David Dawson (image via Scout)
Name: David Dawson
Height: 6’4″
Weight: 316 lbs.
High school: Detroit (MI) Cass Tech
Position: Offensive guard
Class: Redshirt junior
Jersey number: #55
Last year: I ranked Dawson #56 and said he would be a backup offensive guard (LINK). He played in six games as a backup left guard.
Dawson had opportunities to break into the lineup over the past couple seasons, including when Kyle Kalis struggled in 2015. The coaching staffs have decided to stick with their guys, so the 2015 versions of Kalis and Ben Braden went start-to-finish as the right and left guards, respectively. Meanwhile, Dawson played occasionally as a backup guard when minor injuries occurred, or late in blowout games. He struggled in last year’s spring game, and he struggled during the 2015 season. He just wasn’t there yet.
This spring Dawson was in a shoulder sling during the Ford Field open practice. He missed a chunk of time, and while he’s supposed to be healthy for the fall, that doesn’t bode well for his development. The two starters are likely to again be Braden and Kalis, but they both graduate after this season. Fellow backup lineman Blake Bars isn’t returning for a fifth season, backup interior lineman Patrick Kugler has had his own struggles, and Logan Tuley-Tillman was booted off the team last year for legal troubles. That leaves the Wolverines pretty thin at the three interior positions, with just Dawson, Kugler, Juwann Bushell-Beatty, and varying forms of freshmen vying for time. I’m not 100% sure that Dawson should be ahead of redshirt freshman Jon Runyan, Jr., but considering that Dawson has two seasons of being the primary backup guard, I think he will maintain that spot. With both guard spots opening up in 2017, it will be interesting to see the dogfight that ensues between Dawson and the aforementioned players.
Prediction: Backup offensive guard
You need to login in order to vote
Thunder, I’ve been tracking the countdown closely, as I have every year because I enjoy the reviews and like to guess who’s next and compare your judgment to my own. Every year I have a couple mysteries, this year: with 44 slots remaining, I’m only counting 43 scholarship players left. I suspect you have Canteen included in there somewhere, but I don’t because he’s no longer on the team. Is it Canteen or Have you included another walk-on this high up? If the latter, I think I can guess. Second, unless I missed him, Kekoa Crawford’s name hasn’t come up yet and I would be really surprised to see him appear this high. Did he somehow get skipped, or do you just love him?
You need to login in order to vote
I’m impressed with how much you’ve paid attention. As for the rest of the countdown, I’ll say this: Everything on my end is still going according to plan. Your post made me double-check my work, but so far things are on schedule.
You need to login in order to vote
OK. Well, I guess the Crawford/Canteen/walk-on mystery will be solved in the next handful of picks cuz none of them should be in the top 40, right?
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah, you won’t have to wait long.
You need to login in order to vote
Overall, I don’t see any of your rankings too far out of position — other than Crawford. I know when you have 5 or six freshmen receivers (Evans being a tweener) behind four solid veterans you gotta pick one of them to shine and the rest to mothball. Tough call. That said, I’d have gone with McDoom or Johnson.
You need to login in order to vote
Dawson missed his chance. Getting abused in the ’15 spring scrimmage by Mo Hurst and others could not have made a good impression on the new staff. But then blowing a series against Utah when the coaches were dying to bench Kalis sealed his fate IMO. A player needs to at least show he can play and earn the coaches’ trust by his 2nd year (or 3rd year absolute latest). Dawson will not be a starter in ’17, so the question is how he will be used this year. Runyan will definitely get some back-up snaps. Guessing that they work in Bredeson too, but not sure.
You need to login in order to vote
I don’t know. There have been a few guys who came on late in their careers to be serviceable, such as Mark Ortmann and David Moosman. In one sense, it’s hard to knock a guy for not breaking into the lineup when all the guys ahead of him have stayed relatively healthy and not given way for any backups to play much. I get what you’re saying, but I’m not 100% ready to dismiss him after three years on campus. I do think this year is basically his last chance, so if he’s still struggling mightily, then I would expect Runyan, Bredeson, and/or others to pass him. (Full disclosure: I was not very high on Dawson coming out of high school, so I remain hopeful despite my early analysis.)
