I pretty much expect at this point that Cody will be joining the staff (obviously I don't actually know or anything). Dan has worked with his son in the past and him working at LAVC with Coach Tucker seems like it would be a convenient move for him. I don't think he should be OC or anything, but he could coach QB.

I thought I read this was Cody's second year as OC at an Oregon HS..???

That smells a little...favor for favor? Hope he's the best guy.

Has he completed his Master's?

No idea...I was referring to the new DC. I was hoping for somewhat experienced FCS or FBS guys for the coordinator positions based on the statements about higher salaries.

It does look like he turned around LAJC quickly.

I hope he comes right in and gets us better.

The last 2 JCs he coached had immediate success. He might not have a ton of experience at higher levels, but he seems to be doing something right. I'm willing to see what he can do (not that we have much of a choice). With how much he has worked with Hawk in the past this isn't really a surprise hiring in hindsight.

I like this hire because he has a history of success as a DC and a HC and Hawk obviously has a personal relationship and knowledge of his coaching ability from the past. Building a coaching staff that has good communication and chemistry and are on the same page with each other is just as important, if not more important, than pure knowledge of the X's and O's. Hawkins must believe that Coach Tucker possesses those qualities plus proven football coaching knowledge and experience.

We've all had the experience of working with people who possess great knowledge in their field but fail to work and communicate well with their fellow staff members. The ability to communicate and work well with others is a greater predictor of success than pure expertise and skill alone.

According to footballscoop.com Lawrence (DIII) offensive coordinator, Mark Speckman, will be joining the staff at UC Davis. Doesn't say what position he will have. Lawrence was not very good offensively this last season however... Similarly to the hiring of Coach Tucker, Speckman has ties to Willamette. Apparently he was born without hands and still found success in the football world. Hawkins likes that kind of motivational stuff. He was also one of the main guys involved in the fly offense scheme at the collegiate level, could we be seeing that make it's way to Davis? It's definitely a scheme about deception, which Hawkins noted would be important in his presser.

On another note, here is the official press release about the hiring of Coach Tucker.
http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121416aaa.html

Here's a couple of things I found about the Fly Offense:

The FLY Offense is a mis-direction, ball concealing, deception offense. It has been
compared to the Wing T and an option style offense. The WR Sweep is the base play of
the offense and its most dangerous play. "Sweep till they weep" is a common phrase used
in the Fly Offense. Another big phase of the Fly offense is its use of the No Huddle.

http://www.playbookexchange.net/playbooks/Offense/01100301-FlyOffense.pdf

Why run it?
-It is a system
-It is unique/ hard to simulate
-Flexible/ adapts with personnel

Fly Sweep is the signature play
-Make them stop it
-Run it multiple ways
-Deception is key
-Have an interior run game
-Stretch the field opposite sweep with option, boot, etc.

Based on what defenses don’t like to see:
-Motions
-Shifts
-No huddle
-Deception
-Unbalanced formations
-Players in space
-False keys
-Option
-QB as a runner
-Wide splits

Also based on:
-Simplicity within complexity (easy for our guys, looks complicated to defenses)
-This is accomplished because: Backs learn paths, Line learns rules, Receivers learn concepts.
-Blocking scheme is based on down blocks and double teams- we should never have to man block a defensive lineman at the point of attack.
-Every running play fits into one of the following run blocking rules:
-Sweep
-Short Trap
-Long Trap
-Option
-Lead
-We can call any combination of shifts, motions, and running back paths that we like and our offensive linemen only ever need to know how to block 5 plays.

-We are based out of split back which allows us to have a similar running attack as a split back veer team. We have similar misdirection and blocking rules as a wing-t team. And we have the ability to go to a single back look which suddenly gives us a spread formation and philosophy.

Read more: http://coachhuey.com/thread/8497/fly-offense#ixzz4SqXownGM

Wow...any examples of programs that run it?

Well... Willamette did when Speckman was the coach haha

Aggies official announcement: Robert Tucker named Defensive Coordinator

http://www.ucdavisaggies.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/121416aaa.html

"Every school I have been at runs the fly offense," Mark Speckman.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1bxBmUYsvY

Interesting stuff if this does become our offense. Looks like this scheme has a lot of options for variability. It might be more running than I like, but at least it's not a power game like Gould wanted. This scheme looks like it takes more athletic and skilled players than pure size and strength guys that was necessary for Gould's plan. We'll see... we could have a very fast paced offense next season.

