Running game likely to replace Greensburg Salem's high-scoring attack
TribLIVE Sports Videos
Gone is a host of familiar names, quarterback Josh Falatovich and running back Michael Kizzie among them.
With those two 1,000-yard producers out of the picture and enrolled at Seton Hill, prepare for a new-look Greensburg Salem.
“We have a lot of gaps to fill. We have a glaring area in our skill positions,” coach Casey Cavanaugh said.
The Golden Lions will head into the year without wide receiver Michael Nowicki and tight end/defensive end Waylon Fink, who enters his first year at the University of Buffalo.
But with experience on the offensive and defensive lines, Greensburg Salem has a head start to reinvent itself from last year's high-powered team that averaged 43 points per game while relying on a potent passing attack.
The names aren't as familiar, but Cavanaugh is comfortable with the personnel up front, among them seniors Nick Holtzer (6-foot-2, 230), Tanner Hahn (6-3, 225) and Anthony Sorbin (6-0, 225), and junior Donnie Chedrick (6-0, 245).
“We're going to be a different kind of team,” Cavanaugh said. “We'll have to play better defense and be strong up front to run the football.”
Greensburg Salem, which ended a 7-3 season with a pair of losses, capped by a 34-28 decision to Thomas Jefferson in the first round of the WPIAL Class AAA playoffs, will join Derry, Franklin Regional and Hollidaysburg this year in a move to the Greater Allegheny Conference.
Two solid contenders are vying to fill Kizzie's spot in the Greensburg Salem backfield, from where he gained 1,238 yards and scored 17 touchdowns last season, including Kizzie's main backup a year ago, senior Tyler Shook, who rushed for 552 yards and seven touchdowns.
The other is Dom McKinley, a junior who played on Greensburg Salem's junior varsity team.
“It's big shoes to fill, but we feel comfortable,” Cavanaugh said.
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.