You need to login in order to vote
Who are you highest on among the current backups and incoming freshman OL?
You need to login in order to vote
That’s an excellent question, but a tough choice. I like what I’ve seen out of Runyan so far, and I think Bredeson is the best incoming freshman.
You need to login in order to vote
I didn’t watch any of the spring practices/game but did read that Runyan looked good. I have seen Bredesons highlights and he is impressive.
You need to login in order to vote
The examples go far beyond that too. The previous staff shuffled the OL a few times to avoid playing Jack Miller, even playing walk-ons above him, and he looked bad in spring games. But by his senior year he was an OK starter.
I think it’s fair to say that Dawson isn’t going to be a plus starter – most guys who aren’t ready until year 4 or 5 aren’t. But those guys often end up being adequate.
You need to login in order to vote
This staff is not going to play the seniority card though, and there will be a lot of young talent hand picked by Drevno around in ’17. Miller played because they had zero competition at his position. There will be legit competition at OG next year.
You need to login in order to vote
The assumption that there will be legit competition next year is dubious. I’d be happy if they can find 5 competent players across the entire line.
The reason the “seniority card” gets played is because experience helps. You’re assuming it’s an entitlement rather than a meritocracy and I don’t think that’s the case. Most coaches today are very comfortable playing freshman if they are the better player.
You need to login in order to vote
I think there will be “competition” in the sense that there will be talented players and some experienced players. With Runyan, Dawson, Bredeson, Onwenu, Bushell-Beatty, etc., there will be some experience (Dawson, Bushell-Beatty), some “talent” (Onwenu, Bredeson, freshmen), and other guys sort of in between (Runyan). It may not be competition as far as three elite-level college players at the same spot, but it’s going to be a dogfight because a bunch of guys are going to see the opportunity for playing time and scratch and claw their way there.
You need to login in order to vote
I don’t think we know yet. We could have been saying around a year ago that there is going to be legit competition at LT this year but LTT and Bars are gone, Cole got moved, and JBB and Dawson haven’t progressed as hoped and might be limited to guard. Newsome looks like he may get the job by default.
You could also see someone like Bredenson or Onewenu end up starting this year and have an OG position locked down by camp next year. Maybe they add a grad transfer who is clearly ahead of everyone else.
We always say there is going to be a lot of talent in one or two years because the young recruits haven’t had a chance to disappoint us yet (on or off the field). Some of them will.
Point is: It’s a big unknown. A bunch of unproven and young players may be good/bad and/or competitive/uncompetitive — we don’t know.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree about the fluid nature of the offensive line (and team makeup in general), but Michigan has had an odd shortage of offensive linemen at times in recent years due to some lean recruiting years. Unless there’s a mass exodus of players, there should be a significant number of guys able to compete at guard going into 2017. Offensive tackle is the more limited spot for this year and next.
As for your example of the LT position, I don’t think (though I could be wrong) that anyone was counting on a good deal of competition for that spot going into this year. JBB was always a project, Dawson isn’t a left tackle, Bars was an interior guy, etc. Tooting my own horn a bit, Rivals and 247 were ranking Dawson as a tackle when he committed in February 2012…and by the end of the 2013 cycle, he was ranked as an OG by all four sites, and he’s only been a guard in college. Most people probably assumed Cole would remain at LT and that Tuley-Tillman/Newsome would remain on the bench and/or play another position. Again, things are always fluid, but the truth is that we have more numbers at OG going into next season than we’ve had in a while. Even if Onwenu ends up at NT and Dawson doesn’t get a fifth year, there are still a lot of bodies.
You need to login in order to vote
I agree mostly. After griping about OL numbers all through the Hoke years, I’m content with Harbaugh and Drevno’s approach. But – how long will it take to get to where we want to be?
I think throwing numbers at the position(s) is the best way to solve it. That and actually coaching them up instead of feeding them pizza and whatever Funk told them.
