This a serious question?
He coached with the guy for 5 years - of course the style is going to be similar...I mean he was still the offensive coordinator from 2012-2014, even though Holgerson was hands on in the playcalling.
Shannon Dawson's Air Raid >>> Neal Brown's Air Raid
- Thread starter K-GAR
- Start date
This a serious question?
He coached with the guy for 5 years - of course the style is going to be similar...I mean he was still the offensive coordinator from 2012-2014, even though Holgerson was hands on in the playcalling.
I think he will blend Holgerson and multiple others into his own style.....and from what we know - he was an integral part in offensive game plan development....he called 25% of the plays - but any offensive coordinator is going to attack what he is given during a game and they may be different for different competition...and they will rely upon what they know or believes works for the team they have to work with. But Dawson has spoken of more of a rushing attack and this is in alignment of what game films represented last season at WVU..albeit different than last season with NB.....it will remind us more the Hal Mumme rushing attack with a lot of off tackle and off guard delayed hand offs with power WB/FB leads on multiple sets.
The thing I feel I will be glad to see, other than a more north south style rushing attack, is the vertical passing game aiming seams and putting pressure on LB and Safeties for decision making.
I truly believe our offense will average 28 plus over the season....now the D must step up
The difference in styles is mild......well, at least, mild in the way to suggest that one would be successful in the SEC while the other wouldn't. They are close enough that either they both would be successful or they both wouldn't.
Texas Tech
2010 - yds/passing attempt 6.76 (Brown's first yr)
2011 - 6.91
2012 - 7.79 (Brown's last yr after he got things crankin)
WVU
2012 - 7.99 (Dawson's first yr as Co-OC - Geno Smith at QB)
2013 - 6.78
2014 - 7.72 (Dawson's last yr)
Last edited:
How does this mean anything to style?
again - I did state that I felt ND would have been succesful here "With that said ... Brown WOULD DEFINITELY have thrived at UK over time"
I just stated the actual styles will be different - and yes the #'s may prove to be similar - but that does not mean they got there the same way......and neither mean a hill of beans from B12 to SEC.
Those numbers do not mean a thing......STYLE with be slightly different versions of the SAME BASE AIR RAID OFFENSE.....Such as Lincoln Riley will be slightly different than Dawson who will be slightly different than Mike Leach and so on and so on...
STYLE =a distinctive appearance, typically determined by the principles according to which something is designed
The end results may have differentiated patterns but with likenesses resembling each another.
So as you have picked at everything I have said Blue Raider22
Give me your opine on any differences - or likenesses between NB and SD
As I have opined - Mine are small differences as follows:
1) SD is gonna be more N/S running game (like Mumme for a couple of years) as opposed to NB E/W
2) More vertical passing game than N/B (seam routes and spreading safeties and creating mismatches with LB)
What do you say blue raider?
Agreed, Towles and McWilson choked and cost us that game. Towles missed gimme throws in that game and he seriously cracked under pressure. Tim Couch or Woodson would not have choked like that against UL, our biggest rivalry. That game was a WIN for us and Towles didn't come through on some very easy, routine passes that would have been TDs.
That's why I've always said I am not sold on Towles yet like so many on this board. Barker may be more of a "gamer" like Stoops has mentioned about Barker.
Most of the nitpick was based off of paragraph 1 of your post. You mentioned that Brown tried to use the system he used in the Big12 but it "didn't work and would not work" in the SEC. Brown/Dawson run a very similar offense and it won't change much coming to the SEC. So, you're are basically saying that they won't succeed. But then you go on to say that they will with time. It was the contradiction that caught me off-guard.
Then there's the notion that Dawson runs a much different style of North/South vs Brown's East/West. This is a recurring theme that has occurred by numerous posters in other threads. The stats I listed above show that the difference is very mild. Yes, Dawson does use a little more verticality but it's not a substantial difference like some of the other posters have made it out to be. (Note that all of this assumes that Dawson will run what WVU ran the last several yrs)
Now on to what I think of the offense. First we don't know what to expect of Dawson's offense. It's been 5 yrs since he was the lone OC at SFA. And we truly don't know how much he actually called at WVU. The media isgoing to attribute WVU's offense to Holgorsen......and Holgorsen isn't going to undersell Dawson's contribution no matter how little/much it was. We can only speculate what Dawson's offense may look like. UKani is very connected to the program and has said that Dawson wants something similar to Baylor's offense.
