Prospect Profile: #3 Bo Horvat

Thomas Drance
August 28 2013 09:35AM


Image via Matthew Henderson

Bo Horvat was a surprise selection for the Canucks with the ninth overall pick at the 2013 NHL draft. He wasn't much of a reach at that point in the first round, but the circumstances surrounding his selection - what with Horvat being the return in the rather shocking Cory Schneider trade - will be remembered in by Canucks fans for a long time.

So needless to say Horvat enters the Canucks system with high expectations. He makes his debut on our Canucks prospect rankings at third overall, which many of you may think is one or two spots too low.

Read past the jump for more on the team's highest draft pick since Daniel Sedin back in '99.

Horvat was one of the fastest risers during his draft eligible season. Though his statistical profile - 61 points in 67 OHL games - is sort of uninspiring and his comparables are kind of depressing, the responsibilities he took on as an 18-year-old on a non-host Memorial Cup team opened a lot of eyes. For good reason.

The London Knights centre faced the toughest matchups amongst all forwards on his team according to both our in-house estimates, and independent ones, as well. That's pretty rare for an eighteen year old in the Ontario Hockey League, especially when that eighteen year old plays for a dominant club like the Knights.

Playing for the notoriously defensive-minded duo of Dale and Mark Hunter, Horvat was deployed in a shutdown role against players older than him all season long. He distinguished himself as a top-end OHL face-off guy and shot-blocker in the league - which will surely secure him a special place in John Tortorella's heart, assuming the bench boss is still there by the time Horvat is NHL-ready - and still managed to outscore opponents, despite his usage. 

"He's a really good faceoff guy," Sun Media sports editor John Matisz told Canucks Army, "Especially in (London's) defensive zone. They would throw him in there, even if he was dead tired at the end of a shift. The Hunter brothers just trusted him so much." Martisz was the Knights beat-writer for Metro News in London last season, and in one playoff game tracked Horvat extremely closely. Horvat won over 70% of his faceoffs in the contest, which by all accounts wasn't atypical for him last season.

Horvat finished second behind only Vincent Trochek (who is one year his senior) in the Western Conference OHL coaches poll for "best face-off man." Meanwhile the coaches named Horvat the best shot blocker, and he impressed in that area in particular on several high-profile occasions during the OHL playoffs. Although, as our esteemed readers have come to undestand, that particular skill is often vastly overrated in importance.

In the OHL playoffs Horvat often played on Max Domi's wing (though he'd still take all of the faceoffs). Horvat was named the MVP of said playoffs, and at the Memorial Cup he expertly batted one of the sickest saucer passes you'll ever see out of the air to complete one of last season's best hockey highlights:

While it wasn't his offense that made Horvat a top-10 pick, he was productive offensively last season. "He's got decent speed for how big he is, because he's kind of a bulky kid, and he has a good shot and hockey IQ," said Matisz, though projecting his offensive skillset to the NHL is "hard because he's more of a shutdown guy."

Wet blanket alert: Horvat has the skills, but the fact of the matter is that the Knights didn't even outscore opponents when Horvat was on the ice last season without Domi. Horvat helped make Domi more dominant in their limited ice-time together during the regular season, but the WOWYs make plain who was driving the bus offensively for the Knights (per @mattypfeffer):

Offensively, Horvat is a really strong finisher, though he's "more of a distributor than a scorer," says Matisz. Horvat relied heavily on power-play production to score his thirty-three regular season goals last season, which isn't something you generally like to see. His even-strength goals per game rate doesn't exactly jump off the stat sheet. 

Horvat's usage is critical for providing some context here: he faced tougher opposition than Domi did, and was the defensive-zone start ace for a dominant Knights team. And it's not like Horvant wasn't productive offensively, putting up nearly a point per game despite his role. While there's definitely some blemishes on his resume, it's hard not to be impressed with what he did last season all things considered.

Overall, I'd describe Horvat as the best prospect that the Canucks have had in the system since Henrik Sedin. I personally rated him first overall among all the prospects in the system, mostly because of his level of defensive responsibility on a team that just crushed opponents last season. It's rare for an 18-year-old to to play that type of role and do it as well as Horvat did in a pretty difficult development league like the OHL.

The Knights will be automatic entrants into the Memorial Cup tournament this Spring, since they're hosting the tournament. Horvat may well play in the World Junior Championships for Team Canada in addition to the Memorial cup next season too, while also taking on more offensive responsibility for a Knights team that is graduating some key pieces.

Between the opportunities that await Horvat next season in Major Junior, and his modestly inconvenient cap-hit, he'd have to knock everybody's socks off to earn a spot on the Canucks roster this upcoming season.

