Share This Page

Bishop Canevin running backs running hard for Crusaders

| Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012, 8:59 p.m.
Signal Item
Jim Tersak scored three touchdowns for Bishop Canevin in the opening game of the season. Randy Jarosz | Signal Item
Signal Item
Giovanni DeMarzo, left, is a defensive back for the Crusaders in addition to his duties as tailback. Randy Jarosz | Signal Item

Bishop Canevin's Jim Tersak is no stranger to the fields of the WPIAL.

Tersak was a starting offensive lineman and defensive end for the Crusaders in 2011, helping record a 11-1 mark and reach the WPIAL Class A semifinals.

Tersak was one of the top returning players for Bishop Canevin from last season's team. But instead of returning to the line, he was moved to fullback.

“As soon as last season ended, we realized we had a lot of linemen back but not a lot of skill-position guys back,” Bishop Canevin coach Bob Jacoby said. “We didn't have the big fullback we like to have. We knew we would have a young tailback and we needed the extra blocker.”

When Tersak made his debut at fullback in Week 1 against Imani Christian, blocking was the least of what he did. The bruising back ran for 100 yards and three touchdowns in the 21-6 win.

“It felt amazing to have a night like that,” Tersak said. “I didn't know what to expect. I just got the ball and had a great night.”

Tersak said being in the position in practice was much different than in the game. In addition to being on a different spot on the field, the physical toll was also different.

“It is a very different look in the backfield,” Tersak said. “We would run some quick plays and I was would start breathing (hard) but I knew I had to keep going. I learned to adapt my game.”

Jacoby said what helps Tersak in the fullback position is his strength. His runs against Imani Christian weren't full of jukes or great speed. A lot of them was just the senior running people over.

“He was the best athlete on the line we had coming back,” Jacoby said. “He just has this sheer strength. He was dragging tacklers (against Imani Christian).”

Tersak is not the only running threat the Crusaders can turn to. Sophomore Giovanni DeMarzo gives Bishop Canevin a quick back option.

The youngster recorded 98 yards against Imani Christian in Week 1 and 94 against Chartiers-Houston in Week 2.

“The key to him is he looks like a quicker back,” Jacoby said. “But he has good strength, too. Against Imani, he had trouble breaking away because they had such great speed and he ran through a couple of people.”

The sophomore played wide receiver last season and got snaps as a backup quarterback.

The coaching staff noticed his skill set would allow him to fill in at running back well and made the move this season. Jacoby said the big question for DeMarzo entering the season was if he would be able to carry a bulk of the carries.

After running the ball a total of 47 times in the first two games, he has proven he can be an every-down back.

“It is tough but I love it,” DeMarzo said. “I felt I could've done better but we got the win and that is what matters.”

The duo replaces the successful backfield of Casey McCaffrey and Bobby Gustine, who combined for more than 1,500 yards last season.

Much like the pair last season, Tersak and DeMarzo's “thunder and lightning” combination will try to run past their opponents and continue the success of the Bishop Canevin ground game.

“Hopefully wether we face a power defense or a quicker defense, it will help us find success,” Tersak said. “We can attack with his speed and me up in the middle and find success.”

“I think we will be able to throw teams off,” DeMarzo said. “Throw a little quick at them and then a little power.”

The Crusaders will look to run past Carlynton Friday. Kickoff is set for 7:30 p.m. at Dormont Stadium.

Nathan Smith is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at nsmith@tribweb.com or 412-388-5813.

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.