Now, we do have a clearer picture of Brown's offense from his High Octane time with TTU. However, Stoops wished him to be more balanced at UK.....more in the mold of Oklahoma State's offense. However, he never was able to display his offense at UK due to personnel issues.
It is likely that the casual football fan would not be able to recognize differences in Dawson/Brown offense when they are ran at optimum levels. This is one of the driving forces why Stoops targeted Dawson....the similarities in offense. So we know that the offense "should" be similar, but that's about where it ends. We never got to see Brown's offense at UK.....and we haven't seen Dawson's offense. So, we are all trying to compare theoretical offenses....which is hard to do.
I'm sorry for the nitpicking. It's annoying I know. I shouldn't have gone that far. I'll drop it now.
To a certain extent you can justify it. 5 minutes left in the game maybe a good play call. Less than 1 and no way should your QB run the ball even once unless it's 4th and 1 or something. The clock is your biggest enemy not the coverage.
The yards gained on the runs are also not really important. With the game clock what it was that's the defense's version of a sucker punch. If I am on defense and need to move the ball 60 yards and you have 30 seconds to do it, I'll let you pick up 15 yards anytime you want as long as 15 to 20 seconds runs off the clock. Positive running play or not you will never get there regardless of how well you execute.
And Man free to me is an overly aggressive coverage choice for that situation. I would have tried testing that a little more. All you need is one DB to stumble and you have another "Stevie got loose" situation going. Might not have worked by why not force UL to not mess up.
Granted at that point UL likely wins no matter what. Last second drives rarely work for anyone because the defense has the advantage. Still it was the last game of the year and I don't see the reasoning behind not taking the chance. There was no way we would have scored with the attack we had. There was no chance the QB runs would have put points on the board. Slim chance that 4 verticals would have worked but I'll take slim over none anyday.
They look similar. THey aren't exactly the same but similar. There are minor adjustments that have been noted on other threads. To me the issue with Neal wasn't his playbook it was his lack of aggressiveness. Neal's schemes were fine. He just had a pronounced play not to lose streak in him. With enough talent which, we are on the way to getting, Neal would have been very successful here. It's hard to be less talented and less aggressive at the same time and still win.
"Hands on"? Holgorsen was calling the plays. I don't doubt that he got advice from Dawson or that Dawson wasn't integral in their offense, but I'm assuming Dawson would not have called plays identically to the way Holgorsen did. Just because he worked for him doesn't mean they became twins. And, that may be a good thing for us. Given that WVU's best season was the one where Dawson wasn't the OC, I'd be more concerned going into the season if I thought he was the primary play caller. I think he will be a good OC, he has said all the right things so far, and I expect he took the job to make a name for himself. Don't think he wants to be Holgorsen 2.0
I'm just wondering if we all aren't making some incorrect assumptions about the style of play-calling that Brown called. Usually those lateral pass plays are used to try to ease the burden on an offensive line. I haven't reviewed a lot of his play calling from Texas Tech so I can't say what he was doing toward the end of his time there. No matter, Dawson is the guy now and he comes into an entirely different situation so he will have more freedom to call the plays he wants to call instead of calling the plays he feels he has to call.
This has been discussed. If it were UT I am betting you would know the details. Dawson called play packages at WVU. holgerson had ultimate veto/selection power.
Also, you really believe Dawson had zero input in scheme (blocking, routes, QB reads), player alignment, game planning, player personnel decisions etc?
Your comment was if he would adopt Holgersons style...being one of his biggest influences, of course he will adopt that style. Plus he was hired based on WVU style of offense. No, he won't call the same exact plays in every scenario that DH would, but yes that will be Dawson's style.
Yes, Towles was bad for 3 quarters but made plays in the fourth quarter to get the team down the field. I really think Towles and Brown were never on the same page that day. Brown wanted this and Towles gave him that. That last drive's play calling was awful though and Brown didn't help his quarterback.
Brown definitely made some calls last year that left all of us scratching our heads. As long as the offense improves this year I don't care who gets the credit. Credit to both OC's works for me. OTOH I'm looking for a definite improvement in the offense this year. We have an experienced QB, and some good talent in key positions. So if that doesn't happen then Dawson will definitely be the one getting the blame.
You are wrong about Dawson and Holgerson. Stick with telling us how Butch Jones calls his offense.