Horvat's time isn't now, but his future shines brighter than any other Canucks prospects has in a long, long time.

Other Prospect Profiles in This Series:

3136ae487fac57943f99a50e66e4d6cf
Thomas Drance lives in Toronto, eats spicy food and writes about hockey. He is an NHL News Editor at theScore, the ex-managing editor of CanucksArmy.com and an opinionated blowhard to boot. You can follow him on twitter @thomasdrance.
Avatar
#1 Ted
August 28 2013, 01:54PM
Trash it!
10
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

He drafted Mallet ONE draft ago!

And used a 2nd round pick on him no less.

Up until this last draft, one could argue he was putting a higher premium on overagers.

Horvat, I'd argue, is another example of worrying more about a theoretical floor than a theoretical ceiling.

Not unlike the way JP Ricciardi built the Blue Jays "farm system" for many years.

@NM00

So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet? Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick.

Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress.

You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you.

Avatar
#2 Ted
August 28 2013, 02:28PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
+1
3
props
NM00 wrote:

"So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet?"

I'm criticizing the philosophy of taking a bunch of overagers.

Mallet just happens to be a noteworthy example since Gillis did it recently and devoted a 2nd round pick to this philosophy.

"Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick."

If the New Jersey Devils had used their 9th overall pick on Anthony Brodeur, it would have been a crap pick immediately.

Poor process that suggests a poor outcome.

"Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress."

ECHL.

"You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you."

I hope this was cathartic for you.

I'm not looking to defend Gillis but you're reaching a bit when you slag him.

He took a couple of over aged players in a draft. I think it would be fine to hammer him if players taken AFTER those picks develop and his picks do not. The main point being, you have no idea what is going to happen with these picks.

Some of them may develop via ECHL. So what? I love how you make the ECHL route seem like it's where the busts only play.

You have got to be the most negative and ignorant person on these boards.

Avatar
#3 Ted
August 28 2013, 03:09PM
Trash it!
7
trashes
+1
3
props
Mantastic wrote:

oooooooooooooo, looked good at prospect camp and in scouting reports!! all players should be evaluated by this metric and nothing else

you should be hired for drafting players!!!!!

@ManGoo

Yes, I have already put in my application.

Nice to see you and NM00 are the same person - he needs a best friend...might as well be himself.

Avatar
#4 Unknown Comic
August 28 2013, 10:54AM
Trash it!
6
trashes
+1
8
props
Cam Charron wrote:

Ah, prospect series', where the gains made by picks of previous seasons are ignored because fans have a new guy to rest their hopes and dreams on.

Of course, you follow the sport long enough and come to realize that you have much better clues about how players are going to project when they're 19 or 20 as opposed to when they're 17 or 18. Remember that Team Canada "Dream Team" in 2005? Less than half of the players on that team are above replacement-level players in the NHL. Bo Horvat's admission onto that team is no guarantee of anything.

I tend to rank older guys higher because we know more about them (although the flip to that is that I also rank older guys lower because... same reason. We know more about them.).

Side note, if Horvat becomes a Hall of Famer, based on that picture, can Tobey McGuire's son play him in the biopic?

Why is there even a need to rank prospects? It seems like it's just an old habit that allows more pretentious posturing on message boards.

I come to just collect info on these guys and could care less who is ranked above whom. Why not just pick the top 20 and review them alphabetically?

Avatar
#5 Ted
August 28 2013, 04:08PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
2
props

@ManGoo

Hey, you and the idiot troll might be right on these guys. You could be wrong. I am willing to give them time and see what ACTUALLY happens. I prefer that route. I like facts. You guys would rather profess to know how they will develop and that they will suck. Right. Keep on keeping on.

By the way, could you guys give me some numbers for the next 649 lotto?

Avatar
#6 nateb123
August 28 2013, 04:49PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

It's usually not hard to beat me in a popularity contest...

Any sane person might infer that an excessive amount of talking out one's ass might be the reason...

As for Mallet being bad because he was in the ECHL, if the words "lockout year" aren't explanatory enough, there is no help for you.