I have faith in Drevno, I just don’t agree with PS’s confidence that we’re definitely going to have a healthy competition between legit players next year, necessarily. We’re still recovering from the Hoke OL debacle. It took a few years to recover from the Rodriguez LB and DB debacles too. By 2015 things got locked in the way we expect them to in the secondary – NFL caliber vets across the board. So that took 4 years to fix. Only in 2015 did we stop filling holes and instead end up with legit competition like Clark/Stribling and Thomas/Hill and quality players on the bench (Lyons).
LB was addressed more quickly (and more aggressively) by Hoke and Mattison but it still wasn’t where we wanted it to be.
I suspect 3-4 years is around when we’ll see the OL playing at an elite level again, loaded with NFL players, and experienced starters. I don’t see that this year or next. In the best case scenario for 2017: (1) Cole and (2) Newsome are proven and playing at all-conference levels. One of the younger players gets meaningful time or even starts in 2016 and sets themselves up as a lock to start in ’17 (3). Perhaps another spot goes to a vet backup (4) ready to step up – Kugler, Dawson, JBB. You’re still trying to fill a hole with an unproven player (5), no matter how you slice it. Unless there are a ton of injuries in 2016 that’s how it will be. Not every recruit is going to pan out.
The part I disagree with is the OG/OT split. Bars was moved to OT last year and suppsedly the staff liked what they saw and really wanted him back for this year. Braden and Magnuson have switched around. Cole and Glasgow bounced around (though I don’t think Glasgow actually played OT it was rumored he was an option at RT had Miller stuck around or Kugler been ready). Michigan continues to recruit guys who can play either OG or OT (at least on the right side).
JBB was a project – so are Onewenu and Sponalis. Bars was improved and had his 5th year available. LTT had gotten some buzz. Cole, Braden and Magneson had all played OT. Newsome would enter the fray as a RS Freshman. That all has the makings of a healthy competition. It didn’t work out that way.
Runyan could move to OC if Kugler doesn’t pan out. The coaching staff may decide a couple of the freshman are needed at OT. Dawson could depart if he continues to struggle. An injury strikes. Suddenly you’re down to very few options at OG. FWIW (not much) the Mgoblog depth chart has only 3 guys at OG next year.
There’s just too many holes to fill across the OL next year to have any confidence in anything. It’s a position-fluid facing heavy attrition and lots of uncertainty. Projecting anything here too specifically is foolhardy – even more so than at other roster positions. The closest thing we have to a sure thing (Cole) is moving from LT to OC – no a very common switch, so even that is a bit of unknown. For all we know he’ll win the Rimington and go pro, further throwing things into disarray.
You need to login in order to vote
I don’t think the MGoBlog depth chart is worth very much. Without looking at it, I can already tell you that there are several guys there – Dawson, Bredeson, Onwenu, Bushell-Beatty, Runyan. That’s not to mention other people (Spanellis, Stueber, etc.) who COULD move inside. Some of those guys might play tackle, and it’s rare that multiple true freshmen play, so there won’t be 11 guys all fighting for OG. But it will be more than three.
I guess I disagree on the nature of the “competition” at LT. Yes, there were bodies, but I don’t consider Magnuson, Braden, etc. as part of that competition. Those guys weren’t fighting to be “The Left Tackle.” They were experienced guys who were going to play somewhere. It’s kind of like saying Channing Stribling was part of a competition to be “The Field Corner” last year. He wasn’t, and they weren’t.
Subtracting guys who were practically guaranteed to play SOMEWHERE on the line, you’re really just talking about an established starter (Cole, who started all of 2014) vs. Logan Tuley-Tillman vs. Grant Newsome. Personally, I don’t remember many people saying that was going to be a dogfight, because we were all pretty sure Cole was going to be the guy.