That's not how Dawson himself or Holgorsen described it. Do you have some evidence that the way you describe it is true? Holgorsen would ask Dawson what he thought but the ultimate play-calling responsibility was Holgorsen. I'm pretty sure that's why Dawson came to UK. I didn't say I believed that Dawson had zero input. I said Holgorsen called the plays with input from Dawson. A coach that calls his own plays needs an OC in the box to be his eyes and give him 3 or 4 plays to select from and from everything I've read, heard and seen that appears to be basically how things worked at WVU.
My comment was if he would adopt Holgorsen's style carte blanc. I don't doubt that he will run a similar style, but I don't think he will run exactly the same style at UK, for one because I don't think it would work in the SEC, and secondly because he will be looking to make a name for himself and create his own style. It's not even clear that WVU's style is going to work in the Big 12, so I really do think Dawson is going to adopt his own style that will work better in the SEC. That doesn't mean it won't look similar. It will be an air raid.
Last edited:
* Did he actually call the plays at West Virginia? While Dawson was offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach for the Mountaineers, word out of Morgantown was head coach Dana Holgorsen handled the game-day play calling.
"I've been asked that question a number of times," Dawson said. "He was the final (say) in every decision we'd make. My job was this: between every drive, when he clicked back on the offense (on the headset), I needed to have a plan for him. Before every play, I would give him a suggestion. I would say 85-90 percent of the time, we were on the exact same page."
Stoops on the WVU offense
"What I love about Shannon and what I think him and Dana have done at West Virginia is they've really run the ball very well and have some physicality about them," Stoops continued, "but still are throwing the heck out of the ball and still very creative with the way they're doing things."
Dawson on changing to a more balanced offense
Part of the change has been through being with Holgorsen, Dawson told West Virginia Illustrated, a web site devoted to covering the Mountaineers.
"He's had a good influence on me," Dawson said of his head coach.
Like I said, if this was about Tennessee you'd know a little more.
So you just basically said what I said, but instead of agreeing you attacked me? I'm assuming that's because you perceive me as being a Tennessee fan and wanting to attack Dawson. I said "Holgorsen would ask Dawson what he thought but the ultimate play-calling responsibility was Holgorsen's." You quoted Dawson as saying "He was the final (say) in every decision we'd make. My job was this: between every drive, when he clicked back on the offense (on the headset), I needed to have a plan for him. Before every play, I would give him a suggestion." I wasn't trying to say he is going to do a bad job. I like him so far and think he can create a better offense than WVU has. I certainly don't think it will be identical.
My first comment was this: Dawson called play packages at WVU. holgerson had ultimate veto/selection power.
Your response: That's not how Dawson himself or Holgorsen described it. Do you have some evidence that the way you describe it is true?
Me: "He was the final (say) in every decision we'd make. My job was this: between every drive, when he clicked back on the offense (on the headset), I needed to have a plan for him. Before every play, I would give him a suggestion. I would say 85-90 percent of the time, we were on the exact same page."
So no I don't agree with you if you do not believe my original post was correct. And also, its not an attack when its true. Tennessee is your team...Kentucky football is secondary...so yeah, I find it phony for someone trying to root for not only 2 teams, but 2 teams in the same conference, same division, that do not like each other at all. Very counterproductive to root for both.
I said that because I think what you said is a mischaracterization. You make it sound as if Dawson was calling the plays and then Holgorsen had the opportunity to step in and change things. That's always true on every team. At WVU Dawson gave suggestions and Dana selected (or didn't) from those suggestions depending on what he wanted to do. Of course they agreed a lot, they both believe in the same offense.
I'm not even sure why it matters that Holgorsen called the plays at WVU. Dawson will certainly call them at UK. That was never the point of my post. The point of my post was that Dawson will calls plays a little differently at UK than Holgorsen does at WVU.
My thoughts on Dawson/Holgorsen.
-Dawson is going to say that Holgorsen was great.....a mentor.....an influence....and that they planned the game together, blah, blah, blah. He would say this whether or not it was 100% accurate.
-Holgorsen is going to say that Dawson was great. He was instrumental. He was critical. Whether he was or not.
-The WVU media is going to say that it was all Holgorsen.
-The UK media, coaches, etc is going to say that Dawson was a large part of things.
So, it's logical to take "information" about Dawson's role at WVU with a grain-of-salt b/c there's no way to prove any of it.
-Dawson is going to say that Holgorsen was great.....a mentor.....an influence....and that they planned the game together, blah, blah, blah. He would say this whether or not it was 100% accurate.
-Holgorsen is going to say that Dawson was great. He was instrumental. He was critical. Whether he was or not.
