Canfield Cardinals Schedule and Outlook for 2023

iam416 said:
I know Fitch has a lot of really talented kids on the team now. That hasn't been the norm. That's pretty easy to prove up. Now they have D1-caliber kids. If that's the new norm, then, yeah, no way. And, again, I don't really care about the last 20 years. 20 years ago South Range would have been housed in the NE8 and never dreamt of scheduling a D3 defending state champion. I'm talking going forward.

And, hey, like I said, if Fitch is going to turn into a D1 football factory, then there's zero way Canfield could compete with that. I haven't a clue what Fitch looks like going forward.

Finally, Canfield has played Boardman every year for awhile. I can't remember the last time they lost to Boardman. And when you look at Boardman scores against Canfield and Fitch, they're comparable. Really comparable. Even going back to 2015 when they both lost close, low-scoring games. Canfield-Fitch isn't some sort of gross mismatch anymore than Boardman-Fitch (or, for that matter, Boardman-Canfield) is. It would seem, based on 8 years of results, that Canfield-Fitch would be a much better matchup than Boardman-Fitch. That may mean Canfield still loses 6 or 7 of those games, but it ain't some sort of crazy idea that they play.

Again, I realize that this particular Fitch team is stacked with D1 talent. That hasn't been the norm. Like ever. If that's the new normal -- then, yep. But, I have a hard time believe that Canfield wouldn't have been competitive against Fitch from, say, 2015-22 and maybe won 2 or 3 times (and we already know they won once).
Click to expand...
An important thing to point out is that Austintown vs Boardman is a HUGE RIVALRY. So therefore the games are much different than other games on the schedule. A perfect example is Ursuline vs Mooney. Rivalry games are always closer fought with the talent discrepancies not nearly as defined and that one week only the teams play above or below their fighting weight almost always.
 
Raider#23 said:
No one. 😁

In reality, they lose just about everyone with 20 seniors on this year's team. They have 1 returning lineman and a running back returning that were starters on offense, and I believe a couple of defensive backs on defense. The good thing is that with so many games where the Raiders were in complete control this past year, they were able to play a lot of backups in quality varsity action. So, they shouldn't be wide-eyed this fall when they are starters. I guess the good thing about this upcoming game with Canfield is that they won't be facing Lowry at QB for the Cardinals, so both teams will be young.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums up Canfield this upcoming year. They return roughly 8 juniors that were borderline starters or starters this year. Of those 8, only 3 saw significant playing time as sophomores. 2 sophomores this year saw significant time and will be counted on this coming year. They will need to fill 3 holes on the offensive line and at least 1 on the D line. The kid moving in at the QB position has manned it for this class since they were with the Little Cards. Obviously he isn't Lowry, but he should be fine. The RB's will be a strength and WR's will most likely be by committee. I expect the back end of the defense and LB's to be above average. Canfield has had quality depth the last 3 years. Not sure that will be the case this year or next.
 
YtownJohnny said:
An important thing to point out is that Austintown vs Boardman is a HUGE RIVALRY. So therefore the games are much different than other games on the schedule. A perfect example is Ursuline vs Mooney. Rivalry games are always closer fought with the talent discrepancies not nearly as defined and that one week only the teams play above or below their fighting weight almost always.
Click to expand...
I don't know if this is an attempt to explain away Canfield > Boardman or explain away Canfield/Boardman playing comparably against Fitch or just an observation. The bottom line is that from 2016-22, Canfield was better than Boardman (perhaps Boardman should start treating that like a "huge rivalry" game?) and Canfield and Boardman have had similar results against Fitch. Those two statements are absolutely true.

All of that is to say that Canfield-Fitch would be more competitive than Boardman-Fitch, or at least would have been from 2016-2022. The only way around that point is to inject some sort of immeasurable qualitative analysis. But, measurable quantitative numbers lead to only one conclusion. And that conclusion certainly says Canfield could at least play Fitch competitively. And, in fact, when they did play, Canfield held their own.

Again, that's the past. Fitch's future may be exceedingly bright. And that would change things. And, in fact, I think Fitch could easily running clock Canfield in 2023 based on what each team has coming back. And maybe that would be the norm going forward. HOWEVER, what happened from 2016-22 will not change and those 7 years certainly support Canfield being competitive with Fitch. Certainly not some sort of gross mismatch.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Fitch and Canfield used to be light years apart. Fitch used to be the program with very few D-1 players, but great coaching and tough kids. The last 30 years Fitch has changed, and so has Canfield. I can't imagine playing Canfield in the 80's. It would have been an annual slaughter. Today? Not the same. Canfield has grown and their program is really good, as evident with a state title. Austintown continues to shrink and open enrollment has slowed. I could see them being closer in enrollment in the near future. As close as the 2 schools are, I think eventually they will play regularly and it will be competitive.
 
