or even a head scout. This is because a consensus or agreement has to be reached amongst the scouts concerned and the head scout. It is a group effort to a certain extent. Even after a consensus is reached, the GM can over rule it and go with a different player. I don't have any more inside information than the next guy so I have to use his past drafts as a scout and head scout as well.

Benning started as a scout for the Ducks in 1993. He was then a scout for Buffalo for 4 years from 1994 until promoted to director of amateur scouting in 1998 which he held until 2004. He then became AGM for the Bruins in 2006.

In his first 5 years as a scout, a total of 11 players were picked who ended up playing 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 2.2 players/draft. In the following 7 drafts as director of amateur scouting for Buffalo a total of 20 players were picked who played 190 or more NHL games. That is an average of 2.85 players/draft. How many of these NHL players were picked by Benning? Who knows. We also don't know how many NHL players were identified by him but not picked. We can say though, that in this scenario, it is not beyond possibility, that a team with Benning scouting can come up with 2-3 players/draft. Something else to note was the significant increase in the average number of players picked by his team when he moved from scout to head scout.

Something else worth mentioning, is that the following 2 drafts after Benning left, Buffalo only managed to pick 3 players who played 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 1.5 players/draft. That is as far as I got.

You covered Bennings drafts in Boston which seems to be not as good. Like you said though, it is too early to tell with some of them.

Just to finish, a number of months ago, I was listening to Don Taylor interview Benning. He asked him which player that he scouted, he most proud of. Benning said Paul Gaustad. He said he pushed very hard to get Gaustad who had just finished his first season with Portland netting 6 goals and 8 assists for 14 points in 56 games. Buffalo picked him in the 7th round in a rather poor 2000 draft. What Benning liked about him was that "he was a guy who just was not going to be denied". So we can say that Benning looks for and can identify character. Interesting that Benning, as director of amateur scouting at that time, had to actually push for someone in the 7th round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hijack this thread about Brisebois. But I had to respond.

As some people realize, it is hard to evaluate an individual scout or even a head scout. This is because a consensus or agreement has to be reached amongst the scouts concerned and the head scout. It is a group effort to a certain extent. Even after a consensus is reached, the GM can over rule it and go with a different player. I don't have any more inside information than the next guy so I have to use his past drafts as a scout and head scout as well.

Benning started as a scout for the Ducks in 1993. He was then a scout for Buffalo for 4 years from 1994 until promoted to director of amateur scouting in 1998 which he held until 2004. He then became AGM for the Bruins in 2006.

In his first 5 years as a scout, a total of 11 players were picked who ended up playing 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 2.2 players/draft. In the following 7 drafts as director of amateur scouting for Buffalo a total of 20 players were picked who played 190 or more NHL games. That is an average of 2.85 players/draft. How many of these NHL players were picked by Benning? Who knows. We also don't know how many NHL players were identified by him but not picked. We can say though, that in this scenario, it is not beyond possibility, that a team with Benning scouting can come up with 2-3 players/draft. Something else to note was the significant increase in the average number of players picked by his team when he moved from scout to head scout.

Something else worth mentioning, is that the following 2 drafts after Benning left, Buffalo only managed to pick 3 players who played 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 1.5 players/draft. That is as far as I got.

You covered Bennings drafts in Boston which seems to be not as good. Like you said though, it is too early to tell with some of them.

Just to finish, a number of months ago, I was listening to Don Taylor interview Benning. He asked him which player that he scouted, he most proud of. Benning said Paul Gaustad. He said he pushed very hard to get Gaustad who had just finished his first season with Portland netting 6 goals and 8 assists for 14 points in 56 games. Buffalo picked him in the 7th round in a rather poor 2000 draft. What Benning liked about him was that "he was a guy who just was not going to be denied". So we can say that Benning looks for and can identify character. Interesting that Benning, as director of amateur scouting at that time, had to actually push for someone in the 7th round.

Appreciate your post. But before someone (not referring to you Alex) accuses me of bashing Benning and derailing the Brisebois thread, I shall preface my response by saying I'm a fan of JB (and think he's good for the Canucks) and that I like the Brisebois pick. Brisebois seems to possess the tangible and intangible attributes of a quality player and person.

I agree that picking players at the draft is a consensus decision, with the GM ultimately making the call. However, Benning appeared to be highly regarded while he was with the Bruins for his talent evaluation, so I will go as far as to say that Benning may have been the most influential person on Chiarelli when it came to making picks for the Bruins.

Unfortunately, the Bruins haven't had many picks turn into NHL players (yet) during Benning's time there. So, what I'm saying is that based on the limited success the Bruins had while JB was a significant and influential person when it came scouting and drafting, it is within the realm of possibility that some, if not a disproportionately higher amount of responsibility falls on Benning, and of course Chiarelli.