Avatar
#7 Ted
August 28 2013, 05:57PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

"Hey, you and the idiot troll might be right on these guys. You could be wrong. I am willing to give them time and see what ACTUALLY happens. I prefer that route. I like facts. You guys would rather profess to know how they will develop and that they will suck. Right. Keep on keeping on."

http://thereadzone.com/2013/02/01/wins-above-replacement-war-is-fine-jim-caples-master-class-in-strawman-argumentation/

@NM00

Well, that settles it. You have got to be one of the biggest piles of human garbage walking the face of the Earth. And that's the bottom line cuz I said so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9zDSJGwdd4

Avatar
#8 Nateb123
August 28 2013, 06:51PM
Trash it!
5
trashes
+1
1
props
NM00 wrote:

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

As for Mallet, if the words "overdrafted based on one fluky year as an overager" aren't explanatory enough, there is no help for you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/beingapretentioustwat

Nuff said kid. This isn't grade school/

Avatar
#9 Adam
August 28 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
1
props

There's no way Canuck brass would tell you that thier highest selection in one of the deepest drafts in years is the team's #3 prospect.

So either the ink stained wretches who write for this blog don't know what they are talking about or Canuck mgmt goofed with Horvat.

Avatar
#10 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:22AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
6
props
antro wrote:

This is a very fair comment. I agree.

30 comments and no NM00. I'm missing him.

Apparently I'm not needed when people have the top prospect crown to fight over.

It's too bad.

This appears to be a good opportunity to piss on Mike Gillis.

Avatar
#11 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:58AM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
6
props

@Peachy

"Uncertainty as to their NHL potential declines as they age."

And so does the upside.

It's merely a reference to Gillis' backward belief on overagers among other things.

Avatar
#12 NM00
August 28 2013, 07:02PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
2
props

@Nateb123

Pretentious would seem to imply a level above grade school.

Nice try!

Avatar
#13 Ted
August 28 2013, 07:09PM
Trash it!
4
trashes
+1
3
props
NM00 wrote:

It's usually not hard to beat me in a popularity contest...

I'm sure it's not difficult to beat you at anything.

Avatar
#14 Wisp
August 28 2013, 09:49AM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
3
props

Amateur hour at Canucks Army.

I can buy that Corrado is ranked ahead based on his NHL tour so far, but not Gaunce.

Are you guys box score scouting? Similar defensive game, but Horvat's offensive tools are flat out better than Gaunce's are.

Avatar
#15 NM00
August 28 2013, 02:04PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
6
props

@Ted

"So, genius, who would you have picked ahead of Mallet?"

I'm criticizing the philosophy of taking a bunch of overagers.

Mallet just happens to be a noteworthy example since Gillis did it recently and devoted a 2nd round pick to this philosophy.

"Since not a single player after Mallet has played a game yet, how can you say he was a crap pick."

If the New Jersey Devils had used their 9th overall pick on Anthony Brodeur, it would have been a crap pick immediately.

Poor process that suggests a poor outcome.

"Mallet looked quite good at the prospects camp and scouting reports indicate he is making progress."

ECHL.

"You are a special kind of stupid, aren't you."

I hope this was cathartic for you.

Avatar
#16 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 02:34PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
7
props

@Ted

oooooooooooooo, looked good at prospect camp and in scouting reports!! all players should be evaluated by this metric and nothing else

you should be hired for drafting players!!!!!

Avatar
#17 NM00
August 28 2013, 03:19PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
4
props

@Ted

You are hilarious!

Though maybe it's just that I hear Seth MacFarlane's voice when I read your comments.

Avatar
#18 Kassasins Creed
August 28 2013, 04:07PM
Trash it!
3
trashes
+1
0
props

Should have took Nichuskin, sick of this ridiculous inherent risk that is attached to EVERY Russian player. And instead of Mallet, they should have took Khaira, iIRC he's currently #6 on oilers prospect rankings done by Jonathan Willis (I think). 6"3 and a beast, mean and isn't afraid to go to the dirty areas.

Avatar
#19 Ted
August 28 2013, 11:00AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props

I think the top few prospects are interchangable but may favor Gaunce a bit because he is a bit older. Gaunce also had a good season and played through a shoulder injury. His playoff efforts were excellent which is something the Canucks really need.

We also have a larger sample size with Gaunce.I think he'll be a solid player with a ceiling of line 2 centre.

I like Horvat's upside a bit more but an unknown. I think his ceiling is line 2C but maybe even line 1 if he has the wingers.

Avatar
#20 Wisp
August 28 2013, 11:11AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props

@Mantastic

Horvat has better skating, speed, creativity, puck skills. Gaunce's tools in these regards aren't as good, and he gets by offensively by being more physically advanced than the competition.

Hockey Prospectus on Horvat's offensive tools: "His creativity progressed throughout this season, and his puck skills, hand-eye coordination, and playmaking vision all rank as above average; he can flash high-end offensive skill. It is difficult to find a weakness in his game. "

And here's Hockey Prospectus on Gaunce: The Bad: Gaunce's skating needs work, as his speed is below-average. He's not a really gifted offensive player, either, from a creativity or puck skills standpoint. "

I think Gaunce has better tools than PRospectus gives him credit for (underrated playmaker, good shot), but I think Horvat's are undeniably of a higher quality.