-The WVU media is going to say that it was all Holgorsen.
-The UK media, coaches, etc is going to say that Dawson was a large part of things.
So, it's logical to take "information" about Dawson's role at WVU with a grain-of-salt b/c there's no way to prove any of it.
Dawson did all the game planning. He would call the plays, but Holgerson could veto the call. I think 8-9 out of 10 times Dawson made the call, if I recall correctly.
That's not how Dawson or Holgorsen has characterized it so I'm thinking you don't recall correctly. Dawson made suggestions to Holgorsen who then called the plays. The head coach can always veto the call even when the OC is the primary play caller. Dawson has said that about 85-90 percent of the time Holgorsen used one of his suggestions.
Holgerson was not calling plays under any interpretation, except in rare instances.
"Calling plays" suggests he had the playbook and is responding situationally to what was happening on the field, which is not what happened. Dawson created the game plan during the prep week. Dawson coordinated the game plan during the game. And Dawson presented the proposed plays, to which Holgerson agreed 85-95% of the time.
But, why did you make this claim if it is irrelevant?
Calling plays suggests CALLING PLAYS. Holgorsen calls his plays. It's his offense, even if Dawson had a substantial hand in it. At the end of the day, he was giving suggestions to Holgorsen who was ultimately calling the plays. 85-90% of the time isn't surprising given that they come from the same school of thought. I "made the claim" that it was likely that UK's offense won't be identical to WVU's because that was Holgorsen's offense and at UK we are going to see Dawson's offense, which will undoubtedly be similar to Holgorsen's or anyone who runs an air raid offense.
Dawson said he presented the plays to Holgerson and Dana agreed or not. You are just wrong, but I have not figured out your motivation other than to say you try to bait people on this board.
Dawson said that he made suggestions to Holgorsen and then Holgorsen either took those suggestions or he didn't. He took them about 85-90% of the time according to Dawson. The truth man. The truth is my motivation.
Because you bait, you are a moving target when you are shown to be wrong. Your post above is wrong, as now shown by numerous posters. But, you like to pretend to be a UK fan and then suggest there are fictitious reasons why UK fans should be concerned. That is your MO here.
Low post count and most of your post are negative. Could you be a Troll. I say if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and Quacks like a duck it is likely to be a duck. You certainly quack like a duck
There are absolutely no reasons why UK fans should be concerned about anything. That said, my post above was not wrong nor has it been shown to be wrong. I stand by it and the evidence supports it, including the evidence submitted by others to "refute" it.
So Holgerson called his own play 10-15% of the time...he was OK'ing Dawson the other 85-90%. Meaning Dawson's play calls stuck 85-90% of the time...meaning he called plays 85%-90% of the time.
Footballfanatic77 is awful 100% of the time.
Footballfanatic77 is awful 100% of the time.
I don't have a low post count. I've posted at least once a day every day since I joined. I'm not sure how you define my posts as negative unless by negative you mean not pumping sunshine. I have no interest in being one of those fans for any team. I'm a 49ers fan, they are going to be painful to watch this season. I have a few friends who think they will go to the Super Bowl. That is an example of a sunshine pumper.
I have never once posted that I thought UK would do anything except improve this season. I have never once posted that I thought Mark Stoops wasn't the right person for the job. Or, that the job he is doing won't lead UK to places higher than its been before. I'm a true believer. But, by all means go ahead and label me as negative simply because I'm not predicting a 10-2 season or because I think Dawson has yet to prove how awesome he is as a playcaller. Saying that doesn't mean I dislike him somehow or believe that he was a bad hire. I think he may be awesome. I just haven't seen that yet on game day, in every other way I give him an A.
Holgorsen didn't call his own plays 10-15 percent of the time. He called the plays every time, but he did so with suggestions given to him by Dawson who was in the box and thus could see the defensive plays as they developed. He chose one of Dawson's suggestions frequently so I suppose you can just say that is semantics, but there is a difference.
You can have whatever opinion of me you wish. By all means, go ahead and dislike me, but I've never been anything but civil to you.
Last edited:
Whatever you say - how do the Vols do it? Maybe you can start a discussion over on their boards....
Btw, Dawson wasn't always in the box at WVU...and will be on the field for UK.
Whatever you say - how do the Vols do it? Maybe you can start a discussion over on their boards....
Btw, Dawson wasn't always in the box at WVU...and will be on the field for UK.
