Share This Page

Big plays lift Shenango past Riverview

| Saturday, Oct. 5, 2013, 12:03 a.m.

When Riverview and Shenango took the field Friday night, the teams appeared to be evenly matched, as each brought a 1-4 record into the nonconference matchup.

Once the game got under way, host Shenango and its running attack proved to be superior in a 35-14 win.

“They were just more successful at (running the ball),” Riverview coach Todd Massack said. “I know they were a 1-4 team going into this game, but they've got some big kids and they've got some skilled kids and they were a little too much for us.”

Shenango senior Tyler Welsh gained 124 yards on just seven carries, using shifty footwork and quick cuts to break open plays that appeared to be bottled up.

“He's explosive,” Shenango coach Mike Commesso said.

Jason Wallace and Anthony Prestopine, who rushed for 100 yards, added touchdown runs in the second half.

“Last week we didn't run the ball well, so this week we wanted to recommit to that,” Commesso said. “We spent a lot of time on that.”

The Raiders (1-5) had success of their own in the passing game in the second quarter. Zach Hanus hit Raymar McCombs for an 8-yard touchdown to cut Shenango's lead to 7-6, but that was as close as Riverview would get.

“We threw the ball well,” Massack said. “At times we ran the ball well. At times we looked good on defense. But that's pretty much been the story of our year. At times we look good and at times we kind of shoot ourselves in the foot.”

Case in point: On the next play from scrimmage, Welsh raced 53 yards for one of his two touchdown runs. He also added a punt return for a touchdown for Shenango (1-5).

Hanus completed 8 of 15 passes for 92 yards and a score. Riverview's Keir Barber muscled his way to a game-high 159 yards, including a 52-yard scoring run in the fourth quarter.

Ed Phillipps 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.