Avatar
#21 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:39AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
5
props

@antro

What's a guy to do when there are 30 comments before he has a chance to settle into his work day!

Avatar
#22 NM00
August 28 2013, 11:46AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
10
props

@Cam Charron

"I tend to rank older guys higher because we know more about them."

Signed

Mike Gillis

Avatar
#23 Peachy
August 28 2013, 11:53AM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props

@NM00

Lol, really?

That's brutally disingenuous.

Whatever the issues with Gillis' drafting, ranking drafted prospects is a completely different kettle of fish. As you've said so often, we're talking about lottery picks. Uncertainty as to their NHL potential declines as they age.

Avatar
#24 NM00
August 28 2013, 12:20PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
6
props

@Peachy

He drafted Mallet ONE draft ago!

And used a 2nd round pick on him no less.

Up until this last draft, one could argue he was putting a higher premium on overagers.

Horvat, I'd argue, is another example of worrying more about a theoretical floor than a theoretical ceiling.

Not unlike the way JP Ricciardi built the Blue Jays "farm system" for many years.

Avatar
#25 NM00
August 28 2013, 02:38PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
3
props

@Ted

It's usually not hard to beat me in a popularity contest...

Avatar
#26 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 04:05PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
6
props

@Ted

keep talking about how good he looked in prospect camp! it totally trumps the fact he played so poorly in the AHL he got demoted to the ECHL, fo sho. and that Gillis openly stated his strategy was to draft older players in the 2012 draft.

Avatar
#27 Cam Charron
August 28 2013, 04:09PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
6
props

9/11 was really caused by Alexandre Mallet.

Avatar
#28 NM00
August 28 2013, 05:48PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
0
props

@Ted

"Hey, you and the idiot troll might be right on these guys. You could be wrong. I am willing to give them time and see what ACTUALLY happens. I prefer that route. I like facts. You guys would rather profess to know how they will develop and that they will suck. Right. Keep on keeping on."

http://thereadzone.com/2013/02/01/wins-above-replacement-war-is-fine-jim-caples-master-class-in-strawman-argumentation/

Avatar
#29 NM00
August 28 2013, 07:12PM
Trash it!
2
trashes
+1
2
props

@Ted

Slow clap.

Avatar
#30 Dan
August 28 2013, 09:58AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

Hey Thomas, didn't Horvat see a huge offensive spike in the 2nd hal of the season? I can remember the exact numbers, but IIRC he was absolutely tearing it up in the 2nd half/playoffs offensively.

Avatar
#31 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

for being such a statistical/analytic guy, i can't believe you have Horvat your #1 because his numbers are bad in comparison to most of the other top 5.

his strongest numbers come from FO% and shot blocking, both stats which 1) doesn't matter and 2) reflect poorly in any advanced stats matrices.

Avatar
#32 Wisp
August 28 2013, 10:05AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

More strong words: I know Gaunce wears #16 and looks a lot like Trevor Linden in those Bellville Bulls colours, but he is in fact, not Trevor Linden.

Avatar
#33 Wisp
August 28 2013, 10:14AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
Mantastic wrote:

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

So stacked that Horvat also had to play the toughest minutes and competition as a second line center? He got the trench work.

The kind of stats available at the OHL level, sample sizes, and the fact that we're doing will progressing players (not finished products like we usually are in the NHL) makes a lot of the analytical work here questionable.

For example, Horvat's first 20 games, his production was not good. He changed his skates around then and his production sky rocketed.

His last 40-something regular season games and 20-something playoff games are probably where Horvat's true production lies. His playoff points are consistent with those last 40-something regular season games, so it wasn't a post-season hot streak, either.

Avatar
#34 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 10:18AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@Thomas Drance

How much did Horvat actually play with Domi, though?

Based on Matt Pfeffer's WOWYs, it looks like not much. (7.5% of goal events)

Avatar
#35 JCDavies
August 28 2013, 10:27AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props
Mantastic wrote:

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

How much time was Horvat actually on the ice with those other good players?

It looks like Domi spent most of his time with two overagers.

Avatar
#36 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:53AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
0
props

@Wisp

what better tools are you speaking of?

Avatar
#37 antro
August 28 2013, 11:26AM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
2
props
NM00 wrote:

Apparently I'm not needed when people have the top prospect crown to fight over.

It's too bad.

This appears to be a good opportunity to piss on Mike Gillis.

You're back!!!!