There's no denying the Sabres had great success turning draft picks into NHL players while Benning was a member of their scouting staff, and your research more than verifies that. I can't help but think that a big part of his reputation as a shrewd scout comes from the 10+ years he spent with the Sabres and less so with what he contributed in Boston.

I'll close by saying that I like the picks that Benning has made at the past two entry drafts (and that's without the benefit of working with the scouting staff at length before heading into the 2014 entry draft -- so I would assume that the 2014 entry draft was driven almost entirely by Benning's own intel). The man is without doubt a tireless worker, so I'm glad that we have him as the GM of this club.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too am very high on Benning because for the first time, I think we have a proven talent evaluator as our GM. How many clubs can say that? The trouble I am having is trying to pick who among this draft class is not going to be an NHL player. They all look so promising. Okay, I suppose that is being unrealistic but it is fun to imagine the possibilities.

The possibilities for Brisebois is definitely exciting after reading this thread. He is exactly what the Canucks need. A smooth skating PMD with a good frame. Most importantly he has character. He is after all a Benning pick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You will get no quarrel from me...you're right in that Chiarelli had the final say, but it seemed to me that given the amount of time Benning was shown as part of the Neely-Chiarelli-Benning triad during the 2011 SCF, you gotta think that Benning had a lot of influence (and I am going to bet that Chiarelli deferred to Benning in areas that Benning had more knowledge and expertise than he, given that that's how most executive/management relations work in most enterprises). I'm sure Chiarelli and Neely set the vision and definition of players they wanted and it was Benning and his staff that went out and looked for players based on these parameters.

I agree that JB has a reputation as a tireless worker and elite evaluator of talent...I think we're all counting on these attributes to be the case so that we can have a contending team sooner than later.

I like how the last two drafts have gone and am hopeful that the players that have been picked form the foundation of a top tier team that can sustain their place atop of the league for many years to come.

But like I posted earlier, the drafting record of the Bruins (I'll stop saying Benning) hasn't been that stellar from 2006 to 2014 (2006 and 2014 don't count since Benning was not part of the Bruins staff at the entry draft).

That is one of the most fair assessments I've heard in a while. Much agreed. Personally I was thinking this when Jim Benning was in talks to be GM, but for me, I just kind of shrugged it off because again, if a man has earned the kind of reputation Jim benning has for for being a tireless scout around the league, he's worth taking a shot on. It will be really interesting to look back in 3-4 maybe 5 years and see if the hype about Bennings scouting was legit. So far, no complants from me draft wise. I may be one of the few people that gives Benning great grades for both drafts. (I gave him an A- or so for both years) But we will see as time comes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there's at least one 'trash Benning' thread around here. Let's keep this a Brisebois thread ok?

Agreed. When I see a player thread I like to read about that players direct involvement and development there side tracks lead no where.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 'coz that's exactly what's being said. A little bit of reading comprehension will do you wonders in life. And yes. Let's keep this a Brisebois thread, there champ.

You're right. I was so frustrated with all the chatter about Benning that I misread your post. I just want to read about prospects in these threads and sometimes that's a hard thing to do. I should have worded my post differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate your post. But before someone (not referring to you Alex) accuses me of bashing Benning and derailing the Brisebois thread, I shall preface my response by saying I'm a fan of JB (and think he's good for the Canucks) and that I like the Brisebois pick. Brisebois seems to possess the tangible and intangible attributes of a quality player and person.

I agree that picking players at the draft is a consensus decision, with the GM ultimately making the call. However, Benning appeared to be highly regarded while he was with the Bruins for his talent evaluation, so I will go as far as to say that Benning may have been the most influential person on Chiarelli when it came to making picks for the Bruins.

Unfortunately, the Bruins haven't had many picks turn into NHL players (yet) during Benning's time there. So, what I'm saying is that based on the limited success the Bruins had while JB was a significant and influential person when it came scouting and drafting, it is within the realm of possibility that some, if not a disproportionately higher amount of responsibility falls on Benning, and of course Chiarelli.

There's no denying the Sabres had great success turning draft picks into NHL players while Benning was a member of their scouting staff, and your research more than verifies that. I can't help but think that a big part of his reputation as a shrewd scout comes from the 10+ years he spent with the Sabres and less so with what he contributed in Boston.

I'll close by saying that I like the picks that Benning has made at the past two entry drafts (and that's without the benefit of working with the scouting staff at length before heading into the 2014 entry draft -- so I would assume that the 2014 entry draft was driven almost entirely by Benning's own intel). The man is without doubt a tireless worker, so I'm glad that we have him as the GM of this club.