Proximity does not affect competitiveness.
Again the only two data points we have are 2003 and 2021. In 2003 Canfield was grossly overmatched and had negative one hundred something rushing yards. In 2021 Canfield was a top 3 team in D-III and beat a Fitch team with no HB and a lot of key injuries. Canfield was generally pretty good over the period you referenced, but you can't assume they will always have that level of talent and a lot of their success can be attributed to coach Pav and the way they run their program in general, but there are limitations on what you can do, you cab only do so much with what you have to work with. Make note of the period where Canfield was really bad despite having excellent coaches and an excellent program.
If you had that Canfield team play even a relatively bad Fitch team (relative to D-II), they still will get running clocked.
Exceptional/really good Canfield teams are competitive with good Fitch teams, however if Fitch is Exceptional like they were this year or would be next year, save for injuries, Canfield would not have a chance as much as I hate to admit it.
Additionally an average or below Canfield team against a decent Fitch team will get clocked. Fitch would have to be worse than they have been in a long time for an average Canfield team to compete with them.
 
Last edited:
That 2003 Canfield team had players that were on the eventual State Finalist team as well, so it wasn't like they didn't have any good players or talent. That is just the level of disparity between the two programs in a normal year for both.
 
Treviscraft10 said:
2023 seems like a good time to kick off a Canfield vs South Range home and home deal. Both teams will be rebuilding to some extent & the game will have a natural rivalry feel that will compel both squads to "grow up fast". If the games "cost" Canfield computer points regardless of the outcome, I'd expect they will drop the game after the first two years.
I like the fact that the Raiders are willing to challenge themselves, now, schedule Mooney (both DV) & put an end to their "nobody will play us" complaint. Heck, put Mooney in the NE8.
Click to expand...
Under no circumstances, will Mooney ever be in the NE8 lol
 
simkon said:
That 2003 Canfield team had players that were on the eventual State Finalist team as well, so it wasn't like they didn't have any good players or talent. That is just the level of disparity between the two programs in a normal year for both.
Click to expand...
@simkon please give Canfield some more credit. It’s not like Fitch is this DII historical playoff juggernaut. We’re not talking Hoban, Ed’s, or even Massillon, Hudson and Avon. They are an underachieving DII school that historically does less with more. Canfield could compete with them any day of the week. There may be a couple years here and there where each team would be significantly better, but that’s the case with most public school program.
 
simkon said:
Proximity does not affect competitiveness.
Again the only two data points we have are 2003 and 2021. In 2003 Canfield was grossly overmatched and had negative one hundred something rushing yards. In 2021 Canfield was a top 3 team in D-III and beat a Fitch team with no HB and a lot of key injuries. Canfield was generally pretty good over the period you referenced, but you can't assume they will always have that level of talent and a lot of their success can be attributed to coach Pav and the way they run their program in general, but there are limitations on what you can do, you cab only do so much with what you have to work with. Make note of the period where Canfield was really bad despite having excellent coaches and an excellent program.
If you had that Canfield team play even a relatively bad Fitch team (relative to D-II), they still will get running clocked.
Exceptional/really good Canfield teams are competitive with good Fitch teams, however if Fitch is Exceptional like they were this year or would be next year, save for injuries, Canfield would not have a chance as much as I hate to admit it.
Additionally an average or below Canfield team against a decent Fitch team will get clocked. Fitch would have to be worse than they have been in a long time for an average Canfield team to compete with them.
Click to expand...
The 2003 game was 46-40 wasn’t it? Lol. And How was Fitch “exceptional” this year? Didn’t they lose 2nd round to a team who couldn’t get out of region 9 the last several years? Exceptional talent doesn’t make an exceptional team. Canfield was exceptional. Simkon my brother you have lost it
 
@Bad Blake The score is extremely misleading and deceiving. You do realize that Canfield had negative 150 rushing yards in that game. And also allowed Fitch set many offensive records, I think they still stand to this day. The score might have been close, but it was only because of multiple miraculous heaves that Canfield got really lucky on, they literally just started throwing up jump balls that they had at best a 50/50 shot of coming down with. Canfield could not stop Fitch's rushing game at all, they didn't even need to pass. If you count the QB sacks towards rushing yards, that adds another negative 100 yards or so to the total.
 
simkon said:
@Bad Blake The score is extremely misleading and deceiving. You do realize that Canfield had negative 150 rushing yards in that game. And also allowed Fitch set many offensive records, I think they still stand to this day. The score might have been close, but it was only because of multiple miraculous heaves that Canfield got really lucky on, they literally just started throwing up jump balls that they had at best a 50/50 shot of coming down with. Canfield could not stop Fitch's rushing game at all, they didn't even need to pass. If you count the QB sacks towards rushing yards, that adds another negative 100 yards or so to the total.
Click to expand...
I’d have to see an official box score to believe that. -250 rushing yards and scored 40 points? I’m not sure that’s possible in a 48 minute game. You have been known to slant the data in a way that helps prove your point so I’ll chalk it up to that. Regardless, Canfield found a way to put 40 points on the board. And none of this is relevant to the point- which is, Canfield would not be outmatched against Fitch in most years. Some, sure, but that knife cuts both ways.
 