I double prop your comment and take back when I said you didn't have a sense of humour.

Please piss away...

Avatar
#38 Peachy
August 28 2013, 12:03PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

@NM00

Which he appears to have changed his mind on.

Next?

Avatar
#40 acg5151
August 28 2013, 01:02PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
1
props

I liked the Schneider trade for basically Horvat. Looking at what was left, the only choices were Horvat, Nichuskin, Morin, Zadorov and Max Domi. This team hasn't been high on any Russians in a while and doesn't really have a pressing need for D either.

Ultimately I think Bo Horvat is going to end up being similar to Ryan Kesler. I like Nichuskin but you can't go wrong with Horvat. Max Domi is good but is smaller and had easier minutes. Bo Horvat is what the Canucks are moving toward. I think this is one of the few good choices that Mike Gillis has made in a while concerning the draft. The overage college prospects group has lead to basically Chris Tanev and Jordan Schroeder which isn't that impressive. I'm happy the Canucks have moved more towards CHL guys like Brendan Gaunce, Horvat and Shinkarik.

That being said, if this team is looking to replace Henrik and Daniel in another 5-6 years they'd better start getting some hits in the lower rounds. Corrado is a start.

Avatar
#41 Nateb123
August 28 2013, 01:07PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
3
props

@Wisp

Kind of unimpressed with this one guys. I get that data is sparse for a guy who has had one season in Junior and that he played in such different situations (shut down centre, scoring winger, 3rd/4th line grinder) that he effectively had 3 tiny seasons that can't be analyzed by statistics usefully. But the answer isn't to lazily lump it all together and draw conclusions.

The WOWY stats posted for example seem to drown out his success because he wasn't always playing an offensive role. In reality his WOWYs are more likely just a proxy for "Horvat with worse linemates and better competition" vs "Horvat with great linemates and easier competition". Giving all the credit to Domi is just silly unless you show what Horvat was like with his other linemates versus varying levels of competition. Something I know there isn't the sample size to demonstrate with any certainty.

Avatar
#42 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 05:23PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
6
props

@nateb123

explains why he played in the ECHL after the lockout was over too.

Avatar
#43 NM00
August 28 2013, 05:55PM
Trash it!
1
trashes
+1
4
props
nateb123 wrote:

Any sane person might infer that an excessive amount of talking out one's ass might be the reason...

As for Mallet being bad because he was in the ECHL, if the words "lockout year" aren't explanatory enough, there is no help for you.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

As for Mallet, if the words "overdrafted based on one fluky year as an overager" aren't explanatory enough, there is no help for you.

Avatar
#44 Dimitri Filipovic
August 28 2013, 09:56AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

I had Gaunce 4th on my list, just FYI (which would put him below Horvat on my rankings). But still, I was probably down on Horvat in comparison to others, I think. I had Hunter Shinkaruk clearly ahead of him as a prospect purely based on upside.

Avatar
#45 antro
August 28 2013, 09:57AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props

Great write-up! Any idea what his comparables might be, in the way that someone like Scott Reynolds defines them?

Avatar
#47 van
August 28 2013, 10:00AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
3
props

You guys should publish your individual rankings. Curious what prospects we didn't take (Nichushkin, Domi etc.) would have ranked higher than last year's 26th pick and a 5th rounder from 2011. Wasn't a top 10 pick in a deep draft supposed to look a bit better than this, especially in such a poor prospect pool?

Avatar
#48 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:02AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
1
props

@antro

look it up on copper and blue, they did a whole series on the projected 1st round picks

spoiler alert: they look awful.

Avatar
#49 Mantastic
August 28 2013, 10:03AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
2
props

@Wisp

Guance played for a god awful offensive team. Horvat played on a stacked powerhouse team.

Avatar
#50 antro
August 28 2013, 10:18AM
Trash it!
0
trashes
+1
0
props
Mantastic wrote:

look it up on copper and blue, they did a whole series on the projected 1st round picks

spoiler alert: they look awful.

Thanks, I forgot about that series. They aren't good, but then again, it's all points-based. And the Coppernblue would be the first to admit they'd like other info to evaluate players.

I actually have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the questions about drafting anything other than good point-getters from junior is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I forget who it was on NHLnumbers, but they were using a stat based on ice-time, e.g., taking coaches to be good experts. If Horvat was getting that much icetime, esp. in the D zone, then there is stuff that using a points-based system of comparables isn't going to pick up. Patrice Bergeron was basically a ppg player in the Q, which is known for high scoring. He seems to have other talents.

In short, I've just convinced myself that I asked the wrong question in my previous comment! Thanks, Mantastic.

Comments are closed for this article.