ShareThis Page

H.S. Picks in playoff-watching glory

| Wednesday, Nov. 6, 2013, 10:12 p.m.

Wow, round one of the WPIAL football playoffs produced some exciting games, and H.S. Picks, the Tribune-Review's high school football prognosticator, was on the edge of his seat while watching a few matchups.

Picks was able to get the home teams to set up cameras so he could watch all the games. He was in the corner of the Trib office with a tub of popcorn and a pitcher of soda watching 32 monitors.

He loved watching Yough upset Kittanning, Franklin Regional hold off Montour, and he couldn't believe the game between West Mifflin and Moon.

β€œIt was of the best games I've seen in a long time,” Picks said. β€œI can't wait for this week's games. I'll be paying attention to Penn-Trafford/McKeesport, Mt. Pleasant/Beaver, Neshannock/Monessen and Yough/Beaver Falls.”

Picks was 36-8 last week, and he improved to 300-62 for the season. Not too shabby.

Here are this week's games.

Penn-Trafford vs. McKeesport

The Tigers are cruising and already defeated Penn-Trafford, which is riding a three-game winning streak. McKeesport's offense has been unstoppable; will Penn-Trafford do better the second time around?

McKeesport, 28-17

Franklin Regional vs. West Mifflin

Will West Mifflin running back Jimmy Wheeler put up another 300-yard game? Can the West Mifflin defense slow down the tandem of Charan Singh and Colin Jonov of Franklin Regional? Another high-scoring game is possible.

Franklin Regional, 31-28

Indiana vs. West Allegheny

OK, both teams' nickname is the Indians, so we know the obvious. But No. 1 West Allegheny has the stronger tribe.

West Allegheny, 38-14

Mt. Pleasant vs. Beaver

Beaver defeated Mt. Pleasant, 28-12, in the 1981 Class AAA semifinals. Beaver had a great RB named Shiloh Icenhour. Well, this time around Mt. Pleasant has Tyler Mellors.

Mt. Pleasant, 28-14

Yough vs. Beaver Falls

Both teams scored more than 50 points in Round 1. For the Cougars to pull off another upset, they might need another 50-point effort.

Beaver Falls, 35-21

Monessen vs. Neshannock

Neshannock got the best of Monessen in the 2012 Class A quarterfinals. Well, they meet again. It should be a dandy.

Monessen, 28-27

Picks also likes: Sto-Rox 28, Apollo-Ridge 21; Clairton 32, Fort Cherry 27; North Catholic 21, Avonworth 20; Aliquippa 27, Quaker Valley 14; South Fayette 33, Seton-La Salle 14; Thomas Jefferson 38, Highlands 14; Mars 24, Central Valley 20; Upper St. Clair 21, North Allegheny 7; Woodland Hills 24, Seneca Valley 21; Central Catholic 27, Gateway 7; Portage 33, Blairsville 14; Richland 34, Ligonier Valley 14; Homer-Center 27, Juniata Valley 7; Penns Manor 21, Bishop Guilfoyle 20.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.