Seneca Valley runs past Fox Chapel
Seneca Valley senior running back Forrest Barnes rushed for 238 yards and four touchdowns, all in the first half, as Class AAAA No. 5 Seneca Valley defeated Fox Chapel, 54-15, in a Quad North game Friday night at the James A. Burk Complex.
Seneca Valley (8-1, 6-1) will compete in the WPIAL playoffs for just the 10th time since the school was formed in 1964.
Barnes carried 16 times, highlighted by a 92-yard run in the final minute of the first half.
“He's really talented,” said Seneca Valley coach Don Holl, a former coach at Kiski Area. “We knew that, and we caught them in some looks that we thought were favorable to run in. When he gets the ball and has a chance to break out, it's hard to catch him.”
Fox Chapel (1-8, 1-6) fell victim to Seneca Valley's no-huddle offense, giving up 502 yards — 384 in the first half. The Foxes were haunted by big plays, allowing seven of 20 or more yards.
“The no-huddle wasn't the issue,” Fox Chapel coach Eric Ravotti said. “The issue was it's a good offense. Whether they went back and huddled up or not, it was irrelevant to me. The aspect of how talented they are offensively and defensively is what makes them a force.”
With the score 19-0 after Seneca Valley junior defensive lineman Steven Gaviglia intercepted Fox Chapel quarterback Brandon Mitchell and returned it 30 yards for a touchdown, the Foxes needed a spark. They found it in junior running back Nigel Garnett.
One play after the turnover, Garnett took the handoff and sprinted 64 yards for a touchdown. Garnett wasn't done. He later scored on a 2-yard run with 4:40 left to make it 54-15. Garnett finished with 82 yards on nine carries.
“He was an all-conference performer last year,” Ravotti said. “He's better than he was last year, and he gives us an offensive spark. We need more players like that.”
D.J. Vasil 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 â 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.