And I’ll just agree to disagree about Bars. The guy never played and was never a threat to play. The thing about the coaches wanting him back is based on a Rivals ITF, if I remember correctly, and it could very well be that the coaches just wanted experienced, warm bodies. I don’t think he was ever a full-time tackle; he was a guy the coaching staffs tried at every single position (tackle, guard, and center) and yet couldn’t break through at any spot at any time. He played in 8 games over 4 years and never started a single game, nor was he ever the #6 or #7 guy who came in for certain packages. He was just a guy taking up a scholarship. For him to start as a fifth-year guy in 2016 would have been a huge leap that very, very few offensive linemen have made late in their careers at Michigan over the past 15-20 years.
You need to login in order to vote
I’m not seeing the comp. There wasn’t a competition at field corner because Jourdan Lewis was way better than everyone else. We didn’t/don’t have that prototype dominant LT.
Cole would have been considered the favorite a year ago, and might still be there if Kugler was playing well, but he was never a prototypical tackle and the consensus is he will fit better on the inside. I think Magnuson started games at LT prior to last year. LTT and JBB had upside a year ago (that obvs wasn’t reached). Newsome was projected to LT too. Bars hadn’t done much to impress anyone but he was going to be a 5th year guy in the mix.
The point is that there was a)no locked in guy b)a bunch of good options — therefore we could project good competition. If you want to say elsewhere along the OL – OK, but it’s sort of beside the point with all the flexibility between Cole and Magnuson and Braden.
I see the same situation at OG next year. A lot of changes can and will happen. If you want to be optimistic about our interior OL you can imagine that Onwenu-Kugler-Cole all have excellent seasons and completely lock down starting spots. Cole looks so much better inside that they don’t want to move him back to tackle. Same for Onwenu. Newsome locks down at LT and the only ‘competition’ next year is at RT.
You need to login in order to vote
Yeah – the Bars rumor was from Rivals. It came after a season where he got a good amount of practice praise for improving and developing late into a starting caliber guy (a la Orrestein or Riley).
It makes sense right? We don’t have a good backup option if Newsome doesn’t pan out. If nothing else Bars was an insurance policy. The coaching staff made a strong push for Jake Raulerson too even though they had Kugler, Cole, and both starting gaurds returning. This and the Bars rumor (plus comments about freshman OL playing right away – unusual) tell me they aren’t totally comfortable with the ‘starting’ OL headed into camp.
Hopefully your spring optimisim on Ulazio and Runyan has some substance to it, because the circumstantial evidence has me worried about the OL beyond the top 4.
You need to login in order to vote
Dorrestein started 4, 8, and 10 games in his final three seasons. Riley started 7, 7, and 13 games in his final three seasons. Michigan had a mediocre OL, but Bars didn’t start even one game. Again, it almost never happens where a guy doesn’t play at all and then develops into a noteworthy player in year five.
It makes sense to try to retain Bars, yes. Something is better than nothing. Bars would be better than Ben Pliska. That still doesn’t mean he would have done anything with a fifth year.
You need to login in order to vote
Alright, I’ll concede the point about Bars not being a real option as a starter. I think my point about legitimate competition stands.
Someone may win the job(s) outright, guys may move to other positions, guys may disappoint (a la Dawson and Kugler and Kalis and….), and guys may fall to attrition (e.g., LTT, Pace).
OG is the easiest line spot to fill, but I still won’t feel real good about our options until there is some reason beyond recruiting profile.
You need to login in order to vote
It’s rare that concessions are made in our disagreements. Maybe I’ll be inspired…
As for your scenarios for the OGs, all of those are possible individually…but not collectively. It’s extremely rare to have that kind of diffusion at one position within the span of a calendar year. Maybe JBB transfers, maybe Onwenu busts, maybe Bredeson plays LT, etc….but it’s just as possible that Spanellis ends up playing OG, a 2017 freshman comes in ready to play, etc. The bottom line is that there will be a lot of bodies fighting for those OG spots. The only thing standing in the way of that is a ridiculously unfortunate situation like what happened at cornerback about six years ago with all the transfers, injuries, etc.
You need to login in order to vote
Here are the OG candidates you listed, followed by a reasonable development for each by next year.
