SoutheasternOhioPreps.com

What is your thoughts in this one when the teams did not meet and play this year so any predictions?

Clay is a decent team but If I had to make a betting line I would say Manchester is a 10-12 point favorite. They could come in and lay an egg and win this one by a few points but I think I would probably take manchester to cover the spread above.

I think Clay has a better chance then what a lot of people give them credit for. In i believe 2 out of the last 3 games, Clay has had 4 players, YES I SAID 4, in double digits. With Bussler, Burchett, Valentine, and DeLotell leading the way. Now i can see them getting beat, but not by a lot. But i more then likely see them winning this game mostly because the Clay Panther players want it more. But then again i don't know what Manchester has in mind, but i don't see them double teaming four players at one time. I'll take Clay by 7

Pan-man ---You can have 4 players in double figures and still only end up with 40 points . I'm not saying Clay won't win and I hope they do but you really don't have any idea which team wants it more until they play. Clay is capable of winning this game but if I had to bet I would have to go with Manchester.

After watching Clay last night, I will pick Manchester.
Good Luck Panthers but you are going to have to step it up to have a chance. Don't be afraid to take a charge. The Scott kid drove in the lane time after time and no one on our team took a charge and just let him thru. That is how we beat Green this year .. Delotell would drive in the lane and Green wouldnt take a charge. This is something the Clay players need to work on.

Manchester has brief periods where they play like the best D-4 team in the tourny(Exp. Beating Ironton, keeping respectibly close to Peebles at Manchester). If they play like they are capable I will say Manchester by 15-20.

didn't manchester lose last night to fayetteville the last place team in their division of the shl?
but they should still beat clay easily.

sparky wrote:didn't manchester lose last night to fayetteville the last place team in their division of the shl?
but they should still beat clay easily.

Being last place in the SHL does not mean much. Last place teams in the SHL are better than lower level teams in the SOC1/SVC/exc. Manchester has the ability to win this one handily. Will they, who knows.

manchester by 14*

live4sport wrote:Pan-man ---You can have 4 players in double figures and still only end up with 40 points . I'm not saying Clay won't win and I hope they do but you really don't have any idea which team wants it more until they play. Clay is capable of winning this game but if I had to bet I would have to go with Manchester.

Clay has kept 4 players in double figures almost all year. Last night the starters played less than half the game as they coach had told them he would do. He brought his subs in the second quarter and almost all of the second half. Their lead scorers last night had 9, 9, 8, 7. I don't agree with letting a team roll you like SW did last night just to rest your players but last nights game is nothing like they will play against Manchester. I suspect both team with leave it all on the floor teusday. Should be a good game.

BTW, I checked the stats and Clay has four players avg 9.2, 9.8, 11.0 and 11.2 ppg (all four of them are Juniors)

I think the Clay players will come out and play with some fire and can beat Manchester and they wont roll like what happened last night to South Webster

I still think the Panthers will take this one by 7

clay has to br ready for the ball pressure there going to get from manchester western in the first game of the season got ruffed up by there full court attacking deffense and lost by 20+ but turned aruond and western s pressure was to much for clay so in order for clay to win i.m.o. they have to be calm and handle the full court start to finish pressure of manchester.I hope im wrong about this but i think manchester by 15.

Waterdog wrote:After watching Clay last night, I will pick Manchester.
Good Luck Panthers but you are going to have to step it up to have a chance. Don't be afraid to take a charge. The Scott kid drove in the lane time after time and no one on our team took a charge and just let him thru. That is how we beat Green this year .. Delotell would drive in the lane and Green wouldnt take a charge. This is something the Clay players need to work on.

Clay hung right in there with Webster until he put the subs in. Webster wouldnt have won by 30+ if the starters stayed in the whole game ill take Clay by 2.

halftime, the Jeeps were up by 7 after the first. They were up by 15 at the half. There really is no way of knowing, but I don't see how you can say that the Jeeps woulnd't have won by 30+ if this or that person had played. The Jeeps have played better in the second half all year, so I would say the chances are that they would have won by 30+ regardless of who was in the game for Clay. It really doesn't matter... I just thought that was a strange comment and was wondering how you could ever figure the Jeeps wouldn't win by 30+. From what I saw they could have picked the score.

From what you seen? I saw the game at 18-16 look pretty even, until SW hit two or three big threes. There were two subs on the floor at the middle of the second quarter and SW hit a three at the buzzer to go up 15 at half. So, if Clay's starters would have played the whole game I don't think it is unreasonable to say SW wouldn't have won by 30+, or by "whatever they wanted". Those type of arrogant statement just bother me. There wasn't one starter on the floor for Clay the entire fourth and at least half of the third quarter. SW subbed out their starters a bit later, but as mentioned before, SW subs came out on the floor with something to prove and Clay just acted like they didn't want to be there, and they got their butts handed to them.

my2cents wrote:From what you seen? I saw the game at 18-16 look pretty even, until SW hit two or three big threes. There were two subs on the floor at the middle of the second quarter and SW hit a three at the buzzer to go up 15 at half. So, if Clay's starters would have played the whole game I don't think it is unreasonable to say SW wouldn't have won by 30+, or by "whatever they wanted". Those type of arrogant statement just bother me. There wasn't one starter on the floor for Clay the entire fourth and at least half of the third quarter. SW subbed out their starters a bit later, but as mentioned before, SW subs came out on the floor with something to prove and Clay just acted like they didn't want to be there, and they got their butts handed to them.

I have to agree with you 2 cents. the Clay boys could of cared less bout that game. they r focusing on the tourney. so if SW wants to call that a big win, so be it. It was just practice for Clay

Pressbreaker wrote:halftime, the Jeeps were up by 7 after the first. They were up by 15 at the half. There really is no way of knowing, but I don't see how you can say that the Jeeps woulnd't have won by 30+ if this or that person had played. The Jeeps have played better in the second half all year, so I would say the chances are that they would have won by 30+ regardless of who was in the game for Clay. It really doesn't matter... I just thought that was a strange comment and was wondering how you could ever figure the Jeeps wouldn't win by 30+. From what I saw they could have picked the score.

ok ok...its no big deal and I wasn't trying to make arrogant statements. Its just that it was a 15 point lead at the half after both teams played their normal rotations and I wondered why you thought the Jeeps wouldn't win by 30. I never was very good at math so I could be confused.
Maybe with a little luck both of these teams will meet up at the Convo and we can see what Clay can do when they are really trying to win.

In my mind, i honestly think that Clay would win if these two teams met at the Convo. No disrespect to the Jeeps Coaches, players, or families. But i think that the Clay boys have been pushed around long enough by the Jeeps, and i think there is an "upset" waiting to happen.