HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Congrats... watched him in highschool, and last year very good player. Kelly's always has cold coors light.

Curious. Does this player have a younger brother named Rem? If yes, what do you know about the younger Pitlick and his skill set?

I'm sorry, but PUKE!!! I wish this kid no ill will, but did his mother write this article? And "he was too good at his sport to continue at school"; are you kidding??? Let's see what he says when he gets dinged up or washes out and he's roofing houses somewhere. No this isn't to say that he had the academics to graduate college. Not everyone is a great student, but to say he's too good. Please.

As for Rem (and Ret) Pitlick, those are the kids of his uncle, NHL star Lance Pitlick. VERY skilled kids, but hopefully size doesn't limit their HS and college futures.

CasseauCougar wrote:I'm sorry, but PUKE!!! I wish this kid no ill will, but did his mother write this article? And "he was too good at his sport to continue at school"; are you kidding??? Let's see what he says when he gets dinged up or washes out and he's roofing houses somewhere. No this isn't to say that he had the academics to graduate college. Not everyone is a great student, but to say he's too good. Please.

As for Rem (and Ret) Pitlick, those are the kids of his uncle, NHL star Lance Pitlick. VERY skilled kids, but hopefully size doesn't limit their HS and college futures.

Pitlick will be playing in the NHL someday. Plus, he is a 91....So if he plays two years in the WHL they will pay for two years tuition. If he ever does wash out, he will have an option to pursue and education as well.

I would love to see Pitlick make it in the NHL. I'd also like to see him buy his mother a new home with all the money he'll make some day and give her some extra money so she doesn't have to work at that dive in Centerville.

I noticed he didn't make it to the final cut for the US junior team.

RockyMtnIce wrote:Curious. Does this player have a younger brother named Rem? If yes, what do you know about the younger Pitlick and his skill set?

I believe Rem is the son of Lance Pitlick, Tylers uncle.

CasseauCougar wrote:I'm sorry, but PUKE!!! I wish this kid no ill will, but did his mother write this article? And "he was too good at his sport to continue at school"; are you kidding??? Let's see what he says when he gets dinged up or washes out and he's roofing houses somewhere. No this isn't to say that he had the academics to graduate college. Not everyone is a great student, but to say he's too good. Please.

As for Rem (and Ret) Pitlick, those are the kids of his uncle, NHL star Lance Pitlick. VERY skilled kids, but hopefully size doesn't limit their HS and college futures.

Career ending injury, good point, but I don't see him washing out. I was a bit critical of him his Sr. year and skeptical of what he could do at the next level, but I was very, very impressed with his play last year at MSU. Watched him play vs. DU, he was very dominate and they had no answer for him.

Major Jr. is a great developmental option and many still believe developmentally it is better than D1. And he does earn paid educational benefits for each year he plays, so if he doesn't make it, he will have that to fall back on. This includes secondary educational options such as trade school or flight schools, etc.

mulefarm wrote:I noticed he didn't make it to the final cut for the US junior team.

I heard it was due to an injury..

mghockey18 wrote:

mulefarm wrote:I noticed he didn't make it to the final cut for the US junior team.

I heard it was due to an injury..

The stats at USA Hockey show he played in 3 games and 0 points.

CasseauCougar wrote:I'm sorry, but PUKE!!! I wish this kid no ill will, but did his mother write this article? And "he was too good at his sport to continue at school"; are you kidding??? Let's see what he says when he gets dinged up or washes out and he's roofing houses somewhere. No this isn't to say that he had the academics to graduate college. Not everyone is a great student, but to say he's too good. Please.

Kind of bugs me...

" I wish the kid no ill will"....

Right...

Big, smooth and blond:

Blond??? since when, I've seen him....

Mom - definitely...

I wish him the best. Hopefully he makes it and doesn't need to fall back on a higher education.

"Loads of college homework"

Yea...right.
He was a freshman probably taking 12 credits or less at Mankato. I don't think the homework was too overbearing. Definitely the mom.