I don't really go to the UT board much, it's too busy for me and I don't have time to keep up. I like this board because I can recognize the posters and usually (though you have proven not always) have civil and intelligent conversations.
The only things I have read about Dawson he was always in the box, so I don't know if that's true or not. It's interesting to me when an OC is on the field. I prefer that they be in the box, but Lane Kiffin seems to be doing okay on the field at Alabama. Of course he scripts his first 20 plays. But whatever works I say.
And so that I don't get accused of making things up for the reason I believe the things I have previously stated: http://www.courier-journal.com/stor...meet-new-kentucky-oc-shannon-dawson/21751241/
Relevant quotes: On calling plays: "When we got to games and Coach (Dana) Holgorsen was the head coach, he was the final wherewithal in every decision we'd make. My job is this: Between every drive, when he clicked back on the offense (on the headset) I needed to have a plan for him. I'd have to say, look, 'This is the information we're getting. This is the way we need to attack.' Before every play, I would give him a suggestion. I've been around Dana for a long time and there's times that he went somewhere else -- the percentages of those times, I don't know, maybe 85 to 10 or 15 – I would say 85-90 percent of the time, we're on the exact same page."
He needed suggestions because as a head coach he was pulled in a lot of different areas throughout the course of a week and throughout the course of a particular game. And so my communication with the quarterback after every series was important, and then my communication with the two guys I had working right to left of me up in the box, because they were charting the plays and the coverages and what we were doing tendency-wise, and so when he clicked back over after every defensive possession, I would have a laid-out plan for him how we want to attack the defense that particular drive. And after every play I would lay out a plan for him. So that was me and his relationship there, which good, bad or indifferent, I don't know what the answer would be."
On how important it was for him to be able to run the offense and coaching from the box: "Extremely important. It's why I took the job. Working for coach Stoops, being a defensive head coach, obviously the dynamics of me and his relationship is going to be different than the dynamics of me and coach Holgorsen's relationship. So being back on the field — I wasn't in the press box really until West Virginia, so being back on the field, having that flow of the game was extremely important to me and really the reason why I took it."
Relevant quotes: On calling plays: "When we got to games and Coach (Dana) Holgorsen was the head coach, he was the final wherewithal in every decision we'd make. My job is this: Between every drive, when he clicked back on the offense (on the headset) I needed to have a plan for him. I'd have to say, look, 'This is the information we're getting. This is the way we need to attack.' Before every play, I would give him a suggestion. I've been around Dana for a long time and there's times that he went somewhere else -- the percentages of those times, I don't know, maybe 85 to 10 or 15 – I would say 85-90 percent of the time, we're on the exact same page."
He needed suggestions because as a head coach he was pulled in a lot of different areas throughout the course of a week and throughout the course of a particular game. And so my communication with the quarterback after every series was important, and then my communication with the two guys I had working right to left of me up in the box, because they were charting the plays and the coverages and what we were doing tendency-wise, and so when he clicked back over after every defensive possession, I would have a laid-out plan for him how we want to attack the defense that particular drive. And after every play I would lay out a plan for him. So that was me and his relationship there, which good, bad or indifferent, I don't know what the answer would be."
On how important it was for him to be able to run the offense and coaching from the box: "Extremely important. It's why I took the job. Working for coach Stoops, being a defensive head coach, obviously the dynamics of me and his relationship is going to be different than the dynamics of me and coach Holgorsen's relationship. So being back on the field — I wasn't in the press box really until West Virginia, so being back on the field, having that flow of the game was extremely important to me and really the reason why I took it."
Why the F are we arguing about this? Dawson is going to be a bad ass offensive coordinator so whether he 'called' the plays or not he did what an OC is supposed to do. He created the gameplan, called in the plays(90% of the offensive mastermind agreed with), and coached the quarterbacks. He has called all the plays at other places, so it's not like he has no experience being the man.
He wanted more control and UK gives him that. If Stoops comes in and changes a couple plays this year, does that make Dawson any less of an offensive coordinator? NO. Because he's the head coach. Dawson was not the head coach at WV so he did what most OC's do when dealing with an offensive minded coach. Sheesh
He wanted more control and UK gives him that. If Stoops comes in and changes a couple plays this year, does that make Dawson any less of an offensive coordinator? NO. Because he's the head coach. Dawson was not the head coach at WV so he did what most OC's do when dealing with an offensive minded coach. Sheesh
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Over/Under on Arkansas 3 point shooting tonight?- Latest: the nail at the foul line
-
-
-