How much of a players future is determined by there development after being drafted as opposed to there perceived skill at the time of the draft?

How much of development is affected by the actual opportunity a team has for players?

Are opinions the each GM has of a player all fairly equivalent or does a lot of evaluation rely on being in the right place at the right time?

Each potential path a player takes has a different outcome to some extent, and luck has just as much to do with it as skill.

If your a GM and you know that a certain personality type has helped players be more successful at becoming NHLers why would you ignore that?

GM's are professional gamblers, they make bets, win some and lose some, but great gamblers have a strategy in place at all times. The goal is to beat the house (other teams) and keep your job.

Some GM's make high risk bets (Garth Snow)

Others make very low risk Bets (Kings)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any D man is going to take 3-4 years in most cases outside of a high first rounder. The difference is Brisebois' game is a relatively high probability to translate - 6'2, high end skating, thinks the game well - unlike some of the riskier D men taken in the second (Dunn for example). He may lack the offensive upside of some guys but I don't think he is riskier at all, actually quite the opposite (fairly safe pick IMO).

I like the upside to this kid, looking forward to following his progress. Combined with our other D prospects the future looks very promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much of a players future is determined by there development after being drafted as opposed to there perceived skill at the time of the draft?

How much of development is affected by the actual opportunity a team has for players?

Are opinions the each GM has of a player all fairly equivalent or does a lot of evaluation rely on being in the right place at the right time?

Each potential path a player takes has a different outcome to some extent, and luck has just as much to do with it as skill.

If your a GM and you know that a certain personality type has helped players be more successful at becoming NHLers why would you ignore that?

GM's are professional gamblers, they make bets, win some and lose some, but great gamblers have a strategy in place at all times. The goal is to beat the house (other teams) and keep your job.

Some GM's make high risk bets (Garth Snow)

Others make very low risk Bets (Kings)

Are the questions you're asking rhetorical or do you want a response to them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any D man is going to take 3-4 years in most cases outside of a high first rounder. The difference is Brisebois' game is a relatively high probability to translate - 6'2, high end skating, thinks the game well - unlike some of the riskier D men taken in the second (Dunn for example). He may lack the offensive upside of some guys but I don't think he is riskier at all, actually quite the opposite (fairly safe pick IMO).

Hairy Kneel replied one below...

I like the upside to this kid, looking forward to following his progress. Combined with our other D prospects the future looks very promising.

I also liked uselessstats's post.

I think its very positive that we could cover so many fundamentals in a 3rd round pick;

6'3'' size

fluid skating and speed

proven execution of hockey skills

good decision making skills

leadership attributes

I liked Cedarholme as a 4th round pick a few years ago based on having NHL size & athleticism. This is even better as we are adding more of a hockey pedigree plus top level wheels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he wasn't invited to the camp but could Brisebois make Team Canada for the WJC this year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he wasn't invited to the camp but could Brisebois make Team Canada for the WJC this year?

I doubt it. I don't think he's on their radar at this point.

Next years junior team is a possibility though if he has a standout season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he wasn't invited to the camp but could Brisebois make Team Canada for the WJC this year?

Only if he has an incredibly strong start to the season. Team Canada is known to picking a lot of players based on their draft status at the WJC level.

I believe Corrado and Graovac (Wild Prospect) should have made Team Canada in their respective last eligible year. Then again they were really stacked on forwards that year so Graovac not making it isn't that big of a deal. Corrado should've definitely been in for Ryan Murphy (Hurricanes Prospect) though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree with what you've said, I think what people also fail to see is on the other side. People like to act or seem like Benning was the GM of the Bruins. He was a talent evaluator working for Chiarelli. Chiarelli was still the one calling the shots and making the final decisions. Benning comes to him with guys he likes, and Chiarelli is the one that ultimately chooses who he is going to draft, and especially who he's going to trade. ie) Tyler Seguin.

Still, based on the fact that the entire league sees Benning as a great scout, I trust that he is. Now he is the head GM, so he does get to make the final shots. Now we get to see the scouting prowess for sure. Before he was putting in input, even if heavy input, but now he is the boss making the decision. So far, I've liked his scouting so far. I honestly think his job this year was better than what he did last year.

I also think Guilliame Brisebois has major steal potential. I don't know if you can consider character to be an elite skill, like that kid has an elite shot, or elite skating ability, but Brisebois is like Bo Horvat in the fact that he has elite character. I'm confident he's going to make it to the big club, and he's going to be an impact player.

This is true in most every situation. Benning was to Chiarelli in the same way Gilman was to Gillis (where Benning largely handled scouting while Gilman largely handled contracts). But the inverse is true as well, where the GM may have the final call but certainly takes the advice from his management team as a significant piece of any decision.