Runyan – moved to OC to be Cole’s backup and heir, Dawson – still around but doesn’t appear ready to start
Bredeson – replaces Newsome as LT starter during ’16, Onwenu – bust or injured or not ready
Bushell-Beatty – transfer
There would be other options amongst the OTs, but there’s nothing ensuring a rough-and-tamble battle royale for playing time amongst a bunch of talented college players.
You need to login in order to vote
Good point. Although I would argue that those guys played when there was a huge talent void at the position group. And I do think both of those guys looked better than Dawson has to date. We will see.
You need to login in order to vote
I think this is about 10 spots low. Normally I would put the 6th OLmen even higher, especially with uncertainty about Kalis and Newsome, but Dawson hasn’t done much to earn it. I also agree that the injury could hinder him.
BUT – the fact remains that he was the 6th OLmen last year (until getting passed by Newsome) and projects to be the most likely backup at 4 different positions (since Braden can move back outside).
I guess I’m saying I’d put Dawson over Kugler because of where he was on the depth chart last year. The injury does hold him back at the moment, but he could also come back healthy when camp starts and be right back where he was.
It may finally click for him, and if it does he could push Kalis or Newsome aside and end up starting. I’d put a guy like that higher up than mid 40s…but I see the logic here.
You need to login in order to vote
The difference between Dawson and Kugler is that nobody else can play center. Last year Bars was kind of an option at center, but now it’s basically down to Cole (a position-switcher), Kugler, and…very inexperienced position-switchers/freshmen. There are other guys at OG, but not at center.
You need to login in order to vote
The question is if Kugler can play any better than those position-switchers/freshman. The circumstantial evidence isn’t real promising.
Sounds like a great argument for Mason Cole to be #1 on the countdown!
You need to login in order to vote
Did you see the comments from players (via Mike Spath on mgoblog)? Reinforces my take on Smith vs the OL.
Nothing but praise for Smith (from midseason presumably) but the comments about the OL….
———————————
THE GUARDS:
“I thought they were going to be a better running team than they were. They had a running back but their guards had a really tough time getting to the second level of the defense, and for a running play to work all five guys have to be on the same page but they were pretty inconsistent.”
There was always seemingly one guy—and he didn’t say specifically the same one guy—but there was seemingly always one guy that struggled and he seemed to screw everyone up a lot.
“When you pull, the guards have to—it’s got to be tight, it’s got to…I watched so much film with Doug Skene last year, and when he pulls his hip has got to be on the center’s butt and it’s got to be so tight and he’s got to come around and he’s got to—there’s so much combo blocking I didn’t quite understand where you’re literally hitting one guy, pushing him off to the side, and trying to get up to the second level and they just did such a bad job at that last year.”
You need to login in order to vote
I bet the Florida guys wouldn’t say the same thing, is what I’m saying.
You need to login in order to vote
Those comments don’t say a whole lot, but our discussion has been about the bowl game vs. Florida. Asking Big Ten players about Michigan doesn’t tell us anything about what happened in the bowl game. It wasn’t that revolutionary. It said Smith is hard to take down for defensive backs (duh), and you have to hit him at the LOS (duh). It also said Michigan wasn’t great up front (duh) and there were some missed assignments (duh).
You need to login in order to vote
Smith was good against Florida (duh). Was he bad before that? Some say so. This players says he was good before.
The OL was good (or at least solid) against Florida (duh). Were they bad before that? This player says no.
Not saying it’s conclusive bu it’s another data point irt our conversation about improvement (in the bowl game vs reg season).
You need to login in order to vote
I mean, did the player say he was good before? I don’t know. Without looking, I recall Spath saying Michigan “had a running back” and “he was tough to take down for defensive backs.” That’s praise, but it’s not exactly high praise.
The funny thing is that we’re talking about OL/RB improvement, but Smith improved to the point where he averaged 4.36 yards/carry. You seem to think the RB took some major steps forward, which showed itself in the running game…but the good RB you’re touting was only able to churn out 4.36 yards/carry with that improved OL. So how good is he? I think both parties improved, but we’re not talking about leaps and bounds in either case.
You need to login in order to vote