I was actually looking for the old Vindicator article from that 2003 game but was unsuccessful, however, if anyone can find it or any additional information it would be much appreciated
 
Only because I love Frank Caliendo, and since Lou Holtz's name has been brought up, I offer you Yapster's this (first 3 minutes):


EDIT: No offense intended to Simkon, or anybody else. Just thought I'd inject some humor into the conversation.
 
Last edited:
The game write-up by Joe Scalzo is included in the scrapbook history of Fitch football for the 2003 season. It says that Canfield's Jr QB Jamie McNally passed for 421 yards and 3 TDs on 20 of 36 passes in the game, a Canfield school record for yardage & a Fitch Stadium record, at the time at least. All 3 of the TD passes went to WR Jordan Ferns. Mr. Ferns had 9 receptions for 284 yards, also a Canfield school record at the time. Mr. McNally also ran 11 yards for a TD. RB Chris Pankewicz added 15 carries for 80 yards and 2 TDs for the Cardinals. Fitch rushed for 339 yards led by Eric Chine with 184 yards and a school record 5 TDs.

Online I found a box score with all the scoring plays, but no individual stats listed there.

FITCH 48, CANFIELD 40
Canfield 6 7 13 14--40
Fitch 13 6 22 7--48
FITCH -- Miles Williams, 71 punt return (Kyle Gabrick kick)
CANFIELD -- Chris Pankewicz, 18 run (kick blocked)
FITCH -- Eric Chine, 3 run (kick blocked)
FITCH -- Chine, 43 run (pass failed)
CANFIELD -- Pankewicz, 3 run (Matt Pietro kick)
FITCH -- Chine, 34 run (John Mang run)
FITCH -- Chine, 2 run (Gabrick kick)
CANFIELD -- Jamie McNally, 11 run (Pietro kick)
FITCH -- Mike Eliseo, 12 run (Gabrick kick)
CANFIELD -- Jordan Ferns, 65 pass from McNally (pass failed)
FITCH -- Chine, 1 run (Gabrick kick)
CANFIELD -- Ferns, 35 pass from McNally (pass failed)
CANFIELD -- Ferns, 44 pass from McNally (Ferns pass from McNally)
 
It's a shame they do not mention the rushing total for Canfield or mention how many times Canfield's QB was sacked.
 
If I understand all of this correctly, a Canfield back had 15 carries for 80 yards and the others on the team combined to lose 230 yards for net negative rushing total of 150? Not included in this total is another 100 yards in sacks?

I'm sure that I am not the only one that thinks this latest claim is complete and utter BS......
 
Whatever the rushing total, this is the game that is held up as "Exhibit A" as to why Canfield can't compete with Fitch (even though it's 20 years ago), and it was 19-13 at half, 41-26 going into the 4th and was, at no time, in running clock range (if they had it back then). Whereas the most recent time they played, Canfield did put a running clock on them. And you have the Boardman-Fitch/Boardman-Canfield comps.

There is exactly zero way Canfield-Fitch wouldn't be a decent series UNLESS Fitch gets way better. It certainly would have been a good series from 2016-22.
 
Again all of the passes were hail mary passes and jump balls that we had a 50/50 chance at best of catching. It was not a legitimate offense or passing game. And Jamie got sacked a lot, so many times it is a record for both teams, most sacks by one player and total for Fitch and most sacks allowed by Canfield. Canfield's FB and other HB all had negative totals and they also tried to run several trick plays like reverse/double reverse/end around that lost a lot of yards. I think the one double reverse went for like -20+ yards.
 
Actually, I forgot that Chris had a long run at the end of the game (probably like 70-80 yards), so that throws off the totals for the game as well. I think they ran a HB draw instead of throwing another hail mary, thinking they would catch Fitch off guard and nearly did.
 
For what it's worth a quote from Canfield coach Mike Pavlansky in the article:

"I thought our [pass] protection was really good. The guys ran really good routes and we attacked the areas we thought would be open."
 
I tried to scan the article from the book so hopefully this is at least legible.

1672943807170.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top