Signs of growth for West Shamokin football
By William Whalen
Published: Monday, Sept. 26, 2011,
West Shamokin's losing streak has reached 38 games, but there are reasons for optimism.
In the Wolves' 40-14 loss at Allegheny Conference foe Summit Academy on Saturday, freshman running back Zac Horner had his second 100-yard rushing game, gaining 121 yards on 21 carries with two touchdowns. And in the second half, the Wolves put together two productive drives that could give them the confidence to break the long skid.
The Wolves (0-4, 0-2), who hadn't scored in double figures since Week 1 of 2010, are a loss shy of matching the WPIAL's longest losing streak, set by Geibel from 1996 to 2000.
"They are getting better," Summit Academy coach Steve Scherer said. "We were there at one time. I understand how (coach Josh Gilliland) feels and what he's going through."
Down 16 points at halftime, West Shamokin forced Summit Academy (2-2, 2-0) to punt on the opening drive of the third quarter. The offense moved the ball with purpose: On fourth-and-14, Horner rumbled 17 yards to the 1-yard line before powering in for a touchdown four plays later to cut the Wolves' deficit to 24-14.
"West Shamokin has some big kids up front, and they know what they're doing," Scherer said. "You have that size coming after you every play, it will wear you down."
On Summit Academy's ensuing drive, the Knights again went three-and-out. West Shamokin took the ball close to midfield, but a fumble led to a 55-yard return for a touchdown by Summit Academy's David Carter.
"We shot ourselves in the foot a lot," Gilliland said. "They're a big-play team, and that's how they score."
The Knights struck again when Sean McCausland found receiver Cyneil Hinton for a 37-yard TD pass for the game's final points.
"We'll get in there, we'll keep building," Gilliland said, "and I think we'll get our (win) here soon."
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.