I don't know what the league thinks of Benning's prowess as a scout, but we do know he has lots of experience. How would GMs and Scouting Directors rank Benning for his talent evaluator skills?

Brisebois is a choice that was unfamiliar to a lot of people here, even in the heavily discussed pre-draft thread. He does have a good skillset and leadership, but we'll have to wait and see what jumps off the page when he plays and if he really is better than what's suggested by the team he plays with.

At some point, we'll need more than just elite character to win hockey games. I wish I could say I felt was confident as you in this pick and others that they'll help us keep this team competitive, particularly post-Sedins.

...

In his first 5 years as a scout, a total of 11 players were picked who ended up playing 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 2.2 players/draft. In the following 7 drafts as director of amateur scouting for Buffalo a total of 20 players were picked who played 190 or more NHL games. That is an average of 2.85 players/draft. How many of these NHL players were picked by Benning? Who knows. We also don't know how many NHL players were identified by him but not picked. We can say though, that in this scenario, it is not beyond possibility, that a team with Benning scouting can come up with 2-3 players/draft. Something else to note was the significant increase in the average number of players picked by his team when he moved from scout to head scout.

Something else worth mentioning, is that the following 2 drafts after Benning left, Buffalo only managed to pick 3 players who played 190 NHL games or more. That is an average of 1.5 players/draft. That is as far as I got.

You covered Bennings drafts in Boston which seems to be not as good. Like you said though, it is too early to tell with some of them.

...

It's a complex thing to pin down on paper. Where I have more concern is the ability for us to get top end talent more so than just an NHL'er.

If the players Benning is so good at identifying are mostly bottom 6/bottom pairing players then that's less of a point in his favour that he converts more than others. Those are the kinds of players you can find at a reasonable price through free agency and trade.

What's tough to find without having to overpay in free agency or trade is top end players. This particularly applies to top 3/top pairing players, but even top 6 forwards or top 4 defencemen. That's what we haven't solidified in our prospect pool yet, and while we might be able to find a gem or two in free agency or trade (similar to Vrbata, Hamhuis or Ehrhoff - or even Tanev as a prospect) it's going to be hard to replace the level that the Sedins and even Edler bring if that's his measure of success.

But again this is a Brisebrois thread, so how does he compare? He does have some upside in PMD-type skills, but hasn't really converted that to offence at any level so far. He has shown enough to earn some invites to international play (Ivan Hlinka and U-17), perhaps in part because he's also responsible in his own end, but are we finding a steal that will impress at a higher level than you'd expect from a 3rd rounder.

That'd be a lot to ask from him, even if Benning and Linden both feel confident enough that they would have picked him earlier, but at some point we'll have to find those types of players to have success. This is especially true if we also draft for character and more imposing players when we do have the opportunity at picks further up the draft (Horvat and Virtanen).

Agreed. When I see a player thread I like to read about that players direct involvement and development there side tracks lead no where.

Brisebois is a bit of an unknown to an extent, so until we start having more to base an opinion on we've probably covered it fairly well in the 9 pages so far.

Similar to the Virtanen thread, it's inevitably where the discussion goes early on around just how good a draft pick was this considering other potential options.

Edited by elvis15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hairy Kneel replied one below...

I also liked uselessstats's post.

I think its very positive that we could cover so many fundamentals in a 3rd round pick;

6'3'' size

fluid skating and speed

proven execution of hockey skills

good decision making skills

leadership attributes

I liked Cedarholme as a 4th round pick a few years ago based on having NHL size & athleticism. This is even better as we are adding more of a hockey pedigree plus top level wheels.

Height does not equal size. If he is tall but skinny he ends up being more like Tanev in that we worry about this ability to stand up to NHL punishment. Leadership and decision making are great too, but he hasn't really shown proven execution of hockey skills for me, not really beyond any other pick we could have made.

Where I worry more though is he doesn't have anything approaching elite level. That's absolutely fine if we don't expect him to be a top 1 or 2 defenceman (which we shouldn't) but the connotation a lot of posts around Brisebois have is he has all the tools and will be a steal for us as a sure fire NHL'er.

There's still a lot that might not go well for these prospects, even with lower risk. But they're found so late in the draft because they lack the higher end upside (which Dunn has over Brisebois for instance). At some point we should aim a little higher than someone who at best might become a 3-4 D but is more likely to be a 6-8 guy.

Maybe he's a steal, and I'm very interested to follow his progress as I am with all our prospects, but I'm just not so excited to think we're finding top end talent with these picks just yet. I'm taking a measured approach until I see something more substantial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.