I find these responses interesting...yet senseless. Give the kid a break and realize that he has an opportunity to represent Minnesota towards "his" efforts within hockey. If someone would like to question intelligence, where are you within the realm of giving society a reason to respect your written opinion? Get a life and support someone who has achieved something that many will not realize...or stop by Kelly's and appologize for your ignorance.

Excellent reply ugottabekiddingme! I watched him play 3 years at Centennial. And his talent is remarkable. I hope he makes the NHL. I think he will!!!

I really find that this article and Pitlick's comments don't reflect very well on himself or hockey players in general. Honestly, I think that the reporter is laughing at him a little bit with the way it is structured. Pitlick is quoted about how school wasn't important to him, then in the next sentence Backus talks about how Pitlick uses his muscular frame to smash people. In other words, he breaks stuff with his body, but he isn't breaking anything with his mind. The bottom line is that Pitlick's comments really don't go very far in dispelling the rumors about hockey players being muscleheads. He must be pretty talented, though.

dontcallmeshirley wrote:I really find that this article and Pitlick's comments don't reflect very well on himself or hockey players in general. Honestly, I think that the reporter is laughing at him a little bit with the way it is structured. Pitlick is quoted about how school wasn't important to him, then in the next sentence Backus talks about how Pitlick uses his muscular frame to smash people. In other words, he breaks stuff with his body, but he isn't breaking anything with his mind. The bottom line is that Pitlick's comments really don't go very far in dispelling the rumors about hockey players being muscleheads. He must be pretty talented, though.

"hockey players being muscleheads"? I commented to my financial planner the other day (he happens to be an ex hockey guy) that I am amazed at how many former players are seemingly in the financial world (brokers/financial planners, etc.). Obviously, there are many former players that don't perform well in their after hockey life. But, I know several that are very successful.

Additionally, do you listen to hockey players when they are getting interviewed. 95% of the hockey players I have seen interviewed are humble and team orientated guys. I am not sure I can say that about athletes in other sports.

I know people that didn't like school that have turned into very good business people. At the end of the day, I am sure young Pitlick will do very well in whatever he focuses on.

So if you have 1000 hockey players chances are some are going to do and say some stupid things. Same thing goes for say 100 basketball players, difference being if it's only 10 basketball guys you say no big deal but if its 50 hockey guys you say there is a problem and they are muscleheads. But if you look closer, the percentage of problem athletes is greater in basketball. I am sure in Texas or Florida its the baseball or football kids that are looked at under a different microscope. Just because he went to College to play hockey doesn't mean he was there on a Rhoads scholarship! The bigger misjustice is for the kid that knows he isnt going pro and wants to be at college that was over-looked for that scholarship money he wasted.

I think colleges and the NHL should make a deal that players must sign for 2 or 4 years. Wasted money on guys leaving early and not finishing thier education, otherwise head to the WHL and give that money to the kids that will stay for 4 years.

youngblood08 wrote:So if you have 1000 hockey players chances are some are going to do and say some stupid things. Same thing goes for say 100 basketball players, difference being if it's only 10 basketball guys you say no big deal but if its 50 hockey guys you say there is a problem and they are muscleheads. But if you look closer, the percentage of problem athletes is greater in basketball. I am sure in Texas or Florida its the baseball or football kids that are looked at under a different microscope. Just because he went to College to play hockey doesn't mean he was there on a Rhoads scholarship! The bigger misjustice is for the kid that knows he isnt going pro and wants to be at college that was over-looked for that scholarship money he wasted.

I think colleges and the NHL should make a deal that players must sign for 2 or 4 years. Wasted money on guys leaving early and not finishing thier education, otherwise head to the WHL and give that money to the kids that will stay for 4 years.

The only way that can happen is if it is driven through via the NHL CBA (collective bargaining agreement). Today's NHL CBA is more geared toward the Canadian Major Junior player vs. U.S. college hockey player. If I understand it correctly, a player under 20 years of age who goes to an NHL camp and is cut (did not make the team) will end up returning back to his Major Junior team. There is NO similar rule for U.S. college hockey that I am aware of. I am making my point with regards that the AHL is suppose to be a 20 to 30 year old league.

