In the first two games of the season, Avonworth was effective running the football.
But freshman quarterback Zack Chandler, in only his second start, gave Leechburg fits through the air.
Chandler completed 9 of 14 passes for 115 yards to lead the host Antelopes to a 35-0 Eastern Conference win at Lenzner Field.
“We thought we could exploit some of their weaknesses in the defense, and we thought we could throw on them,” Avonworth coach Duke Johncour said. “They wanted to pack the box a little bit, so we wanted to take what they were giving us.”
Neither team was able to establish much of a running game in the first half, but No. 7 Avonworth (2-1, 2-0) found success downfield.
Chandler helped account for all the scoring in the first half, throwing a trio of 15-yard touchdowns, to Jesse Zubik, Dalton Day and Ryan Walsh, who caught a lob in the back of the end zone for a 21-0 lead.
Junior running back Kris Smith, who gained 69 yards on 16 carries, led Leechburg (1-2, 0-2).
Senior receiver Jake Iellimo rushed for 16 yards on six attempts while seeing time in the wildcat offense late in the game.
“It's disappointing,” Leechburg coach Mark George said. “I know the kids are out there working hard. They had some decent defensive stands out there, when it still was a game. That's something positive we have to build upon.”
Dave Yohe is a freelance writer.
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.