... And Gould reportedly landed fast, talented WRs.

If I was a player I'd be excited.

It would definitely be different that is for sure. This offense gets lots of people the ball. On a run it can go to the RB, FB, WR sweeper, or QB on any given play. That's a lot of different people to cover efficiently. Those plays can also turn into passing. Lots of deception, not a lot of teams run an offense like this.

My concern is lots of opportunities for fumbles, but I guess that's where coaching comes in.

I watched the first video in the series you posted earlier. Coach Speckman said that Willamette cut their turnovers by over 50% when they implemented the fly offense. You would think that there would be a lot of turnovers, but apparently not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmbL0CzOHf0

well, i'm all for something different. It appears this offense does not rely on big guys to create holes, but oppotunity to find slots opening up from the spread. Why isnt it more popular if it works?

That is a good question that I don't have an answer for. Potentially because it was only becoming a scheme at the collegiate level (with Speckman at Willamette) concurrently during the rise of the spread offense. I don't actually know though, it would definitely be a unique offensive scheme though. I have a hard time believing that this won't be a big part of our offense. No reason to go out and get Speckman if it isn't.

Does NDSU still run the option ?

This is a youth football/high school offense, and that's why you don't see any of the top 40 teams in FBS running it. We will get killed if we run the Fly Offense. We play in a wide-open passing conference, and the run first teams were at the bottom of the conference this year. The Fly will put a tremendous amount of pressure on our defense to keep games low scoring. The Fly is not a high scoring offense, and if you get behind, the game is over unless you also have a passing attack (tough to be good at both). You need at least 3 great athletes and a stud OL to run it, and any defense that can play disciplined/assignment D will destroy us. Just like we used to kill SUU back in the Biggs days. I would be extremely disappointed if we run this offense...I'm not feeling optimistic at all.

We're talking about a D3 team that reached the playoffs 3 times (1 win) in 11 years. Don't see this gimmick offense being effective over the course of a season, let alone a legitimate championship run.

Palma (Salinas) & Arroyo Grande are both hugely successful CA high school programs that run the Fly. Remarkable as neither program has tons of raw athletic talent, but due to scheme they punch above their weight and win CIF championships in tough NorCal & SoCal divisions.

Davis historically won because our super-complex schemes confounded athletically superior opponents. This is a different brand of complex scheme, but if we can mix aspects of the Fly to bring us an advantage, let's go.

Cal Poly has a wide-open passing offense?

Yeah i'm not sure how this would work as a pure scheme. I did say that I thought that it was different/unusual (which it is/not common) and that it is fast paced (no huddle is a core component of this scheme) which is vastly different from what we saw under Gould. I also said that this, as a scheme, was more running that I cared for. I agree that this seems more gimmicky than an actual scheme, but I still can't help thinking that it will be at least part of our offense. Why bring in Speckman if it isn't?

Good input about this offense. The site didn't specify what position Speckman was going to have with the team (OC, positional assistant, or other), but it just seems fishy to bring in a guy that specializes in this type of offense if we are at least going to make it a component our game plan. I agree that it probably won't end well if we use it as a pure scheme.

i think the fly concept is out there in many college offenses. here is an article about Montana's use of the fly sweep and screens in their offense.

Montana Fly

Bob Stitt, the coach at Montana, is credited with being an innovator of many fly sweep concepts. West Virginia, among others, have credited him with contributions to their scheme. some of the highlights i see from Montana look alot like most of the Big Sky offenses with guys in motion, read-pass options, etc. so long to power running and west-coast style passing concepts.

We stuffed Cal Poly until the last 3 mins when we gave up a 91 yard run. We lost to CP because our offense sucked, and scored 10 total points (with 7 coming in the last minute) when CP went prevent. We scored a defensive TD in that game as part of our 16 total points. Cal Poly never should have beat us, and we sucked.

The fly sweep (jet sweep) is run by everyone, but the fly offense is run by no one in big time football. I can't imagine Hawkins will go to it.