I think the CBA runs out within the next 2 years. Maybe some of your desires will take shape.

dontcallmeshirley wrote:I really find that this article and Pitlick's comments don't reflect very well on himself or hockey players in general. Honestly, I think that the reporter is laughing at him a little bit with the way it is structured. Pitlick is quoted about how school wasn't important to him, then in the next sentence Backus talks about how Pitlick uses his muscular frame to smash people. In other words, he breaks stuff with his body, but he isn't breaking anything with his mind. The bottom line is that Pitlick's comments really don't go very far in dispelling the rumors about hockey players being muscleheads. He must be pretty talented, though.

He has the skills. We always had a tough time containing him. Strong & talented...Next Level is a big step for anyone.
Wish him the best.

breakout wrote:

youngblood08 wrote:So if you have 1000 hockey players chances are some are going to do and say some stupid things. Same thing goes for say 100 basketball players, difference being if it's only 10 basketball guys you say no big deal but if its 50 hockey guys you say there is a problem and they are muscleheads. But if you look closer, the percentage of problem athletes is greater in basketball. I am sure in Texas or Florida its the baseball or football kids that are looked at under a different microscope. Just because he went to College to play hockey doesn't mean he was there on a Rhoads scholarship! The bigger misjustice is for the kid that knows he isnt going pro and wants to be at college that was over-looked for that scholarship money he wasted.

I think colleges and the NHL should make a deal that players must sign for 2 or 4 years. Wasted money on guys leaving early and not finishing thier education, otherwise head to the WHL and give that money to the kids that will stay for 4 years.

The only way that can happen is if it is driven through via the NHL CBA (collective bargaining agreement). Today's NHL CBA is more geared toward the Canadian Major Junior player vs. U.S. college hockey player. If I understand it correctly, a player under 20 years of age who goes to an NHL camp and is cut (did not make the team) will end up returning back to his Major Junior team. There is NO similar rule for U.S. college hockey that I am aware of. I am making my point with regards that the AHL is suppose to be a 20 to 30 year old league.

I think the CBA runs out within the next 2 years. Maybe some of your desires will take shape.

The current CBA motivates these guys to sign early, as the standard entry level contract limits what they can earn, but after 3 years, those restrictions are lifted.

So if you have pro potential, the sooner you sign that entry level contact and play your 3 years, the sooner you can sign a big money contract.

High Flyer wrote:

breakout wrote:

youngblood08 wrote:So if you have 1000 hockey players chances are some are going to do and say some stupid things. Same thing goes for say 100 basketball players, difference being if it's only 10 basketball guys you say no big deal but if its 50 hockey guys you say there is a problem and they are muscleheads. But if you look closer, the percentage of problem athletes is greater in basketball. I am sure in Texas or Florida its the baseball or football kids that are looked at under a different microscope. Just because he went to College to play hockey doesn't mean he was there on a Rhoads scholarship! The bigger misjustice is for the kid that knows he isnt going pro and wants to be at college that was over-looked for that scholarship money he wasted.

I think colleges and the NHL should make a deal that players must sign for 2 or 4 years. Wasted money on guys leaving early and not finishing thier education, otherwise head to the WHL and give that money to the kids that will stay for 4 years.

The only way that can happen is if it is driven through via the NHL CBA (collective bargaining agreement). Today's NHL CBA is more geared toward the Canadian Major Junior player vs. U.S. college hockey player. If I understand it correctly, a player under 20 years of age who goes to an NHL camp and is cut (did not make the team) will end up returning back to his Major Junior team. There is NO similar rule for U.S. college hockey that I am aware of. I am making my point with regards that the AHL is suppose to be a 20 to 30 year old league.

I think the CBA runs out within the next 2 years. Maybe some of your desires will take shape.

The current CBA motivates these guys to sign early, as the standard entry level contract limits what they can earn, but after 3 years, those restrictions are lifted.

So if you have pro potential, the sooner you sign that entry level contact and play your 3 years, the sooner you can sign a big money contract.

That's true, unless your under 20 years of age and sign a contract. In that case a player must play in a minimum of 10 NHL games in his first year in order to qualify for a new deal in three years. Otherwise, the deal can